HEY EVERYONE!!! You don't know that!!!

[1denomination]

1denomination: I couldn't agree with your post more. Bless you!

Herev: I think you hit the nail on the head.

Thank you all though I feel I may be outcast for it.


And it was herev, I saw him do it

 

[herev]

yeah. He is.
and HE is the one who defines the day and then says He did it in 6 of them.
Wont you just take Him at His word ?

absolutely, and my interpretation of what he said in creation is possibly in error as is your interpretation of what he said in Genesis

 

[YahwehLove]

2 Peter
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]3:8[/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica]...............one day with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[/font]

Its just too bad He isn't being clear about it.

Wrong answer

that passage has nothing to do with timeframes in Genesis but is explaining Gods patience. and If youll notice, it cancels itself out

 

[YahwehLove]

absolutely, and my interpretation of what he said in creation is possibly in error as is your interpretation of what he said in Genesis

Not likely.
The text says days.
And the method in which yom is used definetly shows literal days.
Other than what science says based on thier ever changing understanding of evidence, we have no reason not to just say it means just what the Hebrew teaches. 6 Days

 

[versastyle]

that passage has nothing to do with timeframes in Genesis but is explaining Gods patience. and If youll notice, it cancels itself out

Sweeeeet.

 

[versastyle]

Other than what science says based on thier ever changing understanding of evidence

Just can't help yourself can you?

Not all sciences significantly change, geological science for instance.

 

[raphael_aa]

Well it started out with good intentions. But then suspiscion, misunderstanding and plain old stubbornness killed it.


But .... I could be wrong.

 

[YahwehLove]

Just can't help yourself can you?

probably not

Not all sciences significantly change, geological science for instance.

So, theres no possible way that say TE could be debunked in 10 years?

 

[versastyle]

So, theres no possible way that say TE could be debunked in 10 years?

It depends on who's definition you are talking about.

 

[YahwehLove]

It depends on who's definition you are talking about.

let me rephrase.

could common decent be debunked in 10 years ?

 

[herev]

YL, everyone but you seems to admit that we COULD be wrong, so of course it could be debunked in 10 years. Those that follow the evidence will say, ok, you've convinced me and our faith will still be just as strong. What will happen if you find you are?

 

[YahwehLove]

YL, everyone but you seems to admit that we COULD be wrong, so of course it could be debunked in 10 years. Those that follow the evidence will say, ok, you've convinced me and our faith will still be just as strong. What will happen if you find you are?

Firstly, I find it somewhat distressing that we base our faith in Gods word and whether we believe what it says on a theory that you just stated could very well be debunked later.
Very distressing indeed.

Secondly, I have nothing to fear.
I believe that Genesis 1 goes to great lengths to teach a literal 6 days. If that is wrong, God is to blame.

Who will be the one showing me that Im wrong?
More of these secular scientists with their common decent?
I hardly think theres a thing they can show me that will make me reject a literal 6 day creation.

 

[Vance]

Personally I will go with the evidence MOST supports. My degree of certitude about a particular scientific explanation is in direct proportion to the strength of that evidence. It is simply nonsensical to say "all that is less than 100% certain should be with equal skepticism."

When you are trying to decide among a series of possibilities, why would you NOT choose the one that is best supported by the evidence as a whole even though it is not 100% certain? Your degree of certainty about that possibility is simply the degree to which you find the evidence compelling.

Now, to the extent that I believe Scripture is telling me something, I will obviously let that become the deciding factor. But, when there is more than one possible, and truly viable interpretation, and one of them is MUCH better supported by the evidence, then I think it is incumbunt upon all of us to consider whether our interpretation is correct with honest objectivity. It is all a sliding scale. The more essential the doctrine, the more assured the interpretation, then the greater degree of certitude the evidence from God's Creation must be to overcome it. Some Scripture is simply not subject to more than one interpretation, and no amount of scientific evidence can overcome it. But this is not true for all Scripture. All Scripture is equally true and equally valid and trustworthy, but it is so only for what it is actually saying, and this is not always so obvious.

For the geocentrists, they believe that the various verses and theology which require geocentrism are among those subject to only one interpretation, but we all here disagree with them. We all realize that they are all subject to an alternative possible interpretation. And then we weigh in the evidence from God's Creation and, BINGO!, we know which interpretation is correct, the non-literal one. Without this evidence taken into consideration, we would ALL interpret those Scripture the same way the geocentrists do.

For me, it was actually very easy. Since I had already concluded that Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to read as literal history, I was not biased when I set out to review the evidence. When I found that it was overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth and for evolution as a method used by God, and this actually fit in entirely with my interpretation, the balancing was automatic.

