Creationism/Evolution

[Strong in Him]

There is where the problem lies. Number one, you are assuming something that is not biblical.

What is it that's unbiblical? That God's outside time?
Of course he is; he created it, so he is above and outside it.
Or maybe it's not Biblical that a day is AS 1,000 years, and 1,000 years is AS a day? I think Peter might disagree with you on that one, 2 Peter 3:8.

Number 2, God is smart enough to know what we understand a day to be, so If he is going to the trouble to give us a true account, why in the worlld would he knowingly attempt to trick us on the timeline.

He's not trying to trick us
"Day" could equally mean period of time.

And sorry, but if you are going to try to argue that nothing in the universe is older than about 6,000 years, you're very quickly going to become unstuck when scientists produce evidence to the contrary. Not to mention, mocked by unbelievers for not knowing what you are talking about. If they could disprove you wrong about that, why would they then believe you when you preach the Gospel and tell of healing miracles and resurrection?

He is not a God of confusion.

So therefore he's not going to insist we believe that his universe is only a few thousand years old when he knows full well that there is actual, scientific evidence that says otherwise. Nor is he - as some people (not in this thread) have said - going to "plant" fossils which give us the impression that the world is very old. When in fact all of that is a test to see if we will believe the Bible.

God says a day, he defines a day right there in description of creation several times, so God means a day, an evening and a morning type day.

That's your interpretation of what this passage of Scripture, means.

and he says a day is an evening and a morning.

No, scientists say that a day is an evening and a morning.
A day is 24 hours; the amount of time it takes the earth to spin on its axis. When one side of the earth is facing the sun, it is daylight; when it faces away from the sun it is night. Genesis 1:14 says that the sun and moon were created "to mark the seasons and days and years" - so that fits. But these were created only on "day" 4, whereas light was created on "day" 1.
And mankind only came up with a way of measuring time and splitting it into hours, minutes etc, many years later.

If we know anything at all about God, we know he means what he says, and he says a day is an evening and a morning.

Fine - if you believe that God's word says that a day is 24 hours (which as I said was only measured later); that's up to you.
Good luck with debating with scientists who can show you that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

 

[Thomas White]

Except it says Adam was formed directly from the dust.... as were the other animals directly formed.....

This is why if you look at any evolutionary tree you will notice that there are only distinct lines and that every creature founds remains exactky the same for its entire existence. Every single solitary time one creature is claimed to be connected to another separate and distinct creature an imaginary missing common ancestor must be invoked.

This evolution that is said to have occurred only occurs with these imaginary missing common ancestors. Not just a few thousand times or even a few hundred thousand times. Not even millions of times or even billions of times.... but every single solitary time on every single solitary evolutionary tree for every single solitary creature attempted to be connected to another separate and distinct creature.....

If one takes away the imagination all one is left with is the cold hard fact of Kind after Kind.....

Belief in evolution requires “faith” in things not seen and elevating this “faith” above what is seen....

Where does it say directly?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What is it that's unbiblical? That God's outside time?

Again, you are assuming that is the case here, and it is written nowhere within the creation description. What is written there, and what is biblical, is that an evening and a morning equates to a day....and that is irrefutable.

So, add what you like to the word of God, if you must, my only purpose is to show others how what you are teaching is not the truth, and easily proven so.

 

[Strong in Him]

Again, you are assuming that is the case, and it is written nowhere within the creation description.

God is before all things and created all things - that includes time.

I notice you haven't addressed the Scripture from 2 Peter which says that, to the Lord, a day is like 1,000 years and 1,000 years is like a day?

 

[Derek1234]

Again, you are assuming that is the case, and it is written nowhere within the creation description. What is written there, and what is biblical, is that an evening and a morning equates to a day....and that is irrefutable.

So, add what you like to the word of God, if you must, my only purpose is to show others how what you are teaching is not the truth, and easily proven so.

No. What is irrefutable is that this language is used in the creation narrative. Everything else is our understanding. Beware the eisegetes.

