Is Genesis History?

[ALAYMAN]

There's a creation-based movie coming to limited theaters around the country on February 23rd called Is Genesis History (http://isgenesishistory.com/).  You can find out if it is going to play at a theater near you on their website, as well as watch their trailer.  Tim Challies has reviewed it here...http://www.challies.com/articles/is-genesis-history.  The short summary of the Challies review is that evangelicals have been slowly succumbing to the old-earth theory of the age of the earth, which is rooted in a wrong paradigm of misguided assumptions.  It is going to be in a theater about 45 minutes from me and I plan on going to see it. 

Anybody here going to watch it?

Are you a "young earth" or "old earth" proponent?  Why/not?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Something to consider.

Poetry in the Hebrew Bible

 

[Walt]

There's a creation-based movie coming to limited theaters around the country on February 23rd called Is Genesis History (http://isgenesishistory.com/).  You can find out if it is going to play at a theater near you on their website, as well as watch their trailer.  Tim Challies has reviewed it here...http://www.challies.com/articles/is-genesis-history.  The short summary of the Challies review is that evangelicals have been slowly succumbing to the old-earth theory of the age of the earth, which is rooted in a wrong paradigm of misguided assumptions.  It is going to be in a theater about 45 minutes from me and I plan on going to see it. 

Anybody here going to watch it?

Are you a "young earth" or "old earth" proponent?  Why/not?

As I understand it, the "old earth" doctrine started when evolution was first going around, seeming to indicate that the earth was incredibly older.  Thus, theologians invented the gap theory and other things to explain Genesis.

It would help (again) to define terms.  Is "young earth" 5,000 to 1,000,000 years old?  Is "old earth" over 4M years old?

 

[ALAYMAN]

It would help (again) to define terms.  Is "young earth" 5,000 to 1,000,000 years old?  Is "old earth" over 4M years old?

I don't know exactly what the movie is going to claim as it's position, but young earthers usually start at 6-10k years, and the old earth usually go with about 4-5 Billion years.

Just to start a conversation about this movie I was curious how many folks (from a fundamentalist/evangelical background of the FFF) were planning to attend the showing.  I hadn't even heard a peep about this until somebody in my adult SS class told me about it this past weekend.

 

[subllibrm]

I am a 7583 year man myself. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am a 7583 year man myself. 

I know, I know........you'll be here all week.

 

[subllibrm]

I am a 7583 year man myself. 

I know, I know........you'll be here all week.

Try the patty melt and don't forget to tip your waitress. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I figured *somebody* would surely have made a Phil Collins or Mike and the Mechanics joke by now.  8)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

There's a creation-based movie coming to limited theaters around the country on February 23rd called Is Genesis History (http://isgenesishistory.com/).  You can find out if it is going to play at a theater near you on their website, as well as watch their trailer.  Tim Challies has reviewed it here...http://www.challies.com/articles/is-genesis-history.  The short summary of the Challies review is that evangelicals have been slowly succumbing to the old-earth theory of the age of the earth, which is rooted in a wrong paradigm of misguided assumptions.  It is going to be in a theater about 45 minutes from me and I plan on going to see it. 

Anybody here going to watch it?

Are you a "young earth" or "old earth" proponent?  Why/not?

The old earth movement, culturally speaking,  has its roots in the BioLogos movement.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Got the chance to watch this. It was a good film, but for some reason the theater decided to start the commercials at showtime instead of the movie, so a bunch of eager Christian families ended up walking in to the ending credits of 50 Shades Darker and then waiting more than 30 minutes for the film to start.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Got the chance to watch this. It was a good film, but for some reason the theater decided to start the commercials at showtime instead of the movie, so a bunch of eager Christian families ended up walking in to the ending credits of 50 Shades Darker and then waiting more than 30 minutes for the film to start.

That's unfortunate.

What did you think of the movie/documentary?

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Got the chance to watch this. It was a good film, but for some reason the theater decided to start the commercials at showtime instead of the movie, so a bunch of eager Christian families ended up walking in to the ending credits of 50 Shades Darker and then waiting more than 30 minutes for the film to start.

That's unfortunate.

What did you think of the movie/documentary?

It was a good movie, at least better than other attempts I've seen to promote young-earth creationism. It was very organized and relevant to itself instead of the usual collections of unrelated small points that these types of documentaries are prone to becoming. Key points were summarized and repeated often enough to ensure that the audience remembers details without it being too repetitive. Any weaknesses in the main points were addressed and were either conceded or disproven.

