Creationism and Theology

[Jamsie]

I fail to understand why you contend that God does not have a metaphysical nature. It that is one of the arguments evolutionists have that a spiritual force cannot effect physical matter. God lives in a universe that transcends the physical properties of the matter we see, He his the highest form of matter therefore He created the matter in our universe and all creation and can manipulate it at will

Can you please show me where I stated that God could not effect physical matter?

What I did note was that Atheists, essentially, may make metaphysical claims countering the existence of God.

Further, God does not live within the universe as we do, for to be timeless and eternal God would be outside of time. And God is not made of matter as that would infer he is subject to time and change...You might consider a study of John 4:24, a further study of Colossians 1:15 and ” First Timothy 1:17.

To all of this you still neglect what has been written...it is a rather disingenuous approach to evade the substance of what one wrote and attempt to question that person's salvation/heart and deflect to a strawman.

 

[Jamsie]

I'm not saying you are not saved. I cannot judge that since I do not know you as you have said. I merely meant that you should work out your salvation in your heart not your head.

But Brother, you state that I should work out my salvation in my heart not my head...so you are making the assumption, falsely, that because I believe, based solely on God's word, that I view the creation account differently therefore my salvation is questionable... whether heart or mind? That Christians view various theological subjects differently does not require calling their heart into question. To me this is simply an avoidance of the subject at hand...

 

[Johan_1988]

Can you please show me where I stated that God could not effect physical matter?

What I did note was that Atheists, essentially, may make metaphysical claims countering the existence of God.

Further, God does not live within the universe as we do, for to be timeless and eternal God would be outside of time. And God is not made of matter as that would infer he is subject to time and change...You might consider a study of John 4:24, a further study of Colossians 1:15 and ” First Timothy 1:17.

To all of this you still neglect what has been written...it is a rather disingenuous approach to evade the substance of what one wrote and attempt to question that person's salvation/heart and deflect to a strawman.

This is the meaning the dictionary gave me on the word metaphysical:
ranscending physical matter or the laws of nature.
"Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle across space and time"
synonyms: transcendental, spiritual, supernatural, paranormal; More
extramundane, unearthly, ethereal, incorporeal
"Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle"
antonyms: physical

I did not speak of matter as we know it ,but in his universe which encompasses ours, you can argue he is made of energy ,but matter=energy. He is spirit as the scriptures you have stated. What kind of substance spirit is made of we cannot be sure. God has a body and form. In the resurrected flesh of Jesus Christ. Remember eternity is timeless the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened a long time ago in eternity:
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This is my last response, I have given my opinion from my heart. You just seem to becoming upset ,by judging your writing. Let me leave it to rest now you can carry on with your debate. I just seem to be aggravating you and it would be unwise to continue. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

God bless ,you have a good day further.

 

[Jamsie]

This is the meaning the dictionary gave me on the word metaphysical:
ranscending physical matter or the laws of nature.
"Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle across space and time"
synonyms: transcendental, spiritual, supernatural, paranormal; More
extramundane, unearthly, ethereal, incorporeal
"Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle"
antonyms: physical

I did not speak of matter as we know it ,but in his universe which encompasses ours, you can argue he is made of energy ,but matter=energy. He is spirit as the scriptures you have stated. What kind of substance spirit is made of we cannot be sure. God has a body and form. In the resurrected flesh of Jesus Christ. Remember eternity is timeless the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened a long time ago in eternity:
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This is my last response, I have given my opinion from my heart. You just seem to becoming upset ,by judging your writing. Let me leave it to rest now you can carry on with your debate. I just seem to be aggravating you and it would be unwise to continue. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
God bless ,you have a good day further.

Johan - You didn't hurt my feelings at all it is just that time and the study of God's word were incorporated in my posts. Metaphysical as I used it concerning science simply means those, unbelievers, who would take discoveries of science and then make assertions that are beyond their understanding. I would typically use the term God ordained processes, though evolution - with a small e - does not offend nor does it in any way jettison God from the creation of the universe, earth, or life.

If anything that is disconcerting it is that my study and posts have not been addressed directly but rather generalized and deflected.

I would only suggest that if you want to engage in a discussion with people that have different viewpoints, interpretations, and such direct your responses at the information, not the person.

Blessings... Nahum 1:7

 

[Jamsie]

This is the meaning the dictionary gave me on the word metaphysical:
ranscending physical matter or the laws of nature.
"Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle across space and time"
synonyms: transcendental, spiritual, supernatural, paranormal; More
extramundane, unearthly, ethereal, incorporeal
"Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle"
antonyms: physical

I did not speak of matter as we know it ,but in his universe which encompasses ours, you can argue he is made of energy ,but matter=energy. He is spirit as the scriptures you have stated. What kind of substance spirit is made of we cannot be sure. God has a body and form. In the resurrected flesh of Jesus Christ. Remember eternity is timeless the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened a long time ago in eternity:
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This is my last response, I have given my opinion from my heart. You just seem to becoming upset ,by judging your writing. Let me leave it to rest now you can carry on with your debate. I just seem to be aggravating you and it would be unwise to continue. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
God bless ,you have a good day further.

Johan - You didn't hurt my feelings at all it is just that time and the study of God's word were incorporated in my posts. Metaphysical as I used it concerning science simply means those, unbelievers, who would take discoveries of science and then make assertions that are beyond their understanding. I would typically use the term God ordained processes, though evolution - with a small e - does not offend nor does it in any way jettison God from the creation of the universe, earth, or life.

If anything that is disconcerting it is that my study and posts have not been addressed directly but rather generalized and deflected.

I would only suggest that if you want to engage in a discussion with people that have different viewpoints, interpretations, and such direct your responses at the information, not the person.

Blessings... Nahum 1:7

 

[-57]

Essentially what you've written with verses is not anything any of us don't believe. As I said the preeminent verse in Gen. 1 is "In the Beginning God..." so there was never disagreement there. And NO, you have not addressed my points...which is fine. Resorting to the non-biblical fabrications that you have is not addressing the points. That you will not address fiats, that is fine...that you will not address - "And God said, Let the land sprout living creatures..."...or as you stated previous "Let there be..." which you were incorrect concerning land/water because God never said that.

If anything you have convinced me more of an OEC/God ordained process because your defense of YEC fails on so many levels...so thank you for that.

It's already been presented.

COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

JOHN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

[Jamsie]

It's already been presented.

COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

JOHN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So do you now acknowledge that "And God said,..." was the sole operative agency of creation...requiring no further action by God?

 

[-57]

So do you now acknowledge that "And God said,..." was the sole operative agency of creation...requiring no further action by God?

Dude, What's your problem? In several post I've said God spoke and it was and sometimes He created by doing something..such as removing a rib.

Now, please STOP wiith that accusation. You should know my position by now.

 

[Jamsie]

Dude, What's your problem? In several post I've said God spoke and it was and sometimes He created by doing something..such as removing a rib.

Now, please STOP wiith that accusation. You should know my position by now.

Dude... I think the problem is that you do not understand what you write. You were the one who claimed God took human form, who used his hands and got down on his knees to "form" Adam, sorry but that negates that his decree was all sufficient. So now you are adding "sometimes" but then he had to do something...that is not my problem that is yours.

Do you understand the distinction between literal and figurative? For example in Psalm 139:13 do you think that God knits? In Jeremiah 1:5 do you believe that God formed in the womb? (Notice too that we understand God's process for conception and birth, so that reasoned people understand "knit" and "formed" are figurative.)

Accusation seems strong but if you actually read through the discussion you will see that you do not agree that God's commands were all sufficient and that in the explanatory it is figurative language.

 

[-57]

Dude... I think the problem is that you do not understand what you write. You were the one who claimed God took human form, who used his hands and got down on his knees to "form" Adam, sorry but that negates that his decree was all sufficient. So now you are adding "sometimes" but then he had to do something...that is not my problem that is yours.

True, I added something..I believe I said something like that's how I pictured Jesus forming Adam. If I were to make a movie about the formation of Adam that's how I would depict it.

Do you understand the distinction between literal and figurative? For example in Psalm 139:13 do you think that God knits? In Jeremiah 1:5 do you believe that God formed in the womb? (Notice too that we understand God's process for conception and birth, so that reasoned people understand "knit" and "formed" are figurative.)

When the bible is read it should be read as literal unless the context suggest otherwise.
Do I believe God forms us in the womb? Absolutely. He uses a remarkable process that could not have evolved. Does God use two sticks and manipulate the growing baby? I don't think so. Then again the double helix of the DNA appears to be knitted together.

But, it appears you would have the formation of Adam then Eve as figurative and not literal. problem is Paul in his letter to Timothy presents it a literal...NOT...figurative when Paul presents his reason why women should act a certain way in church...

