To My Brethren...evolution

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:28 AM LewisWildermuth said this in Post #43

My thoughts on this is that the truth of science (or how creation happened or worked) is and was totally irrelevant to the spiritual truth that the text was trying to get across.

Jesus called the mustard seed the least of all seeds, but even at that time smaller seeds were known of, especially by the Romans. The truth that the mustard seed is not the least of all seeds is not important to the message that was being conveyed.

FOC:

Now thats a view I can appreciate.

Keeping our faith simple and pure is the whole point.

Once we have gone through all the trouble of considering things like evolution, we have stepped way beyond just plain simple faith in our God.

 

[Ray Cho]

Today at 12:34 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #41

I guess where I am coming from is a belief that there is absolute truth.

believing that, I ask myself ''why would God distort the facts of creation?''
''what would be the purpose in saying 'days', if billions of years were meant?''

Were Moses and the prophets incapable of understanding Billions of years?
There seems no logical sense in God saying days for no aparent reason.
And then for Him to go out of His way to descibe and define the days in His description makes it even more of an issue.

I am with you 100% on your first statement.  God created the world somehow, and that somehow is the absolute truth.

But God didn't say "days."  He said "yom."  There is no exact English equivalent for the word "yom," so the King James translators (and others after them) used the word "day" because that's how they interpreted it.  But it's virtually universally accepted by Bible scholars that "yom" can be translated a number of ways -- including 24 hours, or an undefined period of time.

Now you bring up a good point about "evening and morning."  It seems pretty plain that evening and morning are the boundaries of a solar day.  But again, we are dealing with a modern English translation of ancient Hebrew words. Susan Schneider of the Torah Science Foundation says the following: 

 In Hebrew, the etymological root for evening (erev) means confusion and intermingling, whereas the root for morning (boker) means to examine, inspect, and scrutinize. One could thus translate the phrase, "And there was evening, and there was morning, day . . ." as: "First there was a confused mixture (erev/evening) and then the physical and spiritual creatures of that day precipitated out, now becoming visible, tangible, and scrutinizable (boker/morning)." The completion of a full cycle, wherein a quantum unit of Divine expression was birthed into existence, constitutes "a day."

You can take it or you can leave it, but it does at least offer a plausible explanation for the use of these words.

The New Scofield Reference Bible (KJV) also makes the following comment in its footnotes:

 The use of "evening" and "morning" may be held to limit "day" to the solar day; but the frequent parabolic use of natural phenomena may warrant the conclusion that it simply means that each creative day was a period of time marked by a beginning and ending (cp. Ps. 90:6). In any event the sun did not become a measure of time before the fourth day, as seen in vv. 14-18.

Now I do not automatically accept Scofield's notes as gospel truth.  However, his stature as a noted and respected Bible commentator at least warrants consideration of what he has to say.

 

 

[Follower of Christ]

Nice friendly post...

I have researched the use of the word Yom and the way it is used in Genesis chapter one.

It was the deciding factor in my changing from a christian evolutionist to a 6 day creationist.

If you will check out the AIG website

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp

they finally put up some of the information that I had to find the hard way.
i dont know exactly where they got their info, but it perfectly agrees with the material I had gotten form sites quoting some scholars of the Hebrew language.

The usage of the word YOM in its context presents no other option but literal days in Genesis chapter one.

As for the light source for the day. God said ''Let there be light''
This same light source is mentioned again in Revelation


"And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light. And they will reign forever and ever. "
(Revelation 22:5 MKJV)


Our God is so amazing....

 

[Ray Cho]

Again, I agree with you on the fact that the light source created on Day 1 may have been what God used to mark the "days" until the sun was created.  Using this same logic, however, negates the argument used by many creationists that the plants created on Day 3 could not have survived millions of years without the sun.  Whatever the initial light source was, it could very well have been sufficient to sustain plant life.

