Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[SavedByGrace3]

Yes, possibly beginning of our time, but even then, that is still a maybe. Certainly not the beginning OF time because God existed already.

Yes, a moment before the beginning of our time there was nothing, but nothing as in our universe or nothing period?

On the creation of chaos, you are right, he didn't create chaos, that could very well have just been a step in the process and that was the only thing that "made it that way". Just as we would create say, a painting, first it's nothing then we add a background color with no form and void of details, then the rest.

So many possibilities, and glad you brought it up to explore.

And thank you for the response. Lord bless...wait! He already has and will continue to!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We read them. You are simply wrong. There are no contradictions in Genesis, and anyone who reads beyond a seventh grade level can clearly see this. Why you continuously post that wall of gibberish is unknown, but it's wrong and has no relationship to the truth of the Scriptures. You may be in love with your own opinion, but the rest of us realize that you're completely incorrect.

Genesis 1:25-26 shows the animals created and after them, mankind. Genesis 2:18-19 shows God creating the animals after the creation of mankind. This is a contradiction in the order of creation between men and animals.

 

[Queller]

I agree with God, because we are of One mind, I have the mind of Christ.

Not according to the verse you quoted. God's mind is higher than yours (or mine)

But do not feel sorry for me, but for yourself. The verse I quoted was for you, because you do not agree with God, and therefore, you do not agree with me or any who know Him.

Wrong, I agree with God, not your silly and demeaning interpretation of his Word.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Clearly we disagree as to who is making the fair evaluation. Since we have to disagree . . . . we can each of us concede, I hope, that the other is doing the best they can with what they know and trust to believe and understand the truth about God.

Yes there comes a point when that's best, and as far as the truth, I'm working on it and may very well still be working on it when Christ returns and we all may be given the answers. So in the end, makes me wonder why bother? but just the same some of us will...human nature.

 

[Queller]

I fixed this sentence for you!

It's not my interpretation of the evidence but the consensus interpretation of the evidence by millions of scientists in the relevant fields of all religious faiths (and none).

Nice try though.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes there comes a pint when that is best, and as far as the truth, I'm working on it and may very well still be working on it when Christ returns and we all may be given the answers. So in the end, makes me wonder why bother? but just the same some of us will...human nature.

God given human nature. The desire to understand and search out an answer is from God. Many have been brought into His kingdom because of that desire.

 

[Queller]

That's been proven thousands of ways.
Nat Geo has an ongoing series to show you how unreliable your brain is.
http://braingames.nationalgeographic.com/

Then how can we trust your claims about the Bible? I mean it's your (according to you) unreliable brain that led you to those claims, right?

 

[Queller]

Convince me of what specifically? There are a few branches from the topic floating around here so...

Common descent.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Common descent.

If "common descent" as in we all came from one ancestor, I already believe that.

If you would like to be a little less vague, I might be able to give an answer more to your liking.

 

[Queller]

As he gave Adam the ability to choose whether or not to defy His only rule and eat the forbidden fruit. We saw how that turned out.
Oh, wait. You don't believe that happened.

Don't tell lies about me. I do believe that Man decided to turn away from God.

When Jesus quoted Genesis two regarding Adam and Eve, He was clearly lacking the benefit of modern science.
Of course we also know that the story of Cain and Abel is false. Too bad nobody told Jesus when He said, in Luke 11: "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all."
Too bad Christ didn't have access to modern science. He believe the Scriptures were accurate.

Or is He is speaking to people in terms they understand.

I think BILLIONS of people of all faiths are wrong.
I don't pretend that I am right.

You most certainly act like it.

I am, however, secure in the knowledge that God is right.

So am I. And yet we disagree...

You know, I've read the term "literalist interpretation" so many times if I never read it again I'll be happy. There is no such thing because literalism requires belief as read; no interpretation.

No, it requires interpretation of what is supposed to be literal and what is not. Do you believe that there is a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world at the time of Jesus? Where is that mountain located?

The fact is that the Bible is perfectly clear that in the beginning GOD CREATED the heaven's and the earth, and that GOD CREATED all living things in six days. There is no possible interpretation that would allow for the evolution of life without entirely rejecting the book of Genesis.

Completely and totally false. But you go right on thinking that.

You DO reject it, though you pretend you don't.

I reject a dogmatic and woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis that makes God deceitful, yes.

You disbelief in the creation of the earth.

False.

You disbelieve in original sin, which brought death into the world,

If you mean the death of the soul/spirit and eternal separation from God, then no, I don't disbelieve that at all. If you mean physical death, then of course I don't believe it. Even the Bible contradicts that belief.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam didn't die the day he ate the fruit, did he? Therefore it cannot be talking about physical death.

You disbelieve in the genealogy of man from Adam to the flood.
You disbelieve there was a global flood.
You disbelieve in the re-population of the world after the flood.

Because God's own fingerprints in the world tell a different story.

It's not that evolution believers interpret the Bible differently, you outright REJECT anything in the Bible which interferes with that which you have chosen to believe.

I love all these so-called Christians with the ability to read the hearts and minds of others across the internet.

Yes, because I believe it was a vision, not a specific vantage point, and it was a spiritual journey more than a physical one.

Really? Because a literal reading of the Matthew 8 does not support that belief. There is nothing in the chapter to support the idea that the trip was a vision. Was Jesus likewise not taken to the top of the temple but a vision? Did Jesus not fast for 40 days and nights but a vision? How do you determine what is a vision and what is not?

Maybe you can shorten things up for us and list for us the things in the Bible which you DO believe. It must be hard to believe that Jesus was the son of God when He was obviously wrong about so many things that your science teachers told you.

I don't believe He was wrong about any of it, I simply don't believe He was speaking literally. When you talk to your children about complicated things they don't have the background knowledge to understand, do you couch it terms they understand or do you use complicated terms and concepts they for which they have no knowledge or understanding and hope they get the lesson you are trying to impart?

Know what else they were wrong about? Benevolent mutations do NOT advance a species,

False. Do you not know anything about the theory of evolution?

nothing has ever evolved into anything,

Astounding display of lack of knowledge about the facts.

and without an outside Creator there is no scientifically valid explanation for the origination of anything.

I agree.

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis 1:25-26 shows the animals created and after them, mankind. Genesis 2:18-19 shows God creating the animals after the creation of mankind. This is a contradiction in the order of creation between men and animals.

Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account. It begins by saying, "Thus the Heavens and earth were completed in their vast array." After Adam was placed into the Garden of Eden, it says that the Lord had formed the birds and the land animals which were brought to Adam to name. It says nothing whatever of any new creation.
The atheist claim of two conflicting creation accounts is disproved by a cursory reading at a seventh grade level. You seriously need to pay more attention to the Scriptures and less attention to the detractors. Make no mistake, the false teachers will account for trying to lead believers away from the Bible on the day of judgment.

 

[Queller]

If "common descent" as in we all came from one ancestor, I already believe that.

If you would like to be a little less vague, I might be able to give an answer more to your liking.

You believe that we call came from one ancestor that lived started life as, at the very least, a single celled organism several hundred million years ago? Because that is what common descent refers to in the context of evolutionary theory.

 

[Queller]

Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account. It begins by saying, "Thus the Heavens and earth were completed in their vast array." After Adam was placed into the Garden of Eden, it says that the Lord had formed the birds and the land animals which were brought to Adam to name. It says nothing whatever of any new creation.

And there is the problem. Genesis 1 states that the birds and land animals were formed before the creation of man. Genesis two states they formed after the creation of man.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You believe that we call came from one ancestor that lived started life as, at the very least, a single celled organism several hundred million years ago? Because that is what common descent refers to in the context of evolutionary theory.

No, I do not believe that. As to what would convince me that is a fact, nothing that I know of.

 

[Queller]

No, I do not believe that. As to what would convince me that is a fact, nothing that I know of.

So you are not open to considering the evidence. Why is that?

 

[ScottA]

I guess my response Scott is this:
Don't be surprized if that whip is directed at you, or that you are the one being rebuked.
We all do our best and we all think we are correct. Even solid literallists differ on many things. Nobody, no matter how intelligent or in tune with the Spirit is right about everything. Including me. We need to walk in that understanding an extend some compassion toward each other.
As you said.. in love
Peace

That is certainly a good position to take. But conjecture is the real problem, and that is what Paul referred to when he spoke of women being silent in church. However, we can know the truth and some have been called to declare it, and if we were to remain silence...well...the rock would cry out...

 

[ScottA]

Not according to the verse you quoted. God's mind is higher than yours (or mine)

Wrong, I agree with God, not your silly and demeaning interpretation of his Word.

One of us is indeed wrong.

But you cannot pit one verse against another and say that you agree with God. And that speaks louder than anything you have said.

 

[KWCrazy]

Don't tell lies about me. I do believe that Man decided to turn away from God.

That's not what I said, was it?
The fall of man brought death into the world. Prior to this there was no death. You believe that there was millions of years of death and birth before man evolved. My statement is exactly true, and yours is exactly false.

Or is He is speaking to people in terms they understand.

So the son of God is repeating a lie rather than setting the record straight? How is that consistent with any of His other teaching? You are so blinded by your rejection of the word of God that can't even see when you're not making sense.

So am I. And yet we disagree...

Show me what there in in the Bible with which you agree? Certainly you can't believe that silliness about a man 3 days dead in the heat of summer coming back from the dead after all that decomposition. Show me a biologist in the world who would say that's possible. The virgin birth, really? Do you believe that a woman who had never been with a man actually gave birth to the son of God? Name for me one scientist who can demonstrate how that is possible.

Completely and totally false. But you go right on thinking that.

Show me in Scriptures, I DEFY you!!!
The writing in Genesis is clear and unambiguous.
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew, University of Oxford, 1984:
“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience."
There is not a single passage of Scripture which contradicts the Genesis account, and not a single passage that gives credence to evolution. Belief in evolution REQUIRES a rejection of the Scriptures.

I reject a dogmatic and woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis that makes God deceitful, yes.

God is not deceitful. You reject His word.

If you mean physical death, then of course I don't believe it. Even the Bible contradicts that belief.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Adam didn't die the day he ate the fruit, did he? Therefore it cannot be talking about physical death.

That's exactly the argument Satan used.
The Bible says Adam would surely die. He did. The Satanic lie was to imply that he would die immediately, but the truth is that the moment he defied God death became assured. In the day does not mean on the day. Satan knew this, Eve did not. Satan told her she wouldn't die that day.

Because God's own fingerprints in the world tell a different story.

You admit you reject this Scripture. Thank you.

I love all these so-called Christians with the ability to read the hearts and minds of others across the internet.

I just PROVED you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe.
Jesus fasted for 40 days. That is correct. Satan is a spirit, operating in a spiritual world. He is not flesh and blood; never was. He at no time is shown to have a physical body. He was never born.

False. Do you not know

anything about the theory of evolution?

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles and new regulatory regions are created. source
Apparently I do and you don't.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you are not open to considering the evidence. Why is that?

If you want to repeat what I've already looked into, have at it, but unless you have something new to bring to the table, probably won't do any good.

Not sure why you would assume I'm not open to considering what you call evidence when I have already. Not sure but I thought I mentioned that and if that is the case, why the accusation?

 

[Queller]

One of us is indeed wrong.

But you cannot pit one verse against another and say that you agree with God. And that speaks louder than anything you have said.

I'm not pitting one verse against another. You and I are only discussing one verse, Isaiah 55:9, in which God states His mind is higher than any of ours. You are the one that said your thoughts were God's thoughts in defiance of that verse.