Help Me!!

[theotherguy]

I am having big problems. What do you think about origanal sin and why would God say he created everything in 6 days if he meant billions of years?
Also feel free to hammer me with evidance for evolution, I am no longer sure of the Creationist standpoint. Stories of people leaving or never joining Christianity because of Creationist accounts has shaken my belief in this view and considering that this isn't core doctrine, those of us who are wrong go to heaven anyway.

Basicly prove your point to me

 

[Didaskomenos]

First, you've got to get over the whole "The Bible is one huge quotation from God" mentality. It was written by men as testimony to God. So God didn't "say" he created everything in 6 days. His people said that he created the earth, and used a type of story that conveys that thought without having to know exactly how it happened. You need to keep up with the posts located at http://www.christianforums.com/t1137640-explaining-the-fall-of-man-through-evolution.html, which goes into more detail on the whole discussion.

 

[TwinCrier]

Ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now these scripture, as well as the one in my sig, state that the bible is God's words. Now let me ask, how are we saved? Through faith in Christ? Who told you that answer, the bible or science?

 

[Didaskomenos]

I didn't say that nothing in the Bible was God's words. The prophecies are God's words, and pretty directly, but each prophet had his own writing style, showing that even prophecy isn't divine dictation. What I meant to say above is simply that the Bible isn't simplistically composed of direct quotations of God, because God's big enough to inspire in ways other than dictation. God's inspiration of Genesis is the same kind of thing of thing as his inspiration of Adam, whereby he takes a lump of clay and elevates it to a living entity that suits his purposes, regardless of how that clay was anything but divine to begin with.

 

[daveleau]

I am having big problems. What do you think about origanal sin and why would God say he created everything in 6 days if he meant billions of years?
Also feel free to hammer me with evidance for evolution, I am no longer sure of the Creationist standpoint. Stories of people leaving or never joining Christianity because of Creationist accounts has shaken my belief in this view and considering that this isn't core doctrine, those of us who are wrong go to heaven anyway.

Basicly prove your point to me

I was in the same point that you were right after I took a course in evolution in college. Know that the Bible is inerrant, but our interpretation is not. The word for day (yom) in Hebrew was used for both an age and a single 24 hour period in the old testament. It could have been either.

The issue you are having is a direct result of people being dogmatic about things that are not completely clear. We know that God created the earth and everything in the universe. But, we don't know exactly how.

There are several theories that you should look at:
Old Earth
New Earth
Theistic Evolution
Gap Theory
Flood Theory

To take any of these as an absolute is very wrong, IMO. I think that our problem in hurdling this barrier (evolution) is because of an issue that pervades the Christian faith. We often disregard the Christ-like approach of humility and passiveness in our confronting others and go straight for the condemnation of other Christian beliefs that we think are wrong. Calvinists attack Arminians. Protestants attack Catholics. We are all very strong in our conviction, which is good. But, the way that we portray our conviction turns people away, much like the way you are being turned to evolution.

Know that evolution is a theory. I invite you to read "Darwin On Trial" which is a Christian's look at evolution by looking at the scientific data in an objective way and putting it to the tests that science puts other theories to (but neglect to do in regards to evolution). There is no evidence int he fossil record of transitions from species to species and the giants in the field (Darwin and Gould) have no answers. They base their ideas on logic and are just as fervent in their faith as Christians...and just as much on the attack as many Christians unfortunately can be.

Check out the book and check out the theories above and pray. Remember that God is the key and that He will help you to understand. Choose for yourself and don't succumb to the temptations of following man towards evolution or towards any man-made belief inside or outside of Christianity.

God bless and I will be praying for you,
Dave

 

[Theophorus]

There are other theological views about the fall of man rather than original sin.

As far as evolution is concerned, there are two things I am convinced of.

1. evolution is statistically impossible. You are more likely to be struck by lightning every day for the next million years than do any set of checmicals have a chance to form even a simple protein spontaneously. If you had litteraly and eternity, it is still remote, abd you do not. Almost all physicists agree that the universe in finite, had a beginning and will have an end. The fact that it has a beginning is in and of itself, revelatory.

2. Life on this earth is actually sustained on a razor's edge. The gravity is just right, the distance from the sun is just right etc. every thing about the earth sun, ecosystem, everything is fine tuned for life. This concept is known as Anthropic creation. It seems that the more we discover, the more that this becomes apparent.

 

[Vance]

My thoughts on ID and the anthropic theory from another thread:

I have read some of the intelligent design materials and the anthropic principle and it seems to be saying that what we have now is uniquely and amazingly well-suited to fit, well, the way things are now. "If X was even very slightly different, we would not be able to live on this planet", etc, etc. This makes a very large logical fallacy: that this end product was a necessity, which is something only someone religiously minded would accept. It is not an objectively true presumption at all, and one of ID's claims is that the design is objectively observable.

They start with the current state of things as if this state of things was the ultimate goal, and then work backwards to show that everything fits what we now have perfectly, and the ODDS of things turning out this way is so tremendously low, that it MUST have come about by design. The whole watchmaker argument, or the airplane from a junkyard.

Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, I have to admit that the entire ID argument just doesn't hold up logically without a pre-existing belief. The presupposition is that the "current" was the "goal" (a position that is not self-evident, but a matter of belief, and a belief which I happen to hold, btw). The response is obviously that everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and, here is the kicker, SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE HERE! At each stage of possibilities, something else could have happened and the universe would then fit THAT instead of what we have now.

What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, everything would fit that path or it wouldn't be there.

Now, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. And I DO think that God designed every process that is now in place in this universe and He knew exactly how it would all turn out. And I also believe that He has purposefully intervened in His creation when and where it fit His plan to do so (a particular event 2000 years ago, for example), and that He will do so again. And yes, I can FEEL God in the many wonders of the universe and this planet.

But I also have to recognize that God very well may have created the world to work exactly as it would work without his Divine involvement. He created it so perfectly that He needs no "fine tuning" as the ID'ers like to call it.

In short, the whole ID argument can only be convincing to those, like myself, who already believe that this current state of the universe, with Man sitting here as we are, is how it had to end up. Thus, it is an argument that can only preach to the choir, but has no logical or persuasive effect to those who do not share this pressuposition. Atheists, I must reluctantly admit, are right to reject it.

"But then how do we know God exists?!", the Christians exclaim (and atheists too, for that matter).

Faith. The evidence of things NOT seen.

Experience. The personal relationship with the all-powerful.

The Word. God's timeless message to all of us.

If we are to reach the non-believer, Chrsitians must do so on a theological, philosophical and relational level, not by an attempt to "prove" God must have designed everything.

 

[gluadys]

I am having big problems. What do you think about origanal sin and why would God say he created everything in 6 days if he meant billions of years?
Also feel free to hammer me with evidance for evolution, I am no longer sure of the Creationist standpoint. Stories of people leaving or never joining Christianity because of Creationist accounts has shaken my belief in this view and considering that this isn't core doctrine, those of us who are wrong go to heaven anyway.

Basicly prove your point to me

Ironically, one of the first things necessary for someone from a creationist background is to learn what evolution does NOT say.

The theory of evolution does NOT say there is no God. Like all science it is neutral on this point.

The theory of evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origin of matter or of the universe.

The theory of evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origin of life on earth.

The theory of evolution does NOT demand belief in blind chance.

The theory of evolution does NOT make any statements about appropriate moral behaviour in humans.

And most important, the theory of evolution does NOT set species on a hierarchical ladder which says one species is better or more advanced than another. It does NOT say "lower" species are striving to become "higher" species. The theory of evolution is about adaptation to present environmental circumstances. It is not about moving toward a future goal of perfection.

So what does it say?

It says that living species of bacteria, unicellular eucaryota, plants, fungi and animals did not emerge full-blown out of empty air this morning. They had parents. And their parents had parents, and those parents had parents, and, if we had a full and complete record of all those parents we could accurately draw a family tree (a phylogeny) of where all these species originated.

It says that living species today are descendants of species which existed long ago.

It says that children are not exactly like their parents, and that they may be even more different from their grandparents and even more different from their great-grandparents and so on. Over geological time, such differences may accumulate to the point we must honestly say the current generation is not the same species as one of its ancestors.

It says that all members of a species are subject to environmental pressures which affect their ability to thrive, mate and reproduce. And that those members of a species which have characterisitics which give them an advantage in this environment will be more likely to thrive, mate and reproduce. In doing so, they will pass the genes for these characteristics to their children. So, again over time, these characteristics are spread to most, even all, members of the population, so that the species is better adapted to its environment. This pattern of differential reproductive success, leading to changing the characteristics of a species, is called natural selection.


If those propositions make sense to you, you have accepted the basic theory of evolution. The rest is filling in the details.

 

[artybloke]

evolution is statistically impossible.

1) The statistical probability of life occuring is one, as it always is when something has already occurred.

2) Evolution is not abiogenesis. It only deals what happened after life started, not how life came to exist in the first place.

3) It's not that impossible that someone hasn't found a way of creating something approaching life in a laboratory already (the Miller-Urey experiment.) That does shows one possible method life began. There might be many others.

2. Life on this earth is actually sustained on a razor's edge.

The problem with this one is that there is nothing in the way processes led up to human beings that was inevitable. The planet (according to the information we have) could have produced a different set of animals, whether including inteligent life (or just a planet full of Bushes) there is no way of telling what might have happened had things been different.

Science can't tell us anything about metaphysics. Only faith can tell us the things of the spirit.

 

[Theophorus]

1) The statistical probability of life occuring is one, as it always is when something has already occurred.

not from the periodic table of the elements, it is nearly impossible. Also even after that the step from a protein to a single cell is also next to impossible.

