YECs, why do you do it?

[miamited]

Hi Pappias,

Your information will take quite a while to digest, but after having looked over, just briefly, some of the information, I find some unanswered questions and nothing that definitively answers the question of transitional life forms. Note that even the page posted of the 29+ examples says:
1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors.

It would appear that even the author doesn't find this evidence completely satisfactory to state as known morphologies.

Another quote from bird to dinosaur says:
The fossil record could show a chronological progression in which bird wings are gradually transformed into reptilian arms; however, the opposite is the case.

Then all we have are drawings. Evolutionists are very good at allowing drawings of 'supposed' evolutionary material to be accepted as fact.

Then we read:
A strong positive falsification would be the discovery of a mammal without crossed gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts, or a reptile or mammal without blindspots in its eyes, etc. This is because poor design cannot be "fixed" by evolutionary processes, even if correcting the problem would be beneficial for the organism. The only "fixing" that is allowed evolutionarily is relatively minor modification of what already exists.

It is exactly this relatively minor modification that we can't find.

In the picture of the sea cow we have what is presumed to be a precursor of the sea cow that we know today. However, the picture shows a nearly complete skeleton with four fully formed 'legs'. Are we to believe that one day this creature existed and then sometime in the past, the very next generation lost the four limbs and became flippers just like that? Have we been able to determine through DNA testing that the creature pictured really is a precursor to the sea cow of today? Is there really no basis that the pictured creature is really another type of creature that lived several thousand years ago that is today extinct?

I'm not a scientist, so I readily admit that I probably won't be able to give any definitive answers regarding all that has been posted to me, but I find a lot of unanswered questions that need to be addressed and I still don't see any real evidence of transitional skeletal or fossilized remains and based on the first statement posted, even the author finds the evidence somewhat lacking.

Anyway, I will continue to read further what you have posted to me and see what all 'new' science has come up with.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[miamited]

Hi Pappias,

You asked about the geneologies of 1 chronicles and Matthew. Could you be a little more specific of exactly which one you are referring to in the chronicles? There are, after all, quite a few in there.

God bless.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[philadiddle]

Then all we have are drawings. Evolutionists are very good at allowing drawings of 'supposed' evolutionary material to be accepted as fact.

Did you look up the photos of the original fossils behind the drawings? Paleontologists understand bone structure and how muscle and tissue would sit on it. So they interpret the evidence of the bones to determine what the whole organism would look like. The drawings tend to be a result of that interpretation because it is the fastest way to get lots of information about the layman who isn't very familiar with interpreting fossil evidence. If there is a specific drawing of any transitional form that you think doesn't properly reflect the actual evidence, please name the specific drawing and we can look into it.

I also hope that you'll join my topic about the Lucy skeleton that I referred to in my last post.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

In short, the connection of the creation with the incarnation and the new birth. These are foundational principles and when a literal creation is rejected catagorically that view is suspect. What comes to mind is Hebrews 11:1, John 1:1, God's questions from the whirlwind to Job and this very important passage:

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:4)​

I wouldn't expect an unbeliever to understand how that passage is related but a Christian is really without excuse. The same glory that drove the Levites from the dedication of the Tabranacle, that clung to Moses' face so he had to where a veil, that indeed raised Christ from the dead. This is the light that was was shown at the creation.

I'm amazed that a professing believer that frequents these profoundly contentious debates would have to ask that question.

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

You don't have to take Genesis 1 literally to be a New Testament Christian but like many things, your motives are crucial. What you don't take literally in the Old Testament has implications for the New Testament. I believe that God is still doing miracles and still calling light forth in the midst of darkness.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5)​

Compare this passage to Romans 1:18-21 and ask me again why a Bible believing Christian would be a Creationist. How is my walk different? I walk by faith and do not compromise with the spirit of the age and the deeply agnostic worldview of Darwinism.

I recently went on the common forum in the Creation/Evolution area and noticed, the discussion for my last formal debate is still at the top. It's been there for months...come to think of it...for years. That should be telling you something. Look around, you have run the creationists out of here. Even if we didn't see eye to eye on evolution as natural history we should have been able to find a common faith upon which to build a fellowship. None exists, even among professing Christians for one reason. You constant baggering of them has led them to conclude that your arguments are from unbelief.

Personally, I think most of the TEs suffer from a confused idea of what it means to be a Christian. It's not cultural which is why creationists were never really a part of this convoluted 'culture war', just targets. I really feel sorry for you, you are not getting the richness of the Scriptures or the depth of the sciences. You just make a profession of faith and start pounding Bible believing Christians. You don't really have a basis of fellowship with either camp, it must be cold out there where you live.

Don't worry about it though, God knows your heart. If you walk with God clothed in the righteousness of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit and still can maintain this worldly philosophy then go in peace, I have no quarrel with you. As for me I trust the Scriptures as the best and truest history of mankind from the beginning till the end of the age.

"In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God." (Aeschylus)​

May the grace of God and peace though our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Hello Assyrian,

You responded:
Having literal genealogies can hardly be the high point of YEC.

Uh, yea, it can. Can you give me a logical and reasonable explanation for why the Scriptures declare that Adam, at 130 years old had a son named Seth, and then lived 930 years?

Well one reason is that it was a mark of respect to attribute long lifespans to leaders. If we look at the king lists from Mesopotamia, the post flood kings (post Epic of Gilgamesh flood) had life spans of many centuries to over a thousand years. Preflood kings were given lifespans in multiple thousands of years, but the texts in Genesis seem to follow the post flood Accadian pattern. In Egypt honourific lifespans were much more modest, 110 years, which just happens to be how long Joseph is said to have lived. The decline in lifespan may simply be the writer bringing the ages from Accadian to Egyptian honourifics. What is interesting as I pointed out is that Moses did not seem to take the lifespans literally.

Another possibility is that the numbers are symbolic, though the precise meaning of the symbolism is lost in the mists of time like 'the Book of the Wars of the Yahewh', or the tunes of the psalms, Psalm 56:1 For the director of music. To the tune of “A Dove on Distant Oaks.” Of David. A miktam.

You see, my friend, because if you can't give an alternate reason for this one little piece of Scripture, then you have to change your story to Adam being a real live person.

No that doesn't follow. Even if we don't understand everything in scripture, it does not mean it defaults to literal.

If you change your story to Adam being a real live person, then the introduction of sin, must be true. If you believe the introduction of sin is true, then you must believe and that God's curse of death upon people started with that sin, then you must believe that there were certainly no people before Adam.

The bible says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Whether the sin started with a man called Adam, God's curse of death is on everyone who sins, because they sinned. Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned. Ezek 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. Whether that is talking about physical death or spiritual death is another matter. Even if you take Adam literally, he was warned he would surely die on the day he ate from the tree. As you point out he was still alive physically 930 years later He only died spiritually the day he ate the fruit.

Yes, my friend, that one little statement that I claim God put there for just such discussions as these going on here, makes a difference in what we believe. Then when you begin to follow all those geneologies out you begin to understand how old the earth really is. It answers a lot of questions if you can just figure out why God said that Adam, at 130 years had a son named Seth, and then lived 930 years.

The age you think the earth is depends much more on taking the days of Genesis literally than the genealogies.

You also have to assume the genealogies are complete. Genesis says Arpachshad was 35 when he fathered Shelah Gen 11:12. But according to Luke, Cainan was Arphaxad's son and Shelah the son of Cainan, making Shelah Arphaxad's grandson. So was 35 Arphaxad's age when his son was born who later became the father of Shelah, or was it Arphaxad's age when his grandson was born? If there are gaps you can't work out the length of time back to Adam.

Bishop Ussher has a lot to answer for trying to calculate the age of the earth from the genealogies. Paul warned us to avoid endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith 1Tim 1:4. Paul certainly got that right!

BTW the psalm of Moses gives a generalization of age, thus he says seventy - eighty years. However, just as today our life expectancy is pegged at the mid 70's or so, there are some who live to be over 100 years old.

It is true some people today live to 120, but Moses wasn't simply someone with a normal modern life expectancy who happened to live that long, his father, grandfather and great grandfather are said to have lived into their 130s. If these lifespans were literal, there was no reason for Moses to think that he had a life expectancy of 70 or 80, and according to the extended lifespans in scripture, he didn't, he lived to 120. Right where you would expect from the gradually declining lifespans in scripture.

Yet in Psalm 90 he described himself as sharing the 70 to 80 year life expectancy as everybody else. Psalm 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. Moses can't have believed the lifespans in scripture were literal if he thought he only had an actual life expectancy of 70 or 80.

So, then, you don't believe that Moses wrote that passage or is it that you believe Moses was wrong?

Oh no, I believe Moses wrote it, just like the Psalm tells us. Remember, it is not me saying Moses got it wrong. He only got it wrong if you think the lifespans are literal and Moses lived to 120. I don't. I think Moses is showing us here that he didn't take those extended lifespans literally, just as in verse 4 he shows us God's days are not always literal either.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

Cheers Ted, it is good talking to you.

 

[miamited]

Hi Assyrian,

Yes, but you're not really looking at all the facts of the Scriptural account. Agreed that there have been mythical creatures and beings in human folklore that have been given great attributes. Icarus was given wings and flew too close to the sun. Can you even imagine how far above the earth's atmosphere he would have had to have flown to be so close to the sun? I mean the myth doesn't say that he spent too much time in the sun or that he should only fly on overcast days, but that he flew too close to the sun. The radiant heat of the sun is roughly the same at 200 ft as 1000 ft. and so for just the increased heat of the sun to be the problem with Icarus' wings, he would have had to have flown fairly high. Now, what happens to the earth's atmosphere when we get to those heights? Surely he didn't have any kind of breathing apparatus. Anyway, it's a myth.


2523-2484... A'annepadda
2483-2448... Meskiagnunna
2447-2423... Elulu
2422-2387... Balulu Dynasty of Lagash c. 2494-2342 B.C.

2494-2465... Ur-Nanshe

2464-2455... Akurgal
2454-2425... Ennatum
2424-2405... Enannatum I
2402-2375... Entemena 2374-2365... Enannatum II


2364-2359... Enentarzi
2358-2352... Lugal-anda
2351-2342... Uru-inim-gina Dynasty of Uruk c. 2340-2316 B.C.

2340-2316... Lugal-zaggesi
Dynasty of Akkad c. 2334-2154 B.C.

2334-2279... Sargon

2278-2270... Rimush
2269-2255... Manishtushu
2254-2218... Naram-Suen
2217-2193... Shar-kali-sharri
2192-2190... anarchy
2189-2169... Dudu
2168-2154... Shu-Turul Third Dynasty of Ur c. 2112-2004 B.C.

2112-2095... Ur-Nammu

2094-2047... Shulgi
2046-2038... Amar-Suena
2037-2029... Shu-Suen
2028-2004... Ibbi-Suen (The last king of Ur. One of his generals, Ishbi-Erra, established a dynasty in Isin.) Dynasty of Isin c. 2017-1794 B.C.

2017-1985... Ishbi-Erra

1984-1975... Shu-ilishu
1974-1954... Iddin-Dagan
1953-1935... Ishme-Dagan
1934-1924... Lipit-Ishtar
1923-1896... Ur-Ninurta
1895-1875... Bur-Sin
1874-1870... Lipit-Enlil
1869-1863... Erra-imitti
1862-1839... Enlil-bani
1838-1836... Zambiya
1835-1832... Iter-pisha
1831-1828... Ur-dukuga
1827-1817... Sin-magir
1816-1794... Damiq-ilishu Dynasty of Larsa c. 2026-1763 B.C.

2026-2006... Naplanum

2005-1978... Emisum
1977-1943... Samium
1942-1934... Zabaya
1933-1907... Gunnunum
1906-1896... Abi-sare
1895-1867... Sumu-el
1866-1851... Nur-Adad
1850-1844... Sin-iddinam
1843-1842... Sin-eribam
1841-1837... Sin-iqisham
1836... Silli-Adad
1835-1823... Warad-Sin 1822-1763... Rim-Sin (probably an Elamite. He defeated a coalition from Uruk, Isin, and Babylon and destroyed Uruk in 1800.)

This is the list of the Mesopotamian kings that I got going back to about 2500 BC, which would have been within a few hundred years of the flood. I don't see any that even lived to be 100.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Melethiel]

I think those are years of reign, not ages, otherwise some of the kings only lived to be 3.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Assyrian,

Yes, but you're not really looking at all the facts of the Scriptural account. Agreed that there have been mythical creatures and beings in human folklore that have been given great attributes. Icarus was given wings and flew too close to the sun. Can you even imagine how far above the earth's atmosphere he would have had to have flown to be so close to the sun? I mean the myth doesn't say that he spent too much time in the sun or that he should only fly on overcast days, but that he flew too close to the sun. The radiant heat of the sun is roughly the same at 200 ft as 1000 ft. and so for just the increased heat of the sun to be the problem with Icarus' wings, he would have had to have flown fairly high. Now, what happens to the earth's atmosphere when we get to those heights? Surely he didn't have any kind of breathing apparatus. Anyway, it's a myth.

It the lifespans would be a myth if everyone believed it, not if it was understood as a mark of honour, just as in many societies today older men are referred to as grandfather, or gaffer, though they are unrelated to the person, or you address a large group as ladies and gentlemen even though they are not members of the nobility. Moses seems to have understood the ages were not literal, so I don't think it is myth.

2523-2484... A'annepadda
2483-2448... Meskiagnunna
2447-2423... Elulu
2422-2387... Balulu Dynasty of Lagash c. 2494-2342 B.C.

2494-2465... Ur-Nanshe

2464-2455... Akurgal
2454-2425... Ennatum
2424-2405... Enannatum I
2402-2375... Entemena 2374-2365... Enannatum II


2364-2359... Enentarzi
2358-2352... Lugal-anda
2351-2342... Uru-inim-gina Dynasty of Uruk c. 2340-2316 B.C.

2340-2316... Lugal-zaggesi
Dynasty of Akkad c. 2334-2154 B.C.

2334-2279... Sargon

2278-2270... Rimush
2269-2255... Manishtushu
2254-2218... Naram-Suen
2217-2193... Shar-kali-sharri
2192-2190... anarchy
2189-2169... Dudu
2168-2154... Shu-Turul Third Dynasty of Ur c. 2112-2004 B.C.

2112-2095... Ur-Nammu

2094-2047... Shulgi
2046-2038... Amar-Suena
2037-2029... Shu-Suen
2028-2004... Ibbi-Suen (The last king of Ur. One of his generals, Ishbi-Erra, established a dynasty in Isin.) Dynasty of Isin c. 2017-1794 B.C.

2017-1985... Ishbi-Erra

1984-1975... Shu-ilishu
1974-1954... Iddin-Dagan
1953-1935... Ishme-Dagan
1934-1924... Lipit-Ishtar
1923-1896... Ur-Ninurta
1895-1875... Bur-Sin
1874-1870... Lipit-Enlil
1869-1863... Erra-imitti
1862-1839... Enlil-bani
1838-1836... Zambiya
1835-1832... Iter-pisha
1831-1828... Ur-dukuga
1827-1817... Sin-magir
1816-1794... Damiq-ilishu Dynasty of Larsa c. 2026-1763 B.C.

2026-2006... Naplanum

2005-1978... Emisum
1977-1943... Samium
1942-1934... Zabaya
1933-1907... Gunnunum
1906-1896... Abi-sare
1895-1867... Sumu-el
1866-1851... Nur-Adad
1850-1844... Sin-iddinam
1843-1842... Sin-eribam
1841-1837... Sin-iqisham
1836... Silli-Adad
1835-1823... Warad-Sin 1822-1763... Rim-Sin (probably an Elamite. He defeated a coalition from Uruk, Isin, and Babylon and destroyed Uruk in 1800.)

This is the list of the Mesopotamian kings that I got going back to about 2500 BC, which would have been within a few hundred years of the flood. I don't see any that even lived to be 100.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

Wouldn't those normal lifespans so close to the flood actually contradict the idea people lived such a long time?

Anyway if you want to look at some of the extended life spans check out the Sumerian King List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually, having some lists of kings with really long lifespans ad other giving normal lifespans, all in the same region, around the same time is just what you would expect if the the extended lifespan were honourific rather than literal and not everyone used convention in their historical chronicles.

 

[Biblewriter]

Ted, which of the two contradictory geneologies from Adam to David is correct, that in 1 Cr, or the one in Mt?

Is one figurative and one literal? Are they both figurative? If they are both literal, then how can the contradict each other?

Thanks-

Papias

In the first place, this is unacceptable in Christian ministry because it calls into question the word of God. But that is not surprising in an advocate of TE.

But the answer to your question, The geneology in Matthew does not say that the various individuals named are immediate descendants of the previous individual named. I begat Duncan Palmer. I did this because I fathered a daughter, Martha Joy Morris, who married Keneth Palmer. Then she gave birth to Duncan Palmer.

There is no contradiction between the accounts, when read carefully. This has been the case in every alleged contradiction I have ever run across. In every case, the allege mad misunderstood either one or both of the statements that had been imagined to be contradictory.

 

[Assyrian]

In the first place, this is unacceptable in Christian ministry because it calls into question the word of God. But that is not surprising in an advocate of TE.

How is it unacceptable for a follower of Jesus Christ, teller of parables and speaker of metaphors, to understand a passage of scripture figuratively?

But the answer to your question, The geneology in Matthew does not say that the various individuals named are immediate descendants of the previous individual named. I begat Duncan Palmer. I did this because I fathered a daughter, Martha Joy Morris, who married Keneth Palmer. Then she gave birth to Duncan Palmer.

There is no contradiction between the accounts, when read carefully. This has been the case in every alleged contradiction I have ever run across. In every case, the allege mad misunderstood either one or both of the statements that had been imagined to be contradictory.

How many generations is this?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

The bigger question would be to OEC/TEs, why do you do it, seeing how you need to deny pretty much the whole of the genesis narrative and write it off as nothing more than a myth. It is humorous how you seem to treat them like some sort of baffling enigma needing to be figured out. It really is not that complicated

 

[Assyrian]

The bigger question would be to OEC/TEs, why do you do it, seeing how you need to deny pretty much the whole of the genesis narrative and write it off as nothing more than a myth. It is humorous how you seem to treat them like some sort of baffling enigma needing to be figured out. It really is not that complicated

Then why are there two completely different sequences of creation in the first two chapters?

 

[iambeeman]

Then why are there two completely different sequences of creation in the first two chapters?

I just re-read the first two chapters in 2 different translations twice and I'm not seeing your point as true, sorry, I don't see it.

 

[BrendanMark]

Check which day Adam was made, and whether Adam and Eve were created at the same time, or Eve somewhat later (the story with the rib). The 2nd account starts at Gen 2:4, from memory. They are known in biblical scholarship circles as the "Yahwist" and the "Elohist" as they used two different words for God.

 

[Mallon]

I just re-read the first two chapters in 2 different translations twice and I'm not seeing your point as true, sorry, I don't see it.

Check out when God made the birds.

 

[iambeeman]

read it again, twice, I'm not sure I'm seeing it. Perhaps you could be more specific.

 

[BrendanMark]

Genesis 1: 27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Made them at the same time, male and female, in His image.

Genesis 2: 18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Not made at the same time. The whole sequence and wording of Genesis changes from 2:4 on. The use of different names of God, YHWH and Elohim, is clear in the Hebrew.

 

[iambeeman]

But they where made on the same day, at the very least it doesn't say otherwise, does it?

 

[BrendanMark]

Still, not the same time, is it? How lonely could Adam be in one day, given that he has to name every animal species on the planet?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Then why are there two completely different sequences of creation in the first two chapters?

There is only one sequence of creation, Chapter 1. Chapter 2 is simply a general reiteration, this is clear from verse 8...


"The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed."

Chapter 2 is not meant to contradict, but compliment chapter 1.
Verse 19...

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

Does this contradict chapter 1? No. We are simply told the Lord is responsible for the forming of the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, and it is not that it took place at that specific point in chapter 2, but that it took place in the same timing and fashion as chapter 1 reveals.

For example, let's say I elaborate a plan with several steps, A-F. I first lay out the chronology in the order I will accomplish the said hypothetical plan, starting with A and ending with F. This is the established truth. But I can very well reiterate my plan in a different order, say D-B-C-A-F-E. Does this mean I have two different plans?