Creation Facts In Scripture

[Micaiah]

I get the impression that some people believe that God is incapable of imparting true historical and scientific facts in Scripture through human authors.

People who accept that Genesis is a historical account of Creation believe that if God chooses to, He is supremely qualified to make such statements about Creation. We see no reason why the first humans could not appreciate the simple, clear facts communicated in Genesis about Creation.

 

[Critias]

I think TEs believe God could impart historical accounts to us, but chose not to. I think they have taken this position, not because of Scripture, but because of science.

I have seen a TE state that they view Scripture in the light of science. I think this is rather sad because this appears to be a concious effort to see Scripture in the light of what scientists say about this world. Scientists are not just limited to the biological field, but also into archaeology.

A while back, archaeologist had no evidence that a certain city in the Bible ever actually existed. A TE then, would reject the teaching in the Bible of this city actually being a real city. Some time later, the city was found, the city of the Hittites.

Their acceptance of Scripture is reliant on whether or not science accepts it. But, it seems there is one exception to this, that is when Jesus is literally involved. They accept most things that involve Jesus Christ. What they forget is that it is through Jesus Christ that all things were made, it is by Jesus Christ that we have the Word of God to be able to read and come into fellowship with Jesus.

I do not think it is a matter of TEs and their salvation, but rather about their carelessness with Scripture and only accept many things if science accepts it. Of course we are talking about history, archaeology and geology, not theology.

 

[notto]

A TE then, would reject the teaching in the Bible of this city actually being a real city.

What makes you say this? Unless the cities existence was falsified, a TE would certainly not reject its existance.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

You seem to be saying a lot about what TE's would do. Why don't you just ask them, instead of making insinuations that are not true.

 

[Critias]

What makes you say this? Unless the cities existence was falsified, a TE would certainly not reject its existance.

You would reject until proven. This is the same thing you do today, saying there is no evidence for creation in six days. There was no evidence that the city of the Hittites every existed before it was found, using the Bible.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

You seem to be saying a lot about what TE's would do. Why don't you just ask them, instead of making insinuations that are not true.

TEs usual point is absense of evidence when concerning a six day creation.

You have all said, God did not create in six 24 hour days.

So, Notto, did God create in six 24 hour days?

 

[notto]

You would reject until proven. This is the same thing you do today, saying there is no evidence for creation in six days. There was no evidence that the city of the Hittites every existed before it was found, using the Bible.

No, this points out a clear misunderstanding on your part.

I don't reject young earth creationism due to lack of evidence, I reject it because it has been falsified by existing evidence in the creation itself.

I couldn't say if a city exists one way or another unless there was evidence one way or another.

I wouldn't reject it until proven - I would tenatively accept it until disproven. That is a slight, but important distinction.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have seen a TE state that they view Scripture in the light of science. I think this is rather sad because this appears to be a concious effort to see Scripture in the light of what scientists say about this world. Scientists are not just limited to the biological field, but also into archaeology.

if i get out a Hebrew dictionary and look up the meaning of the word bara, am i putting that dictionary above Scripture?
if i get out an atlas of the Holy Land and look at the maps of the archeology of Jerusalem and see how the procession in Nehemiah went around the city, am i elevating that atlas above Scripture?

if i read the geneologies of Genesis and look at the book of Creation in order to see how old the world is, am i elevating Creation above the book of Scripture?

no. in all cases. i am trying to understand Scripture, to do so i use all available information the best i can. The YECist claim that the earth and the universe is less than 10K years old has been falsified for 200 years. In the same way i know that the earth is spherical and it revolves around the Sun, that the stars are very distant and are not all the same distance from the earth, that hell is not beneath my feet nor heaven above it.

In order to understand the Bible i must use information from the world around me, the relationship of that information to the Scriptures is as a helper, not as a ruler. The difference between reason as magisterial and ministerial.


.....

 

[Micaiah]

Can a TE tell me if they believe God could if He wanted communicate scientific and historical truth in Scripture?

