POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[JacksBratt]

False. May theistic evolutionists, while accepting an ancient cosmos and the evolution of the lower creatures, require the special creation of man. Others maintain that there was a first man, a creature of God's evolutionary process who, as an individual, fell into sin and of whom "Adam" is an etiological symbol.

This goes against the whole premise that God "saw that it was good". This phrase is mentioned several times. It is understood that the world before the first sin was "good" and there was no death. This concept is shattered with evolution of any species that would have needed a constant repetition of live and die.

It also goes against the intentional description of the creator forming man, with His hands, in His image, and then after the form was complete, breathing life into Adam's nostrils. This totally negates the concept that man arose from some previous lower life form.

This also indicates that the breath you breath is a result of a continuous chain of life being passed on from Adam to all mankind. The breath you breath was given directly from God.

The imaginings and assumptions of a 17th century Irish bishop are not the same thing as "biblically given."

This is no "imagining of some 17th century bishop". This is clearly reinforced with "there was evening, there was morning, the first, second, third, forth day etc. It is only the concept, imagined by atheists, of a much longer time frame than six literal days, that would be necessary for their random mutation to be at all possible.

Ask yourself, can the God of this universe do what He said in Genesis? Is it possible for Him? Are not all things possible by Him? If you say yes, than why would He state that He did it, being well within His capabilities, yet not have done it?

This one is interesting. Creation ex nihilo has been a basic tenet of Christian theology for nearly 2000 years. On what grounds do you base an accusation of apostasy on it?

This would be based on the fact that earth was created first, then, later, the rest of the universal luminaries.
Other accounts would have this impossible. How could the earth exist without a moon, sun and other celestial bodies. Yet, the Bible is clear.

Th

is is either a bald-face lie or it reveals such a staggering ignorance of metaphysics as to take one's breath away. There is nothing in evolution by variation and natural selection which would constitute a barrier to divine telos. Indeed, very similar Markov processes based on random variation and selection are widely used in the electronics manufacturing industry and no one would accept that the products so manufactured are without purpose.

Well this is where you lean on the wisdom of men...ignorance of metaphysics.

God's creation was direct with attention to detail and every "kind" of animal was created and was "good".

Evolution, as reinforced on many occasions, has no "design" or should I say "intelligent design". No purpose. Not with God. Evolution removes God and the implied purpose behind the design of every creature.

God created the universe with purpose. This is lacking from any chain of evolving species and organisms that randomly change and exist or die over millennia.

Especially with humans which were created with specific qualities. One of which was to be "in God's image".

 

[Speedwell]

This goes against the whole premise that God "saw that it was good". This phrase is mentioned several times. It is understood that the world before the first sin was "good" and there was no death. This concept is shattered with evolution of any species that would have needed a constant repetition of live and die.

It also goes against the intentional description of the creator forming man, with His hands, in His image, and then after the form was complete, breathing life into Adam's nostrils. This totally negates the concept that man arose from some previous lower life form.

This also indicates that the breath you breath is a result of a continuous chain of life being passed on from Adam to all mankind. The breath you breath was given directly from God.




This is no "imagining of some 17th century bishop". This is clearly reinforced with "there was evening, there was morning, the first, second, third, forth day etc. It is only the concept, imagined by atheists, of a much longer time frame than six literal days, that would be necessary for their random mutation to be at all possible.

Ask yourself, can the God of this universe do what He said in Genesis? Is it possible for Him? Are not all things possible by Him? If you say yes, than why would He state that He did it, being well within His capabilities, yet not have done it?





This would be based on the fact that earth was created first, then, later, the rest of the universal luminaries.
Other accounts would have this impossible. How could the earth exist without a moon, sun and other celestial bodies. Yet, the Bible is clear.






Well this is where you lean on the wisdom of men...ignorance of metaphysics.

God's creation was direct with attention to detail and every "kind" of animal was created and was "good".

Evolution, as reinforced on many occasions, has no "design" or should I say "intelligent design". No purpose. Not with God. Evolution removes God and the implied purpose behind the design of every creature.

God created the universe with purpose. This is lacking from any chain of evolving species and organisms that randomly change and exist or die over millennia.

Especially with humans which were created with specific qualities. One of which was to be "in God's image".

That's all just fine, Jack, but the point of the discussion was not whether what non-YEC Christians believe is correct, but what it is in the first place.

 

[pat34lee]

To start with, nobody believes that the Bible in its entirety is a "work of fiction," not even secular Bible scholars, who are well aware that there is history to be found in it. Perhaps you accept the dichotomy that if the accurate literal historicity of any part of Genesis 1-11 is questioned it impeaches the entire Bible, as a consequence of your Bible doctrine. However, to impute that conclusion to someone who does not hold with your Bible doctrine, to accuse him of regarding the entirety of the Bible as fiction, requires a degree of naivete which I do not believe you to possess--or plain malice.

I am not at all sure what you mean about the Bible being in "code" or what your remark about science has to do with it. Of all the reasons not to believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration, "science"(by which I suppose you to mean "evolution") is not even near the top of the list.

First, I meant that OEC's must pick and choose what parts of the bible
are literal and which are not (whether fictional or allegory) based on
science, not theology or scripture.

As for code, take Genesis one. Literally 6 days and 6 nights of creation
followed by a day of rest. How do we know it is literal? Because it is
specific, one evening and one morning to a day. Yet, OEC's must insist
that each day is multiple millions of years of changing lengths in order
to reach ~14 billion years to creation.

Do you believe that Yeshua is going to return soon for a millennial reign?
That will be our Sabbath rest. The seventh millennia from the beginning.
How can that happen on a 14 byo earth? And if we were created already
flawed and fallen, how can we count on an imperfect God or anything he
said?

 

[BobRyan]

First, I meant that OEC's must pick and choose what parts of the bible
are literal and which are not (whether fictional or allegory) based on
science, not theology or scripture.

As for code, take Genesis one. Literally 6 days and 6 nights of creation
followed by a day of rest. How do we know it is literal? Because it is
specific, one evening and one morning to a day. Yet, OEC's must insist
that each day is multiple millions of years of changing lengths in order
to reach ~14 billion years to creation.

Indeed they try to bend-and-wrench the text for the sake of the non-gospel of Darwinism "as if" Moses was a Darwinist - or was teaching blind-faith Darwinism.

Even Darwin himself finally admitted that such is not the case with Moses!

 

[Speedwell]

First, I meant that OEC's must pick and choose what parts of the bible
are literal and which are not (whether fictional or allegory) based on
science, not theology or scripture.

There are theological and scriptural considerations as well. That it's all because of Darwin is a Creationist fantasy.

As for code, take Genesis one. Literally 6 days and 6 nights of creation
followed by a day of rest. How do we know it is literal? Because it is
specific, one evening and one morning to a day. Yet, OEC's must insist
that each day is multiple millions of years of changing lengths in order
to reach ~14 billion years to creation.

Trying to somehow fit the scientific account into the six day creation scenario is bootless.

Do you believe that Yeshua is going to return soon for a millennial reign?
That will be our Sabbath rest. The seventh millennia from the beginning.
How can that happen on a 14 byo earth? And if we were created already
flawed and fallen, how can we count on an imperfect God or anything he
said?

No, I'm not a Millennialist

 

[BobRyan]

Trying to somehow fit the scientific account into the six day creation scenario is bootless.

If you mean that trying to stuff blind-faith evolutionism into Genesis one is a pointless and hopeless effort - well then I quite agree!!

 

[Philip_B]

The Bible is not a book. It is a library - Biblios - the books. It is entirely sensible to understand that there are many types of writing included here. Not all the records are contemporaneous. Not all the records are historical accounts. Much of the record is corroborated by other sources.

For example the connections between the Gilgamesh Epic and the Early accounts in Genesis provide a strong corroboration for the account of the journey of Abram from Ur of the Chaldees to the region of Samaria. I believe the Bible stands well rational and intelligent Biblical Criticism. It does not need me to stand and defend the text, it stands well enough on its own.

The Bible points us, not to itself but, to the one who saves us, Jesus the Lord. It is not a cherry picking exercise, and neither is it a jail. I don't see the need to require a biblical literalism, as much as I don't see the need to call a theory a fact.

Ultimately, the Bible tells me there is much room for grace, if any of us are to aspire to the hope to which we have been called.

 

[BobRyan]

Step 1. What does the Bible actually say -- not "what would we like to re-imagine it to say"
Step 2. Believe the Bible - or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of step 1.


Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20:9,11
9 "Six days you shall labor..."
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.


Even the atheists have figured out this blatantly obvious Bible detail -


==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

 

[ScottA]

The question of this thread is a trap, a trick - like: "So...when did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[Philip_B]

Step 1. What does the Bible actually say -- not "what would we like to re-imagine it to say"
Step 2. Believe the Bible - or not.

I do think that Step One is critical. Far to much damage is done by those who prefer eisegesis to exegesis.

I am happy for you to have step two if it helps you, I find it difficult to compress reality into simplistic boolean logic or binomial differentiation.

 

[Speedwell]

Speaking of step 1.


Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20:9,11
9 "Six days you shall labor..."
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.


Even the atheists have figured out this blatantly obvious Bible detail -


==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

Barr again, and still no point to it.
Why don't you just put that quote into your footer, and then it will appear any time you post about anything?

 

[BobRyan]

Barr again, and still no point to it.

until you notice that the post was a response to this - and specifically step 1.

Step 1. What does the Bible actually say -- not "what would we like to re-imagine it to say"
Step 2. Believe the Bible - or not.

And so Barr's statement specifically highlights "Step 1" above.

Meanwhile - your habit of ignoring almost every detail posted is not serving you all that well so far. Consider another solution. Something more compelling.

Step 1 is taken far more seriously by Christians than you seem to have at first imagined to yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

until you notice that the post was a response to this - and specifically step 1.



And so Barr's statement specifically highlights "Step 1" above.

Meanwhile - your habit of ignoring almost every detail posted is not serving you all that well so far. Consider another solution. Something more compelling.

Step 1 is taken far more seriously by Christians than you seem to have at first imagined to yourself.

And somehow the fact that the author(s) of Gen 1 probably meant six regular days, not millions of years or eons or something like that makes a point? Who here is pretending that they meant something different? (Not saying there isn't someone, but I don't and so I may not have caught it.)

 

[BobRyan]

And somehow the fact that the author(s) of Gen 1 probably meant six regular days, not millions of years or eons or something like that makes a point

Atheists would not care what the Bible says - as I am sure you and I would both agree.

But Christians do care what the Bible says.

 

[Speedwell]

Atheists would not care what the Bible says - as I am sure you and I would both agree.

But Christians do care what the Bible says.

And argue about it endlessly.

 

[BobRyan]

??? that post was where we both agree -- I have no intention of arguing it endlessly.

Simply ignoring every detail in the posts is not serving you well.

 

[Speedwell]

??? that post was where we both agree -- I have no intention of arguing it endlessly.

Simply ignoring every detail in the posts is not serving you well.

What details? Give me a "for instance." And don't bother posting that Barr quote again.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Atheists would not care what the Bible says - as I am sure you and I would both agree.

But Christians do care what the Bible says.

Actually, I know quite a few atheists who care about what the Bible says, and some even know more about it than some Christians—in fact reading the Bible is part of the reason why some of them became atheists in the first place.

 

[JacksBratt]

Actually, I know quite a few atheists who care about what the Bible says, and some even know more about it than some Christians—in fact reading the Bible is part of the reason why some of them became atheists in the first place.

So, you are saying that someone who doesn't even believe that God exists, cares about the Bible?

I understand that some know more about the Bible than many Christians, but that would be like a YEC studying the TOE so they were knowledgeable about the views of their opposition.

To read the Bible and become atheist due to this reading would lead me to believe they are being influenced by some other person or literature. In the most simple case, this would be due to large misunderstandings of the scriptures.

I really doubt that any atheist cares about the Bible.