 

[trophy33]

Or people simply ignore Relativity in a universe increasing in acceleration and keep thinking these processes occurred at the same rate they do today despite the one and only science we have that deals with time and length changes with increasing velocity....

This is why astronomers are constantly surprised to find fully formed galaxies and galaxy clusters where none should exist. These processes occurred faster in the past. But since they only give lip service to Relativity and ignore its consequences, what should be an express prediction turns out to be an anomaly and falsification.

Not sure what you want to say. All the animals we have found under ground, all the various ecosystems, history etc would not fit on the planet in 6,000 years only. Its not logically possible.

Also, there are so many asteroid craters that they would wipe out all the life on earth many times in 6,000 years.

 

[chad kincham]

Why would God provide food, what is the point of eating

Because that’s how God made us, to need food. That’s rather obvious.

 

[Simon D]

What is it that's unbiblical? That God's outside time?
Of course he is; he created it, so he is above and outside it.
Or maybe it's not Biblical that a day is AS 1,000 years, and 1,000 years is AS a day? I think Peter might disagree with you on that one, 2 Peter 3:8.



He's not trying to trick us
"Day" could equally mean period of time.

And sorry, but if you are going to try to argue that nothing in the universe is older than about 6,000 years, you're very quickly going to become unstuck when scientists produce evidence to the contrary. Not to mention, mocked by unbelievers for not knowing what you are talking about. If they could disprove you wrong about that, why would they then believe you when you preach the Gospel and tell of healing miracles and resurrection?



So therefore he's not going to insist we believe that his universe is only a few thousand years old when he knows full well that there is actual, scientific evidence that says otherwise. Nor is he - as some people (not in this thread) have said - going to "plant" fossils which give us the impression that the world is very old. When in fact all of that is a test to see if we will believe the Bible.



That's your interpretation of what this passage of Scripture, means.



No, scientists say that a day is an evening and a morning.
A day is 24 hours; the amount of time it takes the earth to spin on its axis. When one side of the earth is facing the sun, it is daylight; when it faces away from the sun it is night. Genesis 1:14 says that the sun and moon were created "to mark the seasons and days and years" - so that fits. But these were created only on "day" 4, whereas light was created on "day" 1.
And mankind only came up with a way of measuring time and splitting it into hours, minutes etc, many years later.



Fine - if you believe that God's word says that a day is 24 hours (which as I said was only measured later); that's up to you.
Good luck with debating with scientists who can show you that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

There is a common thread in the Bible that when like, or as is used that it is letting the reader know that it is metaphorical,

A day is LIKE (or AS) a thousand years.

Peter is referring to Psalm 90:4,

'For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.'

Which is meaning that; although we want results right away, for instance when we pray, we have to be patient when waiting on the Lord.

In Genesis it's quite clear. It tells us clearly that by day it means evening and morning, a literal 24 hour period.

This is why people know that Genesis is talking about the literal day when it does.

 

[Strong in Him]

There is a common thread in the Bible that when like, or as is used that it is letting the reader know that it is metaphorical,

A day is LIKE (or AS) a thousand years.

Right; so another forummer says that God knows what we mean by a day, and when he writes "day" he means "day" - i.e 24 hours.
Yet Peter says that, to the Lord a day is LIKE 1,000 years. Why write that if the Lord knows that a day is 24 hours and when he writes "day" he means "day"?
I thought he wasn't a God of confusion?

 

[Cis.jd]

Because that’s how God made us, to need food. That’s rather obvious.

Why would we need food, back then before the fall when we don't die?

 

[Simon D]

Right; so another forummer says that God knows what we mean by a day, and when he writes "day" he means "day" - i.e 24 hours.
Yet Peter says that, to the Lord a day is LIKE 1,000 years. Why write that if the Lord knows that a day is 24 hours and when he writes "day" he means "day"?
I thought he wasn't a God of confusion?

He's not, it's you who's confused.

This is something related to why when Jesus tells us about the rich man in Hell and Lazarus that we know it is a literal story and not metaphorical, because Jesus follows the Biblical way of presenting an actual situation rather than those with other meanings.

