Creationist Resources?

[Halbhh]

I take Genesis chapter 1 through 3 literally, and believe every bit, and having truly listened, instead of bringing a doctrine to try to see in the scripture, I can hear the messages -- because instead of talking, I'm listening.

We all need to stop talking over the Word.

Instead of 'training' people to believe a doctrine, we should train them to be humble and truly listen, so that they get the real meanings, which are to the heart and soul, the change that happens to a person if they listen, humbly, so that they are altered, changed, unlike before, because they listened.

It's not even a bit about 'old earth' or 'young earth' theories. Those ideas are entirely outside the Bible, and can become very similar for example to flat earth theories -- an idea a person wants to prove, and will bend, alter the meanings of the scripture in order to see, even though it's not there. The mistake is to think the idea is scripture, when it's only an idea outside of scripture.

We are trained by the Word. Us the student, instead of the teacher. Quiet and listening, so that we hear, because God knows more than we do. It's a humble attitude. It's the opposite of trying to prove a doctrine or insist on a doctrine.

 

[nolidad]

All you said here is biblical except the statement the Earth is 6,000 years old which is nowhere in the Bible, and not Biblical, and a stumbling block that will destroy the faith of the weak.

It's an added idea.

It's okay to have ideas, theories so long as we do not try to claim they are God's Word.

Genesis chapter 1 is 100% true I believe, and I take it literally, but we should not ever add to scripture and say the Earth is 6,000 years old as if that is God's word -- it is not in the Bible, not anywhere.

I don't worry about if others guess at little things that do not matter to salvation -- such as the trivial number of the mere years of age of Earth, which is nowhere in the Bible -- but when anyone claims something is in the Bible and that claimed idea causes others to stumble in actual real faith in Christ, and the stated idea is not in the Bible, we all should object.

So do you say that we should not say that Jesus lived around 2000 years ago because the bible doesn't specifically say that?

Should we ignore when David lived? Moses? Solomon? Should we just reject any attempts to figure the approximate whens of when events took place or when people lived?

It is not hard to determine an approximate 6000 year date for creation! it is all laid out right in Scripture! Just take the gospel of Luke! we have a genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam and God!


BTW teaching the truth of Scripture will never destroy but build up the faith of weak believers.

 

[nolidad]

I take Genesis chapter 1 through 3 literally, and believe every bit, and having truly listened, instead of bringing a doctrine to impose and paint onto the scripture, I can hear the messages. Instead of 'training' people to believe a doctrine, we should train them to be humble and truly listen, so that they get the real meanings, which are to the heart and soul, the change that happens to a person if they listen, humbly, so that they are altered, changed, unlike before, because they listened.

It's not even a bit about 'young earth' theories. Those ideas are entirely outside the Bible, and similar for example to flat earth theories -- an idea a person wants to prove, and will bend, alter the meanings of the scripture in order to see, even though it's not there.

I guess you disagree with the Apostle Paul then. He commanded Timothy and Titus to teach doctrine.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Titus 1:9
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Titus 2:1
But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

Titus 2:10
Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Sorry but to be humble one must know what the Word says!

And Gods Word teaches a young earth, a worldwide flood, and a tower where people were scattered to the corners of the earth with new languages.

These have their crucial place in the life of a believer as much as loving your neighbor and doing good to those who persecute yo and that Jesus is eternal God and physically died, and rose again from the dead and physically ascended to heaven!

Compromise in one Truth because people bring attacks, and the church has shown it will compromise in many other areas!

 

[nolidad]

I take Genesis chapter 1 through 3 literally, and believe every bit, and having truly listened, instead of bringing a doctrine to try to see in the scripture, I can hear the messages -- because instead of talking, I'm listening.

We all need to stop talking over the Word.

Instead of 'training' people to believe a doctrine, we should train them to be humble and truly listen, so that they get the real meanings, which are to the heart and soul, the change that happens to a person if they listen, humbly, so that they are altered, changed, unlike before, because they listened.

It's not even a bit about 'old earth' or 'young earth' theories. Those ideas are entirely outside the Bible, and can become very similar for example to flat earth theories -- an idea a person wants to prove, and will bend, alter the meanings of the scripture in order to see, even though it's not there. The mistake is to think the idea is scripture, when it's only an idea outside of scripture.

