Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[mark kennedy]

This is just wrong.

They are the same exact arguments directed at the same Christian doctrines. Theistic evolution is not a part of Christian history before the advent of Darwinism and bears no distinction that would separate it from the core naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. You make the same arguments and attack the same group the same way, usually in concert. You are telling me my original statement is wrong but never said why, which is typical, I'm a creationist who believes the bible as written so I must be wrong about whatever you don't agree with. Even consider the possibility that you got on the wrong horse?

That's true. But it is also true that many people who take these miracles seriously and believe in them (IOW, Christians) also accept that evolution is a fact of nature and natural history. And that is what makes the earlier statement wrong.

Yet not once have you taken a stand against unbelievers who shamelessly ridicule Christians for believing in miracles. Not a single evolutionist posting to this forum has the slightest interest in defending the Scriptures, they simply criticize who believe them. This isn't an inference, this is what evolutionists in this kind of a forum do. A tree is known by it's fruits.

Sure, it is hard to go against the grain of a secularized culture, but it is just as hard for Christians who accept evolution as for those who reject it. Evolution is not what makes a difference in this respect.

The secular culture hasn't got the ability to make basic insights into the Gospel since they are blinded to it. If they reject God's revelation in nature they are not capable of even seeing the Gospel, let alone believing it. These endless attacks on Bible believing Christians are exactly what atheistic materialists want, especially if it's coming from professing Christians.

I don't care what the secular world believes, their empty opinions regarding Scripture do not interest me in the slightest. What concerns me greatly is the evolutionists descend on these discussions like angry mobs. The truth is a little tough to take but I went through the same thing with the Trinity, I realized that I wasn't a Christian if I didn't believe in that important doctrine of the faith and had I not came to believe it, I would not demean myself or actual believers by pretending to be one of them.

You are right and yet wrong at the same time. Yes, creation, resurrection, new creation are all part of the same miracle.

Not a part of it exactly, more like different manifestations of the same power. To deny creation is to deny the Gospel, that's very clear from the Scriptures. Don't get me wrong I don't think your somehow reprobate because you favor a more figurative interpretation of Genesis it's rejecting creation because it's God acting in time and space that I regard as blindly unbelieving.

But evolution is not about rejecting creation.

Evolution defined as what? A young earth creationist is a radical evolutionist, the time and space given would require an accelerated evolution that would have scarred Darwin to death. Darwinism is about rejecting special creation, specifically due to a preference for natural law in place of God as creator.

It only rejects one human view of what the creation accounts mean. For an evolutionary creationist, creation includes evolution as part of the creation. So it does not involve rejecting creation at all. Nor miracles, nor resurrection, nor new creation.

Nonsense, it rejects what the Scriptures explicitly say in no uncertain terms, confirmed and expanded in the New Testament witness. Until this is acknowledged by theistic evolutionists at large I will regard them as professing Christians zealously evangelizing for a secular philosophy that rejects miracles entirely since they do little else.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Look at what Exodus says...

Exodus 19:2-4 (NIV)
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. ...

It says clearly that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on "eagles' wings". If this account is not true, then the book of Exodus is a lie.

If Exodus is a lie, then the origin of the concept of God's deliverance is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of flying on eagles' wings would want to be a christian.
​

No, I personally don't believe the Jews literally flew out of Egypt on eagles' wings. This is simply poetic speech, and I hope we all realize that the use of poetic speech in the Bible doesn't invalidate the Bible, nor Christianity.

I see little difference between the indented section above and the OP.




Fair question. "Believe" is not quite the right word. The evidence has shown us humans that evolution is a fact of reality, just as gravitational theory and atomic theory. An informed exegesis of Genesis, which makes sense to me and is supported by many theologians who read the Bible in it's orginal Hebrew, shows that Genesis is like a poem on creation, a symbolic text emphasizing that God is the creator, and can't be expected to convey 21st century science to ancient people. My faith tells me that God created, and science shows how he created (by using evolution). This realization has deepened my understanding of God and deepened my faith.

On a related topic, Jennimatts, your OP suggests that you don't know how a solid Christian faith is built using theistic evolution, even though hundreds of millions of Christians have such a faith, and the top theologians and leaders of many whole churches strongly support theistic evolution, and see Genesis as being fully compatible with theistic evolution. I personally find it a little bit amazing that a modern Christian can be unaware of how theistic evolution works, regardless of whether or not they agree with it.

I was taught theistic evolution in sunday school, but we were also taught how some Christians are YEC creationists, day-age creationists, support the Gap idea, or are OECs. After seeing creationist after creationist get on this board and appear to have no understanding of evolution and theistic evolution beyond vilification and strawmen (at best), I have to wonder what creationist supporting Churches are teaching in Sunday School - are they informing the kids about how other Christians may see things? It doesn't seem like it. When a church or group keeps it's members in line by keeping them ignorant, it doesn't reflect well on their position, at least to me.

Jennimatts, if you are trying to learn, and gain a better understanding of views you don't hold, then that is commendable. I think I can see the OP in that way, despite the language used.

Papias

God's wings are literal, but unseen except by those in the invisible/spirit world. This is where the interpretation of deniers like Papias falls down flat.

"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."

Those wings, however, could be (1) His own as seen by those in heaven, or (2) the wings of angels, His servants.

The armour of God is real (Eph 6:12-18) so therefore why not His wings?

I never believe individuals espousing non-historical Genesis. Such people are always looking for excuses to not believe in Genesis and yet they have the audacity to call their beliefs 'Christian'. Most of those who do so believe in Darwinian evolution in a compromise with evil.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

They are the same exact arguments directed at the same Christian doctrines. Theistic evolution is not a part of Christian history before the advent of Darwinism and bears no distinction that would separate it from the core naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. You make the same arguments and attack the same group the same way, usually in concert. You are telling me my original statement is wrong but never said why, which is typical, I'm a creationist who believes the bible as written so I must be wrong about whatever you don't agree with. Even consider the possibility that you got on the wrong horse?




Yet not once have you taken a stand against unbelievers who shamelessly ridicule Christians for believing in miracles. Not a single evolutionist posting to this forum has the slightest interest in defending the Scriptures, they simply criticize who believe them. This isn't an inference, this is what evolutionists in this kind of a forum do. A tree is known by it's fruits.



The secular culture hasn't got the ability to make basic insights into the Gospel since they are blinded to it. If they reject God's revelation in nature they are not capable of even seeing the Gospel, let alone believing it. These endless attacks on Bible believing Christians are exactly what atheistic materialists want, especially if it's coming from professing Christians.

I don't care what the secular world believes, their empty opinions regarding Scripture do not interest me in the slightest. What concerns me greatly is the evolutionists descend on these discussions like angry mobs. The truth is a little tough to take but I went through the same thing with the Trinity, I realized that I wasn't a Christian if I didn't believe in that important doctrine of the faith and had I not came to believe it, I would not demean myself or actual believers by pretending to be one of them.



Not a part of it exactly, more like different manifestations of the same power. To deny creation is to deny the Gospel, that's very clear from the Scriptures. Don't get me wrong I don't think your somehow reprobate because you favor a more figurative interpretation of Genesis it's rejecting creation because it's God acting in time and space that I regard as blindly unbelieving.



Evolution defined as what? A young earth creationist is a radical evolutionist, the time and space given would require an accelerated evolution that would have scarred Darwin to death. Darwinism is about rejecting special creation, specifically due to a preference for natural law in place of God as creator.



Nonsense, it rejects what the Scriptures explicitly say in no uncertain terms, confirmed and expanded in the New Testament witness. Until this is acknowledged by theistic evolutionists at large I will regard them as professing Christians zealously evangelizing for a secular philosophy that rejects miracles entirely since they do little else.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Amen, Mr. Kennedy. That's telling it straight. There needs to be much more of this faithfulness here.

 

[Assyrian]

You are telling me my original statement is wrong but never said why, which is typical, I'm a creationist who believes the bible as written so I must be wrong about whatever you don't agree with.

Actually we are quite capable of thinking you are wrong, not because you are a literalist or a creationist, but because you say things that are simply untrue.

It should have been obvious you yourself that you were wrong because you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:

The problem with the whole origins theology subject matter is you have two camps, evolutionist and christian. There is no middle ground because the atheistic materialists who are the core evolutionist brain thrust has rejected theistic reason entirely. Christian do end up on the wrong side of these debates...
​

If there are Christians in both camps, then you can't really label one camp 'evolutionist' and the other 'Christian'.

 

[Assyrian]

God's wings are literal, but unseen except by those in the invisible/spirit world. This is where the interpretation of deniers like Papias falls down flat.

"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."

Those wings, however, could be (1) His own as seen by those in heaven, or (2) the wings of angels, His servants.

The armour of God is real (Eph 6:12-18) so therefore why not His wings?

I never believe individuals espousing non-historical Genesis. Such people are always looking for excuses to not believe in Genesis and yet they have the audacity to call their beliefs 'Christian'. Most of those who do so believe in Darwinian evolution in a compromise with evil.

God's wings aren't real, there aren't some spiritual equivalents of feathers sprouting from his back, the wings are a metaphor speaking of God's love and care. His love and care is very real real, it is just not real wings. It is the same with the armour of God. Paul tells us the weapons of our warfare are not carnal 2Cor 10:4, you should not think this means we have some sort of mystical equivalent of iron age weaponry. It means we are fighting a very different kind of battle. Paul even explains the metaphor of armour for us in Ephesians, it is truth, righteousness, faith, salvation, the word of God and the readiness to preach the gospel that we need in our battle, not that we strap a glowing helmet of salvation to our heads and a mystical shield of righteousness to our chest. It means we walk righteously and let Christ's righteousness guard out hearts and desires, that we let God's salvation transform all our thinking...

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually we are quite capable of thinking you are wrong, not because you are a literalist or a creationist, but because you say things that are simply untrue.

It should have been obvious you yourself that you were wrong because you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:

The problem with the whole origins theology subject matter is you have two camps, evolutionist and christian. There is no middle ground because the atheistic materialists who are the core evolutionist brain thrust has rejected theistic reason entirely. Christian do end up on the wrong side of these debates...
​

If there are Christians in both camps, then you can't really label one camp 'evolutionist' and the other 'Christian'.

Would it be a contradiction to call yourself a young earth creationist and a radical evolutionist? That would depend on how you define evolution Assyrian. The philosophy you are defending is atheistic materialism as applied to biological origins, whether you are a Christian or not. Heck, what am I saying, going back all the way the Big Bang. God is never considered as an kind of a cause, ever, that's evolution as you are using it. Were it not so there would be opportunity to discuss 'creation' as a viable alternative to Darwinian evolution. Never mind that the New Testament affirms the Genesis account in no uncertain terms.

So before you start casting your ad hominem hand grenades around you should consider the explicit meaning of the language and essential doctrine involved. Then maybe you can tell me why naturalistic evolution is so much preferred that you redefine, the clear meaning of words, without telling anyone what you mean by your central term.

These debates have never been about biological evolution, it's always been about the a priori assumption of universal common descent. You may not recognize it as the clear meaning of 'evolution' in the context you are using it in but it's pretty obvious really.

Define your central term and then we can talk about contradictions.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mathetes123]

Look at what Genesis says...

Genesis 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

It says clearly that the biblical creation account is the "history of the heavens and the earth". If the creation account is not true, then the book of Genesis is a lie.

If Genesis is a lie, then the origin of the concept of sin is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do?

I'm with you. You can't undermine the doctrine of original sin and then tell people they need a savior at the same time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Amen, Mr. Kennedy. That's telling it straight. There needs to be much more of this faithfulness here.

Thanks, if I'm right the atheistic materialist knows certain things about God (Rom 1:18-22) and the theistic evolutionist has no choice but to accept certain fundamental doctrines (John 1, Hebrews 1, Revelations 22), that is of course, if the evolutionists are Christians.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm with you. You can't undermine the doctrine of original sin and then tell people they need a savior at the same time.

Papias thinks you can, ask him about it sometime.

 

[chris4243]

I'm with you. You can't undermine the doctrine of original sin and then tell people they need a savior at the same time.

Likewise, you can't tell someone that God made all of creation give the false impression of billions of years of age, that believing otherwise is important to one's faith, and that they can trust God.

 

[Hentenza]

Likewise, you can't tell someone that God made all of creation give the false impression of billions of years of age, that believing otherwise is important to one's faith, and that they can trust God.

