Creation Facts In Scripture

[notto]

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?

Speaking of lots of assertions and little proof (notice the red).

You model of creation doesn't match up to creation. If anything is aposty, wouldn't it be claiming that God created in a way that the actual creation shows us he didn't?

I don't think you can equate accepting 200 years of scientific study of the creation trying to debunk the foundations of all scripture. I'm pretty sure that the foundation of Christian scripture has a bit to do with the New Testament.

I have no need to change scripture. I don't believe it is false from a theological point of view so why would I change it?

I think if people really want to turn a country into atheists, just tell them that they shouldn't believe in God if they can't accept rejecting 200 years of good science. That seems to be what your advocating. Don't tell the communists, it would probably be fairly successful.

You seem to be saying that I should not accept science. Sorry, can't do that. Is the best option for Christians like me just to give up our faith? By your reasoning, it would seem to be. If that is the message you are giving to other Christians (or new Christians), I would call that a stumbling block.

 

[Crusadar]

Speaking of lots of assertions and little proof (notice the red).

Nothing more than a denial of history notto, we have seen the teachings of evolution used in the spreading of communism. To deny such fact is to call all historians liars. We all know about Marx and Engles and their spreading of Marxism through evolution teachig so there is really no point in discussing what is historically verifyable - just read the book "China and Charles Darwin" by James Pusey.

 

[Crusadar]

You seem to be saying that I should not accept science. Sorry, can't do that. Is the best option for Christians like me just to give up our faith? By your reasoning, it would seem to be. If that is the message you are giving to other Christians (or new Christians), I would call that a stumbling block.

Christ does demand a lot from His followers doesn't He? One such demand is to stand up on His Word and fight a good fight - only some will fall before others. And besides I'm not telling you to do anything. You are your own man, so you can believe whatever you want even if it means believing that you evolved from a rock. Just stop calling YECs liars.

 

[notto]

Speaking of lots of assertions and little proof (notice the red).

Nothing more than a denial of history notto, we have seen the teachings of evolution used in the spreading of communism. To deny such fact is to call all historians liars. We all know about Marx and Engles and their spreading of Marxism through evolution teachig so there is really no point in discussing what is historically verifyable - just read the book "China and Charles Darwin" by James Pusey.

Umm - social dariwinism is not equal the the scientific theory of evolution.

ALL industrialized countries teach evolution. How come they aren't all communists?

Distortions of evolution as a political tool can't be used to suggest the invalidity of a scientific theory.

 

[Crusadar]

You model of creation doesn't match up to creation. If anything is aposty, wouldn't it be claiming that God created in a way that the actual creation shows us he didn't?

Nay, its only your interpretation of trying to interpret scripture with science that is telling you its wrong, by interpreting science with scripture it tells me something entirely different and more valid.

 

[notto]

Nay, its only your interpretation of trying to interpret scripture with science that is telling you its wrong, by interpreting science with scripture it tells me something entirely different and more valid.

By ignorning the science or physics, geology, and biology, I don't know how it can be more valid.

 

[artybloke]

No, but he does anyways because God speaks truth and science seeks the truth and from time to time they both fall in line.

"Science seeks the truth": well, in a sense. But really, all science is concerned with is "facts." That is, "truths" that can be observed and verified by natural and verifiable means.

What God speaks is eternal truth: that can be discerned and accepted or regected by spiritual means that are unverifiable by scientific method. I doubt very much that God cares if you think that the earth was created in 6 days or not: he does however care that we love one another and he wants to share his love for humanity with us through Christ.

The Bible isn't about science. It's about eternity.

 

[Micaiah]

Umm - social dariwinism is not equal the the scientific theory of evolution.

ALL industrialized countries teach evolution. How come they aren't all communists?

Distortions of evolution as a political tool can't be used to suggest the invalidity of a scientific theory.

We learn about our origins to help provide a basis for the way we think and behave today. If success in life is the result of 'survival of the fittest', then let the fight continue.

It is unfortunate that Christians don't realise the logical implications of their beliefs as well as unbelievers.

 

[artybloke]

We learn about our origins to help provide a basis for the way we think and behave today. If success in life is the result of 'survival of the fittest', then let the fight continue.

Survival of the fittest, in scientific evolutionary terms, does not, and never has, mean "survival of the strongest." Actually, I doubt any contemporary evolutionary scientist would use such a term, because of its association with "social darwinism" (otherwise known as "rampant captitalism.")

Evolutionary theory teaches that what best survives is what fits into its evolutionary niche most easily. So a one-celled animal can survice because its environment hasn't changed, and the same for a crocodile or a coelecanth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We learn about our origins to help provide a basis for the way we think and behave today. If success in life is the result of 'survival of the fittest', then let the fight continue.

