Christianity and creationism are irreconcilable!

Doveaman · #91 31st October 2009, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Inan3

TMT I enjoyed your discourse. It was inspiring, as usual.

I would have to say, though, that it is not necessarily the truth that God cannot be seen. We have seen God in the life of Jesus Christ. He was the embodiment of the godhead. God became flesh and dwelt among us. We beheld God through the life of His Son Jesus Christ.

God walked with Adam in the garden. Abraham had a visitation from God.
Moses, also, saw God in the mount and his visitation was so wonderful that Moses had to wear a veil before the people of Israel because his face shone so brilliantly, and they were afraid.

God is a Spirit and does not always manifest Himself to us but that does not mean that we cannot see Him. We will one day see Him and the fulness of His glory.

We also, hear the noise behind the door of Jesus returning and the day that we will one day behold our God. There is a day that every eye will see Him when He returns.

Amen.

Inan3 · #92 31st October 2009, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Biblically, there is confusion that creation was ex nihilo. The idea that creation was ex nihilo is a rather recent theory -- dating from about the 400s AD.

But yes, such a creation, as described in Genesis 1, would leave evidence we would see today. Here is some evidence we would expect to find today IF the earth were created as described in Genesis 1:

1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments.

2. No extinct plants or animals.

3. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments.

4. Clear genetic boundaries between the "kinds" of organisms. That is, no ERVs or phylogenetic analysis showing how the DNA of organisms in the different "kinds" is related to one another.

Why do you capitalize "Documentation"? The Bible is not documentation, but is a guide to help us understand God and develop a personal relationship with Him. Why do you ignore God's second book: Creation?

After all, AV, what did God create? Creation, right? Don't you think Creation is going to have cluse in it on how God created?

But speaking of "documentation", why does the "Documentation" tell us in Genesis 2:4 that what took at least 4 days in Genesis 1 only took one day? Not very good "documentation" when it contradicts itself. And that is only 1 of several contradictions between the creation story in Genesis 2 and the story in Genesis 1. Neon signs telling you not to read Genesis 1-3 literally. You should listen to God more instead of trying to tell God how He had to create.

"Biblically" there is no confusion that creation was ex nihlo because it was not ex nihlo! The confusion comes when man does not understand what the Bible says.

Things were not created from nothing. GOD who is life spoke and they were created. What people do not understand is that God's words are SPIRIT and LIFE. They have substance. Science likes to use the word "energy." Well, energy does not come from science it comes from God. Energy, force, power, life, creation all come from God. God is a WORD being and His words are more than just letters on a page. His spoken word is full of life and power and is the source and energy of all creation.

We were not created out of nothing. We were created by the energizing force and power and life of His Word!

People keep using Genesis 1 as a time frame for the manifestation of creation. Genesis 1 is the plan of God spoken. The blueprint and establishment of the creation. Certain things had to be spoken first before the actual manifestation of the creation came into being. We see this pattern throughout the scriptures. God speaks His word regarding something and then later it is manifested. We understand this by looking further into the scriptures. Genesis 2 begins to give us the generations or steps, so to speak, of how it came about. We know this because Gen 1:11 & 12 tell us that God called into existence plant life, etc. but in Gen 2:4 & 5 He begins to lay down the generations of what happened BEFORE the the plants and herbs were in the field and grew. So Genesis 1 was not necessarily the order of the manifestation of the creation of God just the planning and establishing of the creation of God. If you look up the word BEFORE in this context you will see it means to interrupt or to suspend. Part of creation was interrupted and suspended while other parts were being manifested.

One more thing, the list you gave sound all nice and tidy but it really has no relevance upon what the scriptures says about creation. It neither supports or nullifies it.

laconicstudent · #93 2nd November 2009, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Inan3

"Biblically" there is no confusion that creation was ex nihlo because it was not ex nihlo! The confusion comes when man does not understand what the Bible says.

Things were not created from nothing. GOD who is life spoke and they were created. What people do not understand is that God's words are SPIRIT and LIFE. They have substance. Science likes to use the word "energy." Well, energy does not come from science it comes from God. Energy, force, power, life, creation all come from God. God is a WORD being and His words are more than just letters on a page. His spoken word is full of life and power and is the source and energy of all creation.

