Believe in Genesis Chap 1-3?!

[gluadys]

My thoughts:

Creation is interpretated by man.

Scripture is interpretated by man.

Creation is ambigious about what it is saying thus allowing any type of interpretation to be made.

No, it is not possible for any type of interpretation to be made and be consistent with observed evidence The interpretation of creation is, if possible, less open to ambiguity than the interpretation of scripture. Certainly just as limited.

Science doesn't seek the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Please distinguish between science and scientists. Science is a body of knowledge. Asking science to seek the Holy Spirit for guidance is like asking the encyclopedia to seek the Holy Spirit for guidance.

It is scientists who do or do not seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in doing their work, according to their beliefs.

By default, science chooses to not allow for an intelligent designer because it assumes that any type of intelligent design assumes religion.

You have the action right, but the reason wrong. Scientists take no notice of an intelligent designer because it is assumed that an intelligent designer is metaphysical and scientists can only study what is physical. By the scientific method, scientists can study the works of God, but they cannot study God directly.

Yet, scientific studies have been brought forth to assert that aliens are the creators of this earth and all that it is in it.

No, that is not true. Where did you get that from?

That includes how God created. Science shouldn't be studying that.

Why not?

It can make observations of what God has done, but not how God works.

Making observations is not science. It is the pre-requisite for science. The aim of science is not to catalogue observations, but to understand what is observed.

It has no real way of observing the beginning of all things, it can only make guesses on what it sees today and assumes that it was the same yesterday.

You overlook the fact that what is today is the consequence of what was yesterday. If yesterday had been different, today would also be different. So what science infers about the past is not just a guess.

When someone accepts what science has to say about origins they are doing so by faith alone.

People who have never looked at the evidence find this a comforting belief. People who have looked at the evidence know it ain't so.

It is my assertion that since science has decided to study origins, it has placed itself as a religion of its own. This religion contradicts my understanding of the Bible's teaching on origins, therefore the scientific study of origins is rejected by me.

If it comforts you to act on the basis of a false assertion, that's fine. As long as you don't follow it up with equally false assumptions about the faith of your fellow Christians.

Of course we all believe in the Bible, we just don't agree on what the Bible is saying. That has always been the case since the beginning of the world.

Exactly. We are all trying to understand what God is saying to us through the teaching of scripture.

 

[TheBeginningSeasons]

For now know that I disagree you with your stance. One who has faith in God has exactly that, a belief placed in trust into the hands of the Almighty Creator. I give my faith freely to God. I am blessed by God in many ways. Among His blessings are the scriptures collected in the Bible, a rational thinking mind and the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit, that light of God that dwells within me and all people. Why, I ask, would I acknowledge just one of God's blessings to me over the other two?

Believing in God is also believing in His word, the ability to communicate with each believer through His written word no matter how old it may be, how strange it may seem to some, He talked the prophets, the apostles, and the faith driven to write HIS word so we could have direction for our lives.

So we all believe in God right? He is the One, He sent His Son Jesus to save us, and the Holy Spirit to guide us in our faith lead journey, correct everyone? So then why deny His word and bend it by your own interpertation that is all I am asking? But if you don't think the Bible is speaking God's word then why do you read it at all? TO learn? To grow in Christ? To have a direction put on your life with examples of what has happened and what is to come, basicly a set of examples and guidelines? This would be the purpose of the Bible. I believe 100% that the accounts in the Bible happened and will happen in the future. If you read all of the prophets writings and compare them to the events today then you would see what is happening today was foretold long ago, very long ago. So that being said there is no real reason for science to be involved at all. Like it was said earlier, science is a religion, you must accepted it on a faith that you believe something you can not prove or see, no proof of any of the old earth theories can be proven. Science is good especially for developing technicolgy and medication, but not for Scripture of Christianity unless it is being used for God's work.

The leap of faith all Christians take is to believe Jesus gave his life for us, we have all done it. So why not take the full leap and believe God has done it all, everything around you in some way is HIS doing. Yes man constructed it, but don't you believe God created us each with a purpose in this world? He has a will for us all, He has given us special abilities to further The Kingdom. The bottom line is you must believe in His awesome power in order to believe in the words of the Bible, if you don't believe in the real meaning of the Bible then what is the point? IF God couldn't make a man appear from dust and dirt on the ground, then how is He going to save us all...? Am I making sense? Thus if you are an "old earth" believer, you can't fully believe. This is only one way the enemy has started his way to take down the faith in God's power.

 

[gluadys]

The leap of faith all Christians take is to believe Jesus gave his life for us, we have all done it. So why not take the full leap and believe God has done it all, everything around you in some way is HIS doing.

I think we have all taken that leap of faith too.

Yes man constructed it, but don't you believe God created us each with a purpose in this world? He has a will for us all, He has given us special abilities to further The Kingdom. The bottom line is you must believe in His awesome power in order to believe in the words of the Bible, if you don't believe in the real meaning of the Bible then what is the point?

I think we all do believe in the real meaning of the Bible. We only have difference of opinion about what it is sometimes.

IF God couldn't make a man appear from dust and dirt on the ground, then how is He going to save us all...?

No one has said God couldn't make a man appear instantaneously out of dust. But the scripture does not require this understanding, and the evidence says this is not what God did. I am sure God can save us no matter what method he used to create us.

Thus if you are an "old earth" believer, you can't fully believe.

Well, you are just wrong here. Old earth believers can and do fully believe.

 

[SBG]

No, it is not possible for any type of interpretation to be made and be consistent with observed evidence The interpretation of creation is, if possible, less open to ambiguity than the interpretation of scripture. Certainly just as limited.




Please distinguish between science and scientists. Science is a body of knowledge. Asking science to seek the Holy Spirit for guidance is like asking the encyclopedia to seek the Holy Spirit for guidance.

It is scientists who do or do not seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in doing their work, according to their beliefs.



You have the action right, but the reason wrong. Scientists take no notice of an intelligent designer because it is assumed that an intelligent designer is metaphysical and scientists can only study what is physical. By the scientific method, scientists can study the works of God, but they cannot study God directly.



No, that is not true. Where did you get that from?



Why not?



Making observations is not science. It is the pre-requisite for science. The aim of science is not to catalogue observations, but to understand what is observed.




You overlook the fact that what is today is the consequence of what was yesterday. If yesterday had been different, today would also be different. So what science infers about the past is not just a guess.




People who have never looked at the evidence find this a comforting belief. People who have looked at the evidence know it ain't so.




If it comforts you to act on the basis of a false assertion, that's fine. As long as you don't follow it up with equally false assumptions about the faith of your fellow Christians.



Exactly. We are all trying to understand what God is saying to us through the teaching of scripture.

My apologies. I should have remembered that posting one's own thoughts are not welcomed and will be argued against.

It seems you have done a lot of adding to what I have said, which wasn't what I intended, such as assumptions about anyone's faith. It is sad that one cannot even make a comment or give their own thoughts without someone doing as you have done.

Again, my apologies. I did not intend for my thoughts to be taken as you have decided to take them, nor did I intend to sit here and argue that we each are not entitled to our own beliefs about origins without someone pointing fingers at them and telling them they are wrong because it isn't inline with their belief.

 

[ebia]

My apologies. I should have remembered that posting one's own thoughts are not welcomed and will be argued against.

Your thoughts are entirely welcome, but what happens when you post stuff in a debating forum is that other people discuss what you have posted.

 

[ebia]

Believing in God is also believing in His word, the ability to communicate with each believer through His written word no matter how old it may be, how strange it may seem to some, He talked the prophets, the apostles, and the faith driven to write HIS word so we could have direction for our lives.

Everyone here believes (presumably) that the Word of God does speak through the bible.

So we all believe in God right? He is the One, He sent His Son Jesus to save us, and the Holy Spirit to guide us in our faith lead journey, correct everyone?

Yes

So then why deny His word and bend it by your own interpertation that is all I am asking?

Everyone has an interpretation of the bible, you included. We believe we have good reason for thinking our interpretation is the better one.

But if you don't think the Bible is speaking God's word then why do you read it at all? TO learn? To grow in Christ? To have a direction put on your life with examples of what has happened and what is to come, basicly a set of examples and guidelines? This would be the purpose of the Bible.

Roughly, yes.

I believe 100% that the accounts in the Bible happened and will happen in the future.

Fair enough. But that's not the only reasonable interpretation.

If you read all of the prophets writings and compare them to the events today then you would see what is happening today was foretold long ago, very long ago. So that being said there is no real reason for science to be involved at all.

If you want to know why you are here, then science has nothing to say on the matter. If you want to know what happened in the past, is happening now, and make practical use of that in the future then science is useful.

Like it was said earlier, science is a religion, you must accepted it on a faith that you believe something you can not prove or see, no proof of any of the old earth theories can be proven.

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. The evidence for an old earth is overwhelming.

Science is good especially for developing technicolgy and medication, but not for Scripture of Christianity unless it is being used for God's work.

Science is impartial. To bias it is to make it unreliable and useless. To put artificial boundaries upon it is to make it unreliable and useless - for example medicine is dependent upon an understanding of life, how it works, and how it changes.

The leap of faith all Christians take is to believe Jesus gave his life for us, we have all done it. So why not take the full leap and believe God has done it all, everything around you in some way is HIS doing.

Already done that. That is not at odds with anything science has ever, or can ever, say.

Yes man constructed it, but don't you believe God created us each with a purpose in this world? He has a will for us all, He has given us special abilities to further The Kingdom.

And that's what the bible is about. Not the details of how the world was put together.

The bottom line is you must believe in His awesome power in order to believe in the words of the Bible, if you don't believe in the real meaning of the Bible then what is the point?

Your paragraph above describes the real meaning of the bible. A precise description of the exact mechanics of creation is not.

IF God couldn't make a man appear from dust and dirt on the ground, then how is He going to save us all...?

He could do whatever he want's. What we are discussing is what he did do.

Am I making sense? Thus if you are an "old earth" believer, you can't fully believe.

Simply untrue.

This is only one way the enemy has started his way to take down the faith in God's power.

Simply untrue, as Theistic Evolutionists see God's power in everything, not just in the stuff science can't explain. God's power is in the mechanics of evolution. God's power is in the physical laws that govern the universe. God's power is in the elegance of mathematics. God's power is in the awesome size and age of the universe.

 

[SBG]

Your thoughts are entirely welcome, but what happens when you post stuff in a debating forum is that other people discuss what you have posted.

You're quite right. It was silly of me to think this could be a fellowship forum.

 

[gluadys]

You're quite right. It was silly of me to think this could be a fellowship forum.

The two sub-forums are intended to be fellowship forums.

Sorry if you were surprised that a discussion and debate forum would provoke discussion and debate.

 

[chaoschristian]

Believing in God is also believing in His word, the ability to communicate with each believer through His written word no matter how old it may be, how strange it may seem to some, He talked the prophets, the apostles, and the faith driven to write HIS word so we could have direction for our lives.

You and I agree on this.

So we all believe in God right? He is the One, He sent His Son Jesus to save us, and the Holy Spirit to guide us in our faith lead journey, correct everyone?

Anyone who is posting in this part of CF has already witnessed to that.

So then why deny His word and bend it by your own interpertation that is all I am asking?

The same question can be asked of you. You presuppose that your view if the correct one.

But if you don't think the Bible is speaking God's word then why do you read it at all?

I do believe the Bible speaks God's Truth. We just happen to disagree on what is being said.

I believe 100% that the accounts in the Bible happened and will happen in the future.

You are free to believe this as I am free to believe otherwise.

If you read all of the prophets writings and compare them to the events today then you would see what is happening today was foretold long ago, very long ago. So that being said there is no real reason for science to be involved at all. Like it was said earlier, science is a religion, you must accepted it on a faith that you believe something you can not prove or see, no proof of any of the old earth theories can be proven. Science is good especially for developing technicolgy and medication, but not for Scripture of Christianity unless it is being used for God's work.

Science is not a religion, as much as some would like to chant that mantra over and over. I cannot see atoms, but I do not take their existance on faith alone. There is exstensive research and reasoning that has gone into and continues to go into atomic research and physics. We can see the real, predictive practical results of this. If an atom is split and instead of the release of energy through heat and light there results instead a bowl of petunias I am sure you will agree that physicists will openly question their theories and begin a re-examination of the data to account for this, especially if it continues to happen. If science were a religion, then the petunias would get their own television show, and anyone doubting their existance would be burned at the stake.

The leap of faith all Christians take is to believe Jesus gave his life for us, we have all done it. So why not take the full leap and believe God has done it all, everything around you in some way is HIS doing. Yes man constructed it, but don't you believe God created us each with a purpose in this world? He has a will for us all, He has given us special abilities to further The Kingdom.

You and I agree on this.

The bottom line is you must believe in His awesome power in order to believe in the words of the Bible, if you don't believe in the real meaning of the Bible then what is the point?

Ahhh, this is the point of contention, eleven little words that create the rift between us. So, how can we bridge the gap?

IF God couldn't make a man appear from dust and dirt on the ground, then how is He going to save us all...?

God can do anything He chooses. Creation provides evidence that suggests to me that He chose differently from what you are asserting.

Thus if you are an "old earth" believer, you can't fully believe. This is only one way the enemy has started his way to take down the faith in God's power.

Bible Hammer Time

Let me ask you this: how open are you to allowing evidence and reason change your point of view? Reflect on this honestly, answer honestly. I would much rather have you say, "There is nothing that will change my mind." and have that be an honest answer, then for you to pretend that there exists some chance, no matter how small, to persuade you to see differently. Mind you, I am asking this as a means to judge you. I do not care to judge you, only to understand you. And I ask the same in return. Please understand that I am a faithful Christian, who desperately loves his Saviour and his Creator, but who also happens to view the miracle of Creation and all that it encompasses differently from you. Let us, at the threshold of this new year, not allow this difference to rend us apart. If need be, let's agree to disagree and maintain our fellowship through the Spirit.

 

[SBG]

The two sub-forums are intended to be fellowship forums.

Sorry if you were surprised that a discussion and debate forum would provoke discussion and debate.

Ok, good to know. I didn't realize that the two sub-forums were meant for fellowship and this combined forum is not for fellowshipping.

I guess for some reason Christians, in this particular forum, are unable to fellowship without a debate. Thanks for letting me know and God Bless!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Ok, good to know. I didn't realize that the two sub-forums were meant for fellowship and this combined forum is not for fellowshipping.

An honest mistake.... could happen to anyone.

I guess for some reason Christians, in this particular forum, are unable to fellowship without a debate. Thanks for letting me know and God Bless!

You must understand that this particular forum was designed specifically for the purpose of discussion and debate. Why shouldn't we use it for the very reason it was given to us for?

 

[copticorthodoxy]

the bible is not a science book , it is a spirtual book talking about the relation between God and human and it show the direction to every one searching for the real God .
when God is talking about the creation in the bible he talk about it in a way so we can understand it not in a scientific way to debate about it

 

[shernren]

At the risk of being irrelevant I'm going to jump right in and comment about something I saw on page 1. ... Mathematician's comment about how Gen 2:4 says the generations of the heavens, and that God created the heavens and the earth in one day. Now I am a TE but I don't think I can wring my beliefs out of Scripture that particular way here's why.

"Generations" there can't simply be read as plural of "generation". It is a specific term that more properly means "genealogy" ... if I'm not mistaken everywhere else in the OT it is used as "genealogy". But of course it can't possibly mean the "genealogy" of the heavens and the earth - Gen 1 isn't a "so-and-so fathered so-and-so" list! We have to go back and ask what the point is of genealogies in the OT, and they are there to show how a person or a nation is related to the covenanted linage - the line of descendants who inherited God's covenants with man. So the "genealogy" of the heavens and the earth is to show its origins and its relationship with the covenant God. (In a way, that affirms that Genesis 1 is not a "how" but a "why" description of when God made the heavens and the earth.)

To back my point, the NIV and NLT translates the word as "account" ... "This is the account of how the heavens and the earth were made", which I think should reflect the original better.

And "in the day" doesn't necessarily imply that God only "took one day" to make the heavens and the earth. It's the same way when God told Adam that "in the day you eat the fruit you will die" ... and yet when Adam ate the fruit, he certainly took longer than one day to die (depending, of course, on what you understand by "die").

 

[TheBeginningSeasons]

I am definately willing to hear everyone's evidence on what they believe, but I will have to see it to believe any of it. I am here to learn from others so that I have more firepower to go out and speak to nonbelievers and teach them the word. I am in the navy which is full of second guessers, and I need as much info to shut down their theories as possible. Which so far everyone is against me in everyway possible...oh well.

The old earth theories can be easily disproven, take the Grand Canyon for example. Took thousands and thousands of years to make correct? Wrong, there is a canyon being formed the same way in less than a hundred years in Georgia "Georgia's little grand canyon." Already 15 stories deep, when people have tried to age said thousands. When in fact it was start in the 1846 when the first gullies appeared. Uniformitarian ideas of an old earth are unnecessary, for Scripture simply tells us how it came about.

So lets take fossil beds for example, takes super long to make fossils right?! Wrong, sediment from run off after a flood building up and creating enormous of pressure doing the same thing as "millions of years" worth of build up over a dead creature.

Simply putting it, God created Adam at an adult stage. He was completely able to function, talk, think, work and everything. God had already given him the ability to take care of Eden. Why couldn't God have made the earth and universe look billions of years old too?

I am not here to argue at all, I am here to discuss the misleadings of society onto todays Christians. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and the "bible hammer" thing you guys do...why not use the Bible as a hammer?! It is described as a sword by God in Scripture, just instead of slicing just thumping!!! It is a tool to set things straight, so hammer away!!!!

 

[Mathematician]

The old earth theories can be easily disproven, take the Grand Canyon for example. Took thousands and thousands of years to make correct? Wrong, there is a canyon being formed the same way in less than a hundred years in Georgia "Georgia's little grand canyon." Already 15 stories deep, when people have tried to age said thousands. When in fact it was start in the 1846 when the first gullies appeared. Uniformitarian ideas of an old earth are unnecessary, for Scripture simply tells us how it came about.

So lets take fossil beds for example, takes super long to make fossils right?! Wrong, sediment from run off after a flood building up and creating enormous of pressure doing the same thing as "millions of years" worth of build up over a dead creature.

Simply putting it, God created Adam at an adult stage. He was completely able to function, talk, think, work and everything. God had already given him the ability to take care of Eden. Why couldn't God have made the earth and universe look billions of years old too?

I am not here to argue at all, I am here to discuss the misleadings of society onto todays Christians. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and the "bible hammer" thing you guys do...why not use the Bible as a hammer?! It is described as a sword by God in Scripture, just instead of slicing just thumping!!! It is a tool to set things straight, so hammer away!!!!

In otherwords, you've decided to put your trust in a 7th Day Adventist, Price, his plagiarist, Morris, some science frauds Brown, Dolphin, Humphreys, Hovind and some people who actively lie and misrepresent Scripture, Whitcomb, Ham, von Bebber, Taylor.

 

[gluadys]

The old earth theories can be easily disproven

If you think this is true, you haven't begun to look at evidence yet. You have done nothing more than swallow a few old wive's tales without even chewing them.

take the Grand Canyon for example. Took thousands and thousands of years to make correct? Wrong, there is a canyon being formed the same way in less than a hundred years in Georgia "Georgia's little grand canyon." Already 15 stories deep, when people have tried to age said thousands. When in fact it was start in the 1846 when the first gullies appeared. Uniformitarian ideas of an old earth are unnecessary, for Scripture simply tells us how it came about.

Yes, it did take thousands of years to form the Grand Canyon, and hundreds of millions of years before that to form the rock it cuts through. And it did take only a century to cut the other. A course in geology will tell you why one took a short time and the other a long time.

Seems you don't understand what "uniformitarian" means either. It does not necessarily mean "slow and gradual". Scripture, for its part, doesn't mention canyons in either the SW US or Georgia.

So lets take fossil beds for example, takes super long to make fossils right?! Wrong, sediment from run off after a flood building up and creating enormous of pressure doing the same thing as "millions of years" worth of build up over a dead creature.

Yes it does. Apparently you don't know the difference between burying a corpse (which can happen rapidly) and having the corpse turn into a fossil. As for a flood, most fossils show no sign of being buried because of a huge flood. The majority of fossils are marine fossils which would have been on an ocean bottom before and after any flood as well as during any flood. And fossils of terrestrial animals show many different types of death, not just drowning. Even when drowning does appear to be the cause of death, it is often a river, pool or lake that is the source of the water.

