Implication of Origins

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
[It was 59, not 42 that I was thinking of..]

#59:

Oy! I just don't have time to go through this whole thing. No woder I ignored it. Pick one topic and let's focus on itwhichever one you think is the strongest.

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

gluadys said:
Pretty well. Science is an exploration of natural events and processes. Does it make sense to you that because of what it is, science cannot factor in miracles? A miracle is not a natural event or process, so it must remain outside the domain of science.

I wonder what God thinks about those trying to verify him via science. Is He chuckling? Is He grieved.

gluadys said:
It is not a matter of willfully excluding miracles or the God of miracles. It is a matter of what science is capable of. Science can tell you, or attempt to tell you, what the situation is if no miracle is assumed to have happened. As soon as you posit a miracle, science has no more to say. It cannot comment one way or the other because analysing miracles is beyond its competence.

This is correct and means that much in Genesis does not have a natural explanation.

gluadys said:
Is it your position that if Genesis is a myth, it is wrong?

That's a weird question. No being a scientist I really have nothing to go by. I will admit that most scientists believe it is the best natural explanation.

gluadys said:
Fair enough. I have reasons for not taking the stance you are, but I'll take them up with people who are willing to explore the scientific facts.

Now that's not very nice. Come on, explain why you don't think science is a valuable tool in this debate.

gluadys said:
Oh, and you were right the first time: it's "I" not "me". You can trust me on this one. I spent ten years teaching English grammar.

Me trusts you!

Ben_Hur · Aug 10, 2005

Calminian said:
Oy! I just don't have time to go through this whole thing. No woder I ignored it. Pick one topic and let's focus on itwhichever one you think is the strongest.

I reposted them for you. You only need go back one page.

If you are unwilling to read those posts - or even one of them, say the first one, I can only assume you really have no argument with them.

artybloke · Aug 11, 2005

I wonder what God thinks about those trying to verify him via science. Is He chuckling?

Who exactly is doing that? Not scientists. Scientists as scientists (whatever their private convictions) never talk about God. Creationists are the ones who try to prove God through science (usually by distorting it). Scientists just try to describe the world as they see it.

Is it your position that if Genesis is a myth, it is wrong?

Click to expand...

That's a weird question. No being a scientist I really have nothing to go by

It's not a scientific question. It's a question of literary genre and philosophy. Do you think that if something is a myth it is automatically untrue, or do you think that truth can be conveyed through the telling of stories (such as legends or myths, or just straight fiction) or poetry, or do you think that truth can only be conveyed through "factual" literature? Do you think that truth conveyed through "factual" means is neccessarily better than truth conveyed through stories?

This is the philosophical heart of the matter it seems to me: creationists have a basically materialist/positivist view of truth (as something factual) whereas, I believe, TE's have a much more nuanced and spiritual view that truth is something that can never exactly be conveyed through words and that there is more to truth than "fact."

gluadys · Aug 11, 2005

Calminian said:
I wonder what God thinks about those trying to verify him via science. Is He chuckling? Is He grieved.

Grieved, definitely. The way to please God is to have faith in him, to test him out through commitment, not through test-tubes. That is one of the beefs I have with creationism, is that it wants to have science-based proof of God.

That's a weird question. No being a scientist I really have nothing to go by. I will admit that most scientists believe it is the best natural explanation.

As artybloke says, it is not a scientific question. It is a question of what it implies to you when someone says Genesis or any part of the bible is myth. Does that suggest that to you that the person believes it is untrue? that they are rejecting the truth of what the bible says?

Now that's not very nice. Come on, explain why you don't think science is a valuable tool in this debate.

Actually it is because I think science is a valuable tool that I take the position I do. First I think you will agree that we do not see miracles (supernatural type) happening every day. That means that for much of the history of the earth, science's conclusions about nature are correct. We can trust a magnet will point north, we can trust C-14 to date archeological artifacts correctly, we can trust the mechanisms of evolution to sort organisms by their fitness to their environment.

