Creationists False on Key Point

[4x4toy]

Ephesians 2:20

 

[Dale]

Hieronymus in post #3:



<< “After discussing Creationism for years, I've come to certain conclusions. Creationists assume that at some time in the not so distant past, Christianity was all-powerful in society. Then Charles Darwin dethroned it.”

That has nothing to do with creationism.
First of all it is the written Word that teaches creation, throughout the Bible, even our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Word incarnate that created everything, confirmed Genesis and (thus) Creation. “There never really was a time in the past when Christianity was as powerful and unquestioned as Creationists assume.” Not relevant. “There has never been a period when there was complete agreement about what Christianity is. Religion has always been a powerful force but it has never been the only force in society.”
Still not relevant. >>



You say that my comments are irrelevant. Then why do Creationists constantly tell me that Christians were really Christians before belief in biological evolution got started? Only a week ago, one of my neighbors told me, “They follow their god—which is Evolution!”



Is there a Church of Evolution? About ten years ago, in the town where I live, someone rented a building and hung up a sign, Church of Evolution. There were never any meetings there. It turned out that the Church of Evolution sign was hung up by a fundamentalist minister who was trying to prove that Evolution is a religion.



If I thought that Creationists were telling the truth about what they think other people believe, or what religion they follow, I'd say that the Creation-Evolution conflict is based on a misunderstanding. No one is worshiping evolution. I don't really believe that is the case. Creationists are simply stretching their point, or throwing up flak.

 

[Dale]

Hi dale,

Just passing through, but I read in your OP that you would be making your point about what christians have wrong about creationism in your fourth post, (which by my count is post #6). That post says that we got it all wrong because a garden has a wall. That's it? We're all wrong because a garden has to have a wall?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

The point is that Creationists have claimed that God removed the Garden of Eden from the Earth, or that God destroyed it. They teach this as a certainty. Yet no verse in the Bible says anything of the sort. Surely this is important enough to be mentioned!

I was taught that God either removed the Garden of Eden to heaven, or destroyed it and re-created it in heaven. As I have already said, no verse in the Bible says this. So Creationists have added to the Bible. They assume that their interpretation and the Bible are one and the same.

It is fair to point out that this doesn't add up.

 

[Dale]

Not everyone agrees with Answers In Genesis that Eden was destroyed. The Teacher's Bible Commentary (Broadman, 1972), predicts that humans will one day rise above evil, with the help of God and return to Eden.



“Else the gate would not be guarded, but rather the tree of life would have been uprooted, the wall torn down, and the garden destroyed … It is kept in its pristine condition for the benefit of another more perfect generation.”

Paschall & Hobbs, The Teacher's Bible Commentary, Broadman, 1972, p. 17.





Paschall & Hobbs apparently believe that Eden was removed from Earth but will still be revealed to God's people at the right time.

 

[miamited]

Hi dale,

However, there is the flood to contend with. Even if the garden had been kept on the earth as it was when God made it with an angel guarding its entrance, the flood would have effectively destroyed its 'perfect garden' nature. After the flood, the plot of land that was the 'garden' would have just been more silt covered dirt with all its vegetation washed away.

Bottom line, we don't have any idea what happened to the area of the earth that was designated 'the garden'. It may well have just been an area of the earth that was especially prepared by God for man to live in that after the consequences of sin entered God's creation, was, at the time, then guarded. However, after the flood pretty much all of the earth's surface would have undergone some fairly major changes in appearance. It's a pretty sure thing that all of the vegetation would have been washed away or covered with some silt. Noah would likely have had to subsist on animals for food until such time as the plants would have begun to produce again.

However, I think it very important for us to be mindful, when trying to reconstruct these long ago events that were God's work, that a) God can do the impossible. B) We cannot trust that what we can think to imagine is necessarily the truth. We can ponder and consider what this or that could possibly have meant, but we can only guess and consider what the truth of the reality is.

What we know is that God has told us that He created all things in both the heavens and the earth in six days. How He physically caused that reality to come into existence in that six day period is all guesswork. Answers in Genesis is guessing. I'm guessing. You're guessing. But, what we know is that God has said that He created everything in this realm, from the furthest star, comet, planet in all of the universe to the smallest nano particle of the physical nature of all that is on the earth, in six days. That's what we, those who are born again and believe God, know to be the truth. How it all came about as to the physical reality of its coming into existence is all guesswork.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Dale]

Hi dale,

However, there is the flood to contend with. Even if the garden had been kept on the earth as it was when God made it with an angel guarding its entrance, the flood would have effectively destroyed its 'perfect garden' nature. After the flood, the plot of land that was the 'garden' would have just been more silt covered dirt with all its vegetation washed away.

Bottom line, we don't have any idea what happened to the area of the earth that was designated 'the garden'. It may well have just been an area of the earth that was especially prepared by God for man to live in that after the consequences of sin entered God's creation, was, at the time, then guarded. However, after the flood pretty much all of the earth's surface would have undergone some fairly major changes in appearance. It's a pretty sure thing that all of the vegetation would have been washed away or covered with some silt. Noah would likely have had to subsist on animals for food until such time as the plants would have begun to produce again.

However, I think it very important for us to be mindful, when trying to reconstruct these long ago events that were God's work, that a) God can do the impossible. B) We cannot trust that what we can think to imagine is necessarily the truth. We can ponder and consider what this or that could possibly have meant, but we can only guess and consider what the truth of the reality is.

What we know is that God has told us that He created all things in both the heavens and the earth in six days. How He physically caused that reality to come into existence in that six day period is all guesswork. Answers in Genesis is guessing. I'm guessing. You're guessing. But, what we know is that God has said that He created everything in this realm, from the furthest star, comet, planet in all of the universe to the smallest nano particle of the physical nature of all that is on the earth, in six days. That's what we, those who are born again and believe God, know to be the truth. How it all came about as to the physical reality of its coming into existence is all guesswork.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Miamited, Are you telling me that a mere flood, high water, could destroy the Tree of Life? I would have thought this special tree could survive anything. Are you telling me that the Seraphim guarding the entrance to the Garden with flaming swords just stood there as the waters rose until the water put out the fire in their swords? That doesn't make much sense. I think that the Bible would answer these questions if the Tree of Life, the Garden of Eden and the Seraphim with their swords, and the worldwide flood were physical realities. The fact that the Bible doesn't answer these obvious questions is a sign that the Garden of Eden was a teaching story and not a physical reality that would have left traces.

 

[Dale]

In the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia under Eden/Terrestrial Paradise:



“Some of the Rabbinical authorities appear to identify the paradise of the future with the primeval Garden of Eden which is supposed to be still in existence and located somewhere in the far-distant East. According to some it was an earthly abode, sometimes said to have been created before the rest of the world (IV Esdras iii, 7, cf. viii, 52); others make it an adjunct of the subterranean Sheol, while still others place it in or near heaven.”



This passage shows a surprising confusion of thought on the subject of Eden, taken as a physical place. The Catholic Encyclopedia finds Jewish thought on the subject to be doubtful or fantastic. Yet the Catholic tradition has nothing else to offer. It is assumed that Eden doesn't exist in the present, although no one knows when it ceased to exist, or why. No scripture is quoted because there is none.


Link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm

 

[Dale]

In the story of Noah and the Flood, the Ark lands on Mt. Ararat. Ararat is actually a range of mountains, now in Turkey. There is no doubt why Noah wound up on Mt. Ararat. The ancient Hebrews thought that Mt. Ararat was the tallest mountain in the world. The idea is that as the waters recede, the tallest mountain would be the first to be exposed. When the story of Noah was composed, Israelites thought Ararat was the tallest mountain, so it would be the first to be uncovered.

The story of Noah is about obedience, the kind of obedience that God wants. God favors the man who keeps His ways when the entire world is going the wrong way. The story ends with God laying down basic laws of morality and giving a promise for the future.

As a parable about obedience and morality the story of Noah is excellent. As a guide to geography or history it bogs down. If the Israelites had known that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain, Noah would have landed on Everest instead of on Ararat.

 

[Hieronymus]

Another problem with Creationists is that they interpret the Bible but they don't realize that they are interpreting it.

Most Bible believers love exegesis, which is: let the text speak for itself.
and so the initial reading is just "read what it says".

They read the Bible thinking that their interpretation is the Bible itself.

What else would it be when you just read what is says?
Regarding Genesis 1 and 2 and also 3, it is confirmed throughout the Bible, without any suggestion that it's allegorical.
Only when you have presuppositions it is 'necessary' to interpret it allegorically or symbolically.

This partly explains how the Creationists blundered into claiming that Eden was removed by God.

Never heard that before.
It was probably washed away with the Flood.

Their interpretation is that Eden was either destroyed or removed from the earth.

What would you expect when the waters rose above the (then) highest mountains?

Creationists assume that their interpretation is what the Bible says. It doesn't occur to them to check the text.

You're not making a point here, because it is you, and those like you, who feel the urge to mix theistic origins with naturalistic models.

When we read something written thousands of years ago in an ancient language, there is no such thing as reading without interpretation, if there ever is.

This is only obvious.
Without interpretation there can be no understanding.
Even a manual of a lawn mower has to be interpreted.
The text shows you if the interpretation should be literal or otherwise.

The Creationist notion that Eden was removed does fit with the fact that we hear no more about it later in the Old Testament. On the other hand, hearing no more about it also fits with the possibility that it was never a physical reality at all.

Then there are many lies in the Bible, and even Jesus lied if it never existed to begin with.

 

[Hieronymus]

Answers in Genesis, a Creationist website, says that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Flood.

Sounds rather obvious, doesn't it?

This is an inadequate answer.

To you it apparently is.

The Tree of Life was in Eden, probably at the center. Did God allow the Tree of Life to be destroyed? The Bible doesn't explain this point.

The tree of life reoccurs in Revelation.
You see, the Garden was God's Kingdom (or Mountain) on earth.
In Genesis 3 the Kindom of God is closed off to man.
Jesus says: "My Kingdom is not of this earth".
So there is separation since Genesis 3.

If God allowed the Garden to be destroyed, did He recall the Seraphim guarding the gates with flaming swords? If these things were physical realities, it is surprising that Genesis doesn't give us some idea of how God handled this.

There are many things on which the Bible does not elaborate.

It is hard to picture Seraphim standing at the gates until the rising water puts out the fire on their flaming swords. Surely God would do better than that.

I think so too.
I don't think your scenario is accurate.

The Creationist website Answers in Genesis leaves us with no other picture than this soaking mess.

Not only they do, the Bible does that too.
And this was the intention of the Flood, to wipe out everything save 8 people.

For the claim that Eden was destroyed in the Flood, see the last paragraph in the following link.

Link:

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/was-the-garden-of-eden-located-in-iraq/

Maybe i'll have a look later.

 

[SkyWriting]

In the story of Noah and the Flood, the Ark lands on Mt. Ararat. Ararat is actually a range of mountains, now in Turkey. There is no doubt why Noah wound up on Mt. Ararat. The ancient Hebrews thought that Mt. Ararat was the tallest mountain in the world. The idea is that as the waters recede, the tallest mountain would be the first to be exposed. When the story of Noah was composed, Israelites thought Ararat was the tallest mountain, so it would be the first to be uncovered.

The story of Noah is about obedience, the kind of obedience that God wants. God favors the man who keeps His ways when the entire world is going the wrong way. The story ends with God laying down basic laws of morality and giving a promise for the future.

As a parable about obedience and morality the story of Noah is excellent. As a guide to geography or history it bogs down. If the Israelites had known that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain, Noah would have landed on Everest instead of on Ararat.

Sort of correct. The Bible is a perfect method of communicating God's message
to us. If words and your literacy were both perfect, it may have only taken one
chapter to get the message across. But people being so dense, it is what it is.

 

[Hieronymus]

In the story of Noah and the Flood, the Ark lands on Mt. Ararat. Ararat is actually a range of mountains, now in Turkey. There is no doubt why Noah wound up on Mt. Ararat. The ancient Hebrews thought that Mt. Ararat was the tallest mountain in the world.

And perhaps it was, before the Flood.

The idea is that as the waters recede, the tallest mountain would be the first to be exposed. When the story of Noah was composed, Israelites thought Ararat was the tallest mountain, so it would be the first to be uncovered.

Who says that Ararat was the first mountain to be dry?
Yes, they landed there, there's even good extra-Biblical evidence that this was the case.
But during the Flood period many new mountains formed, because big pieces of the earth's crust pushed against eachother.

The story of Noah is about obedience, the kind of obedience that God wants. God favors the man who keeps His ways when the entire world is going the wrong way. The story ends with God laying down basic laws of morality and giving a promise for the future.

According to the Bible Noah (family) was "perfect in their generations".

As a parable about obedience and morality the story of Noah is excellent. As a guide to geography or history it bogs down.

No,not really.
You get into problems when you insist on viewing the matter in compliance with naturalistic models and the naturalistic consensus.

If the Israelites had known that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain, Noah would have landed on Everest instead of on Ararat.

Pure assumption....

 

[Job8]

Why is science is the enemy.

Science -- GENUINE SCIENCE -- is not the enemy for the simple reason that all natural laws were put in place by God, and they operate unchanged since creation. However, PSEUDO-SCIENCE is another matter, since it is in opposition to truth and true science. And it is not creationists who have picked a fight but evolutionists. This nonsense was not even discussed until about 200 years ago.

 

[miamited]

Science -- GENUINE SCIENCE -- is not the enemy for the simple reason that all natural laws were put in place by God, and they operate unchanged since creation. However, PSEUDO-SCIENCE is another matter, since it is in opposition to truth and true science. And it is not creationists who have picked a fight but evolutionists. This nonsense was not even discussed until about 200 years ago.

Hi job,

I like what you have written about psuedo-science, but I'm not sure I agree with your first claim. You do know that water seeks its level, right? It is a natural law.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So, can things create themselves?
No, because then it would have had to exist prior to its existence. (logical fallacy)
Therefore the Original Cause of everything that exists can not be caused.
Note that "Original" already implies it is not caused.
So God is not caused, but everything other than God is caused.
This is why God = Creator.
John 1:1-3

So explain to us why your proof that the universe cannot have existed . . . things cannot create themselves . . . is not equally proof that God cannot have existed.

If you insist on believing God can exist without an alternate creator of Him, then you acknowledge your logic is flawed by the simple act of not using it in the key case of God's existence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . You see, Darwinism is not science, it's naturalism, a belief, force fed to us by the world under the guise of science.

God bless.

Over and over creationists claim evolution is not a scientific and they are clearly still wrong as they assert that.

Darwinism is not a real item. Biologists have moved way beyond Darwin in science. Trying to pin the problem creationists have with evolution on Darwin is merely an insight into the creationist mind set, where they think science procedes based on the popularity of a particular scientist.

Christianity worships Jesus after all. (I am a Christian).

Biologists don't worship Darwin. Nor do educated people who learn about science and accept the reality of evolution.

Evolution explains far to much that creationism does not explain, and evolution will continue to be the scientific explanation unless a better scientific explanation comes along.

Merely saying it was a poof thing, a magic thing, or a magic creation thing is unscientific and will therefore always be ignored by scientists.

Another false claim of creationists is to equate evolution with atheism. Creationists do this because they assert it disagrees with the Bible . . . . but this is a logical blunder, because clearly it is possible to be a believer in God without believing the Christian Bible is God's word. Such a believer in God lacks the motivation of the creationists for rejecting evolution.

We all know the main reason creationists oppose evolution is because it means their interpretation of creation is not literally accurate. They have something in their religion that is proven to be wrong.

They have to live with that problem.

 

[Job8]

You do know that water seeks its level, right? It is a natural law.

Correct. So are you suggesting that evolution is still mired in the swamp of delusion?

 

[Colter]

I'm going to make some observations about Creationism before explaining the thread title. The point falsified by Creationists will be explained in my fourth post.



Creationists have clearly picked a fight with the wrong enemy. Why is science is the enemy. At a time when Christianity seems to be under attack from every direction, Creationists have picked a fight that Christians don't need.

After discussing Creationism for years, I've come to certain conclusions. Creationists assume that at some time in the not so distant past, Christianity was all-powerful in society. Then Charles Darwin dethroned it.

There never really was a time in the past when Christianity was as powerful and unquestioned as Creationists assume. There has never been a period when there was complete agreement about what Christianity is. Religion has always been a powerful force but it has never been the only force in society.

Religious conservatives have sometimes assumed that Marxism came in the aftermath of Darwin. Darwin weakened religion, and in the resulting chaos Marxism arose. I once did a thread where I pointed out that Karl Marx issued the Communist Manifesto years before the Origin of the Species was published. The Creationists got it backwards.



See this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/adventists-on-evolution-marxism.6653678/



Should Christians blame any single person for weakening Christianity in the 18th&19th centuries? If so, it would make more sense to blame someone who attacked Christianity, like Voltaire.

Religion confuses stubborn pride with faith, it's very difficult to reform outdated beliefs that were once sacred.

The creation narrative written by the Hebrew priest in Babylon culled from many sources they had available. They we creating a coalescing guide for the common, scattered Israelite. Upon the return those redacted, exaggerated books became sacred and the basis for the ruling authority of the priest class. Earlier secular history books mentioned within those newly prepaired records vanished.

 

[Hieronymus]

If he did it certainly has not been demonstrated in this forum.

Nowhere in the Bible is Genesis 1, 2 and 3 (and any of the Bible for that matter) referred to as symbolic or allegorical.
It is all referred to as literal / factual history.
The beauty of it is hat Biblical history does have symbolic meaning.

 

[miamited]

Correct. So are you suggesting that evolution is still mired in the swamp of delusion?

Hi job,

No, that's not where I'm going with this at all. Your claim is that God created the natural laws as a part of the creation event and that they 'operate unchanged since the creation'.

I disagree that the natural laws have operated unchanged since the creation. About 1500 years ago God parted a sea to provide an escape route for His people. The account tells us that a wall of water stood on both their right hand and their left hand. There was a time when God's people were in bondage in Egypt that God caused the light of the sun to not shine for 3 days only in Egypt. The account tells us that it was so pitch black that people couldn't even see one another. Yet, just a few miles down the road in Goshen, where God's people lived, they enjoyed normal daylight. The natural law of how light travels would preclude such a thing from being possible. Even if God had merely drawn some great cloud to hover only over Egypt to cause the darkness, it would not have created the kind of darkness that the Scriptures account for.

So, my point is that God has often stopped natural laws from working in order to bring about something that He desires to be done.

This is the argument that old earthers and evolutionists can't seem to grasp. We can't make sure claims about things that happened in the past based on what we know about the operation of natural laws. When God desires to bring about an event all the natural laws that we know go out the window and God has thrown them out that window a number of times since the creation event.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted