Is it heresy to not believe the earth is 6000 years old? Or to think genesis is a metafor?

This isnt bait. I legit want to know. Some people are very serious about this.

I heard from somewhere (I think the late Cris Putnam) that the creation story is also known as the Creation Hymn from Jewish folklore and the latter part of Genesis was given to Moses from God while he was up on Mt. Sinai for 40 days.

Juxtaposing the Creation Hymn (Genesis 1) with other creation stories during Moses' contemporary times makes a lot more sense from our current scientific understanding. For example, Native American folklore consists of some Bald Eagle creating an island floating in a sea of water and the Sky Woman sprinkling dust into the sky giving birth to stars and such nonsense which in contemporary times can easily be dismissed as folklore. However, the Creation Hymn from the Bible has remarkably held up well for the past 6,000 years.

If that were truly the case, then there has been no subsequent "evening", meaning we're still in the 7th day. If we're still in the 7th day, then a "day" of Creation is clearly way more than the 24 hours made by man.

It's unintentional bait.

Attached: Here we go again.png (872x558, 114.41K)

no

Do you even know the context of that post? or will you keep posting this picture like a retard?

The seventh day was completed with the coming of Christ. Welcome to the eighth day.

yes

Nope
Exodus 20
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

YEC is literally part of the 10 commandments

Attached: B22F5CE3-829C-4AF6-AA5C-758180B50852.jpeg (2400x1624 128 KB, 1.72M)

this fam

Nowhere in the Bible does it say how old the earth is. The whole "6,000 years" thing comes from a genealogy list of who begat whom, and the list not only isn't comprehensive (it only includes 'important' people and skips over insignificant ones), there's also the matter of accounting for how long ago the list itself was written.

I myself am a Baptist, and have never met someone who thought the world was only 6,000 years old.

It gives you all the dates from first day of vreation to when Cyrus the king Persia became king, so yes it is about 6000

So, a "day" isn't 24 hours. Thanks!

What? Are you retarded?

No, he's just a retard

Yes

You're assuming that secular archeologists are correct about its age.

Reject the Ketonic heresy.
Read the words of our savior.
>Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
And Paul:
Paul is plainly saying that people have been able to perceive these attributes of God in His creation ever since the creation of the world. Not ever since people were created.
Jesus, speaking around 4,000 years after creation, was correct to say that Day 6, when humans were created, was effectively "the beginning of creation" as seen from thousands of years later. By contrast, a creation fifteen billion years ago on the secular timescale would put humans at the end of the time scale. It shows clearly how the acceptance of the secular timeline starkly contrasts with the statements of Jesus.
I urge you who claim to be followers of Christ to reject all claims that He was fallible, and to reject the model of the origin of the world concocted by men who hold hatred for our God. Macroevolution is the primary belief used as excuse for all manner of evil by atheists and Gnostic relativists.
The Ketonic heresy claims that our own God was mistaken in His beliefs. There can be bo room for compromise in the faith, for once you take away the very foundation of the Bible, then the Church is built upon sand.
Once the story of Creation and the genealogy given in the New Testament is declared to be only a parable, it opens the door for all kinds of mysticism and relativism, at which point you may as well be Gnostic.
God does not lie, and He does not make mistakes. Parables spoken by Christ are always explicitly stated to be parables.
Where, in the entire New Testament, are the verses spoken by Christ in this post declared to be parables?

Omphalos Theory.

Attached: Sportacus.jpg (300x350, 18.79K)

1 Timothy 1:4 Not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies: which furnish questions rather than the edification of God, which is in faith.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain.

"Genesis, creation, and Early Man" by father Seraphim Rose.

Look up the mtDNA of the first woman and look up the first man, it says they lived 7500 years ago

Or-now consider this-people have gravely misinterpreted the data.

The Six Thousand Year Hypothesis is based on the genologies. Like "person X begot Person Y who begot Person Z". People assume these are direct genologies like Person Y is the son of Person X. But they don't have to be direct Genologies. In other places in the Bible they say "Person A begot Person F" excluding generations B-E. So that means Adam could have lived way more than 1 million years ago

I mean more than 6 thousand not more than a million

Maybe it's slightly more but to say a million is completely autistic

Also I'm pretty sure Luke 3 includes everyone in Jesus' geanology and includes a few not found elsewhere in the Bible

I meant to say more than 6 thousand years. I don't really know how long ago humans can be first found. But yeah genologies doesn't have to be direct so the earth doesn't have to be only 6 thousand years old

...

