Pre-History and God

fortuneandglory

New member
I have a theory.

To start out with I'll say that I fervently disagree with those who say the earth is 6000 years old. However, I am a Christian, and the timeline here puzzles me.

Where are the eons before man, and where do they fit in with the 7 days of creation?

Heres where I go about inferring and interpreting. Anyone who is Atheist, please dont post unless you have something intelligent to say.

I cant prove anything, however, how long was a day for God? 24 hours? 100 million years? As long as he pleased is the more likely term.

How does this fit in with us? Here goes

When animals were created, thats when all of the evolutions and extinctions come into play. Then, when God Created man, thats when the count began for the age of earth. The 6000 year old thing is still quite fallible... Althought many scientists are starting to believe that the earth is 7000 years old... I found this on the net

There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old

Noone can really know the true age of the earth. I personally think that when the tower of Babel was created is when we got all of our languages, and the races of man were scattered about the earth. As far as evolution goes... this is an explanation in my opinion. The reason we're different is because of environmental stimuli. I do not believe that man evolved from monkeys. This is because, animals that evolve in most cases evolve fully out of there previous state. Why do we still have any monkeys? Why, after so many years, do we not see undeveloped half humans, instead of just different species of monkey?

Thoughts?
 

IAdventurer01

Well-known member
First off, I'm a Catholic who believes in evolution.

Your point on "how long is a day" is a good one, considering that a "day" is a human term that varies depending on what planet you're standing on. A day in one revolution of a planet on its axis. So... if Earth wasn't made yet, what the heck is a measurement of a day?

As for the youthfulness of Earth, I'm curious on your source. Not that I study all this is great detail, but since all I've read still says otherwise, I meerly am checking facts.

If evolution did happen, why are there still monkeys? From my knowledge of the theory of evolution, one evolves over time due to conditions and needs. Monkeys do form their own communities, and some may have (over a great length of time) needed to adapt, thus evolving. Monkeys in other conditions had different needs, therefore evolving differently.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
I see your point, but I have other reasons for not believing in evolution, in terms of humans. Do not misunderstand... I believe humans have evolved, just not in such drastic terms as some scientists think. We have evolved according to our environments, yes, but I believe our key evolutionary tool is our brain. Being self aware, and intelligent (at least some of us LOL) makes us adapt to the environment by using our brains, and creating adaptations. I believe animals have evolved on a more structural level. I also believe that the supposed missing links found are simply people evolved along different lines, simple humans, who changed according to their environment as well. What stimuli caused the shortness and enlarged foreheads, I do not know. I have not seen definitive proof as to the existence of monkey line evolution.

I'm not studied on the subject, but lets NOT turn this into an evolution discussion. Thats my fault. Let us instead discuss where the timeline fits into the Bible, my original intention.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
As to my source, its not good enough to actually prove that the information is true, I just found it... i'm not quite sure where its from... Just thought it was an interesting thought.
 

Junior Jones

New member
fortuneandglory said:
When animals were created, thats when all of the evolutions and extinctions come into play. Then, when God Created man, thats when the count began for the age of earth.

Interesting theory. However, assuming the Bible is true, death and disease were not introduced into creation until the fall of man (Adam and Eve's sin). Evolution and extinction could not have ocurred before that time.

By the way, great discussion. I'm hoping it can stay on topic.
 

Doc Savage

New member
The Hebrew word 'yohm' (day) is never used anywhere eslse to denote other than a 24 hour period. Why would it be different in Genesis?

I'm a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) personally, a pastor professionally, and a hardcore Bible literallist by nature. My view is if it means what it says, why look for another interpretation? And if what we percieve doesn't line up to the original text, "let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written..." (Rom 3:4). Call me a zealot...I'm willing to change any and all perspectives to line up with what I've found to be truth. And most facts have been subjected to a large dose of institutional interpretation.

To address evolution, the theory is that we're getting bigger, stronger, and smarter. I believe, due to the fallen nature of Creation, the opposite is true. For instance:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/battery.asp

I'm of a considered opinion that most of evolutionary thinking can be combatted with objective observance of existing evidence. Perspective, most of it prejudicial, has espoused one school of thought and suppressed most evidence to the contrary to the best of its ability.
 
"If evolution did happen, why are there still monkeys?"
Great job of answering that qustion IAdventurer01! That's exactly why there are 'still monkeys' :)

"Perspective, most of it prejudicial"
Like, your own, for example?
 

indyt

Active member
Doc Savage said:
The Hebrew word 'yohm' (day) is never used anywhere eslse to denote other than a 24 hour period. Why would it be different in Genesis?