We were not created out of nothing. We were created by the energizing force and power and life of His Word!

People keep using Genesis 1 as a time frame for the manifestation of creation. Genesis 1 is the plan of God spoken. The blueprint and establishment of the creation. Certain things had to be spoken first before the actual manifestation of the creation came into being. We see this pattern throughout the scriptures. God speaks His word regarding something and then later it is manifested. We understand this by looking further into the scriptures. Genesis 2 begins to give us the generations or steps, so to speak, of how it came about. We know this because Gen 1:11 & 12 tell us that God called into existence plant life, etc. but in Gen 2:4 & 5 He begins to lay down the generations of what happened BEFORE the the plants and herbs were in the field and grew. So Genesis 1 was not necessarily the order of the manifestation of the creation of God just the planning and establishing of the creation of God. If you look up the word BEFORE in this context you will see it means to interrupt or to suspend. Part of creation was interrupted and suspended while other parts were being manifested.

One more thing, the list you gave sound all nice and tidy but it really has no relevance upon what the scriptures says about creation. It neither supports or nullifies it.

Thats probably good a good theological theory, but it doesn't take into account the extant scientific evidence, such as radiometric dating and the fossil record. You cannot simply ignore that, or try and explain it away non-parsimoniously.

Doveaman · #94 3rd November 2009, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by laconicstudent

Thats probably good a good theological theory, but it doesn't take into account the extant scientific evidence, such as radiometric dating and the fossil record. You cannot simply ignore that, or try and explain it away non-parsimoniously.

Then the LORD said to him (Moses), "What is that in your hand?" "A staff," he replied. The LORD said, "Throw it on the ground." Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it.

Then the LORD said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail." So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand...Ex 4:2-4.

You have ‘seen’ God in Exodus turn Moses' staff into an adult snake. If a scientist had came across that snake he would "take into account" that the snake would have had to been hatched from an egg and through a process of growth he became an adult snake that was perhaps 3 to 5 years old. But you know quite well from your 'observation' that the snake was only about 3 to 5 minuets old. Why? Because God did it...Case closed.

Gracchus · #95 3rd November 2009, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Doveaman

You have ‘seen’ God in Exodus turn Moses' staff into an adult snake.

Actually, I didn't see it and neither did you.

If a scientist had came across that snake he would "take into account" that the snake would have had to been hatched from an egg and through a process of growth he became an adult snake that was perhaps 3 to 5 years old. But you know quite well from your 'observation' that the snake was only about 3 to 5 minuets old.

But I didn't make such an "observation" and neither did you.

Why? Because God did it...Case closed.

You say God did it. Your testimony is ... doubtful.

Inan3 · #96 3rd November 2009, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Gracchus

Actually, I didn't see it and neither did you.

But I didn't make such an "observation" and neither did you.

You say God did it. Your testimony is ... doubtful.

And I quote:

"A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin

Gracchus · #97 3rd November 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Inan3

And I quote:

"A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin

And from this you deduce ... ?

LifeToTheFullest! · #98 3rd November 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Doveaman

Then the LORD said to him (Moses), "What is that in your hand?" "A staff," he replied. The LORD said, "Throw it on the ground." Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it.

Then the LORD said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail." So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand...Ex 4:2-4.

You have ‘seen’ God in Exodus turn Moses' staff into an adult snake. If a scientist had came across that snake he would "take into account" that the snake would have had to been hatched from an egg and through a process of growth he became an adult snake that was perhaps 3 to 5 years old. But you know quite well from your 'observation' that the snake was only about 3 to 5 minuets old. Why? Because God did it...Case closed.

We have 'seen' no such thing. What we have done is read where someone wrote an account of god turning Moses staff into a snake. Two very different things, I'm sure you'll agree.

I tend to apply Hume's maxim to stories like these.

lucaspa · #99 4th November 2009, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Inan3

"Biblically" there is no confusion that creation was ex nihlo because it was not ex nihlo! The confusion comes when man does not understand what the Bible says.

Things were not created from nothing. GOD who is life spoke and they were created.

I'm afraid you are sowing more confusion. The theory of creatio ex nihilo is that there was no extant substance other than God. Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. However, in Genesis 1:6 we find that there is an existing water. When God makes the "firmament" we get heaven. When God gathers the waters under the firmament into one place, only then do we get the earth. So, God seems to start with some pre-existing stuff when He creates the heavens and the earth.

It is true that, in Genesis 1, God speaks and things appear: light, stars, moon, plants, animals, people etc. This is where you can argue "that God's words are SPIRIT and LIFE. They have substance. God is a WORD being and His words are more than just letters on a page." However, when you get to Genesis 2 this argument falls apart. God does not speak Adam into existence; He forms him from pre-existing material. God also forms all the animals and birds from pre-existing material -- "out of the ground. So here we don't have "His spoken word". What you are doing is making up a theology without listening to God.

His Word!

Again, the ONLY place in the Bible where "Word" is capitalized is John 1:1. And here "Word" does NOT refer to God's spoken or written word. It refers explicitly to Jesus. THere is no "His Word" but Jesus.

Certain things had to be spoken first before the actual manifestation of the creation came into being.

That argument has been made many times, but it runs into conflict with God's second book. The order in Genesis 1 is wrong if we are reading it as a timeline. Stars came before the earth. The sun came before plants. Whales came after land animals.

So Genesis 1 was not necessarily the order of the manifestation of the creation of God just the planning and establishing of the creation of God.

Here you are trying to reconcile that we have two different creation stories in Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2-3. They contradict. Genesis 1 is NOT a "planning document". "Let there be light, and there was light". It is a record of things that happen, not that they are planned. In your attempt to "reconcile" the 2 creation stories and keep a literal Genesis, you are actually violating what they say.

Instead of looking for a literal meaning, look for the theological meaning and what they meant to the people of the day. If you do that, then the stories are indeed different. They tell different theological truths and those truths do not contradict.

If you look up the word BEFORE in this context you will see it means to interrupt or to suspend. Part of creation was interrupted and suspended while other parts were being manifested.

You mean the Hebrew word "before"? I have not seen that. Please give us a citation to back this claim.

One more thing, the list you gave sound all nice and tidy but it really has no relevance upon what the scriptures says about creation. It neither supports or nullifies it.

Well, since you are trying to change scripture to avoid the nullification, you have amply demonstrated that the list does nullify what the scriptures say about creation. You are simply denying that the scriptures are saying that there was a creation week, aren't you? You are trying to inject immense amounts of time into the process. And you must inject immense amounts of time. If the process lasted even 10,000 years, then the list is still relevant. To have the list have "no relevance", then you have to have enough time for evolution to occur.

lucaspa · #**100** 4th November 2009, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Doveaman

Because God did it...Case closed.

Saying "God did it" does not tell you anything. What you have to specify is how God did it. The argument between creationism and evolution isn't really about whether God did it. Darwin thought God did. The argument is about how God did it. Did God create according to a particular human interpretation of Genesis 1-8 or did God create according to the method revealed in His Creation? EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM!

You have ‘seen’ God in Exodus turn Moses' staff into an adult snake. If a scientist had came across that snake he would "take into account" that the snake would have had to been hatched from an egg and through a process of growth he became an adult snake that was perhaps 3 to 5 years old. But you know quite well from your 'observation' that the snake was only about 3 to 5 minuets old. Why?

As has been pointed out, we have not "seen" this. The story dates to long before you and I were born. You and I trust that the accounts were accurate. We believe this. But we do not know this.

You think that, if I were to see the snake out of context, it would look like every other adult snake. But is that so? Does it have to look like every other adult snake or can there be signs that it really was miraculously created 5 minutes ago? It turns out there can be signs of its miraculous creation. For instance, an adult snake would have signs of remodeling in its bones. This snake would not have to have such signs. All the osteons would be intact and there would be no half osteons as the remodeling process removed half of an osteon to replace it with new bone.

This brings us to a grave theological issue: is God a deceiver? You seem to be arguing "yes". You are saying that God would make the snake look like every other adult snake and, thus, seem old. But God is not compelled to do that. He can make the snake such that it reflects its recent creation in this form.

I suggest you look up the history of "Oomphalos" and the religious objections to it.