How does this relate to me saying genologies don't have to be direct

I think he neans that there couldn't have been a big gap in genologies if it's from around the foundation of earth

How do you guys explain the plethora of fossils found that date millions of years back? Or the dinosaur bones? Someone help me out here.

Carbon dating is wrong, freshly killed animals have been dated as a thousand years old

I'm going to try to take a minute to explain my perspective on this. Hundreds of years of geology, paleontology, and decades of genetic research are all interlinked with regard to the estimated "historical age" of the Earth. Science is a house of cards, and if you pull out part of the foundation then the rest of the structure collapses. We can't just discount all the data willy-nilly because it's not convenient for us. Some will turn to fringe researchers that disagree with popular theories but I think that's a cop-out that avoids the main issue.
Nevertheless, we know that the Bible is infallible and true. The genealogies aren't faked or exaggerated, and basic elements of human biology (such as the amount of time men are capable of living) have changed since Genesis took place. How is this possible?

Omphalos Theory makes the most sense to me because it takes into account two things we often forget about God: Firstly, that He is omnipotent, and second, that He is outside of time.

As Omphalos Theory states, every time God brought something into being in Genesis, He brought it into being in the present, which affected the nature of created reality, bringing forth the same object with a logical past. That is to say, when God made the Moon, the amount of matter it took to create the Moon suddenly did, but also always had, existed. Elements of the past change to meet the present because God is not bound by time and can alter it freely, and the new reality created is truly "real;" the only thing that remains is our memory of how things were.
This concept is incredibly compelling to me because it can be applied to any significant change of the way things are now with how they used to be. Take human lifespan for instance – men used to live as long as 900 years in the past, but God limited men to living 120 years in Genesis 6:3. When God proclaimed this, that men would live 120 years, it affected not only the present but also the past. At once, men currently alive lost the ability to live that long, but it also reverberated through how things used to be, and our lifespan was rendered in creation as shorter as a result. Men now have shorter lifespans, and the state of being where they lived longer was wiped from both present and past, save for our memories of the previous existence. The reality of longer lifespans and the reality of shorter lifespans were both real, it's just that the former can no longer be proven to exist outside of our written records.
It's a tricky idea and I'm not really explaining it well, but I absolutely love it.

It is generally accepted in YEC that they were deposited in a catastrophic, global flood, and most dating methods are demonstrably unreliable.

6 day creationism is literally part of the 10 commandments

Attached: 1E769895-AB36-4DE9-8F01-46929DAC0928.jpeg (640x640, 146.76K)

Attached: 1486729108889.jpg (320x186, 7.41K)

No, of course it is not heresy.

My view is that there is no reason to read Genesis literally, especially when it contains two conflicting accounts and there are other questions, such as how the author knew what to write – one cannot imagine a scribe was sat on a cloud somewhere watching it all unfold. Jewish tradition ascribes authorship to Moses, but textual analysis suggests two authors at slightly different times, or the coming together of two similar yet divergent oral traditions. Now, if we knew the author and their intentions we might better situate the text and what it is claiming about itself, such as how allegorical or it wishes to be or otherwise – plenty of ancient writers wrote theologically and with knowing intent. We can do this with the New Testament books, for example, because we can trace them back to within their authors' lifetimes and the sociopolitical and cultural circumstances surrounding them. Beyond suggesting the Old Testament was compiled around the fifth century B.C. (before which it was an oral tradition) for the then-Persian emperor, there is little explicit detail to follow.

there is your problem

Also, these , , , , , and .

Do you also not believe New Jerusalem is real?
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

He made land before birds.

symism of the sabath day. Read exodus 20:11

I agree with you for the most part. The Genesis 1 account is known as the Creation Hymn so there is some poetic structure to it as well. For example, if you lay the Genesis creation in a tabular format, you can see how on the left column is a more abstract version of what is on the right column. My sincere belief is we are to take the Bible literally, and the Genesis Creation is literal with a poetic hymn structure.

This is important, there is no conflict between the Bible and what science tells us. I believe the Earth is old, but that all life we see on this planet is recent (roughly 6,000-12,000 years old). It's apparent God didn't create the planet Earth in 6 days, because the Earth was already in a dark and void state as stated in Genesis 1:2. Again, this is my take and I pray God will forgive me for any misinterpretations on my part.

