Can you give a rational explanation...?

[Mallon]

I think I'm about done here. Hard to reason with someone who refers to his fellow Christians "brainwashed" and "apostates" without ever having even understood their position. Tried to report the post, but it doesn't seem to want to work for me.
Sometimes you have to pick your battles, and I don't see this one as worth fighting. Not when you're not being listened to, and not when you're being treated as unChristian-like as this.

 

[gluadys]

Why are you people so ignorant of so many things? Why can't you just take God's word as truth? You people have been brainwashed...

This attitude makes me think mallon is right. However...

Gluadys, I have already explained why I take Genesis as a truthful account of our origins.

Don't move the goal posts please. I have no problem with anyone who takes Genesis as truthful. I consider it to be truthful myself.

But you also said you take it literally. I don't see any reason to take the creation accounts literally.

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between "truthful" and "literal". Do you think they mean the same thing?

Gluadys, you said this (foolishly): Does the normal process of human reproduction exclude God? Does it require an action outside of nature to unite a sperm with an egg to develop into you?

I expect you will answer "no". So then, are you or are you not, a creation of God?

Evolution is a similarly natural process. So how does it exclude God?

I respond: What kind of a comparison is this!? LOL.

It is a comparison of two natural processes. You contend that evolution excludes God. I wonder if you think the same of other natural processes. Is God excluded from all natural processes or just from evolution? What would make evolution an exception? If natural reproduction does not exclude God, why would natural evolution exclude God?

God is the God of nature. He is not restricted to it.

Right. Now, is God excluded from nature?

When it comes to alleles, they offer you no evidence for evolution.

They most certainly do. So much so that evolution is defined in terms of the distribution of alleles.

Their migration across generations just causes variation.

A few questions:

1. Would you agree that the "migration" of alleles across generations is by means of reproduction.

2. In what way does this cause variation?

3. In what way does natural selection affect the distribution of alleles?

Gluadys and others, why don't you just give up on the Bible then?

Why on earth would I do that? I understand that you would in my place, but I am not you.

 

[Melethiel]

Let's keep the polemics down a bit folks and discuss things nicely. Calling people "apostates" and "foolish" is not conducive to good discussion.

 

[shernren]

As for the weekly cycle.. why did God then tell the Israelites to work six days and then rest every seventh day as a sabbath? And then He gave them the example of His own creating in six days and ceasing that work on the seventh day... God did not expect the Israelites to work a six thousand years or more, then take a break for a thousand years... in other words, He told them the truth about creation again, and did not lie to them. If you deny this, you are calling God a liar, not me.

What did God say?

Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
(Deuteronomy 5:12-15 NIV)

Wait a minute here! God didn't give them the example of the creation week! God said that since He brought His people out of Egypt with a mighty hand, His people would celebrate the Sabbath in remembrance of that.

"Ahh," you will say, "you are quoting the wrong passage. God does quote the creation week in Exodus 20." And you would be right.

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exodus 20:8-11 NIV)

However, first note that both are retellings of the same incident. Both are prefaced directly and clearly with either "And God spoke all these words:" (Ex 20:1) or "The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain ... And He said:" (Deut 5:4,6). So which did God speak? Did God command the Israelites to observe the Sabbath because He created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, or did God command the Israelites to observe the Sabbath because He rescued them with an outstretched arm from Egypt? And if He did both, why is the second part missing from Exodus and the first part missing from Deuteronomy? Wasn't accurate recording important? Did Moses run out of paper or ink?

Secondly, note that the six-day creation week is not essential to the command. After all, Deuteronomy gets on fine without it. In Deuteronomy, the Sabbath is a commemoration of God's mighty work in redeeming Israel. So how is the six-day creation week essential to the Exodus command? The message is surely parallel to Deuteronomy: as the Sabbath is a commemoration of God's mighty work in redeeming Israel in Deuteronomy, it is a commemoration of God's mighty work in creating the heavens and the earth in Exodus. The point isn't surely a number-to-number correspondence of days: not that God worked six (and not seven and not five) days and stopped, so you too must work six (and not seven and not five) days and stop. Or else Deuteronomy would have said the same thing.

Indeed, Scripture in other places makes explicit parallel between the creation of the heavens and the earth and the covenant holiness (setting apart) of Israel:

This is what God the LORD says--
he who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it: [creation]
"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles, [redemption]
(Isaiah 42:5-6 NIV)

and again

For this is what the LORD says--
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited--
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other. [revelation in creation]
I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob's descendants,
'Seek me in vain.'
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right. [revelation in covenant]
(Isaiah 45:18-19 NIV)

So is it any surprise that the same parallel would be present in parallel accounts of the giving of the same law? And that this parallel - not the silly minutiae of day-counting - is the true purpose and origin of Sabbath observance?

Furthermore, from the Genesis 1-2 narrative it is clear enough that the seventh day doesn't stop. Note that I say "narrative", not "narratives". If you want to treat it as a single narrative, instead of as two different narratives pieced together (which is surely a liberal abomination to you), you have to acknowledge that Genesis 2 goes back to the sixth day - and Genesis 3 happens on the seventh day - and that nowhere, never ever, in Scripture are we told where the seventh day stops, how long the seventh day is, or indeed that we are in anything besides the seventh day. Therefore, if you want to adopt a literalistic reading of Genesis 1-2, you have to concede that the seventh day covers all of human history as recorded in the Bible. Indeed, in Hebrews 4 we are told that we can enter His rest, and if that passage is applicable to us today, this means that God is still resting today: the author of Hebrews even explicitly calls it a "Sabbath" (4:9).

But that is absurd: was God commanding the Israelites, in Exodus 20, that they should work six days and then rest six thousand years? Surely not. For God has rested and finished His creation: indeed, how could God call it very good if it was not complete and He had to take up the shovels and spades again on day 8? And yet that is the pattern God is telling us to fulfill, not the pattern of working six days and then not working for the rest of a lifetime.

(If you want Scripture to prove that God is working today, how about: So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:16-18 NIV, emphasis added) But oh no! Jesus Himself is saying that not only is God working today, God has never rested! Have fun.)

So your insistence that the Ten Commandments necessitates a YEC view falls flat. Firstly, it completely ignores the fact that there are two quite different versions of the Ten Commandments, and in one of them the Sabbath gets along perfectly fine without a single mention of creation. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the seventh day is very different from the first six, and therefore an exact correspondence would require the Israelites to observe Sabbath for the rest of their lives, not just on one day before resuming work for the next week.

And before you call me an unbiblical liberal (just because I have disagreed with you, the biblical True Christian and defender of all things good, sweet and savory), let me remind you that in this thread and in reaching my conclusions I have not quoted a single scientific fact. In fact, I have only quoted Scripture; furthermore, I have explicitly assumed that the world is 6,000 years old in reaching my conclusions (otherwise, why would I say that the seventh day is 6,000 years old?), and I have not relied on a single chronological fact external to the Bible to do this. What am I trying to prove here? I am showing you that the Bible itself does not allow your view. I am showing you that even when I try my very best to take your view, it falls apart from the inside, like an unstable house of cards that doesn't even need an external gust to collapse.

And note that I have not condemned the Bible. Indeed I have quoted the Bible, which means that I have had to assume beforehand that it is authoritative, to condemn your views. Believe it or not, not everybody who disagrees with you is a Bible-burning heretic!

 

[Vance]

Nathan, I have a university degree in ancient history and know a thing or two about the ANE, how they wrote and what they expected of their literature. They had different styles for different purposes, and to say that we should read all of the various texts in the anthology we call the Bible as the same literary genre.

Here is a fairly good explanation (by a fellow Christian) which helps explain why your position is not the correct one:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html

 

[NathanCGreen]

So which did God speak? Did God command the Israelites to observe the Sabbath because He created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, or did God command the Israelites to observe the Sabbath because He rescued them with an outstretched arm from Egypt? And if He did both, why is the second part missing from Exodus and the first part missing from Deuteronomy? Wasn't accurate recording important? Did Moses run out of paper or ink?

The fact of the matter is, the seventh 'day' not seventh 'age period' nor anything else is mentioned. The example that God gave them of ceasing from their labours on the Sabbath because He too ceased on the seventh day, proves that what Moses had written in Genesis 1 is literal history. Question: Why would it be so hard to believe that God made it all in six 24 hour periods? Remember the 'evenings, mornings'? Or are you going to put a modern long ages spin to it? If you do, you are violating the intention from the language used.

The message is surely parallel to Deuteronomy: as the Sabbath is a commemoration of God's mighty work in redeeming Israel in Deuteronomy, it is a commemoration of God's mighty work in creating the heavens and the earth in Exodus.

Yes. In seven literal days. If it were longer, God could have told the Israelites plainly.. I'm sure they were not intellectually disabled.

not that God worked six (and not seven and not five) days and stopped, so you too must work six (and not seven and not five) days and stop.

Actually, that is exactly what the Israelites were told to do. Remember the punishment for violating the sabbath?
They had to cease from work on the seventh day, not a seventh day. But the fact is, the whole of the ten commandments were for Israel alone, and were a part of the Old Covenant.

Going off track a little here... what do you say about the creation of Eve? She was literally made from one of Adam's ribs, right? God did not evolve her over long periods. He did not evolve anything. Evolution is fantasy land imaginings, not based in history, never observed, and totally unsupported by scientific facts. Why do you think the evolutionists get so excited over the smallest fragment that may help their hypothesis (I won't call it a theory, it is not), huh? And then of course they are proved wrong, usually by their fellow evolutionists...

But oh no! Jesus Himself is saying that not only is God working today, God has never rested! Have fun.)

Hahaha! You think you have stumped me? God doesn't need rest. He neither grows tired nor is weary. At the end of the creation days, God simply ceased from that activity. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Do you understand the meaning of 'finished'? Or is that figurative to you too? Creation was complete at the end of the six days and was very good. Plus, if there had been long spans of time between days, the plants and animals that share a symbiotic relationship would have hard a very hard time surviving...

Firstly, it completely ignores the fact that there are two quite different versions of the Ten Commandments, and in one of them the Sabbath gets along perfectly fine without a single mention of creation. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the seventh day is very different from the first six, and therefore an exact correspondence would require the Israelites to observe Sabbath for the rest of their lives, not just on one day before resuming work for the next week.

Wrong again. In Chapter 5, verse 15 of Deuteronomy, the addition of the reason for keeping the sabbath was the deliverance from Egypt. If you read carefully, you will see that it was about mercy for the 'strangers' and the animals. The original version was copied, remember? That was the one that was to be observed and for the same reasons.

The seventh day from the creation account surely does not conclude that it ended. However, the rotation of days in the week has existed the way it is from a long ways back, and from many peoples. Israel in particular got the commandment from God's example that He Himself gave them from the creation week. To deny this is ignorance.

And note that I have not condemned the Bible. Indeed I have quoted the Bible, which means that I have had to assume beforehand that it is authoritative, to condemn your views. Believe it or not, not everybody who disagrees with you is a Bible-burning heretic!

Not accepting the Bible for what it says is called 'twisting' it. The enemy of mankind and God only cares if you disbelieve the words contained therein. Burning it or twisting it serves his purpose all the same.

 

[shernren]

The fact of the matter is, the seventh 'day' not seventh 'age period' nor anything else is mentioned. The example that God gave them of ceasing from their labours on the Sabbath because He too ceased on the seventh day, proves that what Moses had written in Genesis 1 is literal history. Question: Why would it be so hard to believe that God made it all in six 24 hour periods? Remember the 'evenings, mornings'? Or are you going to put a modern long ages spin to it? If you do, you are violating the intention from the language used.

Ahh, but I said nothing about the first six days. In fact, I assumed (in my earlier post in this thread) that the "evenings, mornings" of the first six days intend to communicate that those days were 24-hour days. What does that make, then, of the seventh day? The seventh day does not have the same clause as those first six. The seventh day does not end. Indeed, if you look at the very next verse:

So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
(Genesis 2:3-4, ESV)

(emphases added) The second "day" in the passage cannot be a literal 24 hours, to you - because according to you the LORD God made the earth and the heavens in six days, not one! So what prevents the preceding "day" from being an extended period of time, either?

Yes. In seven literal days. If it were longer, God could have told the Israelites plainly.. I'm sure they were not intellectually disabled.

You are wonderfully skilled at dodging my point, which is precisely that God's primary point was that He created, not that He created in seven days. As for communicating long ages of creation, I have a post about that here: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43616092&postcount=4

Actually, that is exactly what the Israelites were told to do. Remember the punishment for violating the sabbath?
They had to cease from work on the seventh day, not a seventh day. But the fact is, the whole of the ten commandments were for Israel alone, and were a part of the Old Covenant.

They were told to work for six days and rest for one day, not to work for six days and rest for six thousand years, which is what God did. So who's following the creation pattern? Certainly not the Ten Commandments.

Going off track a little here... what do you say about the creation of Eve? She was literally made from one of Adam's ribs, right? God did not evolve her over long periods. He did not evolve anything. Evolution is fantasy land imaginings, not based in history, never observed, and totally unsupported by scientific facts. Why do you think the evolutionists get so excited over the smallest fragment that may help their hypothesis (I won't call it a theory, it is not), huh? And then of course they are proved wrong, usually by their fellow evolutionists...

Do you really want to fight evolution scientifically? Note that up to this point I have not quoted a single modern scientific fact in rebutting your arguments. I am fighting you, as it were, with two hands behind my back, and you are barely keeping up. Once we start bringing out the australopithecines, hominids, and nested ERV phylogenies, you will be completely out of your league.

But do start the discussion about hominid evolution. I dare you to.

Hahaha! You think you have stumped me? God doesn't need rest. He neither grows tired nor is weary. At the end of the creation days, God simply ceased from that activity. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Do you understand the meaning of 'finished'? Or is that figurative to you too? Creation was complete at the end of the six days and was very good. Plus, if there had been long spans of time between days, the plants and animals that share a symbiotic relationship would have hard a very hard time surviving...

You should ask Jesus Himself if He understands the meaning of "finished".

So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:16-18 NIV)

He was under the impression that His Father was always at His work to this very day. Maybe you should tell Him that He was wrong and that God hung up the gloves and trowels 4,000 years before His time?

Wrong again. In Chapter 5, verse 15 of Deuteronomy, the addition of the reason for keeping the sabbath was the deliverance from Egypt. If you read carefully, you will see that it was about mercy for the 'strangers' and the animals. The original version was copied, remember? That was the one that was to be observed and for the same reasons.

That reason was not added in Deuteronomy; it was substituted. Why was Moses messing around with the words of God?

The seventh day from the creation account surely does not conclude that it ended. However, the rotation of days in the week has existed the way it is from a long ways back, and from many peoples. Israel in particular got the commandment from God's example that He Himself gave them from the creation week. To deny this is ignorance.

Not quite: The Romans used an eight-day week, and the Chinese rested once every five days during the Han Dynasty and then once every ten days during the Ming Dynasty, so that in the latter period every month could be divided roughly into an upper week, a middle week, and a lower week. In premodern societies weeks of all kinds of lengths, from three to eight days, are found.

Ignorance?

Not accepting the Bible for what it says is called 'twisting' it. The enemy of mankind and God only cares if you disbelieve the words contained therein. Burning it or twisting it serves his purpose all the same.

But tell me something now. Why is it that, if I am twisting the Bible, you have not been able to quote Bible verses to refute me? In this thread it has been I who have brought Biblical issues to the fore, discussed the wording around the seventh day, considered the relationship between creation and redemption, and noted the parallel of Hebrews 4 to the Sabbath. What have you brought to the table? All you have done is scold me for taking certain things figuratively - things which I have not even touched on. You insist that God stopped work, but John himself records Jesus Himself saying that God has never stopped working - and in response to a theological issue about precisely the Sabbath, no less. You insist that the week of Genesis 1 is a literal, seven-day, 168-hour week, when the author of Hebrews thinks the seventh day isn't even over yet and that we can enter it right today.

I thought you creationists went on and on about believing the Bible. But can the Bible itself support what you are saying? I haven't mentioned a single scientific evidence for the antiquity of the world. All I have done is quote the Bible. If you cannot defeat me with the Bible, how sure are you that your views are truly Biblical?

 

[Scotishfury09]

The fact of the matter is, the seventh 'day' not seventh 'age period' nor anything else is mentioned. The example that God gave them of ceasing from their labours on the Sabbath because He too ceased on the seventh day, proves that what Moses had written in Genesis 1 is literal history.

I have a question for you, Nathan. Do you think the Ancient Egyptians worshiped Ra because they thought he literally ferried the sun across the sky or because they really understood a heliocentric model but thought it was just easier to assign a god to the sun's apparent transit across the sky?

Question: Why would it be so hard to believe that God made it all in six 24 hour periods?

Because it contradicts the very creation it talks about. If you actually knew as much about anthropology and human history as you claim you do you would understand that the Ancient Hebrew writers of Genesis wove into the story moral and theological truths because they had no idea how the world came into being. They knew God did it and they knew God was the only god that did it.

Remember the 'evenings, mornings'? Or are you going to put a modern long ages spin to it? If you do, you are violating the intention from the language used.

I agree!!! The story clearly indicates 7 separate 24-hour periods.

Yes. In seven literal days. If it were longer, God could have told the Israelites plainly.. I'm sure they were not intellectually disabled.

Nathan, can you plainly explain to me the effect string theory has on the atomic model?

Actually, that is exactly what the Israelites were told to do. Remember the punishment for violating the sabbath?
They had to cease from work on the seventh day, not a seventh day. But the fact is, the whole of the ten commandments were for Israel alone, and were a part of the Old Covenant.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Going off track a little here... what do you say about the creation of Eve? She was literally made from one of Adam's ribs, right?

The Hebrew suggests "side". The importance of God using Adam's side or rib is to show man and woman's equality.

God did not evolve her over long periods. He did not evolve anything. Evolution is fantasy land imaginings, not based in history, never observed, and totally unsupported by scientific facts.

Sigh. Mainly because the "come try and disprove evolution" bandwagon is a little full, I think I'll take a different approach. Nathan, can you give me any scientific evidence that supports Creationism over the Theory of Evolution?

Why do you think the evolutionists get so excited over the smallest fragment that may help their hypothesis (I won't call it a theory, it is not), huh? And then of course they are proved wrong, usually by their fellow evolutionists...

Have you ever actually read any scientific literature? Heck, have you ever read National Geographic?

Hahaha! You think you have stumped me? God doesn't need rest. He neither grows tired nor is weary. At the end of the creation days, God simply ceased from that activity. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Do you understand the meaning of 'finished'? Or is that figurative to you too? Creation was complete at the end of the six days and was very good.

The idea behind the word that is translated as 'rest' in Gen 2:2-3 is to sit still. It's the same word used in all of the passages involving the sabbath, probably because the word itself is shabath and where the term 'sabbath' comes from. You have harped so much on the writers intention. I think it's time you listen to your own advice. The intention of vv. 2 and 3 are that God rested.

Plus, if there had been long spans of time between days, the plants and animals that share a symbiotic relationship would have hard a very hard time surviving...

100% agree.

Wrong again. In Chapter 5, verse 15 of Deuteronomy, the addition of the reason for keeping the sabbath was the deliverance from Egypt.

It's interesting that you mention v. 15. Do you believe that it was God's literal hand and arm that led Israel from Egypt?

If you read carefully, you will see that it was about mercy for the 'strangers' and the animals. The original version was copied, remember? That was the one that was to be observed and for the same reasons.

What does God's reason for the sabbath have to do with anything? Why did you bold, italicize and put quotes around strangers? Is that important for some reason?

The seventh day from the creation account surely does not conclude that it ended.

At the end of the creation days, God simply ceased from that activity. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Do you understand the meaning of 'finished'?

What side of your mouth are you talking out of?

However, the rotation of days in the week has existed the way it is from a long ways back, and from many peoples. Israel in particular got the commandment from God's example that He Himself gave them from the creation week. To deny this is ignorance.

The Mayan calendar dates back to the 6th century BCE and contains both 20-day and 13-day Haabs.

Not accepting the Bible for what it says is called 'twisting' it. The enemy of mankind and God only cares if you disbelieve the words contained therein. Burning it or twisting it serves his purpose all the same.

Are you the sole correct interpreter of the Bible? Do you know better than Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. about, say, Original Sin? What about baptism or communion or purgatory? Are you the only person in the entire world that understand what the Bible actually says? I'll be anxiously awaiting your commentary on Revelation as it is sure to be 100% correct. And what the heck does "burning it" have to do with anything?

 

[anonymous1515]

Ugh, I'm really really getting sick of this evolution/creationism "debate." (if you can even call it that...)

I don't have the patience that you guys do. So kudos to you, gluadys, shernren, mallon, and vance. Keep doing what you're doing. Have you guys ever actually seen an anti-evolutionist change their position?

 

[shernren]

Ugh, I'm really really getting sick of this evolution/creationism "debate." (if you can even call it that...)

I don't have the patience that you guys do. So kudos to you, gluadys, shernren, mallon, and vance. Keep doing what you're doing. Have you guys ever actually seen an anti-evolutionist change their position?

I did. So have faith! And wisdom. (Sometimes the former has to give way to the latter. XD)

 

[artybloke]

Not accepting the Bible for what it says is called 'twisting' it.

Then stop doing it. Your modernistic scientistic twisting of the Bible should have stopped long ago, yet you persist in it. <staff edit>

 

[Vance]

Ugh, I'm really really getting sick of this evolution/creationism "debate." (if you can even call it that...)

I don't have the patience that you guys do. So kudos to you, gluadys, shernren, mallon, and vance. Keep doing what you're doing. Have you guys ever actually seen an anti-evolutionist change their position?

Actually, yes, a number of times. If I recall, I think Shenren came in as a YEC (but I could be thinking of someone else entirely). EDIT: I see that Shenren just "raised his hand" in response to the same post.

More often, what happens is that there are people in the "audience" (there are many watching these discussions) who are in a crisis of faith regarding these issues. They have come to review the evidence for evolution and find it convincing, but they have been raised (brainwashed?) with the idea that "if evolution is true, Scripture is false" and are now doubting the very Gospel message! I have gotten numerous PM's over the years thanking me for getting the message out that you need not abandon your Christian faith just because you are entirely convinced that evolution happened.

For that reason alone, this discussion is worth it.

 

[Mallon]

I was raised YEC, and came to believe it. But eventually, the baloney just piled too high, so I moved on to OEC (omphalos advocate), and eventually, to EC.

 

[Vance]

I was raised YEC, and came to believe it. But eventually, the baloney just piled too high, so I moved on to OEC (omphalos advocate), and eventually, to EC.

If we go back far enough, I would say a large number of us were YEC at some point, at least nominally since we were raised to believe that way. For me, as soon as I began to look at the evidence as objectively as possible, it became dramatically clear that ALL the evidence was pointing straight to evolution and an old earth. Luckily, by that point, I had already had significant education in the ANE cultures and literature and had come to realize that the early parts of Genesis could not have been intended as strict literal historic narrative, and that the text was actually neutral on the subject of the HOW and WHEN of God's creative work. So, I was able to accept the evidence with much less bias and simply see anything that happens as "how God did it".

 

[Molal]

If we go back far enough, I would say a large number of us were YEC at some point, at least nominally since we were raised to believe that way. For me, as soon as I began to look at the evidence as objectively as possible, it became dramatically clear that ALL the evidence was pointing straight to evolution and an old earth. Luckily, by that point, I had already had significant education in the ANE cultures and literature and had come to realize that the early parts of Genesis could not have been intended as strict literal historic narrative, and that the text was actually neutral on the subject of the HOW and WHEN of God's creative work. So, I was able to accept the evidence with much less bias and simply see anything that happens as "how God did it".

I cam to be baptised later in life (I was 24), and so I was never YEC. So, I have a hard time understanding why YECs are so adamant about their literal position.

 

[anonymous1515]

Actually, yes, a number of times. If I recall, I think Shenren came in as a YEC (but I could be thinking of someone else entirely). EDIT: I see that Shenren just "raised his hand" in response to the same post.

More often, what happens is that there are people in the "audience" (there are many watching these discussions) who are in a crisis of faith regarding these issues. They have come to review the evidence for evolution and find it convincing, but they have been raised (brainwashed?) with the idea that "if evolution is true, Scripture is false" and are now doubting the very Gospel message! I have gotten numerous PM's over the years thanking me for getting the message out that you need not abandon your Christian faith just because you are entirely convinced that evolution happened.

For that reason alone, this discussion is worth it.

That's a point I hadn't previously considered. It's easy to get caught up in discussions with one particular individual and forget that others may just read the discussion without necessarily posting in it. Good point. Then again, you can only write the same responses to YEC's so many times before it becomes a nuisance.

 

[Vance]

That's a point I hadn't previously considered. It's easy to get caught up in discussions with one particular individual and forget that others may just read the discussion without necessarily posting in it. Good point. Then again, you can only write the same responses to YEC's so many times before it becomes a nuisance.

You're telling me! :0)

Actually, I have gotten smart and have some basic stuff "canned" for re-use later if the need arises. Is that cheating? :0)

 

[anonymous1515]

You're telling me! :0)

Actually, I have gotten smart and have some basic stuff "canned" for re-use later if the need arises. Is that cheating? :0)

Haha, maybe, but still..... I mean, after you`ve written out the same thing 100 times, it only makes sense to start copying and pasting it anyways.

 

[shernren]

I cam to be baptised later in life (I was 24), and so I was never YEC. So, I have a hard time understanding why YECs are so adamant about their literal position.

I don't get the "and so". How does being baptised later in one's life rather than earlier shield one from fundamentalism?

 

[Vance]

I don't get the "and so". How does being baptised later in one's life rather than earlier shield one from fundamentalism?

I think it could help because he could think for himself, rather than simply be "brought up" to believe a certain way. But, as you are alluding, PLENTY of people are equally susceptible to such indoctrination regardless of age!