2) Evolution is not abiogenesis. It only deals what happened after life started, not how life came to exist in the first place.

Technically, but that is not how it is presented in schools, in the media, or in general, or in disney's "fantasia" for that matter.

3) It's not that impossible that someone hasn't found a way of creating something approaching life in a laboratory already (the Miller-Urey experiment.) That does shows one possible method life began. There might be many others.

He created an amino acid in a poisonous methane enviroment that was ogygen free. Also the electric stimulus used to create the amino acids destroyed as many as it created. He had to quickly isolate them after their formation. He basically created tar. Miller himself never pressed his expereriment as proof of anything, let alone abiogenesis.

The problem with this one is that there is nothing in the way processes led up to human beings that was inevitable. The planet (according to the information we have) could have produced a different set of animals, whether including inteligent life (or just a planet full of Bushes) there is no way of telling what might have happened had things been different.

Science can't tell us anything about metaphysics. Only faith can tell us the things of the spirit.

Given the law of thermodynamics, and the fact that we are here says mountains. The counter argument to anthropic creation, is that any direction the "process" took would yield the same tenuous balance for those life forms, or that it would take a direction at all. That is pure speculation, more so than the anthropic position.

As far as science telling us anything about metephysics and/or God, the scriptures would disagree. Paul in Romans as well as several psalms, and the book of Job claim that the creation is a testament to the existence and greatness of God, in and of itself. Paul states that this is , so that no man may have an excuse.

 

[zoziw]

I am having big problems. What do you think about origanal sin and why would God say he created everything in 6 days if he meant billions of years?

I am not posting this to discredit creationism but to try to help theotherguy consider a different purpose for early Genesis.

Gen 1-3 might be literally true, some suggest it is inaccurate but it also might be an apologetic by the ancient hebrews to show that their God was more powerful than the local pagan dieties.

It is possible that the structure of early Genesis was aimed at dispelling the myths of some of the early pagan groups around the Hebrews including:

1. Why are the sun and moon referred to simply as lights in Genesis 1:16 when there are specific hebrew words for sun and moon?

One answer is that the neighboring pagan tribes may have viewed the sun and moon as gods to be worshipped. The hebrew God, by using the term 'lights' to attack a false theological idea, is clarifying for his people that these entities are not gods but simply sources of light.

2. In Genesis 1 we find 3 uses of the word 'bara' which means to create. We see it in the opening verse of God creating the heavens and the earth, we see it in reference to 'the great sea monsters' in Gen 1:21 and we see it in reference to man. Why the emphasis on great sea monsters?

According to the nearby pagan tribes their gods had to wrestle and subdue the sea creatures before they could create anything. Here we see again our God attacking a false idea of paganism by saying 'I created them I don't need to wrestle with them'. God is mightier than these sea creatures while the pagan gods are not.

3. There are some figurative statements in the early part of Genesis including the seventh 'day' not having a morning or evening (something which Jesus picks up on in John 5:17), when God creates man does he literally 'breathe' Gen 2:7 or is this a figurative anthropomorphism? There are also several word plays in early Genesis such as the use of the word 'pain' in Gen 3:16 is not the word typically used for birth pains but seems to be placed their because it rhymes with the hebrew word for 'tree'. Also note that Revelations picks up the images of 'the serpent' and 'the tree of life' and uses them in a symbolic fashion.

4. Consider that Genesis makes good logical sense but not good chronological sense. The first three days describe the creation of the container (ie. earth) and the last three days describe the filling of the container.

5. There are also indications that Genesis 1 was used for liturgical purposes, in other words, it was used in worship. Note that even the NIV lists Genesis 1 in the form of a hymn or poetry and not as prose of scientific history. It is a meditation on the work of creation not a literal statement of how it happened.

I hope this might help you with your struggle theotherguy.

 

[Eluzai]

Hi there, we go round in circles on this topic and if you want to know more about it there are copious threads in this forum with links to other sites and so on. Your belief on this point does not affect the life, death and resurection of Jesus Christ for your sins. This is not a faith issue. Pray to God and stay close to Him always.

www.answersingenesis.com

 

[artybloke]

not from the periodic table of the elements, it is nearly impossible. Also even after that the step from a protein to a single cell is also next to impossible.

Irrelevant. It has happened so it isn't impossible.

As far as science telling us anything about metephysics and/or God, the scriptures would disagree.

No they wouldn't. To the eyes of faith, the universe reveals the glory of God. Couldn't agree more. But when a plumber mends a broken pipe, he/she is mending a broken pipe, not singing praises (though maybe they're doing that at the same time: multi-tasking as it were!) Science - as science - merely describes processes and materials in the universe as we have it front of us. It cannot be used a proof of anything metaphysical in itself, because that cannot be grasped except through metaphysical means (ie through the eyes of faith.) I wouldn't expect a doctor to see demons down a microscope - I'd expect him to see the germs of whatever disease I'm suffering from.