Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons...?

[sealacamp]

The point is that he takes Gen 1 to be the same kind of non-literal illustration.

Well there is a big difference between literal or non-literal agreement and Gods word stating "In the beginning God created...". That is quite literal and not subject to any interpretation or rewording. Yet that is exactly what mainstream evolutionists are doing. With those who want to adhere to evolution as presented in our academic institutions it is God created or chance created, that is the crux of the disagreement, as far as I am concerned anyway.

BTW the trees can talk so it is literal and illustrative at the same time.

Sealacamp

 

[Mikecpking]

Well there is a big difference between literal or non-literal agreement and Gods word stating "In the beginning God created...". That is quite literal and not subject to any interpretation or rewording. Yet that is exactly what mainstream evolutionists are doing. With those who want to adhere to evolution as presented in our academic institutions it is God created or chance created, that is the crux of the disagreement, as far as I am concerned anyway.

BTW the trees can talk so it is literal and illustrative at the same time.

Sealacamp

No one is questioning "in the beginning, God" as every Christian whether YEC or TE.

I have never heard a talking tree and it is figurative, not literal.

Have you heard blood cry out and speak in Genesis 4:10?

 

[phoenixdem]

If we believe there is a Creator who has made all things and whose Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Holy Bible, can we not also believe that God knows all things in and through His Creation? Can blood cry out to God from the ground?

Did Jesus say this? Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our

father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

When God Himself speaks of His power, I will believe Him. I would not dare to disbelieve Him.​

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well there is a big difference between literal or non-literal agreement and Gods word stating "In the beginning God created...". That is quite literal and not subject to any interpretation or rewording.

Our Bible was written in several very different genres of literature. The literary genre of Genesis 1-11 is unique to the Bible. Contemporary scholars of Genesis agree about that, but they disagree about what genre of literature Genesis 11-11 is written in. There are hundreds of passages in the Bible that are written in the genre known as the literal, historical narrative—a genre of literature that the typical reader can read and picture in his mind what the narrative is describing. That is not at all true of Genesis 1-11, and the proof that it is not true of Genesis 1-11 is that readers of that portion of Genesis form widely differing pictures in their mind as they read it.

Today, nearly all of the scholars of Genesis agree that Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature belonging to one of three major types: legends, myths, or epic tales. Evidence can be found in the Bible and extracanonical literature that supports each of these three interpretations. I believe that the preponderance of evidence points to Genesis being a series of ancient oriental epic tales that were woven together by divine inspiration over a period of time into the eleven chapters that we have today, and that they were thus inspired by God to teach spiritual truths. The evidence for this view has been summarized in several commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis and in very many academic papers on Genesis.

Yet that is exactly what mainstream evolutionists are doing. With those who want to adhere to evolution as presented in our academic institutions it is God created or chance created, that is the crux of the disagreement, as far as I am concerned anyway.

It deeply grieves me that some Christians today are still arguing against the theory of evolution by arguing that complex organism could not come into being by chance. After 150 years of teaching on evolution by hundreds of thousands of people, these Christians still do not realize that the strongest argument in favor of evolution is that complex organism could not come into being by chance—there must be a driving force. The discovery of a driving force in nature by Charles Darwin gave birth to the theory of evolution. That driving force is natural selection.

Natural selection works using exactly the same genetic mechanisms used in the breeding of cats and dogs. The only difference is in the force causing the selection. In the case of breeding cats and dogs, the force is the human breeder. In the case of natural selection, the force is nature. The creator of nature and its force is God.

The process of natural selection bringing about speciation has been observed in both the laboratory and in the field. Does this necessarily prove that man evolved from “lower” forms of life? No, it does not. However, the evidence from science, apart from religion, that man evolved from “lower” forms of life is massive.

A literal interpretation of every word in the Bible contradicts the conclusions drawn from science. Literary studies of Genesis, however, contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis. What, therefore, is the Christian to believe? That is up to each Christian to decide for himself, but what we share with others has consequences. How we share with others what we believe also has consequences, and these consequences need to be carefully and prayerfully considered.

 

[sealacamp]

Have you heard blood cry out and speak in Genesis 4:10?

I haven't but clearly God did and does. God said He hears the blood of the innocents crying out to Him and I have no doubt that is exactly what He hears. So it doesn't matter if I hear it or not He does.

Sealacamp

 

[phoenixdem]

I haven't but clearly God did and does. God said He hears the blood of the innocents crying out to Him and I have no doubt that is exactly what He hears. So it doesn't matter if I hear it or not He does.

Sealacamp

Amen

 

[Hupomone10]

I think there's something we're missing here.

If God created life by evolutionary changes over millions of years, to be consistent we should apply the same possibility to the new heavens and new earth.

It may be that God will re-create the new earth through the gradual process of change and natural selection since He favors it so much. In this case the new earth will definitely come; we just need to be patient for it, or rather the people across few hundred thousand generations need to be patient.

One day the lion, the lamb, the leopard, the wolf, and the calf will lie down together (Isah 11:6), but it will just take a few hundred thousand generations of guilt-ridden lions, wolves, and leopards feeling more and more guilty for killing lambs and calves, and gradually evolving toward eating grass; and voila! Before you know it, there we are!

Well, you won't be there, but someone will.

On an encouraging note, there will still be boys there, so chances are there will be girls, ladies and men also.

Isaiah 11:6
"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them."

 

[NullByte]

Oh boy, what a conversation. Make me reminiscence about the days where I would struggle arguing with my friends who were majoring in biology.

I have struggled with this topic, and sometimes do not have a pole to stand on. I use to believe that micro evolution happened (Different flu shot every year), instead of macro, but if this world is truly older than 6000 years old I would probably believe some form of evolution has happened, would this cause me to not believe in God? No, because even if I interpret Genesis wrong, I know with all my heart my God lives, cause he lives inside my heart .

Princeton, you said you came to peace with your belief after "careful" study. How did you interrupt Genesis to where your faith is not wavered by evolution theories? It may be good to share this with others.

How reliable do you’ll believe the carbon dating process to be? Just for curiosity.

 

[joshua41]

I think there's something we're missing here.

If God created life by evolutionary changes over millions of years, to be consistent we should apply the same possibility to the new heavens and new earth.

No.

Well, you won't be there, but someone will.

What?

The ICR argues that Neanderthals are a different type of human. They only reach this conclusion because, amongst other items, they also ignore the correct dating of Neanderthals. Here is an argument from the ICR

The researchers compared reconstructions of a newborn Neanderthal with the skeletons of infant Neanderthals to gauge the growth rate of their heads. They found that “Neanderthal brain size at birth was similar to that in recent Homo sapiens.”1 They also estimated that the growth rate of Neanderthal baby skulls was as slow as, or slower than, those of modern human babies.
This research confirms several aspects of the creation model.

Neanderthal Babies Were Human Babies

Incredible discovery. Ignore the fact that the human genome is more complex. Ignore the dates. Ignore all the other pre evolved states and their dates. What use of objective thinking. They are on a mission to prove their point of view, and nothing else.

Sea, you who claim to support the Word of God, can you make sense of their argument?

I can respect the fact that you interpret the Bible literally. I can't respect the fact that you have to lie about the earth and science to prove your theology correct. I can't support the fact that you claim to believe in Gods word, and claim to not be ashamed of it yet you have to make up lies to believe it.

Want to believe in a literal creation? Fine and good. Want to make up false information and expect people to believe it and then label those who don't as heretics? Sick.

It is my personal opinion that things may not be as they seem. Evolution may seem to be correct but is actually wrong. Maybe God hid the truth from us. I personally do not know. But to argue that within the current framework of science exists a creationist argument is a big fat whopper.

Originally Posted by sealacamp

I haven't but clearly God did and does. God said He hears the blood of the innocents crying out to Him and I have no doubt that is exactly what He hears. So it doesn't matter if I hear it or not He does.

Sealacamp
​

The point of the statement is not whether or not God can literally hear blood crying out. The point of the statement is that God can see the injustice that has been done to innocent people. It is really irrelevant to the overall point how this is accomplished.

If you read anything more into this than that then you are in fact maniuplating the meaning.

 

[supersoldier71]

Those people who say that Genesis 1-3 in particular is not a literal interpretation: if God wanted to illustrate that He created the world in six literal days, how would He have phrased it?

To me, the language seems as straightforward as possible, and additionally, "...there was evening and there was morning..." tends to lead me towards a literal understanding.

I used to believe in an Old Earth version of Creation, but I have come to understand that first and foremost Scripture, not the opinions of man, is the highest authority. It is a very dangerous thing to decide that one part of scripture is myth, but another is not. What then? The Creation account is a myth, but the Fall happened. Why the Fall? Scripture tells us that sin and thus death entered the world through Adam. If there was no death before sin, then there could have been no natural selection before sin. But if we're picking and choosing what's myth and what's fact, then maybe there was no Fall?

Of course if there was no Fall, then there would be no need for the redemption of the cross....the entire slope is too slippery, too perilous, and in my opinion, is one of the ways this world and the unseen enemy attack the faith of believers.

 

[Mikecpking]

Those people who say that Genesis 1-3 in particular is not a literal interpretation: if God wanted to illustrate that He created the world in six literal days, how would He have phrased it?

To me, the language seems as straightforward as possible, and additionally, "...there was evening and there was morning..." tends to lead me towards a literal understanding.

I used to believe in an Old Earth version of Creation, but I have come to understand that first and foremost Scripture, not the opinions of man, is the highest authority. It is a very dangerous thing to decide that one part of scripture is myth, but another is not. What then? The Creation account is a myth, but the Fall happened. Why the Fall? Scripture tells us that sin and thus death entered the world through Adam. If there was no death before sin, then there could have been no natural selection before sin. But if we're picking and choosing what's myth and what's fact, then maybe there was no Fall?

Of course if there was no Fall, then there would be no need for the redemption of the cross....the entire slope is too slippery, too perilous, and in my opinion, is one of the ways this world and the unseen enemy attack the faith of believers.

I came from the other way round. When I was in my teens, I used to be a YEC. I studied geology, biology and a lot of oither earth sciences and after field work and intensive study same to the conclusion that the earth really is billions of years old.
I then did theology 17 years ago and a different way of looking at the creation account together with attitudes to science was discussed and have no problem in reconciling the very points you raise (like the fall) , the whole bible and what is observable and verifiable in science with geology and biology.

 

[sealacamp]

The point of the statement is not whether or not God can literally hear blood crying out. The point of the statement is that God can see the injustice that has been done to innocent people. It is really irrelevant to the overall point how this is accomplished.

If you read anything more into this than that then you are in fact maniuplating the meaning.

You asked a very specific question and I answered it specifically. Now, apparently, that is not good enough for you. That rests my case as far as your case is concerned. However for your own purposes carry on.

Sealacamp

 

[joshua41]

You asked a very specific question and I answered it specifically. Now, apparently, that is not good enough for you. That rests my case as far as your case is concerned. However for your own purposes carry on.

Sealacamp

I didn't ask you the question; I was commenting on the subject.

I believe earlier you said that science gives evidence of creationism. I am just curious as to which Creationism Institute (or philosophy) you support, and why you feel there arguments are empirically accurate.

If you do disagree or do not support one, do you feel as if they are manipulating facts to fit a case?

Thanks for your response in advance.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Those people who say that Genesis 1-3 in particular is not a literal interpretation: if God wanted to illustrate that He created the world in six literal days, how would He have phrased it?

To me, the language seems as straightforward as possible, and additionally, "...there was evening and there was morning..." tends to lead me towards a literal understanding.

I used to believe in an Old Earth version of Creation, but I have come to understand that first and foremost Scripture, not the opinions of man, is the highest authority. It is a very dangerous thing to decide that one part of scripture is myth, but another is not. What then? The Creation account is a myth, but the Fall happened. Why the Fall? Scripture tells us that sin and thus death entered the world through Adam. If there was no death before sin, then there could have been no natural selection before sin. But if we're picking and choosing what's myth and what's fact, then maybe there was no Fall?

Of course if there was no Fall, then there would be no need for the redemption of the cross....the entire slope is too slippery, too perilous, and in my opinion, is one of the ways this world and the unseen enemy attack the faith of believers.

Any bright 12-year-old boy or girl who has not been indoctrinated in religion is going to interpret the story of Noah and the ark as fiction because any bright 12-year-old boy or girl who has not been indoctrinated in religion has enough knowledge of the earth and its inhabitants to know that the story could not possibly be true. Any bright 18-year-old boy or girl who has not been indoctrinated in religion can, by reading through the Bible, see that the Bible was written in several very different genres of literature, and that the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 is unique to the Bible and, therefore, needs to be interpreted according to its unique genre.

However, in the United States, especially in the Bible belt, millions of young people have been indoctrinated to believe in religious views that contradict the obvious facts regarding the earth, its inhabitants, and the literature that constitutes the Bible. Furthermore, they are taught that most scientists and Bible scholars have been influenced by Satan to disbelieve the Bible. When these same young people encounter some of the massive amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution and begin to think for themselves, the biblical narrative of Noah and the ark becomes “The Story of Noah and the Ark,” a ridiculous piece of irrelevant fiction. Adam, Eve, Moses, and Jesus become fictional characters and the entire Bible becomes nothing more than an “old, irrelevant book about silly religious stuff.” Their faith becomes shipwrecked, and they become apostates.

A small fraction of these young people, however, hang on to their religious beliefs, and some of them become so obsessed with their religious beliefs that they begin to militantly and hatefully attack the scientists and Bible scholars who disagree with them. Consequently, we find men like Henry Morris* falsely accusing evolutionists of being racists and arguing that the craters on the moon were caused by a war between Satan and Michael the ark angel and willfully and deliberately misquoting and quoting out of context scientists to deceive the public into believing that the scientists believe in his teaching of young-earth creationism.

*Please read for yourselves the ridiculous nonsense that Henry Morris published over the years and compare his quotes from scientists with the actual words that the scientists wrote.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I think there's something we're missing here.

If God created life by evolutionary changes over millions of years, to be consistent we should apply the same possibility to the new heavens and new earth.

We have massive amounts of evidence that support of the theory of evolution, and the amount of the evidence is rapidly growing. What evidence do you have that the new heavens and the new earth will evolve over a period of millions of years?

 

[sealacamp]

Have you heard blood cry out and speak in Genesis 4:10?

You didn't ask this?

I didn't ask you the question; I was commenting on the subject.

You say you didn't ask and state that it was a comment, but it sure looks just like a question to me, and one that is designed to discredit the validity of Gods word, again. Obviously you are determined to make it what you wish it to be, just like some other folks are. So go right ahead and change what ever you wish, I'll keep mine just as it is written.

We have massive amounts of evidence that support of the theory of evolution, and the amount of the evidence is rapidly growing.

Equally there is massive evidence to refute your supposed evidence. However you won't accept it as your mind has already been made up against what God has said. In the end it won't go anywhere accept with those that are looking for a way to usurp God and His word.

Sealacamp

 

[supersoldier71]

Archaeologist can find no proof that the Exodus occurred. I believe it did. Archaeologists can find no evidence of a global flood. I believe in the Great Flood. Archaeologists state that Moses was likely Egyptian. I believe he was an Israelite. There is no archaeolgical evidence that Jesus rose on the third day....if you chose to disbelieve the other accounts, what stops you from disbelieving Jesus? Walking by faith, not by sight, may require that a TRUE believer discard what is visible and observable and accept that the God of truth, when He breathed out His perfect, inerrant and complete Holy Scripture, may have been speaking literally, concisely and in fact truthfully, regarding the Creation Event.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Equally there is massive evidence to refute your supposed evidence. However you won't accept it as your mind has already been made up against what God has said. In the end it won't go anywhere accept with those that are looking for a way to usurp God and His word.

Sealacamp

Is it not exceedingly malicious and hateful, and therefore exceedingly sinful, to accuse Christians of “looking for a way to usurp God and His word” simply because they believe in an academically defensible interpretation of the Bible?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Archaeologist can find no proof that the Exodus occurred. I believe it did. Archaeologists can find no evidence of a global flood. I believe in the Great Flood. Archaeologists state that Moses was likely Egyptian. I believe he was an Israelite. There is no archaeolgical evidence that Jesus rose on the third day....if you chose to disbelieve the other accounts, what stops you from disbelieving Jesus? Walking by faith, not by sight, may require that a TRUE believer discard what is visible and observable and accept that the God of truth, when He breathed out His perfect, inerrant and complete Holy Scripture, may have been speaking literally, concisely and in fact truthfully, regarding the Creation Event.

I have never encountered a “TRUE believer” in Christ who found it necessary to discard what God has taught him through what is “visible and observable.” Indeed, would not such a person be more accurately described as a victim of his own presumption and prejudice?

 

[joshua41]

You didn't ask this?

You say you didn't ask and state that it was a comment, but it sure looks just like a question to me, and one that is designed to discredit the validity of Gods word, again. Obviously you are determined to make it what you wish it to be, just like some other folks are. So go right ahead and change what ever you wish, I'll keep mine just as it is written.

Sealacamp

I didn't ask that question actually. (MikeCP asked it).

Will you answer my question please?

I believe earlier you said that science gives evidence of creationism. I am just curious as to which Creationism Institute (or philosophy) you support, and why you feel there arguments are empirically accurate.

If you do disagree or do not support one, do you feel as if they are manipulating facts to fit a case?

Thanks for your response in advance.