Creationist Resources?

[trophy33]

but yet many passages were not understood by the authors. David did not know he wrote many prophecies of Jesus. Neither did the prophets. Daniel did not understand all his prophetic passages-God even said they were sealed!

The Jews until the 19th century were almost universally young earthers (except the more mystic sects).

They did not understand science as we understand it!

Jeremiah and Job both knew the earth was a sphere! Job spoke of the precipitation cycle long before science understood it!

Running water is better to clean than still water- but it took science a long time to know what Job knew! He didn't know about bacteria- he didn't have to!

Prophecy is (logically) about the future.

But prophecies are not about some ice in the solar system. This is where you use the Bible wrong.

 

[trophy33]

Because god who inspired the writers to write this is not bound by culture!

Theologically. But writers used their language and vocabulary to describe their world, not yours.

That is a line that has been used to justify open gays int eh church, women pastors, multiple paths of salvation, amongst other things.

No, because non-scientific reading of the Bible is from the first centuries, Jews were allegorizing the text even before it. While gays in church, women pastors etc are quite a modern thing. So its just a correlation, not a reason for it.

Either Gods Word is for all time (unless in context god limited it)

Yes, the theological God's inspired part is for all times, the men's describing part and vocabulary is pre-scientific and we must understand this instead of inventing conspiracies about the NASA hiding the flat earth and similar.

Why should you doubt that the City of God has a river?

Because the city of God is a symbol of a church, so the river will also be a symbol of something, not a literal H2O stream.

 

[nolidad]

Theologically. But writers used their language and vocabulary to describe their world, not yours.


No, because non-scientific reading of the Bible is from the first centuries, Jews were allegorizing the text even before it. While gays in church, women pastors etc are quite a modern thing. So its just a correlation, not a reason for it.


Yes, the theological God's inspired part is for all times, the men's describing part and vocabulary is pre-scientific and we must understand this instead of inventing conspiracies about the NASA hiding the flat earth and similar.

Because the city of God is a symbol of a church, so the river will also be a symbol of something, not a literal H2O stream.

Yes their words and language- but did not bind the eternal Word to cultural mores'.

The Sadducee's and Mystics allegorized- but most Jews accepted it as literal asd they did a young earth.

Soi the scientific parts in non scientific language are not inspired? Interesting! But god said (I paraphrase) it is a matter for the kings to hide something and for the people to search it out. Why bring up a flat earth?

So before the church was birthed, God did not have a city? did He sit onHis throne with the myriads of angels in some ethereal nothingness? God didn't have a place where His temple is that the earthly temple was modeled after?

 

[nolidad]

Prophecy is (logically) about the future.

But prophecies are not about some ice in the solar system. This is where you use the Bible wrong.

So once again you discard the writings inspired by God because they are not in modern technical language. I can even write the creation account to say an old earth and a theistic evolution using words even a first grader can understand. And if Adam after He was formed by God as an adult (whoops that violates secular science - he had to start as sperm and egg.) could name all the animals, I am sure he could understand very easy words like long long time.

So uo reject the beginning and end of Scripture as mere allegories. Though their language does not warrant that opinion. Why do you accept a physical resurrection of Jesus as literal? Secualr science is dead opposeed to it as irrational and very unscientific.

 

[trophy33]

... but most Jews accepted it as literal asd they did a young earth.

You did some poll between them? Where did you get the "most" from?

Soi the scientific parts in non scientific language are not inspired?

Obviously not. We do not think by our kidneys and there is no firmanent, stars do not wall to earth etc.

Why bring up a flat earth?

Because writers of the Bible believed in it. If you want to take everything as inspired and literal, you must believe in the Flat Earth too.

So before the church was birthed, God did not have a city? did He sit onHis throne with the myriads of angels in some ethereal nothingness? God didn't have a place where His temple is that the earthly temple was modeled after?

Revelation is a symbolic book.

 

[trophy33]

So once again you discard the writings inspired by God because they are not in modern technical language.

No, the opposite is true. I accept them as not being technical, modern or scientific.

 

[nolidad]

You did some poll between them? Where did you get the "most" from?


Obviously not. We do not think by our kidneys and there is no firmanent, stars do not wall to earth etc.


Because writers of the Bible believed in it. If you want to take everything as inspired and literal, you must believe in the Flat Earth too.


Revelation is a symbolic book.

No didn't have to poll.
I have numerous books on Jewish life from teh intercalary period through the diaspora.