 

[Critias]

No, this points out a clear misunderstanding on your part.

I don't reject young earth creationism due to lack of evidence, I reject it because it has been falsified by existing evidence in the creation itself.

Talk about misrepresentations. I said the world created in six days, not a young earth. That is another subject. So, where is a six day creation falsified?

I couldn't say if a city exists one way or another unless there was evidence one way or another.

I wouldn't reject it until proven - I would tenatively accept it until disproven. That is a slight, but important distinction.

You have rejected a six day creation, have you not?

 

[Critias]

if i get out a Hebrew dictionary and look up the meaning of the word bara, am i putting that dictionary above Scripture?

It would be if you rejected what bara meant.

if i get out an atlas of the Holy Land and look at the maps of the archeology of Jerusalem and see how the procession in Nehemiah went around the city, am i elevating that atlas above Scripture?

You would be if you rejected the Bible because of a modern view of an atlas compared to an ancient view of what the boundries were.

if i read the geneologies of Genesis and look at the book of Creation in order to see how old the world is, am i elevating Creation above the book of Scripture?

no. in all cases. i am trying to understand Scripture, to do so i use all available information the best i can. The YECist claim that the earth and the universe is less than 10K years old has been falsified for 200 years. In the same way i know that the earth is spherical and it revolves around the Sun, that the stars are very distant and are not all the same distance from the earth, that hell is not beneath my feet nor heaven above it.

In order to understand the Bible i must use information from the world around me, the relationship of that information to the Scriptures is as a helper, not as a ruler. The difference between reason as magisterial and ministerial.


.....

In order to understand the Bible, you need not know of the world, you need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and have the Holy Spirit teach you.

Do you think people in the second century were taught wrongly about the Scripture because they didn't have today's science? That we are dependent on man to understand Scripture?

 

[notto]

Talk about misrepresentations. I said the world created in six days, not a young earth. That is another subject. So, where is a six day creation falsified?

Well, we know that the earth wasn't created within six days of the rest of the universe. That would be a start. We know that man was not around when animals first came to be and we know that animals were not around when plants first came to be. We know the sun didn't come after the earth. The literall six day creation as outlined in scripture is falsified.

I't kind of hard to measure a day before the earth and sun system even exists.

You have rejected a six day creation, have you not?

Yes, because it has been falsified.

 

[notto]

Can a TE tell me if they believe God could if He wanted communicate scientific and historical truth in Scripture?

Probably, but by using terms like 'windows of heaven', and failing to mention the other planets at all or clarifying the position and behavior of the sun and earth, it would seem that a few scientific details were left out for us to determine later.

What exactly is a 'window of heaven'? Is that where rain comes from? Is heaven above the clouds?

 

[Micaiah]

Okay, so we agree that if God created the world in six literal days there is no reason why he couldn't communicate this plainly and clearly to humanity.

 

[Critias]

Well, we know that the earth wasn't created within six days of the rest of the universe. That would be a start. We know that man was not around when animals first came to be and we know that animals were not around when plants first came to be. We know the sun didn't come after the earth. The literall six day creation as outlined in scripture is falsified.

I't kind of hard to measure a day before the earth and sun system even exists.


Yes, because it has been falsified.

I see. Do we have evidence that shows a single cell organism evolving into a man?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I see. Do we have evidence that shows a single cell organism evolving into a man?

that really is too big of a chunk to grasp or to discuss.
and it really isn't the issue that is important.
the big issue is if human beings are a unique creation separate from the rest of living things or if we are continuous in some very significant physical ways.

be honest, it doesn't really matter to most YECists if all living creatures have a common ancestor as long as mankind is that unique "from dust" bara creation. Without antecedents physically in the great apes, for instance. This is what really matters and it is the real difference between OEC and TE when everything else is examined.

concentrate on that issue, see how human beings are physically continuous with chimps for instance. look at the data and see that God's creation teaches that man's uniqueness must exist only at the spiritual level, not at all at the physical level where we share a common ancestor with the great apes.


...

 

[mixin machine]

Okay, so we agree that if God created the world in six literal days there is no reason why he couldn't communicate this plainly and clearly to humanity.

Of course God can communicate that plainly and clearly. But is a 6 day creation really that important of a point for everyone to get bent out of shape about. It has no spiritual significance whatsoever. I read in a post recently where someone said yec's are fools!!! Now isn't there a scripture about calling someone a fool? Anyways Does God need to prove to us anything by backing it up with science? No, but he does anyways because God speaks truth and science seeks the truth and from time to time they both fall in line. Sorry Micaiah for replying to your post, I know you wanted a response from a TE, and I'm not.

 

[Critias]

that really is too big of a chunk to grasp or to discuss.
and it really isn't the issue that is important.
the big issue is if human beings are a unique creation separate from the rest of living things or if we are continuous in some very significant physical ways.

I agree it is a large topic, but there has been no observable evidence to support the assertion that a single celled bacterial organism evolves into a human being over time.

I wouldn't need Genesis to support that human beings are unique. I would just point to what Jesus did and for whom.

be honest, it doesn't really matter to most YECists if all living creatures have a common ancestor as long as mankind is that unique "from dust" bara creation. Without antecedents physically in the great apes, for instance. This is what really matters and it is the real difference between OEC and TE when everything else is examined.

I will be honest, as I have been, and this is just not the case. The Bible teaches something different than all animals and man coming from one single celled organism and evolving over a great amount of time into what we are see today.

concentrate on that issue, see how human beings are physically continuous with chimps for instance. look at the data and see that God's creation teaches that man's uniqueness must exist only at the spiritual level, not at all at the physical level where we share a common ancestor with the great apes.


...

Man's uniqueness exists in more than just the spiritual level. I would hope that you can see differences between man and apes.

I don't accept the teaching that we descended from the great ancestors of the apes. I accept that God created man from the dust of the earth by His Word on the six day, giving Him a living soul.

We just disagree and no matter what anyone of us says, neither of us will be convinced by the other. What would convince me, is if you can show me where I am wrong with the Bible; where the Bible supports the assertion of evolution. Since it does not, I remain unconvinced by your sides arguments.

 

[billwald]

God could also have taught quantum mechanics in Genesis. To what end? Would it have helped Adam to know about abiogenesis and evolution?

 

[Crusadar]

The YECist claim that the earth and the universe is less than 10K years old has been falsified for 200 years.

It is what scripture plainly teaches so no amount of TE babble will ever change that fact. It was not that it was falsified, only abandoned as many continue to do today because it was the easier route. Rather than stand up and fight, TEs have surrendered to the enemy.

But don't worry, where TEs have given up YECs will continue to uphold the authority of God's word from beginning to end.

 

[Micaiah]

If Genesis 1 is fact, it rules out the idea that we evolved. Evolution undermines the clear teaching of Scriptue that sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience. Theistic evolution implies God said the process of evolution was good, and that sickness and suffering were a part of the His creation which He pronounced as good.

The inspired statements regarding Creation have important theological implications.

 

[Crusadar]

Well, we know that the earth wasn't created within six days of the rest of the universe. That would be a start. We know that man was not around when animals first came to be and we know that animals were not around when plants first came to be. We know the sun didn't come after the earth. The literall six day creation as outlined in scripture is falsified.

Wow! your pretty close to apostasy notto, the very first step into disbelief is by debunking the foundation of all scripture. That is how communists regimes do it you know when they want to turn a country into an atheistic socialist country - they don't debunk Christ and the virgin birth - they start teaching evolution to its citizens, once you have done away with God as creator, the rest is easy pickins.

Other than lots of assertions and little proof you have really said nothing worth mentioning. But really do you know why creation was in that order? Because that's how God created it - just to make evolution look silly! If you disagree why not change Scripture to meet your needs as oppose to continue using something that you know is false?