PDA

View Full Version : Creationism vs Evolution - why the dispute?



JaybeeinBibleForum
Mar 5th 2008, 11:21 PM
Hi all, first thread in BF !!

Ok, here's something I've thought about for a year; isn't it LIKELY that He compressed what, to us, seems like a multi-million year process of evolution, into a week? That it's a simple case of acceleration?

I just don't see what the conflict between Creationism and Evolution is, we have two sets of evidence that may SEEM to contradict each other, but I don't think they do. I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process.

Your thoughts, good people?

WonderWoman4Jesus
Mar 5th 2008, 11:24 PM
I'd suggest you read "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" which address traditional evolution versus intelligent design. Macroevolution, which is the classic theory of evolution, suggests that natural laws created complex intelligent being over millions of years. Intelligent design suggests all being were made from a Creator. Thus, chimps and humans may have similiar DNA because of a common Creator. Macroevolution (ex dinosours to birds) has never been observed. Microevolution (bacteria mutating) has. God designed His Creation to be able to evolve. The fossil records that anthropologists is very sorely lacking. Anyway, I can't explain it as well as the book does, but you can have the Bible and sciene coincide if you're looking at truthful science.

Athanasius
Mar 5th 2008, 11:26 PM
Hi all, first thread in BF !!

Ok, here's something I've thought about for a year; isn't it LIKELY that He compressed what, to us, seems like a multi-million year process of evolution, into a week? That it's a simple case of acceleration?

I just don't see what the conflict between Creationism and Evolution is, we have two sets of evidence that may SEEM to contradict each other, but I don't think they do. I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process.

Your thoughts, good people?

Why would God accelerate the cycle when He's just as able to produce the end result from the start? Evolution and Creationism do at points conflict and contradict. They both have propositions that both can't be true: Creation out of the dust of the ground, imbued by the breath of God definitely contradicts a hundreds billion year evolutionary process.

I agree that the Bible doesn't state God didn't 'fast-forward' the process, but now you're arguing a negative.

finewine
Mar 6th 2008, 04:48 AM
My understanding is that the evolutionists started with a false assumption. That assumption being that there has to be an equilibrium between C14 being produced and an equal amount being removed and that equilibrium is based on today's ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere.

Without going into the dry science of it, this assumption then has caused faulty readings that state the earth is older than it really is.

This assumption that "the present is key to the past" does not wash with current scientific findings about C14.

How can you have the Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic geologic column all with significant C14 still in them if they are truly the billions of years old that traditional C14 dating says they are when C14 has a short half-life? There should be little or no C14 if they are billions of years old. The half life of C14 would make them less than 100,000 years old.

"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" is a very appropriate title for the book.

I say that it doesn't matter in the scheme of GOD's plan for us whether the world is old or not.
Christ after all created the oldest of wines at the wedding party.

What matters is always "What say you of the Christ."

The origins of the earth only matters to the nonbelievers because if the creationists are correct, then the nonbelievers will have to rethink their whole foundational value system and be accountable for their denial of God on that judgment day.

Unbiased science will always prove the existence of God.

JaybeeinBibleForum
Mar 9th 2008, 01:42 PM
Many thanks to the respondents!

Finewine - what is 'C14'?

Wonder Woman (nice name, although your namesake may have made this young boy grow into a man a little ahead of time!), thank you very much for the book recommendation. I'm a busy chappy, I'll look for the 'bare-bones' reviews of it.


Why would God accelerate the cycle when He's just as able to produce the end result from the start?

A very good question, mate. Why did it take Him 7 days? Why not 6 days, or 8 days? Or 8 milliseconds? Quite possibly a topic worthy of it's own thread.


Evolution and Creationism do at points conflict and contradict. They both have propositions that both can't be true: Creation out of the dust of the ground, imbued by the breath of God definitely contradicts a hundreds billion year evolutionary process.

That's IF it took that long, and IF you discount the fact that He actually took 7 days.


I agree that the Bible doesn't state God didn't 'fast-forward' the process, but now you're arguing a negative.

I wasn't arguing. You'll know it when I make an argument. I was requesting information which you kindly supplied.

ImmenseDisciple
Mar 9th 2008, 05:21 PM
If the world is indeed bajillions of years old, acceleration isn't actually necessary. I know that some people hold that just as Adam was created a mature, fully developed man, so the universe was created "with age". Just a thought :)

Equipped_4_Love
Mar 9th 2008, 06:40 PM
My understanding is that the evolutionists started with a false assumption. That assumption being that there has to be an equilibrium between C14 being produced and an equal amount being removed and that equilibrium is based on today's ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere.

Without going into the dry science of it, this assumption then has caused faulty readings that state the earth is older than it really is.

This assumption that "the present is key to the past" does not wash with current scientific findings about C14.

How can you have the Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic geologic column all with significant C14 still in them if they are truly the billions of years old that traditional C14 dating says they are when C14 has a short half-life? There should be little or no C14 if they are billions of years old. The half life of C14 would make them less than 100,000 years old.

"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" is a very appropriate title for the book.

I say that it doesn't matter in the scheme of GOD's plan for us whether the world is old or not.
Christ after all created the oldest of wines at the wedding party.

What matters is always "What say you of the Christ."

The origins of the earth only matters to the nonbelievers because if the creationists are correct, then the nonbelievers will have to rethink their whole foundational value system and be accountable for their denial of God on that judgment day.

Unbiased science will always prove the existence of God.


UMM...Ya. What he said (lol)

I'm assuming by C-14 you mean some sort of carbon gas, but that's just a guess. You sound like you know what you're talking about, though, so I'll agree.

Brother Mark
Mar 9th 2008, 08:16 PM
Moving to the apologetics forum.

pnewton
Mar 9th 2008, 08:31 PM
I too have often wondered why there is so much hoopla over the conflict. I do not have a theory of creation as the area is far outside my field of training. As a Christian, I believe that God created all that is from nothing through Jesus. I find I must accept the reality of Adam as progenitor of the species because salvation seems to hinge on the fall through Adam and redemption through Christ. It seems hard to think or Adam as a "type" or a creation myth without doing the same for Christ. But as to how he and everything else came to be, I remain silent.

I know God can do anything, and He can do it anyway He wants, instantaneously or over time. God does not have to take billions of years or six days, although He can use either method.

In either case, it does not change who God is, who we are, or how we need to respond to God.

moonglow
Mar 9th 2008, 09:43 PM
I'd suggest you read "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" which address traditional evolution versus intelligent design. Macroevolution, which is the classic theory of evolution, suggests that natural laws created complex intelligent being over millions of years. Intelligent design suggests all being were made from a Creator. Thus, chimps and humans may have similiar DNA because of a common Creator. Macroevolution (ex dinosours to birds) has never been observed. Microevolution (bacteria mutating) has. God designed His Creation to be able to evolve. The fossil records that anthropologists is very sorely lacking. Anyway, I can't explain it as well as the book does, but you can have the Bible and sciene coincide if you're looking at truthful science.

I just had to quote this and tell you how very impressed I was with it. I recommend this book alot too though haven't had the chance to actually read it yet. Sounds like you have though!

As for the original posts...I really wish the two could be discussed without the extreme emotional stuff going on both ends also...:( But the sad fact is people have lost their faith due to Darwin's evolutions thinking there is no need for a God because it somehow all just happened by itself...exactly the right way at the right time...and for them it can all be explained away through science. So that makes it a sore point for many Christians...

God bless

finewine
Mar 10th 2008, 01:50 AM
If the world is indeed bajillions of years old, acceleration isn't actually necessary. I know that some people hold that just as Adam was created a mature, fully developed man, so the universe was created "with age". Just a thought :)

Sort of answers the question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

:)

finewine
Mar 10th 2008, 02:07 AM
C14
We are not talking about the explosives on tv spy movies.

C14 is radiocarbon.

It is 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms.
I wrote it incorrectly in my first post. Dyslexic, sorry.

14C (That is not 14 degrees Celsius)
How does one make the 14 a superscript?

It is radioactive and has a slow decay rate.

th1bill
Mar 10th 2008, 03:09 AM
Hi all, first thread in BF !!

Ok, here's something I've thought about for a year; isn't it LIKELY that He compressed what, to us, seems like a multi-million year process of evolution, into a week? That it's a simple case of acceleration?

I just don't see what the conflict between Creationism and Evolution is, we have two sets of evidence that may SEEM to contradict each other, but I don't think they do. I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process.

Your thoughts, good people?
.. The conflict is a many faceted item and when it all boils down there are two major issues that everything falls into. The first issue for the Christian will always remain the sinlessness of God. God not only will not lie but it is one thing that God cannot do because to lie is to sin and God is, by His very nature, without sin. In a study of the whole Bible we see that God has managed to define a day as a 24 hour period or the physical rotation of the Earth or one complete cycle. It is true that this definition is not found in the creation account, however, throughout the entire Bible there is great pain taken by the Holy Father to assure us that one day is exactly as we, today, know it.
.. All of this being true, it would mean that God specifically and intentionally lied to us in the creation account and would, therefore, not be God, as He has defined Himself in the Holy Bible.
.. There is I noticed the wish to know why God created the Earth in seven days. The very first thing to do is to straighten out the error in that question, He did not create the Earth and all the universe in seven days. Jesus created the Earth in six days (Jon. 1) and on the seventh, He rested from His labor. (Gen. 2:2) The reason God did this was to establish a healthy pattern for life, that men might look to God and live properly. God, being unexplainably omniscient could have created everything that exists in less than one second. There is no limit to God in doin good works.
.. The other major category is Evolution, itself. Any credible scientist will admit that there is not a single supporting piece of evidence for this theory. There is not a single life form on this earth today that can be traced back to an ancestor that was of a different species. In the case of man it has long been taught that cro-magnon man is descended from the Neanderthal life form. With the advent of DNA there was the effort made to establish this sub theory as truth and the truth is that the two life forms are, in no manor, related.
.. In summary, there is no case support for such an idea.

ilovemetal
Mar 10th 2008, 08:18 AM
Hi all, first thread in BF !!


we have two sets of evidence that may SEEM to contradict each other, but I don't think they do.

Your thoughts, good people?

we all have the same evidence, only different people have different presuppositions before they look at it. some assume evolution to be true and seek the answer with millions of years already in the back of their head. same can be said for creaionists, only visa versa.

for me, the answer is so easy it's a wonder why everyone on earth isn't chrsitian.

ps. werner gitt has some great books. read read read.

DPMartin
Mar 10th 2008, 09:03 PM
Look at it this way..........
1. A day of the Lord consisted of God said, God made/created, God saw that it was good.
In the mist of that He blessed He called and He spoke directly to man a gave man a view "behold". Oh, and the first day He separated.
I donít see 24 hr days here, the sun and moon for times and seasons where not until the 4th day.

As you all probably know. Interpretation of scripture within the churches are an issue, in and of itself. But it is the Holy Spirit that knows what Godís Word means. Just as your hand understands what your head is telling it to do. Nothing else knows but only your head and your hand knows, the same in the Body of Christ.

That said, science has found stuff in the earth or about the earth and that which surrounds it. But who interprets the information. And what is the motive of said interpreter. Who gets grants, who gets cooperate contracts to find discoveries in whoís interest. If evolution as a theory was proven wrong, how many text book sales to fed funded ed. System would not be sold? Just to rase a few questions in that direction.

The earth or universe is honest and not a liar, for if it is, God made it. Science tries to read what happened but they donít know how to interpret it. And since the science community and the church community have a long history of animosity, there is a stumbling block. Also when some church authority says something like it was 24 hr days, well the bible does not say that, and the science community can read, this is also a stumbling bock, you canít expect science to be confident in that.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2008, 09:41 PM
A very good question, mate. Why did it take Him 7 days? Why not 6 days, or 8 days? Or 8 milliseconds? Quite possibly a topic worthy of it's own thread.

Why not instantly, why not just the word 'Be'--just as the supposed Allah of Islam did? Can I believe that creation occurred as is described in Genesis one and two without actually believing it took God six full days to create? If the days are allegorical, metaphorical? God's way to explain to us a complex creation in layman's terms?



That's IF it took that long, and IF you discount the fact that He actually took 7 days.

Well I must correct myself; the known universe is only a supposed 15.4 billion years old. With that said, I know of many Old Testament Theologians who have no problem conceding that the days in Genesis can be interpreted as periods of indeterminate length. So, where does that leave me and my understanding of Hebrew grammatical syntax?:hmm:



I wasn't arguing. You'll know it when I make an argument. I was requesting information which you kindly supplied.

Sorry, the word argument has so many negative connotations that it's extraordinarily misunderstood. I didn't mean it in the aggressive sense of the word. I meant, simply, that you were positing a position. One that I thought was based out of a negative.

finewine
Mar 11th 2008, 03:18 AM
There is a train of thought that is neither of the current positions.
That thought being the following:

Verse one and two of Genesis occur before what we consider the 6 days of creation.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The word created can also mean making or change forms as well as bring something from nothing.
The word was is an interesting word because it can also mean became.

"... and the earth became without form..." That implies it had form to begin with doesn't it. The questions then are "What form?" and "Why did it now become without form?"

Now doesn't that put a whole new spin on the topic?
There is a thought that the earth could have been the abode of Satan before his fall and was cast off of it at his rebellion.
Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 45:28, Esk 28:11-19

The earth then can be both old and new and is the theater for the redemptive play performed for a greater audience than just us mere mortals.

I like this view simply because it is also said that the angels at one point before the flood cohabitated with mankind.
I like this view simply because there is evidence that before the flood men walked with the dinosaurs.
I like this view simply because it coincides with scientific evidence for new and old earth.
I like this view simply because it is so counter and unique to what mankind (both pagan and spiritual arrogance) argues and because it is unique and different and fits into the redemptive thread throughout the whole of the Bible.
I like this view simply because GOD's purpose in his creation is to bring man to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ for HIS glory and good pleasure.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. There are only things our finite minds do not comprehend as of yet.

Sometimes we lock ourselves into our mind's finite reasoning that is based on our finite intelligence and experience.
I think in doing so we miss quite a bit of the unseen marvels and wonders that could be possible because we do not look for it nor do we see it when it is in plain view because we are looking for something else.

I will reiterate that what is important is that the conflict is similar to the one between GOD and Satan.
Man has said 'I will be like the most high'. Even Satan knows there is a GOD. How arrogant of man to say there is no GOD, (other than man himself) and try to prove it with evolution.

Athanasius
Mar 11th 2008, 03:33 AM
I'm more interested to see how people interpret Eve's creation out of Adam's rib and if the verse needs to be 'reinterpreted'.

finewine
Mar 11th 2008, 04:20 AM
:)
Why would it need to be reinterpreted?
Sounds like another good thread to start.

By the way, your posts are very well written and full of good thoughts.

th1bill
Mar 11th 2008, 04:33 AM
Look at it this way..........
1. A day of the Lord consisted of God said, God made/created, God saw that it was good.
In the mist of that He blessed He called and He spoke directly to man a gave man a view "behold". Oh, and the first day He separated.
I don’t see 24 hr days here, the sun and moon for times and seasons where not until the 4th day.

As you all probably know. Interpretation of scripture within the churches are an issue, in and of itself. But it is the Holy Spirit that knows what God’s Word means. Just as your hand understands what your head is telling it to do. Nothing else knows but only your head and your hand knows, the same in the Body of Christ.

That said, science has found stuff in the earth or about the earth and that which surrounds it. But who interprets the information. And what is the motive of said interpreter. Who gets grants, who gets cooperate contracts to find discoveries in who’s interest. If evolution as a theory was proven wrong, how many text book sales to fed funded ed. System would not be sold? Just to rase a few questions in that direction.

The earth or universe is honest and not a liar, for if it is, God made it. Science tries to read what happened but they don’t know how to interpret it. And since the science community and the church community have a long history of animosity, there is a stumbling block. Also when some church authority says something like it was 24 hr days, well the bible does not say that, and the science community can read, this is also a stumbling bock, you can’t expect science to be confident in that.
I am very sorry but you have lain down a blanket indictment and have presented no evidence what-so-ever. That just does not work. You have even gone farther astray by attempting to separate the Book of Genesis from the rest of scripture and without laying down any foundation to work from.

Blanket indictments are always useless folly. There's nothing to build from.

Athanasius
Mar 11th 2008, 04:33 AM
:)
Why would it need to be reinterpreted?
Sounds like another good thread to start.

By the way, your posts are very well written and full of good thoughts.

Well, to mention quickly. . . . The creation of woman as described in Genesis 2:20-22;

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

As compared with the creation of man in Genesis 2:7;

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

If we were to look at this through the lens of theistic evolution (or progressive creationism, if anyone here is a fan of Ross Hugh), then I would probably ask myself why there is specific mention of two distinct creation methods; man out of dust, woman out of man's rib? What purpose does this serve if we came about through evolution? Surely it would have been easier just to say that we were created alongside each other (the view that evolution occurs in groups, rather than in 'individuals').

Thanks for the compliment, but I have trouble believing you, lol.


Look at it this way..........
1. A day of the Lord consisted of God said, God made/created, God saw that it was good.
In the mist of that He blessed He called and He spoke directly to man a gave man a view "behold". Oh, and the first day He separated.
I don’t see 24 hr days here, the sun and moon for times and seasons where not until the 4th day.

As you all probably know. Interpretation of scripture within the churches are an issue, in and of itself. But it is the Holy Spirit that knows what God’s Word means. Just as your hand understands what your head is telling it to do. Nothing else knows but only your head and your hand knows, the same in the Body of Christ.

That said, science has found stuff in the earth or about the earth and that which surrounds it. But who interprets the information. And what is the motive of said interpreter. Who gets grants, who gets cooperate contracts to find discoveries in who’s interest. If evolution as a theory was proven wrong, how many text book sales to fed funded ed. System would not be sold? Just to rase a few questions in that direction.

The earth or universe is honest and not a liar, for if it is, God made it. Science tries to read what happened but they don’t know how to interpret it. And since the science community and the church community have a long history of animosity, there is a stumbling block. Also when some church authority says something like it was 24 hr days, well the bible does not say that, and the science community can read, this is also a stumbling bock, you can’t expect science to be confident in that.

The Hebrew word for day, 'yŰm', is a very nuanced word, on its own. Concerning Hebraic (is this a word?) grammar: whenever you find the word yŰm in conjunction with the words 'morning' or 'evening', then it is assumed that a period of a day (24 or 12 hours, depending) is intended. We must necessarily call into question the English translation of Genesis 1, as I believe the Hebrew is different, and does allow for days of an indeterminate length. With that said, however, it's an extreme stretch to assume those days constitute a period nearing 15.4 billion years. I believe it's much more likely if this is the case that creation was fairly 'quick', the days of Genesis constituting metaphor (as is evidenced with the Sabbath designation).

I would say that interpretation of scripture within denominations can be an issue; personal interpretations even more so. But exactly what are you trying to say? I believe the Holy Spirit guided and inspired those who wrote the Bible, but I don't believe we can rely solely on the Holy Spirit as our only hermeneutic. I will quickly affirm that the Spirit does guide us, and will some times reveal to us meanings of scripture, but I don't believe He'll reveal to us everything--the mystery of faith, as they say (and no, I'm not saying the Bible or God are so mysterious that they are unknowable).

Once again, I think evolution is being quite nebulously defined. Evolution will not be proven wrong. Now let me explain. Macro evolution; 'A' into 'B' into 'C' is something I believe to be absolutely false. However, micro evolution; adaptation and speciation (such as the beaks of finches) to be perfectly plausible and extremely sustainable from the evolutionary theory.

I think a lot of people rush to interpret scripture in accordance with popular science--I don't believe there is a need to.

ilovemetal
Mar 11th 2008, 06:05 AM
why is this even an issue. notice verse 11?

exodus 20

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

9Marksfan
Mar 11th 2008, 10:18 AM
why is this even an issue. notice verse 11?

exodus 20

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

EXCELLENT point - you beat me to it!

9Marksfan
Mar 11th 2008, 10:22 AM
Also when some church authority says something like it was 24 hr days, well the bible does not say that

But it does - see ilovemetal's last post (the quote from Ex 20) - and the use of the word yom in the context of numbered days, morning/evening and chronologically puts it beyond any doubt that 24 hour periods are what was in mind.

9Marksfan
Mar 11th 2008, 10:26 AM
I'm more interested to see how people interpret Eve's creation out of Adam's rib and if the verse needs to be 'reinterpreted'.

Would you like to "reinterpet" Adam being made from the dust too? Let's face it - that's all the bodies of believers will be if they were cremated - yet God will still be able to create their resurrection bodies out of that dust! So why the problem with Eve being created from Adam's rib? Worried the evolutionists will laugh at you? Who's going to have the last laugh - us or them?

9Marksfan
Mar 11th 2008, 10:35 AM
Well, to mention quickly. . . . The creation of woman as described in Genesis 2:20-22;

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

As compared with the creation of man in Genesis 2:7;

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

If we were to look at this through the lens of theistic evolution (or progressive creationism, if anyone here is a fan of Ross Hugh),

Hmm - "In the beginning God evolved the heavens and the earth", eh?


The Hebrew word for day, 'yŰm', is a very nuanced word, on its own. Concerning Hebraic (is this a word?) grammar: whenever you find the word yŰm in conjunction with the words 'morning' or 'evening', then it is assumed that a period of a day (24 or 12 hours, depending) is intended.

Correct.


We must necessarily

:confused Er, why???


call into question the English translation of Genesis 1, as I believe the Hebrew is different, and does allow for days of an indeterminate length.

No it isn't - the word used is yom and you have quite correctly stated what it means in the context of Gen 1 and 2.


With that said, however, it's an extreme stretch to assume those days constitute a period nearing 15.4 billion years. I believe it's much more likely if this is the case that creation was fairly 'quick', the days of Genesis constituting metaphor (as is evidenced with the Sabbath designation).

Huh? Why is the Sabbath evidence? If you're meaning the fourth commandment, isn't this in fact the reason why God took six days, not one second? That He was showing us the pattern for work and rest?


I would say that interpretation of scripture within denominations can be an issue; personal interpretations even more so. But exactly what are you trying to say? I believe the Holy Spirit guided and inspired those who wrote the Bible, but I don't believe we can rely solely on the Holy Spirit as our only hermeneutic. I will quickly affirm that the Spirit does guide us, and will some times reveal to us meanings of scripture, but I don't believe He'll reveal to us everything--the mystery of faith, as they say (and no, I'm not saying the Bible or God are so mysterious that they are unknowable).

What other more perfect hermeneutics are you suggesting? Was Jesus wrong when He said that the Spirit would lead us into ALL truth?


Once again, I think evolution is being quite nebulously defined. Evolution will not be proven wrong. Now let me explain. Macro evolution; 'A' into 'B' into 'C' is something I believe to be absolutely false. However, micro evolution; adaptation and speciation (such as the beaks of finches) to be perfectly plausible and extremely sustainable from the evolutionary theory.

Shouldn't you say that macroevolution/natural selection will not be proven wrong?


I think a lot of people rush to interpret scripture in accordance with popular science--I don't believe there is a need to.

More than that, there is NO need to mix man-made fallible "science" with the perfect, eternal word of God!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 11th 2008, 11:48 AM
Would you like to "reinterpet" Adam being made from the dust too? Let's face it - that's all the bodies of believers will be if they were cremated - yet God will still be able to create their resurrection bodies out of that dust! So why the problem with Eve being created from Adam's rib? Worried the evolutionists will laugh at you? Who's going to have the last laugh - us or them?I think you must have missed the sarcasm in this post, since I believe you both agree on this issue both being literal creationists like me, right? :D Maybe he should have used this little smiley guy? :rolleyes:

finewine
Mar 11th 2008, 01:02 PM
If we were to look at this through the lens of theistic evolution (or progressive creationism, if anyone here is a fan of Ross Hugh), then I would probably ask myself why there is specific mention of two distinct creation methods; man out of dust, woman out of man's rib? What purpose does this serve if we came about through evolution? Surely it would have been easier just to say that we were created alongside each other (the view that evolution occurs in groups, rather than in 'individuals').

The purpose has nothing to do with evolution at all but the continuation of the thread of redemptive love.

I have to believe in all honesty that woman was not planned at first.
I think GOD wanted his fellowship with Adam to be enough for Adam and then realized that Adam in a physical body would also need someone with a physical body.

God created the most beautiful of all creations (hahahaha maybe an affront to the fallen Lucifier, no wonder the devil had it in for Eve.) for Adam.

Consider the depth of love in that act of love on God's part... Amazing to me.

IBWatching
Mar 11th 2008, 02:29 PM
...There is a thought that the earth could have been the abode of Satan before his fall and was cast off of it at his rebellion...

Your post started out well, but you lost the track quickly. This statement doesn't fit with the earth having no form and being "void". What exactly did satan have to "abide" on when you think he did this? More importantly, how did he get back on it?


Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."

Athanasius
Mar 11th 2008, 04:47 PM
I think you must have missed the sarcasm in this post, since I believe you both agree on this issue both being literal creationists like me, right? :D Maybe he should have used this little smiley guy? :rolleyes:

I wasn't being sarcastic, but I definitely wasn't 'preaching' my position on the topic. Just tossing out what I see as difficulties for the theistic evolutionist.



I have to believe in all honesty that woman was not planned at first.
I think GOD wanted his fellowship with Adam to be enough for Adam and then realized that Adam in a physical body would also need someone with a physical body.


Doesn't that mean God is not omnipotent?:hmm:



What other more perfect hermeneutics are you suggesting? Was Jesus wrong when He said that the Spirit would lead us into ALL truth?

Oh, I agree. But where does it say that we will completely understand this truth?



Shouldn't you say that macroevolution/natural selection will not be proven wrong?

That's why I went on further. . .

ikester7579
Mar 11th 2008, 04:51 PM
Hi all, first thread in BF !!

Ok, here's something I've thought about for a year; isn't it LIKELY that He compressed what, to us, seems like a multi-million year process of evolution, into a week? That it's a simple case of acceleration?

I just don't see what the conflict between Creationism and Evolution is, we have two sets of evidence that may SEEM to contradict each other, but I don't think they do. I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process.

Your thoughts, good people?

I think a better questions would be:

1) Why is evolution even needed?
2) Why is there not even one verse to support it?
3) Why is evolution the "exact opposite" of creation on every issue?
4) Why do some feel the need to insert it into God's word?

The reason I say this is when it comes to direct opposites. One has to cancel out the other. So if evolution is applied to God's word, then creation is cancelled out. Opposites do not work as one because they will contradict and make people have to choose.

Our faith is based on the word. And existed long before the idea of evolution. Placing doubt means that the ones from the past were also wrong. So if they did not have the idea of evolution to preach before the idea came about, were the ones from the past preaching a lie?

If evolution was the way that God created, God would have revealed it long before Darwin. And it would also be implied, or right out said, in the word.

adamswife
Mar 11th 2008, 06:18 PM
I definitely believe in microevolution as opposed to macroevolution.

But one thing I would say is this: You can't go wrong if you just take God's word at it's meaning, and not try to make it fit in with what we or unbelievers think or believe.

A few years ago (okay, 7 :)) I caught the tail end of a public radio program where they were talking about the story of Moses parting the Red Sea and all that. The host was mentioning that they had possibly found evidence for this having occured naturally by such and such happening, and what did people think? And I will never forget one young man called up, and he said, " Whether or not the secular world and scientists find evidence suggesting this really happened, I know it did. Regardless of how they say it happened (i.e naturally or supernaturally), I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And if Jesus said Moses hit a rock and parted the Red Sea through the power of God, then that is what happened. I don't need to keep looking for any other reason. If God says it happened that way, then that is the way it happened."

All I can say is Amen! Why look to make it fit more comfortably with what the world says? If God told us in the Bible it happened this way, that is all I need to know. Just my two cents....:2cents:

:monkeyd:

DPMartin
Mar 11th 2008, 10:43 PM
Finewine on postin #17
a good point in what is I believe is the correct direction

if I may add this is the meaning and the use of the following words in the time KJV was translated. You have to be careful today’s definitions of words are not necessarily the definition that was in use in the 1600's
*******
Create
1. a. trans. Said of the divine agent: To bring into being, cause to exist; esp. to produce where nothing was before, ‘to form out of nothing’ (J.).
c1386 Chaucer Pars. T. 3144 Al be it that God hath creat [3 MSS. created] al thing in right ordre. 1398 Trevisa Barth. De P.R. i. (1495) 6 The creatour+fro the begynnynge of tyme creat+the creature+of no thynge, or of no matere precedent. 1432–50 tr. Higden (Rolls) I. 189 Wherefore poetes feyne hym+to haue create men of stones. 1483 Caxton Gold. Leg. 133/2 [He] that had created alle the world. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 201b, He create & infuded that noble soule. 1535 Coverdale Gen. i. 1 In ye begynnynge God created heauen and earth. 1591 Jas. I Poet. Exerc., Liijb, Praise him for that he creat hath The heauen, the earth, and all. 1611 Bible Ps. li. 10 Create in mee a cleane heart, O God. 1644 Milton Areop. (Arb.) 52 Wherefore did he creat passions within us? 1651 Hobbes Leviath. ii. xxxi. 190 To say the World was not Created+is to deny there is a God. 1862 Max MŁller Sel. Ess. (1881) II. xx. 395 And the gods consulted a second time how to create beings that should adore them.
**********
Created
Brought into being by an agent or cause. esp. a. Made or formed by the divine power. b. Constituted of a certain dignity or rank.
1667 Milton P.L. iii. 705 But what created mind can comprehend Thir number? 1784 Cowper Task v. 586 He is held In silly dotage on created things, Careless of their Creator. 1855 Macaulay Hist. Eng. IV. 428 A newly created Marshal of France, the Duke of Noailles.
***************************************
It is imperative to understand that God is not a part of creation nor is subject to it. God’s nature is absolute in the mist of that which is subject to change (void, darkness, without form) and in His revelation of His presents in His creation by His Word gave Light, manifest forms and fulfilled.
We in Spirit are subject to the Absolute (if you will)
The following is a little something I wrote a while back. It may need corrections.

This is how I understand it, hope it helps you.
According to the prevailing paradigm of the science community there are five basic parts, or elements, of the cosmos/existence, (all things). Time, energy, space, matter, and something that started it (now being considered the big bang). To match that with the first verse, of the first book of a collection of books commonly know as the Bible.
In the beginning (time).
God (something that started it).
Created (energy).
The heaven (space).
And the earth (matter).
The three parts of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the other four. Five as in the hand of mankind. And seven as in six days of work and one day rest.
To go from one to seven:
First is God The Father that which all things are from, even His Word.
If we look at ourselves, in knowing that we are created in His image. This is not to say that two arms, two legs, and a head is that image. For what ever configuration of bone and flesh the Lord saw fit for us, would not change that we are mankind.
As in the trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is The Father from which all that there is, is from. The Son, His Word, the Truth the Way the Life the Voice of the Lord, the first from the Father. And the Holy Spirt by which all the will of the Almighty is done. Thus the trinity in one.
The source of the expression that will be executed, the expression of the source that will be executed, and the execution according to the expression of the source.
As in the image of God, mankind can come up with an idea, express that idea, and do it. That is how we govern ourselves, make bridges, make movies, fly to the moon, find the short cut to work, and solve the plumbing problem with the toilet. Each individual soul is one in three parts that differentiates mankind from any other Life manifesting organism in the earth. Things like the heart, mind, and body accommodate this ability for mankind.
Second is God The Son, His Word, made manifest in the flesh as Jesus the Christ who proclaimed God His Father many times. The Word of God is from God, a part of God, and is God. Just as your word, is from you, a part of you, and is you.
His Word is Truth for if He speaks it, it will be. The Almighty cannot lie for if He speaks it. It will be. Through His Word is that which all may know Him and all of creation obeys Him. For the Truth is the Truth no matter what the Truth is.
Whether all mankind is aware of it, or not. It is still the Truth.
Third is the Holy Spirit or Spirit Of God, which moved upon the face of the waters, sealing us unto our salvation, and pretty much executes the will of God the Father after He speaks it. The Father Speaks, the Spirit moves, and it is so. According to science community after the big bang all was like dust. So it is possible that all matter and space where at rest or evenly balanced like as if all the air on earth was the same temperature with even amount of humidity and pressure. Then The Spirit moved on the face of the deep. Like a
block of molding clay. There it is, God makes stuff happen, according to what He said.
Using basic geometry as an analogy to go from four to seven. There is a point, a line, a plain, and a cube as basic elements that all shapes are made of. A point has no dimension such as height length and width. A line made up of points in a row and has only length for a dimension. A plain made up of lines has two dimensions length and width
And a cube made up of plains having three dimensions height length, and width.
Fourth is time, which would seem to be true because energy, space, and matter would require time to exist. For if there is no time, then there is nothing but the presence of God, the only source of Life.
Time like unto a point has no dimension. Why, because there is no smallest amount of time, there is always a smaller amount of time so there is no smallest increment of time. We perceive time by a certain amount of energy exerted upon a certain amounts of matter through a certain amounts of space and the repetition there of.
Fifth is energy, if only because it seems evident even to science that space and matter is made up of energy. Energy is like unto a line having only one dimension, length, existing from one point of time to another. Requiring points (like a line) of time to exist. Changing configurations of matter and space as every thing continues to return to rest.
Sixth is space, only because space could exist without matter. Space is like unto a plain, made up of lines of energy in a plains like behavior, a blanket like and or fiber like form, as expressed by some in the science community. It maybe possible that it is the behavior of space that keeps matter in constant motion since matter is never still. It is possible that both space and matter are trying, or destined to come to rest.
Seventh is matter, which would require more that one plain of space to have a three-dimensional like, behavior. We perceive the other three through the observed response of matter. Matter is like unto a cube, seemingly to displace more than one plain of space at one time. It may be possible that the smallest unit of matter is like unto a line of energy following its own tail. Like a dog chasing it's tail. But this line of energy follows itself so tightly that it displace the lines of space that would have occupied the points in time that the
smallest unit is.
The source of Life is not the manipulation of time, energy, space, or matter. the manipulation of time, energy, space, or matter manifests the presents of the source of Life. Even the close proximity to the source of Life. As in what it's like in heaven as compared to what it is like in earth. The science community insists on tangible evidence. This is the real problem. Because the presence of the power of life is manifest all around us, but the science community considers that a random result of the other four (Time, energy, space,
matter) and life is not a basic element of all things. Rather than a (Time, energy, space, matter) response to the existence and or presence of Life. The argument that a predictable result of matter is the reason for this seems feeble when for centuries mankind has been manipulating living organisms to get a predictable result. And to base an argument the ability to manipulate matter into a configuration known as amino acids is not the creation of life. For amino acids of themselves are not life and are not the origin of life nor a living
organism. No more than purified copper is a penny. Though the manifestation of the presence of life may be evidence, it seems that it's an issue of interpretation of what is evident. Where as, it could be considered, that if under certain conditions of time, energy, space, and matter, there is manifested the presence of life. Which was already there.
In other words the presence of Life is always there but not always evident to us, unless certain conditions are met.
The science community is learning more and more that if one manipulates matter, energy, and space within certain time, life is manifest or evident in the form manipulated to. But the source of Life is not, the manipulation of time, energy, space, or matter. Life comes from Life and you see matters response to it.

DPMartin
Mar 11th 2008, 10:59 PM
sorry my monitor’s on the fritz was not able to get back sooner
thanks for the replys

Th1bill
"you have lain down a blanket indictment"

Blanket indictment of what? Were is your argument that what was stated is not so? Seems to me the shoe might be on the other foot.
*************************************
Xel’Naga

"the word yŰm in conjunction with the words 'morning' or 'evening', then it is assumed that a period of a day (24 or 12 hours, depending) is intended. "

I am not disputing your ref. to Hebrew but in your own admittance "then it is assumed" is not a sound stand on anything.

As far back as 1000's in English this definition also applied : the interval of light between successive periods of darkness or night;

As far as your statement on evolution I would agree. But I disagree with the assumption of "popular science" though popular science is not some scary thing. It is not to change scripture to meet the want of science, it is to dispute their assumptions that scripture is myth while others read the conversation. When it is quit understandable in the Light.

Athanasius
Mar 12th 2008, 12:09 AM
"the word yŰm in conjunction with the words 'morning' or 'evening', then it is assumed that a period of a day (24 or 12 hours, depending) is intended. "

I am not disputing your ref. to Hebrew but in your own admittance "then it is assumed" is not a sound stand on anything.

As far back as 1000's in English this definition also applied : the interval of light between successive periods of darkness or night;

As far as your statement on evolution I would agree. But I disagree with the assumption of "popular science" though popular science is not some scary thing. It is not to change scripture to meet the want of science, it is to dispute their assumptions that scripture is myth while others read the conversation. When it is quit understandable in the Light.

I use the word assumed as I do not have access to Moses or an intimate understanding of ancient Hebrew. Actually, I believe I subconsciously went post-modern in my wording of that statement. In any case, picking apart the sentence because I used the word assumed is splitting hairs, I think. If it isn't, then next time I'll refrain from throwing in words like 'assumed'.

I should clarify. What I was getting at was interpreting scripture through a scientific lens--there is no need to.

th1bill
Mar 12th 2008, 12:48 AM
thanks for the replys

Th1bill
"you have lain down a blanket indictment"

Blanket indictment of what? Were is your argument that what was stated is not so? Seems to me the shoe might be on the other foot.

Sir,
.. If you do not know what you said, why did you speak?

DPMartin
Mar 12th 2008, 01:45 AM
Xel’Naga
I understand on assume:)

but my point is 24 hr’s is a preconceived notion.....


1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
**
note: "and for days", "God said Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven". The Light in the first day is the Glory of our Lord, the first revelation of the Word of God. And that Light is forever, and the Light of men. If your going to tell me that the Light is limited by time. I’m sorry your wrong. The light in the firmament of heaven is for day light generated by the sun to the earth (amongst other things of corse) the scriptures prove that a day of the Lord does not have to be 24hr’s. And it was to give light upon the earth, not to set time in the days of the Lord our God.
God is not required to work in a certain amount of time that is perceived by the eyes of man. And man can't percive the true Light unless God reveal it.
**
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
*****************************
th1bill
If your willing to say what you consider is in error, and that be true, then I stand corrected, and that would be a good thing. But if your not so inclined why say anything at all? And call it folly.

th1bill
Mar 12th 2008, 02:10 AM
All you need do is return to your post I commented on and the problem is defined. As long as you wiggle and squirm and do not address the points with evidence you'll look worse and worse. You made statements and made no case for you words at all. If you believe your words are so important that we will just put the Bible aside qand worship you for speaking, well, not this little rubber ducky anyway.

Athanasius
Mar 12th 2008, 03:56 AM
Xel’Naga
I understand on assume:)

but my point is 24 hr’s is a preconceived notion.....

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
**
note: "and for days", "God said Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven". The Light in the first day is the Glory of our Lord, the first revelation of the Word of God. And that Light is forever, and the Light of men. If your going to tell me that the Light is limited by time. I’m sorry your wrong. The light in the firmament of heaven is for day light generated by the sun to the earth (amongst other things of corse) the scriptures prove that a day of the Lord does not have to be 24hr’s. And it was to give light upon the earth, not to set time in the days of the Lord our God.
God is not required to work in a certain amount of time that is perceived by the eyes of man. And man can't percive the true Light unless God reveal it.
**
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

I would agree; the twenty four hour view is a presupposition of just about every student of the Bible. That doesn't make the presupposition wrong, though.

What I am going to tell you is that James Barr (03/20/1924-10/14/2006), professor of Hebrew at Oxford University fully believed that the grammatical structure of Genesis 1 supports a twenty four hour day. Now, I'm not saying he believed the account to be historically true, just that he believes a twenty four hour day is intended. He goes as far as to say that no leading professor from any University would disagree with this simple fact.

Moses frequently used terms which indicated a period of indeterminate length; as per your example, seasons, from the Hebrew moed, indicates a long period of time. In the wording of Genesis 1, in reference to the days, we find no such language. What we do find, however, is a very specific indication of 'twenty four hour' days.

With that said, I believe any attempt to interpret Genesis 1 any other way than is grammatically indicated represents an eisegesis of the passage, which is completely unacceptable in Biblical studies.

Your interpretation of Genesis 1:3 in relation to 1:14 is non-sequitur. You're telling me that the light, the Glory of the Lord (as you said), which was created on the third, not the first day, was then separated on the fourth day to differentiate between day and night? By implication you are saying that God's glory hitherto did not emanate from His presence and was later created? You're also claiming, as per verse four, that the sun doesn't actually provide us light, and that God turns the light emanating from His Glory 'on and off'. Furthermore, there is nothing in verse 14 to indicate that seasons and years were at the time passing, (remember, grammatically we have twenty four hour periods), only that the creation of 'lights' in the firmament would be an indication of passing time.

I promise, I'm not a pied piper. . . .

I agree with you in that God is no respecter of man; but He is the author of the Bible, and the God who inspired Moses in the writing of the Pentateuch; Genesis 1 included. I'm not going to tell you that light is limited by time, but remember that you have inferred as much in your reply to me. A 'day' does not categorically exist for God; it is an arbitrary human designation. He is simply using our language to describe His actions in a way we can comprehend. That said, and in agreement that God isn't bound by a twenty four hour day, God used language to indicate as such for the Genesis account--there is no getting around it.

By the way, any reason you don't quote?

DPMartin
Mar 12th 2008, 04:19 PM
Xel’Naga
thanks for the reply, and info.

"By the way, any reason you don't quote?"

in truth, when I’m ready to post I don’t have patients to figure how to work it. I’ll blame it on old age and new tech, for now.


I can understand the dilemma on what is what on this. My reason for insisting is that there was no sun rise nor sun set for at lest the first three days, so therefore these 7 days are not necessarily referred to by the Lord through Moses as sun set to sun set.

Just something I’d like to mention about Moses that may be off track.

If you remember when Moses’ face glowed and had to wear a vail because of the brightness. It was not only when he came down the mountain, but also when he went in and out of the tabernacle. The View that Moses had, was God’s View and where ever Moses would look it was in the Light, and therefore saw no darkness.

***********
Added:
This just dawned on me after posting that just might help.
God spoke into the darkness evening and created/made (form) and brought it into the Light and saw that it was good. When Adam was before the Voice of the Lord, in the question of what happened and the judgement of God was said and mind you into the darkness that Adam and Eve where now in.
Gen:3
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Then from there on out He made (Israel) (for example the form if you will) and brought it into the Light and fulfilled (Jesus). As Jesus said "it is done". Now we all know that through Jesus God sees us as good, and Jesus is the Light of men in the world, that we all know is in darkness. In other words we could be in the last part of the 8TH day.