Man makes the claim to a billion of years old earth. God knows exactly how old it is.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

God's wings aren't real, there aren't some spiritual equivalents of feathers sprouting from his back, the wings are a metaphor speaking of God's love and care. His love and care is very real real, it is just not real wings. It is the same with the armour of God. Paul tells us the weapons of our warfare are not carnal 2Cor 10:4, you should not think this means we have some sort of mystical equivalent of iron age weaponry. It means we are fighting a very different kind of battle. Paul even explains the metaphor of armour for us in Ephesians, it is truth, righteousness, faith, salvation, the word of God and the readiness to preach the gospel that we need in our battle, not that we strap a glowing helmet of salvation to our heads and a mystical shield of righteousness to our chest. It means we walk righteously and let Christ's righteousness guard out hearts and desires, that we let God's salvation transform all our thinking...

Well, well, well, if it isn't the fellow who is wrong on almost everything he says about Genesis.

Oh, yes, the Creator God has wings...when he chooses to appear that way. In fact, God can appear to man in any form He chooses, including things like a jasper crystal stone (Rev. 4:3), a lion, a lamb, (Rev. 5;5-6), He can appear as three men (Genesis 18) or one-man-in three (Jesus). In this matter how He appears is unlimited. But because of your acceptance of that ridiculous Darwinian theory you seek to limit Him in order to save your theory from being exposed as the unscriptural lie that it is.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Likewise, you can't tell someone that God made all of creation give the false impression of billions of years of age, that believing otherwise is important to one's faith, and that they can trust God.

That's baloney. God didn't give ANY false impression. He TOLD US in His Word the approximate age of the earth and just how many generations old the earth is by the information we find in the chronologies of scripture.

Not only so but the R.A.T.E. findings give us a good reason to think that the earth is quite young. I do not accept the teachings of evolution on time for these reasons and more that I haven't mentioned.

 

[chris4243]

That's baloney. God didn't give ANY false impression. He TOLD US in His Word the approximate age of the earth and just how many generations old the earth is by the information we find in the chronologies of scripture.

Not only so but the R.A.T.E. findings give us a good reason to think that the earth is quite young. I do not accept the teachings of evolution on time for these reasons and more that I haven't mentioned.

Sooooo... Where's all the published, peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the Earth to be young? Why don't oil companies and such hire young earth creationists to prospect for oil or other minerals?

 

[Hentenza]

Sooooo... Where's all the published, peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the Earth to be young? Why don't oil companies and such hire young earth creationists to prospect for oil or other minerals?

A good friend of mine, a geologist who is a creationist, works for Shell in their exploration section. He is up in Canada right now working with my brother in law who is a division president of Millennium Exploration Company and also a creationist.

 

[gluadys]

Darwinism is about rejecting special creation, specifically due to a preference for natural law in place of God as creator.

Then that is what you should say. It is not a rejection of creation to reject the special creation of each species a la William Paley.



Scripture asserts that God created all things, and I believe that. But I don't find in scripture any unambiguous testimony that each thing was created in a separate miracle.

 

[gluadys]

I'm with you. You can't undermine the doctrine of original sin and then tell people they need a savior at the same time.

I have found nothing in the theory of evolution that undermines the doctrine of original sin.

 

[gluadys]

Man makes the claim to a billion of years old earth. God knows exactly how old it is.

Yes, men and women too, studying the earth God made realized it had to be billions of years old. I am sure God knows that too. After all he made the evidence of its age.

 

[gluadys]

A good friend of mine, a geologist who is a creationist, works for Shell in their exploration section. He is up in Canada right now working with my brother in law who is a division president of Millennium Exploration Company and also a creationist.

But do they use creationist principles when they are actually looking for oil? And are they successful doing so?

Or do they believe in creationism at church and use secular old-earth geology when exploring for oil?

 

[Hentenza]

But do they use creationist principles when they are actually looking for oil? And are they successful doing so?

Or do they believe in creationism at church and use secular old-earth geology when exploring for oil?

Creationist principles? lol

The data that you have is the same data that creationists have. The only difference is the interpretation. Yes, data has to be interpreted.