Rain and The Creation

[Andy D]

Try finding one who is not a paid shill for AIG or ICR.


Might this be dogmatic of you. Again I tender that you have not the capability of discerning goo science from bad science. I also tender that there are facets ot the sciences you do accept that directly contradict Scripture, but since no one has pointed this out to you you're fine with it. What a position to take.
[/size][/color][/font]

Being paid by AIG or ICR is not an argument with any weight at all because each man or woman is their own being and for them to be biassed, is just as likely as all other scientists in the world to be biassed.

Please, point out these sciences that contradict Scripture and quote this Scripture.

 

[Andy D]

That's exactly the point. If the Bible does not say "there was no rain before the flood" and also does not say "there was definately rain before the flood" then the Bible does not speak of rain between the creation of man on day 6 and the flood. Thus neither argument can be used. I wasn't arguing that there was definately rain, I was merely pointing out the fact that the Bible does not affirm or deny ether position, thus there is no evidence at all for either and we should not be dogmatic because we simply do not know.


No it doesn't, because 1) God's creative act was finished by the literal day six and does not continue, thus the act of light being split into the color spectrum through water droplets in the air would already have been completed, 2) God often infuses things with new meanings after their creation, and as I already pointed out, the bread and wine of communion is one example. Were we to use your logic, because the cross Christ was crucified on was the first cross mentioned, this clearly indicates that no crosses existed prior to its mention. Simply because the Bible mentions something at a certain point for the first time does not mean that's when it was created. That's the whole point - we simply have no place for saying "rainbows did not exist before the flood." We don't have a place to say "rainbows absolutely existed before the flood" either. There is no place for dogmatism on this.


Sola Scriptura. If you can show me where the Bible states that, I'll believe it. Outside of that, it's merely a "just so" story.

I'm not arguing that their was rain or rainbows before the flood. I'm arguing that we cannot be dogmatic since the scriptural teaching is very vauge on this point.

I understand all this to be the reason we dont use this arugment but I am just stating that it is possible for the alternatives

 

[gluadys]

Actually, sin is a fact only because of how we view things. We realise we have sinned and have a need to be saved. But if you dont believe in God, if there was no God, (A great argument to use against athiests) then there is no standard on morals or anything. Who says something is sin? We know that sin is breaking the law but for those who dont believe in the law, they dont believe in sin. Sin is rebellion against God and the standards He has set for us. If we dont beleive in God or dont care if He exists or not, how can we beleive in sin?

Well, most of the atheists I've seen posting (and the few I know personally) have a moral sense, and do recognize the difference between right and wrong. They may not use the word sin or explain wrong-doing in a theistic way, but they still recognize that it is a reality. I don't find atheists as a group justifying murder or theft or immorality--or committing those deeds in any greater frequency than those who profess to be Christians or theists.

C. S. Lewis made the same point in Mere Christianity. No matter what people claim to believe or disbelieve, and even when they disagree on the details of what is right and wrong---everyone believes there IS a right and wrong, and protests when someone treats them wrongly.

G. K. Chesterton also made the same point: that original sin was the only doctrine of the church which is empirically verifiable.

You don't need faith in God or anything else to believe in sin. It is our common everyday exeperience that tells us sin is a fact.

 

[gluadys]

4. My main concern continues to be this--can we not all agree that we INTERPRET scripture differently, ask questions of others and present arguments for our own beliefs without determining that the other is stupid, demonic, or faithless?
We TE's do not think the Bible is simply a book of lies, nor do we give glory to any MAN. Creationists can say it a million times, but since we have decidedly told you that is not so--to continue to say so is bearing false witness against a Christian brother or sister.
Creationists are not "blindly" ignoring facts, they simply believe that the Bible should be taken over and above any facts that, to them, contradict Scripture--no matter how many times people say that about them does not make it so--especially since they have told us this over and over again. To continue to say this about them is bearing false witness against a Chrstian brother or sister.

Hear! Hear! and

If I had not just given you rep recently I would give you more. This should be read by everyone in this forum every day before posting here.

and the'll know we are Christians by our love--by our love--yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love.....[/QUOTE]

 

[gluadys]

But then a different person learns through geology that the flood in fact could have occured and been global.

So, then, if you seek to know the truth, you learn enough about geology to determine who is interpreting the evidence correctly. As it happens, it is not the flood geologists.

Remember it was Christians who disproved the global flood, before Darwin was ever set sail in the Beagle---because they were looking for it, and found instead the evidence that falsified their assumptions.

So standard geology is not an atheist conspiracy.

Unless it is read allogorically which doesnt make sense because I then have to read genealogies that have some ficticious people in the lists.

Not uncommon in ancient texts.

Also the argument that Genesis 1 is poetry and meant to be read that way is one that I believe is made up to fit in with evolutionary theory because i cannot see how it was meant to be read that way.

It is, admittedly, much more obvious in the original Hebrew. But that it was not intended as literal is a tradition found even in pre-Christian Jewish writings, and affirmed by early Christian teachers such as Augustine.

I see sooo many VERY good biblical points from theologians that point to it being an actual account.

And there are just as many theologians who will argue the other way.

By stating that churches such as Church of England (my Nana was from that church) and the Catholic church took on the belief I am more likely to reject the theory. I dont follow suit because the 'world' churches say so. I believe Jesus is the authority and His word, NOT the bishop of canterbury or the pope. I am not going to follow suit with organisations that disagree with MANY doctrines I believe to be 100% Biblical. I dont believe we should make the Bible fit our theology. How can I look to churches that follow works rather than grace, for answers?

Your choice. I am just saying that there is more than one Christian position, and that most churches have not found a reason to reject evolution. And while Jesus is the authority over any priest, theologian or bishop, we still depend on the human authorities of the church to teach us what is and is not biblical. That's why we have so many different churches and beliefs, and each one claiming to be right. I am neither Catholic, Anglican nor Baptist. I have no way to determine why I should choose to be one over the other except my own good sense, and (I hope and pray) the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But having found my own place, I cannot say another's choice is wrong either.

 

[gluadys]

Why do you choose to believe that Scientists are interpreting the data more correctly that we are interpreting the Bible? They are on their own, no spiritual guidance, we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and yet we are still wrong?????????

I dont see why shame on me for there being Christian scientists. They are allowed to be scientists as much as you can be a farmer.

I don't understand this, Andy. You agree some Christians are scientists, but you say scientists are on their own, with no spiritual guidance?

How can that be? Does God withdraw the Holy Spirit from Christians who pursue science? Surely not.

 

[adam149]

Try finding one who is not a paid shill for AIG or ICR.

You found one.

 

[gluadys]

Maybe you can make that your next science research project, how many evolutionists have passed high school maths compared to YEC's. Then you might like to see how many people on this planet who accept evolution, know more about it or as much as many YEC's.

If they are scientists, they all have. But remember, one does not have to be a scientist or well-educated to be YEC. The same applies to those who accept evolution (and are therefore, in some sense, "evolutionists")

For the purposes of having some sort of label for my position I accept the description "theistic evolutionist" though it would not be my first preference. And although I am a university grad, I am not a scientist and did not study either science or math beyond high school. I still can't follow more than basic math, though I have taught myself more science since I became interested in this topic. But I am far far removed from being an expert in any scientific field.

btw, I also studied most of this from a creationist perspective before I began studying it from a scientific perspective. So I have looked at both sides and found the scientific perspective to be much better founded in the evidence and to make a great deal more sense IMHO.

 

[Andy D]

I don't understand this, Andy. You agree some Christians are scientists, but you say scientists are on their own, with no spiritual guidance?

How can that be? Does God withdraw the Holy Spirit from Christians who pursue science? Surely not.

I was answering two separate points made. One is in the context of worldly scientists who quite often do have a bias towards evolution before they even start researching and they do their work on their own.

The other is yes, there are Christians who are scientists but here I will make no judgement because some Christians may try researching science and reject God from their work. Many of us turn Christianity off at work, so no different for Christian scientists who are surrounded by much peir pressure to believe as the world does as in most workplaces. Some Christian scientists I beleive would first of all accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God and then research within a Biblical context in that they will be bias towards their belief of the Bible. I beleive that one particular belief is closer to being correct and because I am only able to see Genesis as being iterpreted a certain way, I will be bias in stating I believe it is the correct way. I understand that we can interpret the Bible incorrectly at times but one must make a choice not based on scientific evidence but on faith and Biblical evidence. I know creation shouts to us the glory of God but if we are going to research it's wonders then we must start always with the Bible because whilst it does not give us a detailed account of how we got here as evolutionists have come up with, it gives us all we need to know. If it were not for the efforts of scientists (regardless of what each of us thinks about the evidence) then what would you beleive? You couldnt really know what to believe other than a literal interpretation of Genesis and a real Adam and Eve so it obviously cant be harmful to the faith by YEC's believing this. The YEC version of creation doesnt require one to have a DEEP understanding of the Scriptures to be able to read into it Gap theory or to look at science and have more than high school level of maths to understand it as TE's do. The YEC version require plain faith in God and the infallible Word of God and that Genesis is read literally because if we didnt know the alternative theories then we couldnt read it any other way anyhow.

 

[Andy D]

If they are scientists, they all have. But remember, one does not have to be a scientist or well-educated to be YEC. The same applies to those who accept evolution (and are therefore, in some sense, "evolutionists")

But it appears from this statement that one does need to be well grounded in science or well educated to understand a TE position. Why would God put us in a position. Even someone who has a mental handicap (as I went to school with some children in this category) should be able to understand the Gospel of Christ in many of the cases because it is so simple. The creation story would be simplistic as well and just as easy to understand from a young age. TE's would have to teach their children for years for them to understand why they follow this theory.

Also I was referring to evolutionist as in all people who believe in evolution. In this case a VERY low percentage are scientists...

 

[adam149]

Note to all:

I intend no personal insult here but I am sick to death of fundamental Creationists slurring what I do for a living and either implying I am part of some conspiracy or I and my colleagues are liars.

I intend no personal insult here, but I am sick to death of liberal evolutionists slurring what I do and will continue to do for a living and either implying I am part of some conspiracy to overthrow science or I and other creationist peers are liars.

Yet this comes from people who admit they don't know what they are talking about and probably never got beyond high school math.

I certainly don't understand every technical detail of every little scientific fact, but I and anyone else would be lying if they claimed they did. However, I do know what I'm talking about and I have gotten beyond high school math, just for your info.

In other words shut up about science when you cannot follow it seemingly. And quit saying we scientists are liars.

Only after you stop saying we creationists are conspiracy-theory nuts, stupid, or liars.

Think about it.

 

[PotLuck]

As if there has ever been a time in Christianity when there was no controversy and one Christian might not give a different answer than another.

Right from the beginning, the church had to update its teachings. We see that in the book of Acts when the Council at Jerusalem decided the basis on which gentiles would be admitted to the church. They had to send out an update on the decision, which took time to go to all the churches. So for some time, some Christians were saying, yes, Gentiles could be Christian and others were saying, no--not unless they were circumcised and brought into the Mosaic covenant.

And some never accepted the Council's edict on the matter.

We see it as well in Paul's comments on the role of women in the church. Clearly his recommendations were not being followed in all churches, so there was division over what was correct.

And what about the 4-5 centuries of theological debate which led to the orthodox affirmation of the trinity and the dual nature of Christ? In those times you would certainly get a variety of opinions depending on which Christian you spoke to. In fact you still do.

And what of questions that remain open today regarding the sacraments, the permissibility of participation in war, and ----still----the role of women in the church?

There have always been issues but citing that to rationalize the introduction of yet another form of diversity only leads to compounding the problems not fixing them.

As for keeping up-to-date on scientific information, well a little humility and readiness to be corrected helps a lot. We know that information changes, so, especially if we are not professionals, we know we are likely to be behind the times. I know I learn a lot in this forum from the professional and even well-informed amateur biologists, geologists and physicists. Never heard of proto-cells until a few weeks ago and was flabbergasted to hear that anyone who wants to can cook them up in their kitchen.

You'll get no argument from me there.

The main thing I believe, (which is why I chose the signature I did) is that no knowledge, from any source whatsoever, can ever be truly anti-thetical to the bedrock of Christian faith. It may shake up our beliefs about history and scripture and inspiration, but it cannot shake the foundation of our beliefs about creation, redemption, and eternal life in the kingdom now and to come. Nor can it ever separate us from the love of God made known to us in Christ.

I do think the bible stands on its own very well when it comes to its intended purpose. Anyone can read the bible, especially the New Testament, and know that God loves them, that Christ died for them, and that they can be freed from sin and made alive in Christ for eternity.

OTOH, learning about history and theology allows for a more in-depth understanding of scripture. Not an understanding that is essential to salvation, but one that permits moving from a spiritual diet of milk for babes to a spiritual diet of meat for adults.

Here I have a hard time understanding how the introduction of another element doesn't influence the constitution of the whole. A little yeast goes a long way. When it gets to the point that some outside influence is telling me I'm reading scripture the wrong way, that because I don't believe the theory of evolution as fact as some do and that I'm wrong in my interpretation of the bible because of it then I'm going to question that influence. The mere fact that there is division with that influence at the core as seen here testifys that it does indeed have an effect. If there is no effect then why is it being discussed? The mormons believe salvation also but also make "adjustments" to what you're considering as having no consequence. And history, scripture and inspiration are just as important as anything else because it influences the health of the whole body. The heart and brain may be superior to one hand or one foot but those parts are still quite essential to the working of the body as a whole. You can not separate parts and pieces of the spirituality or the christian doctrines into catagories of importance then rationalize alterations simply because something is viewed as less important.

Any one part of a car may seem insignificant in terms of getting to a destination, such as a spare tire, wipers or headlights on a bright summer day. But along the path to the destination there will be need of those nonessentials sooner or later. Those items do indeed have much importance.

As to love among christians, well, the mormons believe they too are christians, that they should be accepted as such and ask that we unite with them in love and understanding to help an unbelieving world instead of speaking out against some of their nonessentials like history, scripture and inspiration. But it doesn't make their doctrine right even though they will tell you they believe Christ died, was buried and rose again.

As a Christian, I have never had a problem with this because if God desired for all the stars to shine from the beginning and if that was 6000 years ago then why couldnt he create stars and make their light already be reaching earth? God is not bound by our science or laws.

Agreed. God can make light anywhere and at any time he so pleases. He can even make a star in the process of exploding when an instant earlier it never existed in the first place.

 

[Andy D]

Agreed. God can make light anywhere and at any time he so pleases. He can even make a star in the process of exploding when an instant earlier it never existed in the first place.

And it just shows the awesomeness of God to be able to do this. A star is such a BIG body and yet compared to a God who created millions of them, it is but one star. I am just mesmorised by the amazing power of God when I look at the stars or the massive oceans, or the complexity of the human eye.

 

[Andy D]

God bless you all, I am off now..I hope to be back soon to continue discussing this. It is pleasant in this thread to have many who love God in here.

 

[theFijian]

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.

Thank you MercuryMJ. I believe my assertion for an allegorical reading of Gen 1 still stands.

 

[theFijian]

God bless you all, I am off now..I hope to be back soon to continue discussing this. It is pleasant in this thread to have many who love God in here.

Thanks for your kind words. It certainly is pleasant as you say.

Andy

 

[theFijian]

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 speak from the authority of scriptures, Jesus himself said God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Does a spirit have a body? Have I seen God? No one has seen God (John 1:18) Do you really think God had to take on physical form to create ex nihilo? You seem to be confusing what I think God is capable of, with what I think he actually did. You say he created in six days, do you not think he could have created in 6 minutes if he wanted it so? You see what I'm getting at.

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.

You don't really know what science is do you.

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.

Science is agnostic, it is not a philosphical discipline. Humanists and secularists will draw their philosophies from it but you have made the mistake of confusing the two. You want science to be athiestic so you have something to kick against, unfortunately for you it is not what you want it to be.

These teachings are in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Bible as found in Genesis.

Correction: they are in contradiction with your idolatrous Bibliolatry.

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.

Actually you know very few answers. I believe God's teachings as they are found in both his special revelation and his general revelation. The Bible gives us the former, science helps us understand the latter.

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.

Please point out where I have said that the Bible is not God's word and/or fallible.

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.

Believe it or not, I do exactly the same thing.

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.

You are, as you admit, a fool. Unfortunately not in the way you wish to be. I do not laugh at you, I despair of you.

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.

That really is priceless, are you a Mormon in disguise? Conservative estimates place the Christian population of China at 4%. Do you know what 4% of 1.3 billion is?

God Bless the wise and the fools

Amen to that.

 

[PotLuck]

Here's the focus, the verse in guestion .


|v7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(OldT:Genesis 2:7)

To take it as myth supports the Theory of Evolution.
To take it as literal does not support the Theory of Evolution.

Myth/literal does/doesn't support the Theory of Evolution.

 

[PotLuck]

Separating the two.

1)
a. The verse is literal.
b. The verse is myth.

2)
a. The theory is fact.
b. The theory is an unproven idea.

In the first case it may be more logical to opt for selection (a) than in the second case.
God didn't say He formed man from an animal but from the dust of the ground. If so it should have read:

|v7 And the LORD God formed man from an animal, and man became a living soul.
(OldT:Genesis 2:7)

Also he would not have had to breathe life into man because man would already have been alive as in Eve's case.

 

[herev]

2)
a. The theory is fact.
b. The theory is an unproven idea.

Which theory, the theory of theistic evolution or the theory of literal creationism?