• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Churches and Creation

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by RC Tent, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +1,351
    Lutheran
    Married
    I wasn't asking you for a summary. I was asking what the message is for Genesis 1-3 ... or with respect to dates and ages, what is the purpose of giving those dates and ages? How do they support the message?

    As I said, I think one's view of creation does have theological implications. It can lead to the "it's only an allegory" viewpoint. It can lead to denying who God is. But I don't think God is giving us a history test where we must score 100% to pass. I don't think that's the intent of Genesis.

    Given you've not responded to most of the comments and questions I've made on this point, it's rather difficult to make anything of it. When I ask about someone's genealogy you reference the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. When I ask if you feel similarly about the census in Numbers, you reference the Flood and Jonah.

    I don't claim to have a perfect understanding of the Bible. Do you? Is it possible to perfectly understand every jot and tittle? I guess I think of it as a lifelong striving. I feel I understand it better now than in my youth.

    So what is the consequence of not knowing the age of the earth? Does it mean I'm not saved? Do you think I'm doubting God's power, grace, knowledge, something?

    Would it be better for me to lie and pretend I'm certain about the age of the earth when I'm not?
     
  2. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +4,305
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi resha,

    Thanks for your response. You asked:
    I think that it's to help us to further understand the awesome power of God when we then begin to understand this being who is so powerful and righteous to have created an entire realm of existence with merely the command of his mouth, so that He could love us. I think that it magnifies for us the awesome glory of God when we then read that the heavens declare the glory of God. However, if you want to really know why God included the genealogical list of years in the Genesis account...well, you'd have to got to Him and ask Him.

    Look, God could have caused Moses to write that Adam had a son named Seth. That Seth then had a son named Enosh. That Enosh then had a son named Kenan. He could have written out the entire genealogical record without ever having mentioned a single age; how old those first generations lived, and we'd still know that Adam was the first man and that there were descendants who came down the line to Noah and then Abram. God could have written the account that way, and for all that you seem to be gleaning from all of that revelation of God to us, you'd still know the same things. But He didn't! So, you'll have to take God's advice: If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

    Go ahead, ask Him. Just sit down and say, "Father, I know that you have written your words that I might understand you and that by your Holy Spirit you give wisdom to the simple. I'm trying to understand why you listed the ages of all the descendants of Adam and then Noah. I believe that I understand that you want us to know that Adam was the first man and that we have all descended down from that first man to Noah and then Abraham to your people Israel, but why did you list the ages of the fathers? Give me wisdom regarding this matter, oh God."

    I do that quite a lot whenever I come across a particular passage that I struggle with understanding what it is that God wants me to know from His words.

    Now finally, Genesis 1-3 doesn't give us any information with respect fo ages and dates. It is in Genesis 5 that we find the accounting of years from Adam to Noah. Genesis 11 is where it continues with the genealogical record, just exactly as it was given in Genesis 5. Again God sees a need to tell us the ages of these fathers. Why? If there's really nothing to be gained from that knowledge, why would God include it faithfully in both accounts?

    Finally, let's roll with your understanding. It's of absolutely no purpose whatsoever that God included the ages of the fathers through the account of the genealogies. The fact is, that if those ages are to be believed, and if they do make an unbroken line, as they seem to do. Then where would anyone be in error to figure out the math. In Daniel, God gave a rather cryptic prophesy about a certain number of weeks until Messiah would come. Jesus seemed to have expected that the people of God should have known who he was and specifically makes mention of them not knowing the time. Hmmm? Is it possible that they also didn't think it important to do the math?

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  3. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +4,305
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi again resha,

    You wrote:
    Really? You don't think I've given answers to your queries? Ok. I've honestly tried to answer pretty much all that you've asked of me, but I'm sorry if my efforts fail your understanding.

    You then asked: Is it possible to perfectly understand every jot and tittle?

    I think there is an awfully lot that we can understand. I think that yes, there can be complete understanding of the Scriptures. Now, that doesn't then mean that we can have perfect and complete understanding of God. However, the Scriptures that He gave to us, He gave for our understanding. Again, as I note in my last post, God has given us instruction as to what we should do if we lack wisdom.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  4. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +1,351
    Lutheran
    Married
    I agree that is one of the purposes of Scripture.

    What makes you think I haven't asked? Or that I don't have an answer?

    I didn't ask the question because I needed to know God's purposes. I asked because I wanted to know your opinion on the matter. If your answer is, "I don't know," I'm fine with that. It's a sincere, honest answer everyone should respect.

    I never said that, and it's not my position.

    Yes, really. A lot of pontificating, but very few answers. Honestly, your replies come across as if my questions irritate you. I'm beginning to wonder if I even need to be here for this conversation. The result might be much the same if you asked yourself a question and gave yourself a reply. Think me as thick and stupid as you please. Fill your posts with as many back-handed jabs as you please. I really don't care. You don't get to decide if your answer is suitable for me. I decide that. If you think I'm being deliberately obtuse, then you needn't continue. That's your decision.

    I've tried repeating questions and you still ignore them, so I don't see the point in repeating them yet again.
     
  5. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +24,731
    Anglican
    Married
    You are referring to this part of the OP I assume:

    The answer is that most of the mainline denominations accept that God may have, but not necessarily, created everything in the course of six distinct epochs, not meaning a 24 hour period which is one meaning of the word day.

    To get a dependable list of church bodies that are on one side of the issue or the other would require you to examine the statements of belief of each of them which, to tell the truth, isn't all that difficult.
     
  6. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +4,305
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi resha,

    Gosh, we can end all this right now. What was the answer God gave you or what is your answer for God including two rather lengthy genealogies and giving the age of the father at the birth of a son?

    You then responded:

    Ok, then what is your position for God having given all the ages of each father in the two genealogies in question.

    Yes, and you keep making that claim that I'm avoiding your questions and yet I can't find or recall a one that I haven't offered an answer to

    Exactly what is it about my answers that give you this feeling that your questions are an irritant to me? Please, be specific.

    I doubt it.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
    .
     
  7. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +1,351
    Lutheran
    Married
    As I said, I'm not going to bother rehashing it yet again. I have no reason to expect a different result.

    If you want to try a new question, how about this: What is gopher wood (Genesis 6:14)?
     
  8. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The broadest universal profession of belief in creation as essential doctrine is in the Nicene Creed:

    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed USCCB)
    If you notice, the profession of faith in God as Creator has sandwiched in it the incarnation. God creating life is the heart of the emphasis in the creation account, that appears not coincidentally in the opening chapter of Scripture. The ancient Hebrews had a weekly reminder of creation, the fourth commandment:

    Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

    But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

    For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20: 8-11)
    The Sabbath controversy was an issue for Jesus and his contemporaries early and often, but with regards to how it was kept, never was there any question raised as to what it meant. A weekly reminder of God's work in creation was sanctified on the seventh day of creation, at the heart of the emphasis in the creation account the passage emphasizes this key creation:

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27)
    Not once, not twice but three times it is repeated that God created Adam and Eve. This leaves no room for a common ancestor between men and apes unless you abandon the interpretive concept of the Bible as historic narrative altogether. The word for 'created' in this passage is in the Qal, or absolute form, meaning God is always the subject:

    Created: to create, shape, form
    (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)​
    In Isaiah this word is used to describe the creation of Israel (Isa. 43:1; 43:7; 43;15), salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8), throughout reminding Israel of original creation (Isa. 45:12; 45:18; 48:7).

    Adam's name is used to speak of humanity in the Old Testament at least 400 times, just as Israel (Jacob's covenant name), is used for the nation of Israel since he fathered them all through the patriarchs. In Luke's genealogy there is a list of begats, ending with Adam, who was not begotten but rather refereed to as 'son of God', indicating special creation.

    Then there is this statement from the Westminster Confession, do note the biblical references:

    Section 1.) It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,(1) for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,(2) in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.(3)
    (1) Heb 1:2; Jn 1:2,3; Ge 1:2; Job 26:13; Job 33:4 (2) Ro 1:20; Jer 10:12; Ps 104:24; Ps 33:5,6 (3) Heb 11:3; Col 1:16; Ac 17:24
    ------------------------------------
    Section 2.) After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female,(1) with reasonable and immortal souls,(2) endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image,(3) having the law of God written in their hearts,(4) and power to fulfill it;(5) and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.(6) Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;(7) which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.(8)
    (1) Ge 1:27 (2) Ge 2:7; Ecc 12:7; Lk 23:43; Mt 10:28 (3) Ge 1:26; Col 3:10; Eph 4:24 (4) Ro 2:14,15 (5) Ecc 7:29 (6) Ge 3:6; Ecc 7:29 (7) Ge 2:17; Ge 3:8,9,10,11,23 (8) Ge 1:26,28. (Westminster Confession, Chapter 4; Sections 1-2)
    Pope Benedict had this to say about Adam being our first parent, as opposed to being part of a larger population:

    37 When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII, 12 August 1950)
    This doctrine is inextricably linked to the incarnation, original sin, and frankly the promise of eternal life through the resurrection. If we are to dismiss the account of the creation of life as allegory and hyperbole what does that say about the weightier matter of eternal life?

    Gallup has kept a running poll on how Americans respond to the question of man being created. While at an all time low, now 38% (down from 44%), it's still a commonly held view in the United States

    [​IMG]

    (In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low. Gallup)

    Notice special creation and the theistic evolutionist views are running neck and neck, while the materialist view has increased by 10% since 1981. As a doctrinal issue I think I have made myself abundantly clear, special creation is essential doctrine inextricably linked to the incarnation, resurrection and the translation of believers at the end of the age. Other opinions abound but as a Biblical doctrine I can offer no spirit of compromise with a Darwinian worldview that would reject the miraculous work of God in the creation of life categorically:

    Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  9. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    With regards to the idea that Adam and Eve did not evolve as a population from pre existing species, and I say this to @RC Tent and @mark kennedy...

    I would say it is intellectually dishonest to reject evolution of mankind, but then accept evolution of any or every other species of animal on earth.

    I think people should either accept the evolution of mankind and all other animal life, or reject the evolution of mankind and all other animal life.

    And this should apply for common descent at large, and the modern synthesis, as opposed to just darwinian evolution.

    Some people take a middle ground and will say "yea I accept that other life evolved from prior species, but mankind is different". The science that supports one, supports both. I think it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. And seems self contradictory to not hold an all or nothing view.
     
  10. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I hold the opposing view, man can be created and evolution starts from there. The same can be said of all living things created as described in Genesis 1. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to demand you accept the Darwinian tree of life, universal common descent, or reject evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon entirely.

    As a matter of fact, creationists are radical evolutionists when you think about how many reptiles, mammals and birds could have fit on the Ark. From those parental first forms we now have anywhere from 2 million to 60 million distinct species, in all their vast array. That's adaptive evolution on a vast scale and in a remarkably short space of time. The logistical problems alone are enough to stagger the imagination but the adaptive radiation itself would have scarred Charles Darwin (a gradualist), to death.
     
  11. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Are you opposed to all forms of common descent or just universal common decent from a single ancestor?

    To be more specific, do you believe say...that mammals evolved from reptiles? Or not?

    I deliberately said "And this should apply for common descent at large, and the modern synthesis, as opposed to just darwinian evolution."

    And yet oddly enough I see you mentioning darwinian evolution and universal common descent. "As opposed to", meaning concepts beyond.

    If someone accepts say, evolution of mammals from reptiles, I would say it's contradictory to suggest that mankind (a mammal) is an exception from all other mammals that evolved from reptiles.

    Because any form of evidence which one might believe supports the theory, applies to mankind as well.

    Perhaps you are the exception though Mark, as last I checked, you seemed to believe that perhaps there are no such things as human transitional fossils and ideas of a like nature.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  12. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    And to demonstrate the above, all someone who supported common descent (with mankind being an exception) would have to do, is point to a line of evidence in favor of common descent of mammals from reptiles, then examine if the same applies to mankind.

    Most people would not have any trouble doing so.
     
  13. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Every family has common descent, Adam had no ancestors.

    No, I don't think so but never really pursued that aspect seriously.

    The Modern Synthesis is Darwinian evolution, thus, aka neodarwinism.

    I'm well aware of the supposed transitional forms, not really interested in pursuing that in this thread since the question was doctrinal. I'm just convinced that apes are being passed off as our ancestors when many of them have much more in common with chimpanzees and other apes.
     
  14. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    And to clarify, I'm not talking about evolution from hadean prokaryotes in a primordial soup, nor am I talking about darwinian gradualism.

    I'm talking about common ancestry of post-Cambrian complex bodied eukaryotic animals and common descent as it pertains to mammals and birds evolving from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians and amphibians from fish, as Michael behe might suggest. Be the evolution through modern synthesis, some sort of guided miracle based evolution or both.

    I think if someone supports these concepts, they would be self contradicting if they didn't apply the same to mankind (logical inconsistency), for the evidence that supports (or doesn't support) one, supports (or doesn't support) both.
     
  15. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    "No, I don't think so but never really pursued that aspect seriously. "

    What does this mean? Have you not had time to look into it, or do you just not care?
     
  16. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Of course I have looked into it, especially amphibians. I have spent the bulk of my time on human evolution from apes because of the abundance of fossils and extensive genomic comparisons. It's also the key doctrinal issue, which by the way, is the actual topic of the thread. I like paleontology to, but that doesn't appear to be the intent of the OP.
     
  17. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    "The Modern Synthesis is Darwinian evolution, thus, aka neodarwinism. "

    There are many other hypothetical means in which evolution might occur. Hence my reference to behe above.

    I would love for you to actually investigate and make claims of your opinion on the evolution of other forms of life beyond just those with respect to mankind. Such as mammal from reptile, or bird from reptile, reptile from amphibian, or amphibian from fish transitions.

    I would love for you to "pursue" those aspects. Until then, I will be left with the impression that your conclusions are incomplete, much in the same way Isaac Newton's were incomplete in a limited scope of investigation.

    Conclusions that are illogical due to a lack of scope.
     
  18. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    For one thing the topuc here is doctrinal and I'm not comfortable dragging this off topic. Secondly, I'm always up for a paleontology debate, used to really enjoy the amphibian fossils. If your interested start a thread and provide a link, I'd be hapoy to participate. It's not often tgat someone is serioys about actual fossils, just let me know when it's up.
     
  19. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Well I don't know where you stand with respect to major transitions beyond those related to mankind.

    But yea, I think it's good for the topic to examine various levels of belief and understanding, even in theistic evolution.
     
  20. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I'm not picky, gotten to be a Paleontology buff over the years but my study and reading on the subject has proven useless in most of these discussions. For some reason getting into the actual fossils is a special challenge in these discussions, I've never really understood that. If you find a period of special interest, like I said, let me know.
     
Loading...