 

[Vance]

Firstly, I find it somewhat distressing that we base our faith in Gods word and whether we believe what it says on a theory that you just stated could very well be debunked later.
Very distressing indeed.

Secondly, I have nothing to fear.
I believe that Genesis 1 goes to great lengths to teach a literal 6 days. If that is wrong, God is to blame.

Who will be the one showing me that Im wrong?
More of these secular scientists with their common decent?
I hardly think theres a thing they can show me that will make me reject a literal 6 day creation.

Wow. I will take these in turn:

1. No, our faith in God's Word is absolute, our faith in a particular interpretation is not.

2. And no, we do not base our faith in God's Word on any scientific principle. Most Christians are, however, willing to base their concept of how God created on what the evidence from God's Creation shows most likely to be true. Since the how and when of God's Creative process are relatively unimportant (compared to the WHO and WHY), if we discover new insights or even entirely new ideas about the HOW and WHEN, wonderful! It has no impact on our faith whatsoever, since we know God's Word is true, reliable and Holy regardless of the how and when.

3. And, no, if it turns out that it was not created in six literal days, it will not be God that is to to blame, it will be you for insisting that your own human, fallible interpretation must be right.

4. There were a lot of Christians speaking of geocentrism the same way: there is no evidence that would convince them that it was earth that moved and not the sun. The Scripture is clear, they said. There were priests who refused to look into Galileo's telescope. They said that there was nothing it could show them that would change their mind about anything. Either it would show what they already believed, or it would be a trick of Satan. They were simply wrong, but most lived their entire lives believing that the Bible taught only geocentrism.

There are Christians saying the same thing today about geocentrism, and you, I am sure, completely disagree with them. They berate their fellow Creationists who have so compromised with secular science as to accept the concept of heliocentrism in spite if "clear" and "obvious" Scripture to the contrary.

I think you would agree they are mistaken in their insistence about their own fallible, human interpretation.

 

[YahwehLove]

Wow. I will take these in turn:

1. No, our faith in God's Word is absolute, our faith in a particular interpretation is not.

Sorry. the book states 6 days in english and in Hebrew.

2. And no, we do not base our faith in God's Word on any scientific principle. Most Christians are, however, willing to base their concept of how God created on what the evidence from God's Creation shows most likely to be true. Since the how and when of God's Creative process are relatively unimportant (compared to the WHO and WHY), if we discover new insights or even entirely new ideas about the HOW and WHEN, wonderful! It has no impact on our faith whatsoever, since we know God's Word is true, reliable and Holy regardless of the how and when.

heh.
Theyve already stolen creation and the flood from Gods word.
And I believe the parting of the Red Sea has been made a mockery as well.
Wheres the line?

3. And, no, if it turns out that it was not created in six literal days, it will not be God that is to to blame, it will be you for insisting that your own human, fallible interpretation must be right.

Sorry. Again, the english and the Hebrew are VERY specific.
Genesis is a history book thru and thru.
If God meant long ages in this history book, He should have been more clear.
There are plenty of other words He could have used to show long ages.
Well, all that had to be done was not say things like ''an evening and a morning, the third day''. All He had to do was say ''yom'' and left it at that.

4. There were a lot of Christians speaking of geocentrism the same way: there is no evidence that would convince them that it was earth that moved and not the sun. The Scripture is clear, they said. There were priests who refused to look into Galileo's telescope. They said that there was nothing it could show them that would change their mind about anything. Either it would show what they already believed, or it would be a trick of Satan. They were simply wrong, but most lived their entire lives believing that the Bible taught only geocentrism.

eh.
Im not touching this one. A flame war will surely result.

I think you would agree they are mistaken in their insistence about their own fallible, human interpretation.

Hmmm
What do the scriptures actually say on the matter?
Was it not ones reading between the lines too much that caused the belief?
Not nearly as plain as ''an evening and a morning, the first day'' rigth after defining a day in Genesis 1:5.

 

[Vance]

Sorry. the book states 6 days in english and in Hebrew.

Yes, but are you saying you are 100% sure it was meant to be read literally and not figuratively? 100%? When millions of Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christians have believed otherwise? If you are willing to say that you can not be wrong in your insistance on a literal interpretion, then we have little to discuss. I would direct your attention to a book called the Genesis Debate. You can find it on Amazon for about $13. It covers the three major approaches by those who all reject evolution. Yours is just one of them.

heh.
Theyve already stolen creation and the flood from Gods word.
And I believe the parting of the Red Sea has been made a mockery as well.
Wheres the line?

Well, your premise is entirely wrong. No one has stolen anything from the Bible. God still created, and every word of the text, and that of the flood story as well, is God's Holy Word, and should be read with reverence and seeking for God's message to us. But that message need not be given only in the form of literal history. How do you read Song of Solomon? As a sensual, even erotic, love poem or as figurative for Christ and the Church? There is not a single clue that it should be read figuratively, but this has been a common interpretation among Fundamentalists for a very long time.

Sorry. Again, the english and the Hebrew are VERY specific.
Genesis is a history book thru and thru.

And why do you think this? What is your literary analysis that tells you that, among the wide variety of writing styles and, in particular, those in common usage in the near east at that time, that this particular text must be read as literal history from end to end?

If God meant long ages in this history book, He should have been more clear.
There are plenty of other words He could have used to show long ages.
Well, all that had to be done was not say things like ''an evening and a morning, the third day''. All He had to do was say ''yom'' and left it at that.
eh.

I don't think God meant long ages. Haven't we covered this? Why do you keep insisting that I read the YOM's as representing long ages? I have told you that I don't and what I do believe, but you keep falling back on this. Is this the only argument for an old earth that you have heard? Again, I would direct you to the Genesis Debate, so you can at least see that there are other interpretations out there.

Hmmm
What do the scriptures actually say on the matter?
Was it not ones reading between the lines too much that caused the belief?
Not nearly as plain as ''an evening and a morning, the first day'' rigth after defining a day in Genesis 1:5.

No, it was not someone reading between the lines, but the entire Christain Church, Catholic and Protestant alike reading it all to literally. And to them, every bit as plain as the 24-hour day. Just ask them, or go review this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1102004-what-geocentrists-say-.html

 

[Alchemist]

Well, I'll throw my two cents in:

I know my position on our origins is not correct. I am willing to acknowledge I am mistaken.

I can never and will never know everything there is to know about God's creation. All I know is He did it. In time, our current theories on how evolution will be shown to be incomplete, or scientific evidence will falsify it. Right now I am a theistic evolutionist, in 10 years, who knows? I don't think it really matters in the long run, what matters is that I try to do my best for God. In comparison, my petty understanding of how He created the earth pales in significance.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Because scientific theories change, there is a tendancy for creationists, with their addiction to black and white thinking as beautifully illustrated by, for example, Yahwehlove (like the name) on this thread, to think that this means that the previous theory was completely wrong.

It isn't like that. Nearly always the new theory is a modification with improvements over the old one. And since all theories are working models rather than absolute decriptions of reality, quite often we use the previous theory if it's "good enough" and simpler. For example, we use Newton's theories of gravitation most of the time, because although Einstein's relativity theories showed that Newton was "wrong", he was so nearly right, and his equations are easier, that most of the time it's easier to use Newton. Before Newton, we had various Aristotlean (IIRC) ideas about heavy objects "liking" the earth.

And it is absolutely certain that some aspects of evolutionary theory as currently held are wrong, and will be overturned tomorrow, next year and next century. But the replacement will be a refinement of the existing theory. It most certainly won't be a return to a completely falsified model, which is six day creationism. That would be as ridiculous as to suggest that one day Einstein will be superceded (and I'm sure he will) and we will go back to Aristotle.

 

[herev]

Firstly, I find it somewhat distressing that we base our faith in Gods word and whether we believe what it says on a theory that you just stated could very well be debunked later.

That is a gross misstatement of TE beliefs. We have our faith in God (to put your faith in the Bible {your words} sounds more like idolatry--why put your faith in anything but God?)--we trust in his word as much as you do. It is a matter of interpretation--why is that so difficult. You interpret it as literal, I do not. I admit that my interpretation is MINE and therefore human--you believe your interpretation, though also human, as being infallible, perfect, and without possibility of error--another idolatrous statement (as well as sanctimonious, self-righteous, and judgmental).

Very distressing indeed.

I was just going to say that!

Secondly, I have nothing to fear.

I don't think anyone suggested that you should fear anything.

I believe that Genesis 1 goes to great lengths to teach a literal 6 days.

yes, you BELIEVE--as I said, this is your interpretation

If that is wrong, God is to blame.

dangerous theology--amazing you can't see it. if your interpretation is wrong, it's not your error, it's God's fault? That is beyond idolatrous and instead is placing yourself above God--Does He get the blame for all your errors or are you selective?

Who will be the one showing me that Im wrong?

I don't know? The question was hypothetical. The question was do you admit that you might be wrong--your answer is no--if it's wrong--it's God's fault

More of these secular scientists with their common decent?

I doubt that you would ever be so open minded

I hardly think theres a thing they can show me that will make me reject a literal 6 day creation.

that much we agree on

 

[YahwehLove]

Herev.
I just wonder something.
Did anything that is in the bible actually have to happen the way its recorded?

How do you know any of it is true?
maybe the whole thing is fable and allegory.