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

[OzSpen]

So what did Columbus actually discover?

How does that apply to my comment?

 

[Bethany35]

How does that apply to my comment?

Apparently am wrong in thinking Columbus also wanted to prove the world was round by sailing all the way around it.

 

[StanJ]

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

I guess that depends what forum you're on. I am saddened to say that there are forums that have threads on whether the earth is flat or round and many so-called Christians believe it is flat!

 

[pat34lee]

Since neither the measuring stick, the sun, nor man were made, it is hard for man to judge how long in man's time those days were.

We have better than the yardstick. We have the one
who created the yardstick, and his word.

We only have God,

 

[dqhall]

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

Adam was not made of clay. Statues were made of clay. Clay is a mineral composed of aluminum, silica, oxygen and hydrogen Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Mankind is primarily oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus and other atoms. We do not live in bodies of aluminosilicates.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Adam was not made of clay. Statues were made of clay. Clay is a mineral composed of aluminum, silica, oxygen and hydrogen Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Mankind is primarily oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus and other atoms. We do not live in bodies of aluminosilicates.

Did Jesus turn water into wine? If we follow your logic then we must say he couldn't have. Just because God made us out of dust/dirt/clay/whatever doesn't mean we must be made up of only the elements found in it.

You forget that God is outside the laws of our universe. He can manipulate them as He wills.

 

[dqhall]

Did Jesus turn water into wine? If we follow your logic then we must say he couldn't have. Just because God made us out of dust/dirt/clay/whatever doesn't mean we must be made up of only the elements found in it.

You forget that God is outside the laws of our universe. He can manipulate them as He wills.

I did not argue against God's power, but against the ignorance of the one who wrote Adam was made of inorganic clay. Such an errant knowledge of chemistry might cause someone to flunk out of a college premed program. While God is omnipotent, the Bible is not God.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I did not argue against God's power, but against the ignorance of the one who wrote Adam was made of inorganic clay. Such an errant knowledge of chemistry might cause someone to flunk out of a college premed program. While God is omnipotent, the Bible is not God.

Why don't you believe that God could create a man out of the dust/dirt/clay/whatever? Why do you insist that man wasn't?

 

[dqhall]

Why don't you believe that God could create a man out of the dust/dirt/clay/whatever? Why do you insist that man wasn't?

If God were to make a cake, he would not use brick mortar as the batter would he?
Turning water into wine is one thing. Making clay people is another. Did you think all this happened in six days just because the Bible says so? What if the Bible was written by men, and not by the hand of God? It may contain facts about God and it may contain guesswork. After all blood is compared to wine and flesh is compared to bread, but Jesus did not compare bread to clay.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

If God were to make a cake, he would not use brick mortar as the batter would he?
Turning water into wine is one thing. Making clay people is another. Did you think all this happened in six days just because the Bible says so? What if the Bible was written by men, and not by the hand of God? It may contain facts about God and it may contain guesswork. After all blood is compared to wine and flesh is compared to bread, but Jesus did not compare bread to clay.

Ultimately this always boils down to not believing what the Bible says. You don't believe that God made man from dust/dirt/clay/earth not because God couldn't have done it, but because in your mind it is illogical and the Bible is not trustworthy.

 

[dqhall]

Yes I do not believe some of what is written in the Bible. I have to believe God created man and woman. How or when this happened, I cannot say. I was not an eyewitness. I like the part about God creating plants first, then fish, then the animals on land, then man. Man was last in this creation - intelligent design plan. I found it in Genesis 1. This account is oversimplified and brief in its aspect. A few versus to describe such an enormous time span are not enough to convince me the writer knew all things.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

A few versus to describe such an enormous time span are not enough to convince me the writer knew all things.

You believe it was an enormous time span, but the Genesis account and God himself says it was six days.

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

 

[StanJ]

Adam was not made of clay. Statues were made of clay. Clay is a mineral composed of aluminum, silica, oxygen and hydrogen Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Mankind is primarily oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus and other atoms. We do not live in bodies of aluminosilicates.

The proper rendering of Gen 2:7 is; "The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground..." I don't think it's a question of exact chemical composition it's just a matter of the fact that God made us out of dirt.

 

[StanJ]

If God were to make a cake, he would not use brick mortar as the batter would he?
Turning water into wine is one thing. Making clay people is another. Did you think all this happened in six days just because the Bible says so? What if the Bible was written by men, and not by the hand of God? It may contain facts about God and it may contain guesswork. After all blood is compared to wine and flesh is compared to bread, but Jesus did not compare bread to clay.

