Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ IN THE BEGINNING.

[luchnia]

Although the bible does not define a planet by our exact definition, our understanding of planets is mostly by man's definition of a celestial body (planet) that has a certain amount of mass and revolves around other objects in most cases a center object as we see more and more universes in the expanse of universes. There seems appropriate order as one would expect from our Creator.

This would seem to align with Paul's brief mention of celestial bodies in 1 Cor 15:35-50 at least in part. Paul used what man could see, the sun, the moon, and the stars. Some might ask where Paul got such info. He was no doubt well studied, but more than that He had the Holy Spirit to guide him in this wisdom and gives us a glimpse into the heavenlies and I am sure he learned more about it than he wrote, so we need not be ignorant that what we have and see came from what we don't. These celestial or heavenly bodies are above our atmosphere and way beyond.

The info we have from God's word is what we have and to speculate one way or the other is simply conjecture although we should allow some degree of basic understanding by what we have learned from the tools God has allowed us to use to see beyond our small solar system. To me, it just proves all the more of the increase and government of God there shall be no end.

[Ironman]

There Are Major Theological and Scientific Problems With A Young Earth

By David J. Stewart

Psalms 102:25, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation
of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

There are numerous problems with the theory that there was no pre-Adamic world. Here are several reasons why a young earth simply cannot be true (or you could call these facts, evidence of an old earth):

Link,
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evoluti ... _earth.htm

[patrissimo]

There Are Major Theological and Scientific Problems With A Young Earth

By David J. Stewart

Psalms 102:25, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation
of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

There are numerous problems with the theory that there was no pre-Adamic world. Here are several reasons why a young earth simply cannot be true (or you could call these facts, evidence of an old earth):

Link,
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evoluti ... _earth.htm

Why didn't Christians believe this for centuries?

[luchnia]

There Are Major Theological and Scientific Problems With A Young Earth

By David J. Stewart

Psalms 102:25, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation
of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

There are numerous problems with the theory that there was no pre-Adamic world. Here are several reasons why a young earth simply cannot be true (or you could call these facts, evidence of an old earth):

Link,
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evoluti ... _earth.htm

Why didn't Christians believe this for centuries?

I haven't read the article, but a question quickly comes to mind based on your question. Why do you place all Christians into one lump group? How do you know Christians have not believed this for centuries? In my journeys I have been surprised at the Christians that believe there was more to Genesis 1 and also in the possibility of a pre-Adamic world with an old earth. In other words, they don't all rule it out of their thinking.

[patrissimo]

There Are Major Theological and Scientific Problems With A Young Earth

By David J. Stewart

Psalms 102:25, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation
of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

There are numerous problems with the theory that there was no pre-Adamic world. Here are several reasons why a young earth simply cannot be true (or you could call these facts, evidence of an old earth):

Link,
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evoluti ... _earth.htm

Why didn't Christians believe this for centuries?

I haven't read the article, but a question quickly comes to mind based on your question. Why do you place all Christians into one lump group? How do you know Christians have not believed this for centuries? In my journeys I have been surprised at the Christians that believe there was more to Genesis 1 and also in the possibility of a pre-Adamic world with an old earth. In other words, they don't all rule it out of their thinking.

The first to teach a pre- Adamite doctrine was Isaac de la Preyrere in the 17th century. The Church Fathers are unanimous on the traditional doctrine of creation over against modern conceptions which attempt to harmonize Scripture with occult concepts.

[luchnia]

There Are Major Theological and Scientific Problems With A Young Earth

By David J. Stewart

Psalms 102:25, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation
of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

There are numerous problems with the theory that there was no pre-Adamic world. Here are several reasons why a young earth simply cannot be true (or you could call these facts, evidence of an old earth):

Link,
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evoluti ... _earth.htm

Why didn't Christians believe this for centuries?

I haven't read the article, but a question quickly comes to mind based on your question. Why do you place all Christians into one lump group? How do you know Christians have not believed this for centuries? In my journeys I have been surprised at the Christians that believe there was more to Genesis 1 and also in the possibility of a pre-Adamic world with an old earth. In other words, they don't all rule it out of their thinking.

