In the beginning...

Enigma'07 · Jul 1, 2004

I believe in a literal 6 day creation. Do you other Baptists believe the same? If so, what evidence do you use to support your claim.

BronxBriar · Jul 1, 2004

6 twenty-four hours days? I have no clue. I trust the Word. I don't really worry about the specifics. And I really want to meet the person with 'evidence'.

jcright · Jul 1, 2004

To be honest, I'm not sure 100% sure what to believe. I have yet to launch a full research into this. My first thought is that the six days is literal mainly because I think that information is passed down in ways that can be understood by the reader and if it's figurative (without telling the reading or making it obvious that it's figurative) then there should be some kind of key to decipher what is really being said.

I find it interesting though that no one really questions the parting of the red sea or any of the other miracles and yet there is such controversary (from what I've seen on CF) on the account of creation.

BT · Jul 1, 2004

Enigma'07 said:
I believe in a literal 6 day creation. Do you other Baptists believe the same? If so, what evidence do you use to support your claim.

I believe in a literal 6 day creation. I have studied creation science and feel that it is true, we live on a young earth that was created somewhere around 8000 years ago (give a couple of thousand or so...no more than 10000 years surely).

There is enough "evidence" of a young earth to show the point. There is actually enough "evidence" of creation to refute any evolutionary theory (big bang). The evidence of a 6 day literal creation is the Bible. Which, is good enough for me. The creation story sets itself as a normal day cycle (per day);

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

(Just like we have today)...

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

... I think you get the picture.

What other evidence do I have? Tonnes

Enigma'07 · Jul 1, 2004

There is actually enough "evidence" of creation to refute any evolutionary theory (big bang).

Could you share some more with me?

bleechers · Jul 1, 2004

Another 6-day, young-earth creationist here.

Might I suggest you check out icr.org. They have articles and tons of materials. They also run a fully accreditted creationist graduate school in CA.

Evolution not only presents some fantastic scientific and logical problems... the theological implications are intrinsically anti-gospel.

BT · Jul 1, 2004

Enigma'07 said:
Could you share some more with me?

Sure.

How's about an argument from science and not the Bible... (since as stated I already take the Bible as %100 accurate, it may not meet your question as stated if I simply give scripture and verse in this case).

The evolutionist will tell you that we started off as some "glob" of certain chemicals that eventually over billions and billions of years (naturally) evolved into new and better species. Since there is absolutely no example or evidence of any species jump (from a glob to an animal as example... or from an ape to a man), we develop other ideas, and postulate that the "missing link" will inevitably be found (meanwhile they risk their souls on a theory and ride a train straight to hell while waiting).

But what does science say?

One (of many) example of science pointing away from evolution and to creation....

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which you will learn in any and every school)

In a simplified statement the second law of thermodynamics (which is universally accepted as true):

The universal principle of change in nature is downhill, not uphill, or, "All matter changes from stability to instability, or from order to chaos."

1. Classical Thermodynamics
"In any physical change that takes place by itself the entropy always increases." (Entropy is "a measure of the quantity of energy not capable of conversion into work.")

2. Statistical Thermodynamics
"The equivalence of entropy in the classical and statistical contexts is implied in the following: 'Each quantity of energy has a characteristic quality called entropy associated with it. The entropy measures the degree of disorder associated with the energy. Energy must always flow in such a direction that the entropy increases'."

"As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down." (Quote Issac Asimov, "Science Digest, (May 1973) pg. 76

... it goes on..

The point is that only the creation model (God created everything, it was "good" perfect, Adam sinned and brought a curse....) fits...

Evolution would state that things change from chaotic (a blog) to order (a person) which is clearly against proven scientific laws.

"Not matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." (Quote Harold Blum (biologist))

There's one....

Blake · Jul 3, 2004

Thanks for your answers BT, would you happen to know any books that support creation and are dumbed down for people like me. I've always been undecided on this topic.

BT · Jul 3, 2004

Blake said:
Thanks for your answers BT, would you happen to know any books that support creation and are dumbed down for people like me. I've always been undecided on this topic.

Hi Blake. There are many. Check out www.answersingenesis.org they are a creation science site. They have a truck-load of resources many of which do not read like science textbooks! Alot of creation science books are deeply scientific because they tend to attempt to minister to the "scientific" atheists and their ilk who, in part, due to their education have become adherents of Evolution over Creation. Though I should note that there are many PhD's out there who are distinctly creationists!

Maranatha,

BT

Blake · Jul 4, 2004

Thanks for the link!

Sinai · Jul 6, 2004

Enigma'07 said:
I believe in a literal 6 day creation. Do you other Baptists believe the same? If so, what evidence do you use to support your claim.

Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs, who is probably one of the most respected theologians and Bible scholars of the past century, stated:

The fact is that the Bible does not say dogmatically how long the creative period lasted. The Hebrew word for day (yom), like the English word, may mean any number of things: twenty-four hours, a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time. Since the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Genesis 1, it must be concluded that he did not spell out this detail. Had he said a twenty-four hour day or indefinite period of time that would settle it. But since he did not do so, the time element is not a vital point in faith.

Mary_Magdalene · Jul 6, 2004

..."And there was evening and there was morning, the....day".

BT · Jul 6, 2004

Godschosengirl said:
..."And there was evening and there was morning, the....day".

Yeah... seems pretty clear to me.

Bro. Gabriel · Jul 6, 2004

Yeah, it would be pretty clear unless you consider the fact that in Genesis 2, the same Hebrew word for "day" is used to describe the length of time for all 7 days as a whole. So, how could they all be literal days if they're grouped into being one day as well? Sounds like another case of English not doing justice to the original intentions of the text to me.

Mary_Magdalene · Jul 6, 2004

ok. lets take the word "day" out of it.

"there was morning and there was evening...."

now unless Gods universe has changed without me noticing, when there is a morning and then an evening- i see that as one day, not a week.

Sinai · Jul 7, 2004

Godschosengirl said:
Bro. Gabriel said:

Yeah, it would be pretty clear unless you consider the fact that in Genesis 2, the same Hebrew word for "day" is used to describe the length of time for all 7 days as a whole. So, how could they all be literal days if they're grouped into being one day as well? Sounds like another case of English not doing justice to the original intentions of the text to me.

Click to expand...

ok. lets take the word "day" out of it.

"there was morning and there was evening...."

now unless Gods universe has changed without me noticing, when there is a morning and then an evening- i see that as one day, not a week.

The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means mixed-up, stirred together, disorderlywhich tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means discernible, able to be distinguished, orderlywhich tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

These Hebrew words can be used to support either the YEC position that the universe is a few thousand years old or the OEC position that it is billions of years old.

moeowo · Jul 8, 2004

I'm an OEC (old earth Creationist) ... (and no that doesn't mean I believe in evolution.)

lucaspa · Aug 5, 2004

BT said:
Since there is absolutely no example or evidence of any species jump (from a glob to an animal as example... or from an ape to a man), we develop other ideas, and postulate that the "missing link" will inevitably be found (meanwhile they risk their souls on a theory and ride a train straight to hell while waiting).[/qutoe]
How do you account for these observed speciations in real time -- http://www.christianforums.com/t155626 -- and these series of individuals linking what you call "speciation jumps" in the fossil record and the picture below -- http://www.christianforums.com/t43227 -- in God's Creation?

CrystalBrooke · Aug 5, 2004

i dont really care what the theologists say, bc honestly, i dont think they know. god created the world for in 6 days, and rested on the 7th.

Genesis 2:2 " and on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

and that's the ONLY reason i believe that it was a 6 day creation.

bleechers · Aug 5, 2004

If you've discovered some change from one species to another (despite what we know about genetics) you might want to call somebody. There exists absolutely no evidence of such a thing.

The theological implications of evolution are wickedly anti-Christian (apart from being appallingly anti-science), but since you're a Methodist, I won't ask you to debate it here.

If you accept evolution is any way, you accept the following:

1. God prefers the "survival of the fittest" over the weak, blind and lame.

2. Death is a good thing.

3. Jesus was not the perfect man, He was only an inferior version of an ever-changing gene pool.

4. God used mutations in the genetic code, leading to deformities and inferior species to somehow effect a change in evolutionary advancement (although no such "positive mutations" have ever been documented or observed).

5. "The first Adam" is a misnomer which casts aspersions of the concept of "the last Adam".

6. Cain didn't murder his brother, he merely decreased the surplus population during a time of competetive consumption. The fittest survived.

7. Evolution is extremely inefficient (if possible at all). Taking the curse of sin out of the equation (which is necessary before Adam), you have God creating a sloppy world full of death and horrible mutations.

8. Death before sin? That destroys the entire reasoning of the Book of Romans and touches directly on the death burial and resurrection of Christ!

9. Jesus "conquered death"? But why? In evolution, death is not onlt necessary for the "strong" to survive, it is a "good" thing because it eliminates the "weak"!

It's funny (odd) how those who are supposedly the most compassionate among us, believe in a theory whose primary tenet is based on the idea that the strong must eliminate the weak; the superior must eliminate the inferior.

In the beginning...

Active Member

Existentialism is a Humanism

Truth Seeker

Fanatic

Active Member

Christ Our Passover!

Fanatic

Musically Challenged

Fanatic

Musically Challenged

Well-Known Member

AKA..Godschosengirl

Fanatic

Sinner

AKA..Godschosengirl

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Legend

Attachments

I'm almost positive I don't care what you think

Christ Our Passover!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency