The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

[Ark Guy]

Back to the Good Samaritan. If that story would be taken literally, how would you ever be able to use it as a metaphor for everyday life?

Think about it.

Why wouldn't you?

There is no reason to think that the story was a parable.

 

[Ark Guy]

Lets put it this way Bear...if your eye lusting was going to prevent you from gaining eternal life..then the literal is the best method to bring about your repentance.

Would you rather lose your sight or salvation?

 

[Ark Guy]

In other words Bear, That passage contains strong language, used to emphasize the compassion......Sin is so dangerous, because it leads to eternal condemnation, that it would be better to lose hands or eyes temporarily than to lose life eternally.
ref ryrie

My suggestion is that you study that passage a bit more.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Did you ever read the 10 commandments...it says it there. Go check it out.

It says the earth was created in 6 days in the 10 commandments? That's nearly as faulty as your geneology, which somehow ignored the book of Matthew.

 

[Bushido216]

Ark Guy,

Oh.

In that case I wouldn't take it literally. Our body parts aren't autonomous from the rest of the brain, the brain controls our body.

So if we sin, we ought to cut out our brains, but that'd be suicide, which is against the Bible.

So I guess we're in a Catch22.

Or maybe [Jesus] meant that whatever impulses cause us to sin should be stemmed.

 

[Buck72]

Yes, but they did not actually know microbes existed. So if they didn't have the knowledge of our basic biological science how could they have understood evolution. People today don't even understand evolution.

God knew they existed. He gave them procedure 3,000 years before science knew they existed.

People today do not understand evolution because they are expected to grasp that a cosmic burp puked out a perfectly balanced interdependent cosmos of such imperceptible detail that apart from its origin, man has enough challenge just looking at its very form.

BTW - How does theistic evolution differ from secular evolution? Does the presence of God fill the platform that secular evolutionists can't explain? I'd be onboard with evolution if it made any biblical sense. But it doesn't make sense anymore than my ancestors were apes. If Adam was an ape - I would concede. God made a MAN...in His own image no less! Bobo has always been a monkey.

You could spend a lifetime studying a DNA strand, a paramecium, the digestive system and how the toxic fluids in the body are carefully separated so as not to poison the system, the eye and how magnificently it functions to translate an image to a functioning brain. Our existence was no accident, nor were there any intermediate species between fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals. Genetic codes and chromosones are some of the most complex pieces of matter, no one in their right mind could imagine them just "showing up" in the dirt over millions of years. God made them all in six literal days. The Bible says that. That is my entire point. This, being a Christian forum is composed of Christians, so as Christians we believe God and His word. I quote scripture to back up my positions for the sake of christian debate. If we do not believe the word of God we are not Christians:

Joh 4:48 So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe."

Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Joh 5:38 "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

Joh 5:44 How can you believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that [comes] from God only?

Joh 5:46-47 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

Joh 8:46 "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.

Joh 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Rom 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

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.

2Th 2:11-12 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

 

[Bushido216]

Empty rhetoric.

If you go by your "if it's not in the Bible, it doesn't exist", theory, then evolutionsts could say "if our theory doesn't mention God, he doesn't exist".

But we don't.

We simply look at evolution as a method for God's working.

And you said that God provided man with processes. What processes? Cite scripture please.

 

[Marvel]

I don't know if anyone else has stated this or not, but when the Bible was translated from English into Hebrew, the Hebrew word for "days" can also mean "ages"..meaning a million years.

However, I don't think that it took God that long. God is God. He can do anything in an instant.

 

[Buck72]

Buck72, there is no mention of semiconductor theory in the Bible either. But yet here we are typing on computers that run because of semiconductor theory, should we walk away from the computer because the basics that allow it to operate are not mentioned in the Bible?

What about germ theory? should we never see a doctor since it is not mentioned in the Bible?

Lewis, you miss the point I'm trying to spell out here, but perhaps I could do a better job answering your question...please let me know if I do not.

There is no mention of many things in the Bible. The last book was written about 90 AD. Superconductors were pretty far off, as were airplanes, toaster ovens, and Cheetos. God has blessed man with a fabulous capacity to reflect His own creative intuition, we are made in His image after all.

Gen 11:6 The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

The absence of superconductors, germ theory (I addressed this earlier to wblastyn re: Leviticus and hygenic procedure 3,000 years before secular medicine figured out to wash in between operations) does not lend a boost to evolution BECAUSE the Bible DOES address the Creation very specifically. My opening statement in this thread was substantiated by excessive repetition of the six day event - to include the Hebrew definition of the word: "Day".

יוםyôm; 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)

Given that the Creation is clearly spelled out, and the absence of support for evolution is evident there is no basis scripturally to draw an evolutionary conclusion.

Why would the Lord contradict a concise definition of the creation, throughout the scriptures simply by leaving it out for the assumption that man's wisdom (of the REAL way we got here) would eventually eclipse the need for the word of God and usher in our ultimate independence from Him?

I'm still in wonder why theo-evos dismiss the Bible. Guys it is the foundation of our faith! That is not something to exchange for popular science - remember 500 years ago science still thought the earth was flat (though the Bible contended otherwise 2,500 years earlier!). 500 years is recent history for the LORD.

 

[TheBear]

My suggestion is that you study that passage a bit more.

Thanks for the suggestion, Ark Guy. I will continue to do so, as I have been studying God's word for almost 30 years now.


My point is, in any passage of scripture, once you start to further qualify, to expound, to say something along the lines of, "It says this, but it really means that.", or anything other than what it literally says, you have just stepped into the world of non-literal interpretation. No if's, and's or but's.

