Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 2:29:14 GMT -6
Really don't know how to start this, especially as non-native speaker who sometimes struggles to find the proper words... Maybe I can put it this way: I am fully, totally, 100% convinced of a loving God. Every other scenario would just not make any sense to me. But the concept of Jesus Christ is sometimes quite hard to fathom for me. Why? I am not a creationist, so I think that the earth is indeed some 4,5 billion years old. Given that span I wonder why it took a couple of billion years to let most simple life forms develop to mankind - to a point 2,000 years ago where God would have thought it a good idea to bring His Son (and with this Himself) to earth in order to inform us about the "nigh end". Of course, I know that we cannot measure our standards against His standards. But nevertheless, this doubt has so many implications (pre-destination yes/no, for example) that I would rather leave this thread / question open or even vague for the beginning and see where a potential discussion might lead to.
The most stirring point for me is that I put Jesus Christ and his message in doubt - and that leaves a bad taste in the mouth, somehow. Don't know if you can understand what I mean, but it is a real concern for me as it would turn a lot of my convictions upside down. I have read a lot of articles covering the historical part of Jesus, the Bible and stuff like that over the last few months. I would love to find out more about similar concepts (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) especially in that region of the world where He lived. But I do not have endless time for everything, haha :-)
Anyway, would be nice to get some feedback. I am sure other, more clever people have already thought about this and came to one or the other conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Jun 20, 2017 9:29:18 GMT -6
See here and here. Jesus (including supernatural events surrounding Him) are confirmed in many, many secular texts -- including those who sought to downplay His divinity, or simply didn't know about Him at the time of writing. Not to mention that Jesus fulfilled TONS of Old Testament prophecies. By the way, the word "creationist" just means that you believe the universe was created, so you would be a creationist. But TONS of native English speakers make this mistake as well. In reality, you would be an " old-earth creationist", because you believe in the current scientific account of the universe, whereas I would be a " young-earth creationist", because I believe in a six-day creation. The reason for this debate comes from translations of Genesis 1. The Hebrews/Israelites used the word יוֹם which means like, "a period of time". It's translated as "day" in modern translations, but it could refer to just about any period of time. Just look at this! "Age", "day", "lifetime", "year" ... So it's really not too much of a stretch to say that even if macroevolution does turn out to be true, the first proper, Biblically-defined "humans" would have been Adam and Eve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 10:45:39 GMT -6
nocturnaliridescence do you think that choosing old-earth creationism (particularly day-age creationism, not macroevolution) over young-earth would carry any other theological implications? Though I'm unconvinced by the "evidence" for evolution, I am relatively convinced by the evidence for the age of the earth, so that's why I'm a day-age creationist. When I told my YEC friend about this, it seemed to bother him a lot because I guess he associated it with faulty theology (the kind that might not affirm the full truth and inerrancy of the Bible). The Christian university I'm going to this fall believes in YEC as well. So I guess my other question is this - why do you believe in the young earth? I don't really know much about the rationale behind it other than the (in my opinion, incorrect) argument that day-age doesn't take Genesis 1 literally. Sorry for kind of derailing this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 13:11:32 GMT -6
Thanks for your feedback, nocturnal. I will dive deeper into your links later on. Just a few sentences: I do not doubt that Jesus lived (although I would love to learn more about secular texts about him). I just find it strange that everything started to develop after a couple of billion years. I mean, if God created man out of an impulse to have a loving counterpart (sorry for theological inappropriate wording, don't know better), why then let everything develop for SUCH a period of time before Adam and Eve entered the stage? I really have problems with the dimensions and come to think that even mankind is just another chapter in the book of life forms (like, say, dinosaurs) and therefore might not need a Saviour. The implications are quite severe which is maybe why it bothers me so much.