I have read the article you cited from AiG on the interpretation of "day," in addition to many others published by creationist organizations.  They make many valid points, but none of them are iron-clad in my view.  If you are open to considering a different perspective from another authoritative source, I highly recommend the book A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (1994, Moody Press) by Gleason Archer, who is a very conservative and highly regarded Hebrew scholar, and was one of the main translators for the New American Standard Bible.

I am not trying to change your mind on this subject.  I just want you to be aware that there are alternative views that can be considered just as authoritative as the ones proposed by AiG.

 

 

[Follower of Christ]

I am not sure if thats one of the books I already have read, but I have been through many of them.

As I explained, up until about 4 or so years ago I believed the exact way that Christian Evoutionists believe.
I have been on both sides of the track.

This is one of the reasons I can understand your point of view.

The new American Standard was actually my choice of Bibles up until 2 years ago.
If you are still using it, try to track down as much information on the web concerning its translators. Not second hand stuff, from the actual translators. You may be surprised at what an actual translator has admitted. I will leave that issue at that.


Concerning the light source, I agree that if it were millions of years, us 6 day'ers would have to admit it could support vegetation. Obviously it did until the fourth day.

BUT here is an issue.

Standard evolution theory will not accept the possibility of the Sun coming into existance AFTER flora on the earth, it would be an impossibility as far as secular theorists are concerned.

To them the sun was here millions or billions of years before life could appear.

So the Christian Evolutionist is forced to compromise certain aspects of accepted secular evolution to fit with the scriptural account.

It is this way for a great deal of other issues as well.

The christian evolutionist has to compromise between the two in order to make sense of things.

''Speciation'' / ''Variation of kinds'' is usually another area that requires the Christian to compromise both ''faiths'' to get an agreement with them.

The christian evolutionist (as I was) is a strange breed, not quite taking either of his ''faiths'' at thier word.

He is a ''hybrid'' of sorts.

There are many ''scholars'' out there. It makes the decisions we have to make easier and harder.
In the end, we are left with only one question.
Are we going to be dogmatic and stand our ground.

check this out.
What if I am wrong, whats the worst that can happen?
Is God going to be ticked off because I took Him at the word that I had?

Now by the same token, what if I am right and evolution IS a precursor to the ''LIE'' in 2 Thessalonians and will also cause the final apostacy / Falling away in the end?
What will happen then?


You see the dilemma I am trying to present, I am sure.

thanks for listening

 

[LewisWildermuth]

There are always "what ifs"...

What if creationism is the "LIE"?

What if neither are?

 

[Follower of Christ]

''What if...''

This is the single most important exploratory phrase since man began.

Without that one thing being asked of every situation, I seriously doubt even the wheel would have been.


Any more I try to examine ALL theory and ALL sides of an arguement very carefully before I make a conclusion.
I was ''saved'' in 1985 and I was an evolutionist right up til about 4 years ago. (I realize this was long period of time, but this was an issue I took for granted as both being true, so I didnt question it back then).
I hadn't seriously questioned it til then.
I have been amazed at my findings.


I NEVER ask that anyone take anything I would say without checking ALL the information theirselves.

All I am asking is that my brethren consider what I have presented by looking into the details.

If you have not REALLY researched BOTH (emphasis on BOTH) sides of the issue, then any opinion you have is biased.

Being an ex-evolutionist at least allows me to see that side of the arguement.

You must not have read my post well.

"Standard evolution theory will not accept the possibility of the Sun coming into existance AFTER flora on the earth, it would be an impossibility as far as secular theorists are concerned.
To them the sun was here millions or billions of years before life could appear.
So the Christian Evolutionist is forced to compromise certain aspects of accepted secular evolution to fit with the scriptural account."


In the secular version, the sun was here long before the earth.

The earth and flora were in existance BEFORE the sun in Gods account.

BOTH of these accounts cannot be true. At least ONE of them has to be taken as inaccurate.
Leaving the question of what other inaccuracies are also present.


Also, WHY would God create the sun AFTER the earth?
What was the point?
And WHY did He even bring it to our attention?
Do you think Moses was able to see OR prove anything about the sun either way?
Would Moses have even cared which was created first?

There must have been a reason why God told us He created the sun on the fourth day.

 

[Ray Cho]

It's very interesting how you came to the position you currently hold on this issue.  My journey was sort of a "mirror image."

I was saved at the age of seven.  The church I was raised in took a very hostile view of evolution, and I grew up to be a very staunch 6-day creationist.  Not only did I learn all the reasons why evolution violated God's word, I was familiar with all the scientific evidence against evolution.  In essence, my background was antithetical to your former evolutionist background.  For many years (a couple decades) I never really examined the evidence for evolution, nor did I research any Biblical explanations that might have provided an alternative to my long-held and seldom-questioned opinions.  Have recently done so, however, I have been equally amazed at what I have found.

At this point in my life, I can say in all honesty that, like you, I have researched both sides (or rather, ALL sides) of this issue.  The fact of the matter is that, as an ex-creationist, if I were to harbor any biases whatsoever, they would actually tend towards the creationist side.  I have simply tried to be as objective as possible in my research, with the inerrancy of the Bible as my foundation.  In fact, I am sure that we have both examined many of the same resources, and somehow have come to reach different conclusions.  And that is just fine, because in the end, we are both just sinners saved by grace.

As far as the sun being created after the earth, Scofield (again) says the following:

 Neither here [Gen 1:3] nor in vv. 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is "made to appear, made visible." The sun and moon were created "in the beginning." The light came from the sun, of course, but the vapor diffused the light. Later [on day 4] the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.

As I said in my last post, I take Scofield's notes (as well as any other Bible commentator's to include Gleason Archer) with a grain of salt.  I'm not really sure I buy this explanation, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.  I believe there are other more plausible explanations, but it's getting late and my brain is refusing to function at a level that would allow me to organize them in any cogent manner.  You've probably already heard them anyway.

BTW, I don't use the NASB (I don't even think I own a copy).  In my daily readings, I normally use the New King James translation (the Experiencing God Bible).  The Scofield Reference Bible I use mainly for reference (as the name suggests!).

Finally, I hesitate to speak for other people, but Lewis Wildermuth has a story very similar to mine, which he has posted on a different thread.

 

 

[Follower of Christ]

"Neither here [Gen 1:3] nor in vv. 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is "made to appear, made visible." The sun and moon were created "in the beginning." The light came from the sun, of course, but the vapor diffused the light. Later [on day 4] the sun appeared in an unclouded sky. "



FOC:


The words ''let there be light'' do not imply a creative act even in the english, so thats no problem

In verse 16 when the sun was made the hebrew does indeed say that He ''made'' the sun and moon.

Gen 1:16 "And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary and the stars to rule the night. "


H6213
òùׂä
‛âśâh
BDB Definition:
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to do, work, make, produce
1a1a) to do
1a1b) to work
1a1c) to deal (with)
1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect
1a2) to make
1a2a) to make
1a2b) to produce
1a2c) to prepare
1a2d) to make (an offering)
1a2e) to attend to, put in order
1a2f) to observe, celebrate
1a2g) to acquire (property)
1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute
1a2i) to bring about
1a2j) to use
1a2k) to spend, pass
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be done
1b2) to be made
1b3) to be produced
1b4) to be offered
1b5) to be observed
1b6) to be used
1c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze


If you're going to copy and paste, please be sure of content beforehand

 

[Ray Cho]

If you're going to copy and paste, please be sure of content beforehand


As I said twice before, I am simply quoting a source, making no claims as to the veracity of that source.  In fact, I even went so far as to say that I had a hard time accepting that conclusion.  Please don't criticize me if you disagree with what someone else has said.

I do note that out of the definitions for asah that you quoted from Strong's Dictionary, several of them could actually support Scofield's commentary: to observe, celebrate; to appoint, ordain, institute; to be used; to be offered; and to be observed.

 

 

[Follower of Christ]

I apologize.
I am running like 20 different things here.
Debating with athiests is really getting to me.

I get so frustrated with them on other sites that by the time I post in here I am at my wits end.
sorry.

One thing that really drives me nuts about debating with them is you have to very careful how you word things or they twist your meanings around.

I really dislike long-winded, overly intelligent sounding responses, so I am usually brief and to the point.
The atheists I have been debating seem to take that as some sign of weakness or something.
I have to spend a LOT of time explaining/defending typos with them (ridiculous).

I explain to them that the disease I have has pretty much left my fingers permanantly crippled.
If I correct every typo I make, it would take hours to post anything.
DO THEY CARE. NO.

The boneheads just make fun of the disease as well as my typing.

I apologize to everyone who I have been harsh sounding with.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

18th March 2003 at 08:14 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #48

check this out.
What if I am wrong, whats the worst that can happen?
Is God going to be ticked off because I took Him at the word that I had?

Now by the same token, what if I am right and evolution IS a precursor to the ''LIE'' in 2 Thessalonians and will also cause the final apostacy / Falling away in the end?
What will happen then?


You see the dilemma I am trying to present, I am sure.

thanks for listening

What about the hundreds of people who I've talked too alone that were driven away from Christ because they were being taught that science was the "LIE" and creationism was true.

All those driven away by the lying of those like Hovind?

What if you are asked to answer for those souls that you drove out because of your hunch?

 

[Follower of Christ]

For one thing, thing link was called ""To My Brethren...'.
Those ALREADY CHRISTIANS.

I would NEVER allow this topic (as far as could be helped) to be pushed to someone turning away.

This is just something for BORN AGAIN christians who believe in evolution to ponder as most of them already know of the falling away and ''delusion'' prophecy.

I am merely presenting to christians why I believe evolution is a precursor to these events.
I have condemned noone.

And if any souls DID get turned away because of this, I would NOT be accountable as I would only be showing EXACTLY what the bible says.

It says He did it in 6 days, and THATS exactly what I explain.
No trick interpretation here.

So who would be at fault?
1) Me for showing Gods word
2) God for inspiring it the way He did.
3) Or the person using this point to reject Him.


And unlike Hovind, I present this as " speculation'' based on the possibility that it could be.
I have not stated this to be fact. As yet, that would be impossible to declare.

That there will be a falling away and a ''delusion'' in the end time is to be sure.

HOw would these things come about in YOUR opinion?

 

[cottagerose]

I apologize.
I am running like 20 different things here.
Debating with athiests is really getting to me.

I get so frustrated with them on other sites that by the time I post in here I am at my wits end.
sorry.

One thing that really drives me nuts about debating with them is you have to very careful how you word things or they twist your meanings around.

I really dislike long-winded, overly intelligent sounding responses, so I am usually brief and to the point.
The atheists I have been debating seem to take that as some sign of weakness or something.
I have to spend a LOT of time explaining/defending typos with them (ridiculous).

I explain to them that the disease I have has pretty much left my fingers permanantly crippled.
If I correct every typo I make, it would take hours to post anything.
DO THEY CARE. NO.

The boneheads just make fun of the disease as well as my typing.

I apologize to everyone who I have been harsh sounding with.

I'm with you! You cannot let evolutionists and atheists take away your bible,you know it's your sword,and we know why they go after the book of Genesis. Remember,you must want to believe in God to believe and you must also view that rules are a good thing.lawlessness is what the secular world is after,and evolution is a false religion.Don't trust those who claim to be christian yet also believe in evolution,because many evolutionists use them to lure christians into their traps. Evolutionists use all kinds of jargon,they claim it's because they are educated in Science,Geology,the solar system,ect..... yet when you also study these subjects for yourself,you later find out that they have their own science teachers and supporters of evolution that they follow after and only listen to. They are aware,(many are) that science,true science doesn't support them at all!

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I'm with you! You cannot let evolutionists and atheists take away your bible,you know it's your sword,and we know why they go after the book of Genesis. Remember,you must want to believe in God to believe and you must also view that rules are a good thing.lawlessness is what the secular world is after,and evolution is a false religion.Don't trust those who claim to be christian yet also believe in evolution,because many evolutionists use them to lure christians into their traps. Evolutionists use all kinds of jargon,they claim it's because they are educated in Science,Geology,the solar system,ect..... yet when you also study these subjects for yourself,you later find out that they have their own science teachers and supporters of evolution that they follow after and only listen to. They are aware,(many are) that science,true science doesn't support them at all!

I would be truly shocked that you know true science from pseudo-science. Also your post reeks of conspiracy theory nonsense.

Please inform us all as to your scientific training and expertise.

I'll wager it is approx. zero.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm with you! You cannot let evolutionists and atheists take away your bible,you know it's your sword,and we know why they go after the book of Genesis.

First off, don't talk about "evolutionists and atheists" like this, especially on a Christians Only forum. It's a little thing, but linking them together glibly like this is dishonest.

Remember,you must want to believe in God to believe and you must also view that rules are a good thing.lawlessness is what the secular world is after,and evolution is a false religion.Don't trust those who claim to be christian yet also believe in evolution,because many evolutionists use them to lure christians into their traps.

CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN? Your next post on this thread should be an apology to the Christians here who do accept evolution, or you can explain your arrogant holier-than-thou false piety to the moderators. And that's the toned-down version of what I'd like to say to you.

Evolutionists use all kinds of jargon,they claim it's because they are educated in Science,Geology,the solar system,ect

That's because we are. You are not, obviously. But still you think you know better.

..... yet when you also study these subjects for yourself,you later find out that they have their own science teachers and supporters of evolution that they follow after and only listen to.

Bovine egesta. We don't have "our own science teachers" - the simple fact is that 99% of scientifically qualified people accept evolution and see creationism for the intellectually moribund and unviable nonsense that it is. This should tell you something.

They are aware,(many are) that science,true science doesn't support them at all!

Retract this accusation of intentional dishonesty in evolution immediately or else. I'm sick and tired of this sort of misleading claptrap from the creationist side, but I don't expect it to stop any time soon. Frankly, if they had to behave honesty they'd be off the map in a week.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Hey look... a post that's a year old!

 

[Curt]

You are equating the theory of evolution with athiesm. You might as well equate vegetarianism with genocide simply because Hitler didn't eat meat. WHen the science of geology was first invented two centuries ago (and 4 decades before Darwin's theory) it became obvious to geologists that the earth was much older then originally thought and that now extinct creatures had inhabited it (several evolutionary type theories were floated at the time). Most of the people invovled were deeply religious and would classify themselfs as creationists (William Buckland, who created the first school of geology was a reverent). THey just came to realize that Genesis was not ment to be taken literally.

DO you regard the universe (Creation) as being apart form GOd, or a part of God?

You are fisinformed about those who created science, they were all Christians who believed in 6 days of creation. You should check out Dr. James Kenedy's series on evolution it will open your eyes, and there is Dr. Carl Baugh who has proven young earth creation. They didn't come to realize anything about The Bible, they just interpreted it, and changed it to fit their man made doctrine.

 

[ThePhoenix]

You are fisinformed about those who created science, they were all Christians who believed in 6 days of creation. You should check out Dr. James Kenedy's series on evolution it will open your eyes, and there is Dr. Carl Baugh who has proven young earth creation. They didn't come to realize anything about The Bible, they just interpreted it, and changed it to fit their man made doctrine.

Some evidence please.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Carl Baugh could not prove himself out of a paper bag. I think the technical term is a dope.