Creationist Verses

Status
Not open for further replies.

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
-Mercury- said:
It's always good to see how your logic holds up when you apply it to a different situation. So, let's look at the other example I gave:


First let me clarify some things.
The poles may have been, for all we know, an aphrodisiac to the animals, either the sight of the streaked rods, the chemicals in the wood--what have you. They may have induced the animals to mate, but they had no hand in the color of the offspring. The speckling and spotting were a miracle.


THe problem seems to be in what you think I think.
A. God is all-knowing.

True

B. Being all-knowing, God would have known that Genesis 30:37-39 would be interpreted literally by the Hebrews -- that they would think he meant exactly what he said, having no reason to think otherwise.
Wrong,
He did not say that the poles were the cause of the coloring
I think that the Hebrews of the time (whom many of had sheep themselves) would have also considered it a miracle.

C. You believe this event was a miracle and not caused by the striped branches.

True--I belive the spotting was not caused by the branches, but was a miracle.

D. You think that what is said in Genesis 30:37-39 is not literally true (as the Hebrews supposed).
Wrong,
What was said was literally true.



Therefore, you think that what God wrote in Genesis 30:37-39 was not historically true

I think the events recorded are completely factual. Jacob did whittle some sticks, and he did set the sticks before the animals. They did mate, the animals born were spotted and speckled.

The cause of this phenomenon, (the spotting) which is not directly spoken of in the passage, I belive to be a miracle.
God knew it was not true

See point B.

and that the Hebrews would think it was true
See point B.


THe actual verse
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which [was] in the rods.


Gen 30:38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.


Gen 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.


Gen 30:40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.


Gen 30:41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.


Gen 30:42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put [them] not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.

 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
-Mercury- said:
Because the context of the passage is talking about divorce in humans, not divorce of animals or anything else. As I said:
  • If "creation" refers to humanity, there is no conflict with either Genesis 1 or reality. Humanity is implied to be the focus because the context is talking about human divorce. And so, this context means it is the beginning of human creation it is discussing, and that humans were made "male and female".

Admittedly, it could possibly be. But if that is what God wished to say than why didn't he say "From the beginning of the creation of mankind they were male and female"?
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
46
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟8,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
RightWingGirl said:
When I look at this verse I see that "creation" could be either a verb or a noun. In other words, it could be talking about the universe or the act of creation. The word is arsen, but that dosen't help much... I think you are correct, however, and that it most likely means universe.
I didn't say that the word most likely means universe. The Greek word is ktisis, and in the KJV it is translated 11 times as "creature", 6 times as "creation", and once each as "building" and "ordinance". Frequently, even when it is translated as "all creation", it means every human in creation. For instance, this is the same word found a few chapters later in Mark:

"And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.' " (Mark 16:15)

I think "whole creation" refers to all humanity in this verse, just like "beginning of creation" refers to the beginning of humanity in Mark 10:6.
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
46
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟8,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
RightWingGirl said:
Admittedly, it could possibly be. But if that is what God wished to say than why didn't he say "From the beginning of the creation of mankind they were male and female"?
The same reason he didn't say "proclaim the gospel to all humans in creation" in Mark 16:15.

The same reason he didn't say "And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning of my ministry" in John 15:27.
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
46
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟8,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
RightWingGirl said:
First let me clarify some things.
The poles may have been, for all we know, an aphrodisiac to the animals, either the sight of the streaked rods, the chemicals in the wood--what have you. They may have induced the animals to mate, but they had no hand in the color of the offspring. The speckling and spotting were a miracle.
Then why did Jacob only place the branches by the trough when the strong animals mated (Genesis 30:41)? Note that what you (and I) believe was a miracle only happened when the branches were there. The weaker animals also mate, but it's the ones who mate by the branches that become part of Jacob's flock, because they're the ones that give birth to striped, speckled, and spotted offspring.

So, the text does not support the idea that the branches caused the animals to mate more, but rather that it caused their offspring to be striped, speckled, and spotted.
 
Upvote 0

WAB

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2005
1,103
48
93
Hawaii
✟1,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
chaoschristian said:
Absolutely, yes.

That said, how do you propose one set out to prove it?

My premise is that since what Creation reveals is not the same as what scripture reveals, then the truth that scripture conveys must be something other than indicative fact.



My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible.

That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God.

I make this distinction for two reasons:

1. scripture is not necessary for faith or salvation
2. The modern day tendency to put so much 'faith in the Bible' or 'love of the Bible' or 'belief in the Bible' concerns me, and so I do what I can to try and draw away from that.

All that said, the plausibility of evolutionary theory is to be found within the scientific evidence that supports it. Scripture, IMO, is silent on the issue, whereas Creation has a whole bunch to say.
chaoschristian, you say... "My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible. That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God."

Perhaps this is why you adopted your moniker? The God you profess to have faith in is the One who "inspired" or "breathed out" the Bible you do not believe in (see 2 Tim. 3:16).
 
Upvote 0

WAB

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2005
1,103
48
93
Hawaii
✟1,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
chaoschristian said:
Absolutely, yes.

That said, how do you propose one set out to prove it?

My premise is that since what Creation reveals is not the same as what scripture reveals, then the truth that scripture conveys must be something other than indicative fact.



My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible.

That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God.

I make this distinction for two reasons:

1. scripture is not necessary for faith or salvation
2. The modern day tendency to put so much 'faith in the Bible' or 'love of the Bible' or 'belief in the Bible' concerns me, and so I do what I can to try and draw away from that.

All that said, the plausibility of evolutionary theory is to be found within the scientific evidence that supports it. Scripture, IMO, is silent on the issue, whereas Creation has a whole bunch to say.

You say... "My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible. That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God."

Perhaps this is why you adopted your moniker? The God you profess to have faith in, is the One who "inspired" the scripture, and that means that He "breathed out" the very words of Scripture. (ref.2 Tim. 3:16)

So... the Scripture/Bible that you do not believe in.... who was the author of the original autographs?
 
Upvote 0

WAB

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2005
1,103
48
93
Hawaii
✟1,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
WAB said:
You say... "My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible. That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God."

Perhaps this is why you adopted your moniker? The God you profess to have faith in, is the One who "inspired" the scripture, and that means that He "breathed out" the very words of Scripture. (ref.2 Tim. 3:16)

So... the Scripture/Bible that you do not believe in.... who was the author of the original autographs?
Sorry.... the first reply disappeared from the screen, and then popped up again after posting #2... ??
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
WAB said:
chaoschristian, you say... "My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible. That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God."

Perhaps this is why you adopted your moniker? The God you profess to have faith in is the One who "inspired" or "breathed out" the Bible you do not believe in (see 2 Tim. 3:16).

I think I answered this already, or perhaps in another thread? This particular point seems to have popped up alot recently.

That statement is made in the context of what I discern is a dangerous trend within modern American Christianity to idolize the Bible. I make that statement to seperate myself from that.

2 Timothy 3:16 is true, scripture is both inspired and useful. But I see that verse misused alot to justify positions about scripture that I believe aren't true.

Let me ask you this, if you will: what do you think 2 Timothy 3:16 means?

As regards to my handle, check my blog.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
46
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟8,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
WAB said:
who was the author of the original autographs?
People inspired by God. Or, do you think Scripture is directly God's words and the human authors just took dictation? If so, do you really think God is as forgetful as this passage would imply:

"What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." (1 Corinthians 1:12-17)

I think Paul was a bit forgetful about whom he baptised, not God.
 
Upvote 0

Mark2010

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2005
4,559
304
57
✟6,262.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
RightWingGirl said:
God wishing to create the universe in six solar days.
OK, so what you seem to be saying is that God is not limited by time, that it could have been six minutes, six hours, six days or six centuries. So what evidence is there to suggest that six days is correct?

Also, how could physical matter be created from nothing?

I think we are in agreement that God was the deigner, but what we do not know is the process involved.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
Two questions if you wouldn't mind.
1. Let us say for a moment that God did create in six solar days. How could he say it in his word so that you would belive it?
First let us establish that I believe that both scripture and Creation are revelations of God, and that both convey God's truth.

Now, with that established, when scripture as we know it to exist today conflicts with what Creation reveals, then rather than saying that scripture must be wrong (false/untrue) it is instead possible to say that what scripture is revealing is something other than indicative fact. That some other aspect of truth must be what scripture is intended to reveal in this case.

So, unless God sends a new prophet who provides an inspired text that is to be added to canonical scripture, I don't think there is anyway to legitemately get scripture to truthfully say that God created in six days.

That, or God must reveal to us the nature of Creation is not what we think it is, and therefore all science is wrong. We actually explored this in another thread in this forum. I think it was called "God Reveals Evolution is Wrong" or something like that.

2. How would he convey that he is a righteous, mighty dude by telling a direct un-truth? (Truth being factual)

Did He tell a direct untruth?

You seem to be saying that since the ancient Hebrews would have interpreted six days literally, and that God would have known this, that then by saying six days God was intentionally lying. And since God can't lie, or at least by what we know of His character wouldn't lie, then six days must be true, or God is a lier.

My children, especially my son, ask me questions about the nature of life and universe and everything all the time. My son is especially curious about science, biology in particular.

My 8-year-old does not have the conceptual capacity to understand biology as I understand it. He lacks the vocabulary, the language skills and the capacity for abstract thinking that is necessary to understand certain concepts. That means that in order to answer his questions in such a way as to answer them truthfully and still not make him glaze over I have to perform some creative mental acrobatics, either by using illustrations related to concepts he does understand or through a process of editing and simplication - basically omitting everything that would confuse him, but providing him enough to feel as if I have answered his question and provided just enough for him to continue to pursue his line of inquery.

I suspect that God has done and continues to do the same thing with us - allowing enough to be revealed without allowing us to become completely glazed over so that we don't loose sight of some of the deeper truths - such as what a reighteous mighty Dude He is.
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
chaoschristian said:
First let us establish that I believe that both scripture and Creation are revelations of God, and that both convey God's truth.

Now, with that established, when scripture as we know it to exist today conflicts with what Creation reveals, then rather than saying that scripture must be wrong (false/untrue) it is instead possible to say that what scripture is revealing is something other than indicative fact. That some other aspect of truth must be what scripture is intended to reveal in this case.

So, unless God sends a new prophet who provides an inspired text that is to be added to canonical scripture, I don't think there isanyway to legitemately get scripture to truthfully say that God created in six days.
But try to imagine for a moment that it was created in six days. That YEC is true. How would God say then say that the world was created in six days? How would He tell you this, (in the Bible) if the universe was created in six days?

That, or God must reveal to us the nature of Creation is not what we think it is, and therefore all science is wrong.
"All science" is not Evolution. Almost all of the great scientists have been YEC--Francis Bacon Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Athanasius Kircher, John Wilkins, Walter Charleton, Pascal, Sir William Petty, Robert Boyle, William Herschel, Louis Pasteur, John Ray, Isaac Barrow, Nicolas Steno, Thomas Burnet, Nehemiah Grew---and there are many, many more. THere are hundereds of modern scientists who are also YEC.

Did He tell a direct untruth?
The world was not created in six days(so evolution tells us), and He said it was. If one is truth, the other is not truth. If one is fact, the other is fact. Both cannot be correct.


You seem to be saying that since the ancient Hebrews would have interpreted six days literally, and that God would have known this, that then by saying six days God was intentionally lying.
If the Hebrews did not interpet it at all, but merely read or listened to it they would have been told that God created the universe in six days. Either
1.The Six day creation is factual; God told truth and fact.
2. The Six day creation is non-factual; God was merely pointing out His strenghth, and by the by decieving the Hebrews who didn't know any better into beliving an "un-truth"


The fact we cannot get around is this;
If the Six day Creation is fact and truth God told fact and truth.
If the Six day creation is not fact and truth then God did not tell fact and truth(Whatever His meaning was, it is still telling an un-truth)

What He said was"In Six days the LORD made (the universe)"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Mark2010 said:
OK, so what you seem to be saying is that God is not limited by time, that it could have been six minutes, six hours, six days or six centuries. So what evidence is there to suggest that six days is correct?
Probably because he said "Six days" THe word here was used 2,300 time sin the Old Testament. Why do you think it is that only in Genesis the meaning is contested? Hmm...I posted a link to a study on the word a while ago--I'll see if I can find it.

Also, how could physical matter be created from nothing?

I think we are in agreement that God was the deigner, but what we do not know is the process involved.

I think God is capable of creating matter from nothing. You are right in that we do not know the process involved, only what He chose to tell us--That He created the universe in six days, and rested on the seventh.

I would like your opinion on Luke 1:70, if you wouldn't mind.
Luke 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

In this passage Zacharias "filled with the Holy Ghost" says, or directly implies, that prophets, and therefore mankind, has existed since the world began. I see this verse as contradicting the theory of Evolution, which has man evolving from slime, and not existing since the world began. Do you think this verse can be reconciled to the theory of evolution, and if so, how?
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
But try to imagine for a moment that it was created in six days. That YEC is true. How would God say then say that the world was created in six days? How would He tell you this, (in the Bible) if the universe was created in six days?

The only means by which I could be persuaded to accept YEC is either direct revelation from God (the clouds open up and a big finger comes out of the sky, points at my nose and a booming voice says "I created in six days, now bugger off!" or if Creation revealed itself to be created in six days.

I do not ever expect the former to happen, although I'm not saying its an impossibility, and since the latter is not true (Creation does not reveal itself to having been created in six days) its a moot point.

Now if the former does happen, who am I do deny a direct revelation from God? But it would bring to mind a whole host of questions, and while it wouldn't cause me to lose faith it would probably spure a long and deep spiritual re-evaluation of myself.


"All science" is not Evolution. Almost all of the great scientists have been YEC--Francis Bacon Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Athanasius Kircher, John Wilkins, Walter Charleton, Pascal, Sir William Petty, Robert Boyle, William Herschel, Louis Pasteur, John Ray, Isaac Barrow, Nicolas Steno, Thomas Burnet, Nehemiah Grew---and there are many, many more. THere are hundereds of modern scientists who are also YEC.

You are correct, all of science is not evolution. However, evolution represents some very good science from across numerous and varied fields of scientific inquery, and if you want to expand the definition of 'origins' then you also include astronomy and geology (and since we seem to be focused on YEC at this time, its perfectly legitimate to include those fields, since YEC is not primarily concerned with evolution, but with the age of things). If evolution is impossible because God created in six days, then the methodologies of science would have to be called into question. The very fundemental assumptions that we make about the nature of observation would have to be called into creation. In short, serious doubt would be cast on the nature of science and its reliability. Trust in science would be greatly diminished. There would exist an whole nevel level of uncertainty, that if it existed and I were a scientist, I would change careers. Why bother?

{edited to add} Plus its not exactly fair, dont you think, to list men of science who lived and died before Darwin was born and provide them as evidence that scientists accept YEC?{end edit}


The world was not created in six days(so evolution tells us), and He said it was. If one is truth, the other is not truth. If one is fact, the other is fact. Both cannot be correct.

This is not necessarily the case. Evolution does not tell us that Creation was created in six days, Creation does. Science is our way of understand and making sense of that revelation. Now if that contradicts your literal reading of six days, then that doesn't make God a liar, it makes your interpretation wrong.

If the Hebrews did not interpet it at all, but merely read or listened to it they would have been told that God created the universe in six days. Either
1.The Six day creation is factual; God told truth and fact.
2. The Six day creation is non-factual; God was merely pointing out His strenghth, and by the by decieving the Hebrews who didn't know any better into beliving an "un-truth"

The Hebrews did interpret it. We all interpret reality through our experiences. We interpret scripture, we interpret Creation. Right now you and I are interpreting what the other is saying in the words that we type. You cannot get around or away from interpretation. There is not such thing as an un-interpreted experience.

The fact we cannot get around is this;
If the Six day Creation is fact and truth God told fact and truth.
If the Six day creation is not fact and truth then God did not tell fact and truth(Whatever His meaning was, it is still telling an un-truth)
Wrong for all the reasons I talked about above.

What He said was"In Six days the LORD made (the universe)"

And this represents another major difference between how you and I are approaching this. You say "He said", I say "It is written" In one case you are assuming that God dictated the words of scripture directly into the ears of the author. My assumption is that God is revealing His truth through scripture, which is the divinely inspired attempts by men to understand God and His Creation.

I don't know that we can overcome this one particular difference, but its important that we are both aware of it and not let it get us into too much of a flux.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl:

I posted this in another thread for another person. But I believe its applicable here as well. Please take a look:

chaoschristian said:
Your statements interest me, because I think what lies behind them are some of the fundemental differences between how some Creationists view the world as opposed to others.

First, let me say that all Christians are Creationists (capital C) in that we all believe that God is the Father of Creation and the reason why is exists and the will behind how it exists.

Now, speaking only for myself I see Creation as an ongoing mystery and miracle. I see God as still being in the process of Creating and that God is active within His Creation all the time.

Now, let me ask you these questions because I am genuinely interested in your response and I hope that it will lead me to understanding your position better:

1. Is Creation primarily corrupt and deceitful?
2. Is Creation finished?
3. Is Creation a revelation and testiment of the character, nature and will of God?

I've phrased these as yes or no questions, but of course feel free to expound as you desire.

I look forward to your response.
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
chaoschristian said:
The only means by which I could be persuaded to accept YEC is either direct revelation from God (the clouds open up and a big finger comes out of the sky, points at my nose and a booming voice says "I created in six days, now bugger off!" or if Creation revealed itself to be created in six days.
How would you know what "I created in six days, now bugger off!" meant? He could mean that He is just a mighty God, or something, how would you know what He actually meant?




{edited to add} Plus its not exactly fair, dont you think, to list men of science who lived and died before Darwin was born and provide them as evidence that scientists accept YEC?{end edit}

Ahem, I suppose you're right... :holy: Here's a few from after Darwin.
  • Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
  • James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
  • Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
  • Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
  • James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
  • Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
  • James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
  • Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
  • Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
  • George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
  • Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
  • Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
  • Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
  • William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
  • Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
  • Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
  • P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
  • John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
  • John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
  • Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
  • Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
  • A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
  • Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
  • George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
  • L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
  • Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
  • Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
  • Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
  • Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
  • Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
  • Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
  • William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
  • William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
  • Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
  • Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
  • Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
  • Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
  • Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
  • Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
And this represents another major difference between how you and I are approaching this. You say "He said", I say "It is written" In one case you are assuming that God dictated the words of scripture directly into the ears of the author. My assumption is that God is revealing His truth through scripture, which is the divinely inspired attempts by men to understand God and His Creation.

I don't know that we can overcome this one particular difference, but its important that we are both aware of it and not let it get us into too much of a flux.
Your're right. Most of scripture I do think was "only" inspired, but I think that this particular passage (and the rest of the Ten Commandments) were actually spoken and written by God Himself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
Your're right. Most of scripture I do think was "only" inspired, but I think that this particular passage (and the rest of the Ten Commandments) were actually spoken and written by God Himself.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Now I understand the basis of your POV. If that is what you believe, then all I can do is respect it. I can now begin to understand how your view of Creation flows out of that.

I will continue to disagree with you, but at least now I have a better understand of what I'm disagreeing with.

But, if you will, let me ask you this: The Ten Commandments I can understand, since we have the story of how they are understood to have originated. But why Gen 1? What is it about that part of scripture that leads you to believe that it was directly written by God while most of everthing else was inspired? And what about the Gospels? Are any parts of those directly written, or are they 'just' inspired?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.