Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

[miamited]

Very good argument. However, how can we have literal evenings if there is no sun or moon? Also, isn't it possible that "evening and morning" could just be a poetic way of saying the beginning and the end of some unspecified period of time?

Hi arcangl,

The rising of the sun or observance of the moon do not define 'evening and morning'. They are merely equal halves that comprise a day. For us, morning generally begins at midnite. How many times have you seen the sun shining at midnite anywhere other than the poles?

One could make such a claim that 'evening and morning' are just poetic terms to describe the beginning and end of some time period, but it would be an understanding that one could never give evidence of. It would just have to be something that one believed to be true for themselves based on nothing more than that is what they want to believe.

If one wants to base their theology or beliefs on just any unfounded idea that they may hold then we might as well claim that there are cows on the moon. We would have no evidence to support the claim, but one could believe it just the same.

Here's what I know from the evidence of the Scriptures. God knows the beginning from the end. In order that those who would believe in Him might not be swayed by the various meanings of the word 'yom', he provided the very contextual evidence that is always used in order to translate the word correctly. As I previously posted, 'yom' is a word that has different meanings depending on its contextual usage. God knows that.

Anyway, I just wanted to provide a logical and simple explanation to your query. We are each free to believe what we have convinced ourselves is the truth. Me, I'm going with the literal and simple explanation of our realm. God, at some point in time chose to create a new realm of living creatures. A realm apart and different from the angelic realm. He did it in the span of time defined by six rotations of the planet (days), and He did it approximately 6,000 years ago. This comes from believing that Adam was the first created of mankind and the generations that God seems to clearly enumerate through the first few chapters of the account of the beginning.

It's simple and it's easy and it requires nothing more than full and complete faith that with God nothing is impossible and that His words to us are trustworthy and true.

You will have to go with what you believe is the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Gnarwhal]

Hi folks,
I've read a bit about the creation/evolution debate, and it seems to my mind there are three questions which mean the two camps will NEVER be reconciled, however hard you try.

Question 1 - Which came first, the earth or the sun?

The Bible clearly states that the earth was around before the sun. Science clearly states that the sun was around before the earth. Such a contradiction cannot possibly be reconciled.

Question 2 - How old is the earth?

The Bible implicitly teaches that the earth is around 6000 years old through its genealogical records. Science teaches that the earth is billions of years old. There's no way to "meet in the middle" over this.

Question 3 - How long did it take for life to appear on earth?

The Bible says in Genesis that it took a matter of days. Science says it took a billion years or longer. Again, the timescales involved are too large for any middle ground.

It seems from these 3 issues that being a Bible believing Christian and an evolutionist simply isn't an option. You HAVE to choose one side or the other.

I would say that's not an accurate assumption, you're assuming a "bible believing Christian" automatically accepts the bible at face-value from Genesis to Revelation. That's not always the case, in fact that's probably not even a majority case.

There are plenty of Christians who also agree with evolution, and one way that syncs up is because they have realized that the bible is a collection of very nuanced scriptures. Sometimes what's written down isn't meant to be taken at face value but rather interpreted and understood as a certain kind of literature. For example, if you or I were to sit through a Classics lecture, the instructor would make distinctions between, say, Herodotus' historical accounts or Homer's epic poetry. Both of them wrote about Greek wars (Herodotus about the Greco-Persian Wars, Homer about the Trojan War) yet their approach and their intentions in the writing are very different.

I think much of that same sort of thing is what's happening in much of scripture.

 

[Sayre]

Hi arcangl,

The rising of the sun or observance of the moon do not define 'evening and morning'. They are merely equal halves that comprise a day. For us, morning generally begins at midnite. How many times have you seen the sun shining at midnite anywhere other than the poles?

One could make such a claim that 'evening and morning' are just poetic terms to describe the beginning and end of some time period, but it would be an understanding that one could never give evidence of. It would just have to be something that one believed to be true for themselves based on nothing more than that is what they want to believe.

If one wants to base their theology or beliefs on just any unfounded idea that they may hold then we might as well claim that there are cows on the moon. We would have no evidence to support the claim, but one could believe it just the same.

