Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex337 said:
Hey folks. I was just wondering what neanderthals and Denisovans are according to young earthers? I’m actually curious. Are these folks considered human or animal? Children of Adam or something else?
Click to expand...
Human.
 
Gorgias said:
However, in a figurative interpretation, these rules of interpretation don’t hold. That is, not every element must be ‘figurative’. When Jesus tells the parable about Lazarus and the rich man, there doesn’t have to be a figurative interpretation of the purple garments, or the sores or the dogs. These are all elements of the story, and the story is what is figurative.
Click to expand...
The Gospels identify these as parables.
 
Gorgias said:
Umm… that’s why I brought them up – they’re Scriptural stories that I knew you would agree have figurative interpretations. 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, but they are usually identified as such so we know not to take them literally, even though there may literal aspects. Genesis is not identified in the text as being non-historical or non-literal.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, but they are usually identified as such so we know not to take them literally, even though there may literal aspects. Genesis is not identified in the text as being non-historical or non-literal.
Click to expand...
You’re missing the point.

I didn’t bring up a parable to help us in identifying the proper hermeneutic for a passage as ‘figurative’ or ‘literalistic’ – I brought it up to refute the claim that, in a passage that’s intended to be figurative, not every element in the story must have a particular figurative meaning.
 
I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity in grade 1 to be taught 7 day creationism. And this was at an Adventist school. They have such good teachers there, it had no effect on my faith.

I also have a Baptist friend from childhood who was excited in explaining to me that the Earth has got to be 10 000 years old.

“Evolution doesn’t make sence.”–one of my Science teachers.

“If evolution was true, then regression could also occur.”
 
Bradskii said:
There are honest YECs and honest Christians who believe that evolution did not occur. But they accept that there is evidence for an old earth and accept that there is evidence for evolution. Just that they don’t believe it.
Click to expand...
Please name some of these very wonderful and honest YECs that you respect. Is there a very wonderful and honest YEC website you can recommend? I would love to study their very wonderful and honest work and see how it very wonderfully and honestly differs from that of the wonderless pack of dishonest and discombobulated creationist losers we have here.
Zero respect
Click to expand...
Now that’s a very unusual and unexpected thing for an atheist to say about a bunch of Bible-bashing creationists.
 
Last edited:
The souls that were granted to those extremely lucky cave-men were the very first models out of the Soul Factory. Adam and Eve can hardly be blamed for disobeying God, because the souls they were given would have been rather primitive, unreliable and dodgy.

Since God likes evolution so much, human souls have probably evolved too. That’s why, these days, hardly anyone sins.
 
The Church doesn’t need evolutionists - and never will. Better to have a pure, smaller Church than a larger one contaminated by the fables of Scientism.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
The souls that were granted to those extremely lucky cave-men were the very first models out of the Soul Factory. Adam and Eve can hardly be blamed for disobeying God, because the souls they were given would have been rather primitive, unreliable and dodgy.

Since God likes evolution so much, human souls have probably evolved too. That’s why, these days, hardly anyone sins.
Click to expand...
For someone who is a true believer in creationism, you sure sound bitter that there are those who disagree with you… 🤔 🤷‍♂️
 
Evolutionist thinking has infected multiple areas of the faith. Aside from Creation itself, the next most obvious target was Sacred Scripture. Too many posters in these forums sadly haven’t read any editions of the Bible or commentary aside from the problematic NAB. But the NAB exemplifies the problem of applying materialistic evolution to other areas of study, especially the faith. Hence, the Gospels and New Testament were not (according to the NAB) works inspired by the Holy Spirit, but rather were products of evolutionary development following the life of Jesus.
 
Gorgias said:
Only later, once I provided exactly what you asked for, did you break out the red herring of “Genesis 1:14-18”.
Click to expand...
Deary me, the lenghts some people will go to to save face!

You are wrong - follow the links back to post *2447, in which I state,

“By the way, it’s kinda ironic that you are so concerned about me keeping my literal interpretation strictly literal, when the evolutionist’s figurative interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1 is anything but consistent. No one would argue that the “day(s)” in Genesis 1:14-18 are figurative - this passage obviously refers to literal days.”
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Deary me, the lenghts some people will go to to save face!
Click to expand...
I know! That’s what keeps me from getting frustrated – I realize what your motivation is. 🤷‍♂️
You are wrong - follow the links back to post *2447, in which I state,
Click to expand...
Perhaps you said that then, but I was responding to your challenge about a hundred posts later, when you disputed that folks looked at the days figuratively.

(BTW – there’s only one day in Gen 1:14-18. If you want to make a case for why it should be distinguished from every other – in terms of hermeneutic – have at it. Otherwise, my analysis stands, and your red herring remains a smelly fish that’s intended to pull us away from the trail…)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top