These are things you can learn about studying paleontology. Especially taphonomy.

Simply putting it, God created Adam at an adult stage. He was completely able to function, talk, think, work and everything. God had already given him the ability to take care of Eden. Why couldn't God have made the earth and universe look billions of years old too?

No one is saying God couldn't. The evidence says God didn't.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The old earth theories can be easily disproven, take the Grand Canyon for example. Took thousands and thousands of years to make correct? Wrong, there is a canyon being formed the same way in less than a hundred years in Georgia "Georgia's little grand canyon." Already 15 stories deep, when people have tried to age said thousands. When in fact it was start in the 1846 when the first gullies appeared. Uniformitarian ideas of an old earth are unnecessary, for Scripture simply tells us how it came about.

I've just looked up "Georgia's little grand canyon" and little is right, only 150 feet deep. The states web sites also state that the canyon walls are made of very soft soil, not limestone, granite and the other rocks that the Grand Canyon walls are made from. I have seen far larger gullies carved in shorter times, but like the one you point out, they are all carved through soft soil, not rock.



Who are these people that have dated it to thousands of years? Is there a record of scientists actually studying it making this mistake or is it just a story someone made up?

 

[chaoschristian]

I am definately willing to hear everyone's evidence on what they believe, but I will have to see it to believe any of it. I am here to learn from others so that I have more firepower to go out and speak to nonbelievers and teach them the word. I am in the navy which is full of second guessers, and I need as much info to shut down their theories as possible. Which so far everyone is against me in everyway possible...oh well.

First, I want to praise your courage for being willing to evagelize and to do so in what I consider an especially hostile environment.

But, may I make a suggestion?

God does not need you to provide a logical proof for Him, or to overwhelm the unbelievers with holy firepower, or to shut down their theories about this that or the otherthing.

God needs you to be His witness through your character, your attitude and your actions. Are you a man of integrity? Can you be trusted at your word? Do you have a good attitude? Do you respect your superiors and your brothers at arms. Do you shut up and do the work and leave the complaining in the crapper? Do you work hard, pull for others, bear the burden and get the job done?

If you can answer yes to these questions, then you have done more and will do more to witness to others the character of God and what Jesus has done in your life than any words or arguments you could ever hope to contrive.

 

[shernren]

I am definately willing to hear everyone's evidence on what they believe, but I will have to see it to believe any of it. I am here to learn from others so that I have more firepower to go out and speak to nonbelievers and teach them the word. I am in the navy which is full of second guessers, and I need as much info to shut down their theories as possible. Which so far everyone is against me in everyway possible...oh well.

I understand how you feel. I was once on the same side as you, thinking all those evolutionists are evil people pumping the atheists full of belief. What I need is the magic bullet that no evolutionist would ever be able to disprove and bring them all to their knees bawling for Jesus to come and forgive them.

On the surface, the problem seems to be:

Evolution makes nonsense out of the Bible and the Christian faith.

And your chosen approach to this is to try and whack their evolution to pieces so that they'll stop being hostile to Christianity. While a TE's approach is to accept and affirm their evolution and show them how they can be a Christian and still believe in evolution.

But actually, the problem goes much deeper.

Atheists do not reject God because they accept evolutionism. They accept evolutionism because they reject God. Do you get the difference? An atheist has already decided, before he makes any decision whatsoever regarding evolutionism, that God is a load of nonsense and he's going to have nothing to do with that business. And then he comes along with evolutionism and says "Gee! People can believe in that and reject God!" and so happily accepts it.

There is a single word in there that shows your approach to the problem:

"firepower"

It's not about firepower, TBS. It's not about massing up all the facts and the arguments and the counterarguments and beating the mickey out of their hardcore atheist mindsets. Only the Holy Spirit can make a person Christian. If the Holy Spirit does not inspire and reveal the truth to someone even Einstein wouldn't be able to argue him into becoming a Christian. And our role is not to go beat the mickey out of whatever they believe, but to pray that God will open their eyes and to help them to be receptive to the Holy Spirit by showing them through your lives what the Holy Spirit does for Christians.

 

[TreesNTrees]

Interesting opening post.

The simplicity of an initial awareness.