Creation Views Poll

Discussion in 'Natural Revelation and God's Creation' started by Parmenas, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. Young Earth

    50 vote(s)
    74.6%
  2. Old Earth

    11 vote(s)
    16.4%
  3. Undecided

    6 vote(s)
    9.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Myson

    Myson Puritan Board Freshman

    Maybe I should define myth. By myth, I don't mean it in the popular sense of, "something that didn't happen," but rather, "a folk story to explain why things are the way they are passed down from generation to generation," which is the anthropological meaning. Truth and historicity are irrelevant to whether or not something is a myth. It might be true, but that doesn't make it any less a myth.

    There are some who I love and respect who don't believe in a historical Adam, but I do. I do believe there was a man who disobeyed God as representative head over all humanity after him and thus led all mankind into an estate of sin and misery. Anything further on the historicity of things like an actual fruit or talking snake arent (to me) meant to be taken literal. The snake is a figure for Satan just as he is a dragon in Revelation, the Tree of Life is the offer of obedience to Christ just as Christ is the Tree of Life etc. Just because Genesis prologue isn't literal doesn't mean it didn't happen.
     
  2. Myson

    Myson Puritan Board Freshman

    Let me just say that I have studied both the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession and don't believe either are in error and that they are the guide for my mind and thought. If you'd like more information on these areas, check out Lee Irons' Framework View of Creation, God's Pattern for Creation by W. Robert Godfrey, In the Beginning by Henri Blocher, and some very quick and helpful (albeit mixed) articles on biologos.org. If you have any legitimate questions you may be struggling with feel free to dm me. Hope this helps!
     
  3. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Paul and Jesus both saw the Genesis account as being literal and real actual history though, correct?
     
  4. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    I will check into those, but would still see the big problem of some trying to accommodate and make the Bible squeeze into what is being accepted as factual evolution/dating methods, and also not accepting a literal viewpoint in regards to reading and understanding the Genesis account.
     
  5. Myson

    Myson Puritan Board Freshman

    Paul and Jesus both believed in a historical Adam and never mentioned the age of the earth or the process of natural selection. As I have stated before I too believe in a historical Adam so Jesus and Paul and I are in agreement and there's nothing they have said about the Scriptures that I disagree with. Again, if you have further questions, I'd encourage you to check out some of those resources or dm me
     
  6. Myson

    Myson Puritan Board Freshman

    Let me assure you, that I feel the same way about Creationism and young earth, and am not a biblical flake, hoping to be with the cool kids in the secular clique, but rather earnestly don't see exegetically (or historically) or scientifically how Creationism can be true. Rest assured, we arent trying to "fit" science into the Bible, but rather trying to be faithful to the Bible. If you disagree, we'll find out in glory! All that to say, we're on the same team brother!
     
  7. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    I agree that this issue should not divide, nor be used as a test of orthodoxy, but really do see some strange end results when one takes it to the opposite viewpoint.
     
  8. Myson

    Myson Puritan Board Freshman

    As do I brother! ;-)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page