Carnivores and the Fall

[Jig]

Then what merit does saying an understanding that the universe is billions of years old leaves "room" for atheism have? Atheists would still be atheists if the world were only 100 years old.

If the world could be proven to be only 100 years old, the only possiblity for its existence would be from the creating hand of a supernatural agent. No one would be an atheist. A vast period of billions of years gives atheists better odds for abiogenesis occuring by chance.

Let me ask you a question. When the new Earth comes down from Heaven, will it be fully formed and mature or will it have to undergo billions of years of unform progression and development before we will be able to live on it?

You know what leads atheists to reject the Bible? The fact that it doesn't agree with modern science. YECs choose to reject modern science on that basis, but I think a better approach would be to reject the idea that the Bible has anything authoritative to say about science. It doesn't, and it never claims to. Take that away, and atheists have less reason to reject God's written word.

So I am supposed to believe in the current scientific status-quo, surely changing when it changes, and implanting that understanding into my interpretation of the text so that more people will not discredit the bible as mythic legend?

Sounds like you'd like Christians to compromise for a supposed better good. Yet, I believe this undermining of God's word truely will hurt Christians later on. How can we trust God's word then? If the creation account is wrong maybe other things are too? Maybe Jesus rose from the dead spiritually, since physical ressurection isn't possible...just trying to keep within the status-quo!

Can I ask you a question? At what point in the Bible do you "kick in" and say now we are seeing actual history? After the creation of Adam, after the Fall, after the Flood, after Noah dies at 950, after the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, after the 40 years the 2 million Hebrews wondered in the wilderness, how about after Balaam's talking donkey. Do you even believe any of this occoured?? I don't understand Christians who go through the bible and try to show that mircles actually had natural explanations. I just recently heard one on how the plagues of Egypt were due to naturally occuring phenomena.

"Old" is a subjective term, I agree. "4.6 billion years old" is an absolute term.

No, its all subjective. Such dates are based on assumptions.

 

[Mallon]

Sounds like you'd like Christians to compromise for a supposed better good. Yet, I believe this undermining of God's word truely will hurt Christians later on. How can we trust God's word then? If the creation account is wrong maybe other things are too? Maybe Jesus rose from the dead spiritually, since physical ressurection isn't possible...just trying to keep within the status-quo!

Christians said the same things about adopting heliocentrism, and yet here we are today still intact. Maybe we should loosen up and take a lesson from history.
I'm not advocating compromise, Jig. I'm advocating reading the Bible for the purpose it was given us: to come to understand God and His relationship with us. Neocreationists who insist that accepting science is a detriment to the faith only put unnecessary road blocks to those would-be Christians who don't feel they should have to leave their brain at the door when they sign up to serve Christ. And they shouldn't have to.

Can I ask you a question? At what point in the Bible do you "kick in" and say now we are seeing actual history?

Most ECs suspect Gen 1-11 is a mix of history and mythology. For example, there are many who suspect the Flood account is based on real events that have taken on legendary status to promote the Judeo-Christian God.

I don't understand Christians who go through the bible and try to show that mircles actually had natural explanations.

Me neither. I'm certainly not advocating doing that. Christians should just accept that not every verse of the Bible is historically or scientifically accurate. The Bible certainly never makes such claims about itself.

 

[vossler]

I'm not advocating compromise, Jig. I'm advocating reading the Bible for the purpose it was given us: to come to understand God and His relationship with us. Neocreationists who insist that accepting science is a detriment to the faith only put unnecessary road blocks to those would-be Christians who don't feel they should have to leave their brain at the door when they sign up to serve Christ. And they shouldn't have to.

You may not be openly advocating compromise, but most certainly in the end that's what you get. Creationists don't accept anything that claims to be 'science' that directly refutes the Word of God and is based on conjecture and speculation; all Christians should do likewise. As far as roadblocks are concerned, well Scripture deals with that.

Romans 1:18-25 sums this up quite well:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
​

Romans 11:7-10 goes on to say:

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,

"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." And David says,

"Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever."
​

I like Isaiah 5:21 in helping us to remember how little it is we know:

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
​

Finally I think this really puts an exclamation point on it, it specifically deals with your post 118 and the theme of many of your posts. 1 Corinthians 1:18-29 states:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
​

Most ECs suspect Gen 1-11 is a mix of history and mythology. For example, there are many who suspect the Flood account is based on real events that have taken on legendary status to promote the Judeo-Christian God.

That's the problem, evolutionists love to mix up how the Bible is read in order to fit their paradigm. That's why there's little consistency to their doctrine.

Christians should just accept that not every verse of the Bible is historically or scientifically accurate. The Bible certainly never makes such claims about itself.

Of course not, especially if it conflicts with our own ideas.

 

[Mallon]

You may not be openly advocating compromise, but most certainly in the end that's what you get.

It's not. Accepting evolution is no more a compromise than accepting heliocentrism. It's noteworthy that your appeals to the literal inerrancy of Scripture and its relationship to salvation are the very same ones the church fathers pushed in light of the discovery of the antipodes and heliocentrism. It's like listening to a broken record. Some choose to move forward and integrate a robust natural theology with the gospel message, while others prefer to ignore these lessons from history and continue to insist on a hermeneutic that equates inerrancy with scientific verifiability. It's probably obvious to see which camps we both fall in.

 

[Jig]

Christians said the same things about adopting heliocentrism, and yet here we are today still intact. Maybe we should loosen up and take a lesson from history.

I don't think the parallel you try to squeeze between the geocentristic interpretation and the 6 literal day creation isn't fitting. The geocentristic interpretation more closely resembles what you are doing to the text of Genesis. The bible plainly and clearly says that all of creation was formed in 6 days, while there is not one single verse that plainly and clearly states the Sun revovles around the Earth. That bit of interpretation, though very popular in the early church, must be read into the text. The same with the idea of billions of years having to be read into the text of Genesis. The idea of 6 literal days is not read into the text, it's what the text says.

I'm not advocating compromise, Jig. I'm advocating reading the Bible for the purpose it was given us: to come to understand God and His relationship with us.

The bible may not be a science textbook (thanks God! since science textbooks change every year ) it is a history book. One of it's purposes is to let us know of our beginnings so that we can know "who" we are. Our true origin has a lot to do with our purpose and meaning in life.

You may not see it, but from my point of view, you are indeed advocating compromise.

Neocreationists who insist that accepting science is a detriment to the faith only put unnecessary road blocks to those would-be Christians who don't feel they should have to leave their brain at the door when they sign up to serve Christ. And they shouldn't have to.

Brain at the door? I can only wonder what you are insinuating here.

I do not reject science. I love science. What I reject is some of its assumptions and philosophies (especially when they go against God's perfect word). Christians should not reject science and I do not promote that.

Most ECs suspect Gen 1-11 is a mix of history and mythology. For example, there are many who suspect the Flood account is based on real events that have taken on legendary status to promote the Judeo-Christian God.

So some of the stories within the Scriptures have lost their true rendering and have been blown up and inflated by legendary imagaination? If God created through a process of uniform progression and development trhough billions of years, why didn't He just say that?

Me neither. I'm certainly not advocating doing that. Christians should just accept that not every verse of the Bible is historically or scientifically accurate. The Bible certainly never makes such claims about itself.

Since the bible is a history book, we better hope it's history is correct. Are you saying that the bible only got it right when detailing the life of Jesus but not about God's creative work by divine fiat? Also, though the bible isn't a science book like I said earlier, when it ventures into science it's always correct, strange huh? Round earth suspended over nothing, hydrology, etc.

Let's not place man's philosophy over Gods word.

Oh yeah, I'd still like your answer to this question...
When the new Earth comes down from Heaven, will it be fully formed and mature or will it have to undergo billions of years of unform progression and development before we will be able to live on it?

 

[The Barbarian]

I never said it didn't matter. I pointed out that a recent creation event cannot support philosophical materialism, which is the root to atheism and moral relativism.

So it doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, which is not about (and can't be about) either of these things.

To believe in philosophical materialism one must also believe in the hypothesis of billions of years.

To believe in philosophical materialism, one must also believe that electrons exist. This is not a reason to deny that electrons exist.

A hypothesis of 12,000 years or less can only be explained by a supernatural agents activity.

Barbarian observes:
But reality is sometimes inconvenient.

One day you may be eating your own words.

Since I've put my trust in God, instead of creationism, (which is man's invention), I don't think so. He's right. Creationists are wrong.

Barbarian suggests:
Sounds interesting. Show me how the "assumptions" for Ar/Ar testing affects the outcome for other sorts.

According to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon in rocks when they form.

Can't be. Molten rock drives off any argon, which is an inert gas. That is testable. No assumption there. You can't actually keep argon gas in molten rock, even if you tried.

When measured, all 40Ar in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed.

See above. Can't be any other way.

However, it is well established that volcanic rocks (e.g.basalt) contain excess 40Ar, that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contamination or in situ radioactive decay of 40K. This excess 40Ar represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth’s mantle by the parent magmas, is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance.

This story was being peddled by Steve Austin, who took material from recent eruptions from Mt. St. Helens and submitted it to a lab for dating. The lab specifically warned him that recent material could not be dated by their method, and that all xenocrysts (bits of material that had solidified in the lava before the eruption) would have to be removed before an accurate test could be done.

Austin ignored both of these cautions, and then professed to be shocked that the test gave an erroneous date. He later claimed to have removed all xenocrysts, but admits in his paper:

'Although NOT a complete separation of non-mafic minerals, this concentrate included plagioclase phenocrysts (andesine composition with a density of about 2.7 g/cc) and the major quantity of glass (density assumed to be about 2.4 g/cc). No attempt was made to separate plagioclase from glass, but further use of heavy liquids should be considered.'

A geologist like Austin would know that plagioclase would include young glass as well as more ancient material. He has since admitted that the samples were not pure, but maintains it does not matter.

BTW, a recent Ar/Ar analysis done on material of directly known age (the eruption that buried Pompeii) gave an accurate answer. So we know it works.

Barbarian suggests:
And show how ages obtained by other methods is affected thereby. Explain each method and tell us how assumptions alters the result.

Funny how you are asking me how assumptions alter results. I thought that was obvious.

Contrary to creationist belief, reality is not subject to expectations, not even if you really, really want it to be true.

Barbarian suggests:
Tell us how "circular" is involved.​

​

Fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain.

No. The ages of rocks were first worked out by geologists over 150 years ago, all of whom were creationists. They observed a sequence always found in undisturbed rock, first noted by Persian geologist Ibn Sina, and later formulated by Nicholas Steno in the 1600s. Only later, did people like Hutton and Lyell notice that there were certain fossils only found in specific layers. So the understanding of relative age was founded first by the simple realization that the lowest undisturbed rock was olded, and only secondarily by the realization that some fossils were only found at certain points in the column.

The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.

No, you've been misled about that, too. The use of fossils as indexes to relative age has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Mallon]

The bible plainly and clearly says that all of creation was formed in 6 days, while there is not one single verse that plainly and clearly states the Sun revovles around the Earth.

If that were the case, people wouldn't have cited the Bible in order to make the case for geocentrism. There are many passages in the Bible that refer to flat-earth heliocentrism. None of them refer to a spherical earth revolving about the sun. Deny it all you like, but early Christians were insistent upon the fact that the Bible clearly taught what we now consider to be an outdated cosmology. I really feel no more need to make this case for you than to show that the grass is green. I can't force you to see what you don't want to see.

The same with the idea of billions of years having to be read into the text of Genesis.

Old earth creationists attempt to read deep time into the Bible because they are scientific concordists. Evolutionary creationists do not because we are accommodationists. Please make a point of understanding what you are arguing against.
You can read more here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

I do not reject science. I love science. What I reject is some of its assumptions and philosophies

That's like saying you like cars but hate engines. The assumptions built into the scientific method are what make it work. You can't have one without the other. Science without methodological naturalism isn't science.

If God created through a process of uniform progression and development trhough billions of years, why didn't He just say that?

Because God's point wasn't to tell us HOW He made us, but WHY He made us. Again, check out that link I provided above so you can understand the tenets of the accommodationist hermeneutic.

Since the bible is a history book, we better hope it's history is correct.

The Bible isn't a single book. It's a collection of books written at different times, in different places, by different people, in different languages and styles. Why are you so insistent that the whole of the Bible be historical? Can you cite a passage that "plainly and clearly" makes this case?

Are you saying that the bible only got it right when detailing the life of Jesus but not about God's creative work by divine fiat?

Nope.

Also, though the bible isn't a science book like I said earlier, when it ventures into science it's always correct, strange huh? Round earth suspended over nothing, hydrology, etc.

It's easy to say that the Bible is scientifically correct when you ignore all the parts that aren't scientifically correct or metaphorize them. I see you're quick to cite Job when it refers to the earth being suspended over nothing, but not when it speaks of the earth sitting on pillars as the Egyptians also believed or of the sky being hard as a mirror cast of bronze.

Oh yeah, I'd still like your answer to this question...

When the new Earth comes down from Heaven, will it be fully formed and mature or will it have to undergo billions of years of unform progression and development before we will be able to live on it?

I am not a dispensationalist. Does that answer your question?

 

[shernren]

I like the fact that vossler used passages that clearly refer exclusively to non-believers who completely reject the gospel, in searching for Biblical comparisons to evolutionists.

Either he does really believe that TEs are not Christians or he, like so many creationists, is being hopelessly lax in interpreting the Pauline epistles.

Why bother figuring out what Genesis 1-11 means if you're going to abuse the other sixty-five-and-a-half books, anyway?

 

[juvenissun]

Can't be. Molten rock drives off any argon, which is an inert gas. That is testable. No assumption there. You can't actually keep argon gas in molten rock, even if you tried.

When date volcanic rock, Ar-40 correction is always necessary. Sometimes, the air contamination is so bad and it made the rock undatable.

A geologist like Austin would know that plagioclase would include young glass as well as more ancient material. He has since admitted that the samples were not pure, but maintains it does not matter.

I would agree with Austin. The date is mostly given by the glass rather than by the plagioclase. In dating the volcanic material, a whole rock sample (include all feldspars) is usually accepted. The mantle xenolith issue is a joke. If the xenolith is small enough to become part of the sample, then it probably won't affect the age much. If it were large, then it should be very easy to be excluded.

BTW, a recent Ar/Ar analysis done on material of directly known age (the eruption that buried Pompeii) gave an accurate answer. So we know it works.

This is a marginal application of the system. We know C-14 system works on historical samples.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Can't be. Molten rock drives off any argon, which is an inert gas. That is testable. No assumption there. You can't actually keep argon gas in molten rock, even if you tried.
​

When date volcanic rock, Ar-40 correction is always necessary. Sometimes, the air contamination is so bad and it made the rock undatable.

True, but irrelevant to the original claim. Argon will not remain in molten lava. It can contaminate rock later. BTW, there are entire journals written about ways to avoid that kind of sample.

Barbarian observes:
A geologist like Austin would know that plagioclase would include young glass as well as more ancient material. He has since admitted that the samples were not pure, but maintains it does not matter.

I would agree with Austin.

The vast majority of geochronologists don't. For the obvious reasons.

The date is mostly given by the glass rather than by the plagioclase. In dating the volcanic material, a whole rock sample (include all feldspars) is usually accepted. The mantle xenolith issue is a joke. If the xenolith is small enough to become part of the sample, then it probably won't affect the age much. If it were large, then it should be very easy to be excluded.

Unfortunately there wasn't much of an effort to have it excluded. Given the problems with the sample, and the fact that no one can repeat the results with purified samples, it seems obvious.

Barbarian observes:
BTW, a recent Ar/Ar analysis done on material of directly known age (the eruption that buried Pompeii) gave an accurate answer. So we know it works.

This is a marginal application of the system.

Because it precisely dated a flow of known age. Creationists consider that sort of thing to be "marginal."

We know C-14 system works on historical samples.

Isn't it remarkable that these things work flawlessly on things we can actually check by historical means? That's kind of a revelation in itself, isn't it?

 

[Jig]

So it doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, which is not about (and can't be about) either of these things.

I was talking about the supposed age of the planet, not evolutionary theory.

To believe in philosophical materialism, one must also believe that electrons exist. This is not a reason to deny that electrons exist.

Did you know that an appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument?

Since I've put my trust in God, instead of creationism, (which is man's invention), I don't think so. He's right. Creationists are wrong.

If you insist that creationism is man's invention (which a disagree with), what do you consider your own position?

No. The ages of rocks were first worked out by geologists over 150 years ago, all of whom were creationists.

This is an appeal fallacy.

They observed a sequence always found in undisturbed rock, first noted by Persian geologist Ibn Sina, and later formulated by Nicholas Steno in the 1600s. Only later, did people like Hutton and Lyell notice that there were certain fossils only found in specific layers. So the understanding of relative age was founded first by the simple realization that the lowest undisturbed rock was olded, and only secondarily by the realization that some fossils were only found at certain points in the column.

Did you know that the fallacy of the single cause is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when it is assumed that there is one cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Two words: global flood.

No, you've been misled about that, too. The use of fossils as indexes to relative age has nothing to do with evolution.

Again we are on the topic of the supposed "age" of the planet. My intention had nothing to do with disproving evolution.

Evolution happens all the time. We observe it. We can study it. Natural selection happens all the time. We observe it. We can study it. What we observe, however, can be labeled as micro-evolution, since the chnages we study and observe occur within the same kinds. We do not observe a kind of creature change into a different kind of creature - that would be macro-evolution, and that is a theory based on the philosophy of uniformitiarianism.

 

[Jig]

I can't force you to see what you don't want to see.