The first to teach a pre- Adamite doctrine was Isaac de la Preyrere in the 17th century. The Church Fathers are unanimous on the traditional doctrine of creation over against modern conceptions which attempt to harmonize Scripture with occult concepts.

Do you take that as truth, or do you take some other church fathers as truth? From your post I would assume the later goes for you. The fact is you and I have no clue as to who first taught pre-adamite world because we were not around and don't have documentation as to who first taught it. Just because some man may have taught it in the 17th century and others disagreed does not mean he was the first to teach it, or that he, or they were correct in their teaching.

This also brings to mind a good thread title, who are the real Church fathers? I would have to go with the disciples and apostles of our Lord and not some men that came along later and met deciding they were the church fathers. They are not my Church fathers, but that is just me and I would always maintain that you do you and I will do me. Carry on...

[patrissimo]

There Are Major Theological and Scientific Problems With A Young Earth

By David J. Stewart

Psalms 102:25, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation
of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

There are numerous problems with the theory that there was no pre-Adamic world. Here are several reasons why a young earth simply cannot be true (or you could call these facts, evidence of an old earth):

Link,
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evoluti ... _earth.htm

Why didn't Christians believe this for centuries?

I haven't read the article, but a question quickly comes to mind based on your question. Why do you place all Christians into one lump group? How do you know Christians have not believed this for centuries? In my journeys I have been surprised at the Christians that believe there was more to Genesis 1 and also in the possibility of a pre-Adamic world with an old earth. In other words, they don't all rule it out of their thinking.

The first to teach a pre- Adamite doctrine was Isaac de la Preyrere in the 17th century. The Church Fathers are unanimous on the traditional doctrine of creation over against modern conceptions which attempt to harmonize Scripture with occult concepts.

Do you take that as truth, or do you take some other church fathers as truth? From your post I would assume the later goes for you. The fact is you and I have no clue as to who first taught pre-adamite world because we were not around and don't have documentation as to who first taught it. Just because some man may have taught it in the 17th century and others disagreed does not mean he was the first to teach it, or that he, or they were correct in their teaching.

This also brings to mind a good thread title, who are the real Church fathers? I would have to go with the disciples and apostles of our Lord and not some men that came along later and met deciding they were the church fathers. They are not my Church fathers, but that is just me and I would always maintain that you do you and I will do me. Carry on...

The Christian Faith is absolutely unique just as is the Christian conception of God. Why wouldn't the Christian conception of creation and history also be unique? What other system has a young earth? Why shouldn't the teachings of early Christians be taken seriously?

[luchnia]

The Christian Faith is absolutely unique just as is the Christian conception of God. Why wouldn't the Christian conception of creation and history also be unique? What other system has a young earth? Why shouldn't the teachings of early Christians be taken seriously?

There are Christians that say we have an earth that is billions of years old and some say it is not very old at all and scripture does not say, so we speculate on what we believe the scripture is saying or we ponder science's information to come to some sort of conclusion. There are Christians that believe in the big bang, yet is that true?

Sure we can take the teachings of early Christians seriously, just doesn't mean all they say is true just as we can take science seriously and doesn't mean all science is true. By one's understanding they try to be as accurate as possible, but again doesn't mean it is truth. In like manner, our understanding does not make something truth.

[macca]

And no one's theory is truth.

[Hill Top]

The Christian Faith is absolutely unique just as is the Christian conception of God. Why wouldn't the Christian conception of creation and history also be unique? What other system has a young earth? Why shouldn't the teachings of early Christians be taken seriously?

There are Christians that say we have an earth that is billions of years old and some say it is not very old at all and scripture does not say, so we speculate on what we believe the scripture is saying or we ponder science's information to come to some sort of conclusion. There are Christians that believe in the big bang, yet is that true?

Sure we can take the teachings of early Christians seriously, just doesn't mean all they say is true just as we can take science seriously and doesn't mean all science is true. By one's understanding they try to be as accurate as possible, but again doesn't mean it is truth. In like manner, our understanding does not make something truth.

Why would a Christian speculate on the age of the earth?
We have its creation, followed by the life spans of those born of the first man, followed by the names of who those that the first men generated that pertained to the lineage of Jesus.
Which of those do you speculate on?.