Creationists and the Heart

toLiJC · Jul 21, 2017

Dale said:
The word "heart" appears quite a number of times in the Bible. "Heart" is used 127 times in the Psalms and 75 times in Proverbs, for instance. Overall, "heart" appears 712 times in the Bible. This count is based on the NIV translation.

"Heart" obviously has two meanings, one, an organ of the body, and two, a secret place of thoughts, feelings, and motives.

Here is an extraordinary fact: As often as Biblical authors used the word "heart," not one of them knew that blood circulates. Not one of them knew that the heart, as an organ of the body, pumps blood through the body. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.

The circulation of the blood wasn't understood until it was demonstrated by William Harvey in 1628. Harvey was an English doctor. He based his views both on dissecting bodies and research on live patients. Blood pressure was first measured in 1733, over a hundred years later.

In the ancient world, Galen was physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He died about 200 AD. Galen thought that blood formed in the liver, flowed out to the rest of he body, and was absorbed. Galen knew more about blood than anyone in the ancient world and yet he still didn't understand that blood is circulated by the heart.

Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?

Why would we expect the authors of the Bible to know whether frogs have been around longer than rabbits? Why would we expect them to know whether turtles had been around longer than foxes? They had no knowledge of animals and plants beyond what is obvious to farmers, herdmen and hunters.

They were right to say that God is responsible, that God is the Creator, that God has creative power but they did not know the details. As non-creationists have pointed out before, the Bible is not a science text.

you are right that some things are not important to every spiritual person

the biblical "heart" is mostly the human spiritual/religious activity

Blessings

Grandpa2390 · Jul 21, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
If you accept some forms of evolution (genetic change with descent with modification), even just recognizing that dogs originated from wolves, then you are accepting the same science that demonstrates larger scale transitions as well. Because there really is no line, or limit to change. There is no barrier where genes simply stop changing. So long as mutations occur, physical morphology changes as well.

So i would ask, in scientific terms, or perhaps relating to genetics, what is the difference between wolf to dog evolution and say, reptile to bird? In the most literal sense, why is one possible while the other impossible (even though we know that God is capable of all things)?

Firstly, God is not capable of all things. He can't do things that are adverse to his nature, such as committing sin. Just FYI.

Also to say that God evolved the Earth for billions of years in order to get humans... that is just silly.

Secondly, what you are saying is there is no proof that this kind of change is possible. We should just assume it so (even though we have never observed it in all of human history) because if a little change can happen, then with millions of years a lot of serious change can happen too.
That's not science. In any other field, you would be laughed at.

The difference is the amount and kind of change that can happen before it has negative repercussions. Before it is crippling. Especially since it happens over millions of years.

Saying that it possible for the small changes to add up to a new creature over time is fine. But it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.
You don't need me to say it in scientific terms. Use Google. If you are actually interested in an explanation, there are plenty of sources out there.

Speedwell · Jul 21, 2017

miamited said:
If scientific study is all that we depend on for our knowledge of the answers of these great questions, then...

That looks like half of a false dichotomy to me, if the other half is that scripture taken as literal and inerrant history must be all that we depend on.

JacksBratt · Jul 21, 2017

As far as I'm concerned, I believe that if the gospel was not absolutely necessary for the salvation of every person...the theistic evolutionists would toss it out too.

They discard every part of the YEC and spout that "it's not necessary for the fate of my soul".... "It's not a salvation issue".... true, true, true....

However you WILL believe all the other, completely unscientific miraculous events of Christ's death, burial and resurrection due to one thing and one thing only.......the eternal fate of your soul depends on it to be true.

If Genesis being literal WAS a necessity of salvation..........would you believe it then?

Speedwell · Jul 21, 2017

JacksBratt said:
As far as I'm concerned, I believe that if the gospel was not absolutely necessary for the salvation of every person...the theistic evolutionists would toss it out too.

They discard every part of the YEC and spout that "it's not necessary for the fate of my soul".... "It's not a salvation issue".... true, true, true....

However you WILL believe all the other, completely unscientific miraculous events of Christ's death, burial and resurrection due to one thing and one thing only.......the eternal fate of your soul depends on it to be true.

If Genesis being literal WAS a necessity of salvation..........would you believe it then?

An interesting question, but it contains some assumptions which we ought to clear up.

For one thing, theistic evolutionists don't "toss out" the Genesis stories, they merely don't take them as literal history. Genesis is still regarded as divine revelation, and much of Christian doctrine would be incomprehensible without it.