The issue is that God creates. Doesn't matter what he uses or how he does it, it's just as miraculous that God turns water into wine as it is that he turns dirt into people. You can analyze the original contents all you want but it doesn't make them the final product. The miracle is in the creation not the composition.

 

[StanJ]

Yes I do not believe some of what is written in the Bible. I have to believe God created man and woman. How or when this happened, I cannot say. I was not an eyewitness. I like the part about God creating plants first, then fish, then the animals on land, then man. Man was last in this creation - intelligent design plan. I found it in Genesis 1. This account is oversimplified and brief in its aspect. A few versus to describe such an enormous time span are not enough to convince me the writer knew all things.

Then I guess the question is why don't you believe all of the Bible? You either unequivocally believe what the Bible says about creation or you don't. That is a starting point. Nobody was an eyewitness including the writer of Genesis. He wrote out of inspiration we believe out of faith.
Matthew 18:3 tells us how we should start our walk with Jesus and if you don't start with childlike faith in what his word says and you can never grow in maturity. You have to crawl before you can learn how to walk and part of that is having childlike faith and believe in what God's word says. As Christians we don't get our worldview from science we get it from the Bible.

 

[Hoghead1]

Then I guess the question is why don't you believe all of the Bible? You either unequivocally believe what the Bible says about creation or you don't. That is a starting point. Nobody was an eyewitness including the writer of Genesis. He wrote out of inspiration we believe out of faith.
Matthew 18:3 tells us how we should start our walk with Jesus and if you don't start with childlike faith in what his word says and you can never grow in maturity. You have to crawl before you can learn how to walk and part of that is having childlike faith and believe in what God's word says. As Christians we don't get our worldview from science we get it from the Bible.

Well, all that makes sense if one accepts your interpretation of the Bible. But who says you are right? You are claiming the Bible is inerrant, right? OK, you are functioning on the inerrancy theory, which is just that, a man-made theory as to how God and Scripture may be related. So I think it should be tested out. I submit that when it is, it sadly fails. There are about 100 major contradictions in Scripture , for example. Since the 16 century, it has been widely acknowledged that the biblical cosmology is bogus. conclusion: God did not intend Scripture to be an accurate, scientific witness. It is not intended to be a book of science. That makes sense because God was dealing with a prescientific people. Now, God works like a careful carpenter, with the grain, no9t against it. God can move only as fast as we are ready. Given a prescientific society, God was not about to reveal major scientific truths, as no one would have known what to do with them. As Calvin once said, God did not intend Scripture to be a lesson in astronomy.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up of the last page or two and it's quite possible a further cleaning will take place. Please STOP with the Flaming!!

You should be addressing the context of a post NOT the poster personally. If you continue to post like you have been this thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, all that makes sense if one accepts your interpretation of the Bible. But who says you are right? You are claiming the Bible is inerrant, right? OK, you are functioning on the inerrancy theory, which is just that, a man-made theory as to how God and Scripture may be related. So I think it should be tested out.

With the claims of Scripture the authority is God ordained, affirm by signs miracles and might deeds.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2Tim. 3:16)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2Pet. 1:20)
​

You are not using the term interpretation in a real sense, someone speaks in a language I don't understand I need an interpreter to translate. Biblical Inerrancy pertains to the transmission of the Scriptures from the autographs (originals) that no longer exist. It's a reaction to the highly semantic criticism of Scripture insisting it was under constant revision and riddled with flawed passages. It was summed up in the, "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":

Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture..."is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". (Biblical inerrancy)​

I submit that when it is, it sadly fails.

I submit that you don't understand Biblical Inerrancy, I suggest you consider the fact that the church has always affirmed the canon of Scripture is in the originals. Yes, I studied the history of the Scriptures and concluded that they are an inerrant duplication of the autographs. It has nothing to do with an interpretation because no Scripture can be of private interpretation because:

No prophecy at any time was brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit. (2Pet. 21)​

This pertains to the preservation of the manuscripts from the originals, not some theory I happen to subscribe to. The canon of Scripture and the requisite bibliographical testing is well established, not requiring some theoretical framework. All scientific theories are unified theories since they unify the facts in evidence. In Biblical Theology it's not called theory, it's called Hermeneutics.

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation of the Bible. While Jewish and Christian biblical hermeneutics have some overlap, they have distinctly different interpretive traditions...There are four different types of biblical hermeneutics, literal, moral, allegorical (spiritual) and anagogical. (Hermeneutics)​

Could we kindly, please start working on our terminology here? The whole thing will spiral in downward circles unless we do and I'm tired of chasing these arguments in circles.

There are about 100 major contradictions in Scripture , for example. Since the 16 century, it has been widely acknowledged that the biblical cosmology is bogus.

