Taking Questions on the Creation

[tanzanos]

The Bible was not written by God. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that he dictated every word, nor that every single word is as he would have written it. Nowhere does it say that Scripture is inerrant, nor that every word has to be believed literally. Nowhere does Our Lord even mention what our attitude to written Scripture must be - there is no evidence in the Gospels that he was as obsessed about the written word as many Christians today. Our Lord was concerned about the heart, about honesty and integrity. And he was not afraid of the truth. He did not ever lie, nor use deception of any kind.

Anyone choosing to regard the Bible as more than it actually says it is, is actually behaving in an unBiblical way. You can choose to believe in the 6 day creation if you want to, but nowhere in Scripture, nor in the words of Our Lord, does it say that this irrational and nonsensical belief is an essential part of our faith, nor even that it is literally true. More than that, such a belief today, with so much evidence to the contrary, breaks Our Lord's injunction to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. We are not told to stop thinking, but to use our minds to love God. And that does not involve engaging in double think, denial, and rationalisation.

If anyone's faith is so fragile that it cannot accommodate a God of 12 billion or however many years, and has to have one of only 6,000, and one capable of the most appalling conjoring tricks and deception, then good luck to them.

Personally, I choose to believe that there is nothing in science to be afraid of, because my God is not so small, nor so fragile.

Your post has more meaning than all of AV's posts. You have spoken sincerely. I admire your line of thinking even though I may not agree with all of it.
I am in agreement with your philosophical explanation.

Although I am a member of AV's Elite ignore list; I think that AV you should heed what your fellow Christians have to say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although I am a member of AV's Elite ignore list...

Not anymore.

 

[Catherineanne]

Let me reiterate:

Personal opinion that is not mainstream Christian belief is one thing. Personal opinion that is not Biblical is another.

Which is yours, AV?

Revelation says the earth has four corners. Is this an accurate description?

Isaiah says the earth is a circle, and the heavens are a tent over the top, with God outside the tent. Is he right?

 

[Catherineanne]

Your post has more meaning than all of AV's posts. You have spoken sincerely. I admire your line of thinking even though I may not agree with all of it.
I am in agreement with your philosophical explanation.

Thanks. I don't expect anyone to agree with what I say, for the simple reason that I don't agree with half of it myself; I just hope people can think for themselves, and make up their own minds, even if it is that I am barking mad.

Although I am a member of AV's Elite ignore list; I think that AV you should heed what your fellow Christians have to say.

I quite like AV. His theology is crazy, but he has a sense of humour, and is at least trying to find what is true. What more can any of us do?

We all see through a glass darkly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Personal opinion that is not mainstream Christian belief is one thing. Personal opinion that is not Biblical is another.

WOW --- right after you said this ---

The Bible was not written by God.

Anyway ---

Revelation says the earth has four corners. Is this an accurate description?

Yes.

Isaiah says the earth is a circle, and the heavens are a tent over the top, with God outside the tent. Is he right?

Please cite reference.

 

[Nathan Poe]

WOW --- right after you said this ---

Well, she is right, AV -- God is credited with inspiring the men to write the Bible, but not writing the exact words. For that, you'll need the Q'uran.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, he is right, AV

He?

 

[Nathan Poe]

He?

My bad -- she.

Now, care to address the point that she was correct regarding the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

My bad -- she.

Now, care to address the point that she was correct regarding the Bible?

It's called VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION --- 'nuff said --- now could we please get back to the OP?

 

[Blackrend]

I'll give an example that DonExodus made in one of his videos:

The cheetah is an interesting animal in that you can take skin grafts from any cheetah in the world, transplant the tissue to any other unrelated cheetah, and those transplant cells will be accepted by that specimen. This is because about 10,000 years ago, it is believed that the Cheetah went through a population bottleneck. As a result of this, the cheetah became severely interbred, and now has almost no genetic variability. Mortality rate among cheetahs is extremely high due to being so susceptible to disease and illness, and this all stems from interbreeding.

Now, if Noah had brought 2 of every animal on to the ark, it is assumed that they, including Noah's family, had to interbreed with one another in order to repopulate the earth. I could start with Adam and Eve, but I know the answer to that one is "Sin wasn't in the garden, so their genes were perfect"... or something. But what about AFTER sin had supposedly entered the world?:

If all life on Earth is essentially derived from a handful of humans and hundreds of PAIRS of animals that were on the ark (i.e., inbred):

1) How do you explain the genetic variability that we see in all other organisms on earth?

2) Why doesn't all other life experience the same drawbacks of low genetic variability as the cheetah?

Here's the video in case you wish to view the entire argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50

 

[AV1611VET]

1) How do you explain the genetic variability that we see in all other organisms on earth?

2) Why doesn't all other life experience the same drawbacks of low genetic variability as the cheetah?

This has nothing to do with Creation.

 

[Blackrend]

This has nothing to do with Creation.

Why doesn't it? Part of creationism is how the world today AS WE KNOW IT came to be, correct?

And if it's not part of creation, why do Creationists insist on including Noah's Ark in their arguments against evolution and ambiogenesis?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Why doesn't it? Part of creationism is how the world today AS WE KNOW IT came to be, correct?

And if it's not part of creation, why do Creationists insist on including Noah's Ark in their arguments against evolution and ambiogenesis?

That’s an easy one; if creationists relied on facts and science to fight their corner, they would lose every round. So the only line of defence they have is magical mystical biblical parodies.

 

[tanzanos]

What is faith but one's personal belief in sincerity? One has faith when one feels that there is sincerity behind it. If one feels that God or whatever is deceiving him then his faith will be shattered. People who believe in a God do so in the faith that God is sincere!

Problems arise when some people try to use that faith to dismiss science. Although religion and science are mutually exclusive; this does not mean one or the other has to cease to exist. Whatever one chooses to place his faith in; it should not hinder others from believing whatever they wish.

Science has benefited us in countless of ways; and I am sure that religion has benefited many spiritually. Just as science can build horrendous implements of war and destruction; so can religion wreak destruction through hate.

We can use both religion and science to benefit mankind. But! in order to do so we have to abide by the guidelines common to peaceful societies.

The belief that the Bible should be taken literally and nothing else should be above it is as dangerous as the belief in Mein Kampf or any dogmatic literal work.

Science knows no boundaries and is open to change and improvement. It is in all sense the only truly international language where irrespective of nationality, race, or creed; it gives the same answers to all.

After all it is science that has proved that all humans are related. That colour is nothing more than melanin acting as a protective filter for the skin and not some degrading aspect of of an inferior race.
It is science that has given us the intuition that crime is not necessarily based on evil but is the result of social shortcomings and or genetic mutations. That Epilepsy is not the result of demonic possession but an ailment of the brain. Science allows for people to forgive others due to more understanding and not to condemn them as sinners. Science tries to find the root of the problem and correct it.

To the creationists I say: If as you believe God gave you free will and a brain; then at least use it to better the lot of all and not as a tool to foment hate and or the restricting of progress.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This has nothing to do with Creation.

The Noah's Ark myth has nothing to do with Creationism, yet Creationists insist evolutionary theory deal with abiogenesis...

Double standards make baby Jesus cry.

 

[Blackrend]

That’s an easy one; if creationists relied on facts and science to fight their corner, they would lose every round. So the only line of defence they have is magical mystical biblical parodies.

I still demand an explanation! =p

Nice pic by the way... lulz.

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis 2 is not a repeat of Genesis 1 --- it is Adam's testimony of how he got married --- Verse 9 is simply parenthetical.

Where does the Bible say this?

Let me reiterate:
Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I'll take any questions you may have on the Creation, and try to answer them to the best of my ability. Keep in mind that the answers will be my opinion, and not necessarily the opinions expressed by the Christian community (Body of Christ) in general.
​

So why are are you so willing rely on unbiblical personal opinions to rearrange Genesis 2, while Genesis 1 is treated with absolute unquestioning literalism? Why not take 'Adam's testimony' in Gen 2 the actual chronology and rearrange Gen 1 to fit that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why doesn't it? Part of creationism is how the world today AS WE KNOW IT came to be, correct?

Incorrect.

And if it's not part of creation, why do Creationists insist on including Noah's Ark in their arguments against evolution and ambiogenesis?

Because Evolution and the Creation are two different things. Just like you don't mix Abiogenesis with Evolution, you shouldn't mix the Creation with Evolution.

It's okay to talk about Noah's Ark when discussing Evolution, but Noah's Ark has nothing to do with the Creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

That’s an easy one; if creationists relied on ... science to fight their corner, they would lose every round.

As they should.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Noah's Ark myth has nothing to do with Creationism, yet Creationists insist evolutionary theory deal with abiogenesis...

That's one of the first things I learned when I came here --- that evolutionists detached themselves from how life started by coming up with this Abiogenesis stuff.

Creationists, debating only Evolution, should not insist on making Evolutionists explain how life started.