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Jun 20, 2017 18:51:15 GMT -6
why then let everything develop for SUCH a period of time before Adam and Eve entered the stage? I really have problems with the dimensions and come to think that even mankind is just another chapter in the book of life forms (like, say, dinosaurs) and therefore might not need a Saviour. If we think in the framework that [current] scientists use, it'd only make sense that humanity would have to develop for a long time, that's just how macroevolution works. Assuming the current scientific model is even correct, which it very well may not be anyway. Anyway, humanity's placement in the timeline doesn't downplay our significance. It's like people who talk about being a "dot in the universe", or what have you -- just because Earth is a small dot in a large universe, doesn't mean the Earth is unimportant. Earth is where God has centralized the gospel message, thus even if the location itself is small, it's of the utmost importance in divine terms. Likewise, even if human-like beings are only a few million years old in a >billion-years-old universe, that doesn't mean we're of any less value. No other species has had to endure the battle between temptation and righteousness that we do. All other species throughout history have just existed in that "in-between" state of living, but not being held personally responsible for their choices, not knowing better. Not to play up humanity somehow; we are a very, very flawed species for sure, but nevertheless, we are crucial characters in this world, and beyond. Maybe we're not "important" in the way society thinks of "importance", but there's more beyond this world, and the implications there are monumental -- that even if we are just one speck in a vast history of species, God has set aside a part of Heaven just for our dwelling places. That Hell even exists in the first place, so weighty are the choices we make (hence, we do indeed need a Savior). Not to mention that the devil will be thrown there, forever and ever, and a huge part of the reason for that is all the bad things he has done to us. If we think in an old-earth-creationist way, then it is kind of a weird situation for sure, but it's nonetheless valid and true - we are extremely important players in the divine goings-on of Creation. nocturnaliridescence do you think that choosing old-earth creationism (particularly day-age creationism, not macroevolution) over young-earth would carry any other theological implications? Though I'm unconvinced by the "evidence" for evolution, I am relatively convinced by the evidence for the age of the earth, so that's why I'm a day-age creationist. When I told my YEC friend about this, it seemed to bother him a lot because I guess he associated it with faulty theology (the kind that might not affirm the full truth and inerrancy of the Bible). The Christian university I'm going to this fall believes in YEC as well. So I guess my other question is this - why do you believe in the young earth? I don't really know much about the rationale behind it other than the (in my opinion, incorrect) argument that day-age doesn't take Genesis 1 literally. Sorry for kind of derailing this thread. I actually had to look up the term "day-age creationism". It's fair enough. The most important thing with this stuff, in my opinion, is definitely why somebody believes what they do. Do they believe in the [current] scientific model because the Biblical account leaves room for it, or is it just because scientists said it, and scientists are reputed for being "smart"? If evidence (theoretically) comes out tomorrow that the Biblical creation account 100% definitely referred to literal days, where would one's heart lie in that case? Would they be able to stare in the face of the scientific community, and a culture that's emotionally biased in its favor, and stand by the Bible in the face of seemingly contradictory evidence? I realized after typing all this I'm not answering your question very well, but I wanted to get this out anyway. Boy, and to think you're apologizing for derailing the thread. This is gonna be a novel by the time I finally press "Post Quick Reply". Anyway, a literal young-earth is just what I claim it to be, a belief. I don't claim to know it as a "fact" like I do for some things (historicity of Christ, etc) so I don't want to go too far into it. Basically it just works the best with how I read the Genesis account. Day-age (and old-earth stuff in general) both require me to stretch certain ideas/definitions to uncomfortable lengths in order to reconcile them. But again, that's entirely just me. As for having other implications, I don't think so. Certain aspects of the Genesis account are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible -- off the top of my head, Jesus Himself mentions Abel, and Paul mentions sin coming into the world through Adam. But Adam and Abel could still exist within the framework of an old universe, so it doesn't seem there's really an issue there.
|
|
|
Post by drawnsword on Jun 21, 2017 20:19:45 GMT -6
There's these interesting 3 part video's with Timothy Alberino who analyzes the book Earth's Earliest Ages by George H. Pember, and explains the "Gap Theory"...
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Jun 22, 2017 20:47:17 GMT -6
I'm not going to debate how old the earth is. To me, that's beside the point.
Imagine not knowing of Christianity for a second - any aspect of it.
Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a "person" as a symbolic reference of eternal life, who comes back to life after being tortured and crucified ...but having him as "Lord" in your heart as of the catalyst of his death, will have you live forever after your own death.
Sounds like the plot to a really good B zombie flick to me.
My point, Exodus 33:20 says we can't even look at the face of God - because he's so holy. How could anyone possibly understand WHY God does what he does, when we can't even look at his face?
Why wait until 2000ish years ago for God, to send his Son, who's also Him? I'm not even sure why time frame is on the asking table when I can't even explain why the salvation process, this very holy process, is what it is.
I'm sure God had a reason to do it the way He did. I know "don't question it, just go with it" backfires in many many scenarios in life, but regarding this? The way is in writing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 2:26:29 GMT -6
@thomas:
In no way I wanted to be offending. And, of course, what might be an unimaginable amount of time for me might be nothing but a glimpse for God. But taking into consideration how things – over such a long period of time – have developed from single-celled organisms to what we represent today and where things might end from an evolutionary perspective in say another 5 million years – while threatened anytime to be (for example) just one bigger meteor away from being wiped out completely… That makes it really hard sometimes to appreciate the special status we are supposed to have.
@nocturnal:
Based on some of your links I have recently started investigating a little bit more in the area of historicity of things. It’s quite interesting to read about old(er) oriental myths and how they seem (!) to have influenced some of the tales in the Bible. But I need more time to investigate that.
I must sound like an ever-doubting retard. But for some reason my brain doesn’t seem to be capable of coping with the significance of such a locally and timely tapered event some 2,000 years ago, culminating in the person of Jesus Christ. And I feel sorry for that :-(
|
|
|
Post by _ on Jun 23, 2017 9:45:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Jun 23, 2017 10:04:19 GMT -6
In no way I wanted to be offending. And, of course, what might be an unimaginable amount of time for me might be nothing but a glimpse for God. But taking into consideration how things – over such a long period of time – have developed from single-celled organisms to what we represent today and where things might end from an evolutionary perspective in say another 5 million years – while threatened anytime to be (for example) just one bigger meteor away from being wiped out completely… That makes it really hard sometimes to appreciate the special status we are supposed to have. Nah, you're not offensive bro. While we're one big meteor away from being wiped out, (or any other major catastrophe) I'm thinking that sort of thing would only happen if God willed it or allowed it. What's the probability that earth would be wiped out by a major event? Well, so far as long as the earth has existed (however long we think that is) - that probability is zero. ....because it hasn't happened. Yet...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 10:13:37 GMT -6
But taking into consideration how things – over such a long period of time – have developed from single-celled organisms to what we represent today and where things might end from an evolutionary perspective in say another 5 million years – while threatened anytime to be (for example) just one bigger meteor away from being wiped out completely… That makes it really hard sometimes to appreciate the special status we are supposed to have. I recommend looking into evolutionary theory a little bit more and you'll start to see the holes and guesswork in it. It's a real tragedy that this is taught as fact in American (and also European, I assume) public schools when there are many things it cannot explain. This is a long article, but it outlines a lot of what is wrong with evolution: www.summit.org/resources/articles/essays/the-scientific-evidence-for-creation/Additionally, if you're more interested, I recommend this book: www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310242096/
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Jun 23, 2017 10:48:44 GMT -6
Side note - I lawl at the scientists (Christian and evolutionists) that throw around the "Probability of Life" statistics. Both sides say somewhere between 1 out of 10 to the 40th power, to 1 out of 10 to the 390th power.
...but in total actuality, the "Probability of Life" on earth (happening on earth) is 1 out of 1. ...because it actually happened. Obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Oct 21, 2020 17:37:49 GMT -6
Many thanks! Useful information! Best Essay writing social judgment
|
|
|
Post by Muhammad on Nov 8, 2020 19:02:52 GMT -6
Appreciate it. A lot of advice!
Best Essay writing systems analysis and design
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Nov 9, 2020 16:28:54 GMT -6
Annoying spam bots!
Best Essay writing ur mom fat
|
|
|
Post by anfauglith on Nov 10, 2020 12:47:25 GMT -6
Useful coconut! Best essay writing Fat caleidoscope pig in motion
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Nov 28, 2020 15:11:05 GMT -6
Billions of thankses. A lot of advice information!
Best Essay writing look Nancy blinding rain sounds
|
|