Creation Challenge: Refute it

Professor · Jan 8, 2018

mark kennedy said:
The time from the original creation until the start of creation week. It might hwvevbeen minutes, it might have been billions of years later.

Original creation? Heresy! Heresy! Book of Enoch again? Get the torches and pitchforks! LOL.

Original creation? How can you actually be silly enough to assert there was an original creation and then say "the age of the sphere we inhabit is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation?" That is just silly. Do you even listen to yourself?

"God created life after making the earth suitable for life," is exactly what I said. Oh, that's right. You didn't read it. Nevertheless, you would do well to take the Bible as it is written, not to inject your beliefs into it.

mark kennedy said:
The paper is flawed and has little, if anything to do with Scripture. If you want to comment on what sacred text says actually learn something about it before you start pontificating. Some Christians actually know their own Scriptures.

Considering you admit you didn't read it you are unqualified to say it is flawed. You really to need to learn your Bible better.

Professor · Jan 8, 2018

Denadii said:
When was Satan cast down to Earth?

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

mark kennedy · Jan 8, 2018

Professor said:
Original creation? Heresy! Heresy! Book of Enoch again? Get the torches and pitchforks! LOL.

Original creation? How can you actually be silly enough to assert there was an original creation and then say "the age of the sphere we inhabit is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation?" That is just silly. Do you even listen to yourself?

"God created life after making the earth suitable for life," is exactly what I said. Oh, that's right. You didn't read it. Nevertheless, you would do well to take the Bible as it is written, not to inject your beliefs into it.

Considering you admit you didn't read it you are unqualified to say it is flawed. You really to need to learn your Bible better.

Unlike you I'm basing my view on the text itself, all the first sentence says is God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. That is a stand alone account, it's the first of ten accounts, Creation week is a second account. It might have immediately followed the original creation and it might have been billions of years. You will find that the term creation is used five times in Genesis 1, once for the creation of the universe, once for life in general and three times for the creation of Adam and Eve. That is a simple fact concerning the text, an indisputable one.

Professor · Jan 8, 2018

MyGivenNameIsKeith said:
I am saying: There is no Day 0.

My goodness, man. Can't you read? I never said there was a day 0. It is a literary device, a metaphor. The first paragraph fully explains that. "Day 0 is designated here as the time immediately preceding the first day; i.e., immediately prior to (such as one 'day' or even one second before) the time it is written God said, 'Let there be light.'”

MyGivenNameIsKeith said:
Nothing is created prior to it being created. No water, no earth, no heavens.

Wait! Are you saying nothing exists before it exists? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

MyGivenNameIsKeith said:
On Day 1, he creates the heavens and the earth, and all the elements thereof, and begins his work.

You have inverted the chronology and sequence revealed by God about what He did and when. Probably not a good idea.

MyGivenNameIsKeith said:
There is a reason why it is not said "Let there be light" until Genesis 1:3.
"Let there be light" was not the first creative act. God does not need to tell you how he did it, but he does divulge the fact that he did, and that it occurred on Day 1.
If it happened on a "Day 0", then that would be "Day 1" wouldn't it?

My goodness! You're agreeing with me again! Stop it! LOL.

"Let there be light" is not the first creative act. Thus, something happened before the first creative act of God forming the earth to be inhabitable. Whatever, whenever that act occurred, it resulted in water being on the earth before He said "Let there be light."

jhwatts · Jan 8, 2018

Professor said:
Original creation? Heresy! Heresy! Book of Enoch again? Get the torches and pitchforks! LOL.

You can always go to Romans 1: 20-32 for a Biblical perspective of the things that transpired at the original creation. In particular, the book of Enoch really helps to build a more vivid picture of Romans 1:23. Many New and Old Testament writers knew of the things that transpired then. There are many examples.

Its interesting that in Jude, Enoch is defined as 7th from Adam. This makes him a son of God rather than a son of man.

Food for thought. Why was Christ referred to as son of man some times and son of God at others?

Hmmmmm. Very interesting.

There are two creations.

Daniel Marsh · Jan 9, 2018

The word study fallacies alone kept putting me to sleep

MyGivenNameIsKeith · Jan 9, 2018

jhwatts said:
You can always go to Romans 1: 20-32 for a Biblical perspective of the things that transpired at the original creation. In particular, the book of Enoch really helps to build a more vivid picture of Romans 1:23. Many New and Old Testament writers knew of the things that transpired then. There are many examples.

Its interesting that in Jude, Enoch is defined as 7th from Adam. This makes him a son of God rather than a son of man.

Food for thought. Why was Christ referred to as son of man some times and son of God at others?

Hmmmmm. Very interesting.

There are two creations.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Deuteronomy 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

mark kennedy · Jan 9, 2018

jhwatts said:
You can always go to Romans 1: 20-32 for a Biblical perspective of the things that transpired at the original creation. In particular, the book of Enoch really helps to build a more vivid picture of Romans 1:23. Many New and Old Testament writers knew of the things that transpired then. There are many examples.

Its interesting that in Jude, Enoch is defined as 7th from Adam. This makes him a son of God rather than a son of man.