One gripe some of the consulted experts had with the film (this was in an extra scene at the end) was that they had so mjuch more on the subject to offer that there just wasn't enough time for. To make up for this, the audience was encouraged to visit their website (I think it was Answers in Genesis) for more comprehensive information and subjects that couldn't be covered in the time alotted.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Got the chance to watch this. It was a good film, but for some reason the theater decided to start the commercials at showtime instead of the movie, so a bunch of eager Christian families ended up walking in to the ending credits of 50 Shades Darker and then waiting more than 30 minutes for the film to start.

That's unfortunate.

What did you think of the movie/documentary?

It was a good movie, at least better than other attempts I've seen to promote young-earth creationism. It was very organized and relevant to itself instead of the usual collections of unrelated small points that these types of documentaries are prone to becoming. Key points were summarized and repeated often enough to ensure that the audience remembers details without it being too repetitive. Any weaknesses in the main points were addressed and were either conceded or disproven.

One gripe some of the consulted experts had with the film (this was in an extra scene at the end) was that they had so mjuch more on the subject to offer that there just wasn't enough time for. To make up for this, the audience was encouraged to visit their website (I think it was Answers in Genesis) for more comprehensive information and subjects that couldn't be covered in the time alotted.

We had a small round-table discussion in my Adult SS Class this past Sunday, and several of your points were echoed among those who had attended.  My main concern, as a scientist myself, was that they tried to cover maybe just a bit too much of the scientific continuum in such a short period.  It may have been better to dumb things down a bit, and to break the subject matter up over a multi-part series.  I thought, as you said, that they did a good job at the end in speaking to laymen and urging them to go research the websites they represented, and to narrow the focus of study down to a particular area of interest.  I really liked that they urged agnostics to bring their questions to the table for discussion, and how they urged young Christians to pick up their mantle and carry the torch of scientific inquiry to the glory of God and for apologetics.

 

[Ransom]

The old earth movement, culturally speaking,  has its roots in the BioLogos movement.

BioLogos is all of ten years old, whereas some form of old-earth creationism (either age-day or gap theory) dominated the Christian response to Darwinism until the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The old earth movement, culturally speaking,  has its roots in the BioLogos movement.

BioLogos is all of ten years old, whereas some form of old-earth creationism (either age-day or gap theory) dominated the Christian response to Darwinism until the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961.

You are exactly right....the opposite of my statement is actually true and probably what I intended to say....but I barely remember this post.  ???

BioLogos is just the latest incarnation of theistic evolution as I understand it.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Update: there are going to be two encore showings of the movie on March 2nd and 7th, in case anyone missed it the first time (or want to watch it again for memory)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The old earth movement, culturally speaking,  has its roots in the BioLogos movement.

BioLogos is all of ten years old, whereas some form of old-earth creationism (either age-day or gap theory) dominated the Christian response to Darwinism until the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961.

Even so, the Gap Theory preceded Darwinism. It has been found in writings of  Episcopius (1583-1643) and found in Thomas Chalmers' lectures as early as 1814. (Darwin was born in 1809.)

So though the Gap Theory eventually became a response to Darwinism, its existence still preceded Darwin's evolutionary theory.

 

[Route_70]

The gap theory is bogus.

Genesis 1:1 does not describe the creation of the heaven and the earth.  Heaven did not come into existence until the second day (verse 8); and there was no earth until the third day (verse 9).

Ergo, there is no need for a "gap" theory between verse 1 and 2.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The gap theory is bogus.

Genesis 1:1 does not describe the creation of the heaven and the earth.  Heaven did not come into existence until the second day (verse 8); and there was no earth until the third day (verse 9).

Ergo, there is no need for a "gap" theory between verse 1 and 2.

The Hebrew language makes a distinction between "created" (vs. 1) and "made" (remainder of the chapter). In essence, creation in Genesis 1:1, the condition of the earth in Genesis 1:2 and the re-establishment of the earth in Genesis 1:3.

That being said, there is a biblical argument for a gap. Remember, Genesis is not a science book and the first few chapters in Genesis were written in the form of poetry, not science. So to account a literal 6-day creation or a literal gap perspective or two assume separate creation accounts between Genesis chapters one and two, it is done so by taking the passage out of context. The problem isn't which form of creationism is correct; the problem is the literalism of the passage, turning poetry into assumed scientific fact.

 

[Route_70]

Genesis is not a science book and the first few chapters in Genesis were written in the form of poetry, not science.

Actually, the confusion of Genesis 1:1 is brought about by not understanding the colloquialism of the Hebrew.  Genesis 1:1 does not mean to say that God?s very first act was to create the heaven and the earth simultaneously.  Colloquially, Genesis 1:1 says, ?this book is about the creation of the heaven and the earth.?