Here's what I know from the evidence of the Scriptures. God knows the beginning from the end. In order that those who would believe in Him might not be swayed by the various meanings of the word 'yom', he provided the very contextual evidence that is always used in order to translate the word correctly. As I previously posted, 'yom' is a word that has different meanings depending on its contextual usage. God knows that.

Anyway, I just wanted to provide a logical and simple explanation to your query. We are each free to believe what we have convinced ourselves is the truth. Me, I'm going with the literal and simple explanation of our realm. God, at some point in time chose to create a new realm of living creatures. A realm apart and different from the angelic realm. He did it in the span of time defined by six rotations of the planet (days), and He did it approximately 6,000 years ago. This comes from believing that Adam was the first created of mankind and the generations that God seems to clearly enumerate through the first few chapters of the account of the beginning.

It's simple and it's easy and it requires nothing more than full and complete faith that with God nothing is impossible and that His words to us are trustworthy and true.

You will have to go with what you believe is the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi Ted,

I wanted to say that your post oozes grace, and I respect that. It is nice to read.

It feels from your post that your position is borne from respect of the Word. I think many people form their position from the same respect, but disagree on what the Word actually is.

I highlighted one paragraph that is at the essence of why we disagree. I believe you have made an assumption that the literal-physical interpretation of Genesis should be the default interpretation. We live in a different culture to the original audience, they were pre-enlightenment and we are post enlightenment, we have science and they knew nothing of that kind of thinking. So why is it appropriate to think that our default interpretation (presuming the text to be physical-literal) should be used in Genesis? How does that default kind of interpretation framework acknowledge the pre enlightenment and pre science culture present at the time of the writing / oral tradition formation of Genesis?

 

[SkyWriting]

We live in a different culture to the original audience, they were pre-enlightenment and we are post enlightenment, we have science and they knew nothing of that kind of thinking.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:3

Then we have most into a no-longer-enlightened period because I see no failings of logic in the scriptures.
There are even scriptural examples of experimental design:

One of the earliest references to a controlled experiment is from Daniel 1: 1-16 in the Old Testament of the Bible


And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
Daniel 2:43


For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Romans 1:18-20

 

[Sayre]

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:3

Then we have most into a no-longer-enlightened period because I see no failings of logic in the scriptures.
There are even scriptural examples of experimental design:

One of the earliest references to a controlled experiment is from Daniel 1: 1-16 in the Old Testament of the Bible


And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
Daniel 2:43


For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Romans 1:18-20

Daniel is a long way from Genesis, and, that one example is a long way away from a culture permeated by post enlightenment thinking.

So my question to Ted still remains, because it is clear that the common thinking has changed massively between Genesis and now (and between Genesis and John) and I don't see how this change in mindset and in cultural understanding of truth and of science, has been taken into account in the conservative fundamentalist reading of the bible.

Here is the conclusion of the study you linked to:

-update Dec. 3 2007-
I’ve noticed a number of links coming from religious websites (which is pretty funny since this web site is anything but religious). Please take note – evidence that experimentation takes place in the bible does not mean that is the first time experimentation or science has ever occurred in human history. It’s probably not even the earliest recorded experiment – but I’m not a historian so what do I know? Furthermore this is a pretty horrific experiment and not a good example of science.

I also note that trial and error / experimentation, is very different to evidentialism or empiricism. Are you claiming that the idea of scientific hypothesis testing and empiricism was as developed then as it is now, and features in culture as much then as it does now, or, is this just a kinda half cool / kinda not link?

 

[KWCrazy]

I would say that's not an accurate assumption, you're assuming a "bible believing Christian" automatically accepts the bible at face-value from Genesis to Revelation. That's not always the case, in fact that's probably not even a majority case.

How, then, are they "Bible believing Christians" if they don't believe the Bible? We don't get to choose which parts of the Scriptures we agree with. We don;t get to decided that ten commandments are too many so we''ll only believe in eight.

What did Jesus teach? Jesus who was present at the time of creation taught that the Scriptures were accurate and that they were suitable for instruction. He spoke of Adam, Caine and Able, Noah, Lot and other notable people from the Scriptures. He said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until he returned. Clearly, Jesus believed in the Scriptures as they were written. He WAS there.

There are plenty of Christians who also agree with evolution, and one way that syncs up is because they have realized that the bible is a collection of very nuanced scriptures.

