If the Genesis creation is literal

[Galle]

Do you have anything to add to the discussion besides falsehoods and insults?

Irony meters up and down my street just exploded.

Where has Arunma ever told people they worship science?

Is it really too much to ask that you read the thread before responding?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35519405&postcount=19

Unlike you, he seems interested in discussing facts and positions. Oh, and by the way, Arunma is not a "creationist" -- check his profile.

More projection? Yeesh, what is it with you?

As for Arunma not being a creationist, I am already well aware. However, that hardly means I'm supposed to be intellectually dishonest. I know this is a difficult concept for you, but I don't selectively apply ethics. If dishonestly insulting others is bad for a creationist, it's also bad for a TE.

 

[laptoppop]

Read the post you cited! Arunma clearly indicated he was talking about a particular group of scientifically illiterate folks -- not a condemnation of real scientists by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Assyrian]

Interesting position. Of course, even saying the flood destroyed all human life is incompatible with the TOE as taught.

Not sure what you mean by 'TOE as taught'. I don't know of anything in the theory of evolution that says there can't have been a flood related genetic bottleneck. It does go against the scientific evidence that there wasn't a recent genetic bottle neck, unless you push the flood back a long way.

Of course I don't think the flood destroyed all human life, but I would not use the TOE to argue against it.

Also, if the flood was local, why did Noah take the animals onboard the ark at all?

This has been answered again and again laptoppop, I don't know why you keep bringing it up. It is not as if God never asked people to do strange things before, why march seven times around Jericho? Why did Nazarites grow long hair? Even if you don't like the practical reasons we suggest for saving the animals, you are still left with the 'because God said so' that comes up so often in scripture.

• How about God had compassion for the animals too?
• Even if there were others of that species elsewhere, maybe God did not want to leave the species in the land without descendants.
• What about the species unique to that region that would have been wiped out?
• All of the domesticated species would have been lost too.
• Maybe it has something to do with man being given dominion over and responsibility for 'every beast of the earth'.

You see it is not a matter of you disagreeing with these explanations, you are as ever, free do disagree with us, but you argument depends on there being no possible reason for God to have animals on the ark. That, as we have shown, is simply not the case.

What do you do with the following verses (NASB):

Gen 7:21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
Gen 7:22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
Gen 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

Thanks!

The word used for 'earth' here is erets which as we have pointed out usually means a land. Lets look at what it say if we translate erets that way.
Gen 7:21 All flesh that moved on the land perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the land, and all mankind;
Gen 7:22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
Gen 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the land; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
This is a regional flood.

Have a look at the same word in Genesis 4 (NASB)

Gen 4:12 "When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth."
Gen 4:13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is too great to bear!
Gen 4:14 "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
...
Gen 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.

Cain was supposed to be a fugitive, a restless wanderer in the earth, but he actually wanders of to another erets, the land of Nod, settles down and builds a city. It is not that Cain was supposed to be a wanderer in the earth. He was a fugitive and a wander in his own land, but he was free to settle down in a different country.

Unless of course, erets really does mean the whole earth and Nod was another planet.

 

[Digit]

Hi Assyrian,

I think that the word erets actually means earth, in addition this makes a great deal more sense when you reconcile it with the Greek word kosmos in 2 Peter 3:5-7. The fact that the heavens and earth (kosmos which is eqiuvalent to erets) are reserved now, and are reserved until judgement and fire speak of the whole globe, rather than just a land. Finally in 2 Peter 3:13 we are told they will be replaced by a new earth, again kosmos which is equivalent to erets.

Just throwing that out there.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[shernren]

Hmm, have you checked the original text properly? My source has:

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth (ge) was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world (kosmos) of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth (ge) are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. ... But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth (ge) and everything in it will be laid bare. ... But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth (ge), the home of righteousness.
(2 Peter 3:5-7, 10, 13 NIV)

It looks like the NT uses a different word for "earth" as the creation of God opposed to the heavens, i.e. our planet, from the word for "world", as what was flooded. It sounds almost as if the Flood only needed to destroy what sinful humanity had touched, instead of the whole earth - why else use two completely different words?

Hmm.

 

[Tiberius]

Alright, for the sake of argument let's say that the Genesis creation is absolutely true. Let's say through scientific discovery that we find that the universe, in fact, is only around 6000 years old, and that the earth was definitively created in six days, in exactly the order specified in the bible.

So, assuming that God doesn't want to give positive proof of His existence to facilitate our faith, has He undone himself? I've got to admit, anybody who had doubts about the existence of God after this information was proven would be incredibly dense. If God created the universe in a way where the supernatural was required, wouldn't He be ensuring that our curiosity would eventually lead to proof that He had to do it?

Could creation be God's babel fish? :o

No. There's no way that a 6000 year old universe and an Earth created in 6 days leads to the conclusion that the Christian God did it. It may have been one of the other countless gods worshipped by people throughout history, or it may have a non-God cause. There just isn't any way to go from those two pieces of evidence to the conclusion that the Christian God is responsible. However, it would certainly be a huge piece of supporting evidence for certain interpretations of Christianity.

 

[shernren]

No. There's no way that a 6000 year old universe and an Earth created in 6 days leads to the conclusion that the Christian God did it. It may have been one of the other countless gods worshipped by people throughout history, or it may have a non-God cause. There just isn't any way to go from those two pieces of evidence to the conclusion that the Christian God is responsible. However, it would certainly be a huge piece of supporting evidence for certain interpretations of Christianity.

I agree with your assessment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Assyrian! How goes things?

 

[laptoppop]

No. There's no way that a 6000 year old universe and an Earth created in 6 days leads to the conclusion that the Christian God did it. It may have been one of the other countless gods worshipped by people throughout history, or it may have a non-God cause. There just isn't any way to go from those two pieces of evidence to the conclusion that the Christian God is responsible. However, it would certainly be a huge piece of supporting evidence for certain interpretations of Christianity.

Correct. However this is a Christian theology forum, not a general apologetics one, so it is quite acceptable to use the Christian God and Scriptures as presuppositions within the context of these discussions.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi, Assyrian! How goes things?

Not too bad, not too bad at all. And yerself?

 

[Tiberius]

Correct. However this is a Christian theology forum, not a general apologetics one, so it is quite acceptable to use the Christian God and Scriptures as presuppositions within the context of these discussions.

But that would require that one assumes what one wishes to prove. I don't see that circular logic is ever valid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not too bad, not too bad at all. And yerself?

Just peachy-keen!

My computer is down, and I have to come to the library here, but other than that, all's well!

Have a good day!

 

[Assyrian]

Been the done that, well not to you library of course. It is not the same with all the notes and reference material stuck at home though is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

If God created the universe in a way where the supernatural was required, wouldn't He be ensuring that our curiosity would eventually lead to proof that He had to do it?

Had the Fall not occurred, this would be true; but God gave us a written Document of His existence, which is more than capable of satisfying the curiosity of His followers.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Had the Fall not occurred, this would be true; but God gave us a written Document of His existence, which is more than capable of satisfying the curiosity of His followers.

First of all, this is simply not true. That written document is nowhere near capable of satisfying the curiousity of His followers... else what are we chatting about on forums like this?

Can you deny that we've learned so much about the history and context of the Bible that we do it a great disservice to close our eyes and say, "It's all literal; nothing more to say about it"? (well... you might deny it, but most people would not)

further, doesn't that strike you as just a wee bit anticlimatic? All the wonder, splendor, and beauty of the entire creation to gape at, and it's to be ignored in favor of one book... even if that book's the Bible?

 

[Tiberius]

Had the Fall not occurred, this would be true; but God gave us a written Document of His existence, which is more than capable of satisfying the curiosity of His followers.

I would have thought that if God really does exist that the universe he created is a much more authoritative source of information about him than a book written by men.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I would have thought that if God really does exist that the universe he created is a much more authoritative source of information about him than a book written by men.

I suspect that AV1611VET will counter this claim with the notion that God personally wrote the Bible through the use of human agents... thus miraculously micromanaging human thoughts and deeds at the expense of their free will.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would have thought that if God really does exist that the universe he created is a much more authoritative source of information about him than a book written by men.

God takes the credit for having written the Bible, even though It was penned by men.

In addition, having something in writing is much more authoritive than not having it in writing.

[bible]2 Peter 1:19[/bible]

 

[gluadys]

In addition, having something in writing is much more authoritive than not having it in writing.

[bible]2 Peter 1:19[/bible]

How so?

Please note that there is nothing in the word "prophecy" that implies "writing".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think the problem here would be that there are several other religions which have extremely similar creation accounts. For example, the hypothetical evidence from the OP would also attest to the truth of the Jewish creation account, the Muslim account, and the accounts of several ancient Near Eastern religions. Yet none of these religions confess Jesus as the Christ. The Bible says that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is an antichrist (and I personally believe the Bible). Do YECs really want to validate false religions such as Judaism and other Near Eastern religions which do precisely this? This is one of the various theological problems I see with creationism.

They are both based on the Hebrew of the Bible but they of course vary in interpretation of the Bible thru various books of legends and myths.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.