YEC's Unite Continued

[Chi_Cygni]

Why would he need six days then? Maybe that indicates he is not onmipotent too.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The error that the above post #160 makes is that it claims that the Bible was written by God. It was not; it was written by men that were inspired of God. That is a big difference.

When we study Gensis 1, we can see that it was written as almost a direct rebuttal to the Babylonian creation story. It was probably written during the Babylonian captivity, as a means to keep the people of God intact, and to counter the creation stories that the people were hearing from their captors.

Genesis has served its purpose in that it shows the stark contrast of the love of God for His creation over the cold aloof notion of gods that was purported by the Babylonians and other pagan cultures. God wants a personal relationship with His creation; that is the point. There is no evidence that Genesis is an exact description of the sequence of creation, nor is there any need that it be. God does not stand or fall by our interpretation of Him. He lives unto Himself, as He alone is God.

God could have created the world instantly 6000 yrs ago, but there is no evidence that He did. I believe that it shows more faith in God to accept His truth, even when faced with the truth of evolution and the apparent ancient age of the universe.

 

[L'Anatra]

I am also try to state in my posts (maybe it isn't coming across clearly) that using science for interpretations (or to hold them up or disprove them) shouldn't be done. Science never has all the facts. Science has stated many facts, then on later find of evidences finds out they were wrong. All evidence has not been found for everything and may never be found. Basing an interpretation on science that can only present theories and lacks in all the information needed is harmful.

If this is the case, then why in the world are creationists looking for scientific "evidence" to lend credence to their model. What you are stating is a contradiction.

You're correct: science never has all the facts. It has some of the facts. And the facts we do have we can use to make conclusions. The facts we do have can be used to absolutely falsify other conclusions.

Don't bring up the "only a theory" idea again, it doesn't make you look very good. My opinion of the Bible is based on reality as it appears to me, and so is yours, not some ideal notion of "science." I don't know about you, but I trust what I see with my own two eyes.

Otherwise, I may as well not be here.

And when you say you cannot believe in a world wide flood, or creation because you don't see it with your own eyes(evidence), isn't this harmful to your faith? It sounds too much like an atheist saying I cannot believe in God because I cannot see Him with my own eyes or there is not evidence of Him.

It is not harmful to my faith. I've already said that it isn't, because I don't put words or ideas in God's mouth. God speaks to people in the language and understanding of their own time. This is plainly seen in the marked changes evident in our Lord between the Old Testament and the New Testament. And He clearly had a purpose for the stories in Genesis. That makes them true, regardless of what I read into them. It does not, however, make them historical or factual.

I can very well be wrong about my literal translation of the creation of the world, the world wide flood, but I never doubted for one moment God, or what He says. I hold strongly to what is said in Romans 1:18-22, God made it plain. He didn't try to hide how He created the world, how the flood happened, He made it plain so we can clearly understand without the need of science, or other men telling us it didn't happen.

Science isn't about "other men." You can go out into the world and find the same facts they do.

I do not look to science that is riddled with non believers looking for fame and fortune (as one put it) to help me in my interpretation of the Bible.

"Riddled with non-believers." Typical nonsense.

Because they're non-believers, in your mind, their expertise and character can not be trusted. This is part of what I discussed above in my statement about literalists.

I pray, I study, and I believe God made it plain. I put my faith in God that He made it plain to us, so we wouldn't have to look at a fallible science, or a fallible man to help us understand His Words.

You put faith in your own mind that you understand His Words, don't you? This isn't as "plain" as you'd like it to be, is it?

I have faith that God meant for us to know how He created this world so that we all can know His Glory.

It talks about this in Romans 1:20-23... For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, He having given knowledge to them through the things which He has made [the Universe and the Bible], so that men have no reason for wrongdoing. Because, knowing God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish, And by them the glory of the eternal God was changed and made into the image of man who is not eternal, and of birds and beasts and things which go on the earth.

Romans 1:20 talks about the knowledge that God has given us through His works. Literalists place the Bible on a higher pedestal than the Creation itself. This is disturbing.

Creationists, ironically, forget about the Creation itself when they try to discern the glory of God. Romans 1 forbids this. Read it again.