I'm a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) personally, a pastor professionally, and a hardcore Bible literallist by nature. My view is if it means what it says, why look for another interpretation? And if what we percieve doesn't line up to the original text, "let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written..." (Rom 3:4). Call me a zealot...I'm willing to change any and all perspectives to line up with what I've found to be truth. And most facts have been subjected to a large dose of institutional interpretation.

To address evolution, the theory is that we're getting bigger, stronger, and smarter. I believe, due to the fallen nature of Creation, the opposite is true. For instance:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/battery.asp

I'm of a considered opinion that most of evolutionary thinking can be combatted with objective observance of existing evidence. Perspective, most of it prejudicial, has espoused one school of thought and suppressed most evidence to the contrary to the best of its ability.


You are on the same page as my answer Doc. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis is "yom". But this word can be translated as 24 hours or an age. Therefore it could go both ways. I am a conservatist and devout Christian. I personnally believe that the Genesis account was over many millions of years. One reason for that is the time it takes light to travel from a star. The light we see at night has taken millions of year to get to earth. Some of the light we see is actually from stars that do not exist anymore. This is a big reason why I hold the age theory. But petty differences in belief should not separate Christians. Christianity is belief in the saving blood of Jesus Christ. If we have differences in beliefs ( I am not talking about major things like the Trinity or the deity of Christ ) its OK. The Bible is not a science book, it is instructions on how to receive eternal life and knowing God.
 
"The Bible is not a science book"
Then why would one use it to try to answer scientific questions?

If, for instance I have a tooth-ache, I don't visit my barber.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
In answer to the question of Yohm, the Bible also says that a day is an eternity, and an eternity is a day for god. Or something similar. I mean to say that, what is a day for us, could be an eternity for God, if he so chose.

And the bible is not a science book. And one does not try to use it to answer scientific questions. One trys to relate his faith to science, in order to understand how god makes things work.

And you are misquoting me. Evolution did certainly happen, with everything. Human evolution was just less drastic.

by me

We have evolved according to our environments, yes, but I believe our key evolutionary tool is our brain. Being self aware, and intelligent (at least some of us LOL) makes us adapt to the environment by using our brains, and creating adaptations. I believe animals have evolved on a more structural level. I also believe that the supposed missing links found are simply people evolved along different lines, simple humans, who changed according to their environment as well. What stimuli caused the shortness and enlarged foreheads, I do not know. I have not seen definitive proof as to the existence of monkey line evolution.

But do not misunderstand, we evolved, in my opinion, from Adam and Eve.
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"The Bible is not a science book"
Then why would one use it to try to answer scientific questions?
In my opinion, because it is the ultimate of knowledge. Boy, I'm going out on a limb with this one...

This, CH, is the point of our divergence, you and me. If my surmising of you is correct, one of your primary directives is truth, plain and simple. It is mine as well. Truth supercedes fact, but facts should not contradict truth. This is why in our case "ne'er the twain shall meet." Our respective 'truths' will ever influence how we percieve the quantifiable around us. Regardless of textbooks and theories, we simply cannot be objective.

I have accepted as absolute truth the Word of God. My interpretation of personally verifiable data will always be viewed through that spectrum. It was not a view that was assimilated from my progenitors or by a seeking of peer acceptance. It was one that was willingly embraced after a considerable journey of beliefs.

To come full circle, amazing scientific facts are recorded in the Bible...and yes, I'll bring thost to bear in a subsequent post. Again, truth supercedes fact, but fact should never contradict truth. Such is the conundrum of the scientist and the mystic.
 
"because it is the ultimate of knowledge"
The ultimate WHAT of knowledge?? Heh.... and what about all the stuff that has been purposly left out of it... or changed over the thousands of years that it has been translated and retranslated over and over again...

"one of your primary directives is truth, plain and simple"
Not truth... fact.... If it's truth you want, Dr Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.....

Truth is subjective.... as any police officer that has had to interview multiple 'eye-witnesses'....

Facts on the other hand are more objective.... They exist independent of observation or explanation. The fact was, before the Vikings sailed West in the 9th Century, the continent we'd come to call "North America" was already there....

"we simply cannot be objective"
We cannot... but when multiple people carry out the same experiments and reach the same results, we come closer to being able to objectively quantify Fact.

"This, CH, is the point of our divergence"
It would actually seem to be more an issue of linguistics.... We have different ways of defining "truth" vs. "fact".... To me Truth applies to 'Soft' sciences... Facts apply to so-called 'Hard' sciences....