As for the kidneys- once again you are just mad because they didn't have the length of vacabulary that modern man does!

As for the firmament- I guess you believe got was stuck in a wall as well because He inhabits a firmament.

Flat earth is a force upon the Scriptures! Circle and sphere (ball) were the same word in Hebrew until the approximate middle ages. God would not let His people believe a lie for millenia!

Much of Revelation is rich with symbolism, but it has a literal meaning and the Bible defines the symbolism for us- if we are willing to look.

 

[nolidad]

No, the opposite is true. I accept them as not being technical, modern or scientific.

So you believe God is not the God of science?

He can't tell His people that He evolved everything?

He specifically said 6 literal days when He knew it wasn't (that is the only way you can read it in Hebrew)
He couldn't inform His chosen beloved that it took long ages to make everything?

That HE caused them all to form slowly and change? There are perfectly good Hebrew Words for that!

Why did the Jews believe in a young earth through the diaspora, and still did with the exception of the more secular Jews!

Why did the early church believe in a young earth? It wasn't until Constantine did the concept of the pagan long ages creep into the church?

Why would He use non Christians to reveal this truth to the world?

What amazes me is that you do not trust the god who was there to have it written down right, but trust in the words of unbelieving scientists who weren't there and use their imagination to make all these environments, and animal culture etc.

Just remember there were 9 factual dates for the big bang this century.

There were six sizes for the singularity since the 1950's

There have been multiple hypothesis for biological evolution i the last 50 years.

They trumpet them on the front pages of all the scientific journals, and then when prove wrong- stick the findings in the back pages!



Why does empirical science show strongly against big E evolution?

 

[trophy33]

So you believe God is not the God of science?

I believe that bible is not a scientific book and its writers had no idea what science is. Therefore we should not read it scientifically.

He can't tell His people that He evolved everything?

He clearly said that only He is without a change.

He specifically said 6 literal days

He never said these days are literal.

Why did the Jews believe in a young earth through the diaspora, and still did with the exception of the more secular Jews!

Jews read Genesis allegorically thousands of years back. And if you wish, you can read it literally, no theological problem with that. But you will say nonsense regarding science.

Why did the early church believe in a young earth?

First Christians were by no means unified on how to understand the creation days

Why would He use non Christians to reveal this truth to the world?

Teaching astronomy or biology is not His goal in the church. If you want to learn about E=mc2, go to a school, not to a church. You must properly divide.

What amazes me is that you do not trust the god who was there to have it written down right, but trust in the words of unbelieving scientists who weren't there and use their imagination to make all these environments, and animal culture etc.

The mistake you are doing is reading pre-scientific texts scientifically. Its a different kind of text. You are using scissors as a hammer.

Just remember there were 9 factual dates for the big bang this century.
There were six sizes for the singularity since the 1950's
There have been multiple hypothesis for biological evolution i the last 50 years.
They trumpet them on the front pages of all the scientific journals, and then when prove wrong- stick the findings in the back pages!

Irrelevant, the details of the Universe are not my fight. My point is that you are reading pre-scientific text scientifically, which produces wrong outcomes and leads to conspiracies and false dilemmas ("scientist are liars", "either God lies or scientist lie" etc.).

Why does empirical science show strongly against big E evolution?

As Barbarian showed you many times, your interpretations of what science does or shows are very biased and not fitting with the facts.

 

[trophy33]

As for the kidneys- once again you are just mad because they didn't have the length of vacabulary that modern man does!

Mad? How did you come to conclusion that I am mad?
Yes, they did not have the vocabulary, the knowledge. Their world-view was no way close to 21st century knowledge. Thats what I am telling you for many days now. Not sure why you accept it only regarding kidneys or flat earth, but say that Gen 1 and 2, flood etc. must be literal.

As for the firmament- I guess you believe got was stuck in a wall as well because He inhabits a firmament.

Again, I do not believe that the bible text is scientific. Therefore I have no problems with firmanent, waters above heaven, weird ideas of rains and winds, flat earth, kidneys, stars falling on Earth and other scientific mistakes in the Bible.
The theological message is inspired and inerrant. Ancient Jewish (or mesopotamian) ideas about nature are not inspired.

Flat earth is a force upon the Scriptures! Circle and sphere (ball) were the same word in Hebrew until the approximate middle ages. God would not let His people believe a lie for millenia!

God does not care if you believe that raining is from waters above firmanent and it falls down because God opens doors in the sky or if you believe in atmospheric pressure and scientific explanation of such phenomena.

What God cares about is that you believe that He is in control of everything, that everything is His creation and that there is no God besides Him etc.
God gave Bible to teach you about theology and God gave reason, science, logic to teach you about other stuff. You must properly divide.

 

[nolidad]

Mad? How did you come to conclusion that I am mad?
Yes, they did not have the vocabulary, the knowledge. Their world-view was no way close to 21st century knowledge. Thats what I am telling you for many days now. Not sure why you accept it only regarding kidneys or flat earth, but say that Gen 1 and 2, flood etc. must be literal.


Again, I do not believe that the bible text is scientific. Therefore I have no problems with firmanent, waters above heaven, weird ideas of rains and winds, flat earth, kidneys, stars falling on Earth and other scientific mistakes in the Bible.
The theological message is inspired and inerrant. Ancient Jewish (or mesopotamian) ideas about nature are not inspired.


God does not care if you believe that raining is from waters above firmanent and it falls down because God opens doors in the sky or if you believe in atmospheric pressure and scientific explanation of such phenomena.

What God cares about is that you believe that He is in control of everything, that everything is His creation and that there is no God besides Him etc.
God gave Bible to teach you about theology and God gave reason, science, logic to teach you about other stuff. You must properly divide.

You still can't see the forest for the trees.

You do not believe the bible text is scientific, you do not believe much of it is historic, either I guess.

That makes you an extreme allegorist.

And did you have God come down to you and let you interview Him?

Why should the Christian World believe you more than the writings?

I find it funny that you say the theological message is inspired, but the rudimentary science is not! God spent a whole chapter describing what He did in 6 literal days (that is the only rendering you can make from evening...morning.... a first day) . what is the theological message? That God created? Not evolved? God was in charge of death and destruction for millions of years and declared that good? That ancient man was hunter killers and murderers and that was very good?

YOu accept everything that secular evolution says as fact, but then seem to add God as a footnite to say- well the unbelievers figured it all out for us- but God was in charge of it!

God spent multiple chapters describing the flood? but that is all just not true material as written but the deep theological meaning is true? What theological meaning is there in God destroying everything thast has breath upon the face of the earth? I know Noah did no tunderstand what that fully meant. He did not know probably anything other than where He lived or how big the earth was or howe fast it rotated etc. He did not have to! He had a God who does! And if god told HIm that everything that had breath was destroyed from under the WHOLE heaven and from the face fo the ENTIRE earth- We can be sure that is correct! And geology supports those claims!

 

[trophy33]

You still can't see the forest for the trees.

You do not believe the bible text is scientific, you do not believe much of it is historic, either I guess.

That makes you an extreme allegorist.

Or you to be an extreme literalist.

And did you have God come down to you and let you interview Him?

No, neither did you.

Why should the Christian World believe you more than the writings?

To your surprise, your literal view of Genesis is a small minority between Christians. So its not so much me to telling something to the "Christian world", when it mostly agrees with me.

I find it funny that you say the theological message is inspired, but the rudimentary science is not! God spent a whole chapter describing what He did in 6 literal days...

Maybe it will suprise you, but Gen 1 and 2 were not written by God. It was written by primitive men. Primitive in the meaning of not knowing much about the laws of the universe. They were mythological men, not scientists.

Also, Gen says nothing about being literal.

YOu accept everything that secular evolution says as fact,

No, I do not care about "everything that evolution says", I just have no reason to fight against it.
Evolution is not my field of interest so much. There are others, like Barbarian, who can give you much more insight regarding the evolution, I am just a common man.

God spent multiple chapters describing the flood...?

Again, God did not write it. Primitive men did. "Under whole heaven, all mountains" etc are not from God's viewpoint, not even from Australia or Siberia' viewpoint, not even from the orbital ISS viewpoint, but only from those ancient Mesopotamian men' viewpoint.
You must understand what you read or else you will confuse both yourself and others.

 

[nolidad]

Or you to be an extreme literalist.


No, neither did you.


To your surprise, your literal view of Genesis is a small minority between Christians. So its not so much me to telling something to the "Christian world", when it mostly agrees with me.


Maybe it will suprise you, but Gen 1 and 2 were not written by God. It was written by primitive men. Primitive in the meaning of not knowing much about the laws of the universe. They were mythological men, not scientists.

Also, Gen says nothing about being literal.


No, I do not care about "everything that evolution says", I just have no reason to fight against it.
Evolution is not my field of interest so much. There are others, like Barbarian, who can give you much more insight regarding the evolution, I am just a common man.


Again, God did not write it. Primitive men did. "Under whole heaven, all mountains" etc are not from God's viewpoint, not even from Australia or Siberia' viewpoint, not even from the orbital ISS viewpoint, but only from those ancient Mesopotamian men' viewpoint.
You must understand what you read or else you will confuse both yourself and others.

Well I am a literalist- not an extreme one. I expect God to inspire His Word as we read things and when He goes symbolic- He adds the modifiers to let us know!

YOu are right- neither did I, that is why I trust His Word as written and not reinterpreted by secularists who say God made things by constant mistakes called mutations. Once agiasn why do you beliewve in a literal resurrection when that is just as unscientific as a 6 day creation?

No my view of Genesis is a small view in Christendom! Most of the church that is not already apostate holds to an allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

But amongst what the world would call evangelicals- YEC is the predominant view. And if Pwer poll is trusted, 64% of Americans believe in YEC.

No God did not actually pen the Words but I accept Peters words:

2 Peter 1:19-21 King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So though God did not write it- He inspired the men to do so!

Wonder why He went through all the trouble to make it explicit it was 6 24 days if He didn't mean it?? Why not just stay with "yom" which could mean eras, years, indefinite time spans??


So under the whole heavens is not inspired? Either God inspireds the whole Bible or he doesn't. Noah may not have understood what the whole heavens meant, but God did! That is what matters and He had Noah write it down so that all future generations who would!

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Maybe not even all of Mesopotamia died when God said all life under the heavens perished. After all if He flooded just a local area- most animals and people could flee to another area!

No There is not a sign that says take Genesis literally. Nor is there a sign that says you must take the resurrection literally- so why do you?

Barbarian has struck out so far. Now that he has answered me, I will get to some of his supposed proofsa of evolution and show him false.

He has lied already directly and got caught so this will be easy as well. I have seen these same answers elsewhere .

 

[trophy33]

And if Pwer poll is trusted, 64% of Americans believe in YEC.

But most Christians live outside of America.

So under the whole heavens is not inspired? Either God inspireds the whole Bible or he doesn't.

God used human authors to use their viewpoint, language and knowledge to reveal His plan of salvation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Noah may not have understood what the whole heavens meant, but God did!

But God is not the describer of the story. A Mesopotamian man was.

After all if He flooded just a local area- most animals and people could flee to another area!

The point of the ark was not to save all planet's species from extinction. It would also make no sense to take all kinds of dinosaurs to the ark (as YEC people are saying) just to let them die out shortly after that, because they were unable to accomodate to new ecosystem.

The point was to start new civilization/society after the Persian gulf with Eden was flooded and to have enough resources for it. Penguins, kangaroos or velociraptors are not the point of this Mesopotamian story.

No There is not a sign that says take Genesis literally. Nor is there a sign that says you must take the resurrection literally- so why do you?

The resurrection was eye-witnessed by many people. Creation was not.
Gen 1 and 2 descriptions are amalgamation of monotheistic revelation and Mesopotamian creation mythology. The writer did not witness it directly.

 

[nolidad]

But most Christians live outside of America.


God used human authors to use their viewpoint, language and knowledge to reveal His plan of salvation. Nothing more, nothing less.


But God is not the describer of the story. A Mesopotamian man was.


The point of the ark was not to save all planet's species from extinction. It would also make no sense to take all kinds of dinosaurs to the ark (as YEC people are saying) just to let them die out shortly after that, because they were unable to accomodate to new ecosystem.

The point was to start new civilization/society after the Persian gulf with Eden was flooded and to have enough resources for it. Penguins, kangaroos or velociraptors are not the point of this Mesopotamian story.


The resurrection was eye-witnessed by many people. Creation was not.
Gen 1 and 2 descriptions are amalgamation of monotheistic revelation and Mesopotamian creation mythology. The writer did not witness it directly.

Well on the mission fields where there is little church history- they are all YEC folk.
But truth is not established by majority opinion.

Once again most of the mainline churches compromised in the 1800's.

Nothing more, nothing less? Really?

So all the rest is just fluff or "junk Scripture"(to paraphrase scientists with junk DNA)?

So when God in human flesh verified Noah- what was that? Lying to the masses?
When He verified Adam- did God not know what He created or I guess in your case evolved?

You talk about the Ark making no sense in reference to dinosaurs- but it even makes less sense to have Noah and his family work 120 years building a boat, when He could have just told Him to pack up and move!
But according to science who wasn't there- there were many societies globally already!

YOu are right that Adam did not witness it directly- But he walked with God near sunset apparently daily! You don't think god could tell him that He created the universe? Plus the Mesopotamia legends came after the originals. Now Genesis came after- but Moses edited Genesis based on the writings they carried into the desert! Do you not think God incapable of telling Adam that He created everything or evolved everything or whatever you believe in?

Yes over 500 saw the resurrected Lord! So your standard for veracity of Scripture is that it had to be seen?

How about Babel? That was seen by up to 3 million people!

YOu and millions like you say the Bible is inspired (God breathed) but that what would be a normal straight forward reading and understanding of the verses secular man contests, are not accurate? See I know parables and symbolism- The Bible makes them clear by language. If you believe God is god, and sovereign and maker of the universe, why don't you accept HisWord instead of modern scholars who weren't there?

 

[trophy33]

Well on the mission fields where there is little church history- they are all YEC folk.
But truth is not established by majority opinion.

Once again most of the mainline churches compromised in the 1800's.

Nothing more, nothing less? Really?

So all the rest is just fluff or "junk Scripture"(to paraphrase scientists with junk DNA)?

So when God in human flesh verified Noah- what was that? Lying to the masses?
When He verified Adam- did God not know what He created or I guess in your case evolved?

You talk about the Ark making no sense in reference to dinosaurs- but it even makes less sense to have Noah and his family work 120 years building a boat, when He could have just told Him to pack up and move!
But according to science who wasn't there- there were many societies globally already!

YOu are right that Adam did not witness it directly- But he walked with God near sunset apparently daily! You don't think god could tell him that He created the universe? Plus the Mesopotamia legends came after the originals. Now Genesis came after- but Moses edited Genesis based on the writings they carried into the desert! Do you not think God incapable of telling Adam that He created everything or evolved everything or whatever you believe in?

Yes over 500 saw the resurrected Lord! So your standard for veracity of Scripture is that it had to be seen?

How about Babel? That was seen by up to 3 million people!

YOu and millions like you say the Bible is inspired (God breathed) but that what would be a normal straight forward reading and understanding of the verses secular man contests, are not accurate? See I know parables and symbolism- The Bible makes them clear by language. If you believe God is god, and sovereign and maker of the universe, why don't you accept HisWord instead of modern scholars who weren't there?

God's message was communicated in a human language. These writers had their culture, their knowledge. Its a medium where the God's message is communicated.

If you want to understand what they said, you must understand their culture, their knowledge and their language. Do not read the Bible from your perspective.

For example "whole world", "xyz under all heaven" etc are not literal global planetary descriptions, its our view, not theirs.

 

[trophy33]

You talk about the Ark making no sense in reference to dinosaurs- but it even makes less sense to have Noah and his family work 120 years building a boat, when He could have just told Him to pack up and move!

120 years was given to people to repent. The salvation of Noah is not the only point of the story.

 

[nolidad]

God's message was communicated in a human language. These writers had their culture, their knowledge. Its a medium where the God's message is communicated.

If you want to understand what they said, you must understand their culture, their knowledge and their language. Do not read the Bible from your perspective.

For example "whole world", "xyz under all heaven" etc are not literal global planetary descriptions, its our view, not theirs.

That is why I have many many books on culture and linguistics of biblical times!

No it is Gods perspective that He told Noah whether Noah understand how broad and big the earth was!

You think God and Noah stupid fools! they had more than enough words to describe a flood that would destroy just their region. Noah knew there was more than just the Mesopotamian Valley which most scholares assume He lived in.

 

[nolidad]

120 years was given to people to repent. The salvation of Noah is not the only point of the story.

So all the higher taxa of animals could not escape the valley? They do now Why could they not then?

did God lock all teh unrepentant in their rooms so that when the floods came- they could not escape to higher ground so that all the locals ended up dying?? Is that what you are trying to say?

Or was it Gods intent to trick them by having Noah spend 120 years building an ark instead ojust packing up and moving to higher ground!

 

[trophy33]

That is why I have many many books on culture and linguistics of biblical times!

Great!

No it is Gods perspective that He told Noah whether Noah understand how broad and big the earth was! You think God and Noah stupid fools! ...

And with all your books about the culture and linguistics of biblical times you have, you come up with this...?