Creationists and the Heart

[Speedwell]

......because people were so ignorant back then that they wouldn't have understood it if He had said....

No one is making that accusation.

However... they can be told that "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and be expected to figure out that a billion years or so must have gone by....

Why would anybody want to do anything of the kind? Why would anybody be expected to "figure out" bare facts abut cosmology from what is obviously hymnody?

.or... some people in white coats, cannot figure out what they are looking at now and how God did it in six days......most of them atheists who are trying to prove the bible wrong and that God doesn't exist.

Certainly many scientists are atheists, but very few atheists care that much about some eccentric sect of Protestants, those who have so much as heard of it. Even Dawkins had to be goaded into his counteroffensive stance by creationists.

 

[Speedwell]

But I am sorry you didn't take up my challenge: Evangelize!

Look: we are both Christians; we both believe in God's creation of the universe and man, in man's fall into sin and need for redemption through the life, death and bodily resurrection of Christ as revealed in divinely inspired scripture.

Given that degree of agreement, sell me. Why should I give up my view of scripture for yours? What does it get me?

 

[-57]

Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?

Why is that a problem? God told us He formed Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams side. Knowing how blood flows doesn't negate that.

 

[JacksBratt]

But I am sorry you didn't take up my challenge: Evangelize!

Look: we are both Christians; we both believe in God's creation of the universe and man, in man's fall into sin and need for redemption through the life, death and bodily resurrection of Christ as revealed in divinely inspired scripture.

Given that degree of agreement, sell me. Why should I give up my view of scripture for yours? What does it get me?

Conversations, arguments, debates, learning, listening to others, and other activities that I indulge in on this site, are a very small portion of my life as a Christian.

Thanks for the challenge. I am shining as Christ's light, to the best of my ability, in my workplace, social functions, sports and other aspects of life.

You are right, we are both Christians and believe in the gospel and the idea of spreading this good news.
Yes, the book of genesis and the creation week may not be a salvation issue, for you. However, if you open a crack in the truth and start to say "that's allegorical" you diminish the power of God, the truth of the scriptures and, for people who do not know God, or the Bible, its confusing enough for them to have faith in ancient words. Let alone saying that "what was written in Genesis was poetry and allegorical or a metaphor"

The Bible is like an onion... the more you peel it the more it reveals. Taken from the literal basics that it presents, as read by a child..... still reveals the basic truth that anyone needs. There is no need to believe that creation was any more than six days.

If observations of men cause other men to feel like they need to "read between the lines" of this first book... so be it.

As for me.... God said He did it in six days.... He is capable of doing it in six days.....He did it in six days. The "wisdom of men" will be revealed as incorrect, when all truth is revealed.


And......sorry.....but I have never been a salesman.

 

[-57]

Yes, the book of genesis and the creation week may not be a salvation issue,

That is true, but, there is a but...Some essential doctrine is built upon a historical and literal Genesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, the book of genesis and the creation week may not be a salvation issue, for you. However, if you open a crack in the truth and start to say "that's allegorical" you diminish the power of God, the truth of the scriptures and, for people who do not know God, or the Bible, its confusing enough for them to have faith in ancient words. Let alone saying that "what was written in Genesis was poetry and allegorical or a metaphor"

Why would that be confusing? Are you suggesting that scripture needs to be "dumbed down?" That we should reduce the beautiful stories of Genesis to the base level of mere factual historical accounts?

 

[-57]

Why would that be confusing? Are you suggesting that scripture needs to be "dumbed down?" That we should reduce the beautiful stories of Genesis to the base level of mere factual historical accounts?

There is no need to dumb it down...it is exactly what it says.
One thing I do know is that it doesn't include evolutionism.

 

[Speedwell]

That is true, but, there is a but...Some essential doctrine is built upon a historical and literal Genesis.

Like what, besides God's authorship of the universe, creation of man in His image and our fall into sin and need for a redeemer? None of those require a "literal and inerrant" Genesis, so what else is there?

 

[-57]

Like what, besides God's authorship of the universe, creation of man in His image and our fall into sin and need for a redeemer? None of those require a "literal and inerrant" Genesis, so what else is there?

The bible says Adam literally disobeyed God and fell in the garden.
If the account in Genesis isn't historical and literal...then there was no garden, no Adam and no fall and consequently no need for a savior.

 

[Speedwell]

The bible says Adam literally disobeyed God and fell in the garden.
If the account in Genesis isn't historical and literal...then there was no garden, no Adam and no fall and consequently no need for a savior.

Logic fail. The fallacy is formally known as Denying the Antecedent.

 

[-57]

Logic fail. The fallacy is formally known as Denying the Antecedent.

How would you explain mans sin nature?

 

[Speedwell]

How would you explain mans sin nature?

I don't have an explanation, only a "Just-So" story like everybody else. I don't need more of an explanation than that. That we are sinful creatures in need of redemption is a fact of our experience as it was for the author(s) of the Garden story. They didn't have an explanation for it either, which is why they wrote the story that way.

 

[-57]

I don't have an explanation, only a "Just-So" story like everybody else. I don't need more of an explanation than that. That we are sinful creatures in need of redemption is a fact of our experience as it was for the author(s) of the Garden story. They didn't have an explanation for it either, which is why they wrote the story that way.

Just so story? Interesting concept.
Paul wrote a letter to Timothy and laid down some of the rules for the women there.
What did Paul base those rules on? You seem to be saying a just so story. In reality Paul based the rules on Genesis.....Here's what Paul said:

1st Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

I can hear Paul now....Hey ladies, I'm asking you to act in a certain way because of a just so story. It never really happened.

 

[Speedwell]

Just so story? Interesting concept.
Paul wrote a letter to Timothy and laid down some of the rules for the women there.
What did Paul base those rules on? You seem to be saying a just so story. In reality Paul based the rules on Genesis.....Here's what Paul said:

1st Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

I can hear Paul now....Hey ladies, I'm asking you to act in a certain way because of a just so story. It never really happened.

Ah, but a "Just-So" story told by God. I don't know about you, but that's enough for me.

 

[-57]

Ah, but a "Just-So" story told by God. I don't know about you, but that's enough for me.

So, Jesus din't really resurrect...That was also a so-so story?

 

[Speedwell]

So, Jesus din't really resurrect...That was also a so-so story?

Why would you think such a thing? The Gospels are an entirely different form of literature, written many centuries after Genesis in a different language to suit an entirely different purpose. What you propose is rather like putting a novel no the shelf next to a history book, and expecting the history book to become a novel, too.

 

[Dale]

......because people were so ignorant back then that they wouldn't have understood it if He had said....

" and multitudes of years went by, there was the next day"............ and multitudes of years went by and the second day"

However... they can be told that "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and be expected to figure out that a billion years or so must have gone by....

.or... some people in white coats, cannot figure out what they are looking at now and how God did it in six days......most of them atheists who are trying to prove the bible wrong and that God doesn't exist.

Conversations, arguments, debates, learning, listening to others, and other activities that I indulge in on this site, are a very small portion of my life as a Christian.

Thanks for the challenge. I am shining as Christ's light, to the best of my ability, in my workplace, social functions, sports and other aspects of life.

You are right, we are both Christians and believe in the gospel and the idea of spreading this good news.
Yes, the book of genesis and the creation week may not be a salvation issue, for you. However, if you open a crack in the truth and start to say "that's allegorical" you diminish the power of God, the truth of the scriptures and, for people who do not know God, or the Bible, its confusing enough for them to have faith in ancient words. Let alone saying that "what was written in Genesis was poetry and allegorical or a metaphor"

The Bible is like an onion... the more you peel it the more it reveals. Taken from the literal basics that it presents, as read by a child..... still reveals the basic truth that anyone needs. There is no need to believe that creation was any more than six days.

If observations of men cause other men to feel like they need to "read between the lines" of this first book... so be it.

As for me.... God said He did it in six days.... He is capable of doing it in six days.....He did it in six days. The "wisdom of men" will be revealed as incorrect, when all truth is revealed.


And......sorry.....but I have never been a salesman.

A prayer of Moses the man of God.
1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place
throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the whole world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

3 You turn people back to dust,
saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.”
4 A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

--Psalm 90: 1-4 NIV


I wonder if you are familiar with this passage from the Psalms? "A thousand years in your [God's] sight are like a day ..." In other words, a thousand years to us are like a day to God. If the author of this Psalm were used to dealing with millions or billions he might have said "A million years in your sight are like a day ..." or "A billion years in your sight are like a day ..."


This Psalm is traditionally attributed to Moses, just like the first five books of the Bible. Whoever composed it, the author doesn't share your view that a "day" in the first chapters of Genesis can only mean twenty-four hours as we measure time today. The days in Genesis One could simply be dividers, turning the creation into chapters.

 

[Dale]

How would you explain mans sin nature?

God is infinite and infallible.

The souls of humans are finite and fallible.

That doesn't leave anything to explain.

 

[Dale]

But didn't poison the lizard? Phewf.... lucky that....



solid fangs or hollow fangs... then, I guess, the solid fangs randomly hollowed out...you know... to make way for the poison saliva that wasn't poison for the lizard....




... like half a sack? maybe a whole sack but nothing to hold. Then maybe a whole sack with a tube that miraculously joined to the fang? Hollow fang er um no.... solid fang but the fang version 2.01.02 was hollow... what in the world ?




OK, you can believe that. However, think of all the intricate functions of all the animals on the face of the earth. For the snake to develop venom and a delivery system, as you have described... is a fantastic win against very high odds... now times that by every characteristic function of the thousands of creatures from snakes, to fire flies, to skunks, to spittle bugs, to dung Beatles, to angler fish, to chameleons, to woodpeckers.... not to mention that every single one of the billions of organisms have a male and female of the species that have a reproductive system that is perfectly evolved to function with each other...

This could happen once,,,, maybe, against huge odds, if at all... but billions of times?

I`ll stick with akum`s razor....God made the snake... with venom, with venom sacks and with hollow fangs with which to deliver it. Just like He told us that He did.

Jack,

You say that a lizard with poison saliva would poison itself.

Have you ever heard of the Gila Monster? They live in Arizona, among other places.

The Gila Monster has poison saliva. I believe it only releases the poison saliva once its teeth are sunk into another animal, either as prey or in self-defense.

There are other examples of lizards with poison saliva. The notion that such animals can exist is not a theory, we know it happens.

 

[Dale]

So, Jesus din't really resurrect...That was also a so-so story?

Have you read Josh McDowell's The Resurrection Factor?
He said it very well.
I accept the argument for the validity of New Testament accounts put forward there.