Further, for those of us who are not Protestants, the Bible is not the sole source of our knowledge of Christ's life, death and resurrection. This knowledge comes down to us through Sacred Tradition, which the written Gospels corroberate and help preserve, but our faith is not solely dependent on them.

The minimum set of beliefs for a Christian is widely thought to be contained in the Nicene Creed. Yet we all believe things in addition which are comfortable to our faith. For example, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacraments--but I will not accuse you of cynical opportunism because you do not.

JacksBratt · Jul 21, 2017

Speedwell said:
An interesting question, but it contains some assumptions which we ought to clear up.

For one thing, theistic evolutionists don't "toss out" the Genesis stories, they merely don't take them as literal history. Genesis is still regarded as divine revelation, and much of Christian doctrine would be incomprehensible without it.

Further, for those of us who are not Protestants, the Bible is not the sole source of our knowledge of Christ's life, death and resurrection. This knowledge comes down to us through Sacred Tradition, which the written Gospels corroberate and help preserve, but our faith is not solely dependent on them.

The minimum set of beliefs for a Christian is widely thought to be contained in the Nicene Creed. Yet we all believe things in addition which are comfortable to our faith. For example, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacraments--but I will not accuse you of cynical opportunism because you do not.

Well, I will take the words of Jesus over an other book or text or script or compilation of words that speak of the history of our earth and universe as it relates to the truthful events. No matter how many others hold these other writtings to be true or "scientific"... I could care less...

Look at: Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

This article also reveals this truth.....

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words “six days” also wrote them down for Moses: “Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

So, from this we can conclude.....

Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?

So, you may say that you don't "toss them out" yet you certainly don't hold them as true events while clearly the one you rely on for your salvation does.

Speedwell · Jul 21, 2017

JacksBratt said:
Well, I will take the words of Jesus over an other book or text or script or compilation of words that speak of the history of our earth and universe as it relates to the truthful events. No matter how many others hold these other writtings to be true or "scientific"... I could care less...

Look at: Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

This article also reveals this truth.....

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words “six days” also wrote them down for Moses: “Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

So, from this we can conclude.....

Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?

So, you may say that you don't "toss them out" yet you certainly don't hold them as true events while clearly the one you rely on for your salvation does.

Just what one would expect from Ken Ham. But you still don't get it: If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow and the Earth conclusively proved to be of recent creation it would not change my view of the Genesis stories one bit--Ken Ham's lame apologetics notwithstanding.

JacksBratt · Jul 21, 2017

Speedwell said:
Just what one would expect from Ken Ham. But you still don't get it: If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow and the Earth conclusively proved to be of recent creation it would not change my view of the Genesis stories one bit--Ken Ham's lame apologetics notwithstanding.

Ya, I get it.

However, whether it was penned by Ken Ham or not... the facts presented are still the facts. If a building was red, and Ken Ham wrote that "the building was red" it does not diminish the fact that the building is red just because Ken Ham wrote it.

The words presented and the logic it reveals is solid.

Speedwell · Jul 21, 2017

JacksBratt said:
Ya, I get it.

However, whether it was penned by Ken Ham or not... the facts presented are still the facts. If a building was red, and Ken Ham wrote that "the building was red" it does not diminish the fact that the building is red just because Ken Ham wrote it.

The words presented and the logic it reveals is solid.

I'm sure you think so. I would find it unconvincing no matter who wrote it.

JacksBratt · Jul 22, 2017

Speedwell said:
I'm sure you think so. I would find it unconvincing no matter who wrote it.

Well of course you do.... It's pure logic and scripturally sound, yet you find the literal text of the biblical account "unconvincing" anyway and it's the word of God.

Speedwell · Jul 22, 2017

JacksBratt said:
Well of course you do.... It's pure logic and scripturally sound, yet you find the literal text of the biblical account "unconvincing" anyway and it's the word of God.

Well, it's pure circular logic, which is a kind of logic I suppose.

I find your arguments for the literal interpretation of the text unconvincing. The Bible itself is entirely convincing because, as you point out, it is the word of God.

JacksBratt · Jul 22, 2017

Speedwell said:
Well, it's pure circular logic, which is a kind of logic I suppose.

I find your arguments for the literal interpretation of the text unconvincing. The Bible itself is entirely convincing because, as you point out, it is the word of God.

Well, the whole Bible is circular logic, isn't it?

The Bible says that the bible is the only truth?

Totally circular.

However, if you believe any of it, must you not believe all of it?

