The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

TheBear · Nov 21, 2003

Buck72 said:
Have you ever seen a compass? North, South, East, West.

Feed some more.

North, South, East and West are directions, not corners. But, evn if I agree with your analogy, one more time, you have to go outside what was literally written. Don't you?

Here's another example....

Joshua 10:13

So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Does the earth remain stationary while the sun and moon revolve around the earth?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Nov 21, 2003

Buck - The six days are not one of the "basics" - the basics are listed in the creeds. Find me the six days there.

You are making up your own list of basics. We have no reason to accept your list.

Your aspersions that non-six dayers are not really Christians is insulting, disgraceful, and also against the rules of the board. I expect you will apologise to Chi, and all the other theistic evolutionists here, or I will report your posts to the moderators. I'm sick of the arrogance of the fundamentalist.

Sinai · Nov 21, 2003

Buck72 said:
Again, may I define "yom":

יום

yôm

Agreed! It does have many definitions and could POSSIBLY mean "period of time".

Thank you. We are at least agreed on that point.

But the context does not support that possibility

That is your interpretation.

The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means mixed-up, stirred together, disorderlywhich tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means discernible, able to be distinguished, orderlywhich tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

You argue that the context not only favors your interpretation, but requires that it be the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, I think that the context argues against a normal 24-hour day. The sun is not made (or the sun did not become visible from the earth) until the fourth yom, and it is not certain that the earth had been made until the third yom. Thus, several yoms had passed before sunlight from our sun could have struck our planet, which would indicate that the scriptures are telling us something other than your interpretation....

The vital point of faith is to believe the Word. If the word doesn't mean what it says it means then what foundation do we have?

Oh, I believe the Bible. I'm just not sure that your interpretation of the Bible is necessarily infallible. I fully support your right to interpret the scriptures for yourself and to determine for yourself the most likely meaning of any particular scripture. But I reserve that same right for myself and others.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Nov 21, 2003

Incidently - is anyone else amused by the juxtaposition of this:

Oh, by the way - before you go on in your arrogant insolence and should suddenly find yourself before the THRONE OF GOD, please pay respect to the caution that Christ gives here:
Mat 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

in the same post as:

Sir Newton did more for science believing in Creation than any of these modern bed-wetting half-wits that espouse evolution in a mindless, mantra-like fashion. You have chosen your side...now you live with it.
A Christian huh? Why? Why do you call yourself a Christian? You have not a single clue about the things that you revile yet you claim to be a member of the faith? No wonder the faith is so impotent in our country today - again Satan's laughter is deafening.

Chi_Cygni · Nov 21, 2003

Buck72 said:
MEMORADUM FOR RECORD:

We have had a major challenge to the integrity of God's word, and a little uprising against the host of this thread because of holding to the scripture as being infallible. That is a common in this forum where evolution is more important than the Word of God. Rather than meander back to the YEC corner...I choose to hold my ground...since that "ground" is Christ Himself, I won't be budged anytime soon.

1Sa 17:2 And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and pitched by the valley of Elah, and set the battle in array against the Philistines.
1Sa 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but [there was] no sword in the hand of David.

AND

2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob (different battle, different place) with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite (different guy), slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite (different guy), the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

Looks like two completely separate eventsthe diligent student finds the answer, the scoffer finds an excuse. God wins.
Your question is an incomplete sentenceplease rephrase in English.
A careful reading of the two chapters will show the solution for each of the supposed contradictions.

Explanation of supposed contradiction a:

Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.

Gen. 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden

The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food."

Explanation of supposed contradiction b:

The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.

Explanation of supposed contradiction c:

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

Too many what? Please, name some...okay name ONE.

Ah...a favorite of many Bible haters. Adam lived to be 930you can have lots of kids in that time. No law yet about marrying sisters, nor any genetic problems since the gene pool is pretty pure at this point. Mustve married his sister(s).

(According to Chi, we can only presume)

Nope, it really happened. It is just too big a pill to swallow for evolutionists since it takes the billion-year process down to a few minutes. Study up on Mt St Helen for a geophyical lesson in apparant vs. actual.

Actually our lineage goes back to Adam/EveNoah (and his brothers) take the credit for the repopulation after the Flood. It is also absolutely possible that eight people could populate the earth to present day levels in 4,000-ish years. Think quadratic multiples.

Okay NAME SOME! You said hundreds of inconsistencies, so far I count EIGHT.

Repeating yourself will not count for extra.

.

Does the Bible say: One BC? (Nice use of the modern, pagan BCEcant have Christ in history anymore can we?)

.

Who are these academic historians? Historians rewrite history all the time. There are historians that believe Christ had a wife or wivesoops, guess theyre WRONG arent they? Are the ten commandments "false"? Did God not write "six days" on the tablets in Exo. 20:11 to commerate the Creation? Did the Hebrews flee Egypt? Dude...do your homework before you believe that kind of trash.

Nowhere are the hundreds you promised?

I apologize for my terse tone in these past few posts, but I am getting weary of the Bible-bashing going on in these forumsany student of the word can find the truths as self-evident. I never even knew of a contradiction about who killed Goliath until I looked up verses pertaining to Goliath. After careful study I found that it was two different locations, men, and Goliaths (one was the brother).

I suppose it is easier for some to scoff and make excuses why they cannot stay faithful.

PleaseI beg you people, just submit to Christ, stop fighting with people that have submitted and are holding fast to the truth of the Word.

Doesnt the Church have work to do in this world? Shouldnt we be about our Masters business of winning souls? How do you win souls if you cannot even believe the basics like SIX DAYS?

No one could spend the time necessary to list the hundreds of inconsistencies. You yorurself have just needed to add to scripture interpretations that are not acccepted by many Christians.

The value of Pi explanation I hear is a pathetic explanation of the inner rim of a bowl being 3 times the diameter.

All I can say is that - most scientists probably don't bed wet, Newton was a great physicsist/mathematician but he had the limited knowledge of 400 hundred years ago.

I find it funny (and this is going to be elitist) but you are criticising modern science when almost undoubtedly you yourself have little to no scientific knowledge. You wouldn't be able to pick up a science text and parse it. There is a reason we spend 10 years in school and time after that researching. And the fact is most people out there are incapable of doing the work even if they tried. The average layman out there usually cannot handle a simple quadratic, no matter how much you drill it into them. The problem with explaining many of these scientific concepts in these discussions on here is that most (not all) of the people are incapable of handling them, PERIOD. You obviously fit that category.

You have swallowed the Genesis accounts (note the plural, because they contradict) hook, line and sinker. AND you limited scientific knowledge means you have no **** filter in place.

8 people repopulated after the flood? LOL

There was no worldwide flood.

The entire geological community on this planet is probably some 50,000-100,000 people, all scientifically far more educated than you and you shall struggle to find 100 of them who believe in a Noachian deluge.

And they are all wrong. LOL LOL

Risen Tree · Nov 22, 2003

What an informative and hilarious thread this is.

Katmando · Nov 22, 2003

TheBear said:
Hmmmm.....

Matthew 5:27-30

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Is this to be taken literally?

Should we take this one literal?

John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[1] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Can we pick and choose?

Chi_Cygni · Nov 23, 2003

If you don't pick and choose you are in for a heck of a balancing act of faith and logic.

Buck72 · Nov 23, 2003

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Incidently - is anyone else amused by the juxtaposition of this:

in the same post as:

I'll admit to being irritated, Buck72 isn't perfect, nor do I claim to be.

The WORD OF GOD is perfect and my zeal is to Him and for Him and His INFALLIBLE word. Taking pokes at Bible believers because they are Bible believers may be "amusing" to you, but not to Christ. My point is that we need to EXERCISE CAUTION when bulldozing the scriptures to make way for an extra-biblical analyses. But since I seek to live according to the same word that I preach, I will confess to being annoyed and thus lessening the faith by my attitude. I apologize.

Buck72 · Nov 23, 2003

Sinai said:
That is your interpretation

.

That is not Buck72's interpretation that is what the word says right off the page...verbatim.

Many point out that the word for "day" is yom , and is translated to 54 other words; however, 1181 of 1480 occurrences it is "day," and when used with a number it is always a literal day. But the real problem isn't the account in Genesis. It is in Exodus. In the middle of the Ten Commandments, the Creator Himself wrote it with His own finger in stone!
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11

It is undeniable that God intended us to understand that it was, indeed, six literal days. So how do we deal with the common understanding that "billions of years" was involved? How do we deal with the astronomical distances of millions of "light years" between the galaxies of the universe? Can anyone familiar with the discoveries of modern science take the Genesis account seriously?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20031101-492.html

The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

That is not what it says, God even clarifies that fact again at Sinai in His own handwriting - it must have been important enough to Him to write it out in stone with His finger.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:
1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means mixed-up, stirred together, disorderlywhich tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means discernible, able to be distinguished, orderlywhich tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

I really hate to pick apart your statement, but I notice a trend. "It can be used", "it can also mean". There are many meaning for particular words, each of them can be argued to mean what they do not mean. Remember the Clinto trials? There we were witness to the ultimate absurdity at questioning the meaning of the word "is" - yet he did it with a straight face in a Federal Court...unbelievable. Anyway, I digress. The words must be taken into context in order to be understood. I stated them in their respective context, way, way back earlier in this thread.

I do agree that they have many meanings, that is not a concession to embrace evolution, it is merely an acceptance of fact. But the context of the words have to be given their due regard if we are to understand scripture.

I do not care what "most christians", or "most historians" or "many theologians" believe. There are christians that think having a gay Bishop is scripturally sound, there are historians that obfuscate fact for political reasons, and there are theologians that believe that Christ was just some Jew that had a wife, told a few good stories, and then unfortuantely got mixed up in politics and was executed. All of these are falsehoods, yet people believe them, that does not make them correct.

You argue that the context not only favors your interpretation, but requires that it be the only possible interpretation.

How many versions of the truth are there? If one is correct, then everything is incorrect. A partial, or incomplete truth is a lie. God deals in absolutes. He is absolutely correct, we are absolutely wrong. There is only one interpretation of truth...several interpretations means someone is wrong. That is a simple fact taught in philophophy 101.

On the other hand, I think that the context argues against a normal 24-hour day. The sun is not made (or the sun did not become visible from the earth) until the fourth yom, and it is not certain that the earth had been made until the third yom. Thus, several yoms had passed before sunlight from our sun could have struck our planet, which would indicate that the scriptures are telling us something other than your interpretation....

Brother, you can THINK anything you want - God love you for that. But the text does not support billions of years, never has, never will.

The first thing God did was to turn the lights on! You cannot work in the dark can you? What does the text say?

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

Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Oh, I believe the Bible. I'm just not sure that your interpretation of the Bible is necessarily infallible.

My interpretation requires no stuntwork or acrobatics to contrive to my presuppositions. I build my worldview according to scripture, despite what I think. I think that R-rated movies are cool, but the word of God tells me otherwise...

Phi 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

Therefore, I am not in obedience when I watch movies that glorify casual sex and violence.

I fully support your right to interpret the scriptures for yourself and to determine for yourself the most likely meaning of any particular scripture. But I reserve that same right for myself and others.

As do I brother, but my contention is that someone is wrong. There are not multiple truths that counter one another, there is not a cornacopia of doctrine by which we can pick and choose what little bits and parts are for us and which little bits and parts are not. Doing that is why we have A GLOBAL MESS OF RELIGION that flies in the face of what Christ stands for.

If I know the truth, as a Bible-believing, born-again, saint...firmly rooted in the WORD OF GOD, that needs no elected committee to interpret it, why would I not then challenge them that have gone after another "truth"?

Pro 24:11 Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.

Buck72 · Nov 28, 2003

Chi_Cygni said:
Buck72,

there are not PLENTY of scientists who argue that. In fact almost ZERO.

A few people, usually well out of the loop - or not even scientists at all.

Oh yeah, well who are these guys?

Louis Agassiz

(1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology.

Charles Babbage 

(1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science.

Francis Bacon 

(1561-1626): scientific method of research.

Robert Boyle 

(1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics.

Sir David Brewster 

(1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope.

Georges Cuvier 

(1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology.

Sir Humphry Davy 

(1778-1829): thermokinetics.

Jean Henri Fabre 

(1823-1915): entomology of living insects.

Michael Faraday 

(1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory.

Sir John A. Fleming 

(1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve.

Joseph Henry 

(1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer.

Sir William Herschel 

(1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.

James Joule 

(1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics.

Lord William Kelvin 

(1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable.

Johannes Kepler 

(1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.

Carolus Linnaeus 

(1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.

Joseph Lister 

(1827-1912): antiseptic surgery.

Matthew Maury 

(1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography.

James C. Maxwell 

(1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics.

Gregor Mendel 

(1822-1884): genetics.

Samuel F.B. Morse 

(1791-1872): telegraph.

Isaac Newton 

(1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes.

Blaise Pascal 

(1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.

Louise Pasteur 

(1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization.

Sir William Ramsey 

(1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry.

John Ray 

(1827-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.

John Rayleigh 

(1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis.

Bernhard Riemann 

(1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry.

Sir James Simpson 

(1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology.

Sir George Stockes

(1819-1903): fluid mechanics.

Rudolph Virchow 

(1821-1902): pathology.

Buck72 · Nov 28, 2003

To follow up, here's a bunch of amazing "scientists" that help start the modern evolutionary ideas:

18th AND 19th CENTURY EVOLUTIONISTS

And now we will view the armchair philosophers. Hardly one of them ever set foot in field research or entered the door of a science laboratory, yet they founded the modern theory of evolution:

*Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was a do-nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.

*Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) was a dissolute philosopher who, unable to improve on the work of Linnaeus, spent his time criticizing him. He theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun, which became our planet. As with the other philosophers, he presented no evidence in support of his theories.

*Jean-Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, with his concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics," which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809, he published a book, Philosophie zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches, and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. If you pull hard on your feet, you can increase their length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so, you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. This is science?

*Lamarcks other erroneous contribution to evolution was the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the conjecture that all earlier ages on earth were exactly as they are today, calm and peaceful with no worldwide Flood or other great catastrophes.

*Robert Chambers (1802-1883) was a spiritualist who regularly communicated with spirits. As a result of his contacts, he wrote the first popular evolution book in all of Britain. Called Vestiges of CreationVestiges of Creation (1844), it was printed 15 years before *Charles Darwins book, Origin of the Species.

*Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Like *Charles Darwin, Lyell inherited great wealth and was able to spend his time theorizing. Lyell published his Principles of GeologyPrinciples of Geology in 1830-1833, and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata,even though 20th-century discoveries in radiodating, radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory.

In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to misstate the facts. He learned that Niagara Falls had eroded a seven-mile [11 km] channel from Queenston, Ontario, and that it was eroding at about 3 feet [1 m] a year. So Lyell conveniently changed that to one foot [.3 m] a year, which meant that the falls had been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell had not told the truth. Three-foot erosion a year, at its present rate of flow, would only take us back 7000 to 9000 years,and it would be expected that, just after the Flood, the flow would, for a time, have greatly increased the erosion rate. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin, and urged him to write his book, Origin of the Species.

*Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which *Darwin published. *Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate PaperTernate Paper, which *Darwin, with the help of two friends (*Charles Lyell and *Joseph Hooker), pirated and published under his own name. *Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty-ridden theorist. In 1980, *Arnold C. Brackman, in his book, A Delicate Arrangement A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallaces material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society, in London, while Wallaces was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book.

In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism. This was Wallaces theory: Species have changed in the past, by which one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today. That is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet it has no more evidence supporting the theory than Wallace had in 1858 when he devised the theory while in a fever.

In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea, "survival of the fittest," as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is reasoning in a circle. The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it.

In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his Origin of the Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that "survival of the fittest" was the more accurate. In a still later book

(Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.

*Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in the bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.

But an influential relative got him a position as unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to devise evil teachings, that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which have annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as *Sigmund Freud and *Adolph Hitler.

***************************************************************

This is what I'm talking about when I repeat myself about the dangers of adopting anti-Biblical, anti-Science, anti-Reason regarding evolution and likewise dismissing the truth of the Bible.

Again, God wins...and aren't you glad!!

Buck72 · Nov 29, 2003

One more:

Can anyone name ONE benefit that evolution theory has brought to science?

Buck72 · Dec 19, 2003

Hey...where'd all the discussion go?

ALL4J3SUS · Dec 19, 2003

Buck72 said:
I haven't figured out how to quote text with the author's name in it yet, but I'll answer your questions:

Bushido, Satan had a fabulous argument for Eve to convince her that God was holding back some earthly source of blessing from her and caused her to doubt His word:

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'?"
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."
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Satan challenged Jesus in the wilderness in Matthew 4. Jesus responed each time with: "It is written". We're talking the LORD here, not using new words, but quoting the scriptures? The word has power! In fact the word is the source of all power! God SPOKE the universe and all matter into existence. Pretty solid words I would say - enough to gamble that they are correct?

I'd be careful with anything, or anyone that challenges the validity of God's word. It is the foundation of our faith. The word created all things that exist, and became flesh (Psalm 33:6, John 1:1-14) the word is living and active (Hebrews 4:12), God sets his word above His own name:

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Bear, non-literalists delight over this one. It is like a trusty old "gotcha" to the literalists, but it is a thin one. Now I do not claim to be a theological expert, just a Christian man that fears God and believes in His Word. Here's my perspective:

Christ is saying that it is the heart of the matter that brings the guilt of sin. The act is only subsequent to the heart's commission of the actual sin. Therefore if my wife has a friend that is a scorching hottie and I imagine her in any other way but that which is honoring to God, to treat her in my heart as a sister, a fellow heir in Christ, than I have sinned and could be found as an adulterer. I've been guilty of that as has every man in this forum!

Now, my guilt of the sin did not come with it the "benefit" (I'm using darkened language here) of getting to score with this woman; I simply coveted her in my heart. Likewise my eye that offended me by staring at her in a lustful manner may only need to be denied the optical satisfaction of indulging in her blossoming curvature, and averted elsewhere. However, if the eye sins you badly enough - perhaps He is being literal! He does say that it is better to enter Heaven with one eye, a true statement, than to be cast into hell 'intact' (paraphrase).

Bottom Line: Do whatever it takes to break sin's grasp. I had a problem with alcohol, following the old "moderation" key to drinking (as a believer). The way for me to counter that sin in my life was to cut it off. I can never touch a drink again if I wish to stay clean in that area. For another, moderation works - for me it does not, although I would enjoy drinking, it became so sinful to me that I HAD to cut it out, thus fulfilling Christ's challenge literally enough.

wblastyn - the Hebrews were the most advanced in many areas of medicine and understanding of microbial infections that even European doctors were up until the mid-1800's. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis in Austria, 1845 conducted a study on why so many women were dying in hospitals after giving birth. His conclusions were based on the poor hygiene of the doctors, who would wash the blood off their hands in a stagnant bowl and proceed to the next patient. The Hebrews undertsood microbial contamination even though they perhaps couldn't describe them like we can since they had no microscopes, but what they did have was the Word of God detailing hygenic procedure: Lev 15:13.

Even in America 120 years ago modern medical science failed to comprehend how important the blood was to sustaining life. The Hebrews knew that over 3,000 years earlier. Had the doctors that bled people with supposedly "bad humors" (anyone seen that SNL skit "Medieval Barber" with Steve Martin?) understood that the "life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).

Leviticus 13 outlines further procedure to handle the sick and the dead, certainly to avoid microbial infections, and contaminants. Had these procedures been observed by the 14th century scientists, the Black Death could have only taken the lives of a few. But they made the flawed assumption that the air had "bad spirits". Ouch.

Arthur, I quoted (ad nauseum) the account of Genesis 1 in my first post. Here is further evidence and I'll even explain the Hebrew vernacular, if I may to demonstrate this fact:

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exo 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exo 31:17 It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day [is] the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work [therein]: it [is] the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. (Symbolic to the Judaic faith, previously demonstrated by our Creator in the six-day creation)

The Hebrew word for "Day" is:

יום
yôm

yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

The whole point here is for those of you that willingly disregard the Bible in exchange for someone else's explanation of things that does not fit within the scripture. That is simply an apostate way of reasoning. And I would be doing all of you a gross disservice by not pointing out this method is contrary to God's word.

Col 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,

Col 2:7 having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

May God be glorified. (John 12:28)

Amen, brother!

I also found this in an Answers in Genesis magazine:

Six Days

Exodus 20:11 says, '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....'
From this verse, it seems clear that God created all things in just six normal-length days, doesn't it? And yet, there are so many who say that God created them over millions of years, or that He used the process of evolution to bring about the universe we see today.

So, why do we believe that, God created in six normal-length days? To understand the answer to this, we need to learn some Hebrew- the language Moses used to compile the book of Genesis, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is important that we understand what Moses originally wrote, because those are the words God inspired.

The Hebrew word for 'day' is 'yom'. This word can have many meanings- a period of daylight, time, a specific point in time, a year, or a period of 24 hours. Yom is the word used in Genesis 1 when God describes what He created on each day.

So, how do we know which definition of Moses meant in genesis 1? The meaning depends on the context- the words surrounding yom. When the phrase 'evening and morning' or a number is used with yom, throughout the Old Testament, it refers to a period of 24 hours- a normal-length day, not
'time' in general, or a 'year', or 'millions of years'.

Both 'evening and morning' and a number are used with yom in Genesis 1, so we know it refers to a day of regular length. It is as if God wanted to remove any doubt, so He defined the word yom all six times He used it.

Because of the words of Scripture, we can be confident that God didn't take millions of years, or used evolution, but created the universe in six real days, and rested on the seventh.

So How old is the Earth?
By carefully studying the genealogies given i the Bible (see Genesis 5 and 11, for example) and a few other carefully chosen Bible dates, we discover that the universe is around 6,000 years old, not 'billions of years'!

ALL4J3SUS · Dec 19, 2003

Chi_Cygni said:
OK - it's official - you are a loon.

Only a fool wraps his entire life on having the Bible be 100% correct. Maybe it's 10% correct or 80% or 1% or 98% but it sure as heck isn't 100%.

And you are the one adopting a 'I'M WRIGHT, YOUR'E WRONG' posture.

I'm just pointing out that scinetific facts directly contradict scripture. PERIOD. Scripture is ergo not 100% accurate. LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!

Isaac Newton was a creationist. Pretty much everyone was 400 years ago. They had no knowledge of things we now know to be true.

I am a Christian but my faith doesn't need the buttress of a MAN WRITTEN collection of Jewish Myth, fables and lunatic prophecy. That isn't all of the Bible but it is a good chunk.

Inconsistencies of the BIble:

Mmmm let me see - well posted on here recently I have seen

Who killed Goliath?
Value of Pi?
Order of Creation in Genesis?
Too many to mention in the Gospel accounts

Old chestnuts like where did Cain's wife come from?

Not inconsistencies but flat out falsehoods:

Noah's flood
Only Noah and his family are genetically responsible for all of us
Numerous historical inaccuracies
Creation account of Genesis
Herod being alive when Jesus was born if you believe birth at 1 BCE.
Exodus considered false by academic historians for the most part.

and on and on and on...................

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. 17 It is Gods way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves 21 or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who moved the prophets to speak from God.

ALL4J3SUS · Dec 19, 2003

Buck72 said:
Congratulations Chi! You've broken the record for most amusing post I've seen yet! You're obviously joking...no one can really be that lost and make it home at the end of the day.

But, in case you really believe this nonsense, I'll answer your questions, I've been more than accomodating.

Wow...official? And who would the officiating officer be? You?

People called Christ a loon, Paul too, in fact, most all of the prophets and apostles were ridiculed, beaten, and murdered for their faith. If being called a loon is a way of identifying with Christ, (a servant is no greater than his Master (John 13:16) thankyou for the blessing!

Oh, by the way - before you go on in your arrogant insolence and should suddenly find yourself before the THRONE OF GOD, please pay respect to the caution that Christ gives here:

Mat 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

It would do you well to pray through this, since your such a strong christian, that way you won't have to worry about eating your own words.

Wrong again:

Pro 13:13 The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.
Pro 16:20 He who gives attention to the word will find good, And blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
Psa 18:30 As for God, His way is blameless; The word of the LORD is tried; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.
Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.
Psa 112:1 Praise the LORD! How blessed is the man who fears the LORD, Who greatly delights in His commandments.
Isa 5:24 Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble And dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; For they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.
Eze 12:28 "Therefore say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed,"'" declares the Lord GOD.
Deu 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deu 17:19 "It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes,
Deu 28:58 "If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law which are written in this book, to fear this honored and awesome name, the LORD your God,
Deu 28:59 then the LORD will bring extraordinary plagues on you and your descendants, even severe and lasting plagues, and miserable and chronic sicknesses.
Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"
Luk 11:28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."
1Th 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
2Ti 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
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.
1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
2Pe 3:5-7 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, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
1Jo 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Ecc 12:13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

Says "Chi"? Are you now the consultant to the ALMIGHTY about what is and isn't correct? Please, enlighten us Chi....we're floundering in the dark without your wonderous abilities of discernment.

Buck is not right. God's word is right. Buck believes God's word and walks accordingly as best as he can. Buck is not perfect, in fact far from it. He is cleansed in the Blood, and contends for his faith among a host of supposed believers that argue the Bible is wrong and Buck is a loon for believing it is not wrong. I'm sorry....you're point was?

You know, most believers have an internal alarm called a conscience that alerts them to matters contradicting scripture. You, however like to use puncuation to express your point...I prefer to use scripture. And I'll live quite comfortably knowing that I am secure - where are you Chi? Out railing against christians because they believe the entire Bible? Is that a new fad in Christianity? I's a popular one in this forum now isn't it?

Okay, God's word is now outdated. Throw out the Bibles because we have a new faith called: Evolution. Yea! No more Bible. Satan must be laughing his rosy cheeks off.

Sir Newton did more for science believing in Creation than any of these modern bed-wetting half-wits that espouse evolution in a mindless, mantra-like fashion. You have chosen your side...now you live with it.

A Christian huh? Why? Why do you call yourself a Christian? You have not a single clue about the things that you revile yet you claim to be a member of the faith? No wonder the faith is so impotent in our country today - again Satan's laughter is deafening.
Also, tell me about this marvelous faith you have and how it compares to that which Christ commends. Paul writes that faith comes from hearing the Word of God: Take a tour through Hebrews 11, and then get back to me about your faith. I'm serious. I'd like to hear your take on Hebrews 11 and what faith really is.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Heb 11:1-3 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. 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.

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

Please ponder this one also:

Pro 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.

Amen to you too! Thank God for you!

ikester7579 · Dec 20, 2003

wblastyn said:
The days are literal within the story, but the story itself is not literal.

I have yet to see someone prove that with 100% fact. Can you?

Konnie · Jan 25, 2004

s3ph · Jan 26, 2004

If you can prove it then fire away I'd love to hear your explanation.

The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

Do you believe the Genesis account literally?

Yes

No

I'm not sure

NON-WOKED

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

previously Rising Tree

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

The Watchman

The Watchman

The Watchman

The Watchman

The Watchman

The Watchman

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Bound For Promised Land

The harsh truth.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency