Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Colter]

Belief in the fossil record takes,blind faith because the fossil record proves nothing except that the creature existed. The belief that it is evolved or is evolving takes blind faith.

We see The world and universe around us around us as the evidence of creation.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

God created life with the inherent patterns for evolution.

The fossil record is proof that many forms of life, from the simple to the complex, lived in different ages over long periods of time. Man is found in the youngest fossil records.

 

[rjs330]

Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. For many, the lens is traditional church teaching. Many come to Scripture , with the idea already firmly affixed in their minds that Scripture is wholly inerrant. That the way the Bible says things happened is exactly the way they did. No question about it. Now that's OK for laity. But that is about the worst possible way to come to modern biblical studies. One should come with an open mind. One should view Scripture through the lens created by a healthy skepticism for traditional teachings. Maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not. Let's test it out. Given the fact alone there re about 100 major contradictions in Scripture tells me right there that it is not wholly inerrant. This brings us to either-or thinking. Either Scripture is all inerrant or it is all errant and useless. Now, such either-or thinking is irrational, actually underlies many neurotic problems. It is unrealistic. Reality is a shade of grey. As I recall, Karl Barth, the famous 20th-century neo-orthodox theologian, said he rejoiced over finding errors in Scripture as it makes plain only God is perfect, keeps down bibliolatry, prevents making a paper pope out of the Bible. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of a prescientific culture. Now, God works like a careful carpenter, works with the grain, not against it. God can move only as fast as we are ready. Hence, it would be ridiculous to expect God intended the Bible to be an accurate geophysical witness and impart advanced scientific knowledge. That would be like expecting God to have given Columbus the pans for a nuclear sub. Also, the truth of teh matter is that most of us do have to cherry pick when we read Scripture. Do you follow all of the OT laws? Do you refrain from eating pork? Are you willing to sell your daughter into slavery? Exod. 21 does sanctify slavery, you know.

You are correct in that our life experiences affect us and can inluence how we read the Bible and how we interpret what is read. That's why constant and learning principles of bible study can be very helpful. But you make it sound like you have to be skeptical when you study the bible. It makes it sound like you should come to the word Not believing what it says. That's the worst way of studying the bible.

You should come to the word with an open heart and be willing,to cast aside preconceived notions for the truth. The word of God is sharper than any two edge sword even able to divide the indivisible. That's precisely why you need,to come to the word and take it literally first. Because if you take it literally first it removes preconceived ideas.

Its obvious that the Bible was not meant to get into the minutia of creation. That was not the point of the creation story. The point was to say God created everything and he did it in six days with each day dedicated to creating certain things. God doesn't care about science. Man does. And the real deal here is that science points to the awesomeness of God's creation. Man just doesn't want to see it.

And the 100 errors quite frankly are nonsense. I know what they supposedly are, but it just shows how the unlearned know little about the Word of God.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So then try out blind-faith evolutionism "instead" --

Darwin figured this one out as well.

Why trust the Bible - say some - when Darwinism is there just waiting for your blind-faith in Othaniel Marsh's horse fossil sequence - fraud. Or the whale-of-a-tale fraud.

Lets trust both. Its just as easy as reconciling the other discrepancies in the Bible.

Here's a horsey fossil for you. Notice the intermediate stage of the feet . . . . three toed ancestry plainly revealed, one toe only already being used, the intermediate evolutionary stage caught in this fossil.

 

[Anguspure]

It assuredly can NOT mean unspecified periods of time when the days are numbered. When used as numbered days, or when specified by an evening and morning, the word Yowm means a single day 100% of the time.

Really? How many days did Peleg live for and how many days did it take to divide the world. The word yohm is used to describe this time period.

Try this. Next time your boss tells you he needs a report in three days, go ahead and consider that he really means three years. So how that goes over.

LOL. My boss regularly uses this strategy to get a person aboard for a few days, then a month later they make it home.
Nevertheless my boss is only human and is indeed bound to the same time frame as you and I. The Eternal creator, however, is not and neither is He bound by the theological meanderings of men trying to justify a religous position.

 

[Anguspure]

How is presenting the plain text of the Scriptures not backed in any way by Scripture?

We should always be circumspect of the plain text of translations of the Bible especially when these are a little contencious. Men used the plain text of the Bible to justify ideas about a flat earth and a geocentric universe only a few years ago. It wasn't until they were forced by the evidence to dig a little deeper that a more correct view of the scriptures was gained.

The "certain way of reading the text" is actually posting the exact wording of the text

And in the original language of the text with a good understanding of that language.
I do not deny that the Creator created the universe in 6 literal days. So I do not deny the plain language of scripture.
What I do affirm is that from the perspective of an hypothetical observer within the system being created ( because of the space/time expansion experienced) the time would appear to pass at a significantly slower rate.

 

[Colter]

Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. For many, the lens is traditional church teaching. Many come to Scripture , with the idea already firmly affixed in their minds that Scripture is wholly inerrant. That the way the Bible says things happened is exactly the way they did. No question about it. Now that's OK for laity. But that is about the worst possible way to come to modern biblical studies. One should come with an open mind. One should view Scripture through the lens created by a healthy skepticism for traditional teachings. Maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not. Let's test it out. Given the fact alone there re about 100 major contradictions in Scripture tells me right there that it is not wholly inerrant. This brings us to either-or thinking. Either Scripture is all inerrant or it is all errant and useless. Now, such either-or thinking is irrational, actually underlies many neurotic problems. It is unrealistic. Reality is a shade of grey. As I recall, Karl Barth, the famous 20th-century neo-orthodox theologian, said he rejoiced over finding errors in Scripture as it makes plain only God is perfect, keeps down bibliolatry, prevents making a paper pope out of the Bible. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of a prescientific culture. Now, God works like a careful carpenter, works with the grain, not against it. God can move only as fast as we are ready. Hence, it would be ridiculous to expect God intended the Bible to be an accurate geophysical witness and impart advanced scientific knowledge. That would be like expecting God to have given Columbus the pans for a nuclear sub. Also, the truth of teh matter is that most of us do have to cherry pick when we read Scripture. Do you follow all of the OT laws? Do you refrain from eating pork? Are you willing to sell your daughter into slavery? Exod. 21 does sanctify slavery, you know.

This is an excellent, common sense post. I like the quote from Karl Barth, I've made a similar conclusion. I think the Bible is as imperfect as we should expect it to be. When I found the Urantia Book it actually helped me understand and believe in more of what was imperfectly preserved in the current book of the Bible.

Thanks

 

[Anguspure]

I think the Bible is as imperfect as we should expect it to be.

I have to disagree.

Notwithstanding the errors and variations that have arisen due to translation/interpretation of the books of the Bible, it is many misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the Bible that leave it with a bad name.

I have found though that with application and study of the original text the student increasingly finds that it is that it is the preconceptions, misunderstandings, ignorance and beliefs that are brought to the table that are wrong but the Bible stands on ever more firm ground.

I am not sure what is meant by the contradictions mentioned by Hogshead, I've never encountered any. What I have encountered are on the one hand a number of paradoxes to be solved and on the other, among Bible critics, a scathing, biased and often unfair treatment of the text that would not be given to any other document.

For example: differences in the Gospel accounts are often said to be contradictions in the Bible when in fact a more honest approach will recognise the different perspectives and priorities of the writers and realise that in fact the story variations do not cancel each other out in the telling. It is only a prosecuting lawyer that would be so ridiculous in the treatment of different accounts but then perhaps that is what these people represent.

I have to say though that I am open to a Bible that is not 100% error free, the perfect message of the Cross being the most perfect and true part of the Bible anyway. But when men who don't know and don't really like the Author, Originator and Inspiration of the texts start honking on about the many problems they have found I remain skeptical of their claims and would prefer to trust the One Who Is and gave His all.

 

[Colter]

I have to disagree.

Notwithstanding the errors and variations that have arisen due to translation/interpretation of the books of the Bible, it is many misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the Bible that leave it with a bad name.

I have found though that with application and study of the original text the student increasingly finds that it is that it is the preconceptions, misunderstandings, ignorance and beliefs that are brought to the table that are wrong but the Bible stands on ever more firm ground.

I am not sure what is meant by the contradictions mentioned by Hogshead, I've never encountered any. What I have encountered are on the one hand a number of paradoxes to be solved and on the other, among Bible critics, a scathing, biased and often unfair treatment of the text that would not be given to any other document.

For example: differences in the Gospel accounts are often said to be contradictions in the Bible when in fact a more honest approach will recognise the different perspectives and priorities of the writers and realise that in fact the story variations do not cancel each other out in the telling. It is only a prosecuting lawyer that would be so ridiculous in the treatment of different accounts but then perhaps that is what these people represent.

I have to say though that I am open to a Bible that is not 100% error free, the perfect message of the Cross being the most perfect and true part of the Bible anyway. But when men who don't know and don't really like the Author, Originator and Inspiration of the texts start honking on about the many problems they have found I remain skeptical of their claims and would prefer to trust the One Who Is and gave His all.

I came into the world with no preconceptions or bias about the Bible. I grew up in a Methodist Church, in a Christion society and in a small southern town. I have always believed in God. At 22 years old I had a spiritual rebirth. I've been searching for truth and understanding ever since.

I know what Hogshead is talking about, he's one of the most intellectually honest people on this thread. He's fortunate in that he survived real Biblical scholarship with his faith in tact. Many otherwise sincere believers don't make it out of Biblical scholarship with faith. Some became angry Atheist for life!

 

[AV1611VET]

I came into the world with no preconceptions or bias about the Bible.

You entered Earth that way.

But you entered Urantia differently.

(And yes, I know you guys say "Earth" and "Urantia" are the same.)

 

[Colter]

You entered Earth that way.

But you entered Urantia differently.

(And yes, I know you guys say "Earth" and "Urantia" are the same.)

I entered Urantia the same way the apostles left Judaism and entered The Kingdom of Heaven. The spirit lead me there and I am oh so grateful to not have to live in the indoctrination of "paper pope" worship.

If this were a forum in the year AD 35, you would be the well meaning Jewish guy mocking followers of a carpenter from Nazareth who claimed he was divine, was killed and his body hidden away somewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

I entered Urantia the same way the apostles left Judaism and entered The Kingdom of Heaven. The spirit lead me there and I am oh so grateful to not have to live in the indoctrination of "paper pope" worship.

Is this the same spirit that led people into Heaven's Gate?

If this were a forum in the year AD 35, you would be the well meaning Jewish guy mocking followers of a carpenter from Nazareth who claimed he was divine, was killed and his body hidden away somewhere.

I'd like to think I would be the well meaning Jew proclaiming, HE IS RISEN!

 

[Colter]

Is this the same spirit that led people into Heaven's Gate?I'd like to think I would be the well meaning Jew proclaiming, HE IS RISEN!

It's the same spirit that confirmed the identity of the Son of God in the hearts of the apostles.

You'd like to think that but, there is no indication in your millions of posts that you would have.

 

[Colter]

Ice Age Europeans had some serious drama going on, according to their genomes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oing-on-according-to-their-genomes/?tid=sm_fb

 

[Not_By_Chance]

There is no question that the Hebrew authors who redacted Moses's original writings wrote a YEC story. They didn't know any better and frankly made no claim of writing the "Word of God." But in so doing they failed to remove matter of fact statements in the record such as Cains emigration to Nod where he found a wife.

Also, the flood myth expanded on a locally know legend of a local flood story as a genealogical divise. Adopting a well known tradition of ancient Adam and Eve, the Hebrews had hoped to connect their blood lines to Adam for reasons of nationalistic pride, the chosen people arrogance.

You see, this is a good example of what happens when you start disbelieving one part of the Bible - you end up chucking out other parts as well, till in the end, what are you left with? On this basis, why should we believe any of it as clearly (according to your reasoning), large parts of it cannot be trusted? Interestingly, secular scientists think they have got it all figured out, and yet to keep their theories (such as the so-called Big Bang) afloat, they have to admit that approx 95% of all reality is composed of something they know nothing about or can even prove exists in the first place (Dark Matter/Energy, AKA fudge factors). If you don't believe me, just watch the videos from creationastronomy.com or "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" and you'll get a flavour of what I'm talking about. Now I know, many will just try to use bluff and bluster to dismiss such claims, but they just want to try to justify their unbelief in a Creator God, the God revealed to us by Moses in the opening chapters of the Bible. Jesus, creator of all things never once gave any hint that Genesis was allegory or that the great flood was anything other than a global event (quite the reverse in fact), so if He really is Almighty God, then in my view, we should just accept what is written and if it happens that man's theories and ideas are in disagreement (e.g., the age of the earth, how life got started, etc), then man's ideas need further work to try to discover why they are wrong.

 

[Colter]

You see, this is a good example of what happens when you start disbelieving one part of the Bible - you end up chucking out other parts as well, till in the end, what are you left with? On this basis, why should we believe any of it as clearly (according to your reasoning), large parts of it cannot be trusted? Interestingly, secular scientists think they have got it all figured out, and yet to keep their theories (such as the so-called Big Bang) afloat, they have to admit that approx 95% of all reality is composed of something they know nothing about or can even prove exists in the first place (Dark Matter/Energy, AKA fudge factors). If you don't believe me, just watch the videos from creationastronomy.com or "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" and you'll get a flavour of what I'm talking about. Now I know, many will just try to use bluff and bluster to dismiss such claims, but they just want to try to justify their unbelief in a Creator God, the God revealed to us by Moses in the opening chapters of the Bible. Jesus, creator of all things never once gave any hint that Genesis was allegory or that the great flood was anything other than a global event (quite the reverse in fact), so if He really is Almighty God, then in my view, we should just accept what is written and if it happens that man's theories and ideas are in disagreement (e.g., the age of the earth, how life got started, etc), then man's ideas need further work to try to discover why they are wrong.

In the end we are left with what's true. And Jesus is the Son, he's not the creator of all things, just some things using the powers given him by the Father.

 

[Hoghead1]

You see, this is a good example of what happens when you start disbelieving one part of the Bible - you end up chucking out other parts as well, till in the end, what are you left with? On this basis, why should we believe any of it as clearly (according to your reasoning), large parts of it cannot be trusted? Interestingly, secular scientists think they have got it all figured out, and yet to keep their theories (such as the so-called Big Bang) afloat, they have to admit that approx 95% of all reality is composed of something they know nothing about or can even prove exists in the first place (Dark Matter/Energy, AKA fudge factors). If you don't believe me, just watch the videos from creationastronomy.com or "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" and you'll get a flavour of what I'm talking about. Now I know, many will just try to use bluff and bluster to dismiss such claims, but they just want to try to justify their unbelief in a Creator God, the God revealed to us by Moses in the opening chapters of the Bible. Jesus, creator of all things never once gave any hint that Genesis was allegory or that the great flood was anything other than a global event (quite the reverse in fact), so if He really is Almighty God, then in my view, we should just accept what is written and if it happens that man's theories and ideas are in disagreement (e.g., the age of the earth, how life got started, etc), then man's ideas need further work to try to discover why they are wrong.

Such videos as you recommend here are but the product of the creation-science propaganda mill, which is run by individuals making a dishonest living by feeding the public deliberately falsified information. Also, you are falling into either-or thinking. Either the Bible is all inerrant or it is all errant and useless. Such either-or thinking is irrational and actually what underlies neurotic self-talk. Reality is a shade of grey. The real issue here isn't the Bible per so or God per se. The real issue here is whether or not one is going to accept fundamentalist ideology and the fundamentalist version of the Bible. Certainly the Bible Belt is a respectable part of Christendom, but it is not the only option open to fellow Christians. That is something the Bible Belters completely overlook. Hence, the standard SOP is that any scholar who dares disagree with the fundamentalist version of the Bible is automatically to we written off as a lost soul, child of the Devil, you name it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . . Now I know, many will just try to use bluff and bluster to dismiss such claims, but they just want to try to justify their unbelief in a Creator God, the God revealed to us by Moses in the opening chapters of the Bible.. . . .

They want to find out things. They want to find out why galaxies show their outer layers rotating faster than the amount of matter they can see would account for. They want to find out why light traveling past distant galaxies bends more than the amount of matter they can see would bend it. There seems to be unseen mass doing all this

And you come along and say they're just trying to deny God when they talk like that.

Well, if that doesn't win them over to your religion, what will?

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, the coccyx is so important! So essential!

Try disconnecting all the tendons and muscles from it - and see how you do.

Oh sure, things are attached to it now that its there, but they didn't have to be, alternate attachments could have been made. After all, look at the elephant's trunk,

That is the sort of nonsense we have come to expect from blind-faith-evolutionism.

Noticing how useful is the bone and muscle attached, how useful is the trunk of the elephant to the elephant - but then "imagine" and "pretend" that it is all "vesssstttttiiiiiiiggggggial" anyway so that we have more "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science.

Some folks missing part of the brain due to injury find compensating brain function taking over and providing a return to normal behavior --- sooooo the brain must be "vesssstttttiiiiiiiggggggial".... hehehe! evolutionism is not only junk-science but a fun-game!

 

[BobRyan]

Oh no! The flood myth didn't make it to China.

Just not in real life.

The Chinese also have a similarstory. Notably, a great flood that occurred as a result of the
rebellion of a group of people during the legendary period (about 2500 BC ). In the text of
Huai Nan Zi(南子, written in 200 BC ), 5 legend states that in ancient times, the poles
(north, south, east and west) that supported the roof of the world were broken. As a result, the heavens were broken
and the nine states of China experienced continental shift and split. Fire broke out and the water from the heavens
could not be stopped, causing a flood.Shu Jing (書經 , written 1000 BC ) relates how there was grieving and mourning
all over the earth, and also describes the extent of the flood;how the water reached the sky, and flooded the mountains
and drowned all living things. In the midst of this globalcalamity, a hero by the name of ‘Nüwa’ (女媧) appeared
and sealed the flood holes with colourful stones and repairedthe broken poles using four turtle legs. Nüwa used earth to
create humans to replenish mankind after the flood (FengSu Tong Yi, 風俗通義 ). 6,7 Although the name Nüwa (女媧), in Chinese, may today sound like a female first name,at that time it was a common surname. 7
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_96-108.pdf

Pictograph for the word "boat" is 8 people in a boat

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/296322850455215830/


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/37/87/2a3787cba7de1ee15b9bd36fff8cb5c1.jpg

 

[BobRyan]

Men hunger for inerrancy. Where is the absolute truth to which we can cling? Perhaps we can find it in a single, holy person, we can find it in a pope who when he speaks ex cathedra, speaks without error.

Well, that didn't work out.

So then try out blind-faith evolutionism "instead" --

Darwin figured this one out as well.

Why trust the Bible - say some - when Darwinism is there just waiting for your blind-faith in Othaniel Marsh's horse fossil sequence - fraud. Or the whale-of-a-tale fraud.
============================

And when confronted with evolutionism's fraud what does the true-believer in evolutionism do? ...

double-down!

The Hebrews Genesis story requires blind faith, evolution has a fossil record.

Allow me to illustrate -- evolution fossil record "stories easy enough to make up"



"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

============================