"I have accepted as absolute truth the Word of God"
Good for you, mate... (No sarcasim) Myself, I cannot allow myself to be, for example, that misogynist. (O.k... there might be some sarcasim there! Heh)
 
Last edited:

fortuneandglory

New member
"The ultimate WHAT of knowledge?? Heh.... and what about all the stuff that has been purposly left out of it... or changed over the thousands of years that it has been translated and retranslated over and over again... "

Prove It.

You cant?

I cant prove the Bible is true either.

The difference between you and me is, I dont care. I have faith, and thats better than science. I'm just trying to weave the two together into something coherent.

Do not turn my post into your own Anti Religion rant like you did with Noah's Ark.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
Fact mongers think they know things.

A thousand years ago, everyone KNEW the earth was the center of the Universe.

A hundered years ago, everyone KNEW that other races than whites were scientifically less capable.

In 1999 many people KNEW that the world was going to end.

Imagine what you'll KNOW tomorrow.
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"because it is the ultimate of knowledge"
The ultimate WHAT of knowledge?? Heh.... and what about all the stuff that has been purposly left out of it... or changed over the thousands of years that it has been translated and retranslated over and over again...
Simply the ultimate. In its pages, I believe, are every answer, physically and metaphysically. And in regard to translation, its in the original text (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) that the truth resides. The KJV is 97% compatible with the Textus Receptus, but I consult the original languages as much as possible.
ClintonHammond said:
Not truth... fact.... If it's truth you want, Dr Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.....
Classic.
ClintonHammond said:
Facts on the other hand are more objective.... They exist independent of observation or explanation.
Which is still open to subjective interpretation.
ClintonHammond said:
"we simply cannot be objective"
We cannot... but when multiple people carry out the same experiments and reach the same results, we come closer to being able to objectively quantify Fact.
Cite some of these experiments.
ClintonHammond said:
To me Truth applies to 'Soft' sciences... Facts apply to so-called 'Hard' sciences....
Sounds fascinating...please elaborate.
ClintonHammond said:
"I have accepted as absolute truth the Word of God"
Good for you, mate... (No sarcasm) Myself, I cannot allow myself to be, for example, that misogynist. (O.k... there might be some sarcasim there! Heh)
No misogynism here...or in the Bible, correctly interpreted.
 
"Prove It."
What? That the Bible has been translated and retranslated over the course of it's existence? Or that pieces of it are missing, having either been lost to accidents or left out by design?

You might find some interesting reading here, just for starters, on the subject of TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES* IN THE BIBLE

"The difference between you and me is, I dont care."
You keep getting your knickers in a twist and referring to others in inflammatory terms such as "Fact monger"... Those actions speak to your 'caring' a lot louder than your words...

"think they know things"
And we're willing to admit mistakes of the past and modify our world image in light of new 'evidence' and developments. That's what got us to the moon.... what got our robots to Mars.... what facilitated the development of the computer network we're interacting across right now.... So yes... you're right... Imagine what such forward thinking, progressive people are going to know tomorrow... and the day after.... and the years/decades/centuries after that....
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
I think that before we could really consider the Holy Bible as a valid way of explaining the world and its origin, we should somehow prove the holy tellings of other religions as false. There is no solid proof that the writings found in the Good Book wouldn't be simply man-made fiction. The Koran of Muslims, the many vedas of Hindus... the list could go on. Where is the proof that for example the Hindu counterpart of Genesis is false if the one told in the bible is 100% accurate?

Simply accepting one kind of tellings into one's heart without getting answers to the main question above is a sign of saddening ignorance.

To move on to evolution, I think that the most gravely misinterpretation one can make with this theory is that man would have upped from one of the current species of apes. It's more like we've got a common ancestor. A chimp's DNA is 99.8 percents identical to that of a human. 0.2% is pretty small fault margin to back up the claim we wouldn't have been the same species one day.

fortuneandglory said:
The difference between you and me is, I dont care. I have faith, and thats better than science. I'm just trying to weave the two together into something coherent.
Yep, it's neat to be in possession of all the answers while others are still seeking for them. They're seemingly doing useless work too, as all they seemingly can is to find more questions. And about trying to merge the two... keep in mind that you'll have to make compromises and accept some things as false on BOTH sides, not just the latter if you really wish to make short work of everyone trying to tell you faith is for silly people.
 

roundshort

Active member
While munching on popcorn reading silently,

If you'all can prove something here, maybe we can ship it over to the middle east and everywhere else there are problems, please keep up the good work. I am into the wine drinking arts fo the bible, as I find that is what helps my "good work" here on earth.

munch munch munch . . .
 
Top