We are trained by the Word. Us the student, instead of the teacher. Quiet and listening, so that we hear, because God knows more than we do. It's a humble attitude. It's the opposite of trying to prove a doctrine or insist on a doctrine.

And no Halbhh- young earth arguments are not outside of SCripture!

Jesus confirmed Adam as the beginning of the human race- so should we! Jesus said the Word of Gods stands and a six day recent creation is the bible! If this thread was about the importance of holiness, I would not be talking about creation but holiness! But seeing as this thread is talking about creation- that is the focus here!

 

[Halbhh]

Honestly I fear determination to prove young Earth creationism can easily become a competing focus -- a person's energy and time and focus.

But what are we really supposed to be focused on? I think you know.

What does a person put first, and focus on primarily?

Are they focused on Christ Jesus and His words to us? As their primary focus, the first thing they are about? Or something else, like a theory or a doctrine?

Since it's possible for someone tomorrow to begin to doubt a (mere) theory about the age of the Earth...it's crucial people be on the rock Christ said to build on:

Matthew 7:24-27

This will decides, just as Christ said, whether a person endures, or collapses.

Nothing else is safe, but to hear His words, what He spoke to us in the gospels, and to put His words into action, doing as He said.

All else is 'sand' in comparison.

Are we encouraging young believers to build on sand?

If it is anything beside Christ and His words, then yes it is sand.

 

[Halbhh]

And no Halbhh- young earth arguments are not outside of SCripture!

Jesus confirmed Adam as the beginning of the human race- so should we! Jesus said the Word of Gods stands and a six day recent creation is the bible! If this thread was about the importance of holiness, I would not be talking about creation but holiness! But seeing as this thread is talking about creation- that is the focus here!

The part that is not scripture -- the age of Earth.

The part that is from scripture: Adam and the genealogy since Adam, from which we can estimate the total time that passed after Adam and Eve left the Garden.

If you assert the time in the Garden was 30 days or 3 years, or 100 -- all of these are not in scripture.

Saying the Garden lasted a certain time is not in scripture.

The Garden of Eden had God, the Eternal One, for whom time is really nothing, walking in it, and it had the tree of life.

Any unknown amount of time could have passed in the Earth outside of the Garden while God and the Tree of Life were there in the Garden.

To claim it was a certain limited amount of time is an idea people have on their own, outside of scripture.

It could have been 3 hours, or a million years on Earth outside of the Garden. We absolute do not find out from the Bible how long that was.

So, to claim it was a short time is not from scripture, but an assumption, or worse an assertion, people add to scripture, when they try to claim an age for the Earth itself, possibly already old in Genesis 1:2, because of the unknown amount of time in Gen 1:1.

Can you see how any view of the time passing during Gen 1:1 and also during the Garden of Eden are ideas from outside of the Bible?

If you preach a young earth, very often there will be someone you accidentally are causing to build on sand, instead of the rock Christ said to us to build on.

That's the tragic actual outcome, that some people will be caused to build on sand.

Even if you didn't intend it.

 

[nolidad]

Honestly I fear determination to prove young Earth creationism can easily become a competing focus -- a person's energy and time and focus.

But what are we really supposed to be focused on? I think you know.

What does a person put first, and focus on primarily?

Are they focused on Christ Jesus and His words to us? As their primary focus, the first thing they are about? Or something else, like a theory or a doctrine?

Since it's possible for someone tomorrow to begin to doubt a (mere) theory about the age of the Earth...it's crucial people be on the rock Christ said to build on:

Matthew 7:24-27

This will decides, just as Christ said, whether a person endures, or collapses.

Nothing else is safe, but to hear His words, what He spoke to us in the gospels, and to put His words into action, doing as He said.

All else is 'sand' in comparison.

Are we encouraging young believers to build on sand?

If it is anything beside Christ and His words, then yes it is sand.

Once again you cannot see the forest for the trees!

I have been teaching the Word for over 35 years now!

I have taught the following:

Eternal Security

Sanctification

church life

discipleship
Eschatology

angelogoy and demonology

soteriology

harmartiology

Gensis 1-11

The life of christ in the gospels

Most of the epistles as book studies

When I am focused on a particular course I focus on the subject matter at hand!

This thread the focus matter is creation! If you wish to discuss with me other issues of SCripture- let us start a thread on that subject and we shall focus on that.

In school during math class- did you study physical anatomy? or math?

There is a time and place for everything to be taught and they all should be taught!

I truly do not understand why you are so concerned that in a thread talking about creation, we are focusing on creation?



You: "Since it's possible for someone tomorrow to begin to doubt a (mere) theory about the age of the Earth...it's crucial people be on the rock Christ said to build on:"

I agree- I do not teach creation science to a brand new believer unless they enroll ini that course first!


You : " Are they focused on Christ Jesus and His words to us? As their primary focus, the first thing they are about? Or something else, like a theory or a doctrine?"

I already posted the absolute importance of doctrine! So do you believe we should not focus on genesis 1-11? Do you not consider them Jesus Words? or do you believe that we shouldignore them because some people put up a stink or think that unbelievers have better answers to the world than the Inspired Word of God?

 

[nolidad]

The part that is not scripture -- the age of Earth.

The part that is from scripture: Adam and the genealogy since Adam, from which we can estimate the total time that passed after Adam and Eve left the Garden.

If you assert the time in the Garden was 30 days or 3 years, or 100 -- all of these are not in scripture.

Saying the Garden lasted a certain time is not in scripture.

The Garden of Eden had God, the Eternal One, for whom time is really nothing, walking in it, and it had the tree of life.

Any unknown amount of time could have passed in the Earth outside of the Garden while God and the Tree of Life were there in the Garden.

To claim it was a certain limited amount of time is an idea people have on their own, outside of scripture.

It could have been 3 hours, or a million years on Earth outside of the Garden. We absolute do not find out from the Bible how long that was.

So, to claim it was a short time is not from scripture, but an assumption, or worse an assertion, people add to scripture, when they try to claim an age for the Earth itself, possibly already old in Genesis 1:2, because of the unknown amount of time in Gen 1:1.

Can you see how any view of the time passing during Gen 1:1 and also during the Garden of Eden are ideas from outside of the Bible?

If you preach a young earth, very often there will be someone you accidentally are causing to build on sand, instead of the rock Christ said to us to build on.

That's the tragic actual outcome, that some people will be caused to build on sand.

Even if you didn't intend it.

The exact age can not be known- the approximate can be! Yes we do not know the gap of time between the time Adam was placed in the garden and the fall.

I find this conversation ironic! When I teach Genesis I caution my students against accepting a short time frame from Adam in the garden to the fall. It could be centuries, it could even be a few millenia.

But most people want a long time frame because they think science has proven long ages and death before Adam. (The fossil record) But to offically declare my position_ I state the earth is anywhere from 6 to 10K years!

 

[Halbhh]

The exact age can not be known- the approximate can be! Yes we do not know the gap of time between the time Adam was placed in the garden and the fall.

I find this conversation ironic! When I teach Genesis I caution my students against accepting a short time frame from Adam in the garden to the fall. It could be centuries, it could even be a few millenia.

But most people want a long time frame because they think science has proven long ages and death before Adam. (The fossil record) But to offically declare my position_ I state the earth is anywhere from 6 to 10K years!

That's somewhat encouraging, in that you don't try to assert that time was some definite amount, but it's not quite right, because you suggest it was less than a certain amount, for example, less than 4,000 years.

But we do not know from scripture that time was less than 4,000 years. That's an added assumption or idea, not biblical.

It's okay to have a theory about something the Bible says nothing at all about -- there is very much the Bible doesn't address, like the energy source of the sun, or the age of the Universe, etc. -- but a person should not assert their theory is scripture or proven by scripture.

Instead, we should continue to honestly say any idea we have about the age of the Universe is from outside the Bible. The same with the age of Earth.

We only can say scripture tells us how long from after Adam and Eve left the Garden until Christ by adding up the genealogies that are in scripture. Nothing more.

Anything more about the age of Earth, such as how much time passed during Genesis 1:1 -- how long passed while God's perfect creation happened of the entire Universe and also Earth created, though still 'formless', without dry land and such -- such time estimates are always from outside the Bible.

 

[nolidad]

That's somewhat encouraging, in that you don't try to assert that time was some definite amount, but it's not quite right, because you suggest it was less than a certain amount, for example, less than 4,000 years.

But we do not know from scripture that time was less than 4,000 years. That's an added assumption or idea, not biblical.

It's okay to have a theory about something the Bible says nothing at all about -- there is very much the Bible doesn't address, like the energy source of the sun, or the age of the Universe, etc. -- but a person should not assert their theory is scripture or proven by scripture.

Instead, we should continue to honestly say any idea we have about the age of the Universe is from outside the Bible. The same with the age of Earth.

Well then do not use the Word Trinity- for that is a made up word found nowhere in SCripture!

Why can we deduce from Scripture that there was not a long time like eons or even multiple millenia?

Gen. 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The only reason why I add extra millenia is to accommodate those who demand the genealogies have gaps and to give time for the work described in Genesis 2 to be done.

But if Adam and Eve were in the garden for thousands of years and did not multiply: Then they would be disobedient to Gods explicit command! And not having children then would be the first sin, instead of eating from the tree of knowledge!

 

[Halbhh]

Well then do not use the Word Trinity- for that is a made up word found nowhere in SCripture!

Why can we deduce from Scripture that there was not a long time like eons or even multiple millenia?

Gen. 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The only reason why I add extra millenia is to accommodate those who demand the genealogies have gaps and to give time for the work described in Genesis 2 to be done.

But if Adam and Eve were in the garden for thousands of years and did not multiply: Then they would be disobedient to Gods explicit command! And not having children then would be the first sin, instead of eating from the tree of knowledge!

Clearly our ideas about how much time might have passed during Genesis 1:1 and during the Garden of Eden are not alike.

We both know (or should) such ideas are not saving also. It won't save a single soul to believe the Earth is any certain age or range of years old.

Not even one.

Only faith in Christ, and following Him, abiding in Him, listening to Him (John 10:27), remaining in Him causes us to be saved.

Only He saves us.

Perhaps we can agree on that, and if you emphasize to people they must believe in Christ, and remain in Christ, do as Christ said in Matthew 7:24-27, then we'd agree you are teaching crucial things. (And only if you are, and not otherwise). Humble. We are commanded to be humble, by our Lord.

 

[nolidad]

Clearly our ideas about how much time might have passed during Genesis 1:1 and during the Garden of Eden are not alike.

We both know (or should) such ideas are not saving also. It won't save a single soul to believe the Earth is any certain age or range of years old.

Not even one.

Only faith in Christ, and following Him, abiding in Him, listening to Him (John 10:27), remaining in Him causes us to be saved.

Only He saves us.

Perhaps we can agree on that, and if you emphasize to people they must believe in Christ, and remain in Christ, do as Christ said in Matthew 7:24-27, then we'd agree you are teaching crucial things. (And only if you are, and not otherwise). Humble. We are commanded to be humble, by our Lord.

So do you believe we should leave the argument of the age of teh earth and how things were created to the believers in the philosophy of evolutionism?

Do you think the scientists who by research and comparing scripture with what they see on earth and have concluded that we h ave a young earth should just stop?

I never said teaching creationism is soteriological . But getting saved is the beginning. Holiness, grace, the trinity, the flood, the end tim,es and creation are all part of the things we must learn!

If God inspired Gensis to be written in the Bible then we should learn it and what it means! Just like Psalms, Matthew, Romans and REvelation!

Once agasin if you want to know what I believe and try to live in humility8- let us stat a thread on it!

But this is about creation and I support the bible as written on this!~

 

[nolidad]

Clearly our ideas about how much time might have passed during Genesis 1:1 and during the Garden of Eden are not alike.

We both know (or should) such ideas are not saving also. It won't save a single soul to believe the Earth is any certain age or range of years old.

Not even one.

Only faith in Christ, and following Him, abiding in Him, listening to Him (John 10:27), remaining in Him causes us to be saved.

Only He saves us.

Perhaps we can agree on that, and if you emphasize to people they must believe in Christ, and remain in Christ, do as Christ said in Matthew 7:24-27, then we'd agree you are teaching crucial things. (And only if you are, and not otherwise). Humble. We are commanded to be humble, by our Lord.

Are you a theistic evolutionist?

 

[Halbhh]

Are you a theistic evolutionist?

Depending on just what that means -- and I'm old enough to know it could have all sorts of baggage I have no clue others associate to it.....

I believe God created everything that is.

(I emphasize everything (Gospel of John, 1rst chapter), because it means not only a list of many things, but instead every last thing of any kind, including physics and chemistry also, of course then).

Nature is God's design. It works as He created it to work.

"...and it was very good."

Therefore, everything that happens in nature is by His design, unfolding as He designed for it to do.

That includes the entire Universe, stars, everything. Not only some things.

And...we know God intervenes, and alters the natural outcomes that would have happened, without His intervention. (Endless examples of this of course in scripture).

So, putting those together, something that looks like evolution, guided and controlled and caused by God, of course is by definition practically just what would best fit the scripture.

Is that what you thought of when you use the phrase "theistic evolutionist"? I ask because I know perfectly well it could mean all sorts of other things I don't think of at all. What I believe instead is just above.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

-----------------------

But, I know that no believer needs to know small details, which animal came before another, when, how much time, mere concrete details, of how God created which He in His wisdom did not tell us, knowing it is a mere distraction, that kind of small detail.

Whether some part took a thousand years or 100,000 -- that's of no importance at all, not even the slightest, in regard to faith and fidelity and learning what we need, learning all of scripture, which is never about trivial things, but only and always about things that are meaningful.

Hope you have a good day!

 

[nolidad]

Depending on just what that means -- and I'm old enough to know it could have all sorts of baggage I have no clue others associate to it.....

I believe God created everything that is.

(I emphasize everything (Gospel of John, 1rst chapter), because it means not only a list of many things, but instead every last thing of any kind, including physics and chemistry also, of course then).

Nature is God's design. It works as He created it to work.

"...and it was very good."

Therefore, everything that happens in nature is by His design, unfolding as He designed for it to do.

That includes the entire Universe, stars, everything. Not only some things.

And...we know God intervenes, and alters the natural outcomes that would have happened, without His intervention. (Endless examples of this of course in scripture).



So, putting those together, something that looks like evolution, guided and controlled and caused by God, of course is by definition practically just what would best fit the scripture.

Is that what you thought of when you use the phrase "theistic evolutionist"? I ask because I know perfectly well it could mean all sorts of other things I don't think of at all. What I believe instead is just above.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

-----------------------

But, I know that no believer needs to know small details, which animal came before another, when, how much time, mere concrete details, of how God created which He in His wisdom did not tell us, knowing it is a mere distraction, that kind of small detail.

Whether some part took a thousand years or 100,000 -- that's of no importance at all, not even the slightest, in regard to faith and fidelity and learning what we need, learning all of scripture, which is never about trivial things, but only and always about things that are meaningful.

Hope you have a good day!

So you do believe that God started with basic life and oversaw an evolutionary method as known as "Darwinian Evolution", that through mutations and time the kinds we see became what they were? You think that best fits the Scriptures.

L:et me ask you this tn.

If someone who is an evolutionist wants to know why you believe what you do- what defense do you give him in saying that the physical resurrection of Jesus is real and not just some metaphor? The plain reading of Genesis 1 can only mean a six day creation of everything and all living things .

Why should hie not accept the fall of man as a metaphor?

 

[nolidad]

Depending on just what that means -- and I'm old enough to know it could have all sorts of baggage I have no clue others associate to it.....

I believe God created everything that is.

(I emphasize everything (Gospel of John, 1rst chapter), because it means not only a list of many things, but instead every last thing of any kind, including physics and chemistry also, of course then).

Nature is God's design. It works as He created it to work.

"...and it was very good."

Therefore, everything that happens in nature is by His design, unfolding as He designed for it to do.

That includes the entire Universe, stars, everything. Not only some things.

And...we know God intervenes, and alters the natural outcomes that would have happened, without His intervention. (Endless examples of this of course in scripture).

So, putting those together, something that looks like evolution, guided and controlled and caused by God, of course is by definition practically just what would best fit the scripture.

Is that what you thought of when you use the phrase "theistic evolutionist"? I ask because I know perfectly well it could mean all sorts of other things I don't think of at all. What I believe instead is just above.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

-----------------------

But, I know that no believer needs to know small details, which animal came before another, when, how much time, mere concrete details, of how God created which He in His wisdom did not tell us, knowing it is a mere distraction, that kind of small detail.

Whether some part took a thousand years or 100,000 -- that's of no importance at all, not even the slightest, in regard to faith and fidelity and learning what we need, learning all of scripture, which is never about trivial things, but only and always about things that are meaningful.

Hope you have a good day!

Maybe we don't need to know the small details of life itself? Why not just let the evolutionist control the dialogue then?

Why not let the supposed Christians who think Jesus did not really physically rise from the dead have the floor?

Why not let teh supposed christian who believes it is okay to be gay and be saved let him have his way?

Where do you draw the line for defending the Word of God!

Jude King James Version (KJV)
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Halbhh]

So you do believe that God started with basic life and oversaw an evolutionary method as known as "Darwinian Evolution", that through mutations and time the kinds we see became what they were? You think that best fits the Scriptures.

L:et me ask you this tn.

If someone who is an evolutionist wants to know why you believe what you do- what defense do you give him in saying that the physical resurrection of Jesus is real and not just some metaphor? The plain reading of Genesis 1 can only mean a six day creation of everything and all living things .

Why should hie not accept the fall of man as a metaphor?

I don't see any of the miracles in the Bible as metaphors. When Moses struck the rock (instead of speaking to it as God commanded), and water flowed, that was literally real, and also all the other miracles. 100% of them. Why would you think I would ever think otherwise??? I already told you above I see Genesis chapter 1 as literally true, about actual events. Isn't that clear -- it means it happened actually. This fits perfectly with an old Earth though.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but the "fall" -- "fall" is our own useful word not in the scripture of Genesis chapter 3 -- is indeed a metaphorical word we use to describe the fall from grace. It doesn't mean of course that Adam fell down on the ground. It's a metaphor, and about a real, true, actual thing that happened. I'm not trying to argue semantics. Adam was literally in the Garden I believe, and literally ejected. I doubt he literally fell down during that moment, but it's true he figuratively, metaphorically fell. I suggest people should not be quick to start arguing about what is a 'metaphor' anyway -- it's....getting too caught up on relying on own understanding. We should listen to instead of describing scripture.

The attitude is to be one of receiving, hearing, being affected by. That's not at all analysing or summarizing.

 

[Halbhh]

Maybe we don't need to know the small details of life itself? Why not just let the evolutionist control the dialogue then?

Why not let the supposed Christians who think Jesus did not really physically rise from the dead have the floor?

Why not let teh supposed christian who believes it is okay to be gay and be saved let him have his way?

Where do you draw the line for defending the Word of God!

Jude King James Version (KJV)
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The main problem with arguing with people about "evolution", a mere theory -- a point of view even, in that Genesis 1 literally true can appear as if evolution even, which is only a small thing in a way, and even a distraction (we are to listen instead of analysing) -- the problem with arguing about evolution is that that will not save them, will not give them a chance to be saved, because it is not the saving Good News, the Gospel.

 

[nolidad]

I don't see any of the miracles in the Bible as metaphors. When Moses struck the rock (instead of speaking to it as God commanded), and water flowed, that was literally real, and also all the other miracles. 100% of them. Why would you think I would ever think otherwise??? I already told you above I see Genesis chapter 1 as literally true, about actual events. Isn't that clear -- it means it happened actually. This fits perfectly with an old Earth though.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but the "fall" -- "fall" is our own useful word not in the scripture of Genesis chapter 3 -- is indeed a metaphorical word we use to describe the fall from grace. It doesn't mean of course that Adam fell down on the ground. It's a metaphor, and about a real, true, actual thing that happened. I'm not trying to argue semantics. Adam was literally in the Garden I believe, and literally ejected. I doubt he literally fell down during that moment, but it's true he figuratively, metaphorically fell. I suggest people should not be quick to start arguing about what is a 'metaphor' anyway -- it's....getting too caught up on relying on own understanding. We should listen to instead of describing scripture.

The attitude is to be one of receiving, hearing, being affected by. That's not at all analysing or summarizing.

Now you are nit picking over the use of words when you know well what is meant.

Do you believe God used evolution as the means of creating the plant and animal kingdoms?

 

[RageOfAngels]

Good post Halbhh. I used to debate creation v evolution about 20 years ago online, but all it ended in was people getting angry. One of the main reasons I became a Christian was when I realised that the world was (to me) only 6000 years old and that made the whole world much more exciting. Evolution seemed to make God a rather uncaring distant figure. So when I first was converted I used to fight my corner and say how a recent creation was the way it happened. Now I acknowledge that actually it's much more important to talk about the Gospel before anything else!