 

[Buck72]

Empty rhetoric.

If you go by your "if it's not in the Bible, it doesn't exist", theory, then evolutionsts could say "if our theory doesn't mention God, he doesn't exist".

I have already addressed this; ad nauseum.

I also have been quoting scripture like mad...you have answered me by calling me "nuts", "Orwellian", and using "empty rhetoric", not to mention the strawman conspiracy. I'm just quoting the Bible bro.

You have to be willing to measure your position against the Word if you're a Christian, brother. That is my simple, singular objective. If you want to believe in evolution, that is your decision, but please do not try to justify eliminating scripture to support your argument. I have said the same thing over and again: Scripture is the foundation of our faith, for in it God has chosen to reveal Himself, His nature and His relationship with man.

I didn't write the Bible - I am compelled to believe it because that is the standard of Christianity, and it has stood the test of time again, and again.

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

We simply look at evolution as a method for God's working.

The Bible clearly says that the method for Creation was the WORD. John 1 explains this method in its entirety, absolutely in harmony with Gen 1 to the astounding point that the 'Word was God and became flesh'.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.... Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. Joh 1:11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of 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.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

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.
Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of

Isa 66:2 "For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD. "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

And you said that God provided man with processes. What processes? Cite scripture please.

I have referred to the Mosaic Law outlined in the Book of Leviticus that gave specific procedure to washing after contact with the sick and dead; the "unclean". Microbial infections, and communicable disease were not as clearly understood as they are today, but the Hebrews knew that by following the cleansing instructions of the Law they would counter the spreading of germs. I've already stated that medical science didn't figure that one out for nearly 3,000 years, which is why there were so many deaths in hospitals in the mid-1800's. The washing of the hands and clothes under "running water": Leviticus 15:13. Doctors up until the 1800's used stagnant basins which became fouled with blood and all sorts of who-knows-what. See the reference in Encycolpedia Brittanica under: Dr Ignaz Semmelweis, Vienna, 1845

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The literalists are outnumbered three to one on this forum. Probably more like 30 to one in the general population.

 

[Vance]

Buck, not a single Scripture you cited in your last post precludes evolution as being the *method* by which He did the creating.

I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is wholly true. I believe the earth is billions of years old. I believe that God's Word is the foundation of our Faith. I believe that God used evolution as part of His creative process. I believe in miracles. I believe the flood was local, not global. I believe that God could have created everything by a blink of his eye, but He didn't. None of these are inconsistent to me in the least.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Okay, do the ancient Hebrews understood the importance of personal hygiene and incorporated it into thier religion.

And THAT is why Genesis should be taken literally??????????

 

[Bushido216]

I have already addressed this; ad nauseum.

I also have been quoting scripture like mad...you have answered me by calling me "nuts", "Orwellian", and using "empty rhetoric", not to mention the strawman conspiracy. I'm just quoting the Bible bro.

Because your scripture has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Let's put it like this. The Bible may say that Genesis is correct, but it doesn't make it literally correct. A deist approach could very easily be correct. That is, quite frankly, my belief. God created the natural laws, and set them forth in motion. Perhaps he even made sure that we would be created. That, however, does not exclude evolution.

 

[Crusadar]

Buck72 said: I'm still in wonder why theo-evos dismiss the Bible.

That's because:

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is forever praised. Amen." Romans 1:21-25

 

[Bushido216]

No.

It's because Genesis says that God created Adam and Eve, who had Cain and Abel. Abel was killed by Cain. Cain then had children with his wife.

Okay, am I the only who sees something wrong with that?

 

[Vance]

Fairly presumptuous of you to proclaim that all theistic evolutionists fall under the description of this verse. To my thinking it can apply equally to individual Creationists who put their own prideful agendas ahead of the Message of God's Redemption. They have made idols of their own ability to know God's Word and interpret it. They have, like Job, presumed too far into assumption of the nature of God.

Other's, like Hovind, have become so enamored with "pleasing men" (as you quote from Galations) that he will say ANYTHING that his given audience (the Creationist congregations) wants to hear (and that will sell more books and tapes).

 

[Crusadar]

No.

It's because Genesis says that God created Adam and Eve, who had Cain and Abel. Abel was killed by Cain. Cain then had children with his wife.

Okay, am I the only who sees something wrong with that?

Can a God fearing, bible believing, spiritually dogmatic, young earth creationist jump in or is this discussion private?

There is nothing wrong with what you see, for there is no mention of other children born of Adam and Eve other than Cain and Able and yet what did Cain fear of after he had slain his brother? He feared being slain by others for what he had done. I wonder what or who he feared? Perhaps other men?

Although scripture does not say specifically anything about Adam and Eve's other children there is no reason not to assume that they would not of had other children after Cain and Able as Genesis 5:4 tells us: "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"

And since humans can breed only with humans, it is safe to assume that Cain's wife was one of his sisters - even if he was much older (after all they did live to be hundreds of years old. And no it would not be incest as it was not until the time of Moses when God ordered that close relations could no longer marry.

 

[Crusadar]

Other's, like Hovind, have become so enamored with "pleasing men" (as you quote from Galations) that he will say ANYTHING that his given audience (the Creationist congregations) wants to hear (and that will sell more books and tapes).

What we know of God comes from scripture, not other men's fanciful imaginations whether it be creationism or evolution. Very presumptous indeed I would say that you would use Dr. Dino as a representative and a spokesman for all creationist - forgetting that foremost he represents himself.