YECs - please read.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10689573&postcount=4

I'm just asking you to read this, that I posted a couple of weeks back.

The same misstatements and misunderstandings of where the non-YECs are coming from are still being endlessly rehashed on any number of threads.

Please just read it, not to agree with me, but to understand where we are coming from.

 

[mhess13]

oh won't you guys give it a rest? I don't care where you're coming from!
I and other YECs are coming from what the Bible teaches. It doesn't matter what we think, feel or "where we're coming from". What matters is what the Bible says!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no way to read the Bible and conclude that God used evolution. PERIOD

 

[grmorton]

oh won't you guys give it a rest? I don't care where you're coming from!
I and other YECs are coming from what the Bible teaches. It doesn't matter what we think, feel or "where we're coming from". What matters is what the Bible says!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no way to read the Bible and conclude that God used evolution. PERIOD

Yes there is. Genesis 1:24

"Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind"

What is the subject of the phrase "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures"? The earth is the subject. Subjects in grammar, are the active participants or the thing acted upon. This is active and thus it is the earth which is bringing forth the animals. God commanded / delegated the bringing forth of animals to the earth.

If someone told you,"Glenn said, "Let mhess13 drive the car" why would anyone think I drove the car? They would think you drove the car. Yet when young-earther's get ahold of the very same sentence structure relating to the creation of life on earth, they suddenly think the earth didn't do the bringing forth.

Genesis 1:20 says:
"Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures"

Same structure, the waters did the abounding.

Genesis 1:11
"Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass"

Who brought forth grass? Why it is the earth again bringing forth things.

The second problem with the young-earth reading is that no where does the Bible actually say "And God said let there be.. and it was so IMMEDIATELY" If anyone can please tell me where it says 'Immediately" I would appreciate it. We are left in the dark about when God actually performed the task.

Thirdly, the typical young-earth reading misses the fact that When God says things like:

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

God DIDN'T say "Let there be light and there was light". Some one else said "and there was light". That someone was the writer. It was written at a time LONG after the light was created. Under anyone's interpretation. If MOses was the writer, then Moses wrote 'and there was light' long after the creation of light. This is why I don't think one has to say that when God proclaimed it and when the proclamation was fullfilled, have to be at the same time.

That leads us to beleiving that Genesis does have room for both the time and for the act of evolution to occur. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm

 

[Vance]

mhess, I think you are embarrassing your fellow YEC's.

Then again, you are a great advertisement against YEC'ism, so I shouldn't be complaining.

Unfortunately, your attitude, language and your wilful desire to remain ignorant are also an advertisement against Christianity, so you are a mixed blessing.

 

[TwinCrier]

The Earth is not a creative force, God is. The waters did not create anything, God did. I know TE's hate the 'God did it" argument, but that's is the gist of creation. God did it! You cannot skip over the whole "Then God said," part. There doesn't need to be a "And God said let there be.. and it was so IMMEDIATELY" Or are you claiming the Earth was in darkness until God's command kicked in? Let there be.... oh, but take your time, no rush.

 

[PaladinValer]

TwinCrier, you obviously are very misinformed on Theistic Evolution. It does say that God did it; only that He chose to do it in a process over millions of years instead of instantaneously on six consecuative days.

 

[mhess13]

TwinCrier, you obviously are very misinformed on Theistic Evolution. It does say that God did it; only that He chose to do it in a process over millions of years instead of instantaneously on six consecuative days.

Too bad that scripture doesn't support your claims

 

[Dark_Lite]

oh won't you guys give it a rest? I don't care where you're coming from!
I and other YECs are coming from what the Bible teaches. It doesn't matter what we think, feel or "where we're coming from". What matters is what the Bible says!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no way to read the Bible and conclude that God used evolution. PERIOD

...Best argument ever for YECism.

 

[TwinCrier]

TwinCrier, you obviously are very misinformed on Theistic Evolution. It does say that God did it; only that He chose to do it in a process over millions of years instead of instantaneously on six consecuative days.

No, that was exactly the argument made, that the Earth brought forth life. Reread the post I was responding to. The claim made was that God sort of got it started, but then He let it go for a few billion years and the Earth did the rest.

 

[grmorton]

While I am waiting to go to the airport at 12:30 am Christmas morning, I thought I would look at the forum. Nothing better to do til my kids get here.

The Earth is not a creative force, God is. The waters did not create anything, God did.

If the earth does not contain a creative force, put there by God then why does a 12th century Jewish Rabbi, Nachmanides, who knew no science and knew nothing about evolution, believe that the Bible teaches that the earth had such a force? This guy clearly knew Hebrew, he wasn't a TE and he wasn't an evolutionist.

“Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyli He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence. and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition.”

Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the Torah, Trans. by Dr. Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p.23

This guy also cites rabbi's who didn't believe that Genesis 1 taught the order of the creative acts either:

“The difficulty which Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi] had which led him to the above interpretation is, as he said: For if Scripture intended to teach the order in which the acts of creation took place, it should have written barishona [instead of Bereshith], since wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture it is in the construct state.” Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the Torah, Trans. by Dr. Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p.23

Note that this Rabbi does the same thing with Genesis 1:11 that I do. He notes that the earth brings forth the grass! Something you are in denial about but a 12th century Rabbi would tell you you are wrong.

‘AND G-D SAID: ‘LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS.’ He decreed that there be among the products of the earth a force which grows and bears seed so that the species should exist forever. It is possible that the name ‘earth’ mentioned in the first verse already contains a hint that a force which causes things to grow should spring up from the earth, and it was from this force that the foundations of all vegetations according to their kinds emanated.” Ramban(Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, Transl. by Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing Co. 1971), p.40

By analogy that same thing would be said of the water bringing fish and the land bringing animals.

He also hints that he beleives in a local flood. YECs need to realize that they have been sold a bill of goods, both theologically and scientifically.

He is also more sensible than YECs. He doesn't try to explain the animals on the ark. He simply says it is a miracle and moves on. Why YECs don't do the same, I don't know.

“OF ALL FLESH. It is known that there are a great many beasts, and some of them—such as elephants, rams and others—are very large: likewise, the creeping things upon the earth are very many. Of the fowl of the heaven there are also innumerably many kinds, just as our Rabbis have said: ‘There are one hundred and twenty kinds of unclean birds in the east, and all of them belong to the species of ayah (kite). Clean fowl are innumerable. Noah was thus obligated to bring all of them into the ark in order that they may beget their like. If you would gather a full year’s supply of food for all of them, [you would find] that this ark and ten others like it could not hold it! But this was a miracle of a small space containing a great quantity.” Ramban(Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, Transl. by Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing Co. 1971), p. 112




I read the rest of the thread past TwinCrier's note I am replying to. It seems that no one actually studies or cites literature here. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes without doing any research at all--at least there sure is a dearth of citations and opinions supported by scholarship here on this site.

 

[PaladinValer]

TwinCrier, no, you are wrong.

Firstly, evolution doesn't state at all that the Earth is directly involved. It is indirectly involved only due to climate, which deals more with atmosphere, not the field of geology. You have misrepresented the facts.

Secondly, you misrepresent every single TE in existance by saying we don't believe God Created. That is absolutely incorrect, period.

 

[TwinCrier]

TwinCrier, no, you are wrong.

Firstly, evolution doesn't state at all that the Earth is directly involved. It is indirectly involved only due to climate, which deals more with atmosphere, not the field of geology. You have misrepresented the facts.

Secondly, you misrepresent every single TE in existance by saying we don't believe God Created. That is absolutely incorrect, period.

I was responding to a specific post. I get quite tired of all you TEs who all believe different things saying YOUR view is being misrepresented. Not ever TE agrees with you. As you are quite aware, the world doesn't revolve around you. Context is everything.

 

[PaladinValer]

This has nothing to do with TE"ism" but the facts on the evolutionary theory.

 

[Stinker]

"Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind"

What is the subject of the phrase "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures"? The earth is the subject. Subjects in grammar, are the active participants or the thing acted upon. This is active and thus it is the earth which is bringing forth the animals. God commanded / delegated the bringing forth of animals to the earth.

If someone told you,"Glenn said, "Let mhess13 drive the car" why would anyone think I drove the car? They would think you drove the car. Yet when young-earther's get ahold of the very same sentence structure relating to the creation of life on earth, they suddenly think the earth didn't do the bringing forth.



The Bible reads: And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Gen.2:19)



Genesis 1:20 says:
"Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures"

Same structure, the waters did the abounding.


The Bible reads: 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. (Gen. 1:21)

 

[Maccie]

You are all nit-picking over specific words and verses again! Have any of you actually read what Karl wrote in the link he posted??

I very much doubt it.

 

[TwinCrier]

If you want to believe the waters and/or earth are capable of creating life you may find your beliefs libing up more with paganism than Christianity.

 

[herev]

I was responding to a specific post. I get quite tired of all you TEs who all believe different things saying YOUR view is being misrepresented. Not ever TE agrees with you. As you are quite aware, the world doesn't revolve around you. Context is everything.

and yet, TC, the definition of TE means that we believe that God DID do the creating, so in this case, yes, it is a misrepresentation of TE belief to say that we don't believe God created

 

[herev]

If you want to believe the waters and/or earth are capable of creating life you may find your beliefs libing up more with paganism than Christianity.

once again, we DO NOT believe that anyone or anything created life EXCEPT God--to suggest that our beliefs line up with paganism is not very Christian of you

 

[TwinCrier]

Then why was it posted that the earth brought forth life? Besides being a misreading of scripture, should you TE's correct that assumption? I'm simply answering the bible with bible.

 

[PaladinValer]

I see now that, in reality, TwinCrier is talking about something else entirely: abiogenesis.

This is something that has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution deals with how living species change. Abiogenesis deals with how life actually appeared. It hypothesizes that life came from non-life, which is what you are assuming evolution states, TwinCrier. You have mixed up the two.