Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I could have scientifically tested the alcohol content of the wine Jesus created in Cana and could have "proven" that it must have been fermenting for at least 45 days.
However, as we both know, the wine was only minutes old. :D
I am partial to aged wine myself, but in "new wineskins" :)

Luke 5:
37 "And no one is casting young/neon <3501> wine into OLD vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young/neon <3501> of the vessels
and it shall be being poured-out and its vessel shall be perishing .
38 but Young/neon <3501> wine into NEW/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast and both are preserved together.
39 and no one drinking Old, immediately is willing Young, for he is saying, 'for the the Old kind/gracious is'".
[Hebrews 8:13/Reve 19:3]





.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anyway, I just stopped by to offer support to our young man 'anewman' and I've already gotten drawn deeper into this discussion than I initially intended to be. Some say this issue of the 'when' and 'how' of God's creating isn't of any value to us in working out our salvation. Maybe.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Mama Kidogo

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Jan 31, 2014
2,944
307
USA for the time being
✟19,535.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Hi MK,

Maybe. As to the rest of what you posted in response, let me be clear. I don't support Mr. Hovind's understanding of the creation either. I am a young earth creation believer, but I'm satisfied with God just 'desired and said' for such and such to happen and it did.

As an example: I believe Mr. Hovind has some rather wild tale that explains the days of the flood of Noah. No! I don't agree that he has wisdom as regards that subject and I absolutely do not agree that he is speaking the truth as regards that event and its cause. I'm satisfied that God merely desired and said, "Let the springs of the deep burst forth and the water of the heavens fall", and these things happened. It didn't take some frigid icy comet to fall upon the earth to cause the flood.

Similarly, as to the day the ball of dirt and rock and oil and magma and water, etc. that make up the physical properties of the earth was created, I firmly and faithfully believe that it appeared near instantaneously just because God said that it should exist. God spoke and boom the earth appeared. Spinning all by itself in the vast emptiness of 'space'. Its original configuration was covered with water just as it was restored to in the day of the flood. Then God spoke again and the waters gathered and allowed the dry ground beneath to be revealed on the surface of the earth. He merely spoke and it became as He desired it to be. Each day thereafter, God spoke and something came to exist by nothing more than His command that it be.

He did all of this creating within the time span of 6 revolutions of the earth upon its axis. He created a realm. An existence, if you will, that would support a the life of a creature that He had always intended that this realm of His creation would support. Man! God merely created, out of absolutely nothing, everything that exists in this realm. It is by His power, authority, wisdom and command that every 'thing' in this physical realm, from the smallest micronano piece that makes up all things physical, to the very greatest of the great heavenly bodies of stars and planets exist. He merely said, "Let it be so!", and it was. It came into existence.

This explains how water could stand as a wall on both the right and the left hand of the Israelites as they passed through the sea on dry ground. God merely commanded that the water stand at attention and it did! This explains how the sun could merely stop in the middle of the noon day middle eastern sky. God merely command that it do so, and it did!

Now, Mr. Hovind thinks differently than I do on this. He thinks that God caused other natural things to happen that caused upon the earth the 'unnatural'. Not me! Others try to time the day of Jesus' crucifixion by determining when there might have been a 'natural' phenomenon such as a solar eclipse to explain the darkening of the sun. Not me! God just commanded that the sun not give its light and it didn't! However, there is very good reason for 'why' God caused this phenomenon. The law of the passover was that the lamb was to be slain at twilight.

Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

God commanded that the passover lambs be slaughtered at twilight and so God Himself caused the law to be upheld in this matter. He literally caused it to be twilight when Jesus, His perfect lamb, was slaughtered before all of the people. This twilight did not come about because there was some solar body in the way of the light of our sun. God made it twilight. The sun of our solar system was still right where it was supposed to be shining just as brightly as it always had but God caused the light of the sun to not be visible upon the earth. God did it! And He did it because He was preparing the final passover lamb whose blood would atone for the sins of all men. Because it was God's own passover He caused all that was necessary that this final passover would meet with His command of the first and succeeding passovers since Israel had left Egypt.