Besides, billions of years seems a bit more eternal to me than 6,000. Not that that is relevant.

Is it not a greater Glory to God that He did create the world in 6 days, breathed life into a man, took his rib and created woman? Or is it to the greater Glory of God that He created some matter(or whatever your scientific technical word you want to use) and everything evolved over billions of years and man was created by aliens, or something?

Okay... no one said anything about man being created by aliens. Please learn about science before you go on about "everything evolving from matter over billions of years." Evolution is a biological process. That's it... life already has to exist for it to occur.

You think about evolution as being some incredibly long drawn out process. You don't, however, think that that is from our perspective only. For all you know, God spoke, and the entire history of life on this planet occurred in an instant for Him.

Jesus raised the dead.
Jesus cast out demons.
Jesus walked on water.
Jesus calmed the storm.
Jesus healed.
Jesus gave us salvation.

All this for His Glory, and all done in mere moments, but God took billions of years to create earth, and let something else create man.

I do not deny those things.

Think about this. If God created the physical reality of the universe, why in the world would He simply snap something into being (defying His own laws), when He could just guide His laws of nature into creating what He wanted to create.

If God can create by just saying, as He did, why would it take billions of years when everything is at His command and He is all powerful? Oh wait, God made it plain to us, why would I substitute billion for a day.

Literalism rears its ugly head again, and once more you miss out on the point of Genesis 1.

 

[pressingon]

It talks about this in Romans 1:20-23... For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, He having given knowledge to them through the things which He has made [the Universe and the Bible], so that men have no reason for wrongdoing. Because, knowing God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish, And by them the glory of the eternal God was changed and made into the image of man who is not eternal, and of birds and beasts and things which go on the earth.

Romans 1:20 talks about the knowledge that God has given us through His works. Literalists place the Bible on a higher pedestal than the Creation itself. This is disturbing.

Not to take you out of context, but I think what you were saying helps to make a point about our differences as creationists and theistic evolutionists, leading into a bit of commentary with which I hope we can all agree....

Both sides agree that when God's creation and Word seem to disagree, we're forced to examine our interpretation of each. Creationists generally examine our interpretation of creation... theistic evolutionists generally examine their interpretation of the Word. The difference, of course, is in which interpretation we believe to be more reliable (as led by our faith). This, of course, is what we're really debating here -- not whether the Bible is God's Word... not whether he made the universe... not whether our beliefs in the "hows" of creation imply anything about our salvation... but who is more in tune with the Holy Spirit in their search for truth.

That gets personal, of course, as we all like to believe we're right, and cling to those notions desperately (often more so than we cling to God). I hope that we're all doing this already, but let's try to ensure we break those bonds of pride in our self-understanding and cling to God, seeking His guidance as we discuss these issues.

 

[L'Anatra]

Not to take you out of context, but I think what you were saying helps to make a point about our differences as creationists and theistic evolutionists, leading into a bit of commentary with which I hope we can all agree....

Both sides agree that when God's creation and Word seem to disagree, we're forced to examine our interpretation of each. Creationists generally examine our interpretation of creation... theistic evolutionists generally examine their interpretation of the Word. The difference, of course, is in which interpretation we believe to be more reliable (as led by our faith). This, of course, is what we're really debating here -- not whether the Bible is God's Word... not whether he made the universe... not whether our beliefs in the "hows" of creation imply anything about our salvation... but who is more in tune with the Holy Spirit in their search for truth.

That gets personal, of course, as we all like to believe we're right, and cling to those notions desperately (often more so than we cling to God). I hope that we're all doing this already, but let's try to ensure we break those bonds of pride in our self-understanding and cling to God, seeking His guidance as we discuss these issues.

Very good point.

 

[Ron21647]

Undergog77,

I have a goal for your life: you are still young, so you should be able to do this easily. First, get a Ph.D. in geology from an acredited school. Then, prove the earth is young, and get it accepted by most scientists. Of course, you'll have some convincing to do to get the "conspiracy" to come around to your point of view, but stick to it, and if your facts are lined up as they need to be, they'll come around.

If you can do this, you will have published some original research, be on the cover of every magazine and so on, and maybe even win the Nobel Prize.

So, what do you think, are you up to the challenge?

