Creationists False on Key Point

[Dale]

OK, let's remove Genesis 1 to 3.
Then tell me why do Christians need a man called Jesus to die on the cross?

How many times do I have to repeat that I have said nothing about removing any part of the Bible? I interpret it differently. Why should I have to apologize for interpreting it differently? As far as I can tell, creationist thought is a mess. For instance, When God finished the six days of creation, He said it was good.

“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Genesis 1:31 NIV

Is the creation still good after the Fall of Man (and woman) and the Expulsion from Eden? As far as I can tell, creationists are split. Some say that creation is still good and some say that it isn't.

 

[Dale]

OK, let's remove Genesis 1 to 3.
Then tell me why do Christians need a man called Jesus to die on the cross?

To reply to the second part of your question ...


Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressons,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way,
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

--Isaiah 53:4-6 NIV


There is no mention of Genesis Chapters 1-3 in this passage.

 

[Radrook]

The earth DOES have literal cornerstones. You are sitting on one of them.

You are talking about the tectonic plates-correct?

 

[juvenissun]

What do you think happened to the Garden of Eden? I haven't heard any interesting theories from you.


I first encountered the claim that the Garden of Eden had been removed from the Earth in Spalding's Treasury of Bible Stories, which I read as a child.


To further answer your question, in post #17, I gave a link to a creationist website which says that Eden was destroyed. Their answer, not mine. For the claim that Eden was destroyed in the Flood, see the last paragraph in the following link.

Link:

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/was-the-garden-of-eden-located-in-iraq/


In post #24, I refer to a Bible commentary which suggests that Eden was removed but is being kept in heaven for the future.


In post #27, I quote the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. NACE reviews Jewish sources which teach that Eden is in or near heaven. This fits the theory that Eden was removed from earth by God. Oddly, NACE can't seem to find any Catholic thought on the subject.

I don't care who says what. The Bible does not say that.
The Garden is still kept on the earth at the same place as it was, which we do not have an access now.

 

[juvenissun]

To reply to the second part of your question ...


Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressons,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way,
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

--Isaiah 53:4-6 NIV


There is no mention of Genesis Chapters 1-3 in this passage.

The verses say that there will be one. No problem on that.
But the question is WHY should there be one? What is wrong if there were no one.

 

[juvenissun]

For instance, When God finished the six days of creation, He said it was good.

“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Genesis 1:31 NIV

Is the creation still good after the Fall of Man (and woman) and the Expulsion from Eden?

What kind of question is that? It was good does not mean it is good. The earth is not good does not mean the universe is not good.

God's creation is GOOD. No argument about it, creationism or not.

 

[juvenissun]

You are talking about the tectonic plates-correct?

More precisely, continents (not oceanic crust).

 

[Armoured]

Just my personal view, but I think the creation science community and those who propagate it do more to push people away from Christianity than anything else.

Their willfull blindness to reason is far more of a threat to my continued Christianity than anything any atheist has ever said to me.

 

[Armoured]

Now why are you not equally critical to naturalistic teachings of man?

You don't have to answer, i'm done with this.

Toodles.

Provide some similarly false teachings in evolutionary literature and just watch how viciously critical the scientific community can be. N.B. "but I don't understand it" or "I really really want Creationistm to be true" don't count.

 

[Dale]

I don't care who says what. The Bible does not say that.
The Garden is still kept on the earth at the same place as it was, which we do not have an access now.

Apparently your position is that the Garden of Eden is on Earth but is invisible.
So the Garden of Eden was neither removed nor destroyed but is invisible to our senses.

Creationism seems to be an ever-changing kaleidoscope of opinions.

 

[pat34lee]

From experience I know that Creationists are not aware that there are two creation stories in Genesis, if we are talking about the creation of people. The first is briefer and more general than the second, which is Adam and Eve, and is often overlooked.

That is a type of storytelling. It gives the week of creation in chapter one.
Chapter two zooms in to day six and God's creation of and dealings with Adam and Eve.

 

[pat34lee]

Is the creation still good after the Fall of Man (and woman) and the Expulsion from Eden? As far as I can tell, creationists are split. Some say that creation is still good and some say that it isn't.

After the fall of man, sin, sickness, corruption and death
entered the world. No, I wouldn't call that good any longer.

 

[pat34lee]

Apparently your position is that the Garden of Eden is on Earth but is invisible.
So the Garden of Eden was neither removed nor destroyed but is invisible to our senses.

Creationism seems to be an ever-changing kaleidoscope of opinions.

Ever hear of Rube Goldberg? Why make things unnecessarily complex?
After the flood, the garden could be anywhere on this world that man
hasn't lived or walked since that flood. Antarctica or the ocean floor are
just a couple of possibilities.

I also have no problem with the possibility that God removed the two major
trees from the garden and let the rest go wild wherever it is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is a type of storytelling. It gives the week of creation in chapter one.
Chapter two zooms in to day six and God's creation of and dealings with Adam and Eve.

There is the small matter of the contradiction in the order of creation between the narratives, I've yet to see any literalists discuss those around here.

Chapter one . . . animals first, humans last.

Gen 1:24-26
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
NASU

Chapter two - Adam first, animals next.

Gen 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.
NASU

Gen 2:18-19
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NASU

Does not look like a mere expansion of details to me.

 

[PeterDona]

Religious conservatives have sometimes assumed that Marxism came in the aftermath of Darwin. Darwin weakened religion, and in the resulting chaos Marxism arose. I once did a thread where I pointed out that Karl Marx issued the Communist Manifesto years before the Origin of the Species was published. The Creationists got it backwards.

Should Christians blame any single person for weakening Christianity in the 18th&19th centuries? If so, it would make more sense to blame someone who attacked Christianity, like Voltaire.

Darwin was not the inventor of evolutionism. A person like Lamarck who published his ideas in 1800, was more likely to be, even though some ideas had already been there before that. What was Darwin? The author of a very popular book. The person that popularized the ideas.

I think that christianity weakened itself. It slowly gave way to liberalism and humanism and other stuff. Jesus Christ is the world ruler, and he has given his government to the church. When the church fails to be in authority, they cannot blame anyone but themselves for the situation.

 

[ScottA]

There is the small matter of the contradiction in the order of creation between the narratives, I've yet to see any literalists discuss those around here.

Chapter one . . . animals first, humans last.

Gen 1:24-26
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
NASU

Chapter two - Adam first, animals next.

Gen 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.
NASU

Gen 2:18-19
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NASU

Does not look like a mere expansion of details to me.

This is the pattern made manifest of God preparing a place for us - it is the order of His preparation. And then He elaborates to show also the order of the man over the woman (Christ over the church), even manifest in the beasts of the earth. This is a manifest demonstration of things on high - not evolution, but revelation.

 

[Raggedyman]

I'm going to make some observations about Creationism before explaining the thread title. The point falsified by Creationists will be explained in my fourth post.



Creationists have clearly picked a fight with the wrong enemy. Why is science is the enemy. At a time when Christianity seems to be under attack from every direction, Creationists have picked a fight that Christians don't need.

After discussing Creationism for years, I've come to certain conclusions. Creationists assume that at some time in the not so distant past, Christianity was all-powerful in society. Then Charles Darwin dethroned it.

There never really was a time in the past when Christianity was as powerful and unquestioned as Creationists assume. There has never been a period when there was complete agreement about what Christianity is. Religion has always been a powerful force but it has never been the only force in society.

Religious conservatives have sometimes assumed that Marxism came in the aftermath of Darwin. Darwin weakened religion, and in the resulting chaos Marxism arose. I once did a thread where I pointed out that Karl Marx issued the Communist Manifesto years before the Origin of the Species was published. The Creationists got it backwards.



See this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/adventists-on-evolution-marxism.6653678/



Should Christians blame any single person for weakening Christianity in the 18th&19th centuries? If so, it would make more sense to blame someone who attacked Christianity, like Voltaire.

Or one could ask why science is being used on evolution when clearly it's a faith with no empirical evidence
Science and evolution just don't mix

Don't blame religion for hating science when it's evolution being masqueraded as a science that's corrupting science

Evolution was being pushed long before Darwin wrote his book

 

[Raggedyman]

Darwin was not the inventor of evolutionism. A person like Lamarck who published his ideas in 1800, was more likely to be, even though some ideas had already been there before that. What was Darwin? The author of a very popular book. The person that popularized the ideas.

I think that christianity weakened itself. It slowly gave way to liberalism and humanism and other stuff. Jesus Christ is the world ruler, and he has given his government to the church. When the church fails to be in authority, they cannot blame anyone but themselves for the situation.

When did Jesus give the government to the church exactly. That's not true Christianity or theologically sound

Remember Jesus saying to Pilate that His kingdom wasn't of this place
The church is not the authority, not in the bible or the real world, never was and never has been, the promise, Jesus will take it back, the new Adam

 

[pat34lee]

There is the small matter of the contradiction in the order of creation between the narratives, I've yet to see any literalists discuss those around here.

Chapter one . . . animals first, humans last.
Chapter two - Adam first, animals next.

Does not look like a mere expansion of details to me.

Totally different things. God didn't remake the animals in chapter 2.
He made models of them out of earth or clay, or brought one or two
of each animal into the garden for Adam to name.

 

[Dale]

Totally different things. God didn't remake the animals in chapter 2.
He made models of them out of earth or clay, or brought one or two
of each animal into the garden for Adam to name.

Some creationists say that God did remake the animals after the Fall. They say, for instance, that there were no predators before the Fall. If so, there were no predators and no prey, and so no nature as we know it. If that is true, there were no lions, tigers, or wolves before the Fall, and no need for prey animals like deer to be fleet of foot. For that matter, even frogs eat flies. Apparently that wouldn't have happened before the Fall either.

This is a very complicated scenario that isn't spelled out in the Bible.