Creation Challenge: Refute it

Professor

Active Member
Dec 31, 2017
39
4
73
Plantation
✟16,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom 1

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What is your intent? From reading the aforementioned thesis paper touching on creation, the paper states from faulty logic that supposes earth existed prior to day 1. Seeing as how the very verses used dismiss the idea, the logic is therefore faulty. Also, since the creation does pertain to Christ in the subsequent days in which earth is to be inhabited, the creation story is an account of that. Please note that the first day begins with the evening, and not at the moment God speaks let there be light. This is even acknowledged in Hebrew tradition and is in accord with the rest of Scriptures. Day 1 begins with (drumroll) the beginning. And what does it say about the beginning? He created the heavens and the earth. Albeit, time is not measurable in the sense you and I think. In the form written, it (time) is fluid and can conform to how the heavens and the earth were shaped accordingly. But the most interesting idea I have ever imagined is that time is always relative to us, because God is outside of time. He even created the sliding scale of night and day upon which all time is measured. As far as explaining the beginning of time and all that, there is only how the Lord describes it, and in ways that we can understand. To comprehend infinity and do calculations accordingly, one would have to understand infinity in a linear fashion and time without beginning and end which of course we ourselves cannot do. The only way to even figure it would be guesswork and statistical graph plots, negative x, y, and z axis which of course is like measuring the existence of dark matter and antimatter against antiprotons while standing on one leg juggling knives while giving a cat a bath. The fact most people overlook are the things that are truly unseen. The sentences that do not exist, and in between verses. The paper assumes that Christians belief in literal interpretation comes from magic when it is not the case. The very fact that there is a beginning, and the Lord established a beginning, but does not include it in Scriptures. He does not say Let there be a beginning. This is only implied in the first sentence, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. All we know is that he established a beginning and created the heavens and earth in it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

PeaceJoyLove

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2017
1,504
1,145
63
Nova Scotia
✟74,422.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The mind of man looks to the literal, five senses perceiving with light by the sun and moon. God's glory fills all in all. God's glory is light (that needs no sun that divides and measures time and seasons) and the lack of that glory is darkness as it relates to (God) consciousness, being internal truth. The Day of the LORD has no literal time measurement, but goes from darkness to light. Our spiritual journey (of soul) starts as being "without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Throughout scripture we are (in reltation to our soul) metaphorically referred to as seas, trees, a garden, the land, a son...and the flesh profiteth nothing for God is spirit and before there was flesh and blood man, there was the spirit (that fills all in all)...)

There are two tellings of creation week. The first is spiritually speaking of the soul (garden) enclosed, still one. The second telling the one became two and Adam named the second (Eve). When they suddenly perceived themselves naked and were ashamed after the eyesight change (being kicked out of the garden they were placed into) God made them a covering of skin...to cover their (perceived) nakedness...

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

To open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

Even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.

When we can 'see'/perceive the glory (light) of God in the image we were made we perceive outside of the dividing and measuring of literal time (by sun and moon) for we are the tree of life and a garden enclosed where all the trees are good (for food) as it was from the beginning that has no end.

There is no conflict with science and the Genesis account of our coming into being...The Day of the LORD, when it comes to pass (within) brings us to singleness of eye (that change that happened in the second telling of creation) for we are a son (no gender implied) as surely as Jesus Christ, the firstborn among many brethren...Alpha and Omega, First and Last Adam, the beginning and the end (of our faith takes us back to the beginning)...

"... and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceJoyLove

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2017
1,504
1,145
63
Nova Scotia
✟74,422.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
To comprehend infinity and do calculations accordingly, one would have to understand infinity in a linear fashion and time without beginning and end which of course we ourselves cannot do.
Man tires to fit it in by measuring and dividing (time) and what can be perceived with the five senses. God's calling light out of the darkness is a spiritual truth as it relates to our soul...and is outside of the confines of linear time and space/place...(The darker the night of the soul, the brighter the light) Darkness and Light (from the Beginning) relate to consciousness to the truth that we have always been...God fills ALL IN ALL...

The only way to even figure it would be guesswork
Man takes thought to figure out that which is immeasurable, creating an image (perception) to worship...what God reveals takes no thought...therein is the difference (perceived) of light and darkness - carnal/spiritual mind...

The paper assumes that Christians belief in literal interpretation comes from magic when it is not the case.
With man it is impossible but with God all things are possible (when we believe it to be so....) And God is supernatural!
 
Upvote 0

GBTG

Active Member
Nov 2, 2017
157
29
48
Luverne
✟14,048.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I had to stop... I only made it to page two. I appreciate your vigor and obvious bias in your belief in this writing. That said you cannot simply make statements like where the Bible and science disagree, obvisouly the Bible wins. This assumption would be fine with the exception that man may be a contributing part to the interpretation/misinterpretation. The science and Bible could agree but man has misunderstood the relationship. What about those things that are not in the Bible but are shown as proof by science? Logic is now lost as a pillar for the argument, unless you account for the relationship to understanding of man. Go back and make a logical account for how much man knows and to what accuracy man knows about the Bible and science. I won’t get into scripture because you won’t give another point of view a legitimate consideration, as demonstrated thus far by your responses. Please correct me if I am wrong?

As this paper appears to be a work in progress, are you here to have people give apposing points of view to update your draft or are you arrogant in your beliefs and just want to argue your correctness, essentially trolling this board?

Regards, GBTG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Professor

Active Member
Dec 31, 2017
39
4
73
Plantation
✟16,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I had to stop... I only made it to page two. I appreciate your vigor and obvious bias in your belief in this writing. That said you cannot simply make statements like where the Bible and science disagree, obvisouly the Bible wins. This assumption would be fine with the exception that man may be a contributing part to the interpretation/misinterpretation. The science and Bible could agree but man has misunderstood the relationship. What about those things that are not in the Bible but are shown as proof by science? Logic is now lost as a pillar for the argument, unless you account for the relationship to understanding of man. Go back and make a logical account for how much man knows and to what accuracy man knows about the Bible and science. I won’t get into scripture because you won’t give another point of view a legitimate consideration, as demonstrated thus far by your responses. Please correct me if I am wrong?

As this paper appears to be a work in progress, are you here to have people give apposing points of view to update your draft or are you arrogant in your beliefs and just want to argue your correctness, essentially trolling this board?

Regards, GBTG


Thank you for your comments. Please provide Scriptural, scientific, and logical support for your opinions.
 
Upvote 0

GBTG

Active Member
Nov 2, 2017
157
29
48
Luverne
✟14,048.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thank you for your comments. Please provide Scriptural, scientific, and logical support for your opinions.

Did you see my questions or is this going to be your standard response regardless?

Regards, GBTG
 
Upvote 0

Professor

Active Member
Dec 31, 2017
39
4
73
Plantation
✟16,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Did you see my questions or is this going to be your standard response regardless?

Regards, GBTG

I appreciate your comments. I would be happy to discuss or debate my commentary with you, but if you stop reading at page 2 what is there to discuss or debate? If you won’t get into scripture then discussion is a dead end. Discussion or debate of my arguments is only fruitful within the framework of literal interpretation. Otherwise, we are discussing whether literal interpretation is valid. That is not within the parameters of my commentary and a distraction from the commentary itself.
 
Upvote 0

GBTG

Active Member
Nov 2, 2017
157
29
48
Luverne
✟14,048.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I appreciate your comments. I would be happy to discuss or debate my commentary with you, but if you stop reading at page 2 what is there to discuss or debate? If you won’t get into scripture then discussion is a dead end. Discussion or debate of my arguments is only fruitful within the framework of literal interpretation. Otherwise, we are discussing whether literal interpretation is valid. That is not within the parameters of my commentary and a distraction from the commentary itself.

I cannot make it past page two as there were significant flaws in your logic and therefore conclusions as expressed. Hence my not continuing with the read. I stated what these were and why I could not use scripture as a point of reference as you have already precluded any other interpretation. It would be beneficial for you to recognize or acknowledge that human understanding literal or otherwise is part of this equation. Unless you presume that anyone of us is the supreme authority on the subject?! So please enlighten me on how you would rectify this, as it is purposefully omitted from your commentary as a mechanism of contention.

Regards, GBTG
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
"The Beginning and the End: A Commentary: Part I - The Beginning" The Beginning and the End: A Commentary. Part I - The Beginning by Wm. Huber :: SSRN. (Draft)

The challenge: Refute it using only the Bible and logic. No "could haves," "maybes," "possiblies," "perhapses," etc.

I agree it (the commentary) is the work of a perfect thought, that from before time was uninterrupted (and came to be interrupted, because of the insistence of the evil one to be heard before the faith - later to refuse to watch or even understand or be understood) such that its purity spoke of both God and the beginning.

Sadly, on medication I am not the help you might have been hoping for - I find explanation of the Bible and the Way of Things in the Words of Jesus, such as one thing to Him speaks both of itself and other things He says or has Said (and I tire quickly of things that for whatever reason revolve around those words - without quoting them).

In deference to reading exhaustively at the moment I prefer to refer to things that speak of the faith concisely - how indeed can you be more concise about an infinite beginning? I think in the end, its a matter of relationships that do not insist they get more time than they need.

There is every possibility that I may come back to this - I will wait for the Holy Spirit, to direct my thoughts.
 
Upvote 0

Professor

Active Member
Dec 31, 2017
39
4
73
Plantation
✟16,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I cannot make it past page two as there were significant flaws in your logic and therefore conclusions as expressed. Hence my not continuing with the read. I stated what these were and why I could not use scripture as a point of reference as you have already precluded any other interpretation. It would be beneficial for you to recognize or acknowledge that human understanding literal or otherwise is part of this equation. Unless you presume that anyone of us is the supreme authority on the subject?! So please enlighten me on how you would rectify this, as it is purposefully omitted from your commentary as a mechanism of contention.

Regards, GBTG

Thank you. This thread is to discuss/debate my arguments and conclusions based on literal interpretation. It is not to discuss/debate literal interpretation. I am not interested in discussing literal interpretation here. That would be for a different thread.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
These apparent rational assumptions based on the laws of nature lack spiritual discernment. All scripture is spiritually discerned. Genesis does not give specific details, but this study is trying to fill the details by scientific analysis. These events could not be analyzed in such a way, since the physical universe, including the sun, moon and earth were created not from physical things or within laws already existing, but from and by an invisible spiritual Supreme being with miraculous powers. I must admit, I only read through the 1st day, but there was too many flaws to bother with the rest.

“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Col. 1:16, 17

“in Him all things consist” or are held together. That means, in Christ, all the elements, forces, from sub –atomic to the out universe is held together IN HIM. Therefore, God is not confined to physical laws, or time which is a physical dimension, nor did He need material to form the earth.

Water requires oxygen, hydrogen and gravity, electromagnetic energy to keep it together, in form. But The Bible claims the earth was without form and void. Void means nothing, it means it didn’t exist. There was no form, nor anything else – that was the point. It was a thought in God’s mind and He spoke it into existence WITHOUT ELEMENTS OR FORCES. He created these things simultaneously as needed within each consecutive day.

“Let there be light” says a bunch. It did not exist in the physical realm. Particles and waves are very complex but physical. Prior to the sun created on Day 4, the light came from the Lord. He just made it visible in the physical realm at that moment. And btw, after He created the sun, moon and stars, the light was given us instantly, it didn’t take billions of years to get to us. If light did not exist prior to when He said, Let there be light, how could any of the stars (that you presume also existed) exist since they give off light. That’s a big one this study overlooked.

The paper addresses water, the surface, the deep, the atoms, heat and gravity as if they were necessary for God to do something with it, as if He needed them prior to Him forming the earth. He created them together.

These claims that heaven and earth weren’t created in Genesis but prior to and God just formed it from things already existing is merely leaning on your own understanding, void of spiritual discernment! It’s not even good scientific thought. But science to this day lacks the knowledge of powers outside the physical realm which they cannot be tested or examined by physical means.

The paper concludes that we do violence to Scripture to suggest that the laws of nature were changed as a result of the Fall or the Flood. This again lacks understanding of SIN itself and the consequences it had on all life and nature. Paradise represents a perfect environment (with the exception of Satan lurking about to tempt us and the potential of sin). Our current laws of nature include the consequences of sin that causes death, distortion, mutations, illnesses, diseases, etc. Paradise did not have death, corruption of any kind until sin came. As far as the conditions prior to the Flood, “… For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.”Gen.2:5
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thank you, MyGivenNameIsKeith, for taking the time to make comments. However, you have not refuted my arguments. You have not offered any scriptural, scientific, or logical evidence to support your opinions.
As other commenters have pointed out, in agreement to my earlier post, your paper uses faulty worldly logic when making assumptions about the scripture. Much in the same way, Satan himself would quote the very Word of God to make points that were ungodly. See Matthew 4:6, or Genesis 3:1. In a manner of speaking, you presume to know infinity prior to the creation of the earth. Then use the very foundation of earth as a template to presume to know what infinity was. I think I made myself quite clear in my prior post. I used several scriptures, used mathematics at a point, and even logic. To be quite honest, the paper wasn't worth the time to read because it speaks of the world. 1 John 4:5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.
You sir are standing as the accuser of God himself. I will not entertain such a platform for discussion. You flat out say the bible is wrong and written wrong. Be humble man.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There are a number of flimsy arguments in the paper, it argues that Scripture cannot contradict science which expresses a preference not a logical principle. It say it can't be proven the earth was originally formless and void which is pointless unless you take a minute and understand what it's really saying. Science tells us the earth was covered in water, a hydrogen rich atmosphere, obviously not suitable for life. The original creation was simply void of life and ill formed for life, the first three days of creation changed that. The only thing more obscure then these empty arguments was the assortment of quotes from Scripture, what they are intended to prove or support is a mystery.

Scripture can contradict the naturally history of Darwinism and always has and always will. That is not an indictment of science or faith but a contest between two presuppositional worldviews. One affirming and the other denying miracles.

There is a link and a couple of sentences challenging us to refute this ill conceived argument. Shouldnt there have been a description and some indication of what it is the OP wants addressed?
 
Upvote 0