Gods origin;

[ethos]

It is because of that earlier post that I asked that. Because what you state in there has nothing to do with what evolution actually states.

Allright, then please explain to me how they reconcile, and please understand, if I disagree, don't attack me on the grounds that I just hate evolutionists. I hate no one. By the way, I'm not completely illiterate about the subject, in fact, I used to subscribe to the notion. You will need to understand that my background is heavily influenced by the sciences. I just came to the knowledge that faith is not always proveable by logical means. I do enjoy science, but my faith in God and his redeeming power is not something that you can write a mathematical formula for.

 

[PaladinValer]

I've answered that; because evolution is completely neutral to the idea of God and religion.

I've asked you to tell us what you think evolution is and isn't and what you think evolution theorizes and what you think it doesn't.

1. Do you think evolution says humanity evolved from apes?
2. Do you think evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics?
3. Do you think evolution really says (to draw from your original post in this thread) that God must have been an ameoba?
4. Etc etc etc

 

[ethos]

I've answered that; because evolution is completely neutral to the idea of God and religion.

I've asked you to tell us what you think evolution is and isn't and what you think evolution theorizes and what you think it doesn't.

1. Do you think evolution says humanity evolved from apes?
2. Do you think evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics?
3. Do you think evolution really says (to draw from your original post in this thread) that God must have been an ameoba?
4. Etc etc etc

First, I might add, that I did ask you a question that for what ever reason, you seem unwilling to answer. Nevertheless, I for the sake of harmony here, will try to honestly answer these three questions which you have posted. Yes to #1, No to #2, I don't see an increase in entropy effecting it one way or the other. No to #3, but the farther we stray from scriptural truth, the more likely it becomes for Satan to influence us. Just be very careful how far we as Christains are willing to speculate about issues that are in conflict with biblical writings. Now when you answer back, would you please answer my first question.

 

[ethos]

PaladinValer; I'm going to have to sign off for now, I'll get back to answer your last post tomarrow. God bless, even so come Lord Jesus.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Evolution doesn't say we came from apes. It says apes and humanity share a common ancestor.

2. I answered it. It is honestly because evolution is totally neutral to truly spiritual religious beliefs. God used evolution to produce humanity (Gen 1), which would have seemed to have come up from the ground (the word means living earth. That organic life we also share a common ancestor with, so there isn't any problem here). The very notion of seven literal days is foreign to orthodox theology, as it is a common belief among all Christians that we are still in the seventh day. Add to the fact that "seven" is a number that means "completion" and that, from using Psalm 90, we learn that a "day" to God is a "thousand years." One thousand is a number that means "countless." It refers to the fact that God isn't affected by time. Thus, the "day" to God was suggesting one period of time. It could have been 24 hours, but it could have been ten thousand years. It could also have been one second...or even one nano second. As He is God, would He not have been powerful enough to make all Creation in one nano second? Why seven (six really) supposedly 24-hour days? Obviously there's a reason, and understanding of Hebrew linguistics shows its symbolic reason. And that reason gives room for the possibility of evolution among other theories, such as the Big Bang (which, being astronomy, has nothing to do with evolution.). It simply says God spoke and it happened. It doesn't say "and suddenly, X Y and Z happened," it simply says what He said, did happen. That too gives notion to the possibility that God used the natural laws of physics, biology, etc, to do so. Evolution needn't discount anything the Bible says; it can however be used to explain the details.

 

[herev]

Excuse me if I speak quite frankly, but; if evolutionists have their way, we might be hearing sooner rather than later that God started his existence as an amoeba. This is what you could call, taking evolution to it's final analysis.

 

[SBG]

The very notion of seven literal days is foreign to orthodox theology, as it is a common belief among all Christians that we are still in the seventh day. Add to the fact that "seven" is a number that means "completion" and that, from using Psalm 90, we learn that a "day" to God is a "thousand years." One thousand is a number that means "countless." It refers to the fact that God isn't affected by time.

It means God is outside of time. It doesn't mean that time is irrelevant though. God is not controlled, by anything. If He were inside of time, then He would controlled by time, or limited to it.

These verses, which you can find Peter speak of as well, aren't mean to be used as a time frame for creation, or how God looks at time, but to express that God is beyond all things including time.

Thus, the "day" to God was suggesting one period of time. It could have been 24 hours, but it could have been ten thousand years. It could also have been one second...or even one nano second. As He is God, would He not have been powerful enough to make all Creation in one nano second? Why seven (six really) supposedly 24-hour days?

I absolutely agree with you! God could have done it anyway He saw fit, including by evolution.

I am rather curious, are you against the idea of God creating in six, 24 hour literal days, even though you believe He could do so? Your last sentence sounds like you don't like that idea.

One must take into account, that the Bible uses the six and seven days very often - not just for creation. Now you can blow this off as figurative or symbolic, but I believe the Bible tells us it is much more than that. There is a lot of emphasis put on them, which I believe comes from the time frame God chose to use for creation. God for some reason seems to like the number seven, and one who has read the Bible cannot deny this. But I suppose you can just blow it off.

Obviously there's a reason, and understanding of Hebrew linguistics shows its symbolic reason.

First, can I ask, do you study Hebrew? I have been learning the language, classical, modern and ancient, and it is rather interesting. I have read a lot of scholars of the language and what they have to say about Genesis. You will be surprised that there are many who will disagree with you on the understanding of Hebrew linguistics and it showing symbolism. One needs to notice the verb usage and you will see this to be incorrect.

And that reason gives room for the possibility of evolution among other theories, such as the Big Bang (which, being astronomy, has nothing to do with evolution.). It simply says God spoke and it happened. It doesn't say "and suddenly, X Y and Z happened," it simply says what He said, did happen. That too gives notion to the possibility that God used the natural laws of physics, biology, etc, to do so. Evolution needn't discount anything the Bible says; it can however be used to explain the details.

Actually, the Big Bang does not say anything about God. It talks about eternal matter (chemicals) that had a cosmic explosion which thus then starts the creation process of the universe.

Evolution, when it talks about man not being created but rather evolved, does discount the teachings of Genesis 1-2. Through evolution man is nothing more than a higher animal, but certainly not a special creation. The Bible states man was a special creation being created in the likeness of the creator.

Evolution talks about man evolving out of the animals to a higher being. The Bible speaks that man was given dominion over the animals from the beginning. The Bible speaks of man being above animals, not out of animals.

And you really cannot say the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution needed the Big Bang to come about inorder for evolution to begin. Evolution is dependent on the Big Bang to have happened. If it did not, would anything have evolved if all there was just a void? Most likely not, but then again the chances of man evolving from the primordial soup are beyond incredible.

 

[ethos]

1. Evolution doesn't say we came from apes. It says apes and humanity share a common ancestor.

2. I answered it. It is honestly because evolution is totally neutral to truly spiritual religious beliefs. God used evolution to produce humanity (Gen 1), which would have seemed to have come up from the ground (the word means living earth. That organic life we also share a common ancestor with, so there isn't any problem here). The very notion of seven literal days is foreign to orthodox theology, as it is a common belief among all Christians that we are still in the seventh day. Add to the fact that "seven" is a number that means "completion" and that, from using Psalm 90, we learn that a "day" to God is a "thousand years." One thousand is a number that means "countless." It refers to the fact that God isn't affected by time. Thus, the "day" to God was suggesting one period of time. It could have been 24 hours, but it could have been ten thousand years. It could also have been one second...or even one nano second. As He is God, would He not have been powerful enough to make all Creation in one nano second? Why seven (six really) supposedly 24-hour days? Obviously there's a reason, and understanding of Hebrew linguistics shows its symbolic reason. And that reason gives room for the possibility of evolution among other theories, such as the Big Bang (which, being astronomy, has nothing to do with evolution.). It simply says God spoke and it happened. It doesn't say "and suddenly, X Y and Z happened," it simply says what He said, did happen. That too gives notion to the possibility that God used the natural laws of physics, biology, etc, to do so. Evolution needn't discount anything the Bible says; it can however be used to explain the details.

Actually current physical laws could be quite different if the structure of the Big Bang had developed at an other level. Because I believe God ordered up the Big Bang, he had control of all physical laws before the fact. I'll give no credit to the physical laws as such, but I will credit their author, God. I fear that evolution attempts, either consciously or unconsciously to detract from the sovereignty of God by claiming that natural law is responsible for historical events. However you view creation, God was and is in control. Personally, I believe in what scripture has to say about these events. I also believe that the lineage and time line are accurate as described in scripture, to show the connection between Adam and Christ. I still contend that this is not an unimportant point, and needs to be recognized as scriptual truth.

 

[Martin Luther]

God has no origin.

Everything that has a beginning or is an effect must have a cause.

God has neither a beginning or is an effect.

In fact it has been argued down thru the centuries that God is the actual source of time/space/matter. The Cause behind the Cosmos.

 

[PaladinValer]

It means God is outside of time. It doesn't mean that time is irrelevant though. God is not controlled, by anything. If He were inside of time, then He would controlled by time, or limited to it.

No He wouldn't, for He is God. What He would do is probably do His works through His Creations.

Proof can be found in the fact that Jesus is God, Who worked miracles even though being not only within Creation but being of Creation (in other words, being born) as well.

These verses, which you can find Peter speak of as well, aren't mean to be used as a time frame for creation, or how God looks at time, but to express that God is beyond all things including time.

I'm not using them as a time frame. I'm using to the show how such a time frame is possible "Scripturally."

I am rather curious, are you against the idea of God creating in six, 24 hour literal days, even though you believe He could do so? Your last sentence sounds like you don't like that idea.

Because, as we've discovered, that interpretation isn't logical possible.

One must take into account, that the Bible uses the six and seven days very often - not just for creation. Now you can blow this off as figurative or symbolic, but I believe the Bible tells us it is much more than that.

I never said nor implied that I "blow things off."

First, can I ask, do you study Hebrew? I have been learning the language, classical, modern and ancient, and it is rather interesting. I have read a lot of scholars of the language and what they have to say about Genesis. You will be surprised that there are many who will disagree with you on the understanding of Hebrew linguistics and it showing symbolism. One needs to notice the verb usage and you will see this to be incorrect.

As the Apostles and their direct discplines (the next generation of bishops) would disagree with you, and they have a direct teaching link with Jesus, I'm in inclined to side with them.

Actually, the Big Bang does not say anything about God. It talks about eternal matter (chemicals) that had a cosmic explosion which thus then starts the creation process of the universe.

Point? Especially since this is basically a repeat of what I said.

Evolution, when it talks about man not being created but rather evolved, does discount the teachings of Genesis 1-2. Through evolution man is nothing more than a higher animal, but certainly not a special creation. The Bible states man was a special creation being created in the likeness of the creator.

God is involved in evolution. He used it to cause the Creation of a species that He would have a relationship with. This is still a "special creation," so you are totally wrong; evolution and special creation of humanity needn't contradict.

Evolution talks about man evolving out of the animals to a higher being. The Bible speaks that man was given dominion over the animals from the beginning. The Bible speaks of man being above animals, not out of animals.

1. God gave stewardship, not "dominion."
2. Fallacy of Equivocation.

And you really cannot say the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution needed the Big Bang to come about inorder for evolution to begin.

Wrong. Restudy science again, please.

 

[SBG]

No He wouldn't, for He is God. What He would do is probably do His works through His Creations.

By our understanding of time, aging and such, time would take its effect on Him, but God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. God is outside of time.

Proof can be found in the fact that Jesus is God, Who worked miracles even though being not only within Creation but being of Creation (in other words, being born) as well.

Proof can be found that Christ physically aged, and died.

I'm not using them as a time frame. I'm using to the show how such a time frame is possible "Scripturally."

Ok. I just so how you can do that when these verse weren't meant for that.

Because, as we've discovered, that interpretation isn't logical possible.

Thank you for making this point as it is at the heart of the issue. First off, are you saying that God's methods should be within our human logic? Or His methods should be logical according to human understanding? And I mean creation methods, as the methods since that is what we are talking about.

This thinking is talked about in the Bible when it says God's ways are not our ways. I am sure you are aware of this, and being aware of this, why do you think creation should be understood by our ways of understanding and not beyond our understanding such as God's ways are?

You have nailed this perfectly saying that interpreting scripture (Genesis 1-2) to say God created in six 24 hour days is logically impossible. You base this understanding on scientists interpretations on evidence that favors an old earth and evolution. You have openly stated the Bible must be wrong, because science says otherwise. Yet, you will agree Christ walked on water even when science says this is impossible or CHrist rose from the dead. You have a double standard here.

Creation is a miracluous event much like Jesus walking on water, calming the seas, and controlling the weather. It is just on a bigger scale as far as size of the event.

I never said nor implied that I "blow things off."

I don't think I said you did. I said you could. There is something there that keeps you from believing that God created in six days, especially when the text is clear in stated the length of time.

As the Apostles and their direct discplines (the next generation of bishops) would disagree with you, and they have a direct teaching link with Jesus, I'm in inclined to side with them.

Ok, I have seen this a couple of times now in the last few days on this forum and for those who actually care, this is a lie. Vance has stated intellectual dishonestly, and this is being completely dishonest if not outright lying.

Never did the Apostles stated that Genesis needs to read as a symbolic book and not as a historical account. Furthermore neither did Papias, Polycarp, Hermas, Ignatius, Barnabas, or Clement of Rome. These are the direct church fathers after the Apostles and during the end times of some of the Apostles. Papias was with John and wrote for him, and has clearly stated that Genesis is a literal, historical account, as have the others.

These type of statements rather bother me because it is such an outright lie. Anyone who can read can go here and learn what these church fathers actually say, for free:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

I think Vance would appreciate this site since he has paid for a book on this subject.

Point? Especially since this is basically a repeat of what I said.

Well then I must have misunderstood. You said this about the Big Bang -> "It simply says God spoke and it happened"

And I figured you were saying the Big Bang says God spoke and it happened. My fault, my apologies.

God is involved in evolution. He used it to cause the Creation of a species that He would have a relationship with. This is still a "special creation," so you are totally wrong; evolution and special creation of humanity needn't contradict.

This is your definition which does not come from the Bible. And special creation and evolution do contradict. Evolution is a random chance, an extremely random chance for man to evolve with intelligence and vast emotions. Evolution is still struggling with how to explain the human brain.

Evolution says humans were a chance happening, not a special creation. The Bible says God created man in His image and that man is a special creation and not a chance happening.

But, if you prefer to jump through hoops to try and explain this, then that is your choice.

1. God gave stewardship, not "dominion."
2. Fallacy of Equivocation.

God gave man the position of being over the animals, not from them.

Incorrect, that is not a fallacy of equivocation. I have not used the same word for two different meanings.

Wrong. Restudy science again, please.

Let me restate since I did state this badly. Evolution is not reliant on the Big Bang itself. Evolution is reliant on the fact that there needs to be a universe here so that a unicellular organism can evolve eventually into man. Unless you believe that this could happen in the void without oxygen.

 

[gluadys]

Actually, the Big Bang does not say anything about God. It talks about eternal matter (chemicals) that had a cosmic explosion which thus then starts the creation process of the universe.

No, it does not speak of eternal matter and certainly not of eternal chemicals. Chemicals are combinations of atoms and according to big bang theory, atoms did not begin to form until nearly 300 years after the big bang. Even atomic nuclei took several minutes to begin to form. So at first there was no matter at all----only energy which slowly coalesced into matter as the expansion of the universe made for a less dense, cooler universe in which matter became possible.

ethos is quite right in saying:

Actually current physical laws could be quite different if the structure of the Big Bang had developed at an other level. Because I believe God ordered up the Big Bang, he had control of all physical laws before the fact. I'll give no credit to the physical laws as such, but I will credit their author, God.

I think this is a good way of understanding the relationship of God to the big bang. God ordained the physical qualities of the sub-atomic particles and their energy fields. In doing so, God assured that the universe would be friendly to life.

What I don't understand is why people find it so difficult to make the same sort of application to evolution.

You say:

Evolution, when it talks about man not being created but rather evolved, does discount the teachings of Genesis 1-2. Through evolution man is nothing more than a higher animal, but certainly not a special creation. The Bible states man was a special creation being created in the likeness of the creator.

Evolution talks about man evolving out of the animals to a higher being. The Bible speaks that man was given dominion over the animals from the beginning. The Bible speaks of man being above animals, not out of animals.

and ethos says:

I fear that evolution attempts, either consciously or unconsciously to detract from the sovereignty of God by claiming that natural law is responsible for historical events. However you view creation, God was and is in control.

Now I agree with ethos' last statement. "However you view creation, God was and is in control." But why would this be in opposition to his first statement? Because he is setting God and natural law in opposition.

Of course, natural law is responsible for historic events. But so is God. How can we divide them?

It is interesting to see the viewpoint of an early theistic evolutionist in this regard (and thanks to Lucaspa for digging up these quotes).

Al Moore wrote theological books and also edited the periodical Lux Mundi in the late 19th century. Here are two of his comments on evolution (bolding is mine).

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

Now, look especially at that last statement. Given this option, that God is either everywhere in nature or nowhere, I can understand that an atheist would take the position "God is nowhere."

What bothers me is that so many Christians who oppose evolution also assume that if something is explainable by natural law that means (as ethos' suggests) that God is not in it. They seem to agree with atheists that "nature" or "natural" = "no divine presence or action".

I agree with Al Moore. There is no place for half measures anymore. We cannot point to anything in nature and say "God is here but not there." Or to use ethos' analogy, "God is in the big bang, but not in evolution".

God is either in all of nature or none of it, either in the big bang and evolution and geology and chemistry, or in none of these at all.

So what I say to YECs and others who oppose evolution or any other part of science is "Stop agreeing with the atheists. Stop excluding God from nature. The question is not whether God did this or nature did this. It is whether God is everywhere in nature or nowhere."

 

[SBG]

No, it does not speak of eternal matter and certainly not of eternal chemicals. Chemicals are combinations of atoms and according to big bang theory, atoms did not begin to form until nearly 300 years after the big bang. Even atomic nuclei took several minutes to begin to form. So at first there was no matter at all----only energy which slowly coalesced into matter as the expansion of the universe made for a less dense, cooler universe in which matter became possible.

ok, eternal energy then that created matter through a cosmic explosion.

ethos is quite right in saying:



I think this is a good way of understanding the relationship of God to the big bang. God ordained the physical qualities of the sub-atomic particles and their energy fields. In doing so, God assured that the universe would be friendly to life.

What I don't understand is why people find it so difficult to make the same sort of application to evolution.

You say:



and ethos says:




Now I agree with ethos' last statement. "However you view creation, God was and is in control." But why would this be in opposition to his first statement? Because he is setting God and natural law in opposition.

Of course, natural law is responsible for historic events. But so is God. How can we divide them?

It is interesting to see the viewpoint of an early theistic evolutionist in this regard (and thanks to Lucaspa for digging up these quotes).

Al Moore wrote theological books and also edited the periodical Lux Mundi in the late 19th century. Here are two of his comments on evolution (bolding is mine).

Ever thought about looking up what the ancients believed happened?

Now, look especially at that last statement. Given this option, that God is either everywhere in nature or nowhere, I can understand that an atheist would take the position "God is nowhere."

What bothers me is that so many Christians who oppose evolution also assume that if something is explainable by natural law that means (as ethos' suggests) that God is not in it. They seem to agree with atheists that "nature" or "natural" = "no divine presence or action".

I agree with Al Moore. There is no place for half measures anymore. We cannot point to anything in nature and say "God is here but not there." Or to use ethos' analogy, "God is in the big bang, but not in evolution".

God is either in all of nature or none of it, either in the big bang and evolution and geology and chemistry, or in none of these at all.

So what I say to YECs and others who oppose evolution or any other part of science is "Stop agreeing with the atheists. Stop excluding God from nature. The question is not whether God did this or nature did this. It is whether God is everywhere in nature or nowhere."

I completely agree with you!!! There is no place for half measures anymore, we are either believe what is written or we don't. There is no half belief, kinda belief, only full belief. We are not the ones who should be changing the text to say what modern people want it to say, but rather we should be looking back to how the Apostles believe the text to say and the early church fathers that immediately followed the Apostles had to say. Especially what Jesus had to say as well.

I am ready to jump aboard with you and tell all there are no half measures anymore, either you do or you don't. That simple, no grey middle, just black and white. Excellent point gluady's!!

I have yet to see some here state God is not in nature. Maybe you can help lead me where Christians are stating this.

It seems you believe that if we don't believe evolution then we are saying God is not in nature. Now that truly does not follow and is a strawman. I was expecting so much more from you in your last paragraph as you previous made such a wonderful point about either right or wrong, no middle ground, you believe what is written as written or you don't.

Your theory is in direct contradiction with what is written in the Bible. You choose to change the intended way of it being read so that you can almost rectify this issue. Yet, you have no historical proof from the Apostles that they held this belief that Genesis was just a good story with a message, but didn't really happen as written. Nor do you have the early church fathers speaking such things. Rather you have 20th century people who look back and make their own conclusions from things that are not existent in history.