If you don't believe some of it, how can you believe any of it?

It is either the word of God and total truth... or you toss it out like any other book of "just" stories.

Speedwell · Jul 22, 2017

JacksBratt said:
Well, the whole Bible is circular logic, isn't it?

The Bible says that the bible is the only truth?

Totally circular.

No, we have Sacred Tradition, which breaks the circle.

However, if you believe any of it, must you not believe all of it?

I do.

If you don't believe some of it, how can you believe any of it?

I don't know; since I believe all of it, the problem doesn't come up.

It is either the word of God and total truth... or you toss it out like any other book of "just" stories.

Exactly.

Dale · Jul 22, 2017

I am getting feedback from several creationists here. I appreciate responses. Unfortunately, the creationists are assuming that creationists know their Bible and that they have put forward a coherent narrative based on the Bible. I have found that creationists don't know their Bible as well as they think they do.

Some creationists have been flabbergasted when I tell them that there are two creation accounts in Genesis. Genesis Two isn't literally consistent with Genesis One. In Genesis One, God makes the world, including animals and plants, then makes people. There's no Adam and Eve in Genesis One. In Genesis 2:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground ...
--Genesis 2:4-5 NIV

In Genesis 2:4, the story starts all over again. Although plants and vegetation had been created on the third day in Genesis 1:11-13, in Genesis 2:5, "no shrub had yet appeared."

In a chart given in Gable and Wheeler's The Bible as Literature:

First creation story on creation of animals and man:
"Animals are created before man.

Second creation story on creations of animals and man:
"Man created before animals."

In this light, the first few chapters of Genesis have to be parables, or metaphorical.
They cannot be literal history.

Dale · Jul 22, 2017

In my last post, I commented on the need for creationists to know more about the Bible. There is also a need for creationists to realize that taking Genesis too literally can lead to bizarre and extreme beliefs.

I have talked with people who were obsessed with the giants of Genesis Six, the Nephilim. This is the section just before Noah's Flood. Some creationists believe that the Nephilim were the outcome of relations between angels and humans, or fallen angels and mortal women. I've even been told that God used the Flood to destroy the world to get rid of the Nephilim. Yet this did not work out, because the same people who tell me that say that there are Nephilim later in the Old Testament. For instance, Goliath was at least part Nephilim, descended from giants like those of Genesis Six.

This leads to some very strange places. To those who theorize about the Nephilim, descendants of demons live among us today.

I would urge creationists to draw the line somewhere.

Dale · Jul 22, 2017

miamited said:
Hi again dale,

Let me take a moment and see if I can offer some better explanation as to my understanding of where the knowledge and wisdom that we find in the Scriptures came from. If we believe the time and date of the things written in the book of Daniel, then Daniel foretold an event that he didn't even have any idea when it would happen, yet gave specific information concerning when it would happen. Daniel couldn't have known the timeline of his foretelling by his own knowledge.

However, Daniel's explanation was that the information was given to him by an angel and that angel told him that he (the angel) was given the information directly from God. So, what Daniel then wrote down to be preserved throughout the generations wasn't based on Daniel's ability, knowledge or understanding. It was ultimately God telling Daniel, "Look, this is going to happen and here's when it's going to happen'.

Hopefully this helps in understanding that what Moses wrote down regarding the creation event, to be preserved for future generations, wasn't any ability, knowledge or wisdom that came from Moses. It was the knowledge and wisdom of God who was there at the time of the event's happening. The Holy Spirit revealed these things to Moses and Moses, much like a secretary, wrote it all down for us.

Now, I readily agree and admit that a lot of people don't understand the creation of the Scriptures in this way and that's ok. Ultimately, what the believer wants to know is the truth. Did the ideas and thoughts and facts that we find in the Scriptures come from the mind of man or the mind of God?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Ted in post #21: << The Holy Spirit revealed these things to Moses and Moses, much like a secretary, wrote it all down for us. >>

The first five books of the Bible, the Torah, or Pentateuch, are traditionally ascribed to Moses. You seem to take this with complete literalness. Yet it is impossible. Deuteronomy describes the death and burial of Moses, by God, so Moses could not possibly have written the account. As a minister once explained to me, in those days you honored people by naming books after them.

The notion that Moses took it all down "like a secretary" is also fanciful. Take a look at this passage.

He [John the Baptist] went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet ...
--Luke 3:3-4 NIV

Luke refers to the Book of Isaiah as "the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet." He doesn't say that Isaiah wrote this book, he leaves the impression that Isaiah's sayings were collected after the prophet's death. Luke certainly doesn't say that Isaiah acted as secretary while God dictated.

Ted in post #21: << If we believe the time and date of the things written in the book of Daniel, then Daniel foretold an event that he didn't even have any idea when it would happen, yet gave specific information concerning when it would happen. >>

You mention prophecy from Daniel but you don't say which of Daniel's prophecies you are talking about.

Dale · Jul 22, 2017

miamited said:
Hi again dale,

So, to continue with my understanding of God's ability to pass his knowledge through to men by the power of His Spirit, here's how I envision that Moses came to write the book of the beginning. Moses was with God for 40 days on the mountain top. There came a time, during that period, that God revealed to Moses how and when He created this realm. Moses then wrote it all down. To this day, God has preserved that account for all men to know the truth of the how and why we are here. Now the choice for each of us becomes, will we believe God or man?

Yes, I readily agree that this is only my limited understanding of how the account of the beginning came to be known and written down by Moses, but it is just as logical an explanation as any other, given what the Scriptures tell us about how they came to exist. Holy men of God wrote as they were led by the Holy Spirit.

The definition of 'holy' is to be set apart. So what the Scriptures tell us in other words is that men who were set apart to God wrote as they were led by the Spirit of God. So, let's understand that we're not talking about just any Tom, Dick or Harry that lived in ancient days. We're talking about men who were faithful to God and desired to know and to trust Him. These few men, such as the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel and Jeremiah were special people that God set apart from all the other people upon the earth to write down the many things that He revealed to them through His Spirit.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Ted in post 37:

<< Moses was with God for 40 days on the mountain top. There came a time, during that period, that God revealed to Moses how and when He created this realm. Moses then wrote it all down. To this day, God has preserved that account for all men to know the truth of the how and why we are here. >>

You seem to be adding to Exodus here. In Exodus, Moses ascends the mountain in Chapter 19. After the giving of the Commandments, God goes on for some time on laws the Israelites will need in the Promised Land. Then he talks about setting up the Tabernacle and the priesthood. In Chapter 32, Moses comes down, sees the Golden Calf, and breaks the tablets. Later God issues the Commandments again, and again talks about laws to govern Israel and how the Tabernacle and the priesthood will be set up.

One thing that God and Moses don't talk about is the creation, or anything else in Genesis, except for God's promise to Abraham about the Promised Land. This is something I've noticed. Religious conservatives constantly accuse liberals (for want of a better word) of adding to the Scripture, yet they do it all the time themselves!

Dale · Jul 22, 2017

miamited said:
Hi speedwell,

Yes, I would agree that you and I have a basic foundational difference in our respective understanding of the basis of the wisdom and knowledge that is found in the Scriptures. Mine, however, is based on Paul's explanation of the foundation of the Scriptures. Yours is based on what, exactly?

The question, as always for the believer, what is the truth? Should I believe what men try to convince me is the truth regarding the things of God, despite that fact that they don't really have any concrete evidence that their thoughts and ideas are the truth? Or, should I believe what Paul, a man who obviously had a life changing relationship with the Lord, has explained to me is the foundation of the knowledge and truth that we find in the Scriptures? A man of whom Jesus himself said would be his witness to the Gentiles.

I choose to go with Paul. You seem to choose to go with your own understanding and see things that you can't believe could possibly be true as simply not true. I rather read of all the many, many miraculous things that God has claimed to have done throughout the many years of our history that He has recorded for us some of what He has done, and pretty clearly understand that His ability to create an entire realm of existence by His command and decree is certainly possible. That since He tells us, through the writers of the Scriptures, those writings of holy men who were led by the Spirit of God, that such is the case, then I believe Him.

God caused a young woman who had never had sexual relations with a man to be pregnant. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. God caused water to stand up as a wall. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. God caused a donkey or mule to speak language. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. Most all of the trials brought against Egypt are utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. That three men could walk around in a fiery furnace with not a single hair on their heads to become singed, is utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. There are literally dozens of accounts found in the Scriptures of the things that God has done that are utterly impossible according to any provable understanding of men. The creation is just one more such account. It's utterly impossible...if our foundation for truth is only the wisdom and understanding of men.

But once again, the question that every believer wants answered before they will trust in anyone's explanation is: What is the truth?

Anyway, you and I have been at this crossroads before and here we still stand.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Ted in post #42:
On understanding Scripture: << Mine, however, is based on Paul's explanation of the foundation of the Scriptures. >>
<< Or, should I believe what Paul, a man who obviously had a life changing relationship with the Lord, has explained to me is the foundation of the knowledge and truth that we find in the Scriptures? ... I choose to go with Paul. >>

Ted, I believe that you are citing Paul's theology selectively. In Timothy, Paul warns of those who "devote themselves to myths." We know that he is not talking about pagans here because he mentions "endless genealogies" among the things that he finds to be a dead end.

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.
1 Timothy 1:3-4 NIV

Later in the same book, Paul returns to the subject of avoiding myths.

7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
--1 Timothy 4: 7 NIV

What Paul says on this subject in Titus is even stronger, and he denounces "Jewish myths" in the same passage where he warns of "the circumcision group." Again, we are talking about Jewish beliefs here, not pagan ideas.

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
Titus 1: 10-14 NIV

Paul did tell us to respect Scripture and learn from it, yet he also warned of "Jewish myths," "godless myths," and "genealogies." Some of the "myths" that he warns about may be outside of Scripture. Yet it is also clear that he is warning us that some of the ideas found in Scripture can be mis-applied or taken too far, when not understood in their proper context.

miamited · Jul 23, 2017

Dale said:
Ted in post #21: << The Holy Spirit revealed these things to Moses and Moses, much like a secretary, wrote it all down for us. >>

The first five books of the Bible, the Torah, or Pentateuch, are traditionally ascribed to Moses. You seem to take this with complete literalness. Yet it is impossible. Deuteronomy describes the death and burial of Moses, by God, so Moses could not possibly have written the account. As a minister once explained to me, in those days you honored people by naming books after them.

Hi dale,

Well, there are a couple of varying ideas about 'how' the books attributed to Moses could have included that account of Moses' own death. Another one is that after Moses died the scribes who recorded the writings of Moses added some details to complete the writings. This also could well been done by God through His Spirit. God would surely want us to know what finally happened to Moses. I'm also not suggesting that every word included in the writings that we now attribute to Moses was given to Moses on the mountain. I'm only answering how I believe that Moses got the account of the beginning that is recorded for us in the book of the beginning.

There is likely quite a lot in all of the writings that we attribute to Moses that is merely historical record that was recorded as the Israelites wandered in the desert. Historical narratives that account for us their day to day living in bondage in Israel and being chased by the Egyptians as they left Egypt and the 40 years of wandering. These things were likely written as they came to happen. However, we know that Moses wasn't around when God created this realm. He, therefore, had to get that information from somewhere.

Now, many believe that what he wrote were narratives of mystical beginning accounts that were floating around the minds of men, but I reject that idea. For me, the detail is much to specific. It is also attested to in other places of the Scriptures just as Moses claims. I have to scratch my head and wonder, 'well, just what exactly did Moses do on that mountain for 40 days with God?'. I know that God gave unto Moses the stone tablets of the law while he was on the mountain and it is claimed that the words on those tablets were written by the very finger of God. So, I know that God was communicating with his servant Moses many words and ideas and understandings about such things as who He is and His desires for His people.

Dale said:
The notion that Moses took it all down "like a secretary" is also fanciful. Take a look at this passage.

He [John the Baptist] went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet ...
--Luke 3:3-4 NIV

Luke refers to the Book of Isaiah as "the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet." He doesn't say that Isaiah wrote this book, he leaves the impression that Isaiah's sayings were collected after the prophet's death. Luke certainly doesn't say that Isaiah acted as secretary while God dictated.

Well, I respectfully disagree that Luke, in the posted reference to the writings of Isaiah, makes clear that Isaiah didn't write most of the writings attributed to him, although it could be. However, no matter how the words came to be put down on the scrolls, Luke confirms that the words so recorded came from Isaiah the prophet. He merely says that it is 'written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet'. I'm sorry, but I can't make the seemingly logical connection that you're making, that this statement makes any claim as to who actually wrote down the words found in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet. Or states any denial that Isaiah didn't write most of those words himself.

Dale said:
Ted in post #21: << If we believe the time and date of the things written in the book of Daniel, then Daniel foretold an event that he didn't even have any idea when it would happen, yet gave specific information concerning when it would happen. >>

You mention prophecy from Daniel but you don't say which of Daniel's prophecies you are talking about.

There are quite a few prophecies found in the book of Daniel that meet the point that I made, but the one I was specifically referring to is the prophecy found in what we now note as chapter 9.

Dale said:
One thing that God and Moses don't talk about is the creation, or anything else in Genesis, except for God's promise to Abraham about the Promised Land.