1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. Somehow you have to deny that verse. You must demonstrate why Paul would use an event that didn't happen, a figurative event, to establish the rule.

The next verse does even more damage to inserting evolutionism between the lines...
1 Tim 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
That verse tells us part of the story of how sin came about. Something that won't work if mankind was formed by evolution.

Accusation seems strong but if you actually read through the discussion you will see that you do not agree that God's commands were all sufficient and that in the explanatory it is figurative language.

As shown above with the verse from 1 Timothy...Genesis is quite literal.

As said before, with a figurative Genesis you have no fall. No original sin. No sin nature.

 

[Jamsie]

But, it appears you would have the formation of Adam then Eve as figurative and not literal. problem is Paul in his letter to Timothy presents it a literal... NOT... figurative when Paul presents his reason why women should act a certain way in church...
1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. Somehow you have to deny that verse. You must demonstrate why Paul would use an event that didn't happen, a figurative event, to establish the rule.

This is where you fail to comprehend what I have been saying. Nowhere did I deny Adam and Eve, what I am saying is that Adam then Eve came under the very umbrella of God's command. Thus "Then God said,..." the use of "Let us..." in verse 26 is not an act but an intent to creatio ex materia, then verse 27 is the realized act. Any subsequent description after the decree/fiat is explanatory and often figurative language is used...other wise God's command is insufficient. To say that God had to take further action is to state his commands were not sufficient to bring about his decree. If the Bible said "And God said, I will form...or I will make..." then I would agree with you, But it does not.

The next verse does even more damage to inserting evolutionism between the lines...
1 Tim 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
That verse tells us part of the story of how sin came about. Something that won't work if mankind was formed by evolution.

I won't ask again because you fail to elaborate on how exactly a God ordained process "won't work". This was addressed time and again as Adam and Eve being a special creation or at a point the "breath of life" made Adam then Eve distinct. What occurred in the garden relative to the "fall" does not in any wat become excluded. If you look back you will see that this was consistently addressed to you yet you continue to act as if it were not.

As shown above with the verse from 1 Timothy… Genesis is quite literal. As said before, with a figurative Genesis you have no fall. No original sin. No sin nature.

Again, where have I said that Genesis 1 is not literal? What I have said is that Genesis 2 contains various figurative elements...such as God having hands, knees, breathing, etc. and did God really not know where Adam and Eve were hiding? Further, can you show me any Bible scholars or Theologians that claim God to have human form, hands, knees, etc. or that a christophany is contained in the creation narrative?

Do I believe God forms us in the womb? Absolutely. He uses a remarkable process that could not have evolved.

I will assume you do not see the humor in what you have said. So you now admit that a God ordained process is responsible for conception and birth. So first the "forms us in the womb" is figurative (because you just said that it is a God inspired process) and secondly why would a process need to evolve because evolve is a process.

 

[-57]

This is where you fail to comprehend what I have been saying. Nowhere did I deny Adam and Eve, what I am saying is that Adam then Eve came under the very umbrella of God's command. Thus "Then God said,..." the use of "Let us..." in verse 26 is not an act but an intent to creatio ex materia, then verse 27 is the realized act. Any subsequent description after the decree/fiat is explanatory and often figurative language is used...other wise God's command is insufficient. To say that God had to take further action is to state his commands were not sufficient to bring about his decree. If the Bible said "And God said, I will form...or I will make..." then I would agree with you, But it does not.

You deny the biblical Adam and Eve the moment you try to sneak in evolutionism.

I never said "God had to take further action"....but God did take further action when He formed Adam first from the dirt then Eve from Adams rib. God could have created all there is in a nano-second if He desired to do so. Instead He told us it took six days then a day of rest.

Exo 20:11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.

I won't ask again because you fail to elaborate on how exactly a God ordained process "won't work". This was addressed time and again as Adam and Eve being a special creation or at a point the "breath of life" made Adam then Eve distinct. What occurred in the garden relative to the "fall" does not in any wat become excluded. If you look back you will see that this was consistently addressed to you yet you continue to act as if it were not.

Now you are sending a mixed message....So, Adam and Eve are now a special creation, a literal event..but the other portions of Genesis are figurative? You appear to be backpeddling a bit.

Perhaps you ought to take the time to explain yourself a bit better.

