does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

[theFijian]

am supposed to take your word for it whenyo provide no proof. not a chance. hebrews 11 and gen. 1 support my side not yours plus i have exodus, ps. job and other passages on my side as well.

So scripture is no longer proof of anything to you? How sad.

i posed a question with that phrase and have not built a theology out of it nor base my entire belief system on a phrase taken out of context.

Evolution is not a theology. Your anti-science stance grounded in anti-intellectualism is not theology either.

i am not being inconsistant but pointing out that you use one phrase to justify your whole acceptance of evolution while i use that one phrase to point out that when is not the issue.

quite a difference i believe.

Oh no it's much more than one verse. And yes it is inconsistent of you.

 

[archaeologist]

So scripture is no longer proof of anything to you? How sad.

i am ignoring such baiting comments. you have gone to the extreme and i won't go there. provide sound, credible exegesis, scholars, references to back up your point. you say you have 100,000 + so lets see some examples.

Evolution is not a theology. Your anti-science stance grounded in anti-intellectualism is not theology either

personal attacks do not help you. evolution doesn't exist. i am not anti-science or anti-intelligence, i am anti-secular science and anti-lack of discernment, anti-lack of following God, and so on.

using one phrase to justify your beliefs doesn't cut it in academia or God's world.

Oh no it's much more than one verse. And yes it is inconsistent of you

you talk a good game but when it comes time to put p, you avoid it.

 

[ExpatChristian]

Fijian
Archie has reject the Bible as a credible source on another thread somewhere and Rudolph Hucker took him apart on it. It's nothing new. He asserts its credibility when it serves his end and denies it when it doesn't. In short, he just makes it up as he goes along.

 

[Assyrian]

I've already told you that Heb 11, Gen 1:24 and 25 support my assertion. And it's a bit rich for you to bleat on about 'one phrase' when this whole thread of yours is based upon one phrase... 'in the beginning'. Now there's inconsistency for you!

Have I missed the part where Archie actually shows how Heb 11 supports his claim?

Gen 1:24 is interesting, because Archie's whole argument in Heb 11 is based on the fact that God did not mention using a process in the passage and claiming that therefore God did not use a process. Which simply does not follow. Heb 11 doesn't say process, it doesn't say no process either.

It is very relevant then that we have Gen 1:24 describing God ordaining the natural world to produce different kinds of animals. An argument of 'no natural process' simply based on silence is pretty well scuppered by even one verse describing God using natural process.

 

[theFijian]

i am ignoring such baiting comments. you have gone to the extreme and i won't go there. provide sound, credible exegesis, scholars, references to back up your point. you say you have 100,000 + so lets see some examples.

I have shown you plain scripture, yet you are not interested in it. Why scripture means so little to you is beyond me. I guess there's no debating with someone who holds the word of God is such low regard

 

[notmyown123]

I do not know if this has been said yet, I did not have time to read all of the posts. However I would have to believe that In the beginning meant just that In the beginning. God exists outside of time, it does not affect him, he created it. Hence in the beginning.

 

[archaeologist]

I have shown you plain scripture, yet you are not interested in it. Why scripture means so little to you is beyond me. I guess there's no debating with someone who holds the word of God is such low regard

trying to turn this around on me will not work. you have only used one phrase to prove your point, the verse in hebrews denies your point and so do all theother scriptures throughout the Bible. if they didn't, you would have used them by now.

why don't you just be honest and say you believe the way you do because that is the way you want to believe no matter what scriptures says.

 

[theFijian]

trying to turn this around on me will not work. you have only used one phrase to prove your point, the verse in hebrews denies your point and so do all theother scriptures throughout the Bible. if they didn't, you would have used them by now.

why don't you just be honest and say you believe the way you do because that is the way you want to believe no matter what scriptures says.

Why don;t you be honest and admit that the Bible tells us that God uses a natural process to fulfill his ordained will. The fact that Genesis 1 speaks about it should be enough for you instead of obfuscating.

 

[archaeologist]

Why don;t you be honest and admit that the Bible tells us that God uses a natural process to fulfill his ordained will. The fact that Genesis 1 speaks about it should be enough for you instead of obfuscating.

you are the one contradicting scripture the burden of proof is on you.

Gen 1:24 is interesting, because Archie's whole argument in Heb 11 is based on the fact that God did not mention using a process in the passage and claiming that therefore God did not use a process. Which simply does not follow. Heb 11 doesn't say process, it doesn't say no process either.

obviously you miss the part where it says "at GOD's COMMAND' not at God's enacting a process.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

you are the one contradicting scripture the burden of proof is on you.



obviously you miss the part where it says "at GOD's COMMAND' not at God's enacting a process.

Let's recap for simplicity.

Genesis 1.24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That's pretty clear.

But I am struggling to follow Archie's argument in the 40 verses of Hebrews 11. Perhaps he would care to elucidate?

 

[Assyrian]

you are the one contradicting scripture the burden of proof is on you.

Seeing as theFijian is showing us what scripture actually says, how do you get from there to him being the one contradicting scripture?

obviously you miss the part where it says "at GOD's COMMAND' not at God's enacting a process.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures... sounds like a command too. What is it about God's command that make you think there can't be a process involved? Gen 6:22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. Process or no process?

 

[archaeologist]

Seeing as theFijian is showing us what scripture actually says, how do you get from there to him being the one contradicting scripture?

how is he showing us what scripture really says whenhe quotes no credible scholar or source to back up his interpretation? he seems to have no exegetical skills to help him either.

all i see him do is give his opinion based on nothing but a phrase. he refuses to show that the Bible supports His posiion whereas i have all the scripture throughout the Bible that deny his claim and suports God active creativity and He did it through His ower and not a process.

Gen 6:22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. Process or no process?

you are now equating obedience to a process...?

here are theverses that pertain to that phrase i put in bold the words you and fijian ignore:

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

no process.

jeremiah 27:5

5 With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please

no process. so please provide other scriptures that back yours and fijian's point of view.

 

[scandalon]

This is an interesting discussion. However, I'll have to side with Archaeologist on this one.

I think that one thing that has been overlooked is the phrase from Genesis 1:24 which says "let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind." I've tried to catch up on this thread, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think Fijian is saying that means God used evolutionary processes of the earth to produce animals.

But moving forward to Genesis 2:7 it says "the Lord made Adam from the dust of the ground." So apparently God used natural elements which he created to create Adam, a fully formed human, not the product of evolution. Thus, the earth brought forth Adam.

In the same way, God used "the dust of the ground" to create anmial life. Thus, when it says the earth brought forth living creatures, it was by a creative act of God, not evolution.

That's my take.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

This is an interesting discussion. However, I'll have to side with Archaeologist on this one.

I think that one thing that has been overlooked is the phrase from Genesis 1:24 which says "let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind." I've tried to catch up on this thread, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think Fijian is saying that means God used evolutionary processes of the earth to produce animals.

But moving forward to Genesis 2:7 it says "the Lord made Adam from the dust of the ground." So apparently God used natural elements which he created to create Adam, a fully formed human, not the product of evolution. Thus, the earth brought forth Adam.

In the same way, God used "the dust of the ground" to create anmial life. Thus, when it says the earth brought forth living creatures, it was by a creative act of God, not evolution.

That's my take.

Good point Scandalon. But I don't think that's in any way inconsistent with G 1.24. In fact, it seems to say exactly the same thing. Dust from the earth is "from the earth".

 

[scandalon]

Thanks. Genesis 1:24 and 2:7 are consistent. God used the earth, which he had created, to create fully formed animal life and human beings. What I'm saying is that man and animals didn't evolve, they were created.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Thanks. Genesis 1:24 and 2:7 are consistent. God used the earth, which he had created, to create fully formed animal life and human beings. What I'm saying is that man and animals didn't evolve, they were created.

Well, we agree that the verses are not inconsistent but not on the conclusion.

 

[scandalon]

If your conclusion is that man evolved, it's not only inconsistent with Genesis 2:7, which clearly states that man was created by God out of the dust of the ground, but also with NT teaching. If man did evolve from lower life forms it would require a life-death cycle which the Apostle Paul states in Romans 5:13 did not begin its existence until after Adam sinned.

Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"

Romans 9:21 also infers that God man men out of natural elements (clay). In other words, the earth didn't bring forth man through evolutionary processes. God brought forth man (and the rest of creation) out of elements which He created.

If evolution were true, Moses and Paul should've said that animal life (apes, and their evolutionary descendants) brought forth man. To say that evolution is part of this process is reading things into the texts that just aren't there.

 

[theFijian]

Thanks. Genesis 1:24 and 2:7 are consistent. God used the earth, which he had created, to create fully formed animal life and human beings. What I'm saying is that man and animals didn't evolve, they were created.

Unfortunately for you Gen 1 and Gen 2 are inconsistent with each other in terms of events and chronology, so we are left with the conclusion that both, or at least Gen 2 are not to interpreted literally.

 

[archaeologist]

Unfortunately for you Gen 1 and Gen 2 are inconsistent with each other in terms of events and chronology, so we are left with the conclusion that both, or at least Gen 2 are not to interpreted literally

actually they are not. it is only those who take a non-literal genesis view who read those passages literally and try to hold any seemingly contradictions over the heads of those who believe a six day creation is correct.

those who fail to use understanding usually come to this conclusion and it makes them stumble as they do not grasp the meanings of what is being said in those passages.

 

[Assyrian]

how is he showing us what scripture really says whenhe quotes no credible scholar or source to back up his interpretation?

You mean you want to look to the opinion of men rather than the word of God?

he seems to have no exegetical skills to help him either.

The odd thing is theFijian has been the one doing the exegesis. I have not seen any exegesis from you other than a claim there are no processes when the bible does not say.

all i see him do is give his opinion based on nothing but a phrase. he refuses to show that the Bible supports His posiion whereas i have all the scripture throughout the Bible that deny his claim and suports God active creativity and He did it through His ower and not a process.

You see you claim to 'have all the scripture throughout the Bible' supporting you but you never come up with the goods. It is all bluster and reading things into scripture that it does not say. theFijian has come up with a phrase in scripture describing the creation that contradicts your view. I would prefer the Fijian's actual scripture to you unsupported claims.

you are now equating obedience to a process...?

God commanded and it happened through a process. The process involved Noah's obedience and an awful lot of sawing and hammering. You claim God's command somehow showed us there wasn't a process involved in Heb 11. It does nothing of the sort. God's command can clearly involve processes. You are simply reading stuff into the bible that isn't there and you haven't shown in 'all the scripture throughout the Bible' you claim supports you.

here are theverses that pertain to that phrase i put in bold the words you and fijian ignore:

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

no process.

There is a process if God made the living creatures by commanding the earth to produce them.
Atheists say the earth produced the different species and genera but deny God made them. YECs say God made the different kinds but deny it was the earth that actually produced them. Only TEs have an interpetation that fits both descriptions. YECs and Atheists each contradict one of these claims of scripture.

jeremiah 27:5

5 With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please

no process. so please provide other scriptures that back yours and fijian's point of view.

God made all the people and animals on the earth, but we know that people and animals are made by processes that involve mammy and daddy animals. So there is no contradiction between God making people and animals and the biological process he uses. The passage says he gives it to anyone he pleases. In the next two verses we are told he give the nations and beasts to Nebuchadnezzar. Yet there were process there too, involving big armies, invasions and sieges.

Your claim that because no process is mentioned there was not process, is completely groundless. You are simply building a theology on what scripture does not say.

Here is another for you.
Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.
Process or no Process?