Creation/Evolution

[chris]

What is the general concensus on creation vs evolution with you guys?

The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. Some say the "day" really wasn't actually 24 hours but stated like that to make it easier to understand back then. Some do believe it was actually 6 24-hour days. I have heard some people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old (due to adding the dates up in the bible) and that stuff like dinasaur bones were planted there by God (I dont buy that for a second).

I am in the middle somewhere. I think God kicked off everything by something as simple as flicking a piece of dust off His finger to create the universe. Not really but you get my idea. Then things evolved naturally but with a little help every once in a while.
I don't believe we started with Adam and Eve as fully formed humans right off the bat.

-Chris

[Monsoon X]

First of all a day isn't a "human" day to God. (2Pet 3:8- Which says "like" a 1k yrs so that's not literal either. We just know it's not 24hrs)

That being said God made the Earth and the Animals and Man on the 6th day but the Animals dwelled on the Planet first, covering God's paradigm of a "day". It says in Gen 1:24 "Let the land produce living creatures" so I believe that God designed the land and us to evolve.

While I do believe in Evolution, what I don't believe is that Man evolved from Apes. Because the Animals were made first and then God made Man from the dust of the ground like he first made the animals.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The chicken of course!

[The Punisher]

www.creationism.org

[The Punisher]

I believe in science, but I do not believe in Evolution. Science has only to do with fact. Evolution at a whole is nothing but speculation and confussion.

[The Punisher]

Evolution at the Bar
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dasc/EATB00.HTM

[Monsoon X]

When I say Evolution I'm not talking about the belief of "Evolution" in the aspect of non-believers.

I mean in the true sense of the word with the root being Evolve. Yes I believe God created everything to adapt or evolve according to it's environment.

[speedpro50]

I did not come from a single cell which turned in to a fish which turned into a frog which turned into a lizard which turned in to a bird which turned in to a lion which turned into a monkey which turned in to ME!

No being can gain and put to use DNA stucture that it does not have!

God said it and it was done! Adam and Eve are the 1st of all humanity and I believe it just as God said it. This is an essential doctrine in the bible.

The theory of Evolution is ridiculous as in todays world there is more scientific evidence for creationism than evolution by a long shot.

I must stop here for now.

Lee

[Monsoon X]

One thing that I am unclear on. Were Adam and Eve the 1st Humans?

I don't think so. I think God created Man, in the plural sense, picked a certain Man (Adam) and placed him the Garden. If not, SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHERE CAIN FOUND HIS WIFE?

[speedpro50]

I believe they were the first and only family God started with. This is what the bible tells us! Cain would have married a sister or a niece or a cousin. Remember Adam was still having kids at the age of 800 and he had tons of boys and girls. His kids were having kids for hundreds of years and their kids and so on. There were a lot of people after 500 years!

[speedpro50]

Genesis 3:20

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.


There you have it!

[MadKat]

I think God made Adam and Eve first,
But I wonder if God made other people after that.
Where did Cain get a wife? Were do diferent races of people come from? Cain thought that "people" would try to kill him after he killed Able and God said He would put a mark on him so they would know not to.
I dont think Adam and Eve had any more kids at this time.

[JohnStang]

you guys bring up some interesting points, but what you have to realize is, what part if the Bible should you take literaly and which part should you take figuratively. over 3/4 of Revelations can't be taken literally. do you think that is the only book? don't think so. i believe in evolution, but do not believe that we came from apes. and MAdkat, he did make other people. after adam and eve were cast out of the garden where did they go, and who where the other poeple there? just my opinion.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
First of all a day isn't a "human" day to God. (2Pet 3:8- Which says "like" a 1k yrs so that's not literal either. We just know it's not 24hrs)

That being said God made the Earth and the Animals and Man on the 6th day but the Animals dwelled on the Planet first, covering God's paradigm of a "day". It says in Gen 1:24 "Let the land produce living creatures" so I believe that God designed the land and us to evolve.

While I do believe in Evolution, what I don't believe is that Man evolved from Apes. Because the Animals were made first and then God made Man from the dust of the ground like he first made the animals.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The chicken of course!

