How many people believe in a literal Genesis, Literal Adam & Eve & Literal Flood

I am just interested to do a survey to wonder how many people hear believe in a literal adam and eve and not millions of year.

I believe in a young earth because of the science and because of the bible. Do we believe the bible to be a historical book from Genesis to Revelation.

I believe in an ancient earth/universe because of science and the Bible. No the Bible is not a history book (though it does chart the history of a certain people) and no it is not a science book. That said, it doesn't matter to me what you or anyone else believes on the matter. I grant that it is possible that I am wrong although I think it is unlikely.

I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve and garden of Eden and Flood (the extent of same is open to debate).

Where in the bible does it say that we have an ancient universe. The thing is our foundations, the bible is a book that covers science as famous people such as Issac Newton and others used the bible to determine that because God made morals laws he also made Physical Laws, it has been only been recently with the rise of Atheism in science.
Things such as DNA and Polystrata Fossils, The complexity of the cell and even Fossils themselves.

If the Bible is not a history book then what outside sources do we refer to. I know that say David is roughly 10th BC and Ezra around the 7th Century BC.

This thing is vital as to place the Bible in placed and in time and history.

The thing is Evolutionary ideas do not provide a preface to say the fact that the fall happened in Genesis or why there are so many different languages.

You cannot believe in an ancient earth and Charles Lyle and Darwinian Thought and believe in the Bible as they are opposed, you can believe in salvation.

Dominic- I do not believe you want a debate so I will not debate you.

But I must state that while I believe the universe is indeed billions of years old, I absolutely do not believe in Darwinian evolution, which is patently false.

But you cannot avoid the overwhelming evidence for a billions of years old universe because you are afraid it supports Darwinian evolution. That's kind of like saying you don't believe in germs because you are afraid of getting sick.

The bible is physically linked to time and space via the divine revelation set forth in scripture.
A literal Adam for a literal Eve, a literal rib taken for the creation of a literal woman. A literal creation of the stars and moon, all plants and animals and a literal rest on the 7th day. From this we have literal plants and animals, a literal day of rest and a literal sinful world from a sinful man and woman literally choosing their own way instead of God's.
God's word is reality, its is truth beyond speculation. You cannot debate truth you can only assert it or disbelieve it.
Evolution, and old earth theories are based upon scripture plug-ins to the latest scientific theories.
I realize there are plenty of PhD's who pretend to offer interpretations that attempt to unite scientific theory and divine revelation...and my opinion is they are deceived, their education and their peers combine to form an audience more important than what God has literally said about literal events in time and space quantified and sequenced according to divine revelation. Human history is God's sequence. Any other sequence or history is a lie, it is fabricated to send the Church down any street except the straight and narrow one.

Hi Id like to make a few points
1:Adam is counted as a literal man in the genealogies with a specific Age
2:It says in Genesis that "All the days of Adam were"
This is important because Adam was created on Day Six.So from Day Six to the end of his life were numbered in Genesis.
3:Jesus References Genesis as being literal.
4:If Sin and Death came into existance because of "Adam" then before "Adam" their could be no sin and death.Also if Sin and Death did not come in by Adam but were before Adam then their is no need for a saviour called Jesus, a second Adam.
5:For the most part but maybe not in this case "Billions of Years" are mentioned to leave room for evolution or to placate the modern world who call a young earth stupidity.Truth usually has nothing to do with it.
5:Taking God out of it for a moment :On the Issue of proof whether the earth is young or old?You cannot go out and measure it,so you have to rely on other evidences.For instance gravitational pull of the moon,it the moon were millions of years old then it would be right on top of the Earth as the moon moves I think an inch away every year.Or if you measure the silt at the mouth of rivers you can get an approximate time it takes to form that amount of silt and it is not millions but thousands of years etc
Just a few things on my mind ,Im sure others have good points that I didnt comment on,urs staff

"How many people believe in a literal Genesis, Literal Adam & Eve & Literal Flood?"

I DO! I DO! MY VOTE IS YEA!

Delta,

I got a good chuckle out of this thread. I disagree with TMK, but you are not being fair.

You said, "I am just interested to do a survey to wonder how many people hear believe in a literal adam and eve and not millions of year. "

You then proceeded to counter his response. Is this a survey or a discussion/debate?

I take the Bible literally where it does not say explicitly that it is symbolic. So I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal 7 days.

Hi ,
One add-on to that is that Genesis takes Day Six and Day Seven as literal but that literal Day could be a year but no more than a year.Because "All of the days of Adam were" passage gives his age in Years.So I accept that Day Six and Day Seven could be a literal day or a literal year but no more than a year.So at its least the 7 days of Creation are 7 days and at its most the 7 days of Creation are 7 Years.Either way its a small period of time if you get my drift,
The bible sometimes has days as years and this is acceptable exegisis.The day in Creation week could not be a thousand years for instance because the age of Adam is qualified so we have the reference point sort to speak,urs Hugh

Dominic,

Really !
Do you really think it good to perhaps cast doubt on ,
The Word / Bible ?

What if we cast doubt in someone that comes to this forum, that is still a child in their walk,...have not yet grown strong in the faith,....

Should we be concerned?

I know ! ,...Who am I, ..that I should say such a thing !

It is not in me, to want to offend you, or anyone at all,....but what about offending The God of His Word ?

Concerned,
🙏
______
elizabeth

I identify with the Old Earth "viewpoint" of things and I believe in all three of them being literal. Adam and Eve were real people, Adam was a REAL person who actually brought sin into the world. The flood, from my POV was LITERAL, however the flood [that Noah had to do with] was a local flood. I do not hold to a global view of that event (from a biblical perspective).

by TMK on 2017/10/17 18:29:52

Dominic- I do not believe you want a debate so I will not debate you.

But I must state that while I believe the universe is indeed billions of years old, I absolutely do not believe in Darwinian evolution, which is patently false.

But you cannot avoid the overwhelming evidence for a billions of years old universe because you are afraid it supports Darwinian evolution. That's kind of like saying you don't believe in germs because you are afraid of getting sick.

I believe that Adam and Eve were real. I believe that the Flood during Noah's time was real. But I do not want to give a timeline to it. Bible itself does not give a timeline. Also Bible begins with God creating heaven and earth but Day 1 starts later. So there was a gap there, who knows what that gap was. Anything could have happened. An entire generation could have lived and destroyed before us.

Also do you believe that the earth is spinning at such a high velocity when you can stay still without feeling it? If this is possible to God, how can he not fool us with the age of the earth? I clearly believe God can fool scientists easily by making them believe the earth was millions of age old.

Hence I am indecisive about age of the universe. There is no way Science can prove the age of the earth. No one can prove anything that happened in the past. We can only come to some conclusion based on circumstantial evidences. Evidences can easily deceive. Science calls all these things theories, which means they are only possibilities, which may or may not be true. Even Evolution is just a theory, if Science finds a better fitting theory tomorrow, then they will switch to it. We will be easily deceived if we keep focusing on them.

What do you mean by "literal"? Do I think it happened as portrayed in scripture and only that? No, that is absolutely absurd. You think all that it takes to make the earth bear trees and fruit is found in the verse "Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it."??

No. A LOT of things must have happened physically for this to occur. That is not just science, it's common sense. The creation accounts are very, very, very ancient traditions passed down thousands of years before they reached Moses (or whoever compiled them) and were committed into writing. How could a primitive man with this vision of creation (or even Adam if they were passed down from him) convey accurately and scientifically all that he was seeing? He simply was not smart enough for that. He had to put what he saw happen into terms and a broadness that he and the ones he related it to could understand. Are we smarter then man 5000 years ago? Heck yeah we are. There is nothing wrong with that. Put a mouse in a room with some simple contraptions and he'll go from knowing nothing about them to be able to use them.

For the record I think whoever began this oral tradition of creation with the vision God gave him (again, perhaps Adam) did a fantastic job considering his limitations. Truly remarkable.

As for the flood, no it did not cover the world. We know that now, a statement many of you find to be a doubt of God but I praise God for the advances we have now in knowledge. The person recording the flood stated it as such because the world was very small to him. (Probably no bigger then Mesopotamia). Where did you guys get the idea that whoever recorded these accounts were infallible super saints? They were used by God. THEY were used by God, meaning who they were. Great men, not God-like geniuses who had a sudden awareness of the entire span of the globe and a huge measuring stick to actually measure how far up the water came to Mount Everest, which by the way was nowhere near Noah and he could not have reached it in 40 days. Was the water fifteen cubits above Mount Everest? No. The author is making a point. Is it then wrong? Yeah, probably. Is the Spirit still the same? Of course!! The authors unfaithfulness (or in this case embellishment) does not annul the Truth of God contained in the words.

Men spoke as moved by the Spirit does not imply accurateness of everything physical, it implies complete infallibility of the things that are spiritual at that time. I have asked this before but to no avail, to those who have spoken in the Spirit did you find yourself with a complete knowledge of physics and biology or was the message of the Spirit transmitted through you according to your knowledge and all its fallibilities and errors? I have spoken things that were wrong while speaking the Word of God but the Spirit of God still broke forth because the power was the Spirit, not the exactness of what I was speaking. So it is with the bible.

In response to the original post, I think we must realize that the Bible stands or falls together. If we cannot accept its historicity, then we must call into doubt its veracity. Not only do I accept Adam and Eve, but the genealogies from them to Christ. We have record enough that we can, with a pretty fair degree of accuracy, calculate how many years it has been since creation. I believe that Jonah really did spend three days and nights in the belly of a great fish prepared by God for that purpose. And I think you can see where I stand.

I also believe in a young Earth and a young Universe, if you call 6 to 7 thousand years young. But I understand something of the nature of science, and the fact that it is a changeable as public opinion and personal conviction and experience. No man is an objective scientist. I have not seen one yet. A man's scientific interpretation of data, and the direction of his scientific quest all come from his core belief. We often find the evidence we are looking for in the first place. We see through glasses of our own design.

You see, if the universe is billions of years old, we must put that time somewhere in the Genesis 1 account, since it literally starts with the creation of the space we now know as the universe and the ball of matter upon which we live (heavens and earth). Since all of the celestial bodies were created on day four, then if the universe is billions of years old, those billions of years must rest between day 4 and day 5 of creation. I just cannot find this in a straight forward reading of scripture.

A cosmology is a mathematical and scientific view of the origins of the universe. I actually find some very good, peer reviewed, young universe cosmologies out there. One is by Dr. Russ Humphrey. There are others as well.

As to some other comments. I would point to two scriptures that state very plainly that the flood was global. Gen. 6:7 and Gen. 7:9. If it is land, and if it is under the heavens, then it was covered with water.

If the flood was local, why did God not just tell Noah to move? Also, when the flood occurred, Mount Everest was not nearly as tall as it is now, tectonic plate movement during the flood caused most of the mountains we see now. And if the flood was local, were there any human survivors besides Noah, since they would have spread over most of the world at that time?

Nigel,

There's a very simple answer to the questions you ask.

And you, and all others who have not fallen for the deception know that answer.

Sree wrote: "I clearly believe God can fool scientists easily by making them believe the earth was millions of age old. "

Are you sure you meant to type this?

//were there any human survivors besides Noah, since they would have spread over most of the world at that time?//

I thought they did not spread all over until the episode of the Tower of Babel.