The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

Mercury · Jun 25, 2005

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Hebrews 11:3 states that the worlds and all things were made by the word of God. This Scripture rules out an evolutionary process in which a single living cell developed by some undefined means from non life and that single living cell developed by time and chance to form all living things including you and me.

Only if you use the same hyper-literal reading of Hebrews 11:3 that would also rule out God forming animals from ground that had already been created.

Time and chance can neither create life out of non-life or create all living things from this single cell, regardless of the length of time involved.

Correct. Similarly, time and chance alone can't turn a fertilized egg into a fully grown human being. There are other natural processes that can do this, just as there are natural processes that can cause offspring to be slightly different than their progenitors, and natural processes that can cause populations of organisms to diverge as they further adapt to their environment. God is fully involved in sustaining those processes, so they in no way take away from God's glory or power.

To say that theistic-evolutionists believe John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 is simply untrue. Creation is not evolution.

Since there's no substance to this claim, I'll simply repeat that it is false. As a Christian who accepts evolution as a natural part of what God made, I wholeheartedly affirm that God made everything, both visible and invisible.

Scripture states that the flood was world wide, it does not say that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was world wide.

Correct. The flood was worldwide, just like Caeser Augustus' census of the whole world (Luke 2:1), and just like how the gospel was growing and bearing fruit in the whole world when Paul wrote Colossians (Colossians 1:5-6). Worldwide does not necessarily mean planet-wide.

Well Mercury you are spinning like a top. I did not say that Adam was a son of God in the same sense that Jesus Christ was. True believers are called children of God but certainly not inferring any deity.

Also it is well recognized that there is no intent in Scripture to give complete genealogies [...]

If you accept that we can all be called sons and daughters of God, and if you accept that the genealogies are not intended to be complete, then I have no idea why you think Luke 3:38 supports your interpretation of Genesis more than other interpretations.

Furthermore, given that water flows down hill how were all the high hills under the whole heaven covered [Genesis 7:19] if the flood were not world wide.

One theory is that it was the Mediterranean basin that was flooded. See [Glenn Morton's theory] for details. Quoting from that page:

When the Mediterranean was dry, the Nile River flowing out onto the basin would split into numerous channels much as the modern rivers in the Kalahari desert do today. 3. All the minerals described in Genesis 2:10-17 are found in the region I am describing. 4. This makes an excellent place for the Flood to have occurred because it fits the Biblical description of the Flood covering high mountains and provides a mechanism for the massive rainfall described. As that basin filled with water, the air would be forced upward. Air, containing any moisture which rises, cools and condenses to form rain fall. [...]

There is a subtlety in Genesis 6:13 which young earth creationists miss. The verse states: "Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." (NAS) If you insist on translating 'eretz' as 'earth' then this verse if read in a normal fashion would imply that the 'earth' is about to be destroyed. But we live on the earth and so it was not destroyed. If on the other hand you view this as the 'land' which is about to be destroyed, then even this can be true. The 'land' at the base of the Mediterranean was destroyed, and it has not been land since the catastrophic collapse of the Gibraltar Dam 5.5 million years ago.

However, in light of Genesis 7:11, 19 above there is no reason to believe that the surface of the earth was not drastically changed by the world wide flood.

Glenn's view has one answer to that. I'm not sure if he's right, specifically since the flood seems to be described as so mild (the ark floats easily on the water, and when the water recedes, there's trees growing so a dove can bring back a "freshly plucked olive leaf"). But, at least Glenn's view is trying to take all the data God has given us seriously. I don't expect to know exactly how the flood occurred until eternity.

Could it be that the reason you evolutionists want to deny a world wide flood is that it lends credence to the scientific evidence as interpreted by those who believe in Divine Creation.

No. The reason most deny that the flood was worldwide is that if it was, it didn't leave any evidence. Fossils and sediment are not deposited in a way consistent with a worldwide flood. We have records of local floods that happened within the layers that creationists claim are all part of the worldwide flood. We see forests buried by a flood (with stumps of trees standing up), and then above that, another forest buried by a flood, and then above that, another forest buried by a flood. A single worldwide flood cannot explain evidence like this.

