The Stumbling Block

[Fineous_Reese]

I can't figure a single reason for you to state that this was a favorite verse of atheists unless you meant to provide an excellent example of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

actually i mentioned it because it's sad that both they and others like to quote it trying to say God is evil as well as good. more than sad even, calling God evil is rather blasphemous. realizing He uses calamity to bring judgement is quite different however.

YEC makes God ethically evil by fooling everyone to believe in an old earth contrary to what HE says according to the YECs.

great and noteworthy historians used to claim that King David was a mythical legendary figure that was most likely a composite of other kings...until archaeologists found evidence otherwise. i can not at this time explain away your footprints and cracks but i still don't have a problem standing by the word of the omniscient Creator when the creations want to say things are different.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

You seem to overlook the simple fact that the animals were told to reproduce BEFORE the fall.

see note two above

 

[Marshall Janzen]

yep, i realized that last night when i was re-reading gen 1 but didn't get to come on here and edit.

Okay, so since your objection to all kinds of death before the Fall has been found contradictory to Scripture, do you now accept that there was death before the Fall?

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Okay, so since your objection to all kinds of death before the Fall has been found contradictory to Scripture, do you now accept that there was death before the Fall?

nope

 

[SBG]

If I found it, yes. It would make me famous and rich. But, I know of no evidence which contradicts evolution. I know much evidence which contradicts YEC/global flood ideas. Would you ever present any evidence which contradicts a global flood or anti-evolutionary paradigm?

I used to believe in evolution. I thought it was the best answer science has to offer today.

As I studied God's Word more indepth, in the original languages and such, I became convinced that God created in six days, and man is a special creation, not an by-product of evolution. I never looked into yec science, never really had the interest. Honestly, I still don't. I like science, I like it a lot, but concerning origins, I don't think *any* science is going to be able to explain what God did and how He did it. The Bible covers that.

So with that being said, if I found verses that I felt supported evolution or a local flood, I would be bring them up. I desire to be in correct doctrine, and God corrects me daily on many things, leading me and teaching me. And if that correct doctrine is evolution, then I desire to be taken to that understanding. But I was originally with that belief and I felt God taking me through His Word teaching me that He created in six days.

I have no objective of being a yec, I don't even know if I am really one or not, I just seem to fit there. I don't really have any claim to how old the earth is. This is due to the fact that in Genesis 1:2 a verb can be used to indicate a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, hence the gap theory. This is based on the hebrew language. This could be true or not. Also, sin has corrupted the earth, God cursed the earth after the fall, so the earth could be young and appear old because of sin, not because of God making it so to confuse man.

One thing we must be aware of, is someone tries to make such a claim. They take the fault off man and shift it to God. I will explain; people say God made the earth look old even though it is young. This is blaming God for what man has done. Man sinned (the fall) and God punished man accordingly to what man did. Because of man, God cursed the ground. Because of man, sin entered the world. Because of man, death entered the world.

These things that happened, were an indirect result of Satan's doing. Satan tempted Eve, who tempted Adam, who then both sinned against God. Satan was the seed planter, man made it grow. Because of the seed planted, and man's rebellion, sin and death became apart of this world. This is what Satan wanted, hence Satans work.

Christians today, will say God originally created death, disease, destruction, pain, and sorrow. But this was Satans doing, by tempting man, thus man sinning. Blaspheming God by attributing the work of Satan to God, is extremely damaging to Christianity, and to the Christian/non-Christian who does it.

One who teaches this, is a false teacher and a blasphemer.

It is the YEC paradigm which places God in the position of having lied. That is the theological problem with YEC. Everything we see must be a mirage. The distance to the stars must be a mirage for example.

YEC doesn't place God in the position of Him lying. It is others who come and say man is right or God is a liar. It is simply pride that says this about God. We have too much pride in this world. Too much pride in our own intelligence, thinking we understand everything we see. We just might not understand everything.

I am not sure if creation science says everything we see is a mirage. If they do I completely disagree with them. And I have never understood the problem with the star light. I understand the argument, but I don't see why this presents a problem for a Christian.

If you will, I will start with the presumption that God created in six days to demonstrate why I don't see this as a problem. To create a universe in six days, and be ready for life to live, breathe, eat, etc on it, the universe must have been created mature. There must have been plants to eat for the animals, there must have been fruit to eat for man, there must have been oxygen to breathe, there must have been sunlight, etc. The Bible does state that God had all these things in place, fully created, for He saw them after He spoke them into being.

God created the stars in Genesis 1:16, and in verse 17 it says God set them into place. I don't see why this presents a problem, because God created the stars, so they would give light on the earth, and then He set them where He wanted them to be. The star light would be shining on the earth when God created them and set them into place, because that is what God wanted. There is no reason to think that this took X amount of time to shine on the earth from the creation point. They were all shining on the earth at creation point because God said that is what He wanted. The heavens obey His commands.

Few will criticise you for that. They will criticize you if you say that salt in the geologic column is not an evaporative mineral. There is too much evidence against that idea.

It has been more than few, but if we aren't being persecuted than something is wrong.

I don't even know how much salt is in a geological column or what it does in there. I do know that it obeys Gods command.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

nope

Okay. If the Bible isn't a good enough source to change your mind, what is?

Your argument before was that reproduction started with the Fall because the development of an embryo involves cellular death and so could not happen prior to the Fall. You've been shown that the Bible says that reproduction was commanded from the beginning, and God called the reproducing world "very good".

You admit that the Bible says this. But, you still hold on to your previous belief. Why is that?

Here's a statement from your post that started this:

After the Fall death entered into creation and cellular death of all kinds, including that during embryonic development, began.

Do you still believe this?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Christians today, will say God originally created death, disease, destruction, pain, and sorrow. But this was Satans doing, by tempting man, thus man sinning. Blaspheming God by attributing the work of Satan to God, is extremely damaging to Christianity, and to the Christian/non-Christian who does it.

One who teaches this, is a false teacher and a blasphemer.

From what I can see, it is the YECs who have claimed that certain things that God takes credit for (such as a reproduction process that includes cellular death) should actually be attributed to Satan or sin.

Another thing God takes credit for is providing prey for hungry young lions (from Psalm 104):

20 You make darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they steal away
and lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work
and to his labor until the evening.

24 O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 Here is the sea, great and wide,
which teems with creatures innumerable,
living things both small and great.
26 There go the ships,
and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.

27 These all look to you,
to give them their food in due season.
28 When you give it to them, they gather it up;
when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.
29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.
30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.

The God described in this Psalm is responsible for carnivorous activity (v.21); made all things, including carnivorous lions, in his wisdom (v.24); gives food and sustenance to his creatures, whether they're carnivorous or not (v.27); and calls the food and prey he provides them with "good things" from his hand (v.28).

To claim that God couldn't look over a creation where animals prey on each other and declare it "very good" simply shows that one sees things differently than God. I certainly hope that nobody here would attribute these things to Satan or sin. That would be blaspheming God by attributing the work of God to Satan.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Okay. If the Bible isn't a good enough source to change your mind, what is?

this isn't the bible changing my mind. it's me misreading a verse, making a theory based on a misreading (that there was no reproduction before the Fall) and admitting i misread it. it's also you reading into the bible what isn't mentioned, namely death before the Fall.

Your argument before was that reproduction started with the Fall because the development of an embryo involves cellular death and so could not happen prior to the Fall. You've been shown that the Bible says that reproduction was commanded from the beginning, and God called the reproducing world "very good".

You admit that the Bible says this. But, you still hold on to your previous belief. Why is that?

because i do not see where the scriptures admit death before the Fall, ie., if there was reproduction it was done without death until the Fall when death entered the equation.

 

[Vance]

If Scripture does not state that there was NO death before the Fall and does not state that there WAS death before the Fall, why do you assume one over the other? If the Bible is silent on the issue, why not let the evidence from nature provide the answer?

 

[Fineous_Reese]

If Scripture does not state that there was NO death before the Fall and does not state that there WAS death before the Fall, why do you assume one over the other? If the Bible is silent on the issue, why not let the evidence from nature provide the answer?

because Scripture DOES say that death entered the world when Adam sinned which logically precludes it from being here prior, no?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

because Scripture DOES say that death entered the world when Adam sinned which logically precludes it from being here prior, no?

