The Seed

[Jerry N.]

I'm genuinely curious. I have no idea what percentage of Christians embrace the theory of evolution. I would guess its about the same as the christian divorce rate, which is approximately 50/50. And yet, the number of christians who agree with evolutionary cosmology is without a doubt significantly higher, probably well above 90%. Presuming that roughly 50% of christians disagree with evolutionary biology. How is it that so many more of them do not have the same issue with evolutionary cosmology. It seems to me a bit inconsistent.

If God were able to form man from the dust of the earth, and woman from a rib taken from his side, which is clearly what the bible teaches, and not through millions years of evolution, then how do those same christians so readily accept the idea that the observable cosmos could not have also been created in the exact way that scripture teaches?

Modern science tells us that the earth is a ball, spinning at roughly 1000 mph at the equator, while orbiting the sun at approximately 66.6 thousand mph, in a solar system traveling near the outer edge of a galaxy at approximately 500,000 mph, which itself is rocketing through an ever expanding infinite universe. All of this being the result of a massive explosion billions of years ago, where an inconceivable amount of condensed matter exploded into everything that now is, or what is known as the Big Bang.

Whether or not this is an accurate and factual account of our reality is not the point. But rather, if one does subscribe to this world view, then by default, the account of the creation of the sun, moon, stars and earth as recorded in Genesis must be dismissed completely out of hand. There is truly no other option available.

According to the Genesis record, earth and water existed prior to the formation of the sun, moon and stars.

The Spirit of God moved upon the face of formless earth and watery abyss on day one. This is the day that He spoke the light into existence and divided it from the darkness.

On the second day He created the firmament to divide the waters above from from the waters below.

It was not until the fourth day that he created the sun, moon and stars and placed them within the firmament.

God called the firmament heaven. We know because Paul told us, that there are multiple heavens, or at the very least that heaven is made of tiers.

The creation account recorded in Genesis is in complete contradiction to that set forth by evolutionary cosmology. And yet, it is evolutionary cosmology which supposes and proposes the ball earth, solar system, galaxies etc.

If one chooses to believe the accepted science, he must flatly reject the divinely inspired account provided by the greatest prophet who ever lived, with the exception of John the Baptist according to Christ.
There's no way around it.

So back to the question of the creationists among us. If one trusts the divinely inspired word of God concerning biblical creation, rejecting evolutionary biology according to the scriptures, then how can this same person reject the divinely inspired account of created cosmology according to those same scriptures? The very same scriptures being used to justify one argument, while denying the other.

If anyone could reasonably and rationally explain for me this glaring incongruity of thought, I'm all ears.

Genesis 1:2-19 (KJV) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I am a believing Christian and accept the Bible as true and inspired by God. However, one must consider that the Bible was written from the point of view of the human writer at the time and place it was written or first witnessed by a human being who later passed it down to later generations by oral tradition. The purpose of the creation account is to communicate God’s sovereignty over all that there is. Neither Moses nor Noah, who probably passed the story to his sons, would have understood the cosmos in the way we do, so rather than distract from God’s sovereignty and His relation to mankind, which is the purpose of the passage, the events were described in the contexts of the current model at the time. Anyway, one can look at the verses you listed and conclude that they neither support flat or global earth. You might also notice that atoms, bacteria, parasites, DNA, radiation, electricity and a host of other important parts of creation are not mentioned. It wasn’t meant as a science lesson but a theological lesson. Evolution is a different situation, and you can explore the many treads on this forum to see the wide range of views by Christians who have given their lives to Christ.

 

[Hentenza]

I'm genuinely curious. I have no idea what percentage of Christians embrace the theory of evolution. I would guess its about the same as the christian divorce rate, which is approximately 50/50. And yet, the number of christians who agree with evolutionary cosmology is without a doubt significantly higher, probably well above 90%. Presuming that roughly 50% of christians disagree with evolutionary biology. How is it that so many more of them do not have the same issue with evolutionary cosmology. It seems to me a bit inconsistent.

If God were able to form man from the dust of the earth, and woman from a rib taken from his side, which is clearly what the bible teaches, and not through millions years of evolution, then how do those same christians so readily accept the idea that the observable cosmos could not have also been created in the exact way that scripture teaches?

Modern science tells us that the earth is a ball, spinning at roughly 1000 mph at the equator, while orbiting the sun at approximately 66.6 thousand mph, in a solar system traveling near the outer edge of a galaxy at approximately 500,000 mph, which itself is rocketing through an ever expanding infinite universe. All of this being the result of a massive explosion billions of years ago, where an inconceivable amount of condensed matter exploded into everything that now is, or what is known as the Big Bang.

Whether or not this is an accurate and factual account of our reality is not the point. But rather, if one does subscribe to this world view, then by default, the account of the creation of the sun, moon, stars and earth as recorded in Genesis must be dismissed completely out of hand. There is truly no other option available.

According to the Genesis record, earth and water existed prior to the formation of the sun, moon and stars.

The Spirit of God moved upon the face of formless earth and watery abyss on day one. This is the day that He spoke the light into existence and divided it from the darkness.

On the second day He created the firmament to divide the waters above from from the waters below.

It was not until the fourth day that he created the sun, moon and stars and placed them within the firmament.

God called the firmament heaven. We know because Paul told us, that there are multiple heavens, or at the very least that heaven is made of tiers.

The creation account recorded in Genesis is in complete contradiction to that set forth by evolutionary cosmology. And yet, it is evolutionary cosmology which supposes and proposes the ball earth, solar system, galaxies etc.

If one chooses to believe the accepted science, he must flatly reject the divinely inspired account provided by the greatest prophet who ever lived, with the exception of John the Baptist according to Christ.
There's no way around it.

So back to the question of the creationists among us. If one trusts the divinely inspired word of God concerning biblical creation, rejecting evolutionary biology according to the scriptures, then how can this same person reject the divinely inspired account of created cosmology according to those same scriptures? The very same scriptures being used to justify one argument, while denying the other.

If anyone could reasonably and rationally explain for me this glaring incongruity of thought, I'm all ears.

Genesis 1:2-19 (KJV) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Hi Luke, the tension of YEC vs OEC root cause is how scripture is interpreted. The same can be said between the proponents of theistic evolution and those against any kind of evolution. This website used to have a forum for such discussions but it would devolve to flaming battles quite frequently so it was closed.

With that said I believe that God created everything and that God uses processes to further His glory. God is a necessary being because without Him nothing would exist and/or would continue to exist therefore God is the creator and the maintainer of creation.

I believe that science and theology can coexist as long as people understand that God is greater than us and His power and knowledge is infinite while ours is finite. First of all the Big Bang theory is a theory not a fact. Secondly if it is true then it was God’s mechanism to create. There are two primary theological schools of though regarding the length of a “day”. Some choose to believe that a day is a literal 24 hours while others choose to believe that a day is an epoch lasting millions of years. You and me are going to land in whatever camp we choose to believe. One is not any less Christian than the other. Neither one has any salvation implications because both understanding are for the glory of God. The reality is that one camp will deny the Christianity of the other which is contrary to scripture and a behavior that is condemned in the Bible, hence why the old forum was closed.

The same can be said about evolution. In order to make a decision for or against it one has to understand what each one actually teach. The theory of evolution does not teach abiogenesis just as the Bible does not teach mutations. The primordial soup theory is just that and one that I reject but change based on necessity for survival is happening as we speak so some forms of evolution are true. That is God’s mechanism to maintain His creation. So whatever you decide to believe is up to you but remember that there is no salvific consequences on believing either one.

Science can be a valuable tool for exploring and understanding God's creation. The study of the natural world can reveal the intricacy, beauty, and order that God has imbued in His creation. By studying the universe, we can gain a greater appreciation for the Creator and His works. However, science should be seen and used as a means to explore creation, not as an end in itself or as a replacement for divine revelation.

“The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭19‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Psalm 19:1-2 (NASB2020) - The heavens tell of the glory of Go | YouVersion

The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

bible.com

 

[Luke81718]

I am a believing Christian and accept the Bible as true and inspired by God. However, one must consider that the Bible was written from the point of view of the human writer at the time and place it was written or first witnessed by a human being who later passed it down to later generations by oral tradition. The purpose of the creation account is to communicate God’s sovereignty over all that there is. Neither Moses nor Noah, who probably passed the story to his sons, would have understood the cosmos in the way we do, so rather than distract from God’s sovereignty and His relation to mankind, which is the purpose of the passage, the events were described in the contexts of the current model at the time. Anyway, one can look at the verses you listed and conclude that they neither support flat or global earth. You might also notice that atoms, bacteria, parasites, DNA, radiation, electricity and a host of other important parts of creation are not mentioned. It wasn’t meant as a science lesson but a theological lesson. Evolution is a different situation, and you can explore the many treads on this forum to see the wide range of views by Christians who have given their lives to Christ.

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I am full aware that this passage of scripture is referring to prophetic utterances in regards to Christ, and particularly of the predictive variety.

However, this passage has also been used consistently throughout church history to attest to the divinely inspired nature of Gods Holy Word, and rightfully so.

Should we insist upon superimposing our own understanding and theoretical observations of natural events upon a particular section of the text when it seems clever to do so, then what bar is there against doing the same with the rest of scripture?

You claim to accept the bible as true. But then you make the opposing claim that it cannot be trusted to impart factual information concerning the events in question.

You speak of perspective and oral traditions passed down from generation to generation, but in the next sentence you say that the Genesis account of creation was written not to impart the actual truth of how things came into being, but to communicate the sovereignty of God.

Either the prophet was inspired, and provided a truthful and inspired accounting of events, or he was merely passing down secondhand information void of any special revelation. Which is it? It cannot be both.

Is God indeed sovereign? And therefore capable of revealing the truth of nature to His servant? Which is what sovereignty certainly implies. Or does He occasionally allow His prophets to speak merely from their own experience, knowing in His sovereignty that at some future date the message conveyed would be proven inaccurate and untrustworthy? Which is in fact your claim, whether you realize it or not.

Can the scriptures at this point indeed be true, as you profess to believe? Can statements be true on the one hand, while factually inaccurate on the other? They cannot. And if not, are we not ourselves now compelled to echo the words of Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?" And once this careless view of scripture has been adopted, what other pronouncements of holy writ are we willing to subject to our superior wisdom and scrutiny? The immaculate conception, the resurrection, the crossing of the Red Sea, Joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still? Which if this last event actually took place, clearly and rationally creates a whole other host of problems for anyone who believes the earth to be spinning at 1000 miles per hour. If God is able to impart over 300 prophetic utterances foretelling the coming of Christ, not to mention bringing the earth to a standstill without completely destroying it in the process, would He not also be able to impart to Moses an accurate accounting of His own creation?

You go on to speak of the "current model",
and atoms, bacteria, parasites, DNA and radiation. Was it not Moses who also gave us the dietary laws? How did such an unlearned man know which animals were clean and which ones, if eaten, would lead to parasitic infestation? Scripture also tells us that after the flood men's life spans would be drastically reduced, which we can now almost certainly attribute to an increase in solar radiation. David spoke of God knitting him together in the womb, a very basic but altogether accurate description of how DNA works to form a human being.

These are all excellent examples of God informing us through His word about the workings of nature. The wisdom and inspiration of scripture are on full display for all to see. We acknowledge as much, and cannot but marvel at the miraculous power and sovereignty of Almighty God. But for some odd reason, when that same God, by the same Spirit, and through the same holy prophet which He used to describe these other events, gives his accounting of the beginning of all things, we discount his words as secondhand knowledge, oral tradition, and for lack of a better word, fables.

We have a very clear choice before us. Accept the word of God at face value, as true, accurate, dependable, rooted and grounded in reality from the perspective of He Who Knows, or we can conveniently pick and choose those parts of scripture that suit our fancy depending upon whatever earthly wizardry we prefer to place our faith in at the moment.

My question, was how could a believer reject evolutionary biology and embrace evolutionary cosmology, while using the same text to arrive at completely divergent conclusions?

Apparently, I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[Luke81718]

Hi Luke, the tension of YEC vs OEC root cause is how scripture is interpreted. The same can be said between the proponents of theistic evolution and those against any kind of evolution. This website used to have a forum for such discussions but it would devolve to flaming battles quite frequently so it was closed.

With that said I believe that God created everything and that God uses processes to further His glory. God is a necessary being because without Him nothing would exist and/or would continue to exist therefore God is the creator and the maintainer of creation.

I believe that science and theology can coexist as long as people understand that God is greater than us and His power and knowledge is infinite while ours is finite. First of all the Big Bang theory is a theory not a fact. Secondly if it is true then it was God’s mechanism to create. There are two primary theological schools of though regarding the length of a “day”. Some choose to believe that a day is a literal 24 hours while others choose to believe that a day is an epoch lasting millions of years. You and me are going to land in whatever camp we choose to believe. One is not any less Christian than the other. Neither one has any salvation implications because both understanding are for the glory of God. The reality is that one camp will deny the Christianity of the other which is contrary to scripture and a behavior that is condemned in the Bible, hence why the old forum was closed.

The same can be said about evolution. In order to make a decision for or against it one has to understand what each one actually teach. The theory of evolution does not teach abiogenesis just as the Bible does not teach mutations. The primordial soup theory is just that and one that I reject but change based on necessity for survival is happening as we speak so some forms of evolution are true. That is God’s mechanism to maintain His creation. So whatever you decide to believe is up to you but remember that there is no salvific consequences on believing either one.

Science can be a valuable tool for exploring and understanding God's creation. The study of the natural world can reveal the intricacy, beauty, and order that God has imbued in His creation. By studying the universe, we can gain a greater appreciation for the Creator and His works. However, science should be seen and used as a means to explore creation, not as an end in itself or as a replacement for divine revelation.

“The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭19‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Psalm 19:1-2 (NASB2020) - The heavens tell of the glory of Go | YouVersion

The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

bible.com

Science can also be used as a tool for great deception and incomprehensible death and destruction.

Whether the issues we are discussing have any influence upon salvation, I will leave for others to decide.

As I said to another commented just a few moments ago.

My question, was how could a believer reject evolutionary biology and embrace evolutionary cosmology, while using the same text to arrive at completely divergent conclusions?

I appreciate your response. But I am still waiting for an answer.

If Satan is the God of this world.

2 Corinthians 4
3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

And if his only power is to deceive. Then we should be ever on our guard against such deception. And incredibly suspect of any claims which directly contradict scripture, as evolutionary biology and evolutionary cosmology clearly do.

We should also be aware that as the god of this world, Satan has in his service, all of those who do not serve Christ. Whether wittingly or unwittingly matters not at all.

When we surrender our reason to those who make extravagant claims without judging the fruit of those claims, we err greatly. The poisonous fruit of evolutionary biology and her evil twin evolutionary cosmology should be crystal clear to any spirit filled believer. So clear in fact, that even if they themselves insist on placing faith in said claims, at the very least they should refrain from disparaging those who hold to a different view.

The same standard also applies to those who reject the current evolutionary and cosmological models.
Right or wrong, love is the rule.
Or at least it should be.

 

[Jerry N.]

You claim to accept the bible as true. But then you make the opposing claim that it cannot be trusted to impart factual information concerning the events in question.

You are missing the point. What the Bible says is true for the point of view of the writer. God did not let them lie. However, a simple surface reading of the Bible is not sufficient for some passages. How do you deal with the fact that the resurrection narrative is different in the Gospels? The only logical answer is that each writer told the story from his point of view. Maybe Luke is from Mary's point of view.

 

[Luke81718]

You are missing the point. What the Bible says is true for the point of view of the writer. God did not let them lie. However, a simple surface reading of the Bible is not sufficient for some passages. How do you deal with the fact that the resurrection narrative is different in the Gospels? The only logical answer is that each writer told the story from his on view. Maybe Luke is from Mary's point of view.

Your point cannot be missed.
The bible does not give a true and accurate record of events.
Its all a matter of perspective.
In other words, Moses had his own truth, how modern.

In regards to the resurrection. While the narratives differ, they do not contradict.

 

[Jerry N.]

Your point cannot be missed.
The bible does not give a true and accurate record of events.
Its all a matter of perspective.
In other words, Moses had his own truth, how modern.

In regards to the resurrection. While the narratives differ, they do not contradict.

You are accusing me of what I did not say by reading into my words what is not there. There is only one truth, but witnesses to events see different things. God told Moses to write down the creation narrative though Moses’ limited understanding. In other places, God basically said, “Write this word for word.” I understand where you are coming from and appreciate your zeal, but I can see you haven’t understood. It is okay with me, but I’m not going to go in circles with you.

 

[Hentenza]

Science can also be used as a tool for great deception and incomprehensible death and destruction.

Only if people allow it. Religion has also been used as a tool for great deception and incomprehensible death and destruction.

Whether the issues we are discussing have any influence upon salvation, I will leave for others to decide.

Ok

As I said to another commented just a few moments ago.

My question, was how could a believer reject evolutionary biology and embrace evolutionary cosmology, while using the same text to arrive at completely divergent conclusions?

Because it depends on your interpretation. The Bible is not a science book but science does not necessarily contradict scripture. For example, the flat earth theme in this thread can only be arrived at from scripture if a person interprets certain verses literal when the hermeunetics clearly shows that they are not literal. The earth has been observed and explored from all angles and it is spherical not flat. When a person continues to push for what has already been fully proven that is not then nonsense follows and even evangelism suffers.

I appreciate your response. But I am still waiting for an answer.

Thanks.

If Satan is the God of this world.

Only if you let him. There are many professed Christians on both sides of this debate. One side is no more bring led by satan than the other.

2 Corinthians 4
3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

This is talking about unbelievers not about believers. You said that you would leave the issue if salvation to others then these verses do not apply to our discussion.

And if his only power is to deceive. Then we should be ever on our guard against such deception. And incredibly suspect of any claims which directly contradict scripture, as evolutionary biology and evolutionary cosmology clearly do.

Sure but we should never be blind by the obvious. Secondly how would you gauge if something contradicts scripture? Is your interpretation always correct or are you willing to accept correction?

We should also be aware that as the god of this world, Satan has in his service, all of those who do not serve Christ. Whether wittingly or unwittingly matters not at all.

When we surrender our reason to those who make extravagant claims without judging the fruit of those claims, we err greatly. The poisonous fruit of evolutionary biology and her evil twin evolutionary cosmology should be crystal clear to any spirit filled believer. So clear in fact, that even if they themselves insist on placing faith in said claims, at the very least they should refrain from disparaging those who hold to a different view.

You can believe as you will. I am not here to debate evolutionary biology or evolutionary cosmology but I am going to accept that which is fully proven. That the earth is a sphere has been fully proven. That there are billions of planets and stars has been fully proven. The man landed on the moon has been fully proven. One cannot stick one’s head in the sand for the sake of one’s interpretation because that can be just be satan wanting a person to believe nonsense.

The same standard also applies to those who reject the current evolutionary and cosmological models.
Right or wrong, love is the rule.
Or at least it should be.

Absolutely. Our God is a God of love.

 

[prodromos]

My question, was how could a believer reject evolutionary biology and embrace evolutionary cosmology, while using the same text to arrive at completely divergent conclusions?

It's a leading question which assumes the acceptance of evolutionary cosmology. You gave some percentages of how many Christians you assumed accept evolutionary cosmology but they were simply pulled out of thin air. The vast majority of Christians aren't the slightest bit interested in theories like the big bang or how NASA scientists believe the moon was formed.

 

[prodromos]

@Luke81718 do you believe the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun, or do you believe the earth is flat with the sun and moon circling above?

 

[Luke81718]

You are accusing me of what I did not say by reading into my words what is not there. There is only one truth, but witnesses to events see different things. God told Moses to write down the creation narrative though Moses’ limited understanding. In other places, God basically said, “Write this word for word.” I understand where you are coming from and appreciate your zeal, but I can see you haven’t understood. It is okay with me, but I’m not going to go in circles with you.

Is this something God personally revealed to you? You seem to have knowledge of Gods dealings with Moses that the rest of us are not privy too. Moses authored five books in total, are there any other of his narratives we should question? Maybe the Nile didn't actually turn to blood, chocolate milk perhaps?

Better yet, let's just toss the entire Pentateuch. Moses the holy prophet, excuse me, Moses the average guy of limited understanding, was not inspired, he was merely encouraged, a freelancer of sorts.

There is only one truth you say, just don't go looking for it in the first chapter of Genesis. If it cannot be found on every page of the bible, in every jot and tittle, then it cannot be found anywhere.

Christ is the living Word of God. Every page of scripture points to Him and speaks to His glory, particularly the account of His creation. The heavens declare His handiwork.

The written word of God is as perfect and infallible, trustworthy and reliable, as He who authored it. Moses did not write the book of Genesis, Christ did, Moses was merely His instrument. As were David and the Prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul and the rest of the Apostles.

You think my high opinion of scripture zealous, and indeed it is. I find your low opinion of scripture dangerous and reprehensible.

 

[Luke81718]

It's a leading question which assumes the acceptance of evolutionary cosmology. You gave some percentages of how many Christians you assumed accept evolutionary cosmology but they were simply pulled out of thin air. The vast majority of Christians aren't the slightest bit interested in theories like the big bang or how NASA scientists believe the moon was formed.

If one believes they live on a spinning ball rocketing through space, by default, they are in agreement with evolutionary cosmology. Whether they have given any thought to it or not is beside the point, though far from irrelevant. Either the scriptures are accurate, and the sun and moon and stars were created on the fourth day, or the evolutionists are correct and everything that is, came into existence in one explosive moment, evolving into our known cosmos over billions of years.

We have a choice between the inspired word of God, or science so called.

The majority of Christians...

 

[Jerry N.]

Is this something God personally revealed to you? You seem to have knowledge of Gods dealings with Moses that the rest of us are not privy too. Moses authored five books in total, are there any other of his narratives we should question? Maybe the Nile didn't actually turn to blood, chocolate milk perhaps?

Better yet, let's just toss the entire Pentateuch. Moses the holy prophet, excuse me, Moses the average guy of limited understanding, was not inspired, he was merely encouraged, a freelancer of sorts.

There is only one truth you say, just don't go looking for it in the first chapter of Genesis. If it cannot be found on every page of the bible, in every jot and tittle, then it cannot be found anywhere.

Christ is the living Word of God. Every page of scripture points to Him and speaks to His glory, particularly the account of His creation. The heavens declare His handiwork.

The written word of God is as perfect and infallible, trustworthy and reliable, as He who authored it. Moses did not write the book of Genesis, Christ did, Moses was merely His instrument. As were David and the Prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul and the rest of the Apostles.

You think my high opinion of scripture zealous, and indeed it is. I find your low opinion of scripture dangerous and reprehensible.

I’m sorry you think I have a low option of Scripture, but I do have a limited knowledge of hermeneutics and have studied the Bible for many years. Personally, I think of Moses as the most important prophet of the Old Testament. I pray you see the Bible as the interaction of God and man in a way that makes it richer and more relevant to your life. You are judging me in ways you have no right to do.

 

[prodromos]

If one believes they live on a spinning ball rocketing through space, by default, they are in agreement with evolutionary cosmology.

Not remotely true.

Whether they have given any thought to it or not is beside the point, though far from irrelevant. Either the scriptures are accurate, and the sun and moon and stars were created on the fourth day, or the evolutionists are correct and everything that is, came into existence in one explosive moment, evolving into our known cosmos over billions of years.

False dichotomy. What we observe is not contrary to Scripture, only your hyper literal interpretation of it.

We have a choice between the inspired word of God, or science so called.

The majority of Christians...

We can watch the sun move across the sky while maintaining exactly the same size and shape. We can watch the sun slowly rise above and slowly set below the horizon. Both those observations of God's creation are impossible on the flat earth model put forward by your ilk.

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun, or do you believe the earth is flat with the sun and moon circling above?

 

[Luke81718]

I’m sorry you think I have a low option of Scripture, but I do have a limited knowledge of hermeneutics and have studied the Bible for many years. Personally, I think of Moses as the most important prophet of the Old Testament. I pray you see the Bible as the interaction of God and man in a way that makes it richer and more relevant to your life. You are judging me in ways you have no right to do.

I have not only the right but obligation, to stand in defense of the inerrancy of scripture. I do not judge you, your own words have done that.

Apart from those several doctrines which comprise the core of our faith in Christ, His divine nature, perfect fulfillment of the law and the prophets, substitutionary death and complete atonement, His eternal High Priesthood and eventual glorious return, regardless of the timing, there is only one other doctrine upon which we are compelled to agree. That would be the supernaturally inspired origin of the Holy Scriptures as delivered to the prophets in the original tongues. The Divine authorship and infallibility of Gods Holy Word cannot be questioned.

It can be wrestled with, interpreted, distilled, and debated ad infinitum ad nauseum as the case may often be. But we have no right or authority to impose upon the text anything other than that which has been clearly stated. The Word of God once written, ceases to be the perspective of any one individual, but has become wholly divine, fully inspired, inerrant, infallible, and beyond disputation.

To view scripture in any other way opens the door to every manner of damnable heresy, and closes the door on any hope of divine wisdom, revelation, or understanding. His law, His statutes, His testimonies, His judgments, His precepts, and His commandments are pure and holy and plainly stated. To suggest that any Holy prophet ever penned a single word which did not come directly from the throne with accuracy and precision is foolishness, and contrary to the very nature of God as He has revealed Himself to be, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and immutable.

 

[prodromos]

The Word of God once written, ceases to be the perspective of any one individual, but has become wholly divine, fully inspired, inerrant, infallible, and beyond disputation.

You have left the reservation.
I also note your reluctance to answer a simple question. Perhaps because you know how indefensible your position is. I had a couple of follow-up questions depending on your answer but if you've read the threads you already know what you will be asked and like every other flat earther you will go silent.

 

[Luke81718]

You have left the reservation.
I also note your reluctance to answer a simple question. Perhaps because you know how indefensible your position is. I had a couple of follow-up questions depending on your answer but if you've read the threads you already know what you will be asked and like every other flat earther you will go silent.

I'm not even slightly interested in being interrogated by someone who holds the word of God in such low esteem. What purpose would it serve?

Moses, Gods chosen prophet to deliver His people Israel, trusted to shepherd them in the wilderness, trusted to impart Gods laws, trusted with prophetic utterances foretelling the coming of Christ, was in your estimation, somehow unworthy and incapable of providing for us an accurate depiction of the events of creation.

According to you he was not writing inspired literature, but merely passing down an inherited and wildly inaccurate description of events.

If you, being a christian, are unwilling to discuss the Genesis narrative as inspired and infallible, we have no common ground from which to build a rapport.

You want me to answer questions. I have no problem whatsoever answering all of your questions to the best of my ability. But you have made it quite clear that you view my position with disdain, and the word of God with similar disregard.

The word of God is an inspired, reliable, accurate, truthful and trustworthy record, every book, every chapter, every line, or not at all. You have your chosen narrative, you reject the scriptures that disagree with your narrative. End of discussion.

 

[prodromos]

I'm not even slightly interested in being interrogated by someone who holds the word of God in such low esteem. What purpose would it serve?

Moses, Gods chosen prophet to deliver His people Israel, trusted to shepherd them in the wilderness, trusted to impart Gods laws, trusted with prophetic utterances foretelling the coming of Christ, was in your estimation, somehow unworthy and incapable of providing for us an accurate depiction of the events of creation.

According to you he was not writing inspired literature, but merely passing down an inherited and wildly inaccurate description of events.

If you, being a christian, are unwilling to discuss the Genesis narrative as inspired and infallible, we have no common ground from which to build a rapport.

You want me to answer questions. I have no problem whatsoever answering all of your questions to the best of my ability. But you have made it quite clear that you view my position with disdain, and the word of God with similar disregard.

The word of God is an inspired, reliable, accurate, truthful and trustworthy record, every book, every chapter, every line, or not at all. You have your chosen narrative, you reject the scriptures that disagree with your narrative. End of discussion.

I recommend you start a thread in the relevant subforum if you want to argue something Scripture never claims for itself, and stick to the topic of this thread. I also suggest you not put words in my mouth that I have not said such as "Moses was not writing inspired literature". That is akin to flaming and is against the rules of this forum.

You still haven't answered my question from post #770.

 

[Luke81718]

I recommend you start a thread in the relevant subforum if you want to argue something Scripture never claims for itself, and stick to the topic of this thread. I also suggest you not put words in my mouth that I have not said such as "Moses was not writing inspired literature". That is akin to flaming and is against the rules of this forum.

You still haven't answered my question from post #770.

I had considered offering an apology, as I had you confused with another poster when I made my reply. But then I went back and read a few of your contributions to the thread. You clearly hold the word of God in no higher esteem than Jerry.

I will answer your question in post #770
I believe in the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I believe in the Gospel. I believe that Christ is the Living Word of God. And I believe His written word to be pure, divine, divinely inspired, holy, accurate, inerrant, infallible and truthful.

Beyond this, I have observations and informed opinions, but very few of what you might describe as beliefs. Beliefs by their nature, put an end to debate. When faith is placed in anything outside of the Word of God, written or incarnate, confusion and everlasting ignorance are certain to follow.

Is the earth a sphere? I have seen no reliable evidence to suggest that it is. To embrace such a preposterous idea would require that I first abandon my senses, which many in this thread have clearly done, moreover, that I place my trust in men and institutions which have proven themselves hostile to the Creator and which stand in direct contradiction to His word.

In contrast, I could provide many valid reasons for why I lean towards the earth as existing on what is most likely an infinite plane, that it is has a foundation, is fixed, immoveable, unique, and enclosed.

Now allow me to ask you a few questions?

Can the word of God be trusted?
Was the earth mentioned before the creation narrative began?
Was not the Spirit of God moving upon the waters at that time?
On what day did God divide the light from the darkness?
On what day were the sun, moon and stars created?
Where did God say through His servant Moses that He placed the sun, moon and stars?

 

[Jerry N.]

Is this something God personally revealed to you? You seem to have knowledge of Gods dealings with Moses that the rest of us are not privy too. Moses authored five books in total, are there any other of his narratives we should question? Maybe the Nile didn't actually turn to blood, chocolate milk perhaps?

Better yet, let's just toss the entire Pentateuch. Moses the holy prophet, excuse me, Moses the average guy of limited understanding, was not inspired, he was merely encouraged, a freelancer of sorts.

There is only one truth you say, just don't go looking for it in the first chapter of Genesis. If it cannot be found on every page of the bible, in every jot and tittle, then it cannot be found anywhere.

Christ is the living Word of God. Every page of scripture points to Him and speaks to His glory, particularly the account of His creation. The heavens declare His handiwork.

The written word of God is as perfect and infallible, trustworthy and reliable, as He who authored it. Moses did not write the book of Genesis, Christ did, Moses was merely His instrument. As were David and the Prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul and the rest of the Apostles.

You think my high opinion of scripture zealous, and indeed it is. I find your low opinion of scripture dangerous and reprehensible.

I’ll ignore your insults. Let’s assume your ultra-literal interpretations of Scriptures are correct. Psalm 18 describes God’s intervention in David’s fight against his enemies. Which battle described in the book of Samuel did

7 “The earth trembled and quaked,

and the foundations of the mountains shook;

they trembled because he was angry.

8

Smoke rose from his nostrils;

consuming fire came from his mouth,

burning coals blazed out of it.

9

He parted the heavens and came down;

dark clouds were under his feet.

10

He mounted the cherubim and flew;

he soared on the wings of the wind.

11

He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him—

the dark rain clouds of the sky.

12

Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced,

with hailstones and bolts of lightning.

13

The Lord thundered from heaven;

the voice of the Most High resounded.[d]

14

He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy,

with great bolts of lightning he routed them.

15

The valleys of the sea were exposed

and the foundations of the earth laid bare

at your rebuke, Lord,

at the blast of breath from your nostrils,” literally take place?