The Bible has certain ways of presenting information so that we don't have confusion like this, which is why when we study to show ourselves approved, we can say why it is a literal day in some instances, and a metaphorical day in others. In the Genesis account it fits all the Biblical requirements to be a literal day (and the language requirements if we go back to the original language).

 

[Cis.jd]

In Genesis it's quite clear. It tells us clearly that by day it means evening and morning, a literal 24 hour period.

This is why people know that Genesis is talking about the literal day when it does.

There is a lot of things in Genesis that we know aren't scientifically true. It classifies the moon as an independent light source for example, when we know that the moon doesn't harbor any light, it just reflects the real source of light (the sun). So if we have to take the Bible literally on the days, then we should take it literally on the moon being an independent light bearer. I assume you don't.

24 hours, the evening and morning, would also be problematic for a spherical earth. If it is morning onside, then it is evening on the other. One side would not have it's actual "1st day" (NYC is 24 hrs behind Hong Kong, for example).. next, even if we go by a literal 6 day creation, it's likely a different earth than we are physically live on now.

 

[Strong in Him]

He's not, it's you who's confused.

This is something related to why when Jesus tells us about the rich man in Hell and Lazarus that we know it is a literal story and not metaphorical, because Jesus follows the Biblical way of presenting actual situations rather than those with other meanings.

The Bible has certain ways of presenting information so that we don't have confusion like this, which is why when we study to show ourselves approved, we can say why it is a literal day in some instances, and a metaphorical day in others. In the Genesis account it fits all the Biblical requirements to be a literal day (and the language requirements if we go back to the original language).

If I'm confused it's because you are asking me to accept that when God says a day he means a day of 24 hours - but when Scripture says that, to God, a day is like 1,000 years, that's only metaphorical.
If God knows that a day is 24 hours and when he says "day" he means "day of 24 hours", why say that, to God, a day is like a 1,000 years?

Sounds like "day" has quite a fluid interpretation depending on the view of the person quoting it. Either that, or the person whose post I was addressing can't bring themselves to consider that just maybe time means something else to God.

Either way, it's really not worth arguing about.

 

[Simon D]

If I'm confused it's because you are asking me to accept that when God says a day he means a day of 24 hours - but when Scripture says that, to God, a day is like 1,000 years, that's only metaphorical.
If God knows that a day is 24 hours and when he says "day" he means "day of 24 hours", why say that, to God, a day is like a 1,000 years?

Sounds like "day" has quite a fluid interpretation depending on the view of the person quoting it. Either that, or the person whose post I was addressing can't bring themselves to consider that just maybe time means something else to God.

Either way, it's really not worth arguing about.

I explained to you why we know that Peter when he refers to Psalms he is being metaphorical about the time span of a day but Genesis is not being metaphorical about the time span of a day, in this instance it means quite literally the 24 hour period.

I agree day can have a fluid interpretation. There is also 'on the day of the LORD' for instance. But we know using the tools of the Bible that in Genesis it is a 24 hour period.

I'm aware that does not fit with science but I cannot comment on that, all I can do is report on what the Bible is saying and not try to change it. It's why I made the thread for input

Even if it is a thousand years what do we do then? Genesis tells us the plants were made in one day, then the sun was shining on another day. By saying that plants existed for a thousand (or thousands of years) without the sun all it does is it just seems to create other problems.

 

[Simon D]

There is a lot of things in Genesis that we know aren't scientifically true. It classifies the moon as an independent light source for example, when we know that the moon doesn't harbor any light, it just reflects the real source of light (the sun). So if we have to take the Bible literally on the days, then we should take it literally on the moon being an independent light bearer. I assume you don't.

24 hours, the evening and morning, would also be problematic for a spherical earth. If it is morning onside, then it is evening on the other. One side would not have it's actual "1st day" (NYC is 24 hrs behind Hong Kong, for example).. next, even if we go by a literal 6 day creation, it's likely a different earth than we are physically live on now.

I don't see these things as issues. Genesis says the moon is the lesser light to rule the night, but it doesn't make any claims as to what generates that light.

As for the day, I'm happy to accept that 24 hours is how long it takes for the earth to complete a full revolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

God is before all things and created all things - that includes time.

I notice you haven't addressed the Scripture from 2 Peter which says that, to the Lord, a day is like 1,000 years and 1,000 years is like a day?

You noticed wrong.

I did address that by telling you that God was specific here, he said the evening and the morning were the first day, and that describes what he was referring to, not 1,000 years.

Did you adress that? Of course you didn't, and you didn't because you know as well as I do it proves you wrong beyond any doubt, so run away from the truth if you like, and continue to twist the bible to agree with the devils evolution, or will you address it now?

Some take the 1,000yrs scripture so far out of context that they have written their own bible. But as for me, I will read things in context, and understand what the bible is telling me, and I won't be making the bible say what I want it to say.

Do you go to church every 7,000 years? By your way of thinking you should, so what is the problem there? Why don't you apply your ideas equally over everything, being consistant, and not just when it's convenient?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. What is irrefutable is that this language is used in the creation narrative. Everything else is our understanding. Beware the eisegetes.

Sometimes what we call understanding is no more than twisting the bible to draw the conclusuon we wish to draw.
That fact has been made beyond evident on this thread.

Some clearly speak for the master of confusion.

 

[Cis.jd]

I don't see these things as issues. Genesis says the moon is the lesser light to rule the night, but it doesn't make any claims as to what generates that light.

As for the day, I'm happy to accept that 24 hours is how long it takes for the earth to complete a full revolution.

It is considering it an independent light regardless. Just read how it's created. But we know it's not really a light, it's a satellite that reflects light.

Now the 2nd problem with the 24 hour is that it's only the first day for a specific part of the earth, not the the earth entirely because not all places in the earth experience the same time.

We can't just ignore evidence because of our theological bias. Evidence shows there are major problems for in accepting Genesis as literal. It's either metaphorical, Moses' writing his based on his understanding, or maybe a different earth that isn't the one we live in now.

 

[Chi.C]

Are you arguing that what I suggest is not possible through God? Think about that. If everything seems to fit because of a common element, everything most likely fits. Take God away and nothing fits.

It is impossible to fit evolutionism and all its baggage within the Scriptural framework. You are telling me that the "process of evolution" fits into the Scriptural verses, thus your evolutionism must be acceptable. I am ok with "process of evolution", because I would cutout it's father Naturalism and get it adopted by mother Mathematics ( summation of the products of probability and occurences over an infinite number of experiments - in my time it was known as the God experiment)

But you defined yourself as an evolutionist. That means you are an adherent to the ideology of evolutionism.
Evolutionism is constructed in the framework of naturalism - it is godless.
Abiogenesis is creation of life from non-life using random processes - it is godless.
Objective Morality is not possible with Darwinistic thought. Morality is a product of selection - we all have morals because it is to our benefit. - it is godless.
Absolute truth is not possible with moral relativism (no Objective Truth - same arguments as morality). Relative truth is a contradiction in terms. The correct word for relative truth is opinion. - it is godless.

When you add the word theistic to you evolutionism, what does it mean?

 

[Strong in Him]

You noticed wrong.

No, I didn't notice wrong.
When I said that God is outside time, you replied that I was assuming something that was not Biblical. When I questioned that and quoted from 2 Peter, your response, in post #163, was that I was again assuming something, but that I could add to Scripture if I wanted.
Nowhere in post #163 did you address the Scripture I quoted in my previous reply.

Did you adress that? Of course you didn't, and you didn't because you know as well as I do it proves you wrong beyond any doubt, so run away from the truth if you like, and continue to twist the bible to agree with the devils evolution, or will you address it now?

Not if you're going to judge me, accuse me of twisting Scripture, running away from the truth and imply that I am siding with devils.
I entered this thread to say one thing only; I have said that, and I have also said that a) I'm NOT arguing for evolution and b) I'm not a scientist. I know what I believe, which is the God of the Bible, through whom I am saved, and have nothing to prove - and certainly not to you.

So I'm out of here.
Carry on flinging false accusations if you like.