Since we have miracles on the one hand and the ordinary routine of nature on the other, there must be an transition from one to the other. And to me that means that a miracle of global effect must leave some traces of it happening in the world of ordinary nature.

But in the case of the flood, no such trace is left. In fact, evidence that contradicts the possibility is left. Take fossils for example. The actual stratigraphic placement of fossils is impossible if it is the consequence of a flood.

Now what this means to me is this:

1. God created the flood, and saved Noah and the creatures in the ark by a series of miracles.
2. God erased from the world the signs that would help us distinguish flood sediments from non-flood sediments.
3. God re-sorted the remains of drowned animals and plants and placed them such that they would fit a scenario of an old earth and evolution rather than a flood.

Now I can believe one. It's a stretch, but I can believe 2. But there is no way I can believe 3.

I can accept that the flood itself is a miracle. I can accept that God would have to use miracles to restore normalcy to the world -- like superfast restoration of vegetation, and teleporting animals back to their natural habitat.

But if a global flood occurred and God wants us to know a global flood occurred, I cannot believe that God would re-sort the remains of the flood victims to make it look as if they died in many different places at different times, in various circumstances and in a sequence that perfectly fits what we would expect from evolution. It is one thing to restore the world to normalcy. It is quite another to create the illusion that the flood never happened. It does not make sense to me that God would do that. If he wants us to know that a global flood did happen, what makes sense to me is that he would leave in place evidence that it happened. He would not make the evidence contradict his written revelation.

But if a global flood occurred that is exactly what he has done. And stratigraphy is only one of many bits of evidence that would have to be planted to cover up the existence of a global flood.

Me trusts you!

Critias · Aug 11, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
God created us all very differently - thus we have different ways of looking at things.

What stops others from using your same statement above to refer to Jesus not being the Only Way?

Besides this, you didn't even touch on answering my question.

Ben_Hur said:
Somethings else; God's intention for them to rest every 7 days.

It wouldn't be necessary to talk about God creating everything in six days in order to convey to them to rest on the 7th day.

Ben_Hur said:
I'm not sure how this relates to what I posted. Looks like you are changing the subject.

I said this because you implied the age of the earth with sixTEEN billion years....

Ben_Hur said:
I think that is my point. If we look at it like God knows the universe is billions of years old, he may not want to use those terms with people that barely understand what stars are.

That was not my point. Can you tell me exactly what it would be like to experience 1 billion years? Can you even fathom it? How about 1 million? Can you see what it would be like, what you do and see and experience?

My point is that we, as humans, cannot grasp time in this length. Only the arrogant will say they can. Man has a hard enough time fathoming what will take place in 20 years, let alone 4.6 billion years. Yet, so many trust them anyways.

Ben_Hur said:
As you've demonstrated with the phrase in bold, not even you are sure. I am not sure either.

I didn't say I was unsure if God rested, I said I assume from the context that God rested for 1 day from creating. Not resting from all things. There is a big difference there.

I know God rested, it says so quite plainly in the text. The question then becomes what God rested from and since He was creating here, I assume He rested from creation for 1 - 24 hour day.

Ben_Hur said:
You may have lost me here. Are you talking about the Sabbath and the Seventh Day not being the same and equal in meaning and understanding? Not sure where you are going with that.

Would you really equate the Sabbath with God's rest on the 7th day as if they are the same thing?

I brought this up because you are talking about the 7th day rest and the Sabbath. As well as others, YECs & TEs, who have commented on them.

Ben_Hur said:
As far as I can tell, there is no one attempting to disguise ANY human law as God's LAW. Do we need to review what God's laws are now? Or do you want to admit your statement is uncalled for and a bit of an exageration?

Are you asking about the Jews and how they made up laws and called them God's laws?

I am assuming you are speaking about what I said that the same is going on here.

I wasn't speaking necessarily on God's laws, but rather taking things and stating this is what God has said in His creation for us to understand. Ex. yecs say Genesis says God created in six days, TEs say God did not do this God created over billions of years because this is what science says.

If one is actually perceptive enough, they will see that this isn't about science versus creationism, this is about what science says and what the Bible says and who is correct.

TEs belittle the subject and say it is your interpretation that is wrong, but never actually look into how Genesis is written in the original language and how the ancients would have understood it. TEs are unable to present a solid Biblical account of why Genesis is a myth or poetic. Instead they use modern understandings of myths and poems. They ignore or deny that even the most liberal people of the first century, who did not believe in a six day creation, agreed that Genesis is a historical narrative.

One would have to ignore almost everything in the history of the church to claim Genesis is a myth and/or poetic. They would also have to ignore the the usage of the Hebrew language.

My point? TEs are careless with Genesis and make claims without support, something they patornize yecs for doing. Ironically, TEs are just as guilty, only with Scripture instead of science.

Ben_Hur said:
You don't have to look only at science to find idol worship. Are you implying that one who believes in a greater-than-six-day creation is an idol worshiper? Now we're back to lifting Gen 1 to salvation doctrine, or at least calling it sin - as I expected.

I am implying that anyone, here or elsewhere, that places the emphasis on what man has done instead of what God has done. Example: look at what the science discovered or the theory he/she came up with.

Let me make this clear, man does nothing when studying our world other than see what God has done. Instead, the focus is shifted to man instead of God by saying looking at the scientists they discovered, they found, they did, they know, instead of realizing it is God who created this world.

Man then perverts what he sees and makes his own assumptions void of the Creator Himself. When it is the Creator who created, not man.

Science is the focus of man's achievements not God's work.

Ben_Hur · Aug 11, 2005

Critias said:
What stops others from using your same statement above to refer to Jesus not being the Only Way?

Nothing. That is why we have different religions. You know, free will, diversity, all that? I'm most certainly not saying Jesus is NOT the only way. But I am saying that there are lots of people that may indeed say Jesus is not the only way. Many of them, unfortunately, are Christians. Are you saying I'm not allowed to say such things for fear of leading a Christian down the wrong path? What? Lil 'ole me? God saves, not me. Last I checked, nothing can separate us from the love of God (except maybe our own free will).

Critias said:
Besides this, you didn't even touch on answering my question.

Rats. I'll have to go back and check on that one - unless you want to remind me?

Critias said:
It wouldn't be necessary to talk about God creating everything in six days in order to convey to them to rest on the 7th day.

You don't get to decided what is necessary for God to convey His message...HE does. My point is that there could be many reasons that are equally plausible for God to use such language. Not just one reason.

Critias said:
I said this because you implied the age of the earth with sixTEEN billion years....

Oh. Well I think I was actually referring to the age of the universe - which I do NOT know anyway. I don't even remember what those EVIL scientists are saying. I should have left a disclaimer that the number was just for the sake of argument.

Critias said:
That was not my point. Can you tell me exactly what it would be like to experience 1 billion years? Can you even fathom it? How about 1 million? Can you see what it would be like, what you do and see and experience?

My point is that we, as humans, cannot grasp time in this length. Only the arrogant will say they can. Man has a hard enough time fathoming what will take place in 20 years, let alone 4.6 billion years. Yet, so many trust them anyways.

You seem to be making my point, so I must still be missunderstanding where you mean to go with this.

Critias said:
I didn't say I was unsure if God rested, I said I assume from the context that God rested for 1 day from creating. Not resting from all things. There is a big difference there.

I know God rested, it says so quite plainly in the text. The question then becomes what God rested from and since He was creating here, I assume He rested from creation for 1 - 24 hour day.

You see, when you say "assume" you are admitting that you don't really know. I already said that I don't know exactly what it means. I don't know if it even matters within the context of our discussion.

Critias said:
Would you really equate the Sabbath with God's rest on the 7th day as if they are the same thing?

I brought this up because you are talking about the 7th day rest and the Sabbath. As well as others, YECs & TEs, who have commented on them.

Ok, but you are talking as if it is wrong to make that comparison and I still don't understand why you thing that is wrong - or even if you do think it is wrong.

Critias said:
Are you asking about the Jews and how they made up laws and called them God's laws?

I am assuming you are speaking about what I said that the same is going on here.

Ya, that's right.

Critias said:
I wasn't speaking necessarily on God's laws, but rather taking things and stating this is what God has said in His creation for us to understand. Ex. yecs say Genesis says God created in six days, TEs say God did not do this God created over billions of years because this is what science says.

If one is actually perceptive enough, they will see that this isn't about science versus creationism, this is about what science says and what the Bible says and who is correct.

Well, to me it's about pointing out that Christians who have no science training have no business teaching science and then requiring Christians to believe their junk science in order to be Christians. The rest is just debate fodder.

Critias said:
TEs belittle the subject and say it is your interpretation that is wrong, but never actually look into how Genesis is written in the original language and how the ancients would have understood it.

Well, I've seen them look at that and analyze it. I can give you a link on that if you want.

Critias said:
TEs are unable to present a solid Biblical account of why Genesis is a myth or poetic. Instead they use modern understandings of myths and poems. They ignore or deny that even the most liberal people of the first century, who did not believe in a six day creation, agreed that Genesis is a historical narrative.

Again, I have a link on this if you want it.

Critias said:
One would have to ignore almost everything in the history of the church to claim Genesis is a myth and/or poetic. They would also have to ignore the the usage of the Hebrew language.

I've heard otherwise. Got a supporting link for me?

Critias said:
My point? TEs are careless with Genesis and make claims without support, something they patornize yecs for doing. Ironically, TEs are just as guilty, only with Scripture instead of science.

I can give you one small example of how YEC's are careless.

Gen 1:11 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Quiz #1: How did the grass come into existence?
A. God poofed the grass into existance.
B. God let the earth bring it forth.

Answer: B

Quiz #2: True or False: The text tells us exactly how the earth went about bringing forth the grass.

Answer: False

Likewise:
Gen 1:24 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind; and it was so.

Critias said:
I am implying that anyone, here or elsewhere, that places the emphasis on what man has done instead of what God has done. Example: look at what the science discovered or the theory he/she came up with.

YEC's do that when they emphasize THEIR (man's) interpretation that IGNORES the wording of the above passages. YEC's generally like to point out what God did and HOW He did it, yet ignore things like the wording of those passages and their implication.

Critias said:
Let me make this clear, man does nothing when studying our world other than see what God has done.

Critias said:
Instead, the focus is shifted to man instead of God by saying looking at the scientists they discovered, they found, they did, they know, instead of realizing it is God who created this world.

Welcome to being IN the world but not OF the world. Non-believers (mainstream scientists) generally don't feel an obligation to give God the glory. Some do though; Einstein for instance...in his own way. Contrary to some of what you've been implying, I see TE's frequently and consistently give God the glory. They ARE saying God did it - it just took longer than what some interpret the text to say.

Critias said:
Man then perverts what he sees and makes his own assumptions void of the Creator Himself. When it is the Creator who created, not man.

Again, welcome to the real world where not everyone is a Christian. TE's do NOT make assumptions VOID of the Creator Himself.

Critias said:
Science is the focus of man's achievements not God's work.

Probably the majority of scientist would agree with that. Some, however, do consider it a discovery of the details of God's creation - and are VERY amazed and impressed at what they find. God is pretty detail oriented.

