Christianity and creationism are irreconcilable!

Doveaman · #**101** 4th November 2009, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Saying "God did it" does not tell you anything. What you have to specify is how God did it.

Not if we are talking about the snake God miraculously created, which is what I was talking about. If it was a miraculous creation (it was) then it is not possible for us to scientifically know how God did it. We simply have to accept that 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!

My point had nothing to do with the creationism/evolution argument.My point was that not everything we observe has a scientific explanation, such as a dead man rising up out of his grave after three days and flying off into the clouds. Despite the benefits of science it has its limits. And if we rely too heavily on it it can be misleading.

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.

You speak of Christian faith as if there is room for doubt. There isn’t.

“Seen”, “Trust”, “Believe” = Faith. My point was that we ‘saw’ the snake through the eyes of faith, not with our physical eyes.

But we do not know this.

Speak for yourself.

Christian faith knows. It knows because of the written word of God in scripture and the living Word of God in our hearts. So by faith I do know because it is written.

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.

Is this where I’m supposed to laugh? Did I miss the joke?

See if you can apply this same argument to the dead man who rose up out of his grave after three days and flew off into the clouds.

This brings us to a grave theological issue: is God a deceiver? You seem to be arguing "yes".

Please don’t make a mess of my argument. If you missed my point you can simply ask for clarification. I would be happy to give it.

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.

You mean like a snake that is 3 to 5 minutes old. How exactly would that look?

And how exactly would this benefit the Hebrews among whom this miracle was performed as a sign of God’s limitless power in addition to His turning water into blood?

Your argument is irrelevant.

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

I don’t see its relevance to my post so I won’t bother.

Doveaman · #**102** 4th November 2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by LifeToTheFullest!

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 do not agree.

There is more than one way to 'see'. I was also crucified with Christ two thousand years ago. I was buried with him and raised to life with him. I am now seated with Christ in heaven at this present time. I am also present on the sabbath day of creation week.

Wedjat · #**103** 4th November 2009, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Doveaman

I do not agree.

There is more than one way to 'see'. I was also crucified with Christ two thousand years ago. I was buried with him and raised to life with him. I am now seated with Christ in heaven at this present time. I am also present on the sabbath day of creation week.

Wait... what?

faith guardian · #**104** 5th November 2009, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Wedjat

Wait... what?

Oh come on. He didn't mean that literaly (as in the physical sense of it all)

Wedjat · #**105** 5th November 2009, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by faith guardian

Oh come on. He didn't mean that literaly (as in the physical sense of it all)

Yeah, but I don't even know how he means it metaphorically.

lucaspa · #**106** 9th November 2009, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Doveaman

Not if we are talking about the snake God miraculously created, which is what I was talking about. If it was a miraculous creation (it was) then it is not possible for us to scientifically know how God did it.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You are saying "scientifically how God did it". What makes that story outside if science is not the mechanism, but other things. The story says that God made the staff into a snake. That is how God did it! God transformed a staff into a snake. We do not need to know the details of the transformation to have a general "how".

Miracle is a how. Think about that. Miracle is a mechanism or a "how". When you say "God did it", you have a mechanism: miracle. Instantaneous appearance or, in this case, instantaneous transformation of staff to snake or perhaps instantaneous replacement of staff with snake.

My point had nothing to do with the creationism/evolution argument.My point was that not everything we observe has a scientific explanation, such as a dead man rising up out of his grave after three days and flying off into the clouds. Despite the benefits of science it has its limits.

I agree that science is a limited form of knowing. But the problem here is that creationism is a scientific theory. It is a very testable "how" that God created. And, as a scientific theory, it can be falsified like any scientific theory. Can be falsified, and has been falsified.

And if we rely too heavily on it it can be misleading.

Science itself is not misleading. I would say that people that misuse science outside its legitmate boundaries -- like Dawkings or PZ Meyers -- and try have science make metaphysical conclusions science can't make, are misleading.

You speak of Christian faith as if there is room for doubt. There isn’t.

Of course there is room for doubt in Christian faith. Jesus expressed doubt in both the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" That is doubt. Very severe and anguished doubt.

“Seen”, “Trust”, “Believe” = Faith. My point was that we ‘saw’ the snake through the eyes of faith, not with our physical eyes.

We have not seen the snake. We trust that the accounts are accurate. There is no "eyes of faith". Instead, there is evidence that we trust is accurate, or that we have that not everyone has, that provides the basis for faith.

Evidence first, then faith. Not faith then evidence.

Christian faith knows. It knows because of the written word of God in scripture and the living Word of God in our hearts.

This is Fundamentalism, not Christianity. Christian faith "knows" because of the evidence of a personal relationship with God and the risen Christ. Scripture helps us get to that personal relationship.

Is this where I’m supposed to laugh? Did I miss the joke?

No. You are supposed to realize that the limitation of science in this case is not the miraculous nature of the snake's origins. If we had the snake right after the transformation of staff to snake, then we could tell that snake originated by miracle.

What you are trying to do is deny that science can study any miracle. That is not true. The limitation of science is not the miracle, but whether the miracle leaves any evidence we can study today.

The Resurrection left no evidence we can study today. Altho, please note, there are those who think the Shroud of Turin is such evidence. If the Shroud were genuine, then the scientific study of the Shroud would provide supporting evidence for the Resurrection.

So, saying "miracle" does not automatically exclude scientific study. If the miracle leaves evidence that we can study today, then we can test that particular "how" that God did it. Creationism posits a "how God did it" that would leave evidence we can study today. When we look for that evidence, we find evidence instead that simply can't be there if creationism is true. Therefore creationism must be false. God did not create that way.

You mean like a snake that is 3 to 5 minutes old. How exactly would that look?

I gave you one example: a 3-5 minute old adult snake, freshly created or transformed, would not have remodeling marks in the bones. You could only see these if you killed the snake, dissected the bones, and then viewed them under a microscope, but you could tell whether you had an adult snake that was 5-7 years old versus one created 3-5 minutes ago. Another indication would be that the scales of the miraculously created snake would not have any wear marks. There are probably other subtle clues if you know more about snake anatomy and physiology.

The point I am trying to make is that, if we had the snake, and it really was only 3-5 minutes after it was miraculously created, then yes, we could tell, by science, that it was miraculously created. The limitation of science here is not the miraculous nature of the snake's origin, but rather that the event happened 3500 or so years ago and the snake is long dead and lost. We don't have the snake to study.

And how exactly would this benefit the Hebrews among whom this miracle was performed as a sign of God’s limitless power in addition to His turning water into blood?

This is irrelevant. Remember, the Hebrews at the time witnessed the staff turning into a snake. Their evidence was what they actually saw with their own eyeballs. What I am saying is that the snake would, as you claim, look like any other snake. There would be subtle differences that would allow us -- if we had the snake today -- to determine that, yes, the miracle did occur.

I don’t see its relevance to my post so I won’t bother.

I suggest you look it up, because the relevance is there. You are making the Oomphalos argument. You apparently don't realize it, but you are. Or you already know the Oomphalos argument and simply don't want to admit that you are using it?

lucaspa · #**107** 9th November 2009, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Wedjat

Yeah, but I don't even know how he means it metaphorically.

Doveaman's metaphorical visions have several problems, both theological and for accuracy. But think about it this way: it is like a scientist saying he "was there" at the birth of the solar system. Of course he wasn't, but he can take available evidence and make a mental reconstruction of the event. Several people have converted their mental images to TV and film images so everyone can "see" and "be there" at the event.

Doveaman · #**108** 9th November 2009, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Originally Posted by Doveaman

Christian faith knows. It knows because of the written word of God in scripture and the living Word of God in our hearts.

This is Fundamentalism, not Christianity. Christian faith "knows" because of the evidence of a personal relationship with God and the risen Christ. Scripture helps us get to that personal relationship.

And that was exactly my point. Thanks for explaining it with such greater clarity because I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a Fundamentalist.

Doveaman · #**109** 9th November 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Originally Posted by Doveaman

I was also crucified with Christ two thousand years ago. I was buried with him and raised to life with him. I am now seated with Christ in heaven at this present time. I am also present on the sabbath day of creation week.

Doveaman's metaphorical visions have several problems, both theological and for accuracy. But think about it this way: it is like a scientist saying he "was there" at the birth of the solar system. Of course he wasn't, but he can take available evidence and make a mental reconstruction of the event. Several people have converted their mental images to TV and film images so everyone can "see" and "be there" at the event.

I don't think Christ had television or cinema in mind when He inspired these words:

I have been crucified with Christ...Gal 2:20

We were therefore buried with him...Rom 6:4.

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms...Eph 2:6.

"And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." Now we who have believed do enter that rest...Heb 4:3-4.

Inan3 · #**110** 5th January 2010, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

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.

I disagree. The only confusion comes when people do not study the scriptures properly and assume they understand what the scriptures mean and just pass it along from generation to generation. This causes confusion and makes people question the veracity of the scriptures.

VERSE 1 - Statement: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. PERIOD. It was complete and total in every way. No timeframe ... No order was explaned.

It was created in the mind of God and declared, established and came into being.

VERSE 2 - The earth "was" (Hebrew word hayah should have been translated "became". Of the 1000 plus times the word was used in the Bible, this place is the only place it was translated "was". 634 times "come and came" 133 times "become and became". 240 times "have, had and been".
The earth BECAME void and without form. Isaiah 45:18 states that God did NOT create the earth without form. The word "vain" in Isaiah 45:18 is the same Hebrew word as "without form" in Gen 1:2. God did not create the earth without form originally, therefore, "something" happened to it to cause it to be "tohu and bohu" or without form and void.

The rest of the order of Genesis 1 was not necessarily the order in which God brought the things into being or place BUT they were the way God planned or declared their functions and the plans and purposes for Their creation.

NOTE: Every time the word "God" is used in Genesis 1 and verses 1& 2 of Genesis 2 it is the Elohim and is plural and means the "Supreme God" or the "Supreme Magistrates" Elohim is the complete Godhead of Father, Word and Holy Spirit. "Let US create man in OUR image and likeness."

Genesis 2 is where and how Jehovah God actually implemented the plan of the Supreme Magistrates into the natural in the creation of man.

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.

You will, also, find the word "word" capitalized in 1 Jn 1:1, 1 Jn 5:7 and Rev. 19:13. We must remember in the original language there were no capitalizations or punctuation or chapters or verses. It was left up to the translators. I only capitalize the word Word as a way of showing my utmost respect for it. But I do believe "words" come from the "Word" of the Godhead. I believe that is one of the ways man was created in God's image. We are able to speak and form words and thoughts and ideas. We are able to create.

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.

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.

See above and to clarify I am not talking about 2 creation stories. I am just relating the truth of one creation and how it happened.

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.

I could not possibly know what the theological meaning or what it meant to the people of the day and neither can any one else. That can only be speculated. The scriptures are for all generations and do not change based on the people of the day. The Bible is a record of God and Their relationship and influence with ALL of mankind.

Contradiction comes when we try to interpret what others mean or what the theological belief of men and women of years ago is based on our own theological beliefs of today. GOD moved upon holy men and they wrote down what GOD wanted and not their own theological beliefs. GOD was able to speak to ALL men through the words that were written down by 40 different men over the span of thousands of years. One only needs to born again and study the scriptures while depending on the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

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

Yes, I mean the Hebrew word for "before" in the following verses. As you can see it is explained that these are the "generations" or "lineage" of the heavens and the earth. Or the way it developed and was worked out.
The word "before" below actually should have been translated "interrupted or suspended".
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground

So it could read something like this.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field that was created was suspended or interrupted prior to it growing: because Jehovah God had not caused it to rain yet upon the earth and there wasn't a man yet to till it and take care of the seed when it was sown.

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.

I am not denying that there were six days involved after Gen 1:1 in the creation of God. I am just saying I do not believe that the time frame of creation was limited to six days.

We cannot say what the time frame is of the heavens and the earth but we can know that man is only around 6000+ years old. We have a definite record written and preserved of man's generations.

I mean the list had no relevance at all only in regards to creation and that it didn't nullify it and as I have explained it, I still do not.