Sweet! A Christian that doesn't believe a "God Day" is equivalent to a "Man Day" I've been in many a debate with hard core Christians who can't seem to fathom the idea that a being that works outside of time wouldn't be constrained to the rules of our concept of time. I've even tried breaking it down using our concept of time and how one day on Pluto is like 4 hours on Earth (as a day is defined by one full rotation of a planet), but a year on Pluto is 242 years on Earth (one full orbit around the sun)... that time is measured differently based upon your perspective. It was like talking to a brick wall.

I guess by now you know that I also believe in Evolution, in it's literal meaning, to evolve and adapt to the environment.

speedpro50
No being can gain and put to use DNA stucture that it does not have!

Not without genetic mutation, no. But genetic mutations do account for changes to the DNA structure, that can either add, take away, or simply alter chains of genetic information.

Monsoon X
I don't think so. I think God created Man, in the plural sense, picked a certain Man (Adam) and placed him the Garden. If not, SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHERE CAIN FOUND HIS WIFE?

I'm with ya man! I've always believed that the story of Genesis was just that: A story. It's not to be taken as absolute truth. I believe that God did create other humans besides Adam and Eve. The idea that Adam and Eve were the sole proprietors of the Earth is pretty far fetched to say the least. After Cain killed Abel, he was banished to exile. He found his wife outside of Eden. It also doesn't explain how people were on other continents, separated by hundreds of miles of ocean ... boats at that time were not capable of oceanic travel. Not going to get into thoughts on the Flood here, maybe another time

For Cain's wife to also be a decendant of Adam and Eve, that would suggest that incest was hunkie doorie back then. I know people who strongly believe that incest was accepted before the flood, but I personally don't believe it.

[edit to add:]

MadKat
Cain thought that "people" would try to kill him after he killed Able and God said He would put a mark on him so they would know not to.

Thank you for bringing that up! I almost forgot that little detail. At the time of his banishment, if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first and only people until they had children, then that would mean it was just Adam, Eve, and Cain on the Earth ... yet Gen 4:14 Behold, thou has driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. [15] And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

From there he heads to Nod, and finds a wife. No discernable timetable there, but it certainly doesn't sound like a long time after his banishment ... and by that passage, it suggests that there in fact were other people on Earth besides Adam, Eve, and Cain.

[speedpro50]

TO say the Genesis account of creation is a story, is absurd. If you say Eve is not the mother of us all, you call God a liar (Genesis 3:20). Jesus Christ is called the 2nd Adam as in the 1st Adam came sin and in Jeus (th 2nd Adam) we have atonement for sin. Adam and Eve are an integral part of history and I believe that creationism is an essentail doctrine one must believe in order to be saved.

[Monsoon X]

What I believe about Adam, Eve, Genesis and the whole population thing doesn't take away from my true belief in God as the creator of the universe.

Genesis starts from when Sin enters man through Adam and Eve. And the fall of man begins from those two. IMO

I also don't believe the Bible is an inventory book.

Simply put the Bible shows us key points to understand God and his relationship with us. It shows how we as humans came to be it also shows why we go through the hardships we have to endure because of Adam giving into Eve. It is centered around Jesus Christ, it speaks of his coming in Genesis and it shows God's plan to bring us back up from the fall through Christ Jesus.

It speaks of true historical events because they are true and the Bible is true.

BTW- Genesis is a story, TRUE! BUT IT IS A TRUE STORY. NOT A PARABLE.!!!!!!! It is to be taken as the truth but, you gotta understand that the Bible centers around the lives of certain people, and excludes others, which is why I believe that Genesis let's you know who made everything, then it deals with where man first fell from God's original plan he had for us. (which was to be chilling on a great planet!!!) Yes the "others" that existed were chillin' also.

I don't know really, I mean who does? It's not essential to salvation though. It's just fun to talk about.

[DarkWolf]

Well spoken JC.

[The Punisher]

The way I think is that know body knows for sure how God created the earth except God. God could have created just Adam and Eve or he could created others. But as pointed out. Really dosent matter. Only God knows and someday when I get to heaven, I'll ask him.

[JohnStang]

agreed jc. very nicely put

[chris]

I saw a History channel show on Cain and Abel earlier this week.
They talked to alot of religious scholars and while they did not explain the others that would kill Cain, they said that Cain's wife was a sister. Cain and Abel were not the only children of adam and Eve, there were many. How the sister got out into Nod (which means wandering in the language of the time) wasn't explained. The show stated that people have been searching for Nod, some thought it was a town or area, some just think it meant he was out wandering.


