Earth's Age

[Kitsune Keirebu]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Neither are related, in prose, context or in language.
Are you familliar with ancient near eastern literature? We need to recognize that OT language, is dealing exclusively with Adam as a covenant word designating the Jews through the Seed lineage of him. It starts with the recognition that the word adam or aw-dawm has two differing applications in scripture. You will typically find that word applied 541 times in the OT designating plural mankind. You will find the singular usage of that word used 22 times and almost entirely from Gen 2:19 through Gen 5:5 describing typically a specific individual Adam. The plural application of Adam as man starts in Gen 1:26 is translated as generic man or mankind. Secondly, in all brevity and simplicity, Adam is Gen 1 is created on the sixth day, after animals, however, in Gen 2, Adam is formed before his dominion. Thridly, Cain knew his wife before Adam had other sons and daughters, which falls after he has Seth, his third born, thus placing Cain's wife, and the people he feared, outside of Adam's lineage, thus implicating others in the world. Genesis 1 and 3 is purely a "covenantal" scenerio.



Adam - First covenantal man, federal head of mankind, through the Jewish lineage, consummated in Christ for Jew and Gentile - The inwardly Jews.
Eve - Mother of all living, in the book of the living, the Jewish people, through faith in Christ, for the inwardly Jew.
He is the resurrection, and the LIFE.

The Bible is strictly covenantal, about covenantal people, and the covenantal Creator, God, Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

So did the flood event happen? Were the Israelites slaves in Egypt, and did God do all those wonders in Egypt? I could go on and on about our history in which God told us in His word, yet if you accept wordly thought, how can you believe anything in the Bible?



It was never stated that Adam and Eve had no daughters during the time they had Cain and Abel. In fact, it was never stated how old Cain or Abel was when Cain killed him. Both of them could have been over 100 years old, and during that time Adam and Eve could have had daughters, which Cain would have took one as a wife. Putting aside the ancient middle-east writings for a moment, you must understand that the people would have believed in the YE as stated in the Bible simply because billions of years didn't exist in that day. No one in the world believed in billions of years in that day. Besides, we have to seperate ancient writing styles from an inspired writing of God.



Finally, do you believe Jesus did all the miracles which is stated in the gospels?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Kitsune Keirebu

If we were to involve how the ancient Hebrew people viewed the Scriptures, they would agree with the YE view. It is not until scientists started assuming things about the earth, that we began to get millions and billions of years. They don't understand what the flood event did to the world as a whole, and how it effected their dating methods for the world. For example, look at the ages from Noah to Abraham and how they drop significantly after the flood as oppose to before. The very enviroment was effected, and it probably took hundreds of years before things began to level out. This gets into alot that I'm currently studying on.



As for the universe and the distances of the stars, that is an even harder subject to study, but only through faith will we understand it all. If I'm a believer in God and want to have a firm foundation of our history, why would I not ask Him these important questions? I wouldn't go to the world and ask these questions. The world can only go on what they see, and outright lies are not estranged to them. No one will try to stop your faith in God harder than a scientist who only searches for natural explanations to everything.




I'm not condemning anyone, but for those Christians who don't believe the literal reading of Genesis, is it not harder to believe the things Jesus did? Jesus ascended into Heaven, and science has proven that not only can men not fly, but they can't breathe in space as well. Jesus healed the sick by the word of faith and did many wonders, science have proven this couldn't have literally happened. So you got the same science that "proves" the earth is old, proving the things Jesus did to not literally happen.



There are also some Christians who believe that the age of miracles is over. So if you take away the history of the Bible, you take away the things Jesus did, and you take away the miracles that God is still doing through the Church, and what do you have? A very normal person, the same as everyone else. So Christians who do not believe in the literal view of Genesis, do you see what the world is doing to us? Our faith level is probably worser today, than when the original disciples first heard about Jesus. (Remember how they were afraid of the storm and Jesus got on them about their faith level saying "Oh ye of little faith". Also how Peter stepped out onto the water with Jesus, but started to doubt and began to sink. Jesus asked why did he doubt. Jesus is saying the exact same things to us today, so listen and learn)

There is scientific evidence supporting the age of the earth, there isn't really any evidence to say Jesus DIDN'T perform miracles. For me it's not about not believing in miracles, because I believe that of course God can perform miracles. However God created it, Life IS a miracle. The six day creation story, a mere 6,000 years ago, sounds very much like the many creation myths of other cultures. They may be true but they may also be true symbolically, indeed sometimes a symbolic expression of a truth conveys it much more deeply and meaningfully than a simple 'literal' approach.

[littlewitness]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Are you implying that natural and physical death, like that of mammals and plants, didn't exist before the fall?

The Word of G-d is explicit saying..."But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (that is to say, 'dying you will die')" Genesis 2:17
...from reading the plain text, it's apparent that at the advent of which Genesis 2:17 is descriptive of, death was not found...anywhere... until the advent of which Genesis 3:6 is descriptive of. Therefore, physical death was not a natural characteristic of existence before the great transgression. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...

[littlewitness]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Death is the natural fate of all living animals. It is only "living souls" like us that have the option of eternal life . . . but our sinful nature prevented our achieving it. Jesus achieved it for us all. Your sad primitive and ignorant concerns about evolution that demand you reject all scientific knowledge of reality as a sign of your faith is just that . . . sad. "Love God and each other" and you will be fine in any case. Peace.

"primitive concerns"...our concerns are primary for certain...consider the lilies of the field...your evolutionary comrades are fond of suffering the little children doctrinal tidbits of the serpents disinformation saying that dinosaurs ruled the earth 65 million years ago...when in Scriptural fact G-d, who created man in His own image...that is to say Christ...said to man and his kind...that is to say woman..."have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:28. Therefore no, we don't reject scientific knowledge of reality as a sign of our faith...the sign of our faith rests in the Sabbath. The Blessings of The Eternal One harden you, break you in pieces, water you, soften you, and mold you...

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Are you implying that natural and physical death, like that of mammals and plants, didn't exist before the fall?

Originally Posted by littlewitness

The Word of G-d is explicit saying..."But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (that is to say, 'dying you will die')" Genesis 2:17
...from reading the plain text, it's apparent that at the advent of which Genesis 2:17 is descriptive of, death was not found...anywhere... until the advent of which Genesis 3:6 is descriptive of. Therefore, physical death was not a natural characteristic of existence before the great transgression. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...

That is entirely inference in the "precepts and doctrines of men." We were created as "living souls" within the "dust" of the earth (an animal body). "Dying you will die" . . . meant that our natural animal death would end up being our soul's death too. Notice that neither of them actually died after eating the fruit.

[Kitsune Keirebu]

If Genesis is not literal, if none of the OT is not literal (Basically everything people's science doesn't agree with), even though God would be true, you could know nothing about Him. This is why Christians are so divided today, it's Satan's oldest trick in the book. "Did God say?" is his trump card, and again if Genesis is not true, you can't know anything.