Food for thought. Why was Christ referred to as son of man some times and son of God at others?

Hmmmmm. Very interesting.

There are two creations.

Adam was referred to as son of God in Luke's genealogy. Its because he was created having no earthly parents. Son of man, Jesus favorite way to describe himself emphasises his humanity.

mark kennedy · Jan 9, 2018

You

Daniel Marsh said:
The word study fallacies alone kept putting me to sleep

It's a worthwhile study if you do it right.

Professor · Jan 12, 2018

jhwatts said:
You can always go to Romans 1: 20-32 for a Biblical perspective of the things that transpired at the original creation. In particular, the book of Enoch really helps to build a more vivid picture of Romans 1:23. Many New and Old Testament writers knew of the things that transpired then. There are many examples.

Yes, of course. I probably should have used "The First Book of Adam and Eve." I was using it to emphasize the complete absurdity of his argument.

Think like Christ · Jan 12, 2018

Professor said:
"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.

How about refuting it with science?

The science is clear, man evolved from "lower" species, the human genome confirms this.

Phil 1:21 · Jan 12, 2018

GBTG said:
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?

I feel it safe to say we have our answer now.

jhwatts · Jan 12, 2018

Professor said:
Yes, of course. I probably should have used "The First Book of Adam and Eve." I was using it to emphasize the complete absurdity of his argument.

A lot of people disregard the Book on Enoch. Certain pieces of it are true and there are plenty of things from it that are in the Bible. That being said, there things in the copies we have today that are not in the original. There is a lot of ad lib in what we have today.

Most people don't realize that those verse in Romans 1 is referring to things that occurred very early in earths history and are the things in the Book of Enoch.

jhwatts · Jan 12, 2018

Think like Christ said:
How about refuting it with science?

The science is clear, man evolved from "lower" species, the human genome confirms this.

How, specifically has the human genome confirmed evolution?

Professor · Jan 17, 2018

Think like Christ said:
How about refuting it with science?

The science is clear, man evolved from "lower" species, the human genome confirms this.

Science refuting Scripture is not that interesting to me.

oOKnights TemplarOo · Jan 17, 2018

Galileo Galilei wrote: The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. The Bible is not a scientific text book. What the inspired writers received was what they would be able to put into words that could be understood by their contemporaries.

miamited · Jan 18, 2018

Hi knightstemplar,

You wrote:

oOKnights TemplarOo said:
What the inspired writers received was what they would be able to put into words that could be understood by their contemporaries.

If that were the case, would they not have understood Daniel's prophecy in his writings of the 70 weeks? I'm not so much in agreement that God only revealed to those chosen to write His oracles things which the contemporaries of the writer would have understood. I think God's filter in any of the inspirational writing of His prophets was simply defined by what God wanted us to know.

I do, however, understand that your thoughts on this are accepted as truth by many who are enjoined with the various 'christian' fellowships. I'm just not sure that the accepted truth regarding this matter is really 'the truth' of the matter. Quite frankly, if we look at how some of the prophecies unfolded and how little prepared the people of those days seem to have been prepared for the prophecies and understood them as they were unfolding, I'm fairly convinced that there were a lot of things that God revealed that the people of those days didn't comprehend and understand.

Even today, and certainly in the days that Jesus walked among us, the Jews, God's chosen people who should have understood what their own 'contemporary' prophets had written don't seem to agree that Jesus is the Messiah of their God. How would this be if the prophets had only written as their contemporaries understood?

So, the theory certainly sounds good as it rolls off the tongue and just sounds so wise, but I'm not sure it's true. God spoke through Isaiah, "The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” Even God seems to have seen that His own people really had no understanding of what was being revealed to them through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to God's people. When Jesus finally arrived, Israel showed the entire world that they didn't have any understanding of the things that God had revealed to them through His prophets.

So, while I'm sure that Galileo was a wise man in his day, I'm not sure that this particular quote from him was one of his wisest, or truthful, moments. A lot of wise people say a lot of 'wise' things about God. A lot of very important people, as the world ranks importance, say a lot of 'wise' things about God. But, are they true?

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

oOKnights TemplarOo · Jan 18, 2018

miamited said:
Hi knightstemplar,

You wrote:

If that were the case, would they not have understood Daniel's prophecy in his writings of the 70 weeks? I'm not so much in agreement that God only revealed to those chosen to write His oracles things which the contemporaries of the writer would have understood. I think God's filter in any of the inspirational writing of His prophets was simply defined by what God wanted us to know.

I do, however, understand that your thoughts on this are accepted as truth by many who are enjoined with the various 'christian' fellowships. I'm just not sure that the accepted truth regarding this matter is really 'the truth' of the matter. Quite frankly, if we look at how some of the prophecies unfolded and how little prepared the people of those days seem to have been prepared for the prophecies and understood them as they were unfolding, I'm fairly convinced that there were a lot of things that God revealed that the people of those days didn't comprehend and understand.

Even today, and certainly in the days that Jesus walked among us, the Jews, God's chosen people who should have understood what their own 'contemporary' prophets had written don't seem to agree that Jesus is the Messiah of their God. How would this be if the prophets had only written as their contemporaries understood?

So, the theory certainly sounds good as it rolls off the tongue and just sounds so wise, but I'm not sure it's true. God spoke through Isaiah, "The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” Even God seems to have seen that His own people really had no understanding of what was being revealed to them through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to God's people. When Jesus finally arrived, Israel showed the entire world that they didn't have any understanding of the things that God had revealed to them through His prophets.

So, while I'm sure that Galileo was a wise man in his day, I'm not sure that this particular quote from him was one of his wisest, or truthful, moments. A lot of wise people say a lot of 'wise' things about God. A lot of very important people, as the world ranks importance, say a lot of 'wise' things about God. But, are they true?

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

It is to be noted that Modern Science did not really manifest until towards the end of the Middle Ages. Some 4,600 years after "The Book of Moses." The title "Genesis" was written.

The Bible. It is the Holy Spirit inspired written record of God's master plan for man's salvation.

The art and science of Biblical interpretation. The "science" involves study of the ancient languages and the individual words in which a Biblical passage is written. The art involves unfolding the significance of a passage by discerning what the inspired writer intended to convey to the reader, taking into consideration the historical period, the culture of the times, and information within the entire context of the text. (What the inspired writers received was what they would be able to put into words that could be understood by their contemporaries.)

The ancients would have no concept in understanding modern scientific method or Scientific literature.
This being Galileo's point. As for your views on him. You are entitled to your opinion.

oOKnights TemplarOo · Jan 18, 2018

miamited said:
Hi knightstemplar,

You wrote:

If that were the case, would they not have understood Daniel's prophecy in his writings of the 70 weeks? I'm not so much in agreement that God only revealed to those chosen to write His oracles things which the contemporaries of the writer would have understood. I think God's filter in any of the inspirational writing of His prophets was simply defined by what God wanted us to know.

I do, however, understand that your thoughts on this are accepted as truth by many who are enjoined with the various 'christian' fellowships. I'm just not sure that the accepted truth regarding this matter is really 'the truth' of the matter. Quite frankly, if we look at how some of the prophecies unfolded and how little prepared the people of those days seem to have been prepared for the prophecies and understood them as they were unfolding, I'm fairly convinced that there were a lot of things that God revealed that the people of those days didn't comprehend and understand.

Even today, and certainly in the days that Jesus walked among us, the Jews, God's chosen people who should have understood what their own 'contemporary' prophets had written don't seem to agree that Jesus is the Messiah of their God. How would this be if the prophets had only written as their contemporaries understood?

So, the theory certainly sounds good as it rolls off the tongue and just sounds so wise, but I'm not sure it's true. God spoke through Isaiah, "The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” Even God seems to have seen that His own people really had no understanding of what was being revealed to them through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to God's people. When Jesus finally arrived, Israel showed the entire world that they didn't have any understanding of the things that God had revealed to them through His prophets.

So, while I'm sure that Galileo was a wise man in his day, I'm not sure that this particular quote from him was one of his wisest, or truthful, moments. A lot of wise people say a lot of 'wise' things about God. A lot of very important people, as the world ranks importance, say a lot of 'wise' things about God. But, are they true?

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

It is to be noted that Modern Science did not really manifest until towards the end of the Middle Ages. Some 4,600 years after "The Book of Moses." The title "Genesis" was written.

The Bible. It is the Holy Spirit inspired written record of God's master plan for man's salvation.

The art and science of Biblical interpretation. The "science" involves study of the ancient languages and the individual words in which a Biblical passage is written. The art involves unfolding the significance of a passage by discerning what the inspired writer intended to convey to the reader, taking into consideration the historical period, the culture of the times, and information within the entire context of the text. (What the inspired writers received was what they would be able to put into words that could be understood by their contemporaries.)

The ancients would have no concept in understanding modern scientific method or Scientific literature.
This being Galileo's point. As for your views on him. You are entitled to your opinion.

miamited · Jan 18, 2018

Hi knightstemplar,

Thanks for your response. You replied:

oOKnights TemplarOo said:
The Bible. It is the Holy Spirit inspired written record of God's master plan for man's salvation.

It certainly does. However, that isn't the whole of the Scriptures. There is a lot of historical and prophetic accounts that have nothing to do with God's plan of salvation. My point, however, was that there are quite a few places where we find that some of the things written, don't appear to have been understood by the contemporaries of the writers. According to your quote of Galileo, he seems to have believed that it was. While that may be a good claim of the Scriptures, you certainly couldn't prove it by the Scriptures. Through the words of His prophet Isaiah, God Himself decried Israel's lack of understanding.

oOKnights TemplarOo said:
The ancients would have no concept in understanding modern scientific method or Scientific literature.
This being Galileo's point.

Personally, I don't see how you arrive here:

oOKnights TemplarOo said:
What the inspired writers received was what they would be able to put into words that could be understood by their contemporaries.

From there. However, I do fully agree that not only is each one allowed their own opinion, but most people even have their own truth.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Creation Challenge: Refute it

Active Member

Active Member

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ted

Active Member

Active Member

Ted

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency