The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

[Crusadar]

Vance said: Right, Lewis and Sanai both. On the point of death before the Fall, I find it difficult from Scripture to see how it *could* be physical death that Paul is referring to. As was pointed out, if Paul was referring to physical death, then Jesus' sacrifice has failed since we still physically die.

Then you must also find it difficult to understand that God does promise us that he will wipe away all our tears and that death shall be no more as this verse tells us:

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Re 21:4”

That is after all the single most important reason we all believe in God – in that he can deliver us from the body of our deaths. And what is it that we cry from? Physical death, or spiritual death? For does a man know when he is spiritually dead? No, only when he is physically dead and it is this death that he fears most – for the soul does not die, remember?

On the issue of God creating Man "in the beginning", even Genesis belies that if you want to read it literally, since Man was not created on the very first "yom". If it is true that he was not created in the VERY beginning, then that Scripture must mean something else.

It says man was created from the beginning of time, not the “very” beginning as in the first day. Scripture means what it says, otherwise why would Christ appeal to something that obviously was not to be believed? He could instead simply given a much more believable response, couldn’t he? And yet it was at man’s beginning that God instituted marriage, and so it is until this day despite man’s perversion of it - as he has with everything else.

 

[Vance]

Where does it say Man was created at the beginning "of time"?

And, if this IS what Jesus meant, are you saying that time started at some point *after* the creation process began? Are you saying that time started the moment Man was created? If not, then what exactly did Jesus mean by Man being created "in the beginning"?

As for the verse about death, he is speaking about once we get to heaven, we will have new bodies and these bodies will never physically die. The verse in Revelation is talking about a very specific time and place. The bodies we have will definitely die physically. But not all will die Spiritually, meaning they will not all be separated from God. Jesus came as a redemption for sin, and the acceptance of the gift assures that we will not be separated from communion with God (Spiritual Death). So, if the redemption from sin prevents spiritual death, but does not prevent physical death, then the death brought into the world by sin must have been spiritual, not physical.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Vance said: Right, Lewis and Sanai both. On the point of death before the Fall, I find it difficult from Scripture to see how it *could* be physical death that Paul is referring to. As was pointed out, if Paul was referring to physical death, then Jesus' sacrifice has failed since we still physically die.

Then you must also find it difficult to understand that God does promise us that he will wipe away all our tears and that death shall be no more as this verse tells us:

Revelation 21


The New Jerusalem

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

That is after all the single most important reason we all believe in God – in that he can deliver us from the body of our deaths. And what is it that we cry from? Physical death, or spiritual death? For does a man know when he is spiritually dead? No, only when he is physically dead and it is this death that he fears most – for the soul does not die, remember?

No, I don't find it terrably dificult, but you seem to... This is a scene from near the end of revalations where God returns to Earth and comforts those that have survived the tribulations, those who have not physicaly died... It is amazing how things can make sense when you look at it in context.

Did you actualy read the chapter and previous one before picking this example or just use a word search to fins a verse that you could pervert to make a point you wanted to make? To me it looks like you didn't bother reading it in context before posting, otherwise you would have caught the mistake you made.

On the issue of God creating Man "in the beginning", even Genesis belies that if you want to read it literally, since Man was not created on the very first "yom". If it is true that he was not created in the VERY beginning, then that Scripture must mean something else.

It says man was created from the beginning of time, not the “very” beginning as in the first day. Scripture means what it says, otherwise why would Christ appeal to something that obviously was not to be believed? He could instead simply given a much more believable response, couldn’t he? And yet it was at man’s beginning that God instituted marriage, and so it is until this day despite man’s perversion of it - as he has with everything else.

Then since "in the beginning", even in your interpretation is not an exact measurement of time then there is no issue with not being able to deal with evolution.

 

[Buck72]

And it is just as common for some creationists to attempt to support their position by stating emphatically that the Bible says something and that anyone who disagrees is at odds with the word of God--when the truth is that that is only one interpretation of the scripture in question (and very possibly a rather unlikely interpretation).

I'm wondering if/how any of the quotations of the myriad of biblical references in this thread - starting with post #1 - could have been construed as an unlikely interpretation.

We have major incompatible worldviews here that have to do with the origins of man. THIS IS NOT A SALVATION ISSUE. However, we would be irresponsible stewards of our faith in Christ to not challenge one another in that faith.

Having said that, which worldview within this thread gives greater glory to God:

1. The simplicity of the specified, biblical, 'ex nihilos' unmodified, six-day creation account

2. The overwhelming complexity of the unspecified, not-found-anywhere-in-scripture, billions of years theory that has more modifications than anyone could even count, to the point that no one even knows what the latest timeline really is.

I would argue that option #1 gives God greater glory.

Option #2 gives TIME the greater glory - why billions of years? That amount of time is what is really at stake with both the Bible student and the unbiased scientist (I know this one is a huge can of worms!.

If God is truth, as the Bible declares and I personally believe, then both the word of God and the world of God should be in harmony with each other and should not be contradictory.....

I absolutely agree Sinai, this is true. Where else do these views part company but for the origin(s) of "The Beginning"?

 

[Buck72]

If God used evolution to create life wouldn't that still be creation? And if it is creation wouldn't it begin somewhere?

God did not USE evolution. If He did, why would He have gone to the lengths in scripture to record His extraterrestrial message across space and time through 4,000 years of ceaseless efforts to wipe it out (and yet it somehow has prevailed) to tell us the SIX DAY account quoted in post #1. If I need a "guru" to explain that it was not SIX DAYS than our entire faith has just become a cult and not a relationship with a God that has communicated a message of love to the simple.

Evolution simply does not exist within scripture. I beg you to show me otherwise. I promise I will be open-minded and listen.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

God did not USE evolution. If He did, why would He have gone to the lengths in scripture to record His extraterrestrial message across space and time through 4,000 years of ceaseless efforts to wipe it out

What is the message? God did not write Genesis - He inspired the people who did to communicate His message. But God's concern was not to tell us how He created the universe, but rather that it was He who did it. He lets creation tell its own story for those who are interested - this is called science.

to tell us the SIX DAY account quoted in post #1. If I need a "guru" to explain that it was not SIX DAYS than our entire faith has just become a cult and not a relationship with a God that has communicated a message of love to the simple.

The Faith is not materially changed by whether the six days are literal or not.

Evolution simply does not exist within scripture.

Nor is any other scientific theory expounded. The Bible is quite happy to exist within a flat earth solid dome with stars embedded in it cosmology. It doesn't matter.

I beg you to show me otherwise. I promise I will be open-minded and listen.

'seasy. It's right between the verses on quantum mechanics and those on vector transformations - you know, the chapter after the one on the electron transfer chain.

 

[Vance]

I do not think your second option ascribes any less glory to God. God could have created every human that ever lived through a supernatural special creation which would attest to the glory of God in each and every instance. Instead, He chose to create a natural process (sexual reproduction and birth) by which humans come into existence. This process, as can be attested to by any who have been through it, is equally miraculous and awe-inspiring. Why did He choose the latter over the former? I am not sure, but He did.

Having created this incredibly complex and amazingly productive process of evolution is, to my thinking, every bit as amazing as if God just snapped His fingers. In fact, I think it ascribes somewhat less glory to God to assert that He created a universe, and Earth in particular, in six 24 hour days, but did so in a way that looks deceptively like it is billions of years old. One that *tests* billions of years old and in every particular leads everyone who approaches the study without a YEC bias to the conclusion that it IS old.

No, for me the YEC position adds no glorification to God beyond a creation over billions of years using the process of evolution, which to me is very awe-inspiring.

 

[Buck72]

Right, Lewis and Sanai both. On the point of death before the Fall, I find it difficult from Scripture to see how it *could* be physical death that Paul is referring to. As was pointed out, if Paul was referring to physical death, then Jesus' sacrifice has failed since we still physically die

This is a major theological crossroads for many in the faith. I'll do my best to answer simply since I usually make long posts!

The death is both physical and spiritual. Both kinds of death are referred in scripture as simply: death.

Hebrew: מוּת

mûth; mooth; A primitive root; to die (literally or figuratively); causatively to kill: - X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy (-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro [-mancer], X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in [no] wise.

Greek: θάνατος thanatos; than'-at-os
From G2348; (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively): - X deadly, (be . . .) death.

The word "death" was pulled from Strong's reference of Rom 5:12, and its parent source, Gen 2:17.

1Co 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

Of course we still die physical death, it is an obvious constant for all but Enoch, and Elijah. Christ died a physical death, and He broke the hold that death had on Him through the Resurrection. In turn we will also break death's hold in the Resurrection as well!

1Co 15:54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

1Co 15:55 "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?"

Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Q: Where do we go then for clarification of these things?

Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

These same words are those that I contest give explicit account for the SIX DAY creation in post #1.

 

[Buck72]

But you fail to acknowledge the dangers of how YEC'ism is often taught. I can tell you from personal experience that VERY OFTEN it is taught that if you believe in evolution or an old earth, you are not accepting the truth of God's Word. Thus, if you do truly believe in evolution or an old earth and can not accept that evolution is false and the earth is young, you might as well not believe in the Bible at all. I have personally seen many youth lose their Faith over this very point and directly because of this presentation. Some on this board have acknowledged that they came VERY close to losing their faith because they had been taught this "all or nothing" approach and were only kept from abandoning Christianity by finding out that you *could* believe in evolution and still be a Bible-believing, born-again, Spirit-filled Christian.

This is why I take this matter so seriously. I know that souls are being lost to the Kingdom because of the dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism. This is not insecurity, it is evangelism of the truest sort: preventing souls from being lost.

Vance, I do not contend with your faith, I contend with evolution. I dare to challenge your assertion to the literal Genesis account wreaking anyone's faith compared to the contrasting devastation wrought by the evolutionist dogma.

I am grateful that you guys (Theo-Evo) are seeking the working of God within the realm of evolution, in fact I am very pleased that ya'll are not following those that want nothing to do with God. They are my most virulent opponents and I will stand firm unto death that there IS a God - thankfully, that isn't an issue in this forum.

Evolution is relatively new compared to that of Creation. That is why Darwin gets so much credit as to the "Origin of Species" by the modern evolutionist band of believers with the perverted 'footed-fish' on the back of their car, purely for spite against the original christian 'fish'.

Since evolution is a relatively new theory, and is not addressed in scripture; nor is Karl's verses on modern sciences:

the verses on quantum mechanics and those on vector transformations - you know, the chapter after the one on the electron transfer chain

What IS addressed in scripture IS the CREATION. I am waiting for one of you to use scripture to convince us literal Bible-quoting YECs that perhaps there could be reason for accepting evolution. I haven't started the scientific arguments yet, but I will take them on next. troodon sent me a list in a previous thread and I will address them all, plus some of my own in a new thread coming soon, "YEC answers Evolution" - I'm certain it cause a stir, but that is certainly not my intent.

For now, more Bible verses!

Eph 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

1Ti 6:3-4 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

2Ti 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,

2Ti 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

*** 1:9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

 

[Buck72]

Nor is any other scientific theory expounded. The Bible is quite happy to exist within a flat earth solid dome with stars embedded in it cosmology. It doesn't matter.

The Bible told of a spherical earth long before "science" ever figured it out. Scientists angrily defended a flat earth prompting Columbus to prove them wrong - heaven knows the Bible wasn't about to convince them!

Isa 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

2Pe 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

Also consider the 8th Proverb: (regarding wisdom, a pseudonym for Christ?)

Pro 8:22 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.

Pro 8:23 "From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.

Pro 8:24 "When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water.

Pro 8:25 "Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth;

Pro 8:26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world.

Pro 8:27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,

Pro 8:28 When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed,

Pro 8:29 When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;

Pro 8:30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,

Pro 8:31 Rejoicing in the world, His earth, And having my delight in the sons of men.

Pro 8:32 "Now therefore, O sons, listen to me, For blessed are they who keep my ways.

Pro 8:33 "Heed instruction and be wise, And do not neglect it.

Pro 8:34 "Blessed is the man who listens to me, Watching daily at my gates, Waiting at my doorposts.

Pro 8:35 "For he who finds me finds life And obtains favor from the LORD.

Pro 8:36 "But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death."

 

[Vance]

Addressing a couple of issues raised.

First, on the death issue. Yes, physical death is conquered by the concept of eternal life, but we will of course all die physically. And yes, not every reference to death in Scripture is a spiritual death. The specific question is what type of death was instituted by the Fall. This is important for the issue origins solely because one of the problems that YEC's have with evolution and an old earth is that it means there was physical death before the Fall. Were it not for that, it would not be an issue. So we must look at which is more likely in that context. Here are the arguments for why it is most likely spiritual only:
1. God told Adam that if he eats fruit, he will surely die on that day. Well, he ate the fruit, so he died on that day. A literal reading. But we know that he did not die on that day physically, so he could only have died spiritually, by losing his communion with God. While some argue that the "process" of physical death began on that day, this is very simply NOT a literal reading of Scripture. If you are going to insist upon a literal reading, you have to believe that some type of death had to occur on the actual day Adam ate the fruit, and we know it was not physical.

2. If physical death was instituted for the first time by the sin of Adam, and Christ's sacrifice was a redemption for that sin, then his sacrifice would have done away with physical death altogether. To say otherwise is to say that redemption was not complete and immediate, and actually ineffective for the billions who have accepted that gift of redemption and THEN still suffered physical death. The point that this physical death is not the end and that those accepting the gift will live on with Christ is besides the point for this discussion, since we are discussing whether actual *physical* death was instituted at the Fall. What was instituted at the Fall is what was redeemed by the sacrifice.

3. Physical death has never been the end of existence. Even before Christ's sacrificial death, people did not cease to exist upon death. So, a redemption which allows for life beyond physical death is superfluous since all already had that. What is NOT superfluous would be determining WHERE you will spend that eternity beyond physical death. Will you spend it in communion with God (Spiritual Life) or will you spend it separated from God (Spiritual Death)? If Adam's sin caused Spiritual Death, loss of communion with God, then Christ's sacricifice allowed us come back into communion with God for now AND eternity. We don't have to wait for some future time to commune with God, we can do it right now by accepting Christ's redemptive gift.

4. While you can create a scheme of reading Genesis-Romans to somehow refer to BOTH physical and spiritual, this smacks of mere stubborn insistence on hanging on to the traditional reading of physical death. There is no logical or theological reason for doing so, since a reading of the two Scriptures as referring to solely spiritual death is internally consistent and and is not externally *inconsistent* with any other Scripture.

5. Lastly, the reading of Spiritual Death upon the Fall has the benefit of also being entirely consistent with God's other Word to us, His Creation itself.

Second, on the issue of showing Scripture that indicates evolution, you seem to be ignoring the point often raised to you that it is not likely that God would set out the details of how He created, any more than he would point out that he set up all these other natural laws. You say God *did* explain creation, but what was His purpose in telling us about this? Was it as a scientific treatise or was it a statement of His power and glory and His sole role in the Creation? And, of course, it has been pointed out to you that the verses which state "let the earth bring forth" and "let the sea bring forth" and even creating Man "from the earth" all could be poetically phrased references to evolutionary processes.

Using Geocentrism again: The Church, at one point, was convinced that the literal reading of Scripture required that the sun the stars revolve around a stationary earth, and condemned the concept of heliocentrism as contrary to a literal reading of Scripture. There were verses that implied geocentrism, there were no verses that implied heliocentrism. We now know that their literal interpretation was incorrect, and that heliocentrism is correct. And, yet, THERE ARE STILL NO VERSES IN SCRIPTURE WHICH INDICATE HELIOCENTRISM. Similarly, there are no verses that specifically indicate evolution.

