Rain and The Creation

[gluadys]

I believe the bible to be the infallible Word of God from
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
to
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." (Revelation 22:21)

If parts of Genesis are myths then other parts of the bible could also qualify as not being true.

Note the word substitution here:

If parts of Genesis are myths, then other parts of the bible could also qualify as not being true.

No, that is not the case. If myth were not truth, then even the myths of Genesis would not be true. But they are. And so the other parts of the bible which are myths are also true.

Please stop confusing "truth" with "fact". "Truth" includes facts, but it is not by any means limited to fact. Truth can and does include myth, legend, drama, poetry, allegory, symbology and fiction as well as fact. And we have examples of all these forms of truth in scripture.

If I can not believe the bible then I may as well throw it away because it's of no use to me and my faith in Christ is unfounded based only on myths and fairy tales.

So you are saying you would throw away the truth of the bible if it comes wrapped in anything other than fact?

You would throw away the truths God reveals to us for our good because you don't like the wrapping paper?

 

[gluadys]

And the reason God inspired His word to be written in incorrect order was???? Come on, you are Christian right? Please give me your Biblical view....cause u might as well rip Genesis our of your Bible otherwise.

Because the chronological order was not particularly important. The thematic order was chosen by the writer as a means of organising his presentation of creation in a poetic way.

That is why the days are presented as sets of three with each one of the three paired up with corresponding one in the other set.

 

[PotLuck]

The genre of the gospels determines them to be taken as historical fact, you don't have to worry about the story of Christ's resurrection being a concocted story. Gen 1&2 are clearly written figuratively. You still seem to be confusing myth with falsehood. Was there are real 'Good Samaritan' who was left to die at the roadside by several passing jewish priests? Or was Christ using a made up story to convey a spiritual truth?

I can not equate Genesis with a parable or myth as non-believers argue to add the elements of doubt on the bible to support their views against a christian belief. I've heard all the common arguments against Genesis from those of the world and mythology is one of them since they interpret a myth as something not true. If one can prove Genesis is myth, not true, then the entire bible falls prey to the enemy.

|v9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
|v10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
(NewT:Luke 8:9-10)

 

[Null-Geodesic]

I can not equate Genesis with a parable or myth as non-believers argue to add the elements of doubt on the bible to support their views against a christian belief. I've heard all the common arguments against Genesis from those of the world and mythology is one of them since they interpret a myth as something not true. If one can prove Genesis is myth, not true, then the entire bible falls prey to the enemy.

for the reason that you are worried of a slippery slope to atheism. Does this mean you will accept any foolishness as long as you can maintain a previously held postition? Is this really the way you operate? I mean really?????

 

[PotLuck]

I'm not up for this again. Not here.
At least in a secular forum I don't get blind-sided since I know where they're coming from.

Have fun fellas.

Cya

 

[theFijian]

And the question was not aimed at me but you fail to have been given a sense of humor.

Well then you shouldn't have answered it. My sides are spltting by the way.

 

[GodSaves]

Not really, God appointed it as a sign, it wasn't the first ever rainbow.

So does evolution contradict the order in Gen 1 or in Gen 2? Because the order in Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2.

Actually there is no contradiction. If theistic evolutionists spent as much time as they do in learning science to learn and study the Bible then you could understand. I have repeated talked about these so called contradictions and not one theistic evolutionists can argue it above saying I don't believe that I believe science. It is a matter of what you choose to believe, man or God. I can even give you scriptures that lends support to reading Genesis literally. Can you give scriptures to support reading Genesis allegorically?

So it seems one has used the Roman Catholic Church for support of evolution. Let me ask you something then: The Roman Catholic Church believes the pope is above the Word of God, the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church believes that faith does not save you, but faith and works. The Roman Catholic Church believes in purgatory and if one does good works they can get one out of purgatory. The Roman Catholic Church believes that if you believe in the pope and Jesus Christ you will have salvation, but you must accept the pope. The Roman Catholic Church believed that if one gave money to the church then they would receive salvation and if they did not they would not. These have been the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church throughout history, some have changed some have remained. In one day the Roman Catholic Church murdered 40,000 Christians because they would not submit to the pope. WOuld you still like to use the Roman Catholic Church as evidence for believing in evolution? If so then even though you may believe in Christ you better believe in the pope as well in order to be saved. And you better believe the pope if he tells you something that goes against any scripture because he is above scripture. Would you still like to use the Roman Catholic Church as evidence for believing in evolution?

God Bless

 

[theFijian]

Actually there is no contradiction. If theistic evolutionists spent as much time as they do in learning science to learn and study the Bible then you could understand. I have repeated talked about these so called contradictions and not one theistic evolutionists can argue it above saying I don't believe that I believe science. It is a matter of what you choose to believe, man or God. I can even give you scriptures that lends support to reading Genesis literally. Can you give scriptures to support reading Genesis allegorically?

There is language in both Genesis 1 and 2 which is obviously figurative . For example, the word for 'expanse' in Gen 1:6, 7 whose verbal root means a hammered out plate. Job 37:18 uses the same word to talk of the skies as 'hard as a mirror of cast bronze'. Using a word that represents what we know, and they knew, to be ethereal- namely the sky - by a word which means a hard mirror, it seems highly implausible that this was to be taken literally.

Likewise, the days are presented in a Jewish style - with the evening coming before the morning. For the Jew, the day started in the evening (at 6pm) and ended in the evening. Now, we measure our days differently - this does not indicate that Genesis 1 is false, but that Genesis 1 is a Jewish document. Similarly, God, as a Spirit, does not possess lungs and a mouth that He should breathe into the nostrils of the man the breath of life (Genesis 2:7).

God bless

 

[theFijian]

It is a matter of what you choose to believe, man or God.

The more I read this oft-made statement the more annoyed I get at it's utter stupidity. Science is the study of God's creation, the study of the direct handiwork of God. I believe what God has laid down in his creation for us to find, you apparently do not and favour your own interpretation of the Bible over the plain facts available through the study of God's handiwork. Furtheremore because you favour your own fallible interpretation you see fit to call into doubt the faith of your christian brothers, that's against forum rules methinks.

 

[GodSaves]

Job 37
18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Genesis 1
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

Well if you look to the Hebrew Bible, Job 37:18 uses the word sky in NIV, but the Hebrew word is Shachaq. Genesis 1:6-7 expanse in hebrew is Raqiya. They are two different words with two different meanings.

I am curious if you thought that I would not check your assertion. Your assertion is incorrect according to the Hebrew OT of the Bible.

Raqiya means a vault of heaven supporting waters above. Shachaq means fine dust, or thin cloud. Two different words, two different meanings.

How do you know that God could not have a mouth, or that God could not breathe into man's nostrils? Have you seen God to know that He does not contain these things you claim He does not have? Do you believe He could not have made it so if He wanted to breathe into the nostrils of Adam? I am curious how you speak with authority on what physical attributes God has or doesn't have.

I too get annoyed when someone states something of the Bible which is not true. Science today is not intended to study God's creation and give Him praise or glory. The science that looks to God's creation and tries to explain how it all started and began through the big bang and evolution does not cite God. These teachings are in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Bible as found in Genesis. And who do you believe God's teachings or sciences teachings? Oh, I know the answer to it you believe both. For many see that it is ok to believe both the world and God.

I have no interpretation of the Bible. I read it how it was written. When it uses no figures of speech I read it literally, when it does use figures of speech then I must try and interpret it so I can understand. Maybe I am wrong and I ask God everyday to correct me if I am, but yes I do doubt the faith of Christians who say the Bible is not God's Word, the Bible is fallible, and those who believe the world over Biblical teachings when they are in conflict. If you would like to find fault with me and report me then please do, and please present in the Bible where I am wrong and I will repent if the Bible lends to me being wrong. I only respond because I care about all people's faith. If this is a sin then let God judge me Himself and may I be disciplined by Him.