Translation: There are plenty of Christians who reject parts of the Bible they feel are in contradiction with the claims of man, and they justify this by referring to stories that are obvious parables or metaphors and use then to justify rejecting Scripture which couldn't be more plain. Unfortunately, there are many false teachers who promote this false doctrine.

 

[SkyWriting]

Daniel is a long way from Genesis, and, that one example is a long way away from a culture permeated by post enlightenment thinking.

I'm not sure to which culture you are referring to or to what particular mindset you have in mind.

Six Key Ideas
Deism
Liberalism
Republicanism
Conservatism
Toleration
Scientific Progress

So my question to Ted still remains, because it is clear that the common thinking has changed massively between Genesis and now (and between Genesis and John) and I don't see how this change in mindset and in cultural understanding of truth and of science, has been taken into account in the conservative fundamentalist reading of the bible.

I see little change other than the move toward embracing greater sin, denouncing universal values, and embracing lack of wisdom.
There is much to learn from the mindsets revealed in scriptures and I see us moving further from such insights consistently.
"Insight for living" is an example of the endless lessons we have yet to embrace before we get to a point of "enlightenment." A long ways down the road.

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted,

I wanted to say that your post oozes grace, and I respect that. It is nice to read.

It feels from your post that your position is borne from respect of the Word. I think many people form their position from the same respect, but disagree on what the Word actually is.

I highlighted one paragraph that is at the essence of why we disagree. I believe you have made an assumption that the literal-physical interpretation of Genesis should be the default interpretation. We live in a different culture to the original audience, they were pre-enlightenment and we are post enlightenment, we have science and they knew nothing of that kind of thinking. So why is it appropriate to think that our default interpretation (presuming the text to be physical-literal) should be used in Genesis? How does that default kind of interpretation framework acknowledge the pre enlightenment and pre science culture present at the time of the writing / oral tradition formation of Genesis?

Hi Sayre,

Thanks for your kind words. If I may, and you did ask, let me give you my frame of reference regarding the things that you ask and what you seem to believe.

Your claim is that men 2,500 years ago or so when the Scriptures were first written through the prodding and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, were not as 'wise' and 'knowledgeable' about the 'science' of how things operate and exist as we are today.

Ok, let's go with that. God is the author of the Scriptures. Hopefully we can agree on at least that. If not then you and I have no basis for agreement. God caused to be written the Scriptures 2,500 years ago and it is your position that God, even though He seems to have authored the Genesis account to give mankind the knowledge of the beginnings, knew that men wouldn't understand it in the day in which it was given to them.

I am exactly opposite of you in that thinking. I have studied the history that is laid out in the Scriptures. There are a few times that God stepped in and worked in our realm and men's faith was strong after He did whatever it was that He did. However, as time moves away from those moments mankind has always and forever gone from a position of strong faith, belief and knowledge and moved to weak faith, knowledge and apostasy.

This is represented a couple of times in the Genesis account. In the beginning God spoke and walked with Adam. Adam had a real knowledge of His Creator. God also apparently worked with Able and Cain. After all their whole falling out came over offerings to God. We are told that God actually spoke with Cain. We are told that Enoch was a godly man. Yet, we find that 1500 years later man has become so wicked in the desires of his heart that God destroys all mankind from the face of the earth, except for Noah and his family.

Noah then becomes the man of strong faith in a newly begun life for mankind upon the earth. Noah is described as an upright and righteous man before God which is why God chose him to be saved. However, again, as we march on through time we find that men lose sight of God and who he is. Even Abram came from a family that worshipped the gods of the Chaldeans.

Then we come to the Exodus and Moses. God brings them miraculously out of the land of Egypt and now they are so many, with so many different ideas and understandings of who this God is that apparently hasn't really dealt with them for a few hundred years, that they fall away rather quickly. Then God speaks to them and proves Himself to them on the mountain and gives them the law and it sticks for a bit, but seems obvious that by the time Isaiah comes around they are all worthless in God's sight. He tells Isaiah that He has raised up children and they don't even know Him. "My people! God says, My people do not understand." And, of course, by the time Jesus comes to them he is outright calling them to their faces children of the devil.