Critias · Aug 11, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
Nothing. That is why we have different religions. You know, free will, diversity, all that? I'm most certainly not saying Jesus is NOT the only way. But I am saying that there are lots of people that may indeed say Jesus is not the only way. Many of them, unfortunately, are Christians. Are you saying I'm not allowed to say such things for fear of leading a Christian down the wrong path? What? Lil 'ole me? God saves, not me. Last I checked, nothing can separate us from the love of God (except maybe our own free will).

It was that your justification was much like many others.

Ben_Hur said:
Rats. I'll have to go back and check on that one - unless you want to remind me?

Sure, the question was the following:

"Did the author intend to convey that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them? Or something else?"

Ben_Hur said:
You don't get to decided what is necessary for God to convey His message...HE does. My point is that there could be many reasons that are equally plausible for God to use such language. Not just one reason.

I didn't. There is another account of Sabbath within the Ten Commandments that does not talk of God creating everything in six days.

Ben_Hur said:
Oh. Well I think I was actually referring to the age of the universe - which I do NOT know anyway. I don't even remember what those EVIL scientists are saying. I should have left a disclaimer that the number was just for the sake of argument.

lol, no worries.

Ben_Hur said:
You seem to be making my point, so I must still be missunderstanding where you mean to go with this.

My point was that scientists state a number they cannot even comprehend for the sake giving a enough time for their assertions. I doubt they truly even know if 4.6 billion years is enough for what they assert. Crick stated no amount of time was enough and he was "co-discover" of DNA.

Ben_Hur said:
You see, when you say "assume" you are admitting that you don't really know. I already said that I don't know exactly what it means. I don't know if it even matters within the context of our discussion.

You are right, I am not 100% positive that it was from creating that God rested, but I feel close to sure that it was given the context.

I agree, it doesn't really matter within the context of our discussion.

Ben_Hur said:
Ok, but you are talking as if it is wrong to make that comparison and I still don't understand why you thing that is wrong - or even if you do think it is wrong.

Yes, I think it is incorrect to equate God's rest with man's rest. There is a difference between the two, even though they are quite similiar. God's rest, I believe, was just from creating. Man's rest was meant to be for the worshipping of God. The Jews understood this, that is why they gathered in the temples to worship.

That is why I say there is a difference, God wasn't worshipping Himself on the 7th, man is on the Sabbath.

Ben_Hur said:
Ya, that's right.

Well, to me it's about pointing out that Christians who have no science training have no business teaching science and then requiring Christians to believe their junk science in order to be Christians. The rest is just debate fodder.

Well then this would depend what kind of training you are speaking of.

This isn't about requiring you to believe what I believe in order for you to be a Christian. Sure there are the basic precepts that every Christian must believe. I differ with many yecs on Revelations, but this doesn't mean I am not a Christian or visa versa.

I wish this whole you aren't a Christian thing could be dropped. We cannot judge the heart of mankind. We can judge the fruits. Being on the internet makes it quite difficult to make such judgements. It is only when certain individuals come out and say the Bible cannot be trusted that can be shown for who they are. And there are some here who have stated such.

Ben_Hur said:
Well, I've seen them look at that and analyze it. I can give you a link on that if you want.

Again, I have a link on this if you want it.

Sure, I haven't seen anyone here actually examine the Hebrew language, so I would love to see your links.

Ben_Hur said:
I've heard otherwise. Got a supporting link for me?

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Ben_Hur said:
I can give you one small example of how YEC's are careless.

Gen 1:11 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Quiz #1: How did the grass come into existence?
A. God poofed the grass into existance.
B. God let the earth bring it forth.

Answer: B

Quiz #2: True or False: The text tells us exactly how the earth went about bringing forth the grass.

Answer: False

Likewise:
Gen 1:24 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind; and it was so.

How are we careless with this? We see this everyday in gardening, seeds are planted and they grow. Yet, in this passage it is done almost instantly.

I still fail to see your point on this.

Ben_Hur said:
YEC's do that when they emphasize THEIR (man's) interpretation that IGNORES the wording of the above passages. YEC's generally like to point out what God did and HOW He did it, yet ignore things like the wording of those passages and their implication.