When reading so many theistic evolutionists post, I realize I and others who share the same passion for God's Word and keeping of it are fools. We are fools in the eyes of the world and it seems in the eyes of those who call themselves Christians but believe in the teachings of the world and believe the Bible is not God's WOrd and is fallible. We are the minority, we are the ones you all laugh at, we are the ones who only speak up because we care, we are the ones lead to ridicule, and unlike theistic evolutionists we are not accepted by atheists. I would gladly live the rest of my life as the fool, and the rest who believe differently can be the wise. I will gladly live in this cartoon fantasy as one Christian told me I was because of my belief. I was even told that if I wanted to learn more about God and His creation to look to Darwin not the Bible. Statements like this very much trouble me, and I realize more and more each day why in the end times there will be only 144,000 sealed by Christ.

Can you show me with the Bible where I am wrong in believing that God created according to Genesis and not according to man?

God Bless the wise and the fools

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Job 37
18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Genesis 1
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

Well if you look to the Hebrew Bible, Job 37:18 uses the word sky in NIV, but the Hebrew word is Shachaq. Genesis 1:6-7 expanse in hebrew is Raqiya. They are two different words with two different meanings.

You looked up the wrong word in the Job verse. The Hebrew word for "spreading out" is raqa which is the root word for raqiya which, as you noted, is used in the Genesis verse for "expanse". Raqa means to beat, stamp or stretch out, and raqiya means an extended solid surface.

 

[Andy D]

Well then you shouldn't have answered it. My sides are spltting by the way.

I dont think you are going to convince anyone of your views this way. This is an open forum for all to answer.

 

[theFijian]

I dont think you are going to convince anyone of your views this way. This is an open forum for all to answer.

You are right, my apologies.

Andy

 

[Andy D]

Now many will state that there is much scientific evidence that proves a global flood ever occured and that creationism is a lie. I however see much scientific evidence to state otherwise. Also, it lines up perfectly with the Bible and whilst it still requires some theories as we cant know everything yet, it makes sense.

If you look at our solar system you can see evidence of a young earth, if you look at our planets, moons, stars, you will see the evidence. I give you some stuff to start chewing on. I am getting some information from a Christian author named Keith Piper who has a book called Answers. He cites his sources in many cases, but either way it shouldnt be hard for any TE's to refute the information if you desire to try.

We have many large stars in our universe that are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They couldnt have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years as their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

Hydrogen in stars is continually turned into helium and hydrogen cannot be made from any other elements. Fred Hoyle states that if the universe was as old as big bang theorists think then there would be little hydrogen left as it would all be converted to helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.

Since 1836, over 100 different observatories at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet for hour. At this rate 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil the earth's oceans making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.

I can give HEAPS more...so just deal with this to start with. Maybe all these observatories who are experts in the field were incorrect in their calculations, mathematical calculation which are a more exact science than other fields that go by theories.

 

[Andy D]

You are right, my apologies.

Andy

It is ok. No offence taken and I am sorry also for my comments.

 

[Aeschylus]

Now many will state that there is much scientific evidence that proves a global flood ever occured and that creationism is a lie. I however see much scientific evidence to state otherwise. Also, it lines up perfectly with the Bible and whilst it still requires some theories as we cant know everything yet, it makes sense.

If you look at our solar system you can see evidence of a young earth, if you look at our planets, moons, stars, you will see the evidence. I give you some stuff to start chewing on. I am getting some information from a Christian author named Keith Piper who has a book called Answers. He cites his sources in many cases, but either way it shouldnt be hard for any TE's to refute the information if you desire to try.

We have many large stars in our universe that are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They couldnt have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years as their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

Hydrogen in stars is continually turned into helium and hydrogen cannot be made from any other elements. Fred Hoyle states that if the universe was as old as big bang theorists think then there would be little hydrogen left as it would all be converted to helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.

Since 1836, over 100 different observatories at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet for hour. At this rate 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil the earth's oceans making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.

I can give HEAPS more...so just deal with this to start with. Maybe all these observatories who are experts in the field were incorrect in their calculations, mathematical calculation which are a more exact science than other fields that go by theories.

That's very silly:

1) Even the largest class 0 stars have lifetimes of 1 million years, the largets class B stars have a lifetime of about 10-15 million years. Infact the dhortest lifetime is for a star is about 65,000 years for the very largest stars.

But that's bseide the point as we know there are many stars whose life cycles are short compared woith the age of the universe and no hydrogen would not of been completely depleted, if you can point to a major inconsistency in the current model of stellar evoltuion I'm sure there's a Nobel prize in it.

As for the shrinking sun:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

2)This line of attack becomes even stupider when you realize that we can obsrve galaxies that are approximately 13 billion years old.

 

[gluadys]

I have no interpretation of the Bible. I read it how it was written.

Everybody interprets the bible. It is not possible to read it with a blank mind that does not interpret what we read. We all filter our reading of the bible through our background knowledge and beliefs.

It is better to be aware of how we interpret the bible, than to be unconscious of the ways our own perceptions are liable to shape the way we read it.

And if you have made no inquiry into how the culture and pre-suppositions of the biblical authors shaped what they wrote, and how that is different from what we tend to take for granted today, you are not reading it how it was written, because you do not know how it was written.

What a 21st century CE American thinks of as a plain reading of the text may be far removed from the intended meaning of a 10th century BCE Hebrew writer.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

Since 1836, over 100 different observatories at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet for hour. At this rate 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil the earth's oceans making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.

I can give HEAPS more...so just deal with this to start with. Maybe all these observatories who are experts in the field were incorrect in their calculations, mathematical calculation which are a more exact science than other fields that go by theories.

Andy D, I have disagreed with you at almost every turn on here but they have been disagreements of interpretation.

Now you are parotting nonsense you have no idea about. Just because you cut/pasted it of some whacko creationist site. That nonsense above you posted is very interesting. Because normally the paragraph cites the Boyne Observatory as making these measurements. Unfortunately for the Creationist idiots who wrote it that observatory does not exist. Now I see you have a version that actually uses the USNO & Greenwich which do exist.

The problem is I used to work at the Royal Observatory as a Post Graduate researcher. This sun shrinking rubbish is a lie. I couls provide literally dozens of references and links to show this but unfortunately such real science seems to fly way over the heads of most Creationists, as they prefer to believe the tripe written by AIG or ICR or Kent Hovind, people who know nothing, absolutely nothing, about stellar physics, astronomical techniques or physics in general.

If you truly believe this invalid nonsense then I am truly sorry that your understanding of science is so small and your faith so in need of lies to support it. This material is false and the people at the Creationist groups who still use it know it is false. They are liars for Christ, unfortunately a very common subgroup of Creationists.

 

[Micaiah]

But where in my post did I suggest that Genesis is a lie or a tall tale?

You are attributing to me statements I did not make and do not agree with.

It is very annoying when you try to make a plain statement of fact and someone keeps interpretting it as something you never intended.

Sound familiar?

 

[Micaiah]

The genre of the gospels determines them to be taken as historical fact, you don't have to worry about the story of Christ's resurrection being a concocted story. Gen 1&2 are clearly written figuratively.

So how do we understand the references in the gospels to people in the OT such as Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve etc. The way I read it, there is no distinction between the way the authors refer to these people, and other figures of the past, or are we to understand that all people in the OT are figurative. King David was then a very prolific writer for someone who never existed.

And yet we see references to both 'groups' of people in the same genealogies. How do you assign a genre to these genealogies? How do you work out who are the legends, and who are the real guys.