 

[wblastyn]

The Bible told of a spherical earth long before "science" ever figured it out. Scientists angrily defended a flat earth prompting Columbus to prove them wrong - heaven knows the Bible wasn't about to convince them!

Isa 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...

Um, a circle is flat.

 

[Vance]

BTW, Buck, do you have some references to secular scientists actual arguing in favor of a flat earth until the time of Columbus?

This sounds like something Hovind would come up with. Pithy, plausible, but factually incorrect.

Secular science had determined the earth was a sphere LONG, LONG before Columbus. I would agree, though, that not all early Christian theologians believed that the earth was flat. Some did, and used Scripture to back it up, but I believe they were the minority.

 

[Buck72]

Geometrically-speaking, a circle is “flat”. This was understood to be ‘three-dimensionally round’ since we are simply NOT in a two-dimensional existence. For now, in my limited hotel-room resources, (I travel for a living) I have John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes to shed a little perspective on this verse:

Isa 40:22 - Sitteth - Far above this round earth, even in the highest heavens; from whence he looketh down upon the earth, where men appear to him like grasshoppers. As here we have the circle of the earth, so elsewhere we read of the circle of heaven, Job 22:14, and of the circle of the deep, or sea, Pro 8:27, because the form of the heaven, and earth and sea is circular. Spreadeth - For the benefit of the earth and of mankind, that all parts might partake of its comfortable influences.

The flat earth is a rabbit trail, although for your sakes I'm willing to follow it, however may I please point out to you gentlemen that I have produced volumes of scripture, and lengthy outpouring that have been sifted through to find the small bones of contention, in order to keep the wheels turning I suppose, notwithstanding the reams of great stuff the Word has to say that has been seemingly ignored?

I'm pouring it out here and I'm left to argue about exactly what "death" means. I feel like the prosecution in the Clinton trials. It's the 'forest for the trees' analogy...I'm still patiently waiting for scripture to turn off YEC and bring about evolution.

There is no "scheme". The only scheme apparent is evolution. Why does God need me to scheme on His behalf? If I've mis-quoted, please correct me with specifics.

I’ve addressed BOTH spiritual and physical death in detail so as to include both the original Hebrew and Greek definitions for the term "death" within the exact verses is question.

These rabbit trails are simply placed to distract the primary focus, much like the liberal demoncrats do on a daily basis to drag our beloved nation into 1,000 different directions except the right one.

The focus is: The Bible says: “SIX DAYS”

Exo 20:11 "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.

Here's a few articles on the flat earth business. I've been taught (most, I would argue have been taught) this flat earth/Columbus bit since 3rd grade. Turns out there is perhaps more to the story:

http://www.feltd.com/flatearth.html

http://www.arn.org/docs/hartwig/mh_flat.htm

http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/creation/astronomy/april2002.html

 

[Sinai]

which worldview within this thread gives greater glory to God:

1. The simplicity of the specified, biblical, 'ex nihilos' unmodified, six-day creation account

2. The overwhelming complexity of the unspecified, not-found-anywhere-in-scripture, billions of years theory that has more modifications than anyone could even count, to the point that no one even knows what the latest timeline really is.

I would argue that option #1 gives God greater glory.

And I would argue that the truth gives God greater glory. We of all people should not be afraid of the truth, for our God is "the truth"--which is one reason I posted the statement you quoted: "If God is truth, as the Bible declares and I personally believe, then both the word of God and the world of God should be in harmony with each other and should not be contradictory....."

Personally, I see no real conflict between the Hebrew wording of the first chapter of Genesis and the current scientific findings and discoveries. I still suggest that if you think that scripture and science seem to be contradicting each other, it is very likely that you either do not understand what science is actually presenting or that you do not fully understand what the Bible may be saying--or both. In other words, it may be time to check both the most credible scientific sources available, and to check what the actual Hebrew or Greek scriptures say--and what the range of meanings is for the words and phrases in question.

 

[Buck72]

And I would argue that the truth gives God greater glory. We of all people should not be afraid of the truth, for our God is "the truth"--which is one reason I posted the statement you quoted: "If God is truth, as the Bible declares and I personally believe, then both the word of God and the world of God should be in harmony with each other and should not be contradictory....."

Personally, I see no real conflict between the Hebrew wording of the first chapter of Genesis and the current scientific findings and discoveries. I still suggest that if you think that scripture and science seem to be contradicting each other, it is very likely that you either do not understand what science is actually presenting or that you do not fully understand what the Bible may be saying--or both. In other words, it may be time to check both the most credible scientific sources available, and to check what the actual Hebrew or Greek scriptures say--and what the range of meanings is for the words and phrases in question.

Sinai, we are speaking the same language on two differnt channels, thus not hearing each other for some reason. I agree that the creation and the word are in explicit harmony, God created all of the matter, physical laws that govern matter and the word which communicates His message to His creation, and details of that creation event. Where have I suggested that science is contradictory to God? I fear there is a subtle reversal of causality here that since I do not subscribe to evolution for what it EXCLUDES (the flood, the six day creation) as much as what it INCLUDES (mechanisms, means, ways, whopping timelines that invalidate the timelines and ancestry from Adam until Christ, unapologetic preferences for man's <perhaps flawed> explanation of things, even at the expense of superceding scripture), then somehow I am the one that is argumenative against what it true. Quite the contrary as I have been demonstrating by delving deeply into the word of truth. I have yet, I repeat for the 50th time, to have a theo-evo reply with scripture to defend their beliefs.

Now, evolution is relatively new. The Bible is old, and is time-proven. There is zero flaws within scripture despite what anyone may claim. The flaws come from our fragile understanding of what we think we know. I've argued the Bible is the ultimate source for knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. I tend to question science, as man has made great and noble efforts to explain it, than I would question the living word that came directly from our Almighty God.

The truth DOES give God the greater glory - ABSOLUTELY!

But why carve out the six-day creation, the flood, and the timelines from the Bible in exchange for new, supplementary material and argue that it is more true than the word?

Sinai, I know science. I have degrees in both physics and aerodynamics. I know what the scientists that write the articles in journals, and those that teach at universities believe and I know the ostracizing that non-evolution-believing scientists suffer from popular circles of "we all agree evolution is a fact" scientists. There are myriads of varying opinions, philosophies, perspectives, theories, hypotheses, and study that argue for and against about everything that can be argued. I wonder if there are any two evolutionists that emphatically agree on any certain explanation of evolution from its "genesis" to today. I doubt it. I've seen plenty to cause me to wonder where the evolution theory is going since it is modified again and again with each new find, study, or theory. I will further assert that the Bible will not be proven wrong by anyone, ever. In six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and rested on the seventh day (Ex 20:11), and the timeline (doing the math: the numbers are clearly given for this very purpose) which adds up to 1,948 years from Adam to the birth of Abraham, plus another 2,160 up until the birth of Christ = 4,108 years from Adam until Christ; or 6,078 years from 2003 since Adam was "born" on the sixth day of creation.

Now I will not contend that we can determine the exact moment in time of the Genesis, but billions of years?



We have not even approached the topics of Bible code - a much, much deeper realm than I've gotten into yet, but wow. There are some startling clues within the text! Scientific clues that define both Pi and the base of the Naperian logarithms (e) hidden within the actual text! Although these do not directly refute anything in this discussion per se, they offer an interesting scientific possibility of the methods used in creation. Is it a little on the edge? Of course, but it is pretty remarkable, and worth a look.

Check these out:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:1 &#1489;&#1512;&#1488;&#1513;&#1473;&#1497;&#1514; &#1489;&#1512;&#1488; &#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1514; &#1492;&#1513;&#1473;&#1502;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1488;&#1514; &#1492;&#1488;&#1512;&#1509;&#1475;

The number of the letters X the product of the letters
The number of words X the product of the words

= 3.1416 X 1017 the value of Pi to four decimal places.

Also,

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:1 &#8127;&#917;&#957; &#945;&#787;&#961;&#967;&#951;&#837;&#834; &#7974;&#957; &#959;&#788; &#923;&#959;&#769;&#947;&#959;&#962;, &#954;&#945;&#953;&#768; &#959;&#788; &#923;&#959;&#769;&#947;&#959;&#962; &#7974;&#957; &#960;&#961;&#959;&#768;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#768;&#957; &#920;&#949;&#959;&#769;&#957;, &#954;&#945;&#953;&#768; &#920;&#949;&#959;&#768;&#962; &#7974;&#957; &#959;&#788; &#923;&#959;&#769;&#947;&#959;&#962;.

The number of the letters X the product of the letters
The number of the words X the product of the words

= 2.7183 X 1065, the value of e - rather curious isn't it?

See more of this finding by Dr. Chuck Missler at:

http://www.khouse.org/

Other Sources:

http://www.netrover.com/~numbers/prophetic_calendar-bible-codes-Leson2b2b.htm

http://members.khouse.org/khouse/members/article.html?mv_arg=482

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/

 

[Vance]

Buck said:

"But why carve out the six-day creation, the flood, and the timelines from the Bible in exchange for new, supplementary material and argue that it is more true than the word?"

Of course no other theory is more true than the Word, but this begs the question of whether the Word absolutely states that very six-day creation and flood. But the answer to your question is simple: because the evidence of God's Creation itself is so overwhelming that these interpretations of Genesis are simply not true. So, some other interpretation is necessary.

You must answer this question: why should the Church have carved out the Geocentrist view of the universe which they believed was the plain reading of Scripture and theologically necessary for Christianity? Why let a secular scientific theory replace the current, established and traditional understanding of Scripture?

Because that secular scientific theory is almost assuredly true, which means that our traditional reading of Scripture is almost assuredly incorrect.

God is truth, we need not fear discovering the truth, even if it takes us WAY outside our comfort zones. God is good at taking us outside our comfort zones.

 

[Buck72]

Of course no other theory is more true than the Word, but this begs the question of whether the Word absolutely states that very six-day creation and flood. But the answer to your question is simple: because the evidence of God's Creation itself is so overwhelming that these interpretations of Genesis are simply not true. So, some other interpretation is necessary.

Vance, I must say that I enjoy your perspective, I know that you seek the truth as I, and I respect that, despite whether or not we agree!

I feel that I have exhausted myself here in proving that the word does state the six-day creation and the flood is over and over agin throughout scripture.

The overwhelming evidence you mention that ought constrain our interpretations of scripture seem to be through the relative feeble lens of man's understanding. And I'll concede that our understanding of scripture is EQUALLY feeble. However, which is more reliable? There is One who did not have a feeble, pea-brained way of understanding scripture as many in the church seem to have: Christ. He quoted Genesis numerous times, spoke of the Flood and compared it to end times:

Mat 24:37-39 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be

I can list out (if you wish) dozens of verses that account for the Flood. I need to start a new thread about the flood - I'm AMAZED, stunned, shocked, astounded, bewildered, perplexed, suprised, flabbergasted, dumbfounded, floored, floundered, stupified, staggered, stunned, and totally confused as to why...my dear brothers in the faith the Flood is dismissed so casually.

The greatest threat to evolutionistic integrity is uniformitarianism - the flood seems to really bother evolutionists, and I do not know why. It seems simple enough, especially to a believer that there was a flood. Many remarkable discoveries have given the flood greater credibility over the years, and have removed much of the fog of "millions of years". Perhaps there is a weakness to evolution that is taboo to consider? I pray that among you men of faith this is not the case.

Please bear with me while I support the Flood:

Gen 6:17 "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
Gen 7:12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

Gen 7:17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

Gen 7:18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.

Gen 7:19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. (not a local flood)

Gen 7:20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

Gen 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

> Smart God to keep the Ark from hitting bottom!

Gen 7:21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;

Gen 7:22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

Gen 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

Gen 7:24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Gen 8:2 Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;

Gen 8:3 and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.

Gen 8:4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.
Gen 8:5 The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

________________________________________________________________________________

Aside from the text - there are plenty more verses I'll be happy to share, but simply for verbosity sake I'll save them for another post, here's a few scientific points:

Sedimentary rock is formed in water. This is found all over the earth. Even the top of Mt Everest (29,000) feet is made of sedimentary rock and includes fossil sea life! Millions of petrified clams have been found with their shells closed, perhaps indicating a rapid burial? Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, oil, coal, and polystrate fossils are best explained by a flood.

Gen 10:25 tells us the continents were divided 100-300 years after the flood, allowing plenty of migration all over the world - a valid possibility.

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided

There is also enough water on the planet today to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth. Given modern erosion rates, this would have happened millions of years ago with a uniformitarianism viewpoint.
Psa 104:5[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Psa 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

 

[Vance]

Evolutionists aren't afraid of the flood at all, they are just tired of hearing grown adults go on about a proposition that is less credible scientifically than, well, anything you can think of. It really just could not have happened the way you think it happened. Go over to the Science forum and check out the numerous thread on "X falsifies a global flood" etc, where X is a number of different things. And even Scripturally, there is as much, if not more, reason to believe that a local rather than a global flood is being referred to. Check out my original post in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t52230

which is purely a Scriptural consideration. When you then add the slam dunk nature of the historical time frames, and then the equally clear evidence from geology, etc, it is simply a non-starter.

While I am only about 90% sure evolution is how God created diversity on this planet, I am 99.9% sure that the earth is vastly older than Creationists believe and that the flood described in Scripture had to be local.

As for Jesus and others referring to the flood, the reference could as easily be to a local flood as a worldwide flood. Also, you must remember (and this is something that most Creationists either don't grasp or don't want to hear) that in the ancient world, there was not a great distinguishing between their legends and their true history. I have a degree in history, focusing on ancient and early medieval, so I know a bit about this. Even when they knew that a story was not actually historically true, they would discuss it entirely as if it was. In fact, they really didn't even view history the same way we do. Their entire past had a mythical quality to them, and they simply didn't even think about such things the way we do. Today, we understand the difference between history and legend and think about them as two distinct things. Back then, they did not.

So, while I do think it was an historical event (albeit local), if it WAS an inspired morality tale from God to the writer(s) of Genesis, the people of the time, right up to the time of Jesus would not care one little whit whether it was true history or not. They would discuss it exactly the same either way. They would think of it the same way. So, Jesus would say EXACTLY what He said, EXACTLY as He said it, even if He *knew* it was not true history, but the equally real and impactful inspired legend. And of course He would know, being the inspirer and all.

And, getting back to the point of that flood thread, here I am. I do not think the flood was global and yet my faith is as strong as yours. I believe as much as you do that the Bible is the Holy Word of God, the foundation for Christian belief. I am a walking breathing witness for the fact that you can sincerely believe that there was no worldwide flood and have it make no difference at all to your faith in God or His Word. And, again, this is actually what most Christians believe (worldwide).

 

[Buck72]

Maybe I'm being too verbose in my scripture-filled posts. I'll strive to be concise for once:

The word says the flood covered the entire earth and that everything that could breathe died. It cannot get any plainer than that. If it was a fable, then the entire credibility of scripture could be construed a fable. May I entreat you to consider, may I beg you to reason that the first sin against God was a matter of questioning God's word of what "did He really mean?"

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" (That is NOT what God said)

Gen 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

Gen 3:3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

Gen 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."


Satan deceives by making God out to be a liar, or simply confused in His words (like Bush). Satan tried the same thing with Christ in Matt 4:6, again, bending the word of God in Psalm 91:12 by omitting the entire verse! Very subtle, yet Christ rebuked Him each time by quoting His own word which we today hold in our hand.

The word itself argues that it is whole:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Mat 24:35"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Luk 16:17"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.