That's the God I know. He created this realm, this physical place of existence. He created it all so that man could have life. Nothing evolved. Nothing existed for millions or billions of years before now. About 6,000 years ago, according to the genealogies of the old covenant and adding 6 days before the day of Adam's creation, God spoke and this realm came into existence.

So, I'm not a believer in Mr. Hovind's theological explanations either, but I don't use 'ad hominem' arguments to discredit him. I choose to discredit him on the issues themselves based on the 'truth' as I understand it and as God seems to have clearly explained to me all that He has done in His Scriptures. That he is or isn't a tax cheat doesn't, for me, have any bearing on the veracity of his theology.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
It has nothing to do with his theology. I agree on that. It has a lot to do with his honesty. Truth is important. When we make things up or say there is no other possible conclusion when there is indeed another possible conclusion, the science has left the room of credibility. When something is true or scientifically sound, one does not need to invent fairytales about it.

I have no issue with a believer in a young earth. I don't strongly hold any proposed theory as fact. But I do read them all and see who's not using deception to make their case.

As truthfulness (being reputable) is the issue I was addressing, the ad hominem defense doesn't hold water. But if you said he was a credible scientist, I'd have a disagreement with that as well. Trying to prove God true is stupidity. That is what He gave us faith for. It's not our duty to prove God correct. Our place is to believe in Him and spread the gospel. Not to prove it true. When we do we are bound to be in err. We truly don't understand the magnitude of God or his manner of creating all things. That is unless you think a man inspired many years after the creation began wrote a "How To" manual in the penning of Genesis.
This is my belief:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

And that's enough for me.
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nice attempt to misdirect but not at all working.

Try dealing with actual fact there.

This is no attempt to misdirect. I am bringing up something that you are failing to see. How can scientific testing determine if something happened naturally or supernaturally? It can't.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It has nothing to do with his theology. I agree on that. It has a lot to do with his honesty. Truth is important. When we make things up or say there is no other possible conclusion when there is indeed another possible conclusion, the science has left the room of credibility. When something is true or scientifically sound, one does not need to invent fairytales about it.

I have no issue with a believer in a young earth. I don't strongly hold any proposed theory as fact. But I do read them all and see who's not using deception to make their case.

As truthfulness (being reputable) is the issue I was addressing, the ad hominem defense doesn't hold water. But if you said he was a credible scientist, I'd have a disagreement with that as well. Trying to prove God true is stupidity. That is what He gave us faith for. It's not our duty to prove God correct. Our place is to believe in Him and spread the gospel. Not to prove it true. When we do we are bound to be in err. We truly don't understand the magnitude of God or his manner of creating all things. That is unless you think a man inspired many years after the creation began wrote a "How To" manual in the penning of Genesis.
This is my belief:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made...."

And that's enough for me.
Me too

Daniel 7:13
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like-as the Son of Man/0606 'enash came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near/toward before Him.

John 1:1
In beginning was the Word and the Word was toward/proV <4314> the GOD/qeon <2316> and God/qeoV <2316> was the Word.

John 17:11
And not longer I-am in the world and these in the world are, and I toward/proV <4314> Thee am coming........

Reve 12:5
And she brought forth a son, *male, who is being about to be shepherding all the nations in rod iron.
And is snatched-away the offspring of her toward/proV <4314> the God and toward the throne of Him.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4507371/
Question on Greek in Reve 12 and John 1



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
This is no attempt to misdirect. I am bringing up something that you are failing to see. How can scientific testing determine if something happened naturally or supernaturally? It can't.
Yes it is a feeble attempt to misdirect.

You can't handle that there is actual proof that debunks your YEC belief. So rather then deal with that, you apply Scriptures that have really nothing to do with the point in order to somehow unbury yourself from your untenable position.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
And we have a winner!

By pitting science against God one is not championing God over and against "man's understanding of creation"; it is in fact pitting God's creative revelation against Himself. When I say "creative revelation" I mean that the natural order is itself a testament of God's creative work, the Psalmist says,

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies above His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voices goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." - Psalm 19:1-4

Either that is true, or it's not. To deny that we can learn about the natural world by studying it--which is what one does by summarily dismissing the scientific method and the work of science--is to deny the very reality of this passage as a declaration of God's handiwork in creation.

Anti-scientism is not an act of pious or godly courage; it is an act of denying the Creator and Lord of the universe whose handiwork we see throughout the cosmos. In this 14 billion year old cosmos.

-CryptoLutheran
How did you arrive at that figure?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7839562/
Young Earth,Old Earth Which Is It?

The gospel taught by Jesus didn't derive its authority from the writings of the Hebrews. When pressed by the so called "religious authority" of his day about where Jesus got his "authority" to teach, he said "tear down this temple (his body) and in three days I will raise it up". He did and that's all the authority one needs.

Radioactive decay rates prove to us that the earth is quite old, 4+ billion years old. The fragmented story of creation and Adam and Eves incarnation on a populated earth was much older than 6,000 years. It was preserved in oral tradition which lead people of biblical times to assume that they were the first humans.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7719362/
How old is the universe and the earth? etc...

I am a creationist, and a Bible student. But I must say thsat there is not a single verse of the Bible that supports or even suggests a young (6000-10,000) year old earth. On the other hand there are several that sugggest a much older earth. And if God is eternal, as most Christians believe along with me, Then it is almost rediculous to think the universe is not extremely ancient.
However I believe each of us has the right to believe anything he or she wants to about the age of the universe and do so without the critiicism or condemnation from others of us. Each side believes as they do to the praise of God's glory. It is certainly a subject of great interest I must say. A mystery of mysteries. David says a lot in Psalm 8.


.
 
Upvote 0
G

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest
So, basically you do not know where literal history begins in Genesis - the transition is just too seamless and smooth. If this is true, how can you say with certainty what is literal history and what is legend?

No, that's not what she's saying. The point is that ancient writers would not have differentiated between what we today identify as literal historical and what we today identify as metaphor, allegory, poetry, and folktale. It's a seamless whole that focuses on God's purposes for the people of Israel by narrating Israel's primordial history which is true regardless of whether the events are "literally" "factual" or not. Literal history did not exist as a distinct literary genre until Thucydides wrote his History of the Peloponnese War in the late fifth century BC. The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles can therefore be fairly compared to the work of Thucydides (or Polybius, Sallust, Julius Caesar, Livy, Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, or any other classical historian you'd care to name). But Genesis- and in fact, the whole history of Israel that spans Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings- is best compared to the genre of "chronicles," examples including the Babylonian Chronicle but extending throughout the world cultures with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Primary Chronicle in Ukraine, the Shahnameh of India, or the Spring and Autumn Annals of China.

Actually, the Shahnameh is more like an epic poem on the order of the Iliad or the Aeneid, and the Spring and Autumn document from China is technically an "annal," which is yet another distinctive type of writing. The difficulty of categorizing these writings shows just how clearly pre-Thucydidian "history" bleeds into "epic poetry." From what actual scholars of the Old Testament can tell, the Genesis-2 Kings narrative (sans Ruth, which was moved from a later position in the canon) starts off mostly as a kind of epic poem that becomes epic prose, bleeding into chronicle and then finally into annal. Even when chronicle and annal are at their most "literal" and "historical" and "factual," however, can the genre ever be described as what we know to be "history writing."
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes it is a feeble attempt to misdirect.

You can't handle that there is actual proof that debunks your YEC belief. So rather then deal with that, you apply Scriptures that have really nothing to do with the point in order to somehow unbury yourself from your untenable position.

Wow, you seem cranky. Too bad you couldn't hear the voice I used to narrate your comment. It was too funny! :D ...feeble attempt... ...untenable position...

Anyway, I don't deny science - I love science. In fact you'd be surprised to find out that I am a science teacher. Since you don't want to address my concerns, I'll just mosey on along.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,533
26,958
Pacific Northwest
✟734,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
How did you arrive at that figure?
.

It's what is accepted.

But it's not terribly difficult to ascertain through observation. We know the speed at which light travels, and can also with rather decent certainty discern the distance of far luminary bodies (e.g. galaxies).

The furthest limit of the observable universe, the edge beyond which we cannot see anything more, is about 14 billion light years away.

So if the furthest object we can see is about 14 billion light years away, then it has taken approximately 14 billion years for those photons to have departed their source and reached us.

So the universe must be at least as old as the distance of the most distantly observed luminary bodies in the observable universe.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
Wow, you seem cranky. Too bad you couldn't hear the voice I used to narrate your comment. It was too funny! :D ...feeble attempt... ...untenable position...

Anyway, I don't deny science - I love science. In fact you'd be surprised to find out that I am a science teacher. Since you don't want to address my concerns, I'll just mosey on along.
You don't have any concerns. You've basically stated a position that holds no water.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Wow, you seem cranky. Too bad you couldn't hear the voice I used to narrate your comment. It was too funny! :D ...feeble attempt... ...untenable position...

Anyway, I don't deny science - I love science. In fact you'd be surprised to find out that I am a science teacher. Since you don't want to address my concerns, I'll just mosey on along.
I also love science and believe science, God and the Bible can get along just fine.
Have you or others ever visited this website?:

About GodAndScience.org
About GodAndScience.org

Mission

The mission of Evidence for God from Science is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and to encourage skeptics to examine the truth claims of Christianity. Having once been a skeptic myself, I understand that most skeptics assume Christianity is false before making a serious attempt to examine the evidence. Therefore, our goal is to present the scientific and biblical evidence that supports a rational belief in the existence and love of God.



.
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
Every scientific study performed on dead bodies has concluded that it is impossible to resuscitate someone who has been dead for three days.

It's a good thing I believe Jesus was resurrected supernaturally. :thumbsup:
More deflection of point cause you can't handle the fact the original and on topic point your raise and hold, holds no water.

Faith and science do not contradict, and Jesus' Resurrection is not the topic.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Every scientific study performed on dead bodies has concluded that it is impossible to resuscitate someone who has been dead for three days.

It's a good thing I believe Jesus was resurrected supernaturally. :thumbsup:
As were Lazarus and the 2 witnesses :)

John 11:
39 Jesus is saying "take away ye! the stone".
Martha is saying to Him, the sister of the one having deceased "Lord, already he stinking, for it is fourth-day
43 And these saying, to a great Voice He cries-out "Lazarus, hither out!"

Reve 11:12
And they hear a great Voice out of the Heaven saying to them "Ascend ye here!".
And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud and observed them, the enemies of them.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7461118/#post54553876
Lazarus and 2 witnesses of Reve 11 similarity

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell. Yet a thorough, unbiased examination of this story will show that the generally accepted interpretations of this passage of Scripture are erroneous and misleading. In this article, we will go through the parable verse by verse to determine what the Messiah was truly teaching.






.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
I'm not talking about "faith and science". I'm talking about "supernatural vs natural".
No, you are trying to split hairs and make scientific reasearch opposing a faith based ideal. There is nothing philosophical about scientific research at all. It's goal is finding facts, that's it. Very visible and tangible facts, no metaphysical depth at all. Faith is exploring more then just surface fact. The two do NOT contradict.
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, you are trying to split hairs and make scientific reasearch opposing a faith based ideal. There is nothing philosophical about scientific research at all. It's goal is finding facts, that's it. Very visible and tangible facts, no metaphysical depth at all. Faith is exploring more then just surface fact. The two do NOT contradict.

Is ontological naturalism a philosophical assumption?
 
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
Is ontological naturalism a philosophical assumption?

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.
Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.




Hmm, seems to me this is not a philosophy so much as a lack of one. Clinical application of science without the religion while the Religious aspect is the metaphysical without the science...nothing to stop the blending of the two.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.
Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.




Hmm, seems to me this is not a philosophy so much as a lack of one. Clinical application of science without the religion while the Religious aspect is the metaphysical without the science...nothing to stop the blending of the two.

Wow, are you really going to state that ontological naturalism is NOT a philosophical position? I was asking my original question rhetorically.

All forms of naturalism are philosophical by their very nature.

Here is a quote from the wiki on Naturalism:

Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system...

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0