Do you trust God or Man when it comes to the creation?

[FaithT]

By scientific experimentation it does mot.

No the rotation of the Earth from dark to light is the definition of morning.

Just jumping in here so forgive me if this has been mentioned BUT in Alaska, for example, they don’t have the typical hours of light and dark all year long.

 

[dwb001]

Just jumping in here so forgive me if this has been mentioned BUT in Alaska, for example, they don’t have the typical hours of light and dark all year long.

And that does not change how long a day(day + night) is.

 

[Jipsah]

Your little rant here

OK, I reckon if you have nothing to say, that's a concise way of saying it. But I have to tell you, it sounds an awful lot like "I just got owned, so now I'm gonna just holler 'neener neener'".

has shown a rift in thinking that leads to fights.

And that sounds a lot like someone admitting they just got owned and can't bring themselves to address it directly so they resort to gp bloviating. That never helps.

Is it RCC theology that the bread and wine do not transform into the actual flesh and blood of Christ in the DNA changing type of way?

ViaCrucis isn't a Roman Catholic, and neither am I, for that matter. But it is hilarious that having raged against godless science so much, you're now going to try and invoke it to try and get around something out Lord Himself said. Even you shoud recognize the irony in that.

A phrase jumped out "Real Presence".

Yep. Our Lord's Body and Blood are Really Present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Now I was never taught such a thing

Well let me correct that oversight. Here's a good start: (Note - Words of our Lord in red, and I've added emphasis in italics.)

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

so is there some difference between Real Presence and the bread turning physically into a piece of flesh?

Depends on who you ask. But it is the Body and Blood of our Lord, even if the godless science you now call upon to defend your position of disbelief in what our Lord Himself has said, can't prove it.

He Who spake the universe into existence says the bread and wine of the Eucharist are His Body and Blood. If you can't bring yourself to believe that, how can you trust the rest of Scripture?

 

[Jipsah]

It really isn't an example of aggression nor hostility.

I think you telling me that "your god can't save you" was an example of both. 'Nuff said.

Then before starting a fight about something you should define it better.
We have very different views on what some words mean. So why not explain before complain?

The question was simple: why, if Genesis 1 must be taken literally, must our Lord's own Words on the Eucharist not be taken literally? There is a huge body of evidence that the Genesis Creation accountis by and large, not literally true, and not meant to be literally true. . There is no such evidence to lead one to believe that our Lord's "This is My Body" is untrue. As far as I'm concerned, His saying it makes it true.

Yeah I didn't ask for a bunch more words that come with even more baggage.

"If you can't stand the heat.."

So you understand that people have different views on this

Wow, you didn't allow for much grey area when you were beating the tub for a literal 6 day Creation, did you?

and you show that it is a complicated issue.

Nope, simplest of all. Our Lord said it, take it or leave it.

But you take offense if someone asks why not take a DNA test of the bread?

Invoking godless science to evade the words of our Lord Christ. Not a good look, mate.

Not very honest of you.

Nice cheap shot, and altogether untrue.

 

[Jipsah]

And that does not change how long a day(day + night) is.

Still based on the sun, innit?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The question was simple: why, if Genesis 1 must be taken literally, must our Lord's own Words on the Eucharist must not be taken literally? There is a huge body of evidence that Genesis ism by and large, not literally true. There is no such evidence to lead one to believe that our Lord's "This is My Body" is untrue. As far as I'm concerned, His saying it makes it true.

He also said He is a door and a gate and a vine and a lamb. Do you believe he is literally a door you can open & close by turning a doorknob, or an actual gate you can open & close by lifting the latch, or a plant with leaves growing on it, or an actual lamb grazing eating grass in a field?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why do you hold to the idea that there is no morning or evening without a Sun?
Put a light on one side of a basketball.
The dark side is in night and the bright side in day... no sun required, just light.
I find no evidence of old Earth in any text book for any science.

I agree, before the sun existed night and day existed because God said let there be light and He separated the light from the darkness. So apparently before the sun, moon, and stars existed He created a light partially illuminating the planet.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you telling me that in the absence of the sun, that the evenings and mornings of Genesis were determined by use of a basketball? OK, whatever floats your boat, I guess. But was this a light-up basketball? If not, where'd the light come from? And how do you know?

Perhaps you read his post incorrectly but he didn’t say that the basketball was the source of light. God specially said in verse 3 “let there be light”. This was on day one of creation before He made the sun, moon and stars.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope, just try and make sense some of the time.

If there isn't a sun, how long is a "day"?

The fundy answer is "24 hours". The question then is, then why does so much stuff in the universe look so much older than that? That's where the arm-waving and name calling commences.

What does the existence of the sun have to do with a 24 hour day? The sun doesn’t rotate around the earth in 24 hours, the earth rotates 1 revolution every 24 hours. So if God said let there be light and He separated the light from the darkness and there was both day and night then that means the light did not encompass the entire planet but was stationary on one side of the planet and would still give a 24 day cycle.

Why do things appear to be older than they are? Well how old did they appear to be when He created them? Did the rocks and mountains appear to be one day old when He created them? Did Adam & Eve appear to be one day old when He created them? That’s the questions people aren’t considering in the scientific fields because it’s nonsense to them. It’s also precisely why their dating methods are way off because they’re assuming they know how much C14 was in the atmosphere 6000 years ago when they don’t. Just like they don’t know how much radiation objects accumulated during the creation process or how much they’ve been exposed to in the last 6000 years. They have to guess at all that and their guesses are not based on a 6000 year old earth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

My lot believes you have it backward. The "days" of Genesis were of indeterminate length, because there was no sun to measure them by, The reference was to symbolic periods of time to show the sequence of Creation.

There’s no indication that the creation account in Genesis is symbolic. Furthermore it is further supported by Exodus 20:11. The Hebrew word Yom can refer to an indefinite period of time but it depends on how it’s being used in a sentence. When you place a number value to it, it always refers to a 24 hour period of time. For example if like in Exodus 20:11 “for in six days…” that usage of the word Yom is only referring to a 24 hour period. But if you were to say “in the day of Noah” or “in the day of Abraham” then the word Yom can be used in reference to a period of time or era. The Hebrews used the word Yom just like we use the word day today.

 

[FaithT]

There’s no indication that the creation account in Genesis is symbolic. Furthermore it is further supported by Exodus 20:11. The Hebrew word Yom can refer to an indefinite period of time but it depends on how it’s being used in a sentence. When you place a number value to it, it always refers to a 24 hour period of time. For example if like in Exodus 20:11 “for in six days…” that usage of the word Yom is only referring to a 24 hour period. But if you were to say “in the day of Noah” or “in the day of Abraham” then the word Yom can be used in reference to a period of time or era. The Hebrews used the word Yom just like we use the word day today.

Do you believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus? Bc I do despite our previous conversations.

 

[dwb001]

Because by definition, mornings and evenings require a Sun.

No it requires a transition from light to dark.

Sorry, "big light in the sky" is not the definition of "morning." That excuse won't work.

That definition does work.

 

[dwb001]

Do you believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus? Bc I do despite our previous conversations.

Scientifically how does that happen?

In fact I believe there is less evidence for the Eucharist than for Creation.

The Eucharist you can run experiments on and see if there are any changes whatsoever at every stage of the procedure. Creation has all the evidence in an eye witness testimony.

 

[BNR32FAN]

-
​

Why would i agree with any person who believes in a work salvation. So of course i do not believe your view of verses in The Bible. As they are being understood using a work mindset to receiving God's free gift of Eternal Life salvation. So of course you see verses as stating a person can lose their salvation. Because if a person can work their way to Eternal; Life, they can work their way out of Eternal Life. As their salvation is because of their work they do and are doing and not because of God's grace and free gift.

I’ve told you repeatedly that I don’t teach a works based salvation. You’re just making false accusations against me as usual. I’ve explained to you that I teach that salvation is the result of faith and love and that it is not our works that is taken into consideration at our judgment but our love that is taken into consideration. Why do you persist in making false accusations against me?

 

[The Barbarian]

Because by definition, mornings and evenings require a Sun.

No it requires a transition from light to dark.

If that were true, moonrise would be morning and moonset would be evening. That excuse won't fly.

That definition does work.

Not unless you completely contradict Hebrew and English.

In fact I believe there is less evidence for the Eucharist than for Creation.

We have Jesus' word on the Eucharist. We have His word on creation as well. Even YE creationists accept creation. The problem is they don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[dwb001]

Because by definition, mornings and evenings require a Sun.

Nope.

If that were true, moonrise would be morning and moonset would be evening. That excuse won't fly.

Sometimes the moon is seen during the day. Your argument is invalid.

Not unless you completely contradict Hebrew and English.

Nope.

We have Jesus' word on the Eucharist. We have His word on creation as well. Even YE creationists accept creation. The problem is they don't approve of the way He did it.

So if young Earth people can believe that it is exactly as God said it happened... why can you not accept that the wafer is just a metaphor.

This is exactly the same logic. So communion is symbolic and the Earth is old... or communion is Jesus actual flesh being consumed and the Earth is young.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because by definition, mornings and evenings require a Sun.

Not when God called the light day and the darkness night before the sun was created.

“Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭3‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

So if young Eath people can believe that it is exactly as God said it happened... why can you not accept that the wafer is just a metaphor.

Because there’s no indication that the creation account is metaphorical. For those who believe that the Eucharist is actually His body then why do you not take His statement literally when He said “anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life”? Judas received the Eucharist from Jesus in the upper room before he left to betray Him. Does Judas have eternal life?

“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭17‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[The Barbarian]

Not when God called the light day and the darkness night before the sun was created.

“Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭3‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This is how we know the account is figurative, rather than a literal history. You see, ancient people were not aware that the sky was light in the day due to the Sun. So it made perfect sense to them to have day and night without respect to the sun.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sometimes the moon is seen during the day. Your argument is invalid.

Nevertheless, we do not call moonrise at night, "morning." Your new excuse won't work, either.