P.S. of course, you won't be able to use any of the info from AIG or ICR, because those have already been discredited. But then, we have already agreed that this will be original research, right?

Ron

 

[Enigma'07]

Ron, why don't you get a degree in theology if Underdog's going to get one in geology.

 

[Ron21647]

I am just curious if science has changed its mind about something I found.
Francis Crick, the biologist who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, determined that the four billion years evolutionists have determined was available for evolution was not enough time for life to arise out of a primordial soup.

Here is a nice quote I found.

"If evolution is in such a state, then why do so many people cling to it? As it turns out, the argument is not really between creation and science. The argument is on a philosophical level. Rationalistic thinking rules out the supernatural and looks for other explanations than the work of an all wise Creator, who left His imprint in a designed creation. Should the theory of rationalistic, fallible man mold our thinking, or ought we to acknowlege the God, who is our Sovereign Creator, and believe His Word?"

God Bless

Francis Crick also believes that life came to earth from outer space....

Are you sure you want to be quoting this guy?

added on edit: ok, I read the next page, and you have covered this. sorry about that. I am still trying to catch up on this thread.


Ron

 

[Underdog77]

Undergog77,

I have a goal for your life: you are still young, so you should be able to do this easily. First, get a Ph.D. in geology from an acredited school. Then, prove the earth is young, and get it accepted by most scientists. Of course, you'll have some convincing to do to get the "conspiracy" to come around to your point of view, but stick to it, and if your facts are lined up as they need to be, they'll come around.

I'm one step ahead of you Ron. I'm already looking for a bachelors in either Biology or Geology. Maybe I'll go for a masters if I feel like it. But I plan on going to Dallas Theological Seminary after getting a degree. So thanks for the advice and maybe you'll hear about me one day.

P.S. of course, you won't be able to use any of the info from AIG or ICR, because those have already been discredited.
Ron

I have a problem with this statement and others like it.
1) It seems as though people can only point out the wrong doings of others and do not check themselves. Evolutionists (be they OEC, TE, or even atheistic evolutionist) seem to easily forget all the falsified evidence, disproved data, etc... that their own scientists have come with.

Yes, I agree that Answers in Genesis and the others may have been wrong sometimes, they may even have some questionable stuff on their site right now, but evolutionists of all kinds have also supported and used incorrect stuff. Some of you need to remember that otherwise I could list all of the junk you side has presented (and some still use it).

2) According to many of you the Bible is fallible. It is not perfect in the sense that everything is true and is just as God said. Yet you feel it is alright to say that some of it is true and can be believed. But you don't keep this same mentality when reading the YEC sites. You find (maybe) a few things that are wrong and then close your eyes and plug your ears and say the whole site is trash. This is insane logic. The YEC sites don't even claim to be perfect and you condemn them because of a few things they got wrong (again, I don't if they have/had anything wrong, I'm just supposing what you say is true).

The same could be done to your evolutionist junk. If people looked at all the stuff your side has gotten wrong and thought like you, it would be only logical for them to condemn every single thing you say.

3) uh...I forgot point 3. Maybe I'll remember it later. But try to remember guys that just because someone/something has been wrong on a matter or two doesn't mean that all of its wrong.

 

[Ron21647]

I don't think I said interpret scripture as a child. I think I said have faith like a child. I don't have the time at the moment to go back to all of my posts and see if I did say that. If I did, I didn't mean interpret as a child but rather faith as a child.

I still see each post from a TE that you let science be your guide for your interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not sure how you worded it, to me they mean the same thing.

Suppose the Bible says the sky is green and the grass is blue. What would you think?

What have you seen that contradicts the Bible? I am just curious.

I didn't say I have seen or know things that contradict the Bible. I have seen or know things that contradict the YEC interpretation.

For example - God is responsible for the creation of everything.

Man is inherently evil.

Men in general could be so bad that God would kill them, but He will save those who have faith and believe in Him

It is wrong for people to try to put theirselves equal with God, and God will punish them for it.

There could be more from the first few chapters of Genesis, but I think you get the idea. I believe all these things I have mentioned are truths that we should live by, whether or not the events listed really happened and the people mentioned really existed. Do you agree that these four examples are God's truths even if the people and events didn't exist?

What I cannot agree with is the AIG / ICR et al denying existing scientific observations and making up their own "facts" out of nothing. Things like the speed of light changing, the earth is only 6,000 years old, hydraulic sorting of fossils, the vapor canopy, and so on. If you have been reading these forums, the list of things comes out again and again every week.

And I especially do not like their point of view that anyone who doesn't interpret the same way they do is not a Chistian.

And their attitude doesn't do them any good with those of us who are not the "true believers" as they define it. For example, I had been reading the books in the "Left Behind" series, and had bought and read 6 or 7 of them. I thought they were pretty good, I didn't agree with every detail in them, but I liked them. And they were easy enough to read that I could get through one in a weekend. then I found out that TIm LeHaye is affiliated with the ICR. I now refuse to buy any more of his books. Because of their exclusionist attitude.

I am also try to state in my posts (maybe it isn't coming across clearly) that using science for interpretations (or to hold them up or disprove them) shouldn't be done. Science never has all the facts. Science has stated many facts, then on later find of evidences finds out they were wrong. All evidence has not been found for everything and may never be found. Basing an interpretation on science that can only present theories and lacks in all the information needed is harmful. And when you say you cannot believe in a world wide flood, or creation because you don't see it with your own eyes(evidence), isn't this harmful to your faith? It sounds too much like an atheist saying I cannot believe in God because I cannot see Him with my own eyes or there is not evidence of Him.

True, science never has all the facts. But it is not likely that they will come up with facts to prove the YEC point of view, either. And the facts have rarely turned out to be wrong, although the interpretation of them has, many times. But that is what makes science so powerful, because it is willing to change and grow, just as when relativity enhanced Newtonian mechanics.

Remember that a theory is the best (so far) interpretation and explanation of the facts. It does not mean something that is still in the "maybe" category. that would be a hypotheses.

A non-belief in a literal creation or flood is not harmful to my faith, because I don't base my faith on them being literal. I base my faith on God's truths, a few examples of which I have listed above. (and of course there are many more). whether or not a passage should be interpreted literally or figuratively, it still has a truth in there someplace, to help us live our lives, and that is what I look for.

I can very well be wrong about my literal translation of the creation of the world, the world wide flood, but I never doubted for one moment God, or what He says. I hold strongly to what is said in Romans 1:18-22, God made it plain. He didn't try to hide how He created the world, how the flood happened, He made it plain so we can clearly understand without the need of science, or other men telling us it didn't happen. I do not look to science that is riddled with non believers looking for fame and fortune (as one put it) to help me in my interpretation of the Bible.

I don't doubt God either. But are you saying I should forget all the science? Should I revert to the technology available 2000 years ago?

Many scientists are Christians, as has been pointed out many times here.

I pray, I study, and I believe God made it plain. I put my faith in God that He made it plain to us, so we wouldn't have to look at a fallible science, or a fallible man to help us understand His Words. I have faith that God meant for us to know how He created this world so that we all can know His Glory. Is it not a greater Glory to God that He did create the world in 6 days, breathed life into a man, took his rib and created woman? Or is it to the greater Glory of God that He created some matter(or whatever your scientific technical word you want to use) and everything evolved over billions of years and man was created by aliens, or something?

Jesus raised the dead.
Jesus cast out demons.
Jesus walked on water.
Jesus calmed the storm.
Jesus healed.
Jesus gave us salvation.
All this for His Glory, and all done in mere moments, but God took billions of years to create earth, and let something else create man. If God can create by just saying, as He did, why would it take billions of years when everything is at His command and He is all powerful? Oh wait, God made it plain to us, why would I substitute billion for a day.

To me, it better shows the glory of God to know that He could speak the universe into existence via the big bang about 14 billion years ago, and have everything unfold according to His plan for us now.

I don't much like Francis Crick's panspermia theory myself, and I don't think it has been widely accepted. But if it will make you feel better, I am willing to insert a miracle at that point, if needed. Right now, I don't think it is needed.

