Just Wondering: Which Do You Think Is The More Beautiful?

Oh, easily the latter, created by God, of course. The idea of a universe with incredible change and growth, with stars dying and forming and life evolving and the full intricate balance of the universe which science has explained to us simply SCREAMS God to me.

I find a great deal LESS awe in the universe as the YEC's would describe it.

What is most beautiful is the truth - both of the above choices are incomplete and smell of a seasoning of bias toward the latter being the only plausible conclusion.

How about a choice that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of the living God and that since He specifically told us it was six days that He created the heavens and the earth, then perhaps we would do wll to take His word for it.

All other conclusions are inconsistent, speculative, and incomplete regardless of the process used to ascertain those conclusions.

But, Buck, that is begging the question again that your interpretation of Genesis 1 is correct. I believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of the living God, but I don't think He specifically told us that the universe was created in six 24-hour periods. Since I recognize that we can not be 100% sure of exactly how Genesis 1 should be read, and there is dramatically more evidence that it is, indeed, billions of years old, I go with what God is telling us in His Creation to help me decide what He is telling us in His Word.

The written Word was never meant to tell us exactly when and how He did it anyway, so we would HAVE to study His Creation to find that out.

You're Buck, right this question is biased.

A Static, Unchanging Universe Where God Created Everything Without The Ability To Change, No Matter How Perfect, Which God May Or May Not Have Been Created By God

The questuion is also a strawman question...this is not what the YEC's believe but seem to be what Bushido216 thinks the YEC's believe.

The YEC do believe there is change, just that the scientific evidence and the bible tells us things don't change into a different kind. Variation of species, yes... a species evolving into an animal that is now a member of a different family, no.

Bushido,
Where did I say variation would not lead to a new species???

Would you evos please get your arguments right.

Vance said:

Since I recognize that we can not be 100% sure of exactly how Genesis 1 should be read, and there is dramatically more evidence that it is, indeed, billions of years old, I go with what God is telling us in His Creation to help me decide what He is telling us in His Word.

Click to expand...

If we cannot be 100% sure how to even read the Bible, how can we be sure of anything it says!? My brother, please - if the Bible requires us to form a interprative commitee to simply get the basics down, we are in some severe degree of trouble. How do I know that God won't set me on fire for my sins? What about life? death? The trend here to to separate from the purity of the word and slide down into obscurity. Dangerous ground.

Mat 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Mat 7:25 "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.

Mat 7:26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.

Mat 7:27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall."

The written Word was never meant to tell us exactly when and how He did it anyway, so we would HAVE to study His Creation to find that out.

Click to expand...

Now, I ask you this; How can you even begin to draw this conclusion from scripture? Please, please try to answer that. I promise to listen.

I'm going to buy this forum a "Jump To Conclusions Mat".

Bushido216 said:

I'm a dipsh*t who can't remember his own questions.

Click to expand...

Nice language, hardly fitting with the forum here isn't it?

Buck, a better way to have phrased it is that we can not be 100% sure whether Genesis 1 was meant to be read literally. We can be 100% sure of the message of Genesis 1 and the truth of what it is saying, whether literal or not.

A belief that Genesis 1 does not require six 24-hour periods does not in any way lessen the validity of other Scripture, since we can read Genesis as wholly true and valid whether it is telling us a specific time frame or not. I am not sure how many times I am going to have to explain this. You don't have to believe it, but it is bad form to continue to make such statements without even acknowledging that the point has been answered over and over again. What you need to do is move on to a refutation of the response not a restatement of the same point.

As for the "slippery slope" argument, this is not persuasive. As I have said on many occassions, if you are standing on the top of the slope, and the evidence shows you that the truth is not there, but somewhere half-way down the slope, do you stay where you are, in "untruth" just because you are fearful of slipping past the truth if you head toward it? No, staying at the top of the slope, no matter how comfortable and safe it seems, is wrong. YOu have to be willing to head down the slope toward the truth. Just make sure you have shoes with good traction.

Vance said:

A belief that Genesis 1 does not require six 24-hour periods does not in any way lessen the validity of other Scripture, since we can read Genesis as wholly true and valid whether it is telling us a specific time frame or not. I am not sure how many times I am going to have to explain this. You don't have to believe it, but it is bad form to continue to make such statements without even acknowledging that the point has been answered over and over again. What you need to do is move on to a refutation of the response not a restatement of the same point.

Click to expand...

Done. Please see my SIX-DAY thread. It's too long to paste here.

As for the "slippery slope" argument, this is not persuasive. As I have said on many occassions, if you are standing on the top of the slope, and the evidence shows you that the truth is not there, but somewhere half-way down the slope, do you stay where you are, in "untruth" just because you are fearful of slipping past the truth if you head toward it? No, staying at the top of the slope, no matter how comfortable and safe it seems, is wrong. YOu have to be willing to head down the slope toward the truth. Just make sure you have shoes with good traction.[/

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not trying to insinuate lack of salvation here brother. Only that the casual manner in which many approach the word of God is dangerous.

I've argued that the word was the only weapon used by the ALMIGHTY GOD to counter the attacks of satan in the wilderness.

Satan challenged Jesus with broken, fragmented, pieces of scripture.

Christ answered again and again, "It is written". Matt 4:1-11

Satan also challenged Eve, strong as she was with the knowledge of the word of God, with a lie:

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

Gen 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

Gen 3:3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

Gen 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

This is the first sin. Man not keeping God's word.

The slippery slope idea is based on the DANGER in dismissing the word's clear description of the SIX DAYS and EARTH-COVERING FLOOD.

The Liberals in the forum next door are trying to justify a publicly professing homosexual that is making a world-wide media spectacle of the Church of God by openly flaunting his "lifestyle" as an entitlement to bring about an "inclusiveness" to Church Leadership.

If that isn't a slippery slope slipped upon by failing to hold fast the word of life, then I don't know what is.

In a country where the Ten Commandments are considered 'hateful' and 'inappropriate' I fear what divide may overtake the church concerning the Word of God and its clear understanding for those of us that are called after His Name.

The fact that there is a danger when moving toward the truth that you may slip into error does not mean you don't move toward the truth. Right now, YEC's are safely at the top of a slope but are not holding the truth. The truth is somewhere down the slope, but they are afraid to head toward it because they are fearful they may slide right past it as Christians have done in other areas. This is bad policy.