POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[StanJ]

That is exactly what I'm arguing about - that Gen 1 and 2 are in agreement. I think you are in agreement with me on this, aren't you?
It's not about rakovsky's English comprehension skills, in my understanding.

Never said they weren't it was hog head who is trying to report to different Genesis stories. I've known for quite some time that Genesis 1 & 2 interact with one another in to convey a whole story.

 

[StanJ]

No, Stan, that is not what you were discussing regarding the pluperfect tense. You stated, 'Well as that is only used as a modern verb form'. No it is NOT a 'modern verb form'. It is quite ancient. You are ducking and weaving, brother!
Sarcasm about my doctorate is totally unnecessary in this thread, as is sarcasm about knowing how to read. You only know about my doctorate from our participation in another forum and not on this one. Brother, these kinds of comments are detrimental to congenial discussion on this forum.
Oz

Well then I suggest you start acting congenial if you want to have congenial conversations.

 

[OzSpen]

Well then I suggest you start acting congenial if you want to have congenial conversations.

What have I said that is uncongenial towards you?

 

[Hoghead1]

Here is how we got on this topic. You wrote:

MARK: do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?
HOGHEAD: Mark Genesis does not use anywhere near what we would term as "scientific language." Also, miracles aren't the issue here. The issue is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Miracles and the supernatural belong in a separate thread.​

So basically your position appears to be "NO", God is "supranatural" as you call it and "the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles."

Are you familiar with the concept of Panentheism, and do you consider that any different than basic Christian theology?
Can you point me to foundational Reformed writers who lay out in detail their beliefs that miracles aren't an issue for the Creation and that God is NOT supernatural, but rather is "the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles."

I have heard about Neo-Calvinists like Kuyper teaching a version of supranaturalism, eg. that the manna from heaven was natural:

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php

However, I am really looking for broad, major, main, foundational Reformed writers like Gill, Sproul, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, etc. who lay out their either "supranaturalistic" or naturalistic explanations and premises. [/QUOTE
Yes, I am well aware of panentheism. I am a process theologian. No, I know of no Calvinists who would go anywhere near panentheism. No way. I consider panentheism a major alternative to classical theism that corrects for the one-sidedness of the latter's model of God. People like Gill, Sproul, Edwards view God as supernatural, not supra-natural.

 

[Hoghead1]

OzSpence is arguing that Genesis 1 does not contradict Genesis 2, even though Genesis 2 uses the expression that God made animals. Why do you think he is wrong? Do you even realize that OzSpence was discussing this in order to treat the two chapters as consistent in order to deal with HogHead's propositions of contradiction?
Since you mentioned getting a doctorate, may I ask if you received a degree in higher education? (Not that it's a requirement, it would just help us understand our background here.)

Gen. 2 makes it plain that God created the animals after Adam came along and after it was discovered it was not good for him to be alone. That completely contradicts the chronology of Gen. 1. It is that simple.

 

[rakovsky]

Never said they weren't it was hog head who is trying to report to different Genesis stories. I've known for quite some time that Genesis 1 & 2 interact with one another in to convey a whole story.

So why are you fighting against Oz's answers explaining the verses:

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it....19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed [vs had formed] every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

 

[OzSpen]

Gen. 2 makes it plain that God created the animals after Adam came along and after it was discovered it was not good for him to be alone. That completely contradicts the chronology of Gen. 1. It is that simple.

Hoghead,

It doesn't look like you can read. Take a read of Gen 1:20-25 (ESV):

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birdsa fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

These verses refute the very idea you are trying to communicate that God created the animals AFTER Adam. Those are not the facts. Adam came along AFTER Gen 1:24-25.

When did man come? He came in Gen 1:26 (ESV). When did Adam come? The man was put in the garden of Eden (Gen 2:8 ESV).

You really are imposing information on the text when you try to make it state what it does not state. Adam came AFTER the creation of creatures according to their kinds, the beasts and livestock according to their kinds and the creeping things according to their kinds.

Why are you inventing this?

Oz

 

[Not_By_Chance]

#2 and #5 are correct; the others are just misunderstandings of the text.

I would agree with that.

 

[StanJ]

What have I said that is uncongenial towards you?

I pointed out your style before and I'm not about to continually do it here. If you don't know what the problem is then you obviously won't be able to fix it so as before I suggest that you don't respond to my posts.

 

[StanJ]

Gen. 2 makes it plain that God created the animals after Adam came along and after it was discovered it was not good for him to be alone. That completely contradicts the chronology of Gen. 1. It is that simple.

That is simply wrong. Of course if you won't accept but I've already stated to you, there's no use repeating it.

 

[OzSpen]

I pointed out your style before and I'm not about to continually do it here. If you don't know what the problem is then you obviously won't be able to fix it so as before I suggest that you don't respond to my posts.

That referred to another Christian online forum, Stan, where you and I interacted. It is my view that dirty linen from another forum should not be brought here.

 

[rakovsky]

Gen. 2 makes it plain that God created the animals after Adam came along and after it was discovered it was not good for him to be alone. That completely contradicts the chronology of Gen. 1. It is that simple.

Did you consider that the plants and animals made in Genesis 2 might just be referring to those made in the garden of Eden in particular?

8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

Could it be read this way:
8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground [in Eden] the Lord God made every [kind of] tree grow [in Eden] that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

It does not mean every individual tree that ever existed grew in Eden, right?
Just every kind of tree that is pleasant grew in Eden, right?

If so, the same thing could be said about the beasts made later in the story.

 

[StanJ]

That referred to another Christian online forum, Stan, where you and I interacted. It is my view that dirty linen from another forum should not be brought here.

It really doesn't matter, the point is that you and I have a history and I know exactly what you're like. You don't gain a new personality just because we're on a different forum together. Your colloquialism aside the Bible says there is nothing that is hidden that will not be known and I tend to function that way in my own life. In my opinion it's best to let sleeping Bears lie and not poke them.

 

[rakovsky]

In my opinion it's best to let sleeping Bears lie and not poke them.

Yes, play nicely please.

 

[OzSpen]

..

 

[Bethany35]

so we're agreed the earth is round not flat?

 

[OzSpen]

so we're agreed the earth is round not flat?

Some in this thread are not convinced the world is a sphere.

Your statement doesn't make the world (universe) a sphere. It can be round (a circle) and still be flat.

I consider the universe is a sphere, based on biblical and scientific evidence.

Oz

 

[mark kennedy]

Here is how we got on this topic. You wrote:

MARK: do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?
HOGHEAD: Mark Genesis does not use anywhere near what we would term as "scientific language." Also, miracles aren't the issue here. The issue is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Miracles and the supernatural belong in a separate thread.​

So basically your position appears to be "NO", God is "supranatural" as you call it and "the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles."

No, his position like yours is to ignore the question. The miracles of the Bible include the Incarnation, virgin birth, new birth, Resurrection and the signs, miracles and wonders that accompanied Christ and the Apostles confirming the Word as it was preached. If you don't believe in miracles your not a Christian and by the way, All Christians are Creationists:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

That's a confession of God as Creator, the Incarnation and thus, Christ is Creator. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator, all Christians are Creationists. If your posting here and do not believe the Nicene Creed your wrong.

However, I am really looking for broad, major, main, foundational Reformed writers like Gill, Sproul, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, etc. who lay out their either "supranaturalistic" or naturalistic explanations and premises.

God bore witness to Jesus, and the way He bore witness was by miracles. (R.C.Sproul, The Miracles of Jesus)​

If by 'supranaturalistic' you mean miracles, that's not hard to find:

Perhaps this false hue could have been more dazzling if Scripture had not warned us concerning the legitimate purpose and use of miracles. For Mark teaches that those signs which attended the apostles’ preaching were set forth to confirm it (Mark 16:20). In like manner, Luke relates that our ‘Lord...bore witness to the word of his grace,’ when these signs and wonders were done by the apostles’ hands (Acts 14:3). Very much like this is that word of the apostle: that the salvation proclaimed by the gospel has been confirmed in the fact that ‘the Lord has attested it by signs and wonders and various mighty works (Heb. 2:4) (John Calvin, Prefatory Address to King Francis)
​

Even Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and a Theistic Evolutionists, affirms the miracles of the New Testament in no uncertain terms. I'm really looking for 'broad, major, main, foundational' professions of basic Christian theism from writers like rakovsky and Hoghead. They have refused.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Bethany35]

Some in this thread are not convinced the world is a sphere.

Your statement doesn't make the world (universe) a sphere. It can be round (a circle) and still be flat.

I consider the universe is a sphere, based on biblical and scientific evidence.

Oz

So what did Columbus actually discover?

 

[mark kennedy]

So what did Columbus actually discover?

Eratosthenes Librarian of the Library of Alexandria, about 276 BC, calculated the circumference of the Earth, Columbus knew the earth was round, he just didn’t know that there were two continents between Europe and India. At the time of Galileo most astronomers believe the sun revolved around the Earth, it was slowly being established that the earth revolved around the sun but was only determined conclusively based on observations made with telescopes. Galileo developed the second telescope, one that could magnify the heavens 35X, based on the first telescope, attributed to Hans Lippershey.

All educated, ancient Greeks and contemporary master mariners of Columbus', time knew the earth was round.

Columbus discovered not one but two continents and a way of navigating the Atlantic to them. Geocentrism and a flat earth cosmology are ridiculous aberrations of academic and scholastic nonsense. They are not unlike Darwinian natural history that invented the myth of the stone age, tool making ape man that has completely conflated and convoluted our understanding of natural history. Galileo rightly argued at his trial that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. The Scriptures contain our true history, it's is devoid of Astronomy and Cosmology. What the Scriptures tell us is how God has worked in the world, not how the natural world works. One of the most significant works is in Creation, something Christians cannot escape.

Have a nice day
Mark