I think it's doubtful that God would do a number of miracles to cause a worldwide flood and then a number of extra miracles to not just hide all the evidence, but make the evidence point to a totally different history of the earth.

By the way are you ashamed to admit that you are an evolutionist and hide behind TE?

What? TE stands for theistic evolutionist. It is a somewhat odd label, since I don't call myself a theistic gravitationist or a theistic electromagneticist. Theories like evolution, general relativity and electromagnetism are what they are, whether the person studying them is a theist or not. But, it's the label that has stuck in creation debates, so I use it to be clear where I stand.

---

Anyway, since we're dealing with New Testament references to Genesis 1-11, I should point out that you left out one of the most blatant:

Hebrews 4:3-7: "For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, 'As I swore in my wrath, "They shall not enter my rest," ' although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.' And again in this passage he said, 'They shall not enter my rest.' Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.' "

Here we have just what you've been looking for: a New Testament text that not only quotes from Genesis, but interprets it. This is what many of your quotes were lacking. According to this passage, God's rest, which began from foundation of the world when his works were finished, is the seventh day. We can still enter that rest today, if we don't fall short of it. Even by Ussher's chronology, that puts the seventh day at 6,000 years and counting.

garpier · Jun 25, 2005

Mercury,

Was the purpose of the flood to destroy all mankind except those on the ark or only those in a local area? If all of mankind was to be destroyed, how would a local flood accomplish that?

shannonL · Jun 25, 2005

If a world wide flood had never happened before Noah and hasn't happened since then, how can any scientist say it didn't happen. They have nothing to go by. No template. they can only determine that it wasnt WW by using local flood data. When God says all were destroyed except for Noah and his family. I believe it was all of mankind. There weren't some Indians or Eskimos in the Northern Hemisphere that were spared. How do I know this? Because the Bible says so. Gen.7:21-22
And all flesh dided tht moved upon the EARTH, both of fowl,and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the EARTH, and EVERY MAN:22 ALL in whose nostrilswas the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died.

Also, Mercury why would God have to form animals from ground already created? There is no reason on earth why he just could not have produced a horse pig or whatever from out of nothing. Faith in Scripture alone is what is missing in your theories.

You can go so far with your theories then a leap of faith is required. I'll leap with the simplicity of the Word. Your free to leap with man's finite wisdom.

OldRegular · Jun 25, 2005

Originally posted by shannonL:
Faith in Scripture alone is what is missing in your theories.

You can go so far with your theories then a leap of faith is required. I'll leap with the simplicity of the Word. Your free to leap with man's finite wisdom.

shannonL

You hit the nail on the head with your above statement as it relates to those who call themselves theistic evolutionists.

OldRegular · Jun 25, 2005

Mercury

Only one point in your response worth response. Regarding your reference to the Mediterranean Basin, it is sheer nonsense to believe that the topography of the earth was the same after the flood as before. Remember that Scripture states that during the flood were all the fountains of the great deep broken up. [Genesis 7:11]. That would obviously change the topography of the earth.

Mercury · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by garpier:
Was the purpose of the flood to destroy all mankind except those on the ark or only those in a local area? If all of mankind was to be destroyed, how would a local flood accomplish that?

I don't know. According to just the Bible, a universal flood (destroying all humans save eight) would seem more likely. According to just the evidence in creation, a local flood that was not universal would seem more likely, especially if the flood happened just thousands of years ago. I don't think either Scripture or creation absolutely rules out one of these views, so I remain undecided (I do think creation rules out a planet-wide flood as absolutely as it rules out geocentrism, though). The view I linked to in my earlier post outlines a plausible scenario for a universal flood that doesn't contradict geology (it's paleontology is more dubious). It does so by moving the flood back significantly to around 5.5 million years ago when the Mediterranean Sea was formed