I'm interested in your proof of that claim that you know what God and Moses discussed while on the mountain.

I'm not sure that fully understand and appreciate God's work and what the Scriptures seem to show as His intentions.

God raised up a man by the name of Abram and promised that through him He would make a great nation. God's purpose in raising up the nation of Israel was to be His people upon the earth. He created that specific line of people to be His emissaries who were to do His bidding. They were created to write down the Scriptures. This is attested to by Paul when he asks the rhetorical question as to what value there is in being a Jew. It is attested to by Jesus when he looks up to heaven while on the cross and cries out that it is finished.

God wrote a book! In that book, He accounts for us how we got here, why we're here and what we were created to be doing. In that book he gives us plenty of evidence by which we could identify His Messiah. When God's book, the old covenant, was complete, then God sent His Son to us. The one that He had painstakingly over many, many centuries had given us knowledge of his coming...came. He gave us the true testimony of his Father. Jesus said that the words he spoke were not his, but were the words given him by the Father. After living a life in which he gave us the living testimony of how God wanted us to live, through the very example of how His Son lived among us, Jesus paid that price for sin that God required. At that point, God's plan of salvation was complete. It is finished!

Everything had been written down that God wanted us to know about Him and all that He had done that man might have life, then Jesus paid the final price.

The life that men live is not just some willy-nilly journey through some accident of natural processes of the earth. We were created by God to live a life worthy and honoring to Him. Just as all the angelic realm was created to live a life worthy and honoring Him. But man sinned. God then began through Abram to cause to be written down for us all that we need to know to choose life and enjoy life eternally with Him. These words written down for us through His people are the Scriptures which bring us the knowledge of eternal life.

Now, you're free to follow whatever understanding you have regarding life and the purpose thereof, but the Scriptures attest that it is by the Scriptures that we find the way of eternal life. And those same Scriptures attest to us that it is through the Son of God that we gain eternal life. So, the Scriptures give instructions to the way and the Son gives the way. All of this is the plan of our loving Father that we might have no excuse to not find eternal life if that is what we desire.

God is powerful and wise and He is able to work His will through those that love Him. The Scriptures are all a part of God's great plan and all that we find in them has the stamp of God's approval. Anything found in the Scriptures that God doesn't want included as His truth...it ain't there!

Dale said:
Ted, I believe that you are citing Paul's theology selectively. In Timothy, Paul warns of those who "devote themselves to myths." We know that he is not talking about pagans here because he mentions "endless genealogies" among the things that he finds to be a dead end.

I also disagree with your reasoning in this. Yes, Paul mentions endless genealogies, but that is not given as being included in the 'myths', but is rather something else that Paul says we should not be taken in by. It is exactly this claim of Paul's that you quote here that also tells me that the writings found in Genesis regarding the beginning is not some story cobbled together from the various myths or 'musings of unintelligent men' (which would make them myths). The Eyptians had many myths to explain how the earth came to be. Many cultures have had similar myths. Paul here warns us to not devote ourselves to such myths. Why would God then approve of some myth to be written down to explain the beginning?

Anyway, I've always agreed that every man has the right to believe what he knows in his heart to be the truth. The question is always: Is it the truth?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Dale · Jul 24, 2017

Grandpa2390 said:
Going to disagree with your opinion that fossils prove anything, and just clarify the Creationist position for you.

Creationists don't deny evolution. We don't deny the role of evolution in the appearance of many different dogs, produce, viruses, whatever.
We deny the idea of evolution being stretched to justify the belief that creatures evolved from different kinds of creatures.
did the dog and the wolf have common ancestor? sure! probably. did the dog and the tulip have a common ancestor? No. We disagree on that one.

I'm just clarifying the Creationist position for you on Evolution.

If fossils don't prove anything, it sounds like you are rejecting all evidence from the physical world that can be seen, touched and examined. Do the ruins of the Jewish Temple mean anything?

You say that creationists don't deny evolution. From my home, I could walk to churches where ministers preach that only atheists believe in evolution. There is no one creationist position, there are many, a bewildering number. One problem with modern creationists is that what creationists believe today is very different from what literal believers in Genesis believed centuries ago.

It sounds like you are one of those who says that lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, pumas and all other cats are descended from Noah's cats. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, and all members of the dog family are descended from Noah's dogs. That's quite a bit of evolution to happen in a few thousand years.

Creationists and the Heart

Senior Member

The Grey

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Ted

Senior Veteran

Similar threads