| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2006 11:05:38 AM |
| Object: |
Re: God made man, not a sperm |
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com>
Re: God made man, not a sperm
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
When Christians talk about the 1 week creation of the world, old-earth
theorists say that the earth appears too old for its creation to be a
few thousand years old.
This is easy to answer with a simple question. Did God make man or a
sperm on that first day? Scripture says that God took soil and His own
breath and made a man (not a sperm). Then, God took Adam's rib and
made a woman (not an egg). The point? On the day God made man, he was
less than a day old, yet he appeared decades old in age. What makes us
think the world would be any different?
Ken Clifton
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
That is a very interesting argument.
The only problem with it is that there is no evidence to indicate
that things might have happened that way.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
Sam,
Here was my reply to that poster. See if it makes any sense to you:
"Ken,
There is no reason for God to make a 'young earth' take on the
appearance of an 'old earth' etc in order to deceive us or something.
But there was a reason for God to make a one day old person, Adam,
appear to be a young adult. Older persons can carry on conversations,
also they have the developed powers of procreation etc, which is one
of God's commands to them. (Ge 1:28) So God skipped their childhood
since it was not needed in order to fulfill God's requirements for
them.
And the Bible is in fully harmony with humans existing for only
thousands of years, but the earth and universe for billions of years.
It has to do with what you consider is part of the "first day". If it
is computed one way, you must have a young earth and universe, and
young humans. If it is computed another way you get an indeterminate
earth and universe age, and young humans. The latter fits in more with
present day science, than the former. (more details on how those two
methods are computed, if you are interested)
True, science does not like the 'young human' scenario from either
method, since they claim to have human fossils that are millions of
years old etc. But thy need to step back and look at the bulk of the
human fossil and archeological evidence. The bulk of human
civilizations can be traced by several thousand years, not hundreds of
thousands, or millions of years.
So either humans had little or no progression for millions of years,
and then BOOM, suddenly became 'smart' and 'civilized' several
thousand years ago, or humans progressed in a normal fashion from the
time they were created, several thousand years ago. And the mass of
the archeological evidence points to the latter. (such as the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc.)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************"
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