Attached: genesis.jpg (1280x800, 978.43K)

No, Exodus 20:11 says ge created the earth, heaven, and sea in 6 days. The sea isn't mentioned in Genesis 1 untill the end of verse 2 so there can't be a gap between verse 1 and 2. Also it says "and all that in them is" which probably means animals

...

6000 years is a mistranslation. The garden of Eden is a place in Sumer.

[Citation needed]

lol

No because the earth is 7526 years old.

Oops, it's technically God created the Earth in 7 days that's a mistranslation. It should say era, not day. It's the garden of Eden that existed roughly 6000 years ago.

Post sources for the era translation. Is it the same word translated as "day" everywhere else in the Bible?

Why was there no evening on the seventh day?

Because our era is not finished.

If Genesis was literal then why wouldn't God just tell what really happened by explaining the process of evolietion?

The Church says this: "Genesis is literal"-Creationism is not outright forbidden or heresy, but it's dangerously naive as it is a theological treatment on how the earth and everything came into being. In addition to that, the Church acknowledges scientific findings from the last 2000 years - which Moses simply did not have. In addition to that, the process was for sure something we humans wouldn't be able to grasp anyway, hence Moses' treatment of the topic. On the other hand, the Church condemns scientism harshly, because if evolution and everything was a purely statistical process - especially in the very beginnings of everything (despite the fact that it lacks the answer to "how does something come from nothing") - then it phases out God on purpose, which is obviously highly un-Christian.

The question one should be asking is more like: Why do people obsess with this question of Creation theories ? It literally creates division throughout and within all different Christian denominations and it certainly is not edifying for salvation, let alone can we know it all and for sure purely from our on thinking and trusting having faith in our own intellect. Trust in the Holy Spirit and His guidance.

As Genesis is a theological treatment*

You realize that the books of Moses were written by the Holy Ghost right? Did God not know about science? And Exodus 20:11 is literally from God

6292*

See this:

more specifically from the Father's finger

memebs de awderse XXDDDD

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man by Father Seraphim Rose.

None of the church fathers thought the story of the garden was meant to be taken literally

proof?

The story of the Garden is real and shame on you for bearing false witness on what the Church Fathers said. Also, how do you square the fact that in the Book of Matthew and other books in the Bible, they specifically mention Adam as being the first in the genealogy line? Unless perhaps you've never read your Bible.

...

That's wrong but why hell would I care what they think?

Here's my take on the matter: No matter what you believe, you are literally believing someone else's narrative of what happened. You didn't see it happen, and neither did they.

So when someone comes and says, "this or that is 2 billion years old." How do you know that? How do you know that your methods of measuring something's age is adequate to cover that length of time? Did you witness it yourself? Test your methods over billions of years? No, you're just guessing and making stuff up.

This.
We sometimes forget that there exists an agenda in science and academia.

Attached: simple truths.png (1731x966, 661.98K)

This, i've also come to think about with just the simple thought of, *Wait a min you've never been there, and the truth is a lot of history once we start getting back into the ancients is, that it's a fog of war we just don't know and don't have a full picture. Was actually watching vid related from Mister dyer and it really does feel like sometimes they just make this stuff up as they go along.

watch the documentary "is genesis history?". There are some paleontologists and geologists who argue in favor of the young earth theory.

youtube.com/watch?v=tudQkA06tTM

Kurt Wise is one of the best scientists defending YEC.

...

To say that Abel doesn't exist but Zacharias did is absolutely retarded. Why would Jesus say the blood of a fictional character to the blood of a real one? Also it said Abel was killed near the foundation of the workd, not bijiwwions of years later.

Luke 11
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

they received their degree in those areas. what should I call them?

t. Origen

Believing all humans came from 2 humans means you're a retard, but believing all life came from aliens is science
41:00
youtu.be/PPLRhVdNp5M

there's debate whether or not adam or eve were the first "man" or the first "rational man", because other man-kind is referenced as being alive during genesis

catholics define "image of God" as "Logos", aka human rationality. in other words, that there were other "humans" around before Adam + Eve is a valid theory, but we must all be descended from that unique line of rational creatures that would be Adam & Eve.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

you can see all that science/academic back-tracking here, but what all Christians need to establish is that all of man can be traced back to a common ancestor

Attached: 352E7CAA-7B1B-42DD-974C-3DEA994AF4C3.jpeg (362x139, 25.16K)