Then Jesus dies for our sin and the gospel begins to be spread and men of strong faith such as Paul and Peter, et.al spread the good news. But throughout each one of their individual ministries they warn of a great apostasy. Paul writes to the Romans how mankind is going to wax more and more wicked as time marches on. Peter warns us that there will be those among ourselves who will misunderstand the Scriptures and teach lies to the people. Jesus speaks of the day of judgment and says that there will be many surrounding him on that day crying out, "But wait! Wait! Surely Lord you remember me. I was that guy that did great things in your name."

So, hopefully, you can see that I'm willing to allow the historical account of the regular nature of mankind to warn me about these days in which we live. We are now 2,000 years from Jesus' visitation to us and given all the warnings of the coming apostasy, then I naturally have to scratch my head and ask, "Is this a part of the apostasy?" After all, this new teaching of history is fairly new when set against the timeline of the earth. It's an idea that seems to have been only little believed among those who were called Christians in the days of Paul and Peter, but is now quite widespread. And it all centers around men now saying that the literal interpretation and understanding of the Genesis account just can't be true because we now have great wisdom that gives us better answers.

There is a place in the Scriptures where God says that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise. Is it possible that rather than our becoming more knowledgeable and understanding and faithful to God and His truth, that we, like every other generation before us, have actually fallen away? That our generation and the few before us are the very generations teaching the very things that Peter warned us of? That this great wisdom that we think we have is exactly the wisdom that God will one day show as foolishness.

So, no, for me. I'm satisfied and fully confident in the truth that what I want to believe is what Abraham believed; what Moses believed; what Paul and Peter believed about the things and nature and power of God. I also have no problem in understanding that God can speak an entire universe into existence and the moment it came into existence we could have used the measuring sticks that we have today and come to the conclusion that all the heavenly bodies were ancient and not brand new.

Now, some will say, "Well, that makes God a liar!" I, of course, chuckle at this rebuttal and ask, "Why does our not being able to understand and our coming up with devices that date the earth as ancient make God a liar? Wouldn't it really be the other way around? God has told the truth, but we have invented ways to deny that truth from the observation of the natural elements that God created." Who's the liar? And oddly enough Paul even answers this rebuttal. He wrote to the Colossians at one point: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.

Philosophy means 'knowledge' and so, in English, this is telling us to see to it that no one takes us captive through hollow and deceptive knowledge, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Friend, every single tenant of evolutionary theory is supported by the basic principles of this world.

So, for a couple of reasons I choose to believe that God was clear in His explanation of the days of the beginnings.

1. God did define each day as consisting of a morning and an evening.

2. Each day is enumerated and basic Hebrew translation holds that if the word 'yom' is attached with a number that it means a singular day.

So, this evidence is sufficient to me that God meant to be referring to a rotation of the planet as the measurement of the length for the word 'yom'.

There are a couple of reasons that I will not allow myself to be swayed by other arguments.

1. Understanding that the knowledge of men, of the things of God, has always gone from much to little.

2. I find ample evidence that would cause me to consider that the there is nothing, nothing, that is causing people today to turn form the whole of God's truth than this issue of the beginning of creation. And when God's word speaks of 'apostasy' it is not referring to the lost not knowing God, but the people who claim to know God, not knowing God. God didn't rail against Egypt for being apostate. He didn't cry out that Babylon was apostate. It was Israel, His own people, who were apostate.

3. I understand that all these 'facts' that are claimed to support evolution are facts that are based on nothing more than the natural elements of the earth. I have no doubt in understanding that had these scientists who have done these core samples of the ice, been doing them a week after the earth was created that they would still find evidence that the earth was old. I have no problem knowing that had someone done radiometric or carbon dating on a piece of rock or biological material one week after it was created that the measurements of our devices would have 'proven' those things to be ages old.

Also, in answer to your claim, no, I don't hold to the understanding that because of our great knowledge we have a 'better' understanding of the creation of the earth than they did. And yes, I have the utmost respect for God's word because I believe and know that it is the only revelation of and about God that we can know with full assurance is the truth concerning who He is; what He has done; and what He is expecting of those whom He has created in this realm.