Ditto.

That's like saying you like cars but hate engines. The assumptions built into the scientific method are what make it work. You can't have one without the other. Science without methodological naturalism isn't science.

I am not against scientific naturalism. I am against some of the philosophies and assumptions used with scientific naturalism.

Because God's point wasn't to tell us HOW He made us, but WHY He made us.

Prove from the text that God wasn't trying to tell us "how" we were made, but only "why". "How" and "why" are both relavent and intertwined. Since we know that woman was made from man's side (not his heel for example), we know they are equals.

The Bible isn't a single book. It's a collection of books written at different times, in different places, by different people, in different languages and styles.

It is also inspired by the same ONE God.

Why are you so insistent that the whole of the Bible be historical? Can you cite a passage that "plainly and clearly" makes this case?

When is the last time you opened a trusted history book and read "This is a history book"? The fact it documents events throughout history proves a book is a history book or not.

I am not a dispensationalist. Does that answer your question?

That is not a purely dispensational belief. So, you believe this Earth will not pass away and be replaced by a new creation?

 

[Assyrian]

I don't think the parallel you try to squeeze between the geocentristic interpretation and the 6 literal day creation isn't fitting. The geocentristic interpretation more closely resembles what you are doing to the text of Genesis. The bible plainly and clearly says that all of creation was formed in 6 days, while there is not one single verse that plainly and clearly states the Sun revovles around the Earth. That bit of interpretation, though very popular in the early church, must be read into the text. The same with the idea of billions of years having to be read into the text of Genesis. The idea of 6 literal days is not read into the text, it's what the text says.

Are you sure you are in a great position to judge what is plain and clear here? After all you do believe YEC and you reject geocentrism, which to geocentrists, is supported by the same literal interpretation of scripture you you use for a six day creation. Could you be latching on to the aspects of the YEC interpretation that seem clear to you while ignoring the problems, while at the same ignoring the apparently obvious meaning of the geocentric passages whose meaning was plain and clear to every one from the church fathers to Luther?

If we look back to the time before science showed us either the age or the earth or that the earth went round the sun, you have 1500 year of church history when no one ever questioned the plain meaning of the geocentric passages, yet at the same time you have a wide range of Christian scholars, from Origen and Augustine to Anselm and Aquinas, who could look at Genesis and see the six days were not mean to be taken literally.

Sure you can take the days in Genesis and read them literally, but you have to ignore the other passages that show us they might not be literal, questions within Genesis 1 itself, the completely different order of creation in Gen 2 or the creation being described as taking place in a day in Gen 2:4, you even have Moses telling us on Psalm 90:4 that God's days are not the same as ours. I know you have you arguments why we should not take these passages at face value and only take the days of creation literally, but the thing is, the geocentric passage are pretty plain too, but with them there is nothing in scripture that raises question about their literal interpretation, nothing to suggest the earth goes round the sun. Surely if we are going to reject science on the basis of a literalism, we should reject both the age of the earth and heliocentrism. It does not make sense to pick and chose between them. Or if we had to pick one to take literally, shouldn't it be geocentrism? The only reason I can see to accept the earth goes round the sun, but reject the age of the earth, is because of the historical accident that heliocentrism was discovered before geology and has been accepted longer.

 

[Assyrian]

Did you know that an appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument?

I think you are confusing it with Reductio ad absurdum which is a logical argument.

 

[gluadys]

We do not observe a kind of creature change into a different kind of creature - that would be macro-evolution, and that is a theory based on the philosophy of uniformitiarianism.[/B]

No, that is not macro-evolution. That is a caricature of evolution that only exists in the minds of creationists. Real evolution does not work that way.

In reality, speciation (which we have observed) is macro-evolution. And it never involves changing from one "kind"--whatever that is---to a different "kind".

I think the scientific terms nearest to "kind" are "clade" or "taxon". Every new taxon is still part of the same taxon it is derived from. Speciation never puts a new species into a different taxon than its parents were part of.

 

[Mallon]

Prove from the text that God wasn't trying to tell us "how" we were made, but only "why".

The inherent contradictions in the order of creation that stem from a "clear and plain" reading of Genesis 1 and 2 come to mind. They can't both be historical if Genesis 1 says all the birds were created before Adam and Genesis 2 says they were all created after Adam. So I would argue that trying to read the "how" from Genesis is missing the forest for the trees. God blessed us with the means to discern the how via general revelation ( [FONT=&quot]Psalm 19:1[/FONT]). The "why" requires His special revelation.

