Do creationists not know their own Bibles?

[pitabread]

Yes, but the drive to dispute the notion of a six day creation comes from scientific methods that are in question.

Not really. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 go back thousands of years, long before science had anything to say on the subject of the Earth's age.

Anyway Jesus did not question the six day creation narrative.

He also didn't state it had to be interpreted literally.

 

[JackRT]

We lean heavily on dating techniques that in the case of trees in the Pacific near nuclear testing sites present a date in the future !!!

Which is why no scientist would ever submit a sample for radiometric testing if he knew full well that it had been exposed to radiation.

 

[Speedwell]

Not really. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 go back thousands of years, long before science had anything to say on the subject of the Earth's age.



He also didn't state it had to be interpreted literally.

Back in the day, many people believed the six-day creation narrative simply because there was no other information to be had on the topic. Even so there have always been those (including some leading theologians) who preferred a figurative interpretation of Genesis. The notion that belief in a six-day creation is somehow a test of authentic Christian faith or a requirement of Salvation is a recent invention not more than two hundred years old.

 

[public hermit]

In another thread, a creationist claimed that Jesus was a literal 6 day creationist. There is nothing in the Bible that supports this claim (nada, zilch, zip).

This is a good point. I am also curious to see an argument showing otherwise. Thank you for posting this.

 

[Speedwell]

This is a good point. I am also curious to see an argument showing otherwise. Thank you for posting this.

I don't think there is one. We simply don't have enough information to determine what Jesus thought about it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Which is why no scientist would ever submit a sample for radiometric testing if he knew full well that it had been exposed to radiation.

How would a scientist know?

 

[public hermit]

I don't think there is one. We simply don't have enough information to determine what Jesus thought about it.

I agree. I do think we have some evidence (scriptural) that shows Jesus was not beholden to a strictly literal interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, e.g. his interpretation of Moses's serpent in John 3:14. That's helpful to keep in mind, I think.

Still, if someone thinks they have an argument, I'm interested. I've been plenty wrong before.

 

[topher694]

So you agree? You are just going to let some atheist claim that there is no biblical support that Jesus believed the most important thing about the Bible? You're not going to refute it?

Why in the world would I?

 

[Speedwell]

Why in the world would I?

But you're not interested in refuting it.

 

[pitabread]

But you're not interested in refuting it.

This is what I find odd. I'm not sure why someone would just complain about the thread, but not actually do anything to challenge it.

(Unless they agree with it the premise as stated, in which case I guess it's moot.)

 

[topher694]

But you're not interested in refuting it.

Arguing with someone who is self admittedly disrespectful, who holds himself to different standards than others and who created this thread as a massive troll? No, I'll pass. I just want others to see what they are getting into. Now they can decide.

 

[Speedwell]

Arguing with someone who is self admittedly disrespectful, who holds himself to different standards than others and who created this thread as a massive troll? No, I'll pass. I just want others to see what they are getting into. Now they can decide.

So Ignore Pitabread. Refute it to me. I'm a Christian who is under the impression that there is no biblical support for the notion that Jesus unequivocally believed in a literal six-day creation. Talk me out of it.

 

[pitabread]

Arguing with someone who is self admittedly disrespectful, who holds himself to different standards than others and who created this thread as a massive troll? No, I'll pass.

Yet you spent about a half dozen posts in this thread arguing with me all the same.

 

[LoricaLady]

Just piecing a few things together...

We lean heavily on dating techniques that in the case of trees in the Pacific near nuclear testing sites present a date in the future !!!

I know this is random but I will keep going.

An issue with the Shroud of Turin is that the dating makes it much younger than Jesus day.

But wait... They say that the shroud image could only have been printed by some radiation effect.

Maybe the act of creation involved some radiation event that seriously skews the dating...

Just sayin...

My icon at left is taken from the Shroud.

There is a vid, now only available used on VHS through Amazon that shows the very inventor of carbon 14 testing weighing in on the Shroud of Turin. He states unequivocally that the carbon dating for the Shroud was not reliable because of contamination.

For anyone curious about the Shroud:

There are many other vids on the Shroud, with scientific data, and here is just one:

Here is the Shroud website: The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into stewardship of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.


The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.


The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.

The Jew And The Shroud with Barrie Schwartz on TedX on You Tube is fun to watch. Schwartz was the official photographer for STURP. He shows cognitive dissonance, imho, because kicking and screaming he finally came to feel there was no doubt that the man on the Shroud was Messiah. But last I heard he has not accepted Him as Messiah. Still he is a great speaker and is probably now the world's biggest expert on the Shroud both historically and scientifically.

When Messiah was seen after His resurrection "still some did not believe." It will always be like that. I don't have time to debate the Shroud. If you don't see the obvious, or want to quote some site that says it is a phony that is put out by people who were never anywhere near it, oh well.

I'm just sharing, not wanting to argue and will not even be back to this string. "May those see who have eyes to see." And I can't give them those eyes.

Blessings and bye.

 

[topher694]

So Ignore Pitabread. Refute it to me. I'm a Christian who is under the impression that there is no biblical support for the notion that Jesus unequivocally believed in a literal six-day creation. Talk me out of it.

Yes sir! Whatever you tell me to do! Sheesh....

 

[pitabread]

Yes sir! Whatever you tell me to do! Sheesh....

Here's a question for you: Do you think that Jesus is a literal 6-day creationist?

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, you're not a "Bible-believing Christian." You must be an atheist. If I have to be one so do you.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[JackRT]

How would a scientist know?

Because you said "We lean heavily on dating techniques that in the case of trees in the Pacific near nuclear testing sites present a date in the future !!!"

 

[Pavel Mosko]

In another thread, a creationist claimed that Jesus was a literal 6 day creationist. There is nothing in the Bible that supports this claim (nada, zilch, zip).

I'm used to creationists not knowing anything about science. I'm even used to creationists not knowing anything about creationism. But I'm starting to wonder if creationists know anything about the Bible at all.

Well as an old earth creationist I will chime in...

As a teacher, rabbi etc. it is very hard to not sound like your teaching that based on the time and culture of the Day. Young Earth Creationism was the assumed teaching of the Jews, Church Fathers etc. And well if you are going to be preaching you will be using lots of idioms, expressions etc. that are literary allusions to various passages of the Bible. I don't see that as teaching YEC, but for those that want to it's a free country....

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing in the Bible that supports this claim (nada, zilch, zip).

From one of the Ten Commandments ...

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

We know from Exodus 31 that God himself wrote the Ten Commandments ...

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Deuteronomy 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

Let me reiterate: these were hand-written by God himself.

And we know that Jesus is God.

Thus Jesus wrote, with His own hand, that He made the universe in six days.