You mean apparent contradictions which is when one passage contradicts another. With regards to cosmology there is no such thing in Scripture except with regard to the origin of the heavens and the earth and the work of God preparing earth for living creatures. This tangent of geocontrism and flat earth creationism is nothing more then a strawman argument, fallacious logic that represents an argument that never happened.

conclusion: God did not intend Scripture to be an accurate, scientific witness. It is not intended to be a book of science. That makes sense because God was dealing with a prescientific people.

I asked you for a definition of evolution, indicating a scientific one and you all but refused so I suppose it's pointless to demand you define science. Let's see how Isaac Newton defined it at the apex of the Scientific Revolution:

• Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
• Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
• Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
• Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This section of Rules for philosophy is followed by a listing of 'Phenomena', (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)​

Before you breeze by this consider the title of the book and the rules of science and understand, this is an investigation of natural phenomenon. Newton was occupied with the principle of motion, especially as they pertained to heavenly bodies. In fact the book I'm quoting here was the result of a wager, Newton challenged two of his colleagues to calculate the path of a comet which would appear soon, make it's course around the sun and return on the other side. The challenge was simply to determine the time of it's reappearance. They could not do it and politely ask if he had done it, when he said he had the asked if they could see the calculations. When Newton could not find them he ended up writing Principia which was the first time calculas was introduced to solve practical problems.

When science and theology are blended the result is called Natural Theology. The church has dabbled in Natural Theology and in Aristotelian Scholasticism natural science was subject to the edicts of the Catholic church. When Galileo argued the principles of motion as applied to celestial motion in Pisa the theologian/scientists there lost the argument badly. The inquisition of Galileo resulted. When you look at the Scriptures they used to support their claim it's obvious there is noting close to astronomy or cosmology involved.

So when we speak of science and Scripture lets avoid pointless generalities because specificity is the only way science is useful.

Now, God works like a careful carpenter, with the grain, no9t against it. God can move only as fast as we are ready. Given a prescientific society, God was not about to reveal major scientific truths, as no one would have known what to do with them. As Calvin once said, God did not intend Scripture to be a lesson in astronomy.

Exactly, it's not a book of astronomy, Galileo and Matthew Henry argued the same thing in pretty much the same way.
So if we can dismiss astronomy and cosmology as irrelevant to the clear testimony of Scripture choices 3 and 4 in the poll are rejected. That would suite me fine since the subject matter was pointless to a discussion of the doctrine of creation anyway. That leaves choices 1, 2 and 5.

Since we are talking about a number of events that predate the advent of modern science lets consider how we determine how to establish the historicity of an event. Creation is obviously not a testable phenomenon, Natural Theology is of questionable usefulness so how do we determine the historical veracity of the Creation account?

Two major issues here, the canon of Scripture and the legitimacy of the Creation account. So let's drop this business of astronomy and cosmology and finally discuss the weightier matter of the creation of life. There is an abundance of Scripture specifically addressing the subject matter and a vast body of work in scientific literature directly relevant to a discussion of the origin and development of living systems.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hoghead1]

With the claims of Scripture the authority is God ordained, affirm by signs miracles and might deeds.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2Tim. 3:16)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2Pet. 1:20)
​

You are not using the term interpretation in a real sense, someone speaks in a language I don't understand I need an interpreter to translate. Biblical Inerrancy pertains to the transmission of the Scriptures from the autographs (originals) that no longer exist. It's a reaction to the highly semantic criticism of Scripture insisting it was under constant revision and riddled with flawed passages. It was summed up in the, "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":

Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture..."is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". (Biblical inerrancy)​

I submit that you don't understand Biblical Inerrancy, I suggest you consider the fact that the church has always affirmed the canon of Scripture is in the originals. Yes, I studied the history of the Scriptures and concluded that they are an inerrant duplication of the autographs. It has nothing to do with an interpretation because no Scripture can be of private interpretation because:

No prophecy at any time was brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit. (2Pet. 21)​

This pertains to the preservation of the manuscripts from the originals, not some theory I happen to subscribe to. The canon of Scripture and the requisite bibliographical testing is well established, not requiring some theoretical framework. All scientific theories are unified theories since they unify the facts in evidence. In Biblical Theology it's not called theory, it's called Hermeneutics.

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation of the Bible. While Jewish and Christian biblical hermeneutics have some overlap, they have distinctly different interpretive traditions...There are four different types of biblical hermeneutics, literal, moral, allegorical (spiritual) and anagogical. (Hermeneutics)​

Could we kindly, please start working on our terminology here? The whole thing will spiral in downward circles unless we do and I'm tired of chasing these arguments in circles.



You mean apparent contradictions which is when one passage contradicts another. With regards to cosmology there is no such thing in Scripture except with regard to the origin of the heavens and the earth and the work of God preparing earth for living creatures. This tangent of geocontrism and flat earth creationism is nothing more then a strawman argument, fallacious logic that represents an argument that never happened.



I asked you for a definition of evolution, indicating a scientific one and you all but refused so I suppose it's pointless to demand you define science. Let's see how Isaac Newton defined it at the apex of the Scientific Revolution:

• Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
• Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
• Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
• Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This section of Rules for philosophy is followed by a listing of 'Phenomena', (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)​

Before you breeze by this consider the title of the book and the rules of science and understand, this is an investigation of natural phenomenon. Newton was occupied with the principle of motion, especially as they pertained to heavenly bodies. In fact the book I'm quoting here was the result of a wager, Newton challenged two of his colleagues to calculate the path of a comet which would appear soon, make it's course around the sun and return on the other side. The challenge was simply to determine the time of it's reappearance. They could not do it and politely ask if he had done it, when he said he had the asked if they could see the calculations. When Newton could not find them he ended up writing Principia which was the first time calculas was introduced to solve practical problems.

When science and theology are blended the result is called Natural Theology. The church has dabbled in Natural Theology and in Aristotelian Scholasticism natural science was subject to the edicts of the Catholic church. When Galileo argued the principles of motion as applied to celestial motion in Pisa the theologian/scientists there lost the argument badly. The inquisition of Galileo resulted. When you look at the Scriptures they used to support their claim it's obvious there is noting close to astronomy or cosmology involved.

So when we speak of science and Scripture lets avoid pointless generalities because specificity is the only way science is useful.



Exactly, it's not a book of astronomy, Galileo and Matthew Henry argued the same thing in pretty much the same way.
So if we can dismiss astronomy and cosmology as irrelevant to the clear testimony of Scripture choices 3 and 4 in the poll are rejected. That would suite me fine since the subject matter was pointless to a discussion of the doctrine of creation anyway. That leaves choices 1, 2 and 5.

Since we are talking about a number of events that predate the advent of modern science lets consider how we determine how to establish the historicity of an event. Creation is obviously not a testable phenomenon, Natural Theology is of questionable usefulness so how do we determine the historical veracity of the Creation account?

Two major issues here, the canon of Scripture and the legitimacy of the Creation account. So let's drop this business of astronomy and cosmology and finally discuss the weightier matter of the creation of life. There is an abundance of Scripture specifically addressing the subject matter and a vast body of work in scientific literature directly relevant to a discussion of the origin and development of living systems.

Grace and peace,
Mark

You asked me for my definition of evolution and I provided it. You failed to address it in your post.
A theology of nature is a vital part of Christian thought. Integrating theology and science is the task for systematic theology. So I don't understand what your problem with natural theology is.
I do not follow the Chicago concept of inerrancy. Even if you do, you are still faced with the fact it claims only the originals were inerrant, not necessarily the copies, which are all we really have. I seriously question the inerrancy of Scripture because of numerous contradictions, a primitive cosmology, accounts written long after the events took place, historical accounts which are not objective history. In addition, what is canon and what not has been at the hands of arbitrary human decision-making. So we have the whole knotty problem of the Apocrypha, for example. Strong doubts about particular books in the canon has been expressed by major religious leaders. Luther, for example, argued James was a 'straw epistle" and put it in a special appendix, separate from the rest of the Bible. He also said the Booth of Ester should be thrown in the river.

 

[rakovsky]

A theology of nature is a vital part of Christian thought.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT for Christianity in general.

Integrating theology and science is the task for systematic theology. So I don't understand what your problem with natural theology is.
I do not follow the Chicago concept of inerrancy. Even if you do, you are still faced with the fact it claims only the originals were inerrant, not necessarily the copies, which are all we really have. I seriously question the inerrancy of Scripture because of numerous contradictions, a primitive cosmology, accounts written long after the events took place, historical accounts which are not objective history. In addition, what is canon and what not has been at the hands of arbitrary human decision-making. So we have the whole knotty problem of the Apocrypha, for example. Strong doubts about particular books in the canon has been expressed by major religious leaders. Luther, for example, argued James was a 'straw epistle" and put it in a special appendix, separate from the rest of the Bible. He also said the Booth of Ester should be thrown in the river.

I sympathize , but I am doubtful that we will get everyone to accept what you just said.

I might like them to, but don't know how I could persuade them. It would go against pretty hard held beliefs. It seems like you are questioning some NT books too.