****************************
*****************************
th1bill
I absolutely agree with your contention of "not this little rubber ducky anyway". However the statements were set on the table. Correct or incorrect is truly up to the reader. And they were made in hopes of encouraging conversation on such.

In the case of making a case. You require me to make the case, reasons for the case, and merit of the case which would be fine. But you require me to make that case though you refuse to make a case using scripture (if you will) or otherwise first, since you are the contester of that which was set on the table. Therefore you ask me to do that which you seem to not do yourself. Of corse you should not take my word for it, that would be foolish. But where is your case that shows that what you say is true, or what was stated is in error. Then you can tell me I should do the same.


Make you point, show me where, or is it, your not able? And why should I take your word for it?

Athanasius
Mar 12th 2008, 04:22 PM
th1bill
I absolutely agree with your contention of "not this little rubber ducky anyway". However the statements were set on the table. Correct or incorrect is truly up to the reader. And they were made in hopes of encouraging conversation on such.

In the case of making a case. You require me to make the case, reasons for the case, and merit of the case which would be fine. But you require me to make that case though you refuse to make a case using scripture (if you will) or otherwise first, since you are the contester of that which was set on the table. Therefore you ask me to do that which you seem to not do yourself. Of corse you should not take my word for it, that would be foolish. But where is your case that shows that what you say is true, or what was stated is in error. Then you can tell me I should do the same.

Make you point, show me where, or is it, your not able?

It's a classic case of: you have the burden of proof.

IBWatching
Mar 12th 2008, 04:58 PM
...What I am going to tell you is that James Barr (03/20/1924-10/14/2006), professor of Hebrew at Oxford University fully believed that the grammatical structure of Genesis 1 supports a twenty four hour day. Now, I'm not saying he believed the account to be historically true, just that he believes a twenty four hour day is intended. He goes as far as to say that no leading professor from any University would disagree with this simple fact...

This would be fine except for the fact that the text itself tells us that the means man had to determine such a 24 hour day were not formed until the 4th "day":


Genesis 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; {He made} the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

In the Hebrew, the text which refers to that "first" day is more accurately rendered "one day". That's because it had no beginning, just an end. Conversely, the 7th day is never said to have an end. That's because the "Sabbath Rest" which is said to be eternal is based on that day.

I wish every Christian who studied the creation account would take everything in context and take it literally. It is intended as a pattern for man to follow. I have concluded from verse 14 that until God "formed" the lights that would govern the times and seasons, every "day" before that was not a 24 hour "day". As far as length of those first 3 days, they could have been 24 nanoseconds long and not 24 hours long because I believe in an Omnipotent and Omniscient God who could have done such a thing. But six 24 hour "days" is not supported by the text, if taken literally.

Athanasius
Mar 12th 2008, 05:32 PM
This would be fine except for the fact that the text itself tells us that the means man had to determine such a 24 hour day were not formed until the 4th "day":

In the Hebrew, the text which refers to that "first" day is more accurately rendered "one day". That's because it had no beginning, just an end. Conversely, the 7th day is never said to have an end. That's because the "Sabbath Rest" which is said to be eternal is based on that day.

I wish every Christian who studied the creation account would take everything in context and take it literally. It is intended as a pattern for man to follow. I have concluded from verse 14 that until God "formed" the lights that would govern the times and seasons, every "day" before that was not a 24 hour "day". As far as length of those first 3 days, they could have been 24 nanoseconds long and not 24 hours long because I believe in an Omnipotent and Omniscient God who could have done such a thing. But six 24 hour "days" is not supported by the text, if taken literally.

Ahh yes, that's what I was thinking of earlier in the thread (post 21), but I didn't fully remember what exactly it was that made the Hebrew different. Conceding, for the sake of argument, this eventuality, I have already made allowances earlier in the thread:


With that said, however, it's an extreme stretch to assume those days constitute a period nearing 15.4 billion years. I believe it's much more likely if this is the case that creation was fairly 'quick', the days of Genesis constituting metaphor (as is evidenced with the Sabbath designation).

In checking my literal Hebrew translation, however, I believe the days are designated 'day one; day second; day third . . . day sixth.' I believe this rendering gives a slightly different meaning than 'one day', which seems to me to be rather ambiguous. I also tend to believe that day one did have a 'beginning' and an 'end'--verse five reads: "and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one." The day starting in the evening and lasting until the morning. This specific 'evening and morning' sequence continuing for the next six days. So as far as I understand it, there can be some leeway with how long a 'day' was in terms of our twenty four hour period, or the Jewish twelve hour period. But for the six days of creation, I still see a definite day designation as we view a 'day'.

DPMartin
Mar 12th 2008, 05:53 PM
XelíNaga


It's a classic case of: you have the burden of proof.

On one hand I would agree. When you replied with reason and merit and the obvious intent to discuses, I tried in like kind. But I have been down those roads where the disputer merely makes accusation and continues to do so with out proving or at lest trying to show reason for disagreement. Then I become a circus dog jumping through hoops accomplishing nothing but a lot of typing. (Been there done that)

DPMartin
Mar 12th 2008, 06:06 PM
IBWaching

The beginning of the first day could be the beginning itself or when God first spoke in to creation.

The seventh day as forever Iím not sure, could or could not be so. It could be that the Father rests and this day which could be the 8th day is ours so to speak. Jesus did say that this is our time. Thought that alone really may not poof it.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 06:09 PM
Xel’Naga

On one hand I would agree. When you replied with reason and merit and the obvious intent to discuses, I tried in like kind. But I have been down those roads where the disputer merely makes accusation and continues to do so with out proving or at lest trying to show reason for disagreement. Then I become a circus dog jumping through hoops accomplishing nothing but a lot of typing. (Been there done that)Hence the question of the thread, why dispute? :dunno: (I've been there and done that too ;)) I prefer to simply discuss this issue non-abrasively to share ideas. Helping you understand why I believe what I believe. And BTW, it goes beyond simply saying, because said it. Though that IS a very good reason! :D So, in answer to the question of the OP, why dispute?

God Bless!

Athanasius
Mar 12th 2008, 06:11 PM
On one hand I would agree. When you replied with reason and merit and the obvious intent to discuses, I tried in like kind. But I have been down those roads where the disputer merely makes accusation and continues to do so with out proving or at lest trying to show reason for disagreement. Then I become a circus dog jumping through hoops accomplishing nothing but a lot of typing. (Been there done that)

Reminds me of the Monty Python skit, 'argument clinic'--taking the contrary position for the 'sake of it' is neither intelligent or being an active participant in the discussion/debate/argument.

th1bill
Mar 12th 2008, 06:52 PM
XelíNaga
thanks for the reply, and info.

"By the way, any reason you don't quote?"

in truth, when Iím ready to post I donít have patients to figure how to work it. Iíll blame it on old age and new tech, for now.


I can understand the dilemma on what is what on this. My reason for insisting is that there was no sun rise nor sun set for at lest the first three days, so therefore these 7 days are not necessarily referred to by the Lord through Moses as sun set to sun set.

Just something Iíd like to mention about Moses that may be off track.

If you remember when Mosesí face glowed and had to wear a vail because of the brightness. It was not only when he came down the mountain, but also when he went in and out of the tabernacle. The View that Moses had, was Godís View and where ever Moses would look it was in the Light, and therefore saw no darkness.

***********
Added:
This just dawned on me after posting that just might help.
God spoke into the darkness evening and created/made (form) and brought it into the Light and saw that it was good. When Adam was before the Voice of the Lord, in the question of what happened and the judgement of God was said and mind you into the darkness that Adam and Eve where now in.
Gen:3
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Then from there on out He made (Israel) (for example the form if you will) and brought it into the Light and fulfilled (Jesus). As Jesus said "it is done". Now we all know that through Jesus God sees us as good, and Jesus is the Light of men in the world, that we all know is in darkness. In other words we could be in the last part of the 8TH day.

****************************
*****************************
th1bill
I absolutely agree with your contention of "not this little rubber ducky anyway". However the statements were set on the table. Correct or incorrect is truly up to the reader. And they were made in hopes of encouraging conversation on such.

In the case of making a case. You require me to make the case, reasons for the case, and merit of the case which would be fine. But you require me to make that case though you refuse to make a case using scripture (if you will) or otherwise first, since you are the contester of that which was set on the table. Therefore you ask me to do that which you seem to not do yourself. Of corse you should not take my word for it, that would be foolish. But where is your case that shows that what you say is true, or what was stated is in error. Then you can tell me I should do the same.


Make you point, show me where, or is it, your not able? And why should I take your word for it?
.. I did, you refuted with broad brush statements that you have thus far refused to substantiate. You give the appearance of one seeking to impress because if you are intelligent enough to use the phrases you have put together, you are intelligent enough to know that the average reader in any broad based grouping of people will not comprehend anything written above the level of the average newspaper or the average novel, they are written at the fifth grade level to reach their audience. You come here talking way over the average persons head and then you hit them with broad brush statements that are always going to get you into trouble because of the exceptions and then you get all haughty because I put your feet on the ground.
.. It's time to wake up, stand up and be real. Now, please back up those rediculas assertions you made without all the hem-hawing around, please. Your making yourself look very foolish by squirming. It's been so long now that even I will need to go back and wade through that mush once more to see if you did respond.

DPMartin
Mar 13th 2008, 12:06 AM
th1bill
".. I did, you refuted with broad brush statements that you have thus far refused to substantiate."

If you did and I missed it or did not see it that way I apologize.


" You give the appearance of one seeking to impress because if you are intelligent enough to use the phrases you have put together, you are intelligent enough to know that the average reader in any broad based grouping of people will not comprehend anything written above the level of the average newspaper or the average novel, they are written at the fifth grade level to reach their audience. "

I donít ague that at all, but I believe that it is important to understand that the disputers of the validity of the Scriptures use this kind of wording and if a fifth grade level reader is to stand in the face of this or try to relate, he/she needs to speak the language, (so to speak), of the ones that they may have to speak to. I donít know if you are aware but every God fearing soul that has to go to collage (not christian based) has to take ridicule of his/her beliefs from the professors they have to be graded by, not to mention the environment they have to dwell in.

"You come here talking way over the average persons head and then you hit them with broad brush statements that are always going to get you into trouble because of the exceptions and then you get all haughty because I put your feet on the ground."

Iím sorry but I misunderstand you here.

".. It's time to wake up, stand up and be real. Now, please back up those rediculas assertions you made without all the hem-hawing around, please. Your making yourself look very foolish by squirming. It's been so long now that even I will need to go back and wade through that mush once more to see if you did respond."
***************************************
This is what you posted................
"I am very sorry but you have lain down a blanket indictment and have presented no evidence what-so-ever. "

As in reference to what? What in particular are you talking about?

"That just does not work. "

Your assertion. Why doesnít it work and what is it that is not working?

"You have even gone farther astray by attempting to separate the Book of Genesis from the rest of scripture and without laying down any foundation to work from."

