New Testament Heresy on Creation

laconicstudent said:

No, you are supposed to let Scripture dictate your views on Theology, not the other way around.

In any event, NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This is just plain silly, and we now see a clear illustration of the dangers of personal infallibility.

Click to expand...

AnswersInHovind said:

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation

Click to expand...

I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

Click to expand...

AnswersInHovind said:

So you agree then that 2 Peter defies Genesis 1, but believe its still just as true?

Click to expand...

Mallon said:

Indeed. Evilutionists are horrible people who hate the Bible.

Click to expand...

laconicstudent said:

I did find the irony rather mind-boggling.

Click to expand...

AnswersInHovind said:

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

Click to expand...

AnswersInHovind said:

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

Click to expand...

ivebeenshown said:

2 Peter 3
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ,
is ignored for they this maintain that heavens there were long ago and earth out of water and in water that came together by of God word

What Peter wrote does indeed fit Genesis 1.

Genesis 1
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The waters came together, which allowed the dry land to appear, therefore it stood out of the water (appearing as dry land) and in water (surrounded by water.)

Click to expand...

laconicstudent said:

Well, I never thought we'd find a Origins Theology topic that the Evolution and Creation crowd can all agree on. But I think we can all agree that this is waaayyyy out of line.

Click to expand...

AnswersInHovind said:

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

Click to expand...

AnswersInHovind said:

You and jig bring up good points. I never noticed before that Genesis 1 also teaches creation ex-materia like the babylonian and egpytian religions did.

There is the same watery chaos in the beginning, and a lot of similar actions like the seperating of the waters.

The Hebrew word for create, doesn't actually mean "create" as we understand it. It means to shape, carve, form, etc... meaning when God "created" the heavens and the earth, he was forming them. Proper hermeutics shows that this passage shows God forming (consult any Hebrew Lexicon with detailed word definitions and etymology) the world from pre-existing matter, meaning that Genesis 1 also does not agree with a Biblical account of creation and should be thrown out. It very much borrows its methods from ANE mythology (seen not just in the watery chaos, but throughout, such as the sea monsters, the division into 7, the paralell structure between days 1-3 and 4-6, and seperation of the waters, etc. etc.)

So I guess Genesis cannot be trusted either, since it seems to be influenced by the culture of the ancient world.

Thanks for showing me this guys, I never realized Genesis 1 wasn't Biblical either.

Oh, and also, most of the OT should be rejected. It is completely filled with ANE imagery. For example, people dying is constantly described as "being swallowed into the pit", which is classic death god imagery in the ancient near east. This flat out denies God's power over sin and death. So Old Testament, you are out too. (especially Psalms. I've never seen such a high concentration of storm god imagery being applied to Yahweh - a good example is Psalm 77 where the crossing of the red sea is described using imagery from Marduk's battle with Tiamat)

Click to expand...

shernren said:

My little brain is highly confused. If there is some kind of high-level use of sarcasm occurring in this thread, I don't seem to be grasping why or how or what the point is.

Click to expand...

I just add a little bit from another point of view:

According to science, the universe has H and O first, then comes Si.

Click to expand...