I have seen some point their fingers to the age of enlightenment as if we somehow got ourselves to a position of grandeur and higher thinking. Yet we rebel more than others in the past and we cover it up so much better by saying we are enlightened, we know more, we are more intelligent. Oh, we do love to endulge ourselves in our prideful ways don't we. Not one of us escapes this, except for Jesus Christ. And we tend to think we have the answers when really we are just getting farther away from the truth.

The world increases in depravity as the Bible rightly says, yet we call it getting more advanced and more intelligent.

I am not just point the finger at you, but at everyone who read this no matter what opinion held of origins and even more so at myself. For I know these things and yet I endulge in my sinfulness.

We all need to fall on our knees and cling onto the cross, for it is Jesus and Jesus alone who can save us, not because of what we have done or could do, but because He is the one who loved us first and He is the one who will bestow grace upon us. And yet we each know Christ does such things, freely and yet we cannot do so for each other. If we cannot then should Christ do so for us, when we cannot for another? Should Christ love us when we don't show love to another? Should Christ forgive us when we don't forgive another?

I only say this, because this all too easily forgotton in such debates. Debates aren't what is evil, its our actions, words, and thoughts, that bring what is sinful forth.

We each want to be close to Christ and we never will be unless we follow His commandments in everything we do, no matter what someone else does to us.

To sum up this thread, God has no origins, He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the last, the forever I AM. If we cannot understand, we can believe.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I've said it before, and it seems I must say it again.

If the Bible really does teach that the earth was made in six days, six thousand years ago, then the Bible demonstrably does not match reality, as surely as if it claimed that grass was blue, and is therefore wrong.

Proving that the Bible teaches a literal six day creation does not prove a six day creation happened. It only proves that the Bible is wrong. Reality trumps every other card, every time.

 

[ethos]

ok, eternal energy then that created matter through a cosmic explosion.



Ever thought about looking up what the ancients believed happened?





I completely agree with you!!! There is no place for half measures anymore, we are either believe what is written or we don't. There is no half belief, kinda belief, only full belief. We are not the ones who should be changing the text to say what modern people want it to say, but rather we should be looking back to how the Apostles believe the text to say and the early church fathers that immediately followed the Apostles had to say. Especially what Jesus had to say as well.

I am ready to jump aboard with you and tell all there are no half measures anymore, either you do or you don't. That simple, no grey middle, just black and white. Excellent point gluady's!!

I have yet to see some here state God is not in nature. Maybe you can help lead me where Christians are stating this.

It seems you believe that if we don't believe evolution then we are saying God is not in nature. Now that truly does not follow and is a strawman. I was expecting so much more from you in your last paragraph as you previous made such a wonderful point about either right or wrong, no middle ground, you believe what is written as written or you don't.

Your theory is in direct contradiction with what is written in the Bible. You choose to change the intended way of it being read so that you can almost rectify this issue. Yet, you have no historical proof from the Apostles that they held this belief that Genesis was just a good story with a message, but didn't really happen as written. Nor do you have the early church fathers speaking such things. Rather you have 20th century people who look back and make their own conclusions from things that are not existent in history.

I have seen some point their fingers to the age of enlightenment as if we somehow got ourselves to a position of grandeur and higher thinking. Yet we rebel more than others in the past and we cover it up so much better by saying we are enlightened, we know more, we are more intelligent. Oh, we do love to endulge ourselves in our prideful ways don't we. Not one of us escapes this, except for Jesus Christ. And we tend to think we have the answers when really we are just getting farther away from the truth.

The world increases in depravity as the Bible rightly says, yet we call it getting more advanced and more intelligent.

I am not just point the finger at you, but at everyone who read this no matter what opinion held of origins and even more so at myself. For I know these things and yet I endulge in my sinfulness.

We all need to fall on our knees and cling onto the cross, for it is Jesus and Jesus alone who can save us, not because of what we have done or could do, but because He is the one who loved us first and He is the one who will bestow grace upon us. And yet we each know Christ does such things, freely and yet we cannot do so for each other. If we cannot then should Christ do so for us, when we cannot for another? Should Christ love us when we don't show love to another? Should Christ forgive us when we don't forgive another?

I only say this, because this all too easily forgotton in such debates. Debates aren't what is evil, its our actions, words, and thoughts, that bring what is sinful forth.

We each want to be close to Christ and we never will be unless we follow His commandments in everything we do, no matter what someone else does to us.

To sum up this thread, God has no origins, He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the last, the forever I AM. If we cannot understand, we can believe.

I agree with you 100 percent SBG; Because the bible is the source of our spiritual understanding, we should be studying it and not trying to rewrite it. This I believe is what evolutionists are attempting to do. Let them write their own scripture, when it is all said and done, and Christ establishes his kingdom here on this earth, we can still trust his word for it will endure forever.

 

[Vance]

I agree with you 100 percent SBG; Because the bible is the source of our spiritual understanding, we should be studying it and not trying to rewrite it. This I believe is what evolutionists are attempting to do. Let them write their own scripture, when it is all said and done, and Christ establishes his kingdom here on this earth, we can still trust his word for it will endure forever.

But this entirely begs the question in that you are assuming that the way YOU interpret the Bible is the way it was MEANT to be interpreted. I also agree that we should be working to determine exactly what God meant for us to understand from Scripture, and I believe that He did NOT mean for us to read Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal narrative of history and science.

For you to say we are trying to "re-write" the Scripture is to imply that we actually start off with the belief that it was meant to be read literally, but just choose to ignore that and want it to say something else, so we reinterpret it. My view is not a re-interpretation, but simply an interpretation, based on study, prayer and the guidance of the holy spirit.

Also, you statement implies that you "trust" His word more than we do. Again, that is begging the question of what we believe the Scripture says. If I read Scripture and I believe that it is not meant to be read literally, then my holding to that belief IS trusting the Scripture. What I trust is the message God has given in Scripture, and I trust it completely and whole-heartedly.

 

[ethos]

But this entirely begs the question in that you are assuming that the way YOU interpret the Bible is the way it was MEANT to be interpreted. I also agree that we should be working to determine exactly what God meant for us to understand from Scripture, and I believe that He did NOT mean for us to read Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal narrative of history and science.

For you to say we are trying to "re-write" the Scripture is to imply that we actually start off with the belief that it was meant to be read literally, but just choose to ignore that and want it to say something else, so we reinterpret it. My view is not a re-interpretation, but simply an interpretation, based on study, prayer and the guidance of the holy spirit.

Also, you statement implies that you "trust" His word more than we do. Again, that is begging the question of what we believe the Scripture says. If I read Scripture and I believe that it is not meant to be read literally, then my holding to that belief IS trusting the Scripture. What I trust is the message God has given in Scripture, and I trust it completely and whole-heartedly.

Forgive me Vance; for I do not question your sincerity. I accept your profession of faith, what I can't accept is your evolutionist point of view. Please understand, I do not question your salvation or your motive. You are my brother in the Lord and I want fellowship with you. I certainly pray that we all; creationists and evolutionists can somehow reconcile our differences. God bless you Vance.

 

[Vance]

Forgive me Vance; for I do not question your sincerity. I accept your profession of faith, what I can't accept is your evolutionist point of view. Please understand, I do not question your salvation or your motive. You are my brother in the Lord and I want fellowship with you. I certainly pray that we all; creationists and evolutionists can somehow reconcile our differences. God bless you Vance.

Thank you for that reassurance, we all need to keep at the forefront of our minds that his is NOT a difference over salvation issues. We also need to always remember where the other is coming from, since it is SO easy to fall back on a strawman version of those we do not agree with. It is much easier, for example, to discount the TE approach if you can just assign it to not believing or trusting Scripture, or placing Man's knowledge over God's Word, or some other false view of our position. It is much more difficult to accept that we DO trust and believe Scripture to the same extent you do, that we DO NOT place Man's knowledge over the the Word of God as a starting point and then deal with the issues from that starting point.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Excuse me if I speak quite frankly, but; if evolutionists have their way, we might be hearing sooner rather than later that God started his existence as an amoeba. This is what you could call, taking evolution to it's final analysis.

Nope. There is no "final analysis" to evolution and evolution would never be able to say that God started his existence as an amoeba. If that is your concern with evolution, rest-assured evolution doesn't work that way.

 

[ethos]

Nope. There is no "final analysis" to evolution and evolution would never be able to say that God started his existence as an amoeba. If that is your concern with evolution, rest-assured evolution doesn't work that way.

I find myself in the position of wishing that I had not started this thread. I will and must ask for all here at this forum to forgive me for making such a inappropriate remark. I have fallen victim to the intensity of the debate and lacked consideration for the view of others. For those which I may have offended with this statement, I truly apologize.