• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by LoveGodHateSin, Oct 16, 2016.

  1. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,803
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    God has the ability to do it.
    God said He did it.

    Men say God didn't do it, like He said He did.

    Believe God...............or.........believe men.

    Your logic baffles me. It's new...

    Here is why.
    1/ Many "Christians" argue with me, tooth and nail, that literal Genesis is not necessary for their salvation. They hold that Genesis is allegorical and not to believed, as written, in the biblical account.

    They will trust the eternal destiny, of their soul, to the biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection. Yet, argue the words of a previous book of the same bible and state that it is ok as my salvation doesn't depend on it.

    2/ You, on the other hand, are going to lose your faith in God if you cannot find someone to show you that Genesis is true as written.

    Think of this:

    Jesus was born of a virgin, turned water to wine, fed thousands with a couple of fish and some bread, walked on water, died on a cross, rose from the dead, walked through wall, rose up in the air and disappeared behind a cloud. .

    All of these supernatural things are fully believed for one and only one reason.... don't believe them and you are not saved.

    Genesis holds similar supernatural events, yet is too hard for people to swallow.

    I'll tell ya this, If Jesus stated that people needed to "Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ AND the six literal day creation, to be saved......... we would have 100% of the Christians out there believing in a literal Genesis....ONLY TO SAVE THEIR SOUL.

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

    See that? ALL, Not just the gospel.

    The way I see it... IF you're going to build foundation for the salvation of your soul on biblical scripture. Take it literal due to the fact that you are betting your eternal life on it. YOU better well Believe the rest of the same book even if it contradicts the blabberings of every other man or woman on earth.

    Let God be true and every man a liar.

    I'd rather put my faith in what the Bible says, and be wrong, than take the chance and put my faith in the words of men and be wrong.
     
  2. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,803
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    WOW great advice......Ya, cause we are supposed to lean on our own understanding...........right?

    Proverbs 3:5New International Version (NIV)

    5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;



    Oh, wait, it's "lean NOT on your own understanding... ya... sorry.
     
  3. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,456
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    The question is, why would that be a problem? Are you jealous because you think you have to believe in a six-day creation even though it is not required for salvation?

    Right. But that does not necessariily require any particular part of it to be 100% accurate literal history.
     
  4. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,925
    Christian
    Private
    Personally i don't think that those who have a faith in evolutionism actually believe that...as they must change a lot of scripture to force it to conform to the religious concepts of evolutionism.

    For example if God used evolutionism to make man...where did original sin come from?
    The bible tells us...and the The-evos deny what the bible says.
     
  5. IRONH1DE

    IRONH1DE New Member

    11
    +1
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Yes, think for yourself. Don't be a sheep.

    That's a very cult like verse, don't think for yourself it will just get you into trouble. Let someone else do your thinking for you.

    Something tells me logic is not your strong suit.
     
  6. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,803
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    11 posts in and you are contradicting scripture. Saying I cannot trust the word of God and His infinite wisdom and knowledge that it holds, more than my finite knowledge.

    Then, slamming my logic.... hmmm, should I be insulted?

    The Bible does not tell us believe anything we hear. It tells us to "test all things".

    What I will do is hold the word of God to be true over any group of men that contradict it. Especially if they are branches of the atheistic science movement of out time.
     
  7. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,803
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    No, it's because they cherry pick which scripture to accept as fact and which to brush off due to conflict with "words of men". They only accept the gospel and all it's wonders and supernatural events because of one thing.... without it they are lost and headed for hell. So they put that small portion of the bible in their pocket and it is written in stone... the other supernatural events, that our salvation is not hinged on.... they can take a hike....


    Right.......the gospel has to be literal history or my soul is history... the other stuff......wellllllll I'm not sure let's just sit on the fence like a good luke warm Christian.
     
  8. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,456
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Of course there is more to support the Gospel of Christ than just the written Gospels of the Bible. But what supernatural events are you referring to?




    Yes, I only need to believe that which is necessary to salvation, basically the content of the Nicene Creed. But you still have not made it clear why it is necessary to believe anything more than that or why it is bad not to.
     
  9. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,803
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    Turning water to great wine, walking on water, the voice from heaven at His baptism, feeding more than 5000 people with some fish and some bread, casting out demons that even knew who He was, healing people from all kinds of disabilities and sickness, bringing a man back to life after three days, healing a young girl from miles away, rising from the dead, entering a locked room and then leaving again with out using a door, cloaking His identity when talking with people who knew Him for years, rising from the ground and then disappearing in a cloud.

    There are many more too.




    We need to believe it because ALL of it is the word of God. Why are we not just given the gospel then.... there you go, there is your bible, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John... the rest is just stories.... Seriously?

    ALL scripture is profitable for teaching. All Scripture is God breathed. All scripture is true and literal events.

    You cannot take only the part that your soul depends on, call it the rock solid truth, and toss out the rest and say "we don't need that". No, it is all God's communication to mankind. It is all important.

    It may not be a science book but the words within it explain scientific facts or that people were doing things, unknown to them, but for reasons science would prove to be beyond their knowledge, while God told them to do it.

    The book we call the Bible, is a unit. It stands as one. It has many parts but they are all as necessary as the other in order for God's full message to be understood by His creation.
     
  10. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,456
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    But I thought you were talking about supernatural events I was denying by taking the first stories of Genesis as something other than 100% accurate literal history, not the miracles associated with the life of Jesus. What are those?


    You know, it is remarkable how soon into these kinds of discussions about the Bible how quickly people like you start to resort to offensive slander, as in your comments above. What your argument boils down to is "You interpret the Genesis stories my way or you are rejecting scripture." What an attitude.
     
  11. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,803
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    So, is it not supernatural to speak "light" into existence? How about "speaking" the whole universe into existence? Forming a man, from the ground and breathing life into this body? Making a woman from one of this man's ribs? Doing all of this in six literal days.

    If you say He didn't do this in six literal days, then you are denying a supernatural event.

    Not to mention that no other presently accepted excuse for how we got here can, or even attempts, to explain how life came to be... that's "life" the part that runs this whole engine.


    If it offended you, it was not my intent. The fact that you are offended is not my fault. It was not I that put the Bible together and presented it as God's living word... I am just here to present the fact that it IS God's words.
     
  12. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,456
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    As interpreted by you. But rejecting your interpretation is not the same as rejecting scripture and, as I'm sure you are aware, such accusations to a fellow Christian are sure to give offense. You don't own the Bible and you are in no position to dictate to others how they are to read it. If you want to discuss and compare the diverse ways we read scripture, that's fine. I'm not interested in reading your anathemas.
     
  13. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Of course it is.

    To say nothing of the clear testimony of Scripture.

    Or that God was there at the point of origin doing what only God can do.

    Reminding Christians that God is the author and finisher of life should not cause offense. It makes no sense that it would.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  14. com7fy8

    com7fy8 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,404
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    What, right now, is your main issue? Please write it here for us to see . . . what you personally now have for an issue.

    By the way . . . I think of how God plans to change us to become like His Son Jesus . . . so we are new creations of our persons within us. This is the main creation which we need to be concerned about > Romans 8:29 with 2 Corinthians 5:17.

    So, it is wise not to let other matters decoy our attention away from how now God is able to create in us a new person >

    "My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you," (Galatians 4:19)

    So, you might consider what in you has you more concerned about something other than this.
     
  15. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,928
    Anabaptist
    re the op >>
    Member Since:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    LoveGodHateSin was last seen:
    Nov 5, 2016
     
  16. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    It is all a question of belief. State sponsored pagan science has beliefs that are widely believed. not proven. Not known.
     
  17. imind

    imind Senior Veteran

    +658
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    i suggest you start with this...the bible was never intended to be read literally...it is a rather new way of reading the bible.
     
  18. AthensToJerusalem

    AthensToJerusalem New Member

    66
    +54
    Slovenia
    Non-Denom
    Single
    You mean scientific proof? Science can't prove how old the world is one way or another. It's the unobservable past you're dealing with here. That's why it's so important we have the Word of God to learn from. And if you ask Hebrew scholars if 'yom' in Genesis 1 could possibly be translated as anything other than a literal, 24 hour day (whether they're believers or not), they'll clearly and practically unanimously tell you that nothing else makes any linguistic-semantic sense in that context. This is not wooden "literalism". After all, it's not like anyone doubts that there are different genres in the Bible and that interpretation has to take that into account. We don't read about Jesus saying He is the door and reaching the conclusion that he's literally a door. When we are accused of "literalism", it's usually a way for old earthers to avoid having to actually give a sound argument for why Genesis 1 is meant to be read in a way that you could somehow fit billions of years into it.

    There are all sorts of problems with that. Aside from the linguistic ones I've mentioned, there are also theological ones: if the world is old, it means there was death before sin. What kind of God would call his creation "very good" if death was an original feature of it? Imagine Adam and Eve taking a walk and all of a sudden, a zebra appears and then a lion which jumps at it and rips out its throat. "Ah yes, very good, my dear Adam, very good." It doesn't make any sense. It's absolutely vital to Christianity that death only enters the world after Adam sins and brings the curse upon the Earth.

    Also, there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that even remotely tells us anything about the world being older than thousands of years. I'd think something as important as this would be revealed to us. And when Jesus talks about the Old Testament, he clearly makes it known that it is an authoritative, reliable text.

    As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on old earth Christians to prove that the world is old and to give a really good reason for why they're placing the fallible word of man over the infallible Word of God. And if they think that accepting billions of years will somehow make their views more sophisticated and acceptable to neo-pagan scholars of today, I've got news for them. Theistic evolutionists (let alone old earth creationists) are regularly called "clowns" and worse, even highly eminent ones, like the leader or the Human Genome Project. And besides...virgin births? Walking on water? The dead coming back to life? Come on, these things can't happen, right? Seriously, they'll think we're ridiculous one way or another just because we accept miracles.

    But if you're interested in science, while it can't "prove" the age of the earth, there are several indicators that point towards a young age. Here's a list of 100: Age of the earth - creation.com

    I find it especially fascinating that it is now well established that dinosaur protein has been found intact in fossils. It used to be thought that protein simply can't survive for millions of years. I agree, it can't : - P But mainstream science is now going: "Ehmm, I suppose it can survive that long! We just haven't found the mechanism." Well, good luck with that.

    Also, it's notable that population geneticists now claim that the human genome is deteriorating and has been for thousands of years. They're saying we're going to have serious problems because of it in a few generations. Already we're seeing problems with male fertility and an increase in allergies. Harmful mutations. This makes no sense at all from an evolutionary perspective, but completely fits into a fallen, dying world.

    And "transitional fossils" Even the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould said that not a single one has ever stood lengthy, careful scrutiny.
     
  19. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,533
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    @AthensToJerusalem
    I've read quite a bit of Goulds work, he has never said that there were no transitional fossils nor did he say that none had withstood scrutiny. On the contrary, he has many books about them, detailed books in which he supports them as they are, transitionals.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2017
  20. AthensToJerusalem

    AthensToJerusalem New Member

    66
    +54
    Slovenia
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Could you be more specific? Somehow I find it unlikely that he would write something that contradicts this view of his:

    "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

    But I suppose it's possible that he did.
     
Loading...