In closing, a year or two ago, we were studying the creation of Eve in our church. It was a directed discussion we all could contribute to. When the topic of Adam's rib came up, someone asked if men have one fewer rib than women because of that. We took a vote, and everyone in the room except me raised their hand that it was true. I looked it up on one of the scince question and answer sites meant to help kids with their homework. And it isn't true. A few people have a different number of ribs, but that is due to a non-beneficial but non-harmful mutation. but there is no statistical evidence that men have fewer ribs than women.

The Bible doesn't really say that Adam should have passed his rib shortage on to his sons, but these people, who are all friends of mine, felt that thier literal interpretation required it to be true.

Ron

 

[Underdog77]

Oh yeah, I just remembered point #3.

3) Science is always changing. It is for the most part correcting itself for the better as time goes on. I again point out that for a while Nebraska man was thought to be true. He (it rather) was used as scientific evidence for evolution as a missing link. But what happened as time went on, the truth came out. The whole idea of Nebraska man (I believe his skeletal structure was created, the shape of his face, and much more) was founded on nothing more than a pigs tooth. That's it.

Undeniably there are lies out there. But thank goodness, in the scientific community most of these lies are short-lived.

As science changes, so do the arguements that are based on it. I believe YEC hasn't changed hardly at all in comparison to evolution. The only thing that has really changed about YEC is the data it uses. If science says something useful then YEC's will use it but will drop it if is disproven. All of evolution depends on science data and as the data changes, the whole of evolution changes as well. That's how frail evolution is.

 

[Ron21647]

I'm one step ahead of you Ron. I'm already looking for a bachelors in either Biology or Geology. Maybe I'll go for a masters if I feel like it. But I plan on going to Dallas Theological Seminary after getting a degree. So thanks for the advice and maybe you'll hear about me one day.

Ok, but realize that if you want to publish respected original reseach you really need the PhD.

DTS is a good school, several of my former pastors went there. They all seemed very knowledgeable, and they all had good things to say about it.

Quote:

P.S. of course, you won't be able to use any of the info from AIG or ICR, because those have already been discredited.
Ron

I have a problem with this statement and others like it.
1) It seems as though people can only point out the wrong doings of others and do not check themselves. Evolutionists (be they OEC, TE, or even atheistic evolutionist) seem to easily forget all the falsified evidence, disproved data, etc... that their own scientists have come with.

Yes, I agree that Answers in Genesis and the others may have been wrong sometimes, they may even have some questionable stuff on their site right now, but evolutionists of all kinds have also supported and used incorrect stuff. Some of you need to remember that otherwise I could list all of the junk you side has presented (and some still use it).

Yes, there have been falsified evidence and disproved data on both sides. But regardless of whether these people have the necessary credentials or not, (and it has been pointed out here that most of them don't, by their own admission), their mission statement requires them to ignore anything that disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible. therefore, what they do is not science, and it is not respected in scientific circles.

If you were to come up with the same conclusions, with the credentials I mentioned above that you would need, and got your work published in a recognized journal, and inlcuded facts and data that could be duplicated by other scientists, then you would be believed.

But they don't see the need to do any of this, and their intended audience, which is not scientists, don't care or know about all that.

2) According to many of you the Bible is fallible. It is not perfect in the sense that everything is true and is just as God said. Yet you feel it is alright to say that some of it is true and can be believed. But you don't keep this same mentality when reading the YEC sites. You find (maybe) a few things that are wrong and then close your eyes and plug your ears and say the whole site is trash. This is insane logic. The YEC sites don't even claim to be perfect and you condemn them because of a few things they got wrong (again, I don't if they have/had anything wrong, I'm just supposing what you say is true).

The same could be done to your evolutionist junk. If people looked at all the stuff your side has gotten wrong and thought like you, it would be only logical for them to condemn every single thing you say.

I don't say the Bible is fallible, I say some interpretations of the Bible are fallible. There is a big difference.

The stuff that evolutionists (I am using this term loosely, since that isn't what you mean. You mean geologists, chemists, physicists, biologists, and so on) have come up with that is wrong has been thrown out. By them. That is what makes it a truth finding process.

3) uh...I forgot point 3. Maybe I'll remember it later. But try to remember guys that just because someone/something has been wrong on a matter or two doesn't mean that all of its wrong.

Whatever. I am sure you will post it someplace when you think of it. And when you do, we will respond to it.

Ron

 

[Underdog77]

Name 3 'leading scientists' who are for YEC.

List their publications and where they were peer reviewed.

List their credentials in the area of geology or biology and how those credentials and what they study makes them an authority on the matter.

Show us where anybody considers them leading scientists and why.

What makes a leading scientist? Are the a leading scientist because the majority believes them? Because you believe them?

You could name 3 leading scientists that are for evolution for me and I wouldn't give a second thought about it. Why would you care. Being a leading scientist doesn't necessarily mean you are right.

 

[notto]

What makes a leading scientist? Are the a leading scientist because the majority believes them? Because you believe them?

You could name 3 leading scientists that are for evolution for me and I wouldn't give a second thought about it. Why would you care. Being a leading scientist doesn't necessarily mean you are right.

You should ask Enigma'07. Enigma'07 made the claim that leading scientists are turning to YEC. I guess you would agree that this claim holds no merit without a definition of 'leading'.

 

[Underdog77]

If you were to come up with the same conclusions, with the credentials I mentioned above that you would need, and got your work published in a recognized journal, and inlcuded facts and data that could be duplicated by other scientists, then you would be believed.

That's one of the problems I supopse, many people choose credentials over logic. I don't know Ken Ham's creds or many others off the top of my head (I do believe, though, Henry Morris does have a PhD in Geology) but much of what they use is the scientific data and then through in some logic.

I don't say the Bible is fallible, I say some interpretations of the Bible are fallible. There is a big difference.

That wasn't directed directly at you but to others who have said that the Bible is not perfect. I have shown them how the Bible clearly dipicts a 6 day creation and because this contridicts the beliefs of others they have to claim the Bible is not infallible.

The stuff that evolutionists (I am using this term loosely, since that isn't what you mean. You mean geologists, chemists, physicists, biologists, and so on) have come up with that is wrong has been thrown out. By them. That is what makes it a truth finding process.

Maybe so but I'm not so concerned with the actual evo. scientists themselves but rather the blind masses who follow them. I would venture to say most if not many people believe evolution because of current printings and teachings of falsified evidence.

I don't like to set myself up with Kent Hovind, but he does (or did) something that inspired me. He collected textbooks. And since I first heard him I have done the same and I will say it is scary how much disproven data is fed to students through teachers and through textbooks.

And I don't just collect textbooks from the 80's, but recent publications: 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003 are ones I know for sure I have.

I would say that if publishers and evolutionist liers (not all evolutionists are these kind of liers. These liers I'm talking about are those who knowingly spread false data in support of evolution) stopped the obvious lies, I might be satisfied. If schools presented both creation and evolution as models and let children decide for themselves, I would probably quit the evolution/creation debate and put my emphesis on something else.

But the fact is that there are renegade evolutionists who knowingly spread lies and lead dumb, thoughtless people into believing evolution is a proven fact.

 

[Underdog77]

You should ask Enigma'07. Enigma'07 made the claim that leading scientists are turning to YEC. I guess you would agree that this claim holds no merit without a definition of 'leading'.

I agree. Leading scientist is such a subjective term. What some think are leading scientists may not be considered as such by others because they confirm their beliefs.

I suppose what I would consider a leading scientist is someone...actually I don't know how I would define "leading scientist". My personal beliefs were getting in the way and I was going to describe someone who would be beneficial to YEC. Go figure .

 

[Bushido216]

A leading scientist would be, in my definition, one who is currently doing - and publishing in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals - research in their chosen field(s) of study.

 

[L'Anatra]

I agree. Leading scientist is such a subjective term. What some think are leading scientists may not be considered as such by others because they confirm their beliefs.

I suppose what I would consider a leading scientist is someone...actually I don't know how I would define "leading scientist". My personal beliefs were getting in the way and I was going to describe someone who would be beneficial to YEC. Go figure .

Exactly.

This isn't such an open-and-shut discussion.

I'm wondering--and I know you're compiling your evidence right now, Underdog--if you could bring up in a new thread maybe what your favorite "evolutionist lie" from those textbooks is. Obviously no one wants falsehoods perpetuated in the their childrens' textbooks. I'd certainly be interested in reading about it.

If you've already started a thread on this, pardon my ignorance.

Anything involving radiometric or other forms of dating (the age of the Earth and so forth), since it's been discussed so much recently, doesn't seem like a good choice. It'd be like beating a dead horse, IMO.

 

[GodSaves]

Not to take you out of context, but I think what you were saying helps to make a point about our differences as creationists and theistic evolutionists, leading into a bit of commentary with which I hope we can all agree....

Both sides agree that when God's creation and Word seem to disagree, we're forced to examine our interpretation of each. Creationists generally examine our interpretation of creation... theistic evolutionists generally examine their interpretation of the Word. The difference, of course, is in which interpretation we believe to be more reliable (as led by our faith). This, of course, is what we're really debating here -- not whether the Bible is God's Word... not whether he made the universe... not whether our beliefs in the "hows" of creation imply anything about our salvation... but who is more in tune with the Holy Spirit in their search for truth.

That gets personal, of course, as we all like to believe we're right, and cling to those notions desperately (often more so than we cling to God). I hope that we're all doing this already, but let's try to ensure we break those bonds of pride in our self-understanding and cling to God, seeking His guidance as we discuss these issues.

Pressingon, that is an excellent post. Thank you. I appreciate how well you put your words. With that, I really don't see a point any more to this debate or discussion. Some of us interpret differently. Some like myself use the Bible to interpret the Bible. None of us knows if we are right, but we hold to our faith that we are at least close.

I speak passionately on this subject because I believe what I believe. I don't give much credibility to science because history has proven that science can and will change their beliefs or assumptions. (credibility as far as using it for evidence on interpretations for the Bible) I just believe that when it says God created man, He created man, not a cell or a primative ape or whatever. I believe when it is said day, it meant 24 hour period. I believe it because I think God really wanted to make it clear to us, plain as Paul puts it. I don't think God meant for us to have to go looking outside the Bible to understand what He meant. This to me would lead to more mis-interpretations then using the Bible to interpret the Bible because anything outside the Bible(or God/Jesus/Holy Spirit) is fallible. I believe God's Words to be more important then what He created. I believe His Words are more important then me. His Words bring Glory to Him. His creation shows the Glory of God. I believe even though men wrote the Bible that they wrote exactly what God wanted in the Bible. I don't believe that someone put something in there that is not of God, either on purpose or accidental. I just seem to believe that God is in control of all things - eternal power. But that is just me, not you.

God Bless

 

[L'Anatra]

Pressingon, that is an excellent post. Thank you. I appreciate how well you put your words. With that, I really don't see a point any more to this debate or discussion. Some of us interpret differently. Some like myself use the Bible to interpret the Bible. None of us knows if we are right, but we hold to our faith that we are at least close.

Exactly. This specific discussion isn't getting us anywhere, and it may be best if we either try a different avenue or finish it completely.

I would additionally like to say that if I said something you or anyone considers offensive, that I was only trying to point out that we are all very passionate about how we feel. The thing is, people like to come in here pretending the "debate" is cut and dry. But in reality, Christians have many varied worldviews, despite our common beliefs. Even within specific sects or denominations there are huge differences.

But we are all Christian. And that's why we're here.

I speak passionately on this subject because I believe what I believe. I don't give much credibility to science because history has proven that science can and will change their beliefs or assumptions. (credibility as far as using it for evidence on interpretations for the Bible) I just believe that when it says God created man, He created man, not a cell or a primative ape or whatever. I believe when it is said day, it meant 24 hour period. I believe it because I think God really wanted to make it clear to us, plain as Paul puts it. I don't think God meant for us to have to go looking outside the Bible to understand what He meant. This to me would lead to more mis-interpretations then using the Bible to interpret the Bible because anything outside the Bible(or God/Jesus/Holy Spirit) is fallible. I believe God's Words to be more important then what He created. I believe His Words are more important then me. His Words bring Glory to Him. His creation shows the Glory of God. I believe even though men wrote the Bible that they wrote exactly what God wanted in the Bible. I don't believe that someone put something in there that is not of God, either on purpose or accidental. I just seem to believe that God is in control of all things - eternal power. But that is just me, not you.

God Bless

Thank you.