Creation or AntiGenesis?

   I'm not rejecting any olive branches and I'm not fighting with you.

   I'm simply warning you that to me as a Christian your consistent explaining away of the normal reading of Scripture and appeals to science in defense of your departure from orthodox Christianity is a tattletale sign of a false profession.

   Loving the brethren is a mark of a Christian. Can you get in a fight with a fellow believer and dislike the man even though you both have truly been redeemed? Sure you can. It's sin, but you can do it. But if the normal pattern of your life is a dislike of believers and being more comfortable with the world it is more than just a sin, it is a tattletale sign of a false profession.

   And so it is with the matter at hand. If you reject the reading of Scripture that has been what the children of God have accepted from the beginning and your reasoning is science tells you so, it's just not a good sign.

   Would you rather I didn't tell you these things?

Come on. Let's admit it. You and I both have a history here going back for the last few years, and because of that we both tend to get under each other's skin. So I will acknowledge that and apologize to you for my part in that. For your part, yes, you've made it clear that you think I'm going to hell. But you're wrong about me. I am actually one of the most staunchest defenders of Orthodox Christianity, but you feel the need to keep damning me to hell. Message received. Your feelings are clear on the matter, and you don't need to keep saying it. So let's focus discussion on the content, not on each other.

*I am committed to understanding the original, intended meaning of Scripture as honestly and accurately as I can. I am not perfect at it, but all my life I have strived to learn all I can about the Bible and to read and understand it as accurately as possible in accordance with its original intended meaning

*OECs & YECs both tend to do the same thing: when they think the science is questionable for a given topic, then they reject the science and accept the "literal" meaning of Scripture. But when they think the science is indisputable, then they change the "literal" meaning of Scripture to fit with science. 

*The truth is that I don't actually let modern science affect my interpretation of Scripture one way or the other, but focus solely on trying to accurately understand the original, intended meaning of Scripture even when it conflicts with science. I don't know how to reconcile all those conflicts, but I don't change Scripture to fit with science to try to "fix" it artificially.

*Case in point, "the reading of Scripture that has been what the children of God have accepted from the beginning" is that the modern Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are the same Pre-Flood rivers referred to in Genesis 2.14 in association with the Garden of Eden. The fact that miles of fossil record underlie them creates a problem, because it implies that the fossil record can't be due to Noah's Flood and suggests that there was a long period of death prior to the Fall. I don't know how to reconcile that.  But I cannot deny the (indisputable) fact that miles of fossil record underlie the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. But nor can I deny the plain, literal teaching of Scripture that identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris & Euphrates Rivers with their Post-Flood counterparts. I don't know how to solve the problem. But trying to force a "solution" by changing the plain, literal meaning of Scripture is not the "answer."

Alright, I agree with @tbwp10 on the fact that y'all ARE fighting. And I said that earlier. And I also agree that just because you are an OEC doesn't mean that you aren't Christian. The age of the earth (and the attached subjects, such as the location of the garden of Eden which is currently being discussed, and also the worldwide flood) is not directly involved with your Salvation, rather indirectly so. The way it is indirectly attached with Salvation itself is that if you believe part of the Bible, why don't you believe all of it? BUT you are saying you DO believe the Bible, all of it, but are just interpreting it differently. Although I disagree with your interpretation, is that any reason to get into a fight? My last post might not have been a great post because it seems to have stirred up more tension... BUT PLEASE, can y'all just agree to disagree? This is going nowhere.

https://babylonbee.com/news/apostle-paul-fired-as-dj-for-positive-encouraging-k-love

Amen

I suppose if you read the Torah, in its original language, it could be said to be closer to the word of God. No interpretations, no re-write, re-interpreted, re-written again, interpreted into Latin etc etc until we see the New KJV. Are you saying none of those involved made any mistakes, if so why does the debate go on, surely it should all be clear by now?

Natural selection is a mechanism that exists (now termed Evolution). There are literally millions of data points. There is actual examples over the last 100 years, where humans have changed the environment and the animals have changed over time to better take advantage of these changes

Those two statements taken together, and those facts does not preclude anyone being a Christian, unless its your way and your way only? I am not sure that is very Christian?

Further in the literal sense Pre-creation: Genesis 1:1–2 is followed by an unspecified amount of time by the Six days of Creation: Genesis 1:3–2:3, so the heaven and the earth are already older than a unscientific, badly accounted, poorly communicated estimate of 7,000 years with an error margin of +/- 1,100 years. And yet we must hold to this (c.1650 estimate) rigorously or be damned and counted as non-Christian? (Note the "actual" numbers change depending on which school of YEC you adhere to, I could of worded this note more argumentatively, however, I decided against it)

I see good points by both of you @Kjav and @king2queensside. I'm not sure king2queensside is technically supporting the 'Gap Theory' per se (although I could be wrong). The Bible does teach that the earth 🌎 existed before the six day creation week in a 'formless and void' state, and the Bible doesn't say for how long this was (hence king2q's "unspecified amount of time")

Perhaps the greater point king2q's seems to be getting at (from what I can tell) is that one's views about such things as evolution and the age of the earth are not what make one a Christian.

Tbwp, the Bible does not teach that the Earth existed in a formless, void state before the first day of Creation, it teaches that the Earth was void and formless on the first day. Genesis 1-5 is the description of the first day. The insertion of a gap between vs 2 and 3 is a fantasy concocted by those who need it to be there so as not to force both of their feet into one camp or the other.

Kjvav, there is more than 2 camps, your view is there is YECist (the only true believers) and Evolutionist (disbelievers and heretics to a man).

The Sun is older than the Earth, do I now go to hell?

That is your interpretation. The Bible doesn't specify the amount of time (you could be right, but it's not clear). God's first recorded act of creation was to create light (and you can't have a "first day" until there is daylight). Yet the material earth already existed prior to that. Yet Genesis 1.1 also says God created everything ('the heavens and the earth'), so it has always been a mystery how Genesis 1.2 fits in. That's not "a fantasy concocted by those who need it to be," but a legitimate issue raised by the Biblical text itself.

Agreed, one's belief about evolution or the age of the earth is not what makes one a Christian. 

(Btw, on a side note it is difficult to escape the fact that the most plain, straightforward understanding of yom ("day") in Genesis 1 is a literal 24-hour day. Historically, this has also been the majority understanding of Judaism (and by and large, Christianity, too, with notable exceptions like Augustine). But this is only a problem if we require Genesis 1 to be a modern scientific account, instead of what it is: an anti-pagan theological polemic against Egyptian creation myths)

   I don't need to waste my time with smart a**'s that I don't even know. Argue with someone else.

Actually, I think king2queensside was being serious

Thank you Kjvav for you insightful and Christian comments, I will therefore respond, however not in kind.

YEC beleives that;

Genisis 1-3 goes.

1. God created the heaven and Earth.

2. It was void...

3. and God said let there be light...

Somewhere in that blink of an eye, on (or before) day 1, he created the Sun, the Moon, the Solar system, our Galaxy and the entire Universe. So he created the billions of stars, all the non-solar system planets, the van allen and asteroid belts, background radiation. To fit this logic he also sent light from the most distant stars to reach us as we first inhabited this planet, further as we invented any form of magnification, further still as we invented telescopes, further still as we invented the radio telescope and further still as we invented and sent Hubble. The mental gymnastics aside, disputed expansion theories and the variability in the speed of light. He then took a literal 5 and a bit days to finish the Earth.

@Kjav is correct that that's what the Bible teaches. And @king2queensside you are correct that what the Bible teaches does not accord with modern science. 

   No he's not. He's just looking for an argument and a launching pad for snotty comments that he thinks are witty.

   I'm not interested in providing it to him.

and FYI:  It is not "modern science"it is current science or current knowledge or specifically, current scientific knowledge i.e. empirical facts, based on all current, former, historical science that has been tested to breaking-point and beyond. Much has been discarded as scientist disproved or refined and added to with repeated, repeatable experiments and observations, with an open mind, often a willingness, indeed a keenness to be proved wrong to increase the total knowledge base, 90% of which YEC discounts ALL because in the early 1900's a small minority in the USA refused to "Believe" in evolution, as if it is a faith based question.

Told ya.