About the incest. If you are the only family on the planet and supposed to procreate, how do you not commit incest? One has to believe that it was just fine back then, in fact that was the only choice if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans. Break it down even further, that means people were pro-creating with their direct sisters and cousins for a LONG time before there was enough families to not do so. they were still related though, and we really are today as well.

-Chris

[speedpro50]

I agree with what chris says....hmmmm! Glad to know you will watch something in order to search for the truth. Not that everything on TV or that show was correct, but it will give you info in order to compare to the Word of God to see if it lines up!

Lee

[chris]

I really enjoying watching shows and learning more on religion, any religion. I think its a very interesting subject. My wife and I are going to visit the Biblical Arts Center in Dallas soon and I am looking forward to that.

I am very open to others ideas and beliefs. Convincing me that your beliefs are correct is another thing .

-Chris

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by chris
About the incest. If you are the only family on the planet and supposed to procreate, how do you not commit incest? One has to believe that it was just fine back then, in fact that was the only choice if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans. Break it down even further, that means people were pro-creating with their direct sisters and cousins for a LONG time before there was enough families to not do so. they were still related though, and we really are today as well.

-Chris

And that would have to be true if Adam and Eve were the only two people. Being the first, doesn't necissarily mean being the only. There's nothing in the Bible that says they were the only, just that they were the first.

And there are numerous suggestions that there were other people ... the quote from Genesis above is probably the most obvious suggestion that there were other people besides Adam, Eve and Cain ... Cain was afraid other people would slay him, when he was the only remaining child of Adam and Eve, at that time. Why would that be a concern, if there were no other people? If all people came solely from Adam and Eve, then they would have come after Cain slew Abel, and thus unless Adam, Eve, Cain, or God told them about it, they would have no knowledge of the act.

That suggests, at least to me, that there were other people.

[speedpro50]

Once again...

Genesis 3:20

Eve is stated as being the MOTHER of us all!

Adam and Eve had many many children not just Abel, Cain and Seth. Read chapters 3-5 and you will see that.

Lee

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by speedpro50
Once again...

Genesis 3:20

Eve is stated as being the MOTHER of us all!

Adam and Eve had many many children not just Abel, Cain and Seth. Read chapters 3-5 and you will see that.

Lee

Is it possible that Genesis is an allegory?

[speedpro50]

Nope. It is not possible. To say Genesis is an allegory would be denying an essentail doctrine of the Christian Faith. It would mean God is a liar which he is not.

Lee

[DarkWolf]

How is an allegory akin to a lie?

Main Entry: al·le·go·ry
Pronunciation: 'a-l&-"gOr-E, -"gor-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek allEgoria, from allEgorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -Egorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly -- more at ELSE, AGORA
Date: 14th century
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM 2

Using symbolism to express an idea or to explain a particular story, in no way constitutes a lie. It's the same question of a day to God vs. a day to man. Either you're going to take it literally, or you're going to recognize that it's an allegory, used to explain creation. It's not lying, it's not debunking what is said. It's not denying what is said. It's simply explaining it symbolically, rather than literally.

[speedpro50]

No sir, in some cases what you have said would be true but not in this case. There is extreme importance regardng the creation account, Adam and Eve, etc. given us in Genesis by God. It is essential to our faith that the story be true. As Eve is the mother of all living, Jesus' lineage goes back to Abraham in Matthew 1, and Abraham's back to Adam through Noah. All of this would be a lie (found in OT and NT) if this is an allegory or symbolism. This is just one small area that would affect the BIG picture. God is not a liar, so then Jesus must be traced back to Adam (not an allegory). Adam, then, must have existed along with Eve.

[The Punisher]

al·le·go·ry Pronunciation Key (l-gôr, -gr)
n. pl. al·le·go·ries

The representation of "abstract" ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.

2)ab·stract Pronunciation Key (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.
Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture.

Yes, it would be calling God a liar.

[DarkWolf]

No, it would not be calling God a liar. There's nothing saying that Jesus cannot trace his heritage back to Adam and Eve. It does not falsify that.

Saying that Eve is the mother of us all is, in my belief, not to be taken literally as in Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth. Saying she is the mother of us all is, in my belief, saying that she is the mother of Christianity. Christ can trace is lineage back to Adam and Eve, and thus Adam and Eve were the beginnings of Christianity.

You see what I'm saying now? It's not meant to say the story of Genesis is just made up to try and explain creation. It's meant to say that while Genesis is the story of creation, not all of what is written is meant to be taken for it's litteral meaning.

Allegories are very common storytelling practices. They always have been. What sounds better: "On the first day, God said let there be light; and there was light." Or "And over the course of millions of years, God worked diligently to bring light to the void of the universe. And eventually he succeded."

Which sounds better: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." Or "While Adam and Eve were not the only people on Earth, they were the first people God created, and through them the seed of Christianity was planted, for Jesus is descended from the womb of Eve."

Obviously, if you believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, we'll never see eye to eye on this. It's simply a matter of your perception. You see things one way, I see them another. The beauty of it though ... even though we interperet the Bible differently ... it still has the same meaning. The message is the same.

[speedpro50]

Genesis is a historical account and is not to be taken as an allegory. No, not all of the bible is to be literally taken. Genesis on the other hand IS! The word DAY in greek and hebrew can mean several things, but you will still in Genesis 1 take the word lterally (you simply need to see the different meanings of the word). I do not know for sure if God made the earth and its inhabitants in 6 days (24 hour periods) or not. That is not important to me. I don't think it took him millions of years and TRIAL AND ERROR as you stated however. If God wanted it done it 1 second it could be done.

Lee

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by speedpro50
I don't think it took him millions of years and TRIAL AND ERROR as you stated however. If God wanted it done it 1 second it could be done.

Lee

This is where we get into the whole allegory thing again. I never said trial and error. Just that eventually he succeded in bringing light to the universe. What's millions of years to us, may be a snap of the fingers to God.

It's figurative. It's symbolism. It's put into language that man can comprehend.

[The Punisher]

Dark Wolf, do you believe in "absolute truth"?

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


This is where we get into the whole allegory thing again. I never said trial and error. Just that eventually he succeded in bringing light to the universe. What's millions of years to us, may be a snap of the fingers to God.

It's figurative. It's symbolism. It's put into language that man can comprehend.

God said it and it happened! Genesis 1:3

What symbolism is used there? I don't see an allegory as God simply stated it how it happened. He did not try and try over millions of years, he said it and it happened. He formed humans out of dust. He spoke cows into existance, they didn't come from frogs. Nope, not an allegory, just the facts - the simple truth!

Lee

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by speedpro50


God said it and it happened! Genesis 1:3

What symbolism is used there? I don't see an allegory as God simply stated it how it happened. He did not try and try over millions of years, he said it and it happened. He formed humans out of dust. He spoke cows into existance, they didn't come from frogs. Nope, not an allegory, just the facts - the simple truth!

Lee

This is true. This is what I agree with. God created these things, BAM and it was so. But he made them to evolve and adapt to their environment.

[DarkWolf]

281R
Dark Wolf, do you believe in "absolute truth"?

Yes, I believe there are absolute truths, but I do not believe that they have all been revealed to us.

speedpro50
God said it and it happened! Genesis 1:3

What symbolism is used there? I don't see an allegory as God simply stated it how it happened. He did not try and try over millions of years, he said it and it happened. He formed humans out of dust. He spoke cows into existance, they didn't come from frogs. Nope, not an allegory, just the facts - the simple truth!

Ok ... you're not reading what I'm saying. Either that, or you're not understanding what I'm saying.

I said "What's millions of years to us, may be a snap of the fingers to God."

Which means God may have snapped his fingers, or just said "Let there be light" and it was done. That fast. BUT, through the laws of the universe, it was millions of years that passed. You're not understanding that God is a being that works outside of time. Time has no impact on God. But it does on us. It does in the universe.

Millions of years on Earth, to God is nothing. It's a blink of an eye, or the speaking of a sentence, or the snap of fingers.

The symbolism is just what it is. Saying "On the first day" is symbolic for the millions of years of our time that it took for these events to take place. The key word is our time, which does not affect God.

Like I said earlier, we're never going to be able to see eye to eye on this, because you believe that everything has to be taken literally. I'm not going to try and change your beliefs, I just want you to try and understand my beliefs.

[The Punisher]

I understand what your saying DarkWolf, but the way I look at it is God did it and its done. No one knows for sure how God did it, but I just dont look that deep speculating how it got done, b/c I will never find out in this lifetime. I think it is better to take it at face value and believe it how it is written. Anything else is confusion.

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Yes, I believe there are absolute truths, but I do not believe that they have all been revealed to us.



Ok ... you're not reading what I'm saying. Either that, or you're not understanding what I'm saying.

I said "What's millions of years to us, may be a snap of the fingers to God."

Which means God may have snapped his fingers, or just said "Let there be light" and it was done. That fast. BUT, through the laws of the universe, it was millions of years that passed. You're not understanding that God is a being that works outside of time. Time has no impact on God. But it does on us. It does in the universe.

Millions of years on Earth, to God is nothing. It's a blink of an eye, or the speaking of a sentence, or the snap of fingers.

The symbolism is just what it is. Saying "On the first day" is symbolic for the millions of years of our time that it took for these events to take place. The key word is our time, which does not affect God.

Like I said earlier, we're never going to be able to see eye to eye on this, because you believe that everything has to be taken literally. I'm not going to try and change your beliefs, I just want you to try and understand my beliefs.

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by DarkWolf

Like I said earlier, we're never going to be able to see eye to eye on this, because you believe that everything has to be taken literally. I'm not going to try and change your beliefs, I just want you to try and understand my beliefs.

Originally posted by SpeedPro50

No, not all of the bible is to be literally taken.

I will never change you or your beliefs, as it is the work of the Holy Spirit to do so. I won't even try to do it myself. We are simply having a discussion, being open and honest. Keep it coming!

[Lane]

IMO, there is a strong possibility that Cain and Abel weren't the first children of Adam and Eve. God said he would multiply pain in childbirth. Multiply from what? What He planned, or what it was.

I believe A&E took some children with them out of the garden.

[Josh]

Forgive my bringing such an old thread back, but I just had to TTT this thread. The Creationism/Evolution debate is a bit of a hobby for me.

First, as I see it you can not divorce the literal Biblical account of creation from Christian doctrine without corrupting the whole book. Where do we stop with this allegory business? Okay, perhaps Creation is an allegory. How about The Flood account, is it also allegory, and the Exodus? How about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? You tell me what can and can not be taken literally? Please.
We can not be so bold to pick and choose what we wish just because our understanding or faith is not sufficient to take care of the problem.

Just a few bits and pieces I gleaned from the previous discussion:

1. Macro-Evolution and God are not cohesive.
After each of God’s creative days He declared it good. My question is this. Does Macro-Evolution sound like a process that is good? Macro-Evolution is a process that is dependent on millions of years of death, mutations and accidents. Now then, does this seem to be a process that God would use to create?

2. When and where did original sin originate?
If Eden, Adam and Eve are mythical, or allegorical at best, when did sin enter the world? Romans 5:12 says, “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.” So if sin did not originate by one man as Paul claims, then where?

3. Which came first, the sin or the death?
If sin is what brought death into the world how did Macro-Evolution take place? As stated in my first point, Macro-Evolution is requisite on millions of years of mutations, accidents, a handful of luck, and DEATH. So which was it? Is Paul lying in Romans 5:21. You see you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

4. Where did Cain get his wife?
This is unbelievably one of the most commonly asked questions about the Genesis account and also one of the most easily explained. No where do we read that Cain and Able were Adam and Eve’s first or only children. Adam and Eve may have been hundreds of years old by the time these two were born. Therefore Adam and Eve’s previous children may have had a number of branches off of the original bloodline by the time Cain got there. So he married a very near relative, could have been a sister or a cousin.

5. What is a day?
So was it 24 hrs or 24 million years? Was it 1000 years? People always through out 2 Peter 3:8-9 claiming that each day was actually a 1000 years. Yôm, the Hebrew word for day, is used with the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, and the days are numbered (first day, second day, etc.). Whenever yôm is used in such a context, it is always an ordinary day, never a long period of time.
Additionally, in Exodus 20:8-11 God confirms this concept of a literal 24 hour period by using the exact same word in context to His Creation days.
Why do we limit God to billions of years? I don’t even limit Him to seven days. I believe He could have just said,” It is!” and it would have been made. I think He just chose to create this way to give us the pattern for a 7 day week.


The same evidence used by Evolutionist is used by Creationists. We, Creationists, can interpret the evidence to fit within a young earth. Whereas evolutionists interpret the evidence to fit into a old earth setting. I subscribe to the theory that the Bible describes.

[Monsoon X]

Wow. I was looking my first post. I had never really gotten into the study of the creation account. Like most Christians I just took it with a grain of salt, had faith and just clamed up when approached with Evolutionary science.

Boy has my opinion changed.

Josh- Are you following the threads in the Back Porch?

[Josh]

Yeah that's what prompted me to say something in here. That thread grows so fast I can't keep up. I start reading and want to debate something from a couple days back.
You ought to visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/ there is some awesome info on their site.

[MoonDog]

Good post Josh. I believe that Revelation is the only book that needs interpretation, and that is only because when John wrote it he had no way of describing the things he saw but with words he was familiar with.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Good post Josh. I believe that Revelation is the only book that needs interpretation, and that is only because when John wrote it he had no way of describing the things he saw but with words he was familiar with.

ha exactly! How do you describe Helicopters?


Rev. 9:1-12 ???????????


thoughts?

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
ha exactly! How do you describe Helicopters?


Rev. 9:1-12 ???????????


thoughts?

People get all caught up into what God is trying to say in scripture. If they would just read then they would know what He is saying. To me there is no debate, I believe in a literal translation of the bible. If God said that the Earth was created in 6 days then that is how it happened. It says in Genesis, "and the evening and the morning were the first day...second day...third day"...and so on. The evening and the morning was here on Earth, not Pluto or Plant X in some far off galaxy. I also beleive that the Earth is very young, somewhere around 6,000 years old. If you look at the generations listed in Genesis and add up the years coupled with the historical records pertaining to events listed in the Bible you will see that the numbers agree. The earth was created with the appearance of age just like Adam and Eve was. They were not created as babies and neither was the Earth.

Revelation on the other hand although still being very literal, the events that take place actually happened or are going to happen, needs to be interpreted since John was seeing things that that he had never seen before. If he said he saw a flying locust with the face of a man then that is what he saw to the best that he could discribe it. We are talking about 2,000 years of technology. Heck, you can go back 100 years and no one could tell you what a helicopter would look like. Rev. 9 could very well be describing a type of aircraft, John explained things the best he could, how was he to know that in the 20th century man would be flying?

Rev 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
Rev 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
Rev 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
Rev 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

This could be a helicopter or a jet or some other type of future flying craft.

[Josh]

If was only six literal days how do you explain light from a super nova exploding 6 billion light years away?

<====Devil's advocate again.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Josh
If was only six literal days how do you explain light from a super nova exploding 6 billion light years away?

<====Devil's advocate again.

But remember, speed of light is not consistant. Our speed of light here dose not apply to the speed of light in space outside of this planet or galaxy.

[Josh]

So physics outside our galaxy is so different that it would make up for millions and millions of light years? I mean even our galaxy is millions of light years across. The super nova that I mention, even if it were a meer 20 thousand light years away (well with in the span of our galaxy), could not fit the young earth model.

[The Punisher]

but, we know already that the speed of light is not consistant. But do we have any idea what light travels at outside our solar system?

[46Tbird]

LOL!

[Josh]

^
What's so funny?


Research gravitational time dilation.


Basically, it says that light (and therefore time) is effected by gravity. The stronger the force of gravity the slower time moves. This force is strong enough to be demonstrated with instrumentation in a tall building. Clocks will run slower at the top than they do at the bottom. What does this mean? It means that the vastness of space outside our galaxy, which has very little gravity does not slow light as it does within the relative denseness of the galaxy. This dialation of time can be so great that it literally will stop time. Take a black hole for instance; right at the edge of the hole, where light is just short of escaping the hole's gravity the light will actually bend back over itself. This is called the event horizon. At this point relative time actually stands still. However, if you were in the event horizon, light outside the horizon would speed up dramatically as would time. Billions of years, outside the event horizon, would pass very quickly to the viewer on the inside.
God did create the universe as we know it in a literal 6 day period. But our 6 days could have covered a much greater amount of time outside of our gravity.