Lastly, I believe that my prayers and studies to know God and His truth, have given me a very clear understanding of this realm. You see, we are living for the purpose of God. God created this realm for a purpose. It didn't take eons for this realm to become what it has become, but it is a created realm which was created for a purpose. That purpose is found in the last chapters of the Revelation. God created this realm near instantaneously for nothing more than a place for man to live so that He could ultimately get to what He reveals to us in the great Revelation of Jesus, chapter 21:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-7 He will wipe every tear from their eyes.http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 There will be no more deathhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 or mourning or crying or pain,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 for the old order of things has passed away."http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 He who was seated on the thronehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 said, "I am making everything new!"http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 He said to me: "It is done.http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 I am the Alpha and the Omega,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without costhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 from the spring of the water of life.http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 He who overcomeshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Friend, this is the purpose for which God created this realm. This realm was created that God might achieve this purpose. It didn't take eons to be built up, but merely by the mouth of God were all these things created so that He could achieve this ultimate purpose. The whole of the Scriptures; the reason that Jesus was sent to die for sinners, was that God would ultimately achieve this purpose. For me, there is no natural explanation for why this planet and all the stars came into existence. There is no reason that God would take millions or billions of years to bring about man upon some naturally formed universe because the whole purpose is God's purpose and is so that God will one day announce the day when those who, in this life did turn from the lies to the truth and choose to believe in all that He had done and who He is, will be gathered together with Him and we will be His people and He will be our God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Sayre]

I'm not sure to which culture you are referring to or to what particular mindset you have in mind.

Six Key Ideas
Deism
Liberalism
Republicanism
Conservatism
Toleration
Scientific Progress



I see little change other than the move toward embracing greater sin, denouncing universal values, and embracing lack of wisdom.
There is much to learn from the mindsets revealed in scriptures and I see us moving further from such insights consistently.
"Insight for living" is an example of the endless lessons we have yet to embrace before we get to a point of "enlightenment." A long ways down the road.

Do you really think that the mindset back then was the same as it is now?

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sayre]

Ted, I am still reading and will take a while to reply. But don't think you wasted your words - I will return.

 

[Gnarwhal]

How, then, are they "Bible believing Christians" if they don't believe the Bible? We don't get to choose which parts of the Scriptures we agree with. We don;t get to decided that ten commandments are too many so we''ll only believe in eight.

That's great. Nobody here is talking about disagreeing with scripture. Only challenging how it's interpreted by a certain demographic within Christianity.

What did Jesus teach? Jesus who was present at the time of creation taught that the Scriptures were accurate and that they were suitable for instruction. He spoke of Adam, Caine and Able, Noah, Lot and other notable people from the Scriptures. He said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until he returned. Clearly, Jesus believed in the Scriptures as they were written. He WAS there.

Accuracy doesn't equate to fact. I can accurately recite the Second Act of Macbeth by Shakespeare, it doesn't mean that was a factual series of events in history. Did you ever consider that Christ wasn't talking about their scientific or historical accuracy? Perhaps maybe Christ understood that there was a bigger message to be received through those narratives, and that message is what was accurate.

Translation: There are plenty of Christians who reject parts of the Bible they feel are in contradiction with the claims of man, and they justify this by referring to stories that are obvious parables or metaphors and use then to justify rejecting Scripture which couldn't be more plain. Unfortunately, there are many false teachers who promote this false doctrine.

Nice try, but that's not the case, nobody is cherry picking scripture. Certain types of Christians just like to wage their own crusade claiming that those who read certain scriptures as poetry or apocalyptic or literal account are "picking and choosing", you can try to smear all you want but the fact is that nobody is tossing out any scripture. Just challenging how certain groups on the fringe of orthodox theology interpret it.

 

[Calminian]

That's great. Nobody here is talking about disagreeing with scripture. Only challenging how it's interpreted by a certain demographic within Christianity.

But isn't that just a fancy way of expressing unbelief in the text? I know professing christians that claim they have a different interpretation of the resurrection. A good friend of mine takes this stance—that the resurrection is not literal but figurative. Can you tell her why she's in error?

Accuracy doesn't equate to fact.

Yes, it does. If the Bible is factual, it is accurate, and if it is accurate, it is factual. If its not factual, it's not accurate, and if it's not accurate it's not factual.

Now you can say this is a smear, but there's no smear in affirming the Bible. It would seem the real smear is calling God's word inaccurate.

