Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree
- Thread starter fellowshipseeker
- Start date
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The is a Christians only forum, just coming on here to insult Christians isn't allowed.
I have looked them up, I know exactly what they mean and you haven't got a clue.
Who are what is this mystical 'science' that gave me a computer? That 'epistemology' is based on a theory of knowledge, so what is it?
Why don't you learn a little something about the terms you use before you start pontificating about them?
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Internal, external or bibliographical?
Without what evidence for what, your not making any sense. What makes you think your so superior?
Upvote
0
stan1953
Well-Known Member
- Mar 23, 2012
- 3,278
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
Are you aware that all of these versions have been updated? Well I guess you know the KJV has, but there is also the NRSV , NASB.
In any event, they all use the NA/GNT, as did the ESV which I also like BTW.
I made no comment on the TRs reliability, just the KJV and subsequent NKJV. The fact is the TR is not as studied and crafted as the GNT is. When doing a word study I also consult the TR, but, IMO there is a valid reason why mostly all current English translations from 1960 onward, have used the GNT/NA manuscripts. I will stick with the majority view and as I have NO schooling whatsoever in Greek or Hebrew, I rely on credentialed scholars. As the TR is NOT from manuscripts and the GNT/NA is, IMO, that is a major consideration when choosing an English Bible translation. I still refer to both KJVs when studying, however I have never relied on them since I was saved. Back in the day I read the J.B. Phillips translation until the NIV came along in the mid seventies.
Yes pretty much, but as I said I don't refer to the KJV unless someone brings it up. I can tell you I have had MANY debates with KJVO supporters. They can get quite hostile.
Of course it is. Darkness is lack of light. V2 says NOW...and v3 says THEN... Clearly darkness was the norm before light was created.
Now of course this was day one so who knows what the time frame actually was. I find it hard to understand why God had to wait or do things in 6 days, but then again it IS what we are discussing so this is an age old issue obviously.
As I have already stipulated, God made the sun light up, the source was the light of the sun that God caused to come into being. You seem to assume God made the stars AS flaming balls, I don't.
Thanks
Stan
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well aware and the KJV has been updated at least 10 times in it's long history. The NKJV is ok, it's certainly better the the NASB but the only real difference between the KJV and modern translations is that the KJV is from the TR.
I will do cross comparisons whenever the need arises, usually if there is a problem passage that doesn't translate well. There is no substitute for going back to the original early and often. There are some pretty comprehensive tools for doing that these days, what translation you start with is incidental as far as I'm concerned.
Yea they do tend to get pretty defensive, I just don't think they understand why the KJV is important and why modern translations don't use TR. I really don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest, the canon of Scripture is in the original.
I don't follow, as far as I can tell all the verses start with 'And'. As far as God doing things in six days the actual acts of creation happened in an instant. Now why he waited until the next day to go on to the next stage of creation is something the Scriptures are silent about. There's a strong emphasis on the seventh day, maybe there is a clue there but I haven't really given it a lot of thought to be honest.
I'm not really assuming much except that when God made the heavens and the earth the heavens contained the sun, moon and stars. That's not exactly idle speculation, it's perfectly in line with the narrative. The first thing God does is create light and it doesn't really say he created 'a light' but let a light shine forth. With the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep it would only require the glory of God, the Shekinah.
It's the only thing that makes sense to me, God being present it would require nothing more then letting His glory shine in the darkness. The clouds would still be thick and the heavens still not visible, not until the fourth day. If there's an alternative explanation I have yet to see it.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
stan1953
Well-Known Member
- Mar 23, 2012
- 3,278
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
Yes but only the NKJV is a translation. All the rest are updates in current language structure. I don't see any real difference between the NASB and NKJV, except of course that their sources.
Well the verses that start each day's creations do. IMO each day was a 24 hour day as the Bible says, but it uses evening and morning to define days. I do believe each day's creation was done in an instant.
It is if you assume that all the heavenly bodies called stars came with there light source in the instant they were created. genesis does NOT state that. Again God didn't tell himself to light up, he created light. One is NOT the same as the other. One is a natural by-product if you will, of God's presence and one is a created thing.
Then we disagree, because there were no clouds and I've explained the light issue.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The KJV is a translation, it's just been updated from time to time. The NKJV is a fairly new translation and I love what they have done with the wording but it's still pretty much from the TR.
Sounds like were on the same page there.
That's just it, it doesn't say God created the light he just said let it be.
I really don't know what you think was going on but there was darkness over the face of the deep. There was no separation between the heavens above and the heavens below so no clouds as we are used to seeing them, but it was definitely thick cloud cover.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
stan1953
Well-Known Member
- Mar 23, 2012
- 3,278
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
That's why I said YES.
There's that equivocation sneaking in again.
Gen 1:1; In the beginning God created...., then we move on. As you yourself pointed out, 'and' goes back to this verse. 'and' is another point of creation.
Actually NOTHING was going on until v2. You are inserting 'clouds' where there are none. I lived in Vancouver, BC for 18 years and I saw plenty of clouds, it was NOT darkness. I have no idea what you mean by; "so no clouds as we are used to seeing them, but it was definitely thick cloud cover." This sounds awfully double minded?
As their was no process of evaporation in the day God had CREATED the earth, there would be NO clouds. Rain didn't happen until Gen 7:12.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Hang on, what exactly do you think is being equivocated here?
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
God created ('bara') the universe, 'heaven and earth' sounds like a Hebrew expression of everything in the universe to me.
"The verb bara expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: ... (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5)" (Vine's Dictionary)
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:2)
The earth is already created but there was 'darkness' on 'the face of the deep'. So the earth is dark and covered with water. That's unequivocal as far as I can tell.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Gen. 1:3)
All it says here is the God said, 'Let there be light', it doesn't say God created anything here.
The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the Divine Presence of God. Shekhinah
It seems straightforward enough to me, God is present because the Spirit is hovering over the face of the deep in the darkness, then there was light just as there was in the Tabernacle when God settled there.
You see some kind of an equivocation fallacy there? Seriously? Do tell...
Oh for crying out loud, let's clear this up right now:
Who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it, (Job 38:8,9)
That's a description of creation, nearly identical to the Genesis account. Darkness and water covering the earth. What do you think, God just made a big empty vacume with the earth suspended in the middle of the emptiness. For three days there is no sun, no stars, no moon? Then on the fourth day he finally gets around to creating them but when Moses describes this supposed creation he doesn't use 'bara' he uses another word.
Equivocation? You seriously want to accuse me of a logical fallacy here when all I've done is follow the text? That would require two different things being passed off as if they were the same, hardly seems likely.
I didn't say anything about rain clouds. It could have been a reducing (hydrogen rich) gaseous cloud like Venus has, I'm not talking about rain clouds. I'm not talking about British VC clouds, I'm talking about an atmosphere that is so thick with whatever elements were present that light could not reach the surface of the earth.
Grace and peace,
Mark
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
stan1953
Well-Known Member
- Mar 23, 2012
- 3,278
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
again you are missing the point. AND goes back to GOD CREATED, AND, God by that process said "let there be light". Nothing about His Shekinah Glory is indicated here. It's pretty straight forward Mark. The earth was dark and then there was light. 1 plus 1 = sunlight. I don't really understand the gymnastics you are going through here to try and make you point.
Let's try not to cross contaminate the issue here. This is IN THE BEGINNING. No tabernacle, no people. No light until God says LET.
So you either have to believe that He created actual sunlight by starting up the sun's process, or He told Himself to illuminate the earth. The first is creating, the second seems like an absent minded God to me, having to remind Himself to BE the Shekinah He already is.
Calm down mark. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
No problem with Job, but I had not read it in a long time so I had to study it. I see a couple of things in my study. First I see that the word is singular, so cloud. ânân in Hebrew and néphos in Greek. BDB terms it a theophanic cloud, which to me makes sense, so I can concur with this. As far as light is concerned then, I refer you to 2 Cor 4:6 and that God does not ask Job about the creation light, only where it resides. As the context of Gen 1 is creation, I affirm that the LIGHT was God starting up the sun.
As I have stated above, I do see Job 38, as referring to a theophanic cloud, whether it was physical or not. I don't read it in Genesis so I'll accept what Paul says in 2 Cor 4:6 as it being created light.
Thanks
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I never said it had to be the glory of God, that's just one possibility, the sun is another I suppose. I'm just doing the exposition given the context and content, no gymnastics required. Your the first I have encountered that didn't think there was any clouds, that one never occurred to me. Usually when I'm having an exchange like this I have someone telling me the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day.
You are really starting to confuse me here, you seem to be saying the sun is created on the first day. I'm fine with that, so what happened on the fourth day when God made the sun, moon and stars? What I'm getting from the passage is God said, 'Let there be light' and whether it was the glory of God or the sun shinning through, there was light. The Shekinah, if you recall moved, resembled a cloud or fog and could amp up in intensity from time to time. I am not insisting that was necessarily the case, I'm just sure it lines up with the text nicely, if not seamlessly.
Protest? You were saying I was drifting into an equivocation fallacy, I take that seriously. I thought we were doing a little Bible study here. Otherwise, the only thing I see here is the passage from Job and the point I was making is that it was a 'swaddlingband' of darkness. This is a clear description of Creation and there were clouds:
“Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’
(Job 38:8-11)
By the way, I looked up 'anan' just to be sure what you were referring to. It can mean a cloud, a cloud mass or 'theophanic' cloud. Thought I would include it in the post in case we wanted to discuss it further:
Cloud (‛ânân Strong's #6051) - עָנָן
cloud, cloudy, cloud-mass
(Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition)- cloud-mass (of theophanic cloud)
- cloud
When I made the cloud (6051) the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it. (Job 38:9)
Clouds and water covering the primordial earth, don't think I'm reading too much into it, that's what I'm getting from the text. I've never seen anyone interpret it the way you do but I suppose it's an alternate reading.
Well from the Job 38 passage your getting a lot of emphasis on creation. BTW, Job 38 is one of my favorite passages in Scripture, how it lines up with the Genesis account is a secondary point of interest, at least for me. God is speaking to Job from the 'Whirlwind', I've often wondered if it is a description from a pillar of a cloud like the one in the Exodus.
Interesting exchange though, it's nice to do an actual Bible study on here once in a while.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stan1953
Well-Known Member
- Mar 23, 2012
- 3,278
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
IMO, God made the lights from those bodies able to shine through the water canopy he created above the earth on day 2 (v6-8),
otherwise there would have been no light visible other than that of the diffused sun. There is not indication here of how thick this water canopy was, but obviously it contained enough water to flood the earth in Gen 7.
Sorry, I guess the Shakespearean quote was lost on you. No offense intended, I just thought you were getting a little defensive. Equivocation is not fallacy, but it can obscure getting to the truth when wording is constantly reworked. I find it best to SAY what you mean and mean what you say upfront. IME too many people use equivocation and obfuscation on forums to try and get the upper hand for their POV. I would have been much more responsive to the concept of a theophanic cloud up front rather than the generic CLOUDS that was brought up in your post 166 and above. A theophanic CLOUD portrays a much different circumstance and far more acceptable as the Holy Spirit WAS hovering over the waters.
I guess I will have to try and read more of Job. Yes I think the pillar that was depicted in Ex 13:21, as cloud by day and fire by night, WAS more than likely a theophanic manifestation of God.
Thanks for all your input.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Sounds like an alternate reading still in keeping with the text.
I deal with a number of Darwinians, occasionally I will resort to classic apologetics like the quote I used there.
We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.
(Athanasius Contra Mundum "Against the World")
(Athanasius Contra Mundum "Against the World")
It's considerably older the Shakespeare which is why the language might seem cumbersome. The message is actually pretty straighforward, creation and salvation are both new creations. His primary purpose is to defend the doctrine of the Incarnation against Arius and that group of false teachers. The link includes an introduction by C.S. Lewis that I think is very well written.
On the other hand, equivocation is a fallacy.
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
Equivocation
It's a common fallacy that takes two meanings and passes them off as the same thing. Evolution is often confused with Darwinism through the use of such a fallacy. It's easy enough to deal with as long as you can establish the clear meaning to the two terms. Once you have done that you are dealing with an argument that, in effect, never happened.
Job is a puzzling book, the debate between him and his friends was basically an indictment against Job. They all assumed God had brought these horrible things on him for his sin. They are eventually silenced because they couldn't find any sin Job was guilty of, then God enters the discussion. After Job receives his discipline, now fully convicted of his sin, God addresses Job's friends.
God says:
Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. (Job 42:4)
Job replies pleading:I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:5,6)
This is the praise the comes from God rather then men:
And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. (Job 42:7)
'My servant Job'. Yea he was guilty of justifying himself rather then God but under the circumstances, Job didn't really know why it was happening. Job had no way of knowing he suffered so much because God was bragging about him.
The dialogue is fascinating and just one more little insight you might consider when reading it. When Job responds to them there is a point where he is no longer talking to them, he's praying. He is the only one in the group that does.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
stan1953
Well-Known Member
- Mar 23, 2012
- 3,278
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
What would make you think I was one or that those type of apologetics would be needed in this thread?
Not sure how Arius or C.S. Lewis relate to this thread, but OK.
Well Wiki's def is ONE way to frame it I guess, but I was using it in the more common connotation of misleading or confusing the issue at hand. I prefer Webster's over Wiki... EQUIVOCAL
Like I said, just have not been it it lately. It doesn't come up a lot on any forums I am involved in either. No doubt it is a very interesting book being the oldest in the Bible. I will have to get into it one day.
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
Calminian
Senior Veteran
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Just wanted to offer some thoughts on this. AiG actually cautions people to be careful about the water canopy theory, as does Creation Ministries International.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For CMI’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from?.
Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For CMI’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from?.
it's actually just a theory of men, and not found directly in the Bible. Most creationists today have moved away from it (even ICR), both for scientific and exegetical reasons.
Most creationists today believe the expanse of Genesis 1:6-8 was cosmological in scope, rather than just atmospheric. The main reason is because the sun moon and stars were said to be set in the expanse. If if was merely atmospheric, these could not possibly be in the expanse.
Also, the psalmist speaks about those original waters still being above the expanse of the heavens. (Psa. 148:4)
Russell Humphreys popularized this cosmological view of the expanse in his book, Starlight and Time. I think it fits with the Bible much better. The canopy theory has too many textual problems.
It's not a terrible theory, by any means, I just think it ultimately doesn't fit the Biblical evidence.
Interestingly enough, Humphreys theory requires the existence of a water reservoir of some sort at the edge of the cosmos. And believe it or not, secular astronomers are now finding evidence of huge water reservoirs in outer space. Don't take my word for it.
Water really is everywhere. Two teams of astronomers, each led by scientists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. Looking from a distance of 30 billion trillion miles away into a quasar—one of the brightest and most violent objects in the cosmos—the researchers have found a mass of water vapor that’s at least 140 trillion times that of all the water in the world’s oceans combined, and 100,000 times more massive than the sun.
Source: Huge Reservoir of Water Discovered in Space 30 Billion Trillion Miles Away
“The environment around this quasar is very unique in that it’s producing this huge mass of water,” said Matt Bradford, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “It’s another demonstration that water is pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times.” Bradford leads one of the teams that made the discovery. His team’s research is partially funded by NASA and appears in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
NASA:Astronomers Find Largest, Most Distant Reservoir of Water
Upvote
0
N
NannaNae
Guest
the reason they will never agree is simple
Celestial Catastrophism Bibliography & Handbook from William I. Thompson III
if just one of these events document( some even Pe'er reveiwed )here on that site, IF even one of these events.. really happened in the last 4300 years. of which up to 6 major eyewitnessed events in recorded history have never been questioned much less explained by the religion of state funded scientism.
If just one Cosmic event happened in the last 4300 hundred years.
and then scientism built it's time tables from radioactive elements from radioactive events they don't know the laws of.. because they don't know or have they even questioned what happened in real history . they have been too busy makin up stuff about time they made up and can't prove.
so if a major cosmic event, much more likely a few of them . overturned and turned and returned soils levels. then how can they honestly use the periodic table or geologic to tell you time and their version of history?
then consider that they can't tell you what happened about 2000 + years ago .
they can't tell anyone what happened 2800 years ago and they can't tell you what happened 3200- hundred years ago. like maybe the Bronze age collapse that they just almost ignore completely. because if they explained it, it would mess with their fantasies !
and if they can't tell you what happened on these prior dates how can they can't tell you what really happened 4300- years ago?
if they can't tell you what happened 2000-2100, 2800 , abt 3200, in abt 4300 years agosure looks like it could periodic to me in eye witnessed and recorded history during obviously profound catastrophic events that they don't question nor do they know the laws of those events . nor will they even know the laws of those events.
So they haven't earned the right to tell anyone what happened 6000 years ago either . because their periodic tables and geologic tables and their magic radioactive time machines are all wishful thinking at best . how can they honestly use radioactive elements as time keepers or proof of any kind of time when they don't have a clue what these events do to those radioactive elements.
And there is not enough special magic, special knowledge , special logic or lawless time machines , based on and from ignorant theories to really convince anyone who knows the facts .
Last edited:
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
Calminian
Senior Veteran
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
There's no explicit mention of a canopy in the Bible. Even Henry Morris would have admitted that. It's simply a theory to show how God may have brought things about.
you cited Gen. 1:6-8 as well as Genesis 7. Again, the biggest problem exegetically is the fact that the firmament or expanse is said to contain the sun moon and stars. Thus they would have to be below the canopy to be contained within this expanse of the atmosphere. What I think happened (and most creationists now agree) is that the entire space of the cosmos was stretched out on day 2. The waters left below were used to make the land and sea, and the waters above, still up there, are apparently still up there at the edges of the cosmos. Again, secular scientists are now saying that there are vast reservoirs of water in deep space, visible with telescopes. And they now believe water apparently play a significant role in the creation of the universe.
The windows of heaven mentioned in Gen. 7 are just clouds. Clouds often are described with metaphors in the old testament—jars of heaven, doors of heaven, etc.
The canopy theory was definitely a reasonable attempt at explaining the evidence, by 2 of the greatest creationists ever, it just fell short. Morris and Whitcomb were very humble guys, and were never dogmatic about their theory.
Then again, I could be wrong. Just say'n.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