It is unfortunate that Christians don't realise the logical implications of their beliefs as well as unbelievers.

no.
science doesn't do values.
people use science to define and create their values, certainly, but it is not doing science but doing metaphysics to do so. it is not that science is value-neutral but rather than values-definition are outside science's domain.

if you'd rather phrase it as human beings as part of their world view build a value system up out of science, but this is using science not doing it.

it is the naturalist fallacy to build oughts from what is.
....

 

[Floodnut]

"Science seeks the truth": well, in a sense. But really, all science is concerned with is "facts." That is, "truths" that can be observed and verified by natural and verifiable means.

What God speaks is eternal truth: that can be discerned and accepted or regected by spiritual means that are unverifiable by scientific method. I doubt very much that God cares if you think that the earth was created in 6 days or not: he does however care that we love one another and he wants to share his love for humanity with us through Christ.

The Bible isn't about science. It's about eternity.

I am glad that Arty is still able to trust what the Bible says about the future. We have to trust the Bible because no one has been to the future to tell us about it, except maybe the prophets and John.

I choose to trust what the Bible says about the past, since none of us has ever been clear back to the beginning, except maybe the prophets and Moses.

 

[artybloke]

I am glad that Arty is still able to trust what the Bible says about the future.

I have no interest whatsover in pre-millenial, post-millenial or any millenial speculations, or using the Bible as a form of divination. The Bible no more predicts the future than it says anything about science.

It's about the eternal truths of our relationship with God and with each other in Christ. That is its purpose; it's about the eternal now of God's love, not yesterday or tomorrow.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Arty as usual is the voice of rationality on here.

And Crusadar, as usual, belittling the faith of the TEs.

Why do you think I don't post much here? I'm fed up of being told I "don't believe God", "don't believe the Bible", "lack faith", "compromise", "value fallible men over the inspired Scripture" and all the other barely veiled attacks on the validity of my faith that emenate from the Creationist side. There's only so long I will put up with this slander and insulting defamation, and that time has long past. You can stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

[Floodnut]

I have no interest whatsover in pre-millenial, post-millenial or any millenial speculations, or using the Bible as a form of divination. The Bible no more predicts the future than it says anything about science.

It's about the eternal truths of our relationship with God and with each other in Christ. That is its purpose; it's about the eternal now of God's love, not yesterday or tomorrow.

Like I said, I am glad Arty is able to take God at his word when it comes to invisible realities, "eternal truths" even though the rest of the Book is unreliable, he can somehow manage to trust the Scriptures on inviisible realities.

 

[ebia]

Like I said, I am glad Arty is able to take God at his word when it comes to invisible realities, "eternal truths" even though the rest of the Book is unreliable, he can somehow manage to trust the Scriptures on inviisible realities.

I can't speak for artybloke, but I trust the scriptures to be accurate when it comes to talking about what they are meant to talk about - our relationship to God. Whether or not they are accurate on some other subject, say, the value of Pi, is completely irrelevent.

I don't write off a science book because it sometimes gets the punctation wrong, a maths textbook because the author makes mistakes about history or the way cities are laid out in other countries, or a computer manual because someone early on in the history of computing decided to pretend 1000 is the same as 1024. None of those affect the usefulness of the books for their intended purpose.

The purpose of the bible isn't to teach history, to teach maths, or to teach science, so the fact that isn't literally accurate in 20th century terms in all three is completely irrelevent to its accuracy in theology.

 

[Micaiah]

I can't speak for artybloke, but I trust the scriptures to be accurate when it comes to talking about what they are meant to talk about - our relationship to God. Whether or not they are accurate on some other subject, say, the value of Pi, is completely irrelevent.

I don't write off a science book because it sometimes gets the punctation wrong, a maths textbook because the author makes mistakes about history or the way cities are laid out in other countries, or a computer manual because someone early on in the history of computing decided to pretend 1000 is the same as 1024. None of those affect the usefulness of the books for their intended purpose.

The purpose of the bible isn't to teach history, to teach maths, or to teach science, so the fact that isn't literally accurate in 20th century terms in all three is completely irrelevent to its accuracy in theology.

We apparently all agree on the following:

The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references as it is based on the Bible)


We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

The creed asserts that Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit in a virgin called Mary. Jesus was crucified under a man called Pilate and suffered and was buried. He rose again on the third day. These statements are founded on actual historical events and people.

If you don't trust the historicity of Scripture on other matters, why trust the historicity regarding the virgin birth and the resurrection. There are liberals who would question these statements of historical fact asserted in Scripture.

As stated previously, it is just as well some TE's at least do not follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions.​

 

[ebia]

We apparently all agree on the following:

The creed asserts that Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit in a virgin called Mary. Jesus was crucified under a man called Pilate and suffered and was buried. He rose again on the third day. These statements are founded on actual historical events and people.


If you don't trust the historicity of Scripture on other matters, why trust the historicity regarding the virgin birth and the resurrection.​

1. Because they have theological value that is dependent on their being factually accurate. The Creation Myth's theological value is independent of it's factual accuracy.

But far more importantly:
2. Because they have not been demonstrated to factually inaccurate. Creation itself tells us that the Creation Myth is not factually accurate. Nothing tells us that the Resurection story or the Incarnation story are factually inaccurate.

As stated previously, it is just as well some TE's at least do not follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions.

The logical conclusion of my beliefs is that things that can be easily show to not have happened, didn't happen. Especially if it doesn't matter whether they happened or not. That does not lead me to deny the incarnation story or the resurrection story.

 

[Micaiah]

The logical conclusion of my beliefs is that things that can be easily show to not have happened, didn't happen. Especially if it doesn't matter whether they happened or not. That does not lead me to deny the incarnation story or the resurrection story.

I think that pretty much sums up the approach of many TE's though most don't want to admit it so frankly. You'll go along with what the 'intellectual community' says as long as it doesn't alter the important theological truths of Scripture too much.

Again you have not addressed the issue that improtant theological truths are founded in actual events and real people, which the same 'intellectual community' dismiss as nonsense.

The general consensus of the experts is that the resurrection did not happen. God Himself says that from a human perspective, the story is foolishness.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Why did God choose to use the crucifixion of Christ as the means of bringing salvation to the human race. One of the important reasons was that He wanted to use events that the wise of this world would dismiss as folly. He wanted something that would require humility and faith to accept and embrace. This message doesn't require a profound intellect to grasp its significance. It is for the sinner with the humility too own his worthlessness in God's sight, and reach out and receive God's help.

Could the same be said about Creation. To some the story seems too simplistic to be real. Perhaps God created our world as plainly described in Genesis so that those with the humility and faith to receive His word would be given the most profound insight into our origins and the most pervasive and perplexing problems faced by the human soul. At the same time the 'wise of this world' would pass over it as mere foolishness.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

snip snip to address a single point


Why did God choose to use the crucifixion of Christ as the means of bringing salvation to the human race. One of the important reasons was that He wanted to use events that the wise of this world would dismiss as folly. He wanted something that would require humility and faith to accept and embrace. This message doesn't require a profound intellect to grasp its significance. It is for the sinner with the humility too own his worthlessness in God's sight, and reach out and receive God's help.

Could the same be said about Creation. To some the story seems too simplistic to be real. Perhaps God created our world as plainly described in Genesis so that those with the humility and faith to receive His word would be given the most profound insight into our origins and the most pervasive and perplexing problems faced by the human soul. At the same time the 'wise of this world' would pass over it as mere foolishness.

This is an excellent example of how the concept of faith changed over the last 200 years as it encountered science that seemed to contradict traditional understandings of the Bible.

Essentially what you are saying is that Christianity is irrational, faith is irrational and furthermore that the more you believe in irrational and unreasonable things the more your faith is being used. This represents an enormous departure from historical Christianity which teaches that the resurrection is not irrational but extrarational, not against reason but too high for reason to fully grasp.

The YECist propose to believe in an irrational faith that contradicts the evidence of their eyes. That the world is very young despite all the evidences that it truely is very old. And like this posting do so on the mistaken grounds that this is the exercise of faithfulness to God. To believe 3 impossible things before breakfast. What it actually is, is the acceptance of a two storey theory, that the spiritual realm and the physical realm are distinct, that faith being superior to reason is also opposed to it.

The foolishness of God is not irrationality, it is not that God is deceiving us with a universe created with the appearance of age, it is not simply that our eyes deceive us and we are to ignore the evidence before us. It is the foolishness to claim that reason and man's wisdom are sufficient to understand the Creator of the Universe and His ways. It is that it is foolish to claim that the transcendent God cares enough to become man. YECism misses the point that God's dealings with man are not irrational and inaccessible to reason but that God's foolishness exceeds that grasp of even the wisest man. It is not that the wise of science is worthless, it is that it will never be enough. That man's arms no matter how long we think they may be will never reach to God, that He has to reach down from heaven to pick us up.

And that is the folly of YECist, to discard the wisdom of the world, thinking it worthless rather than thinking it defective and in need of enlightenment from above. Rather than engaging with culture it is the continuing desire to flee from and to hide from culture or science because they are unable to meet it's claims.

It is sad and is half of a fully Biblical faith, hiding behind a serious anti-intellectualism and a deprecated view of reason and it's relationship to faith. Go ahead claim that the world is 6K years old and that believing this impossible thing is equivalent to believing that Jesus is God incarnate and suffered on the Cross. Conflate your mistaken exegesis of Genesis with the Gospel itself and drive anyone with 1/2 a brain out of the Church because they dare to think. As for me, i will continue to dedicate all that God has gifted me, intellect as well as will to service in engaging the world and understanding what great things God has done in history and in the physical world, to be grateful for all of His great gifts, including the ability to read the book of works.



....

 

[Crusadar]

And Crusadar, as usual, belittling the faith of the TEs.

Faith in what - the power of evolution or the creative genius of God? It is the former that I attack. And thanks, I like to think that I am doing my job.