 

[Sayre]

But isn't that just a fancy way of expressing unbelief in the text? ...

Yes, it does. If the Bible is factual, it is accurate, and if it is accurate, it is factual. If its not factual, it's not accurate, and if it's not accurate it's not factual.

Yeah, THIS is the heart of the debate. It is what I tried to get at when I replied to Ted.

The above is an assertion but without proof (which might be a bit of a harsh criterion) or evidence (a better criterion).

As I asked... where is the evidence that the interpretation needs to be literal in order to be valid? And why is the only form of accuracy in the factual details (literal interpretation) verses stories (which is the literary construct they used to convey facts back then)?

Basically I want something to back up your assertion other than "it just is".

 

[Sayre]

That's great. Nobody here is talking about disagreeing with scripture. Only challenging how it's interpreted by a certain demographic within Christianity.



Accuracy doesn't equate to fact. I can accurately recite the Second Act of Macbeth by Shakespeare, it doesn't mean that was a factual series of events in history. Did you ever consider that Christ wasn't talking about their scientific or historical accuracy? Perhaps maybe Christ understood that there was a bigger message to be received through those narratives, and that message is what was accurate.



Nice try, but that's not the case, nobody is cherry picking scripture. Certain types of Christians just like to wage their own crusade claiming that those who read certain scriptures as poetry or apocalyptic or literal account are "picking and choosing", you can try to smear all you want but the fact is that nobody is tossing out any scripture. Just challenging how certain groups on the fringe of orthodox theology interpret it.

Totally agree.

 

[miamited]

Ted, I am still reading and will take a while to reply. But don't think you wasted your words - I will return.

Hi sayre,

It doesn't really matter whether you return with a strongbox of supposed evidence against what I believe. You asked me a question as to how I understand the 'framework' of the account, and I gave it. I also gave you a clear understanding of the purpose for which God created this realm. You see, when one gleans from the Scriptures the 'plan' for which God created this realm, then the idea of God having to, or allowing, some evolutionary million billion years of history before the creation of man becomes quite ludicrous. God created this realm with a clear and precise goal and the achievement of that goal is told us in the final writings of the Scriptures. It's really quite simple:

God created out of nothing a realm of existence and the purpose of that realm was not that He would sit back and watch in awe as it became what He set out for it to become. No, not at all. It was created exactly as it was to become because it was all created for me - for you - for man. It was all, from the furthest star of the universe from one end of it to the other, created to be a place for man to live. Where man would sin, but be brought back, as each man would choose, to perfection. And when, as God also tells us in the Revelation, the full number of those who would believe would be gathered up and then become the achievement of what God had set out, when He spoke the first, "Let there be..." in this realm, to be the place where now the Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end, would be the God of His people and He would be their God.

There's a song written by Michael Card entitled 'El Shaddai', and in that song he sings of Israel not understanding the plan that God is bringing to fruition in this realm. He is speaking, of course, of their Messiah, but when one reads with trust what God wrote in His Scriptures to us that we might know Him, for those who diligently seek after the deeper things of God; the hidden wisdom, there becomes clear an even larger and greater plan that begins with God creating this realm for His pleasure to achieve what He was seeking. That is what He reveals finally to us in that great passage of the Revelation of Jesus.

Michael Card - El Shaddai - YouTube

When Jesus said, "It is finished!" He was not referring to his death, but rather telling His Father, everything now is done to achieve his Father's goal. Now that the price had been paid that those who would believe and trust in the Father, my Father, the ultimate goal of God's speaking into existence this entire realm of creation could be accomplished.

As I have often said, each is free to believe what they will, but I am convinced beyond any wisdom of man or strongbox of worldly evidence, that any man diligently seeking God who will simply read the first chapter of the Genesis account and then turn and read the last two chapters of the Revelation, they will find that there is goal for which God created this realm. Once one understands that God created this realm for nothing more than the achievement of that goal, the idea of some ages of the earth before man is utter foolishness and nonsense. But only the Holy Spirit can give any man that knowledge, for it is he who Jesus said will give unto those who trust in the Father all truth.

God bless you, my friend, and may He be merciful also to you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Amy Grant's old classic, my second favorite Gospel song of all time.

Amy Grant El Shaddai

This one's still my favorite:

Terry Talbot I Am He

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gnarwhal]

But isn't that just a fancy way of expressing unbelief in the text? I know professing christians that claim they have a different interpretation of the resurrection. A good friend of mine takes this stance—that the resurrection is not literal but figurative. Can you tell her why she's in error?

That's part of the purpose of interpretation though is learning and recognizing how the different Scriptures are meant to be interpreted. The gospel accounts are not meant to be read in the same way as the poetry of Song of Solomon or the apocalyptic writing of Revelation. So if these Christians - I'm aware of them as well - are rejecting the reality of the resurrection, well they're committing the same error as someone who would take Ezekiel's account of the wheel to mean there literally was a wheel spinning in the sky: their error is they failed to recognize the style which the Scriptures they were reading was penned.

Yes, it does. If the Bible is factual, it is accurate, and if it is accurate, it is factual. If its not factual, it's not accurate, and if it's not accurate it's not factual.

No, it doesn't. You conveniently ignored my example immediately after the portion of my post you had quoted. I can accurately relay a work of fiction, such as Homer's Odyssey or Dicken's Oliver Twist, but that doesn't mean they're factually true. Neither Odysseus nor Oliver Twist actually existed.

Now you can say this is a smear, but there's no smear in affirming the Bible. It would seem the real smear is calling God's word inaccurate.

Nobody here is saying that affirming the Bible is a smear, what is a smear is saying that people who don't share your set of interpretations are not affirming the Bible. By the same token, nobody is saying that the Scriptures are inaccurate, but many, if not most, are not convinced that a literal interpretation of everything from Genesis to Revelation is a proper reading of the text. That's all.

 

[miamited]

Hi cogent,

You wrote:

{Nobody here is saying that affirming the Bible is a smear, what is a smear is saying that people who don't share your set of interpretations are not affirming the Bible. By the same token, nobody is saying that the Scriptures are inaccurate, but many, if not most, are not convinced that a literal interpretation of everything from Genesis to Revelation is a proper reading of the text.}

Well, here's what I believe about one's understanding of the Scriptures. They are the truth given us from our Creator. The truth in all things concerning Him. So, this idea that other's 'interpretation' makes a difference to 'what is the truth', really isn't a valid point. The truth is the truth. In this case, either God created this realm in mere moments of time or God created this realm over millions or billions of years. Both positions cannot co-exist as the 'truth'. So, what is the truth? For the born again believer that is all that he seeks to know about his Creator; "What is the truth?" And he fully understands that 'interpretations' of others really hasn't any bearing on that answer.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[Gnarwhal]

Hi cogent,

You wrote:

{Nobody here is saying that affirming the Bible is a smear, what is a smear is saying that people who don't share your set of interpretations are not affirming the Bible. By the same token, nobody is saying that the Scriptures are inaccurate, but many, if not most, are not convinced that a literal interpretation of everything from Genesis to Revelation is a proper reading of the text.}

Well, here's what I believe about one's understanding of the Scriptures. They are the truth given us from our Creator. The truth in all things concerning Him. So, this idea that other's 'interpretation' makes a difference to 'what is the truth', really isn't a valid point. The truth is the truth. In this case, either God created this realm in mere moments of time or God created this realm over millions or billions of years. Both positions cannot co-exist as the 'truth'. So, what is the truth? For the born again believer that is all that he seeks to know about his Creator; "What is the truth?" And he fully understands that 'interpretations' of others really hasn't any bearing on that answer.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

What if it is both, though? What if he instantly created the processes and the base materials that led to the established order of the universe over billions of years?

 

[gluadys]

What if it is both, though? What if he instantly created the processes and the base materials that led to the established order of the universe over billions of years?

Indeed, a variation of that appears to have been the position of St. Augustine of Hippo. He held to an instantaneous creation in "seed" form, with the Genesis days of creation showing the fruition of that over time.

That seems to fit well with all the parameters of creation being established in the big bang and each aspect of creation coming to fruition in its due time according to God's plan and purpose.

What I would add, however, is that I don't see God as a Deist does, sitting back and merely watching it unfold. God is active in all natural processes--just as much so as in super-natural events. So both the instantaneous beginning and the continuing unfolding are God's work.