The Bible does not say cellular death entered the world when Adam sinned.

The Bible does not say physical death entered the world when Adam sinned.

Figuring out the kind of death referred to is an interpretational issue.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

The Bible does not say cellular death entered the world when Adam sinned.

The Bible does not say physical death entered the world when Adam sinned.

Figuring out the kind of death referred to is an interpretational issue.

you are correct when you say it's an interpretational issue.

 

[Vance]

There are two possible reading of what "death" means on those verses, spiritual or physical. Both have theological arguments in their favor, but I think theology almost requires it to have been spiritual, and NOT physical (which I have explained many times in other threads). But even if it was a theological toss-up, why would you not consider the actual physical evidence we have to play a factor into your analysis?

Again, this "no death before the fall" doctrine is an awfully big doctrine with very thin support when you consider the whole of the evidence.

 

[SBG]

From what I can see, it is the YECs who have claimed that certain things that God takes credit for (such as a reproduction process that includes cellular death) should actually be attributed to Satan or sin.

What YEC claims reproduction is Satans tool? Do you have a quote from a yec who says this?

Another thing God takes credit for is providing prey for hungry young lions (from Psalm 104):

Before we look at these verses, lets first point out, that the Psalmists is living ***AFTER*** the fall. We are talking about ***BEFORE*** the fall.

20 You make darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they steal away
and lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work
and to his labor until the evening.

The bolded verse is saying God provides food for the lions. Nothing more. How does this support death before the fall of man?

24 O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 Here is the sea, great and wide,
which teems with creatures innumerable,
living things both small and great.
26 There go the ships,
and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.

How wonderful are the works of God. They are greater than any human can comprehend. I agree with the Psalmists. In wisdom He did make everything.

How does this support death before the fall?

27 These all look to you,
to give them their food in due season.
28 When you give it to them, they gather it up;
when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.
29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.
30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.

Once again, I agree that all animals look to God for Him to feed them. I really don't see how this supports death before the fall. I think you are trying to assume life is the exact same before and after the fall of mankind. The Bible says this is not true.

The God described in this Psalm is responsible for carnivorous activity (v.21); made all things, including carnivorous lions, in his wisdom (v.24); gives food and sustenance to his creatures, whether they're carnivorous or not (v.27); and calls the food and prey he provides them with "good things" from his hand (v.28).

To claim that God couldn't look over a creation where animals prey on each other and declare it "very good" simply shows that one sees things differently than God. I certainly hope that nobody here would attribute these things to Satan or sin. That would be blaspheming God by attributing the work of God to Satan.

Again you are assuming, and making the Bible says something it isn't.

Are you aware of the curse put on the ground, after the fall? Are you aware God said to Adam he will return to the dust from that which he was created, after the fall? Are you aware the animals were made to be afraid of man, after the fall. Are you aware that animals were given as food, after the fall?

There is much speculation on whether animals/plants etc died. Bible says nothing of them dying.

The assertion made by many, many TE's is that *man* was subjected to death, disease, destruction, saddness, pain and sorrow, all before the fall. And this is credit to God, who sees man suffering and calls this very good. All before sin ever entered the world.

After the fall, man was told he will die now. This was because of sin. Now TE's say it was not because of sin, or Satans deception, but rather of God.
That is to claim Satans work, 'did God say...' where he deceived Eve and Adam, and hence sin entered and death by it, was actually God's doing.

It is TE's now who want to derail this discussion and bring it to where things are silent and then claim everything is silent. It is not. Death of man happened after the fall, because of sin, as Paul says.

One can only speculate about embryonic cell death, plant cell death, animal cell death, etc.

Not one person here was there. We have God's Word as a testimony of what happened then and it says man experience death, pain and sorrow as a result of sin, not as a result of God originally creating man to be that way.

 

[SBG]

There are two possible reading of what "death" means on those verses, spiritual or physical. Both have theological arguments in their favor, but I think theology almost requires it to have been spiritual, and NOT physical (which I have explained many times in other threads).

This is plain and simple deception. To say theology requires it to not be physical, is either ignorance or a lie. Since Vance has read Genesis, this is a lie.

God first tells Adam, if he eats of that tree he will die. Adam eats of that tree, and God says you will return to the dust from which I made you. This is very clear, it is not written in hard to understand language.

But even if it was a theological toss-up, why would you not consider the actual physical evidence we have to play a factor into your analysis?

There is no actual physical evidence that says man died before the fall. Unless you were there and saw this? We have God's Word, why would not take that and need no other proof?

Again, this "no death before the fall" doctrine is an awfully big doctrine with very thin support when you consider the whole of the evidence.

Yes, and your side blasphemes God and sees it as a good thing.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

What YEC claims reproduction is Satans tool? Do you have a quote from a yec who says this?

I said that "it is the YECs who have claimed that certain things that God takes credit for (such as a reproduction process that includes cellular death) should actually be attributed to Satan or sin." I already provided a quote of an example of this, but since you insist, I'll post it again:

After the Fall death entered into creation and cellular death of all kinds, including that during embryonic development, began. Since death was now part of creation the need for the creatures to REcreate became part of the system.

Before we look at these verses, lets first point out, that the Psalmists is living ***AFTER*** the fall. We are talking about ***BEFORE*** the fall.

Are you claiming that the Fall not only changed humanity and creation, but it also changed God's morality and character? Before the Fall, God couldn't call predation "good", but after the Fall he could?

The bolded verse is saying God provides food for the lions. Nothing more. How does this support death before the fall of man?

The verse says God provides prey for the lions. "Prey" is a word for an animal taken by a predator as food. This shows that animal death is something God is involved with: he is the one who provides prey for carnivorous lions. Predation happens according to his sovereign plan.

How wonderful are the works of God. They are greater than any human can comprehend. I agree with the Psalmists. In wisdom He did make everything.

How does this support death before the fall?

Because lions that roar for prey (in other words, carnivorous lions) are one of the creatures God made in his wisdom.

Once again, I agree that all animals look to God for Him to feed them. I really don't see how this supports death before the fall. I think you are trying to assume life is the exact same before and after the fall of mankind.

My assumption is that God is the exact same before and after the Fall. If God calls something "good" after the Fall, there's no reason to believe it was evil before the Fall. In any case, Psalm 104 is a creation psalm, and many of the things described in it obviously happened before the Fall. To try and claim that certain verses are post-Fall imposes a division on the text that is not found in the text.

After the fall, man was told he will die now. This was because of sin. Now TE's say it was not because of sin, or Satans deception, but rather of God.

No, most TEs and OECs think that either (1) the death that is the result of sin is spiritual death, or (2) if it is physical death, the death that is the result of sin spread to all men (Romans 5:12) and not all men and animals and plants.

By contrast, plants, animals and cells die naturally. Animals do not die because they sin. Animals do not need a Saviour the way humans do. Reading animal death into Romans 5 or other texts creates many theological problems.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

I said that "it is the YECs who have claimed that certain things that God takes credit for (such as a reproduction process that includes cellular death) should actually be attributed to Satan or sin." I already provided a quote of an example of this, but since you insist, I'll post it again:

please stop posting what i've admitted was incorrect in that it appears from earlier verses that animals were reproducing. thanks

Are you claiming that the Fall not only changed humanity and creation, but it also changed God's morality and character? Before the Fall, God couldn't call predation "good", but after the Fall he could?

The verse says God provides prey for the lions. "Prey" is a word for an animal taken by a predator as food. This shows that animal death is something God is involved with: he is the one who provides prey for carnivorous lions. Predation happens according to his sovereign plan.

you don't have to wait for the lions to eat to see where God is involved in the death of animals after the Fall. look at what replaced Adam and Eve's fig leaf clothing, God gave them skins (Gen 3:21) to wear. afaik this was the first spilling of blood as atonement for sins and would continue in the human realm until the final sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. the animals eat each other because they are part of the fallen world. i guess God could let them all starve to death but that wouldn't be very ethical either would it? so He feeds them. all of creation groans and suffers since the Fall, don't blame it on God though.

Because lions that roar for prey (in other words, carnivorous lions) are one of the creatures God made in his wisdom.

God made man too and we aren't the same as pre-Fall either.

My assumption is that God is the exact same before and after the Fall. If God calls something "good" after the Fall, there's no reason to believe it was evil before the Fall. In any case, Psalm 104 is a creation psalm, and many of the things described in it obviously happened before the Fall. To try and claim that certain verses are post-Fall imposes a division on the text that is not found in the text.


No, most TEs and OECs think that either (1) the death that is the result of sin is spiritual death, or (2) if it is physical death, the death that is the result of sin spread to all men (Romans 5:12) and not all men and animals and plants.

By contrast, plants, animals and cells die naturally. Animals do not die because they sin. Animals do not need a Saviour the way humans do. Reading animal death into Romans 5 or other texts creates many theological problems.

by "other texts" do you reference:
[bible]romans 8:18-23[/bible]
?

what theological problems are you seeing and what theological presumptions are the problems based on?

 

[SBG]

I said that "it is the YECs who have claimed that certain things that God takes credit for (such as a reproduction process that includes cellular death) should actually be attributed to Satan or sin." I already provided a quote of an example of this, but since you insist, I'll post it again:

Your quote doesn't call reproduction the work of the devil.

Are you claiming that the Fall not only changed humanity and creation, but it also changed God's morality and character? Before the Fall, God couldn't call predation "good", but after the Fall he could?

No I am not. Do you think God intended Adam to die, before he sinned? Do you think God wanted Adam to be in pain, feel sorrow, experience disease, before he sinned?

The verse says God provides prey for the lions. "Prey" is a word for an animal taken by a predator as food. This shows that animal death is something God is involved with: he is the one who provides prey for carnivorous lions. Predation happens according to his sovereign plan.

Yes, and after the fall, God made garments of skin for Adam and Eve.

Because lions that roar for prey (in other words, carnivorous lions) are one of the creatures God made in his wisdom.

You assume they never changed and have remained the same.

My assumption is that God is the exact same before and after the Fall. If God calls something "good" after the Fall, there's no reason to believe it was evil before the Fall. In any case, Psalm 104 is a creation psalm, and many of the things described in it obviously happened before the Fall. To try and claim that certain verses are post-Fall imposes a division on the text that is not found in the text.

God is always the same. God has ***NEVER*** called sin good. Man dies as a direct result of sin. Yet, you attribute the result of sin to God's Goodness.

No, most TEs and OECs think that either (1) the death that is the result of sin is spiritual death, or (2) if it is physical death, the death that is the result of sin spread to all men (Romans 5:12) and not all men and animals and plants.

Again, since you opened the dialogue to me, and I have presented my case of no death of man before the fall, are you asserting God sees sin and its consequences as something good?

By contrast, plants, animals and cells die naturally. Animals do not die because they sin. Animals do not need a Saviour the way humans do. Reading animal death into Romans 5 or other texts creates many theological problems.

Whoever said animals are in need of a Savior? Who said plants are?

My argument has been solely on MAN. And if you want to believe God sees sin as good, the results of sin as good, then you are blaspheming God.

And don't forget, ALL of creation groans because of sin.

 

[grmorton]

You think they were only thinking His statements were weird, and thats all? Odd. The Text says the Jews argued sharply amongst themselves; His disciples grumbled about this and many of them left. If they only thought it was weird, would there have been so much opposition? I don't think there would have been, not that much as there was.

Most of the opposition came from the theological conservatives of his day--the pharisees, who didn't like being told they were wrong.

Even if this prophet was truly from God, you wouldn't know other than the prophet saying so, and you thus you wouldn't believe him anyways. Even if others did say he was a prophet. Right?

The catch 22 is that in order to be from God he must speak the truth. If someone comes up to you, claims to be a prophet and says that the sea is a beautiful pink with purple polka-dots, you would not believe he was from God. That is what you are trying to do with your evolution quiestion. And I don't beleive that you don't care about what science says. YOu would love it if science backed up your view.

If I could convince you with your eyes, you would believe? But if I convinced you with the Word of God, would you believe? Even if you couldn't see it with your actual eyes?

Since I have a different interpretation of what the Bible says about evolution (something you haven't commented on) I don't see how it would be easy for you to convince me by showing me your interpretation. Believe me, I have run down all the arguments in this area. However if you could convince me with what I see, by explaining the geologic data, I would believe and become a YEC again. But no one ever takes me up on that offer.

It is not according to what *I think* it is according to what God says. I am just passing on the message, not making the message.

No, you are in the position of telling me what you THINK God said. That is a different thing. In order to be telling me what God said, you have to place yourself in the position of the infallible interpretor. ARe you absolutely infallible in your interpretation of the Bible--kind of like the ex cathedra statements of the Pope?

If it was supernatural, God can do however He wishes. I haven't turned to science in our discussion to use it as my support. I don't care about what science says, I care about what God says.

What you care about is what you think God is saying. There is a clear differentiation between what God says and what you say he says. Or are you God's trusted prophet?

It just might be that man is not as smart as he would like to think he is. It just might be that man has built up so much pride within himself that has caused man to go astray.

I find it odd that a guy who is implying that he is an infallible interpretor of the Bible can talk about pride in others. And before you deny this, consider answering the question: Have you ever decided that an interpretation of the Bible which you held to was wrong and then changed it?

If you answer 'no' then you have said you are infallible. If you say you have, then you can't claim to only be passing along God's message as you claim. YOU are passing along YOUR UNDERSTANDING of God's message.

Interpretations do come from logic, I don't disagree with you. But there is more behind that logic. Logic is about arguments, setting up good ones and distinguishing from bad ones. It is about reasoning. All of these will be based upon ones view point. You and I can both present opposite sides, logically and still both be wrong.

True, but do you know how to tell the difference between a logical argument which is true and one which is false? OBSERVATION. If you deduce that a horse has 84 teeth, and I say another number, we can go look in the horses mouth. That is science. It settles the difference between 2 perfectly logical arguments which lead to different observational results.

Logic is just a method. Not a determinant of what is right or wrong.

See above

Frankly grmorton, I am convinced as the Ecclesiastes writer was, that anything that doesn't focus on God, is a waste of time. I was made to fellowship with God and with God I desire to fellowship.

My entire career has been focused on God and how his word can be consistent with observational science. That surely isn't a waste of time.

How do you this is nonsense? Do you honestly think you have all the knowledge and have seen everything to know that what you say is true? Do you believe there will never be *anything* that can explain what you see with a global flood? How about God?

Never have I said I know everything. But that isn't the same as saying I know nothing. I have a 4400 book science library and I have thousands of articles in files here. I have worked hard to know what I do know. But there is still so much to learn. But, you offer no learning, just fideism.

On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire

You weren't talking about that.

If God seems illogical to some, is that a reason to reject God?

It isn't that God is illogical. It is what people say he did which should have observational consequences, but no one can find those consequences. If there was a global

I see. The Bible speaks nothing of a flat-earth. The Bible speaks of a six day creation and a global flood. I firmly believe what the Bible says.

It actually doesn't speak of a global flood. The 'eretz' was flooded. If you require that 'eretz' (which is most often translated 'land') has to mean planet earth, then Abraham disobeyed God. God told him to leave his 'eretz' and go to an 'eretz' God would show him. And if Abe was disobedient then just about everything we believe in the OT is false.

And the Bible speaks of 6-days only if the word yom means a 24 hour period. The word may not at all refer to a 24 hour period.

Shall I make the same claim of you? Shall I lump you with atheists as you have lump me with the flat-earthes? Shall I compare you and them? Just because of similiarities? I think that is rather unfair, grmorton.

No it isn't.




Would you believe me if I told what God's Word says?

What verse would you like to use as an example? Genesis 1:20 or Genesis 1:24?

Genesis 1:20
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

Genesis 1:24
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."


I assume these are the two verses you are referring to, right? And who said I didn't believe these verses, literally? I didn't.[/quote]

By saying that the Bible rules out evolution you deny these verses.

I am curious, have you read the verses that follow these?

Genesis 1:21
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

Genesis 1:25
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

In Genesis 1:20 and 1:24, you refer to let ***** bring forth. (1:20 its waters and 1:24 its the earth) Do you know what this phrase means in Hebrew?

Yes, in Hebrew the word Let is not explicit. It is in the tense of the verb. The verses actually say "God said: "Earth bring forth..." "Waters bring forth..."

The verses which follow are not wrong. God created life by creating a system which would bring about life. That doesn't diminish God. God doesn't have to be a magician to be miraculous or powerful. Kinda like Pontius Pilate in Jesus Christ superstar, you want God to walk across your swimming pool. God doesn't have to act like a magician. He can act like a planner who plans a system (the universe) which brings forth life. The sad thing is that you YECs miss the best evidence there is for design by playing the game you do.

I understand where you are coming from and in saying, look the waters and the earth played a part in the creation of living things. I agree they did. Adam was created from the dust of the earth. But, these were all done in single days, not millions of years, hence evolution is *not* the process.

Only if YOM must always refer to a 24-hour period.

I know that you are. I was speaking of TE's. I don't think you fit in the TE category, because you don't allegorize Genesis to make it fit with what you believe.

I am a TE.

Grmorton, I believe you are trying to be honest with your approach, more honest than any TE here. I think you also have a chip on your shoulder, one which I can understand being there.

If you understood you would cease claiming things about nature and science that can't be true. My chip is entirely about christians wrapping falsehood in God's name and then going out making Christianity look ignorant, willfully deceitful and dishonest. We have to cease denying what we can see with our eyes. If our apologetics requires that, then our apologetic is wrong.

Your world must be a tough one, being in the middle of yec's and naturalist scientists, both who don't trust you. You have my compassion.

I don't need your compassion. I am doing to the best of my ability what God called me to do. Who cares whether you or anyone else believes what I say or trusts me. Remember, broad is the path that leads to destruction. Within Christianity in the US, YEC is the broad path.

You have a unique opportunity before you, whether you see it or not. Don't burn the bridges, mend them so that God's Word can reach a greater capacity amongst those in the scientific field. Don't discount what is said, because you don't see it. You don't see God, but you believe. These events were supernatural, and there exists a truthful answer to the questions posed. You have the opportunity to find them, ones that have not ever been presented before by science.

What you ask me to do is to return to when I was a double-minded individual, believing one thing after work but another during work. I can't live a lie and I won't return to those days. Truth and Knowledge are ONE, not many. The only reason you don't feel the tension is because of your ignorance of the scientific data (by your own admission).

Don't miss this, because you have animosity towards those who have hurt you and backstabbed you.

Don't ask me to once again become a liar for Jesus.

Thanks for the Mandarin word, I will have to remember that. Are you learning much of the language, while you are there?

You are quite welcome. I studied mandarin for 3 years starting 11 years ago. I am learning a whole lot over the past 3 weeks. I can carry on most business transactions after work.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Your quote doesn't call reproduction the work of the devil.

No, and I didn't claim he did say that. I was talking about things being attributed to "Satan or sin". In the quote I mentioned it was being attributed to sin.

Anyway, I apologize to Fineous_Reese for quoting him a few times. I realize that he's backed away from his claim, but the fact remains that it isn't TEs who are making those kind of claims.

You assume they never changed and have remained the same.

No, actually I assume lions evolved. But, that doesn't change the fact that God is their creator, and God inspired a psalmist to point to their carnivorous activity as an example of his wisdom in creation.

And, let's look forward a bit to a time when death has been extinguished. What will things be like then?

Isaiah 25:6-8: On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.

At a time when death is being swallowed up forever, God prepares a feast -- of meat! Some more evidence that animal death is not inherently evil.

Again, since you opened the dialogue to me, and I have presented my case of no death of man before the fall, are you asserting God sees sin and its consequences as something good?

No, if you limit the death to human death, then I have no argument with you. I consider that a possible reading too. My points were to establish that animal death is not evil and is not the result of sin.