• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Creationists False on Key Point

Revealing Times

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2016
2,845
420
60
Clanton Alabama
✟115,606.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
- snip -The mistake here is the construction "It seems [to the writer]...

What you're saying is it seems like God doesn't know what He's doing?

And yes, I am familiar with the Hubble 'deep field' observations.



You've lost me again. There are NO spritual reasons for the size of the Universe. If you have some, please share them.


Entirely incompatible with current theory of cosmology. You are simply misinformed.

I'll remind you of what I posted: This is an obvious deflection.
What I see is you are not serious, but a jokester, and I do not waste my time on your ilk. You know exactly what I am saying but you are playing nutsville on me.

The UNIVERSE is the only size it could be, for IT to have EXISTED by NATURAL LAWS, which came forth from God. It is very obvious, please don't reply to me, and I surely will never reply to you again, I have no time for such people.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Creationists barely have an inkling of how strongly their literal story of Creation conflicts with science, or perhaps we should say with reality. It doesn't just conflict with the views of eminent scientists, it conflicts with much of what we know about the world. Take the diversity of the human race, for instance.




Take a look at the racial and ethnic diversity of the human race. There is no possible way this could have come from one couple less than ten thousand years ago. When I was a teenager, a teen in our church posed that question to our Bible study teacher. He came up with a rather creative answer.




Our teacher told us that instead of one Garden of Eden, there could be any number. There might have been a hundred Gardens of Eden, with its own couple, with slightly different characteristics. Apparently the outcome was the same in all cases. In all cases the humans erred and were expelled from their Gardens into the mundane world. There would apparently have to be more than one Noah as well. So if there were a hundred Gardens of Eden there would have to be a hundred Noahs, with different landing spots.


Is this an acceptable variation of Creationism? Not really. It contradicts Genesis 3:20, that Eve is the Mother of everyone.


Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

--Genesis 3:20 NIV




Our teacher's story is an example of what is wrong with Creationism. Believers in Creationism are constantly coming up with more stories, more speculations to save what is basically a fixed idea. Creationism becomes an ever changing kaleidoscope as the Creationists search for something that works.
 
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,012
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟46,332.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Creationists barely have an inkling of how strongly their literal story of Creation conflicts with science, or perhaps we should say with reality.
"Barely"? You're being generous. The 'standard' Creationism claim doesn't even pretend to understand the texts they use.

Dale said:
Take a look at the racial and ethnic diversity of the human race. There is no possible way this could have come from one couple less than ten thousand years ago.
Very true. In fact, the Middle Kingdom of Egypt was in full flower when the Ussherites claim the Flood happened.

Dale said:
When I was a teenager, a teen in our church posed that question to our Bible study teacher. He came up with a rather creative answer. Our teacher told us that instead of one Garden of Eden, there could be any number. There might have been a hundred Gardens of Eden, with its own couple, with slightly different characteristics. Apparently the outcome was the same in all cases. In all cases the humans erred and were expelled from their Gardens into the mundane world.
Very creative. And very much conflicting to the 'literal, plenary' King James Version of the Bible and conflicts with modern, contemporaneous English language translations of the Bible.

Dale said:
Is this an acceptable variation of Creationism? Not really. It contradicts Genesis 3:20, that Eve is the Mother of everyone.
Dale, it may or may not be acceptable to Creationism, but it isn't consistent with the message of the Bible. I've noted a number of conflicts between the accepted repeating of Ussherism (labeled 'Creationism') and the message of the Bible.

When God created the Universe, He also created (part of the creation process) all the physical laws of the Universe. That probably includes a lot of laws we (humanity and science) don't even suspect yet and are not outlined in the text of the Bible.

Whether 'we' (I use the term rather broadly as in all of humanity including the scientists) ever first discover those laws and second figure out how to use them doesn't change the reality of them existing and due to God's will and power. From what I know of God, He expects humanity to work on understanding His creation.

And I personally resent the belief that God encourages ignorance. Simply not so.

Dale said:
Our teacher's story is an example of what is wrong with Creationism. Believers in Creationism are constantly coming up with more stories, more speculations to save what is basically a fixed idea. Creationism becomes an ever changing kaleidoscope as the Creationists search for something that works.
Yes. It reminds me of the several times in science history when a 'popular' - meaning widely accepted - theory was demonstrated to be either in error or only partial in formation. Then the scientists who supported the 'old' theory came up with 'patches' - sort of like 'patches' for computer programs - fixing one problem while creating others. I can think of two occasions from the top of my head.

The 'fixes' Theologians used to defend the Earth Centered concept of the Universe makes the scientists look slow.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
"Barely"? You're being generous. The 'standard' Creationism claim doesn't even pretend to understand the texts they use.

Very true. In fact, the Middle Kingdom of Egypt was in full flower when the Ussherites claim the Flood happened.

Very creative. And very much conflicting to the 'literal, plenary' King James Version of the Bible and conflicts with modern, contemporaneous English language translations of the Bible.

Dale, it may or may not be acceptable to Creationism, but it isn't consistent with the message of the Bible. I've noted a number of conflicts between the accepted repeating of Ussherism (labeled 'Creationism') and the message of the Bible.

When God created the Universe, He also created (part of the creation process) all the physical laws of the Universe. That probably includes a lot of laws we (humanity and science) don't even suspect yet and are not outlined in the text of the Bible.

Whether 'we' (I use the term rather broadly as in all of humanity including the scientists) ever first discover those laws and second figure out how to use them doesn't change the reality of them existing and due to God's will and power. From what I know of God, He expects humanity to work on understanding His creation.

And I personally resent the belief that God encourages ignorance. Simply not so.

Yes. It reminds me of the several times in science history when a 'popular' - meaning widely accepted - theory was demonstrated to be either in error or only partial in formation. Then the scientists who supported the 'old' theory came up with 'patches' - sort of like 'patches' for computer programs - fixing one problem while creating others. I can think of two occasions from the top of my head.

The 'fixes' Theologians used to defend the Earth Centered concept of the Universe makes the scientists look slow.




Archie:

<< Dale said:

"Take a look at the racial and ethnic diversity of the human race. There is no possible way this could have come from one couple less than ten thousand years ago."

Very true. In fact, the Middle Kingdom of Egypt was in full flower when the Ussherites claim the Flood happened. >>



I got a very bad reaction when I said something of the sort on CF a few years ago. Yet it is an interesting point. According to the strictest Creationists, the earth is only 6000 years old. According to some, the idea is that it is 6,000 years from Creation to the Second Coming, then there is 1,000 year millenium, then the final end of the world. That gives the earth 7,000 years, which is supposed to be a good number.



While Creationists claim the earth is only 6,000 years old, I've read historians who say that written history alone goes back 6,100 years! I would assume that it would have to be at least a thousand years from Adam to Noah, and at least a thousand years from Noah to the beginning of written history. Which doesn't work out, if the earth is only 6,000 years old.



I have known people with leanings toward Creationism who were interested in the crackpot theories of Velikowsky. Despite Velikowsky's absurd notions of planets bouncing around the solar system encountering each other, his notion that science might be wrong about the age of the earth was of interest. I'm afraid this is just another example of Creationists going to any length to avoid facing the indisputable.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Some people are under the impression that the genealogies in the Bible support the notion of a literal six day Creation. Is this true?


Let's see what the Apostle Paul had to say about genealogies.



9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time.

--Titus 3:9-10 NIV


Here Paul associates genealogies with “foolish controversies” which are “unprofitable and useless.” He goes on to describe the people who spend time on such things as “divisive” and subject to warnings. Paul gives theories about genealogies much the same status that most of us give to modern day conspiracy theories.


3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

--1 Timothy 1: 3-4 NIV



In this passage, Paul again warns that talk of genealogies can be “endless” and little more than a distraction from more important things the church should be doing. He associates genealogies with “myths” and “false doctrines.” He goes on to classify genealogies as “controversial speculations,” again, little more than wild theories likely to trap the foolish.



When it comes to genealogies, Paul repeatedly warns us that this isn't the part of Scripture that we should focus on.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
In all of Scripture we have to make a decision if these verses are meant to have a literal or a figurative interpretation. Often there is a little of both. But most likely, in a historical book like Genesis, the interpretation should be heavily literal. I think you should consider to give more emphasis to the literal side in your interpretation. It is a trait that I see in more of your posts, that you weigh heavy on the figurative side.

If you doubt whether Genesis is a historical book, I would point to the fact that archeology has proven (or at least corroborated) the Bible all the way back to at least Genesis 9. See example this resource: http://www.icr.org/article/modern-archaeology-genesis/


Peter Dona mentions ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.


I have many problems with ICR. Here I will just mention that they engage in translation shopping. ICR says the King James version must be used but they have a reason for saying this that many people don't know about. ICR claims that there were no mountains before the Flood. This is related to their claim that there were no volcanoes before the Flood. Since mountains are often volcanic, with no volcanoes before the Flood, there wouldn't be mountains.

19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;

--Genesis 7: 19 RSV


19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

--Genesis 7:19 KJV

ICR not only prefers but demands the use of the King James version. It looks like they say this largely because of this one verse, where the Revised Standard (RSV) and most later translations say “mountains” where the King James only says “high hills.”

Of course, the ICR view that volcanic mountains sprung up during the Flood isn't found in Genesis either way.
 
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,012
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟46,332.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Archie said:
Very true. In fact, the Middle Kingdom of Egypt was in full flower when the Ussherites claim the Flood happened.

I got a very bad reaction when I said something of the sort on CF a few years ago.
No doubt. They get real upset when countered by reality.

Dale said:
Yet it is an interesting point. According to the strictest Creationists, the earth is only 6000 years old. According to some, the idea is that it is 6,000 years from Creation to the Second Coming, then there is 1,000 year millenium, then the final end of the world. That gives the earth 7,000 years, which is supposed to be a good number.
An interesting thought from Dr. Stephen Hawking of all people. The 'date' supported as the creation of the Earth (and the rest of the Universe as well) by Ussherites is rather close to the end of the last Ice Age. Which may tend to explain the dating.

Here's something you probably don't know, since you haven't mentioned it.

According to Bishop Ussher's Annuls of the World, the classic source of Creationism; the world - God's creation - ended in 1998 or so as that was the 7,000 years since the date of Creation - according to Bishop Ussher. Which means, if the Ussherites - Creationists - are right, the Universe ended just over sixteen and a half years ago. I seem to have missed it, too.

Have you noted a deafening lack of announcement about this?
Dale said:
I have known people with leanings toward Creationism who were interested in the crackpot theories of Velikowsky. Despite Velikowsky's absurd notions of planets bouncing around the solar system encountering each other, his notion that science might be wrong about the age of the earth was of interest. I'm afraid this is just another example of Creationists going to any length to avoid facing the indisputable.
I've never heard of Velikovsky (according to wiki), but just looked him up on line. Sounds about as crackpot as the "Ancient Aliens" herd.

And yes, I'd noted a distressing correspondence between Ussherites and the KJV only tendency.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As I understand it, Creationists refuse to compromise on how the earth came into being because they believe that people are falling away because of science. People are choosing science over religion is their view. When you look at it this way, compromising with science is compromising with the enemy.



But are people falling away from Christianity because of popular scientific theories? Or because they take scientific evidence seriously?



Look at what nonbelievers say about themselves. The actor Kevin Bacon is one celebrity who identifies as an atheist. Someone asked him why he's an atheist. Bacon replied that he would never let a religion interfere with his sex life. This attitude is rather common on those who have fallen away from Christianity, or never joined it. It isn't religion versus science, it's Christianity versus free sex.



There are other reasons. A man I once knew was an atheist, a rather militant atheist. As he explained to me, the important thing is that there's nothing higher than yourself.



Religious conservatives have vastly exaggerated any role that scientific theories or scientific evidence play in people remaining or becoming non-Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hello! I found this thread because it was featured.

We do hear more about Eden in the OT, such as in Ezekiel. In chapter 28 Eden is described as the garden of God, and also as a mountain, which fits in with other ANE thinking as a well-watered mountain being the earthly abode of the gods.

In literalist thinking (which is usually my thinking) the garden would have been buried in the Flood, which is said to have covered even the mountains. So the trees of Eden would be buried, too, obviating the need for any cherubim to remain there. This burying is alluded to in Ezekiel 31, including:

The tree of life itself isn't mentioned. Perhaps it was translated to heaven because it can be seen in New Jerusalem in Revelation 22. Or, perhaps it was buried and God will have created a new one for New Jerusalem (he does say "Behold, I am making all things new" in Revelation 21:5).

So, I think that a literalist view of Eden can be maintained consistently throughout the OT.

I'm a little curious about your beliefs: if you believe the original tree of life was a myth, do you believe the future one will be real, or not?




ChetSinger in post #53: << I'm a little curious about your beliefs: if you believe the original tree of life was a myth, do you believe the future one will be real, or not? >>



Surely your goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
forever.

--Psalm 23:6 NIV

Psalm 23 tells us of living with God forever but there's no mention of a Tree of Life.




From Ezekiel:
The hand of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

I said, “Sovereign Lord, you alone know.”

4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

11 Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

--Ezekiel 37: 1-14 NIV


Here Ezekiel makes this amazing prophecy about skeletons being first covered with flesh and then filled with “Spirit” and living again. There is no mention of a Tree of Life.

Yes, I see a Tree of Life as a powerful symbol of God's power to create life, bestow life and even give new life to those who have passed away. There is no sign in Scripture that Heaven requires a Tree of Life or that our immortality depends on it. The Tree of Life goes along with the River of Life, which is also clearly a symbol.
 
Upvote 0

The Hammer of Witches

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jun 7, 2016
1,020
592
America
✟14,999.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Here's another assumption Creationists tend to make. Since Genesis is the first book of the Bible, they assume that it is the foundation of all that follows. Genesis, and the Eden story, is foundational. They fear that if you remove the first chapter or two of Genesis, the whole structure falls.

This isn't necessarily true. For one thing, it isn't a question of believing or not believing the Eden story, it's how you interpret it, what it means for us today.

I have a book tape on the Old Testament by Dr. Robert Odin, a scholar of ancient languages. He says that in the Jewish mind, Exodus is the core of the OT. This sounded odd the first time I heard it but the more you think about it the more sense it makes.

The first five books of the OT, the Torah, had a special status for Jews. Of the five, Deuteronomy is clearly from a later period. Leviticus, as the name suggests, is largely rules for the Aaronic priests.

The Ten Commandments are first given in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy. It is in Exodus where Moses is introduced, is commissioned by God and becomes a great leader.

In Acts, when Stephen is brought before the Roman Governor, he has to explain Judaism to explain Christianity. He starts with Abraham but spends more time on Moses bringing the people out of Egypt. Stephen doesn't go back to Adam and Eve. Exodus is the core of the Old Testament in the Jewish mind.

The Eden story in Genesis may not be the foundation of Judaism and Christianity, in the sense that Creationists imagine.
The foundation of the truth is God, not specific books out of his word. The Bible is simply a recording of Gods interaction with mankind. As for Genesis, if God used evolution to create mankind then he would have recorded it as so in the Bible. God is very clear on how he created mankind. He did not leave any room for different interpretations that have no Biblical evidence. Genesis is a very straightforward book. Revelation is an example of a book that uses symbolic language, with much of it unable to be understood until the End Times. God wrote Revelation this way on purpose. Why would God write Genesis in symbolic language if he has already revealed all we need to know? Revelation and the End Times have yet to happen, with prophecies yet to be fulfilled. That is why there is so much speculation and so many different interpretations. Genesis has already happened, and the events of Genesis, Adam, Eve, and the serpent are referenced throughout the Bible as if they literally happened. Any different interpretation of Genesis different from what God recorded is more or less a false teaching. God is clear when he is using symbolic language and speaking figuratively, and when he is speaking literally.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You are a "theistic evolutionist", who is struggling with many Biblical concepts that you must distort and misinterpret in order to conform to your false belief. Almost half of Christians accept evolution this way because they either don't understand it, nor do they understand scripture.



It is not the foundation of our religion, but the origins of man are a foundation of who we are and where we came from. If you distort the origins, then who we are and where we came from is up for speculation. Hence Darwin speculated and was wrong. He speculated that we evolved from a primordial goo. Genesis says God created man, plants and animals complete with no evolutionary process -- a finished product. A peacock was always a peacock, a rose, a rose and man always man.




You misunderstand the Jewish style of writing; what appears to be chronological to you, is in fact a typical writing style used where the first chapter is an outline summation and then the second chapter goes back and fills in details. Let us make man in our image ... so God created man (which was Adam at that moment and shortly after Eve).
See you later guess it when you suggest this: "Either Genesis backtracks and inserts more material into the account of the sixth day, or Adam and Eve aren't part of the six day creation."



You are assuming there was a wall. It doesn't say anywhere about a wall. God kicked them out of the Garden and placed Cherubim to guard the garden. "Probably square ..." Another assumption.


Do you read anything about a wall here?


You are right, the Bible doesn't say anything about destroying the Garden or removing it. We don't add to the Bible in this regard, we just discern that the Garden slowly lost it's perfection due to sin. When sin was introduced, it began to change and distort the genetic code, and things began to die - not instantly, but in a cellular, biological way. Diseases, viruses, bacteria all began on that day sin was introduced, thereby distorting what was perfect. So the paradise just got corrupted and eventually turned into what we see today.
You see, the Garden was really the whole planet. It was all beautiful and we still see beauty today, it's just when we look close, we see the defects and of course where there were lush gardens, we see deserts that have expanded. That area, which contained four rivers (two exist today, the Tigris and Euphrates), is in Iraq and now desert.
This is the key point you overlook: What God was guarding was not so much the lush region of lush green land filled with fruits and vegetables that we still have abundantly today, it was the Tree of Life. They ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so if they had then eaten of the Tree of Life, they would have remained in that sinful state forever - this is what God saved them from -- so He guarded it until whenever.
He would later send a Savior to rectify the problem. So we can assume that eventually that the of Tree of Life withered and died. However in Revelation, we do see a Tree of Life in Rev. 22, so He could have removed it or created a new one.??


Ronald in post #44: << Genesis says God created man, plants and animals complete with no evolutionary process -- a finished product. A peacock was always a peacock, a rose, a rose and man always man. >>

I'm not at all sure that Genesis denies the possibility of an evolutionary process. Genesis simply says that God caused the seas and the Earth to bring forth living things. According to standard science, the seas and the earth did bring forth living things, just not exactly in the way that Creationists like to imagine it.

Living things have changed. Take flightless birds. The most obvious characteristic of birds is that they have wings but there are birds that cannot fly. Ostriches, emus, penguins and kiwis are flightless birds. Flightless birds less familiar to Americans include the rhea, large South American birds, and cassowaries, a large Australian bird. Some flightless birds are extinct, such as the dodo and the elephant bird. It is obvious that flightless birds are descended from birds that did fly.

Adapting to their environment, birds like the ostrich became too large to fly and so became walkers and runners. Others, like penguins, became more adapted to water than to land or air. Penguins became great swimmers but lost the ability to fly.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The foundation of the truth is God, not specific books out of his word. The Bible is simply a recording of Gods interaction with mankind. As for Genesis, if God used evolution to create mankind then he would have recorded it as so in the Bible. God is very clear on how he created mankind. He did not leave any room for different interpretations that have no Biblical evidence. Genesis is a very straightforward book. Revelation is an example of a book that uses symbolic language, with much of it unable to be understood until the End Times. God wrote Revelation this way on purpose. Why would God write Genesis in symbolic language if he has already revealed all we need to know? Revelation and the End Times have yet to happen, with prophecies yet to be fulfilled. That is why there is so much speculation and so many different interpretations. Genesis has already happened, and the events of Genesis, Adam, Eve, and the serpent are referenced throughout the Bible as if they literally happened. Any different interpretation of Genesis different from what God recorded is more or less a false teaching. God is clear when he is using symbolic language and speaking figuratively, and when he is speaking literally.


Hammer,
Thanks for commenting on my thread.

<< God is very clear on how he created mankind.
>>
I'm not sure you are aware of the difference between the first and second creation stories in Genesis. I discuss this in post #80.

<< Genesis is a very straightforward book. >>

Not everyone has found it so. I have had exchanges with people who have spent much of their lives trying to figure out what the opening to Genesis 6 means. ( “There were giants in the earth ...”)

<< Genesis has already happened, and the events of Genesis, Adam, Eve, and the serpent are referenced throughout the Bible as if they literally happened. >> On the contrary, I have looked for mention of Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Expulsion from Eden and found them to be surprisingly few.

Take a look at this passage in Numbers.

4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”

6 Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

--Numbers 21:4-8 NIV

Moses puts a bronze snake on a pole. It seems to have been completely forgotten that the snake was a symbol of temptation, of disobedience, of evil and of the devil, in Genesis 3.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't believe that Jesus ever confirmed a literalist interpretation of the six days of Creation or of the Eden story. One of the things that I've noticed from discussions on other subjects is that there doesn't seem to be any mention of Original Sin in the four Gospels. Yet Creationists do believe in Original Sin, with rare exceptions.
Our Lord did not argue over issues that were generally accepted by the Pharisees and Sadducees. They all understood and accepted a six day creation period and a literal flood. It was also understood that by sinning, Adam and Eve corrupted all flesh. No discussion there either.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Creationists barely have an inkling of how strongly their literal story of Creation conflicts with science, or perhaps we should say with reality. It doesn't just conflict with the views of eminent scientists, it conflicts with much of what we know about the world.
Of course it does. In fact, sprinkled throughout the biblical texts are times when the laws of physics are set aside for what ever reason.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
981
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ronald in post #44: << Genesis says God created man, plants and animals complete with no evolutionary process -- a finished product. A peacock was always a peacock, a rose, a rose and man always man. >>

I'm not at all sure that Genesis denies the possibility of an evolutionary process. Genesis simply says that God caused the seas and the Earth to bring forth living things. According to standard science, the seas and the earth did bring forth living things, just not exactly in the way that Creationists like to imagine it.

Living things have changed. Take flightless birds. The most obvious characteristic of birds is that they have wings but there are birds that cannot fly. Ostriches, emus, penguins and kiwis are flightless birds. Flightless birds less familiar to Americans include the rhea, large South American birds, and cassowaries, a large Australian bird. Some flightless birds are extinct, such as the dodo and the elephant bird. It is obvious that flightless birds are descended from birds that did fly.

Adapting to their environment, birds like the ostrich became too large to fly and so became walkers and runners. Others, like penguins, became more adapted to water than to land or air. Penguins became great swimmers but lost the ability to fly.

The days/nights in Genesis and in Torrance, Ca. btw total 24 hours. To see this any other way is a distortion of the literal words. God made light, he called the light day and the darkness night (isn't that what you call them?) On the third day, vegetation; on the 4th day, the sun, moon and stars. Again, how could vegetation survive millions of years without the sun? It's not rational. Then he created the animal kingdom on the 5th day - finished! On day 6, Man, finished and it was good. God didn't say, well it's a start, eventually they'll evolve and then it will be good. No, it was good and the Garden of Eden was Paradise, finished. The light from the stars was given to us instantly, it didn't take billions of years to get to us -- that's an assumption. These scientists don't factor God's supernatural power into the equation.

Micro-evolution exists and simply is change within one kind to adapt to it's changing environment or migration to another part of the world, cold or hot, wet or dry. These are built into the genetic codes as adaptive mechanisms. God designed life that way - to adapt. So you have a full range of possibilities, just not one kind changing into another.
It is very possible that these flightless birds flew at one time. What had to be different? Their weight and then size and power of their wings obviously. So they were smaller to begin with. If that bird started eating different fruit that put on weight, then over generations, flew less and less until they couldn't, their wings would be useless and then wing size smaller, etc. That's adapting, like a moth changing colors to camouflage itself if all of a sudden white trees died off in the
the forest that they were in. Wouldn't you say chameleons are adaptive - just quicker, within seconds, a protective mechanism designed into it. Humans have gotten lighter colored skin because they moved into northern climates further away from the equator, hair changed as well. Those who spread to hotter climates became darker with courser hair. The melanin in their skin has something to do with that. That's not a mutation, it was a built in adaptive mechanism. We
all came from two people. These changes only took dozens of generations, not tens of thousands of years.
Any fossils we have are not transitional forms, they are just extinct species, that may resemble animals today but they are their own kind. I would guess Mammoths, having hair, slightly different size and shape were just elephants we see today. Look close at an elephant, they have course hair, just not much of it. A saber-toothed tiger is a tiger, that needed larger fangs at the time, fighting larger prey. Dinosaurs were large lizards that lived for hundreds of years. Lizards don't stop growing. And the large predators and dinosaurs were obviously left behind - God did not order them into the Ark and passed them up - thank you very much. Their bones could only have been preserved as we see them, from an deluge that suddenly buried them in mud. If bones are left on the ground from animals that just natural die, those bones disintegrate into dust over hundreds and thousands of years. Be reasonable, do you think they could survive 160 million years of weathering with minerals, wind and water drainage passing over the bones and wearing them down, even if they were buried?

Darwin's theory did not consider God, it denied the Genesis account. It just doesn't harmonize in any way, because what it says is that we all evolved from a single cell originating from the water. Distorting a day into an epoch of time doesn't harmonize anything.

How Genesis would read if Theistic Evolution were true:
The first sentence would be fine, but the rest, much different. He wouldn't have used the word "day" or "night", but "ages" or 'epochs" of time instead.
Epoch #1: God created a highly condensed form of matter / forms of energy including light and caused it to explode into the surrounding space and the matter became separated and then organized into hundreds of billions of groups (vortexes of stars), each having hundreds of billions of stars with each having their own system of planets, etc.
Epoch #2: God separated the waters from the land on earth and in the heavens;
E3: He created a tiny cell in the water and breathed the life force into it and in time God made it more complex and larger leading to many different kinds of vegetation and higher forms that could think. The seas became filled with fish and in time these forms of life made their way onto land. More time passed as these selected sea/land creatures developed into land animals of various kinds populating the earth.
E4: Man appears ( 4 1/2 billion years after earth was formed and God's evolutionary process was almost finished and He named them Adam and Eve -(kind of primitive form but still, what the heck) God said it was all good!
... or something like.
 
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,012
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟46,332.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
As I understand it, Creationists refuse to compromise on how the earth came into being because they believe that people are falling away because of science. People are choosing science over religion is their view. When you look at it this way, compromising with science is compromising with the enemy.
I don't think so.

Dale said:
But are people falling away from Christianity because of popular scientific theories? Or because they take scientific evidence seriously?
Probably because those who deny science at all are hypocritical in their thinking.

The first rift between 'Christianity' and 'science' occured - by known record - in around 1600, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) burned Giordano Bruno to death for holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith. The opinions were hypothesis that all the stars were actually suns and probably had planets of their own. Those planets could have life.

Before anyone attempts to claim 'that was different', note this; The RCC claimed sole authority to deal with such matters as heresy, and claimed to be the sole authority as to what the Bible said and meant. Which is pretty much the same thing the YEC faction claims. In short, spiritually, they're essentially the same.

This went on for quite a while. Gallileo was confined to his house and isolated from the populace for similar reasons. Gallileo offended the 'Church' by claiming the Sun was the center of the solar system; this was refuted by force on the grounds it contradicted the Bible. Copernicus was intimidated into holding his observations and theories until his death. Finally, the knowledge of the Sun being the center of the solar system was too great to ignore and the Church surrendered.

At this point I have to wonder: Do any YEC proponents demand the Earth is the center of the solar system (or Universe)? Do any YEC proponents demand the Earth is flat? (Both claims supported by Bible texts in older times.)

The real, serious rift began - as far as I can tell - shortly after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. I can find no information regarding who was first, but nearly immediately two countervailing claims were made. The 'humanists' who rejected the idea God who could direct their actions and moral choices demanded this 'discovery' PROVED God did not, could not exist. The Bible believers - particularly those who feared losing their standing - reacted by demanding all science - at least the science which touched on this subject - was fraudulent or at the very least, wrong.

Each side grew more and more strident and polarized. No individual could (would be allowed to) see the merits in the other side's information;

Here we are.

Dale said:
The actor Kevin Bacon ... would never let a religion interfere with his sex life.
This is an example of one with no particular thoughts on cosmology, but rejects God. Therefore he sides with the anti-God side as the non-existance of God is more 'convenient' for Him. The same holds true for the
Dale said:
... rather militant atheist. ... the important thing is that there's nothing higher than [him].
Dale said:
Religious conservatives ...
I'll quibble that label a bit. I am very conservative in my view of Christianity. (I'd explain further, but my views might 'goad and inflame' some.)
Dale said:
... have vastly exaggerated any role that scientific theories or scientific evidence...
That they think or suspect
Dale said:
...play in people remaining or becoming non-Christians.

What is interesting to me and rather enlightening, is those people who support YEC on the grounds anything else ignores God have no problem using arithmetic (or electric lights, or flush toilets or automobiles) every day without ever mentioning God. If God is God (in homage to Elijah) then God is responsible for the mechanical pencil as much as the Universe.
 
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,012
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟46,332.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
The days/nights in Genesis and in Torrance, Ca. btw total 24 hours. To see this any other way is a distortion of the literal words.
Incorrect. Look up (Strong's Concordance) H3117, the Hebrew word translated 'day'.
Ronald said:
God made light, he called the light day and the darkness night (isn't that what you call them?) On the third day, vegetation; on the 4th day, the sun, moon and stars. Again, how could vegetation survive millions of years without the sun? It's not rational.
As long as you're being 'rational', how was there light on the Earth to make daytime without a Sun?

"Evening and Morning, the (nth) day... " A rational view presents the terms 'evening and morning' derive from the natural occurance of the relative motion of the Earth's rotation relative to the Sun. (Sun 'comes up' is morning; Sun 'goes down' is evening.) These terms were used (in whatever language) long before the invention of the clock, or even the concept of 'keeping time'.

Ronald said:
How Genesis would read if Theistic Evolution were true:
The first sentence would be fine, but the rest, much different. He wouldn't have used the word "day" or "night", but "ages" or 'epochs" of time instead.
Bad news. The Bible does use the word for 'ages' or 'epochs'. Please don't mistake the English language translation (primarily the King James Version) as the original text. See H3117 in Strong's as mentioned above.

Your other assumption which lacks completeness of thought is the audience to whom the Torah was intended. None of those people had the scientific background to grasp the idea of a singularity or expanding Universe, or even a Universe comprised of more than the Sun, Moon, Earth and a few sparky things in the sky. The distinction between the Galaxy and the Universe was only realized in the early part of the last Century. (Edwin Hubble, circa 1925.)
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The days/nights in Genesis and in Torrance, Ca. btw total 24 hours. To see this any other way is a distortion of the literal words.

But in California the night and day are a result of sun and star light?
Those are listed later in the week, literally speaking.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Creationists barely have an inkling of how strongly their literal story of Creation conflicts with science, or perhaps we should say with reality.

Or how Jesus can heal people so amazing easily
compared to the white coats. He does it so fast!
You can hardly see the quick movements of his
hand when he switches the wine out for water.
Penn & Teller would be stunned. Teller would
be speechless!
 
Upvote 0