You havenít ask one thing in particular about what it is you may disagree with. The focus is on creation here, isnít it? At lest to a certain extent.

"Blanket indictments are always useless folly. There's nothing to build from."

An accusation is a not a question to be answered, it is merely accusation, not one question or argument here about anything that your referring to or refuting. No show of why you said what you said. Youíre the accuser where is your evidents? Show me how it should have been said. Iím willing to learn.

ilovemetal
Mar 13th 2008, 01:11 AM
dear theistic evolutionists.

i love you all and am not only trying to show my point of view.

you can go here or read his book. this is where i stand.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp




also read exodus 20:11

th1bill
Mar 13th 2008, 04:42 AM
XelíNaga



On one hand I would agree. When you replied with reason and merit and the obvious intent to discuses, I tried in like kind. But I have been down those roads where the disputer merely makes accusation and continues to do so with out proving or at lest trying to show reason for disagreement. Then I become a circus dog jumping through hoops accomplishing nothing but a lot of typing. (Been there done that)
I have also and you are not going to run me in that circle. I made a statement and referenced it and you are squirming and wiggling and to this point you have not responded.

th1bill
Mar 13th 2008, 05:12 AM
Look at it this way..........
1. A day of the Lord consisted of God said, God made/created, God saw that it was good.
In the mist of that He blessed He called and He spoke directly to man a gave man a view "behold". Oh, and the first day He separated.
I donít see 24 hr days here, the sun and moon for times and seasons where not until the 4th day.
This post, though not immediately following mine, was, I think the second after I built the case for for the 6 24 hour day creation period. Your meaningless and in my opinion arrogant inditement is highlighted. You build no case, we are just to bow down and praise you for this gem that none of us would have ever been able to discern for ourselves?


As you all probably know. Interpretation of scripture within the churches are an issue, in and of itself.[quote]
In this I can find nothing more than a vain attempt to run me down a rabbit trail of your own invention and has absolutly nothing to do with the mixing and diluting of the Word of God.

[quote] But it is the Holy Spirit that knows what Godís Word means. Just as your hand understands what your head is telling it to do. Nothing else knows but only your head and your hand knows, the same in the Body of Christ.
I despise this word and it's usage but "DUH?"


That said, science has found stuff in the earth or about the earth and that which surrounds it. But who interprets the information. And what is the motive of said interpreter. Who gets grants, who gets cooperate contracts to find discoveries in whoís interest. If evolution as a theory was proven wrong, how many text book sales to fed funded ed. System would not be sold? Just to rase a few questions in that direction.
And that was relevant to?

The earth or universe is honest and not a liar, for if it is, God made it. Science tries to read what happened but they donít know how to interpret it. And since the science community and the church community have a long history of animosity, there is a stumbling block. Also when some church authority says something like it was 24 hr days, well the bible does not say that, and the science community can read, this is also a stumbling bock, you canít expect science to be confident in that.
And science has what business in the discussion and is relevant to what portion of my case for what the scriptures say? Young sir, you give the appearance of a nickle and dime huckster. and not a very good one at that. What you attempted to do here is captured in the antique quote, 'If you can't convince them with brilliance buffalo them with bs."

From the rest of you in these forum I ask your forgiveness for the quote but I am being made the bad guy here by a huckster.

PilgrimPastor
Mar 13th 2008, 07:14 AM
Hi all, first thread in BF !!

Ok, here's something I've thought about for a year; isn't it LIKELY that He compressed what, to us, seems like a multi-million year process of evolution, into a week? That it's a simple case of acceleration?

I just don't see what the conflict between Creationism and Evolution is, we have two sets of evidence that may SEEM to contradict each other, but I don't think they do. I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process.

Your thoughts, good people?

This debate is tremendously important - although it can be divisive. You bring up an interesting thought in saying "I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process."

How would the biblical authors have written in a counter argument to an argument that did not exist at the time of the writing? Of course the Bible does not say that God did not "speed up" the processes because in many ways it CAN NOT say such a thing.

The Bible does not say lots of things but that does not make them true or untrue from a faith perspective or any other. Lets follow this thinking through for a moment; no where in the Bible does it NOT say that bananas can sprout wings and eye balls and become flying banana monkeys and since it does not forbid the possibility of such a thing I am free to believe in them!

That is a very poor approach to interpreting the Bible - or anything else for that matter - that is, to focus on what it does not say rather than it what it does.

The Bible gives us a clear explanation of creation which - if taken at face value as the inspired word of God - gives a very plausible explanation for creation and if taken within its overall context of sin and the fall of man, redemption in Christ, and the eventual return of Christ, gives us a very accurate picture of reality which corresponds with what we find in reality.

The Bible - all of it - has the ring of truth. It makes sense. It fits our experience and modern scientific discovery is time and again providing evidence that supports a literal creation process as outlined in Genesis.

We don't have to find "middle way" explanations like theistic evolution (God used evolution to create humanity). Middle way explanations are a compromise of sound biblical interpretation and the preponderance and push of them leave Christians under the delusion that they need them!

pnewton
Mar 13th 2008, 11:33 AM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp
also read exodus 20:11I am not a theistic evolutionists, because I have no real opinion either way, but I would like to point out on error in his equation:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

The way this is worded is deism, theism, that is that God a separate part of matter, process and time. In reality, since God made everything out ofnothing, the hand of God should be listed at every level, as in:

Matter (created by God) + evolutionary factors (controlled by God) + time (determined by God). Isn't this a better definition of theism?

Maybe I'm off base and behind on my terminology. If so, please give me the correct term for the above belief so I quit rolling off base.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 13th 2008, 12:15 PM
We don't all have to agree on the interpretation. I have not found anyone in my 40 years, that I agree with 100% of the time, not even my hubby! :D Since I've been on both sides of this issue, first as an evolutionist and now as a literal creationist I have a different perspective than most. I do not believe this issue needs to be divisively argued, as we have seen a little of in this thread. I can testify that it was NOT people arguing with me and my position that changed my view, but was a thoughtful presentation of the issue showing me different scientific options than what I had been taught. No one called me names or pointed fingers or made judgments about the state of my faith. If that had happened I may have set down roots and become defensive, making me much less likely to have actually heard what was being said. :rolleyes:

Look if someone claims Yeshua as Messiah, but doesn't agree with you on this, do you think they are the enemy? Our fight is NOT against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers. Let's ALL fight against the principalities and powers but not against each other.

God Bless!

DPMartin
Mar 13th 2008, 01:49 PM
Pilgram pastor
Excellent point. It is to break bread with one’s bothers and sisters in the sharing of that which the Lord has given us, that will make us the wiser in Him.

Studyin2show
agreed
if I might add....
Jesus is against no man, only the lies they keep.

JaybeeinBibleForum
Mar 13th 2008, 05:23 PM
This debate is tremendously important - although it can be divisive. You bring up an interesting thought in saying "I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process."

Hi, and thank you!


How would the biblical authors have written in a counter argument to an argument that did not exist at the time of the writing? Of course the Bible does not say that God did not "speed up" the processes because in many ways it CAN NOT say such a thing. All I KNOW, now, is that it didn't.


The Bible does not say lots of things but that does not make them true or untrue from a faith perspective or any other. Lets follow this thinking through for a moment; no where in the Bible does it NOT say that bananas can sprout wings and eye balls and become flying banana monkeys and since it does not forbid the possibility of such a thing I am free to believe in them! You've made my point for me beautifully, albeit comically - you and every other human on the planet are/is INDEED free to self-delude about fresh fruit becoming furry flesh PRECISELY because it is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible.


That is a very poor approach to interpreting the Bible - or anything else for that matter - that is, to focus on what it does not say rather than it what it does.It is necessary, so that we can move towards an explanation for the alleged disparity between Faith, and Forensics. What I want is a definitive, authoritive interpretation that utterly excludes the possibility of accelerated evolution. I haven't seen one yet, and if you can provide one, I'd be most grateful. Really!


The Bible gives us a clear explanation of creation which - if taken at face value as the inspired word of God - gives a very plausible explanation for creation and if taken within its overall context of sin and the fall of man, redemption in Christ, and the eventual return of Christ, gives us a very accurate picture of reality which corresponds with what we find in reality.Let's leave aside the commercial blurb on the back of the book jacket for the greatest book of all times for a moment. I've read it. Just how, if at all, does this "clear" explanation of creation conflict with my hypothesis?


The Bible - all of it - has the ring of truth. It makes sense. It fits our experience and modern scientific discovery is time and again providing evidence that supports a literal creation process as outlined in Genesis.Before I ring up Barnes and Noble and ask their Marketing Department to word the backs of their book covers in less florid style, would you have any links where I can read the movement of scientific thought in favour of creation?


We don't have to find "middle way" explanations like theistic evolution (God used evolution to create humanity). Middle way explanations are a compromise of sound biblical interpretation and the preponderance and push of them leave Christians under the delusion that they need them! The situation of us having to interpret the Bible is anything but sound. Facts should not leave themselves open to multiple interpretations. When I add 10 and 10, I don't have to interpret a blasted thing. There is no ambiguity. The outcome is not 19, and it is not 21. It is not 20.000001.

IT IS 20.

No, we don't have to find what you call "middle way" explanations, We do, however, have to live in the real world. I, for one, leave disbelievers in NO doubt whatsoever that I'm in neither camp, that I'm indeed of the real world, and convey that, according to the Bible, He may have used any process He wished to create Earth, including evolution.

But I would welcome any information you could provide.

DPMartin
Mar 13th 2008, 05:40 PM
I would like to apologize here on this one.

"the average reader in any broad based grouping of people will not comprehend anything written above the level of the average newspaper or the average novel, they are written at the fifth grade level to reach their audience. "

I would like to apologize here on this. In the context of "it seems the educational system seems to "dummy down" the quality of what they could offer", was my thinking when I agreed. However, characterizing others by, or indicating stupidity, or dullness of comprehension is not a just or upright or justifiable cause.

My contention is that anyone that knows the Lord Jesus has access to His wisdom knowledge and understanding. For the Lord does not lack wisdom knowledge and understanding.

Ps:111:10: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom
Prov:1:7: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge

Prov:2
1: My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2: So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3: Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4: If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5: Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
6: For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
7: He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
8: He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.

And He encourages us to seek the same. The Lord can always bring knowledge and wisdom in such a manner that one can understand. It is a part of the things of God freely given to those who ask Him and seek it. The Truth has no need of being dummied down, when the Lord can give wisdom knowledge and understanding.

ilovemetal
Mar 13th 2008, 06:28 PM
I am not a theistic evolutionists, because I have no real opinion either way, but I would like to point out on error in his equation:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

The way this is worded is deism, theism, that is that God a separate part of matter, process and time. In reality, since God made everything out ofnothing, the hand of God should be listed at every level, as in:

Matter (created by God) + evolutionary factors (controlled by God) + time (determined by God). Isn't this a better definition of theism?

Maybe I'm off base and behind on my terminology. If so, please give me the correct term for the above belief so I quit rolling off base.

a think i agree. i think maybe different people have deiifereny perceptions of theistic. either way, to be honest, i'd rather not overlook the bible. God mad us; agreed; Jesus died; agreed. the end.

God Bless
kev

DPMartin
Mar 13th 2008, 11:48 PM
th1bill
thanks for the reply
sorry I didn’t get back sooner
****************************
This post, though not immediately following mine, was, I think the second after I built the case for for the 6 24 hour day creation period. Your meaningless and in my opinion arrogant inditement is highlighted. You build no case, we are just to bow down and praise you for this gem that none of us would have ever been able to discern for ourselves?

I think this from posting #37
24 hr’s is a preconceived notion.....
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

note: "and for days", "God said Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven". The Light in the first day is the Glory of our Lord, the first revelation of the Word of God. And that Light is forever, and the Light of men. If your going to tell me that the Light is limited by time. I’m sorry your wrong. The light in the firmament of heaven is for day light generated by the sun to the earth (amongst other things of corse) the scriptures prove that a day of the Lord does not have to be 24hr’s. And it was to give light upon the earth, not to set time in the days of the Lord our God.
God is not required to work in a certain amount of time the is perceived by the eyes of man.
***************************************
In this I can find nothing more than a vain attempt to run me down a rabbit trail of your own invention and has absolutly nothing to do with the mixing and diluting of the Word of God.
**
This is a good site to see what I am talking about with "Interpretation of scripture within the churches are an issue, in and of itself", it can be interesting.
***link removed by moderator***
********************************
I despise this word and it's usage but "DUH?"

I’m sorry you do. I don’t despise any attempt to understand the Body of Christ.
****************************
And that was relevant to?

Just to rase a few questions in that direction (as was stated), as to the possibility that money can be a motivator for the science community to maintain there position on why the dispute. It’s not imposable.
**************************
And science has what business in the discussion and is relevant to what portion of my case for what the scriptures say? Young sir, you give the appearance of a nickle and dime huckster. and not a very good one at that. What you attempted to do here is captured in the antique quote, 'If you can't convince them with brilliance buffalo them with bs."

They can read it for what it says. See posting #37. Also I do believe that this thread is bring up the question of why the dispute that would include the disputer as part of the subject matter, wouldn’t it?

th1bill
Mar 14th 2008, 01:10 AM
.. What we have in your last post, DB, is a very poor rendition of the Texas Two Step. You spoke a lot of meaningless phrases, referred me to a web site, that you deleted and I would not have visited any way, and never addressed the core of the issue, as stated by you, that makes it uncertain as to whether or not the Word of God can be trust or not.
.. Most of the folks here will not know that because of the structure of the sentences in the Hebrew that the 24 hour day is implicit and that your false and very arrogant assertion, if it were true makes God a liar and there-fore full of sin. You could very easily be guilty of the most dreadful of sins by that implication. I should never want to find myself accused o God for leading even one soul amiss.
.. You have, very firmly established one certainty in my mind. You should have been on the Democratic Ticket for the Presidency this year, you are far better at deception that Obama or Clinton. How in the world anyone can need to go to the Hebrew for the clarification of the 24 hour day issue is beyond me. The text repeatedly uses the hebrew mearure of a 24 hour day, i.e. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. If you need to, please check it out in the Hebrew also, you seem to require that kind of worldly proof but as for me and my house, we live by faith and that faith is in the one and only one Almighty Jehovah God.
.. I had hoped for better from such a young man but you seem unable to stand up for even yourself and I bid you well but do not lead new Christians astray in some childish game. God is not playing.

DPMartin
Mar 14th 2008, 09:12 PM
thibill
You know, youíve have called me everything you can get away with on this site. When all I asked for was not accusation, but question, and have done none the like to you.

Not that I care that much do to all offence is taken away in the Lord, but in hopes of making a point of your assumptions.

"that makes it uncertain as to whether or not the Word of God can be trust or not."
1. Not that I know of, and if what ever I have posted has been taken as such, youíre the only one that has accused me of doing so. In other word in your view, whether that be the Lordís View or not remains to be seen.

"referred me to a web site, that you deleted and I would not have visited any way,"

2. I did not remove the link posted, which is another assumption on your part. The site management removed the link do to there rules that I was not aware of, ask them if you like, since you assume I am out to deceive.

".. Most of the folks here will not know that because of the structure of the sentences in the Hebrew that the 24 hour day is implicit and that your false and very arrogant assertion, if it were true makes God a liar and there-fore full of sin. You could very easily be guilty of the most dreadful of sins by that implication. I should never want to find myself accused o God for leading even one soul amiss."

3. It seems that it is in your opinion, that it is lucky for us, that your self righteousness is here with us. Youíre a regular hero, and if we donít know that, it seems all we have to do is ask you.
I find it hard to believe anyone honestly seeking His Truth, His Knowledge His Understanding amongst many other things of God would not be troublesome in His site. I mean we start from not knowing and come into His revelation.

".. You have, very firmly established one certainty in my mind. You should have been on the Democratic Ticket for the Presidency this year, you are far better at deception that Obama or Clinton. How in the world anyone can need to go to the Hebrew for the clarification of the 24 hour day issue is beyond me. The text repeatedly uses the hebrew mearure of a 24 hour day, i.e. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. If you need to, please check it out in the Hebrew also, you seem to require that kind of worldly proof but as for me and my house, we live by faith and that faith is in the one and only one Almighty Jehovah God. "

4. Your prejudgement of all that the Lord has forgiven is noted. I didnít know you were a judge of Godís people and anyone else for that matter I always thought it was the exclusive Right of God. I didnít know that those that are in the Kingdom of God were supposed to be like you. I always though we were to look to Jesus and strive to be like Him. Ge wizz, it must our short fall to not be like you.

.. I had hoped for better from such a young man but you seem unable to stand up for even yourself and I bid you well but do not lead new Christians astray in some childish game. God is not playing.

5. Meeting your expectations would not be what I would seek, nor do I hope it is anyone elseís. For the only One that approves of anything that shall Live, is Jesus. and no He is not Playing.
************************************************** ****
************************************************** ****
Some would use the following
2Pt:3:8: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
But that could be taking Peterís statement out of context.

The whole Bible is about God says, God does, God sees that it is good. All through the OT God said to a wittiness (or witnesses) thereof and did. Whether it be Moses, Noah, King David and all the other witnesses of Godís Word. And in our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ is it done and in Christ He sees us as good. Therefore that which remains in the Light He sees as good.
And in the creation issue did He do the same. Except of corse the 7th day
Gen:2
2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
He blessed and sanctified.

And stating that there was a 24 hr sun rise to sun rise is not scripturally sound when the scripture itself says there was no sun until the fourth day. If the sun and moon where for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:(according to Godís Word) how then was the second and third day measured to 24hrís when nothing existed to measure it as a season, a day, or a year, considering that which was created to measure it(stated by the Word of God was not yet made. And I will not dispute that which God said something is for, as some men might do. And the only Light there was (and is) is Jesus that is of any importance at all anyway.
**************
Prov:12:1: Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
Brutish:,a
Rough, rude; savage, brutal; In want of control over the appetites and passions: passionate, sensual, furious; striking blindly, random.


Hope the Lord be with you?

Athanasius
Mar 14th 2008, 09:14 PM
Play nice, fellows:hmm:

PilgrimPastor
Mar 14th 2008, 09:20 PM
DPMartin (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=23683),

Bill's tone has taken an unfortunate turn. Thanks for your patience.

Lets all stick to this :bible:

DPMartin
Mar 16th 2008, 08:01 PM
PilgrimPastor

Iím learning. Itís a part of the deal. Itís not about how we feel or think itís about what the Lord thinks (if you will). The Lord and His people, is in the interest of, we should act. I still have a ways to go.

MessiahsFollower
Mar 16th 2008, 09:30 PM
I really wish the two could be discussed without the extreme emotional stuff going on both ends also...

Typical. Don't you think?

TEITZY
Mar 16th 2008, 11:57 PM
Hi all, first thread in BF !!

Ok, here's something I've thought about for a year; isn't it LIKELY that He compressed what, to us, seems like a multi-million year process of evolution, into a week? That it's a simple case of acceleration?

I just don't see what the conflict between Creationism and Evolution is, we have two sets of evidence that may SEEM to contradict each other, but I don't think they do. I don't know where in the Bible it states that He did not simply "Fast-Forward" the necessary process.

Your thoughts, good people?

Genesis is important because it is foundational to the Christian faith.

What does the Bible say about the origin of sin and death?

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

1 Cor 15:21-22 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

So Paul says that death was the result of Adam's sin. Does this fly with the idea of evolution? No it is completely contradictory. Evolution by necessity requires BILLIONS of years of death and suffering prior to the appearance of mankind on the scene. So if evolution is true, then Paul is wrong and death is not the result of man's sin, but rather a God-ordained process to bring about the eventual 'creation' of man.

So why did Jeus have to die?

Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Cor 15:3-4 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,


So Jesus had to die to pay the just punishment for our sins, right? But if death is NOT the result of sin, why did Jesus have to die?

I could go on about the importance of a literal understanding of Genesis in relation to NT doctrine but I have done it here many times before and it is simply ignored or glossed over by theistic evolutionists so I won't waste my breath.

Needless to say, how we interpret Genesis has implications for the Gospel and the Christian faith. Indeed those who insist that Genesis is not an historical narrative open themselves up to all manner hermeneutic inconsistencies that colour their interpretation of other parts of the Bible as well.

Cheers
Leigh

DPMartin
Mar 17th 2008, 06:20 PM
Teitzy
I understand the sentiment. And thanks for your posting.

In the debates that I have had with the opposition, their stand is there is no proof that man has a soul. And the reasoning from there is, no soul, no concern for everlasting Life or condemnation.
And from there no need for God no need for concern for judgement, no need for Truth, no need for absolutes. With the delusion of "free will", "their own choice", and "freedom of the universe".

Now biblically of corse we can prove man has a soul, the result of Godís breath in to man to make man a living soul, and not like other flesh animals and the like. Therefore they, animals have no need for salvation from eternal damnation. But we have this problem of thinking we still live in a society of "the Bible says" which was effective when I was young, but not effective today. Paul had to talk to people that had no idea what a Living God was. The Bible would be a, "what is that?" or in their day law by the hand of Moses. There language today is "logic and reason" so to reach and prove, must be in the language of "logic and reason as they understand it" not "the Bible says"(unless of cores they ask) though good enough for us but hay, they are no required to know the Bible, only that they seek the Truth honestly.

Needless to say the Lord knows the solution to this but I have shot in every direction I could think of on this.

TEITZY
Mar 18th 2008, 03:16 AM
Teitzy
I understand the sentiment. And thanks for your posting.

In the debates that I have had with the opposition, their stand is there is no proof that man has a soul. And the reasoning from there is, no soul, no concern for everlasting Life or condemnation.
And from there no need for God no need for concern for judgement, no need for Truth, no need for absolutes. With the delusion of "free will", "their own choice", and "freedom of the universe".

Now biblically of corse we can prove man has a soul, the result of God’s breath in to man to make man a living soul, and not like other flesh animals and the like. Therefore they, animals have no need for salvation from eternal damnation. But we have this problem of thinking we still live in a society of "the Bible says" which was effective when I was young, but not effective today. Paul had to talk to people that had no idea what a Living God was. The Bible would be a, "what is that?" or in their day law by the hand of Moses. There language today is "logic and reason" so to reach and prove, must be in the language of "logic and reason as they understand it" not "the Bible says"(unless of cores they ask) though good enough for us but hay, they are no required to know the Bible, only that they seek the Truth honestly.

Needless to say the Lord knows the solution to this but I have shot in every direction I could think of on this.

Unfortunately "logic & reason" by itself can never save anyone. I'm not saying we shouldn't use logic in our witnessing and Peter exhorts us to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Pet 3:15). However when it comes to the spiritual and salvation of souls a person needs divine revelation not rationale. It's true that we live in a world where materialism reigns supreme and men think that everything in the universe can be explained by natural causes/laws, which is of course totally irrational and illogical. When Paul reasoned with the philosophers in Athens he didn't just hit them with logic, he told them that:

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. (Acts 17:23-24)

It's no different today, the intellectuals who reject the God of the Bible worship the 'unknown god' of materialism. When it comes to origins, ones position is not based on empirical science, but rather on a presupposition or worldview. Bible believing Christians insist that an omniscient, all-powerful God created the universe while atheists & Co insist matter created itself from nothing and that life came from non-living matter. Now when we examine these claims in the light of what we know and observe it becomes clear that the Biblical world view is far more plausible and rational. The same argument applies for biological evolution versus design.

My point is that Biblical creationism is logically defensible using the very same evidence that atheists/evolutionists claim removes the need for any divine or supernatural intervention in the universe. However logic can only take you so far and unless a person also believes the claims of the Bible (eg. Jesus is God, His resurrection, Divine judgment etc.) which cannot be proven empirically at least, that person cannot be saved.


There seems to be this notion amongst many Christians that one cannot be religious and intelligent at the same time, and that to be a real and relevant scientist one must not let religion or philosophy cloud ones thinking. Of course in the real world nothing could be further from the truth and history has shown that where Biblical Christianity has flourished so has science and technological advancement. Atheist Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University had this to say:
‘I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.’So in essence, the atheist is not so much adverse to the existence of God as he is to the implications of there being a God (particularly the God of the Bible). I think it's fair to say that many atheists would embrace the idea of Deism of some sort as long as it is not the God of the Bible (ie. on a purely intellectual level you could convince them that there is a supernatural intellect behind the creation of the universe). However for the atheist or any non-believer to be saved they must first embrace the God of the Bible and that requires divine revelation, spiritual illumination and a change of heart that is only possible through the Word of God and the preaching of the Gospel.

Cheers
Leigh

9Marksfan
Mar 18th 2008, 11:08 AM
Unfortunately "logic & reason" by itself can never save anyone. I'm not saying we shouldn't use logic in our witnessing and Peter exhorts us to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Pet 3:15). However when it comes to the spiritual and salvation of souls a person needs divine revelation not rationale. It's true that we live in a world where materialism reigns supreme and men think that everything in the universe can be explained by natural causes/laws, which is of course totally irrational and illogical. When Paul reasoned with the philosophers in Athens he didn't just hit them with logic, he told them that:

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. (Acts 17:23-24)

It's no different today, the intellectuals who reject the God of the Bible worship the 'unknown god' of materialism. When it comes to origins, ones position is not based on empirical science, but rather on a presupposition or worldview. Bible believing Christians insist that an omniscient, all-powerful God created the universe while atheists & Co insist matter created itself from nothing and that life came from non-living matter. Now when we examine these claims in the light of what we know and observe it becomes clear that the Biblical world view is far more plausible and rational. The same argument applies for biological evolution versus design.

My point is that Biblical creationism is logically defensible using the very same evidence that atheists/evolutionists claim removes the need for any divine or supernatural intervention in the universe. However logic can only take you so far and unless a person also believes the claims of the Bible (eg. Jesus is God, His resurrection, Divine judgment etc.) which cannot be proven empirically at least, that person cannot be saved.



There seems to be this notion amongst many Christians that one cannot be religious and intelligent at the same time, and that to be a real and relevant scientist one must not let religion or philosophy cloud ones thinking. Of course in the real world nothing could be further from the truth and history has shown that where Biblical Christianity has flourished so has science and technological advancement. Atheist Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University had this to say:
ĎI want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It isnít just that I donít believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I donít want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.íSo in essence, the atheist is not so much adverse to the existence of God as he is to the implications of there being a God (particularly the God of the Bible). I think it's fair to say that many atheists would embrace the idea of Deism of some sort as long as it is not the God of the Bible (ie. on a purely intellectual level you could convince them that there is a supernatural intellect behind the creation of the universe). However for the atheist or any non-believer to be saved they must first embrace the God of the Bible and that requires divine revelation, spiritual illumination and a change of heart that is only possible through the Word of God and the preaching of the Gospel.

Cheers
Leigh

Excellent post, Leigh - and your closing point shows the fallacy of thinking that persuading atheists and skeptics of intelligent will be enough to persuade them to become Christians. But the utter antipathy towards God of mysotheists (God haters - not atheists) like Dawkins shows that they don't WANT to believe in any kind of God - that is what drives them - it's actually profoundly faith based and not scientific or rational at all!

I actually heard Dawkins speak whne he was here in Dumfries three years ago - some of us from church were handing out creation tracts to those coming in - we refused to pay to come in but when we were invited in, we felt there would be the opportunity to challenge him - there wasn't (I think he could recognise us at question time, as we weren't selected when we put out hands up - a kind of Satanic discernment?!?! ;)) but the thing was he showed up his own woeful inability to explain all things without us needing to challenge him! He was utterly unable to explain the origin of the universe, ducking that issue by saying he wasn't a physicist and that, while they hadn't come up with an explanation, they were making good progress! He was alos unable to explain human consciousness or the fact that humanity is the only species on the planet that had had a concern for other species! The answers to these conundrums are all found in Gen 1 and 2!!!!!

DPMartin
Mar 18th 2008, 07:09 PM
tietzy
thanks, some one that agrees.


Your statement on intelligence; I agree. Though it is true that the Gospel is uncomplicated and of corse should be. But the intelligent can fool the unaware, and the lie should be disputed. If we (the church) leave philosophy, science, the arts and such in the hands of pagans or atheist only, then you will get pagan or atheist philosophy, science, the arts and such. (And this is what has happened) The disregard or indifference toward intelligence bothers me some, when it is the Lord who teaches and preaches Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding in Him and to seek it.

Logic or reason of itself doesn’t prove anything, no more than speaking Spanish to Spaniards proves anything. But if you need to be understood by those who understand Spanish, English won’t get it.

If we can show that their "theories" are not valid. Then not only they may have to reconsider but those they deceive will.

Many of them base their efforts on staying with their theory on "until proven wrong". And will use anything that works for them to maintain that the theory is valid in their minds.

The Truth of the Almighty is in Jesus the Christ, which is Fact, all else is theory.

PilgrimPastor
Mar 20th 2008, 10:07 AM
Excellent post, Leigh - and your closing point shows the fallacy of thinking that persuading atheists and skeptics of intelligent will be enough to persuade them to become Christians. But the utter antipathy towards God of mysotheists (God haters - not atheists) like Dawkins shows that they don't WANT to believe in any kind of God - that is what drives them - it's actually profoundly faith based and not scientific or rational at all!



That is a great post. I couldn't agree more and I wish I had been there with you to hear Dawkins fumble around a bit! I often say that it is a matter of presuppositions. Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others of their ilk have already presupposed that God does not (CAN NOT) exist and working from that premise they make their arguments and claims.

This certainly is not a matter of a lack of education in regard to even the possibility of creation or Christ - it is, as you say, aggressive atheism.

9Marksfan
Mar 20th 2008, 05:04 PM
That is a great post. I couldn't agree more and I wish I had been there with you to hear Dawkins fumble around a bit! I often say that it is a matter of presuppositions. Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others of their ilk have already presupposed that God does not (CAN NOT) exist and working from that premise they make their arguments and claims.

This certainly is not a matter of a lack of education in regard to even the possibility of creation or Christ - it is, as you say, aggressive atheism.

Or even misotheism! Dawkins uses childish, playground "yah boo" insults towards creationists because it gets him cheap laughs - he tried to taunt us by making reference to the tracts we were distributing - but in seeking to refute them, he just rubbished them and didn't really oppose them with any kind of rational argument at all! He was also a real fraud - I reckon that, after his travel costs and the cost of hiring the school hall were deducted, he would have pocketed between £2-3000 for the trip - yet had he prepared anything new?!? No! He just read passages from a few of his books (which of course were conveniently on sale that night!)!

You're absolutely right - it IS all down to presuppositions - that is what I learned 12 years ago when I came into an understanding of the truth of a literal 6 day creation ex nihilo - Australian Carl Wieland was the speaker (Dumfries may be a bit of a backwater, but we sometimes get some well-known people to come here!) and he now heads up Creation Ministries International - check them out:-

www.CreationOnTheWeb.org (http://www.CreationOnTheWeb.org)

PS It was one of the guys at CMI who coined the term "misotheist" - a good one! Sorry for the wrong spelling in the earlier post - I thought there was a "y" in it but that was because I was thinking of "misogynists" (woman haters)! Sorry for the other typos too - I should proofread my posts more!

PilgrimPastor
Mar 20th 2008, 10:55 PM
www.CreationOnTheWeb.org (http://www.CreationOnTheWeb.org)



Thanks for the link. That is a great site. I recently began working toward a Ph.D. in Creation Science and I have been looking for more sources of information on the subject. I hope to increase this area of my ministry significantly.

Blessings!

ilovemetal
Mar 21st 2008, 01:02 AM
hey, i haven't read all the posts, but this site is what helped me more than any in the past 7 years of reading about the subject.

http://www.trueorigin.org/

thanks.

PilgrimPastor
Mar 21st 2008, 03:17 AM
hey, i haven't read all the posts, but this site is what helped me more than any in the past 7 years of reading about the subject.

http://www.trueorigin.org/

thanks.

Great link. I'll save that one for sure! :kiss:

Athanasius
Mar 21st 2008, 03:21 AM
I also recommend the work of Norman Geisler, probably the leading proponent of the cosmological argument. He gets extremely (extremely) in depth, so if he's too deep then I'd recommend, as well, Dallas Willard who goes about things in a 'simpler' way, but still maintains a very good apologetic.