Again, where have I said that Genesis 1 is not literal? What I have said is that Genesis 2 contains various figurative elements...such as God having hands, knees, breathing, etc. and did God really not know where Adam and Eve were hiding? Further, can you show me any Bible scholars or Theologians that claim God to have human form, hands, knees, etc. or that a christophany is contained in the creation narrative?

Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,
Was this a literal or figurative walk? Was the sound of God walking literal or figurative?

Would it be impossible for the God who walked in the garden to get down on His hands and knees and form Adam from the dirt?

I will assume you do not see the humor in what you have said. So you now admit that a God ordained process is responsible for conception and birth. So first the "forms us in the womb" is figurative (because you just said that it is a God inspired process) and secondly why would a process need to evolve because evolve is a process.

It sounds like you are now telling me God is not involved in our developement in the womb.

 

[Jamsie]

Now you are sending a mixed message....So, Adam and Eve are now a special creation, a literal event..but the other portions of Genesis are figurative? You appear to be backpeddling a bit.

Once again reading comprehension rears its head...when you questioned this in another thread and I had to re-post exactly what I wrote in the thread. No back peddling or need to explain...you just don't seem to comprehend what was already
stated. Here it is again, please try to read carefully so you don't keep building strawmen:​

Post #64 - You keep harping on original sin, and I keeping asking how does it disappear? I would be certain that the concept of original sin has for me the same explanation as yours. Please, since you make these statements, show me where I denied Adam and Eve or original sin?

Post #70 Given that why do you believe that Adam and Eve were either not
a special creation by His own determination? Where did I deny that God does in fact intervene? So the actual question becomes do you even read responses to you? Either you don't or you just continue to create a strawman because of comprehension problems...

Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, Was this a literal or figurative walk? Was the sound of God walking literal or figurative?

Would it be impossible for the God who walked in the garden to get down on His hands and knees and form Adam from the dirt?

Here is what Billy Graham wrote: "No, God doesn’t have hands or eyes or feet; God is a spiritual being without form or body, and He is far greater than any physical being. Sometimes the Bible speaks about God’s hands or eyes, but when it does, it is using symbolic language to convey some truth about His activity"

Even a creationist site acknowledges the use of figurative language in Genesis: "Moses’ purpose is to record these historical events and details. In doing this he uses, where appropriate, figures of speech about God—as though He were a man—which help us understand better what he means to convey. ​

Interestingly, the church leaders dealt with this matter as early as the 4th century ad, and said that such statements should be understood in a ‘God-befitting’ manner. Thus, St John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) states: ‘When you hear that “God planted Paradise in Eden in the East,” understand the word “planted” befittingly of God: that is, that He commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that Paradise was created and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it.'

Are you familiar with John 1:18? Numbers 23:19, Exodus 33:20, John 5:37, Colossians 1:15, etc.

I'm going to assume that you've never taken any theology courses...

It sounds like you are now telling me God is not involved in our developement in the womb.

That is the problem..."it sounds like"...What I did say was that conception and birth were/are a God ordained process. Understand that God need not form or knit because he created the process for procreation. Again, your questions show that you do not read with much care because you would understand what is being written. God is sovereign...which is why I clearly state that his decrees are all sufficient and efficacious without question. Please try and read more carefully instead of attempting to distort what I have consistently and coherently said and/or neglected the things that have been written in response ...

​

 

[-57]

Once again reading comprehension rears its head...when you questioned this in another thread and I had to re-post exactly what I wrote in the thread. No back peddling or need to explain...you just don't seem to comprehend what was already
stated. Here it is again, please try to read carefully so you don't keep building strawmen:​

Post #64 - You keep harping on original sin, and I keeping asking how does it disappear? I would be certain that the concept of original sin has for me the same explanation as yours. Please, since you make these statements, show me where I denied Adam and Eve or original sin?

Post #70 Given that why do you believe that Adam and Eve were either not
a special creation by His own determination? Where did I deny that God does in fact intervene? So the actual question becomes do you even read responses to you? Either you don't or you just continue to create a strawman because of comprehension problems...



Here is what Billy Graham wrote: "No, God doesn’t have hands or eyes or feet; God is a spiritual being without form or body, and He is far greater than any physical being. Sometimes the Bible speaks about God’s hands or eyes, but when it does, it is using symbolic language to convey some truth about His activity"

Even a creationist site acknowledges the use of figurative language in Genesis: "Moses’ purpose is to record these historical events and details. In doing this he uses, where appropriate, figures of speech about God—as though He were a man—which help us understand better what he means to convey. ​

Interestingly, the church leaders dealt with this matter as early as the 4th century ad, and said that such statements should be understood in a ‘God-befitting’ manner. Thus, St John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) states: ‘When you hear that “God planted Paradise in Eden in the East,” understand the word “planted” befittingly of God: that is, that He commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that Paradise was created and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it.'

Are you familiar with John 1:18? Numbers 23:19, Exodus 33:20, John 5:37, Colossians 1:15, etc.

I'm going to assume that you've never taken any theology courses...



That is the problem..."it sounds like"...What I did say was that conception and birth were/are a God ordained process. Understand that God need not form or knit because he created the process for procreation. Again, your questions show that you do not read with much care because you would understand what is being written. God is sovereign...which is why I clearly state that his decrees are all sufficient and efficacious without question. Please try and read more carefully instead of attempting to distort what I have consistently and coherently said and/or neglected the things that have been written in response ...

​

There are several instances where God took on a physical form in the OT. They're called a theophany or a Christophany.

When God called out Adam and Eve He was present in a bodily form. They could hear God walking, they could hear God speak. I don't really care what spin you put on Billy Graham's words.
I wonder which of the "us" from " “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" was doing the actual forming. Perhaps it was the Word who would become flesh and the Father both moving the dirt into the shape of a man....then breathing the breath of life into Adam...which caused him to become a living creature. But that's not what the Theo-Evo OE camp says actually happened.

I'm still waiting to hear from you about the Theo-Evo OE view and original sin. How did it happen? If the Genesis account is figurative and not literal....what really happened?

 

[Jamsie]

There are several instances where God took on a physical form in the OT. They're called a theophany or a Christophany.

As I asked before please show Biblical scholars or Theologians who affirm your viewpoint on Genesis 1 and 2. You will notice, probably didn't, that I mentioned Theophanies and Christophanies , so please do not suppose that I am ignorant of such...again, show me where this viewpoint is noted widely addressed in the creation account.

I'm still waiting to hear from you about the Theo-Evo OE view and original sin. How did it happen? If the Genesis account is figurative and not literal....what really happened?

I've had enough of your inability to read...Here is what I wrote: "Again, where have I said that Genesis 1 is not literal? What I have said is that Genesis 2 contains various figurative elements...such as God having hands, knees, breathing, etc. and did God really not know where Adam and Eve were hiding?"

So if you would read, I affirmed that Genesis 1 is literal but that Genesis 2 contains figurative language. I don't see your comments on the Bible verses, or the comments concerning Genesis?

Unbelievable...I posted my responses on the fall/original sin. This is a merry-go-round of your own making because you refuse to read and comprehend … and then always neglect to respond directly to what has been written. Why are you unable to grasp what has been written or to engage with the material presented to you...

 

[-57]

As I asked before please show Biblical scholars or Theologians who affirm your viewpoint on Genesis 1 and 2. You will notice, probably didn't, that I mentioned Theophanies and Christophanies , so please do not suppose that I am ignorant of such...again, show me where this viewpoint is noted widely addressed in the creation account.



I've had enough of your inability to read...Here is what I wrote: "Again, where have I said that Genesis 1 is not literal? What I have said is that Genesis 2 contains various figurative elements...such as God having hands, knees, breathing, etc. and did God really not know where Adam and Eve were hiding?"

So if you would read, I affirmed that Genesis 1 is literal but that Genesis 2 contains figurative language. I don't see your comments on the Bible verses, or the comments concerning Genesis?

Unbelievable...I posted my responses on the fall/original sin. This is a merry-go-round of your own making because you refuse to read and comprehend … and then always neglect to respond directly to what has been written. Why are you unable to grasp what has been written or to engage with the material presented to you...

Earlier on you made an argument for the creation of man via a process called evolution. As soon as you did that you turned the account of a man being formed from the dirt then a woman being made from a rib not a literal event...as this is not evolution.

 

[Jamsie]

Earlier on you made an argument for the creation of man via a process called evolution. As soon as you did that you turned the account of a man being formed from the dirt then a woman being made from a rib not a literal event...as this is not evolution.

Again, please try hard to read what was written. I believe you refer to this: "All of creation even if by an evolutionary process would have been totally under his control and by his directive...nothing about that diminishes God." Do you notice something within this thought? As we discussed and you accept there exist myriad God ordained processes... which is typically the phrasing that I use. Again, I notice you don't respond to the material offered you but keep harping on the same thing that, by the way, was answered numerous times.