"How" and "why" are both relavent and intertwined. Since we know that woman was made from man's side (not his heel for example), we know they are equals.

That does nothing to show that the creation account is historical, though. Eve needn't have been literally taken from Adam's side for us to learn of the equality between men and women any more than the prodigal son needed to be real for us to learn compassion for the lost.

It is also inspired by the same ONE God.

I never denied that. But that's still not evidence that the Bible is a single, confluent history book.

When is the last time you opened a trusted history book and read "This is a history book"? The fact it documents events throughout history proves a book is a history book or not.

I see. You require me to support everything I say with proof texting, but you do not demand the same from yourself.
Regardless, most history texts do indeed refer to themselves as history texts. The writings of Josephus come to mind. Using your criteria for how to discern a book of history, the novel adaptation of Forrest Gump would be considered history, too!

That is not a purely dispensational belief. So, you believe this Earth will not pass away and be replaced by a new creation?

Let's just pretend for a minute that I am a dispensationialist and that I think God will literally establish a New Jerusalem here on earth in the near future. I would respond to your question by saying God could build the city according to whatever timeframe He likes. He could do it in an instant if we wanted to. He's God.
My point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that God established out current universe in an instant, and in fact, there are heaps of evidence that He did over a period of billions of years using the natural processes He instated at the beginning of time. Again, if you refuse to believe that, it's really no skin off my back. You don't need to believe it to be saved. The majority of Christians in the world today are comfortable with the theory of evolution, so I don't feel any pressure to push my case on the few who refuse to believe it. It's like arguing with a flat-earther. I'm just not up to it.

God bless, Jig.

 

[Jig]

The inherent contradictions in the order of creation that stem from a "clear and plain" reading of Genesis 1 and 2 come to mind. They can't both be historical if Genesis 1 says all the birds were created before Adam and Genesis 2 says they were all created after Adam. So I would argue that trying to read the "how" from Genesis is missing the forest for the trees.

Contradictions in the order of creation? Only if you assume the current scientific model based on the philososphy of constant uniform progression from the onset of creation. The order in Genesis suggests and argues strongly for direct and authoritive divine fiat. God was not limited to a set pattern while He created, He did as He wished.

That does nothing to show that the creation account is historical, though. Eve needn't have been literally taken from Adam's side for us to learn of the equality between men and women any more than the prodigal son needed to be real for us to learn compassion for the lost.

I guess we are at odds here. I say it is important to know "how" we were made, you say it doesn't matter.

I never denied that. But that's still not evidence that the Bible is a single, confluent history book.

God is omnipresent and omniscient, He is an eye-witness to EVERY event in history. I'll trust Him to tell me what happened way back when. This whole debate reminds me of what God told Job, ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" He is also the sole source of all Scripture. The Bible is nothing but confluence. Since you want to believe Genesis is something else other than historical, what would you suggest it is? Oh wait...thats it! You want your cake and eat to too! Genesis to you is a mix of history and legend.

It's like arguing with a flat-earther. I'm just not up to it.

God bless, Jig.

Well, then let's switch it up.

Was death a product of human sin?

 

[Mallon]

Contradictions in the order of creation? Only if you assume the current scientific model based on the philososphy of constant uniform progression from the onset of creation. The order in Genesis suggests and argues strongly for direct and authoritive divine fiat. God was not limited to a set pattern while He created, He did as He wished.

This response doesn't address what I wrote. I think you misread.

God is omnipresent and omniscient, He is an eye-witness to EVERY event in history. I'll trust Him to tell me what happened way back when. This whole debate reminds me of what God told Job, "

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"

Interesting choice of passage. Do you really think God literally meant that He set the earth on foundations??? Do you really think God is telling us here HOW He created the world, rather than using imagery to tell us THAT He created it? I think the passage you cite bodes more closely in favour of my point than yours.

Since you want to believe Genesis is something else other than historical, what would you suggest it is? Oh wait...thats it! You want your cake and eat to too! Genesis to you is a mix of history and legend.

Is there something inherently wrong with that?

Well, then let's switch it up.

Was death a product of human sin?

Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

[Jig]

Is there something inherently wrong with that?

Enjoy your cake.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

You're the one that said you weren't getting anywhere within this argument and that you were growing weary of it. Thought this would spice things up. The question correlates with what we are discussing.

Is death a product of human sin?

 

[Mallon]

Enjoy your cake.

Is there something inherently wrong with a book of the Bible being a mixture of literary genres?

The question correlates with what we are discussing.

Is death a product of human sin?

How? I don't see the connection.