I don't quite follow on what your point here is. Could you clarify how view God spoke and it was done is not what the verses say? That is the common yec view of it.

Ben_Hur said:
Welcome to being IN the world but not OF the world. Non-believers (mainstream scientists) generally don't feel an obligation to give God the glory. Some do though; Einstein for instance...in his own way. Contrary to some of what you've been implying, I see TE's frequently and consistently give God the glory. They ARE saying God did it - it just took longer than what some interpret the text to say.

Again, welcome to the real world where not everyone is a Christian. TE's do NOT make assumptions VOID of the Creator Himself.

Probably the majority of scientist would agree with that. Some, however, do consider it a discovery of the details of God's creation - and are VERY amazed and impressed at what they find. God is pretty detail oriented.

Your last statement is a big understandment.

Ben_Hur · Aug 11, 2005

Critias said:
Sure, the question was the following:

"Did the author intend to convey that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them? Or something else?"

I did answer this. Remember? I said, "Something else - to convey the need for his people to rest/worship every 7 days." Except I left out the word "worship" in my original answer.

Critias said:
My point was that scientists state a number they cannot even comprehend for the sake giving a enough time for their assertions. I doubt they truly even know if 4.6 billion years is enough for what they assert. Crick stated no amount of time was enough and he was "co-discover" of DNA.

First, the incomprehensibility is my point exactly for God (assuming the universe is REALLY old) didn't use those terms, but used the word "days" instead. Second, bringing up how long it took for DNA to "naturally" form happens to be where TE's and me (a Progressive Creationist) differ. So I can't really argue their side on that. I think DNA was poofed into existence by the spoken word of God.

Critias said:
Well then this would depend what kind of training you are speaking of.

How so?

Critias said:
I wish this whole you aren't a Christian thing could be dropped. We cannot judge the heart of mankind. We can judge the fruits. Being on the internet makes it quite difficult to make such judgements. It is only when certain individuals come out and say the Bible cannot be trusted that can be shown for who they are. And there are some here who have stated such.

Agreed. But the "whole you aren't a Christian thing" as you put it is 50% of the purpose of this whole thread.

Critias said:
Sure, I haven't seen anyone here actually examine the Hebrew language, so I would love to see your links.

Ok. This thread is peppered with it, but here it is again. It is quite informative and a YEC'er could theoretically make good use of it even if they don't subscribe to the ultimate conclusions.

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

Critias said:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Thanks, I will check this out over the next couple of days.

Critias said:
How are we careless with this? We see this everyday in gardening, seeds are planted and they grow. Yet, in this passage it is done almost instantly.

I still fail to see your point on this.

I guess if you look at the second passage I quote which talks about how "creatures" came about, you will see more of my point. The question is, how EXACTLY did the EARTH bring forth creatures.

Secondly, you said in that passage it is done almost instantly. A detailed study of the meaning of "evening and morning" (as provided in that link I gave you), will show that it may not have been almost instantly ("almost instantly" meaning "less than a day" I presume?).

Critias said:
I don't quite follow on what your point here is. Could you clarify how view God spoke and it was done is not what the verses say? That is the common yec view of it.

I'm saying that an interpretation of scripture comes from man. If you focus too much on the interpretation rather than the scripture itself, you (YEC'ers) can get caught in focusing on the works of man, rather than God. And I was referring to those two passages above with the quiz thing.

Critias said:
Your last statement is a big understandment.

It is hard to OVERstate or even ADEQUATELYstate anything about God.

gluadys · Aug 11, 2005

Critias said:
TEs belittle the subject and say it is your interpretation that is wrong, but never actually look into how Genesis is written in the original language and how the ancients would have understood it.

That is a very unfair statement. There are many TEs whose life work has been to look into how the bible (not just Genesis) is written in the original languages and how the ancients would have understood it.

This was a frequent theme in Vance's posts and he based what he said on his own study of ancient near east literature as well as that of other experts in the field. Here are just a few glimpses in threads that he started, although he also made many posts on the subject in other threads as well.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1483004-another-thought-about-the-genealogies-and-long-ages.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t118...viewing-their-stories-as-literal-history.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1279012-faith-presumptions.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1195818-more-on-myth-and-history-from-cs-lewis.html

Rusticus · Aug 12, 2005

Ben-Hur: Getting back to your original post (again):

Here is a different angle from which to tackle the subject:

Seeing that Genesis was written by Jews for Jews: we should ask the question: do the Jews believe in a literal 6-day-young-earth-creation? and in a broader sense: do the Jews take Genesis literally?

The answer is: they do not.

We Christians need to consider the possibilty that when we "appropriated" the Old Testament we failed to "appropriate" the key to understanding it.

(I am told that there are four levels on which the Torah needs to be understood - and that by reading an english translation only one of these levesl can be understood, and even so, at best partially.)

If you have the time and the inclination you might want to do your own research in that direction, rather than to just take my word for it....

Critias · Aug 12, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
I did answer this. Remember? I said, "Something else - to convey the need for his people to rest/worship every 7 days." Except I left out the word "worship" in my original answer.

Ok. I guess this is one of those times you did give your answer, but I wasn't satisfied by it. I was looking for what you thought the authors intent was in including the length of time that God took to create all things.

If that is your answer, I will make myself satisified with it by agreeing to disagree.

Ben_Hur said:
First, the incomprehensibility is my point exactly for God (assuming the universe is REALLY old) didn't use those terms, but used the word "days" instead. Second, bringing up how long it took for DNA to "naturally" form happens to be where TE's and me (a Progressive Creationist) differ. So I can't really argue their side on that. I think DNA was poofed into existence by the spoken word of God.

My apologies first off. I had forgotton that you are not a theistic evolutionists. That was careless of me to do.

You see, I see days being defined within Genesis 1 as 'evening and morning.' I think the Hebrew writer was quite aware what days could mean, since it was his speaking language anyways. So he defined it so all could understand.

Ben_Hur said:
How so?

Often, people here define training differently. Some say actual university degree, masters, phd, or just a lot of reading. So that is what I meant on which type of training you are speaking of.

Ben_Hur said:
Agreed. But the "whole you aren't a Christian thing" as you put it is 50% of the purpose of this whole thread.

Yes, and any, including yecs who take part in this of judging anothers heart, are wrong, period.

I am aware that, we yecs, have a lot to learn about many things, but what Christian doesn't? I fail time and time again in my walk with Christ, but instead of Jesus laughing at me, pointing the finger at me, making me feel worse than I do, He helps me up. Even when I haven't given every piece of my life over to Him. If I did, I wouldn't be on this computer, I would be out preaching every moment of my life to the lost. I wouldn't seek making money to live in a nice house or have a nice car, I would give it to the poor and preach His Word. That is what His disciples did, that is what He calls His disciples to do today. Things haven't changed, we just change how we feel about it.

If only we here could actually mirror something of Christ here. Instead, we have become a putrid smell that even the lost dislike. This isn't just yecs, this is everyone here that has decided they are right and all others are wrong and they are beyond correction by another.

My argument is to start with the Bible first, then science, not the other way around. And if what scientists say do not agree with the Bible, then scientists are wrong. And I am aware this statement alone makes peoples hair on the back of their necks rise. How dare I call man into question over his/her teachings. Who do I think I am, where are my credentials...

Ben_Hur said:
Ok. This thread is peppered with it, but here it is again. It is quite informative and a YEC'er could theoretically make good use of it even if they don't subscribe to the ultimate conclusions.

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

Thank you, I will look into it!

Ben_Hur said:
Thanks, I will check this out over the next couple of days.

I guess if you look at the second passage I quote which talks about how "creatures" came about, you will see more of my point. The question is, how EXACTLY did the EARTH bring forth creatures.

Personally, I believe it was by God's command. I don't think we, in our state right now, could actually comprehend exactly how He did so, unless we think we are on par with God somehow.

Ben_Hur said:
Secondly, you said in that passage it is done almost instantly. A detailed study of the meaning of "evening and morning" (as provided in that link I gave you), will show that it may not have been almost instantly ("almost instantly" meaning "less than a day" I presume?).

Yeah, less than a day. I will look into your link.

Ben_Hur said:
I'm saying that an interpretation of scripture comes from man. If you focus too much on the interpretation rather than the scripture itself, you (YEC'ers) can get caught in focusing on the works of man, rather than God. And I was referring to those two passages above with the quiz thing.

I agree that interpretations of Scripture are being made by man. Man also wrote the Word of God. So, with the Holy Spirits help, man can do good things and understand correctly.

I don't think it is just yecs who can get caught on focusing on man, I see many other people doing this as well. It isn't a yec condition, it is a human condition. I am sure you, just as I, have made this mistake.

Ben_Hur said:
It is hard to OVERstate or even ADEQUATELYstate anything about God.

Amen!

Critias · Aug 12, 2005

gluadys said:
That is a very unfair statement. There are many TEs whose life work has been to look into how the bible (not just Genesis) is written in the original languages and how the ancients would have understood it.

This was a frequent theme in Vance's posts and he based what he said on his own study of ancient near east literature as well as that of other experts in the field. Here are just a few glimpses in threads that he started, although he also made many posts on the subject in other threads as well.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1483004-another-thought-about-the-genealogies-and-long-ages.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1184889-support-for-ancients-not-viewing-their-stories-as-literal-history.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1279012-faith-presumptions.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1195818-more-on-myth-and-history-from-cs-lewis.html

I know, but are you aware that Vance does not know Hebrew or Greek?
He just focused on the modern interpretations of myths from ancient civilizations.

That is what TEs do, use modern approaches to ancient writings, when trying to prove Genesis is a myth and or poetic. TEs discount how the early theologian Christians view Genesis, as a narrative, historical in nature.

Even the most liberal of the Early Church Fathers, Origen believed Genesis was a historical narrative and yet he didn't believe a six day creation.

You cannot get around the fact of what Genesis is, you can choose to not accept it as it is, but it is what it is.

Micaiah · Aug 12, 2005

I understand that most orthodox Hebrew scholars accept almost unanimously that the the first chapters of Genesis was intended as an historical account of Creation.

gluadys · Aug 12, 2005

Micaiah said:
I understand that most orthodox Hebrew scholars accept almost unanimously that the the first chapters of Genesis was intended as an historical account of Creation.

Which is not, of course, the same thing as most Hebrew scholars.

notto · Aug 12, 2005

Critias said:
TEs discount how the early theologian Christians view Genesis, as a narrative, historical in nature.

Should we hold to those early theologian Christians views on the position of the sun, moon, and earth? Why or why not?

Critias · Aug 12, 2005

And their positions were and the source for you claim is where?

notto · Aug 12, 2005

Critias said:
And their positions were and the source for you claim is where?

Google philo and fixed stars to start.

Micaiah · Aug 12, 2005

Micaiah said:
I understand that most orthodox Hebrew scholars accept almost unanimously that the the first chapters of Genesis was intended as an historical account of Creation.

I should make that orthodox Jewish Hebrew scholars.

gluadys · Aug 12, 2005

Micaiah said:
I should make that orthodox Jewish Hebrew scholars.

Which is still a sub-group of Jewish Hebrew scholars. Not all Jewish scholars are Orthodox, by any means.

Implication of Origins

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Me at the Races...

Well-Known Member

Legend

Critias

Guest

Me at the Races...

Critias

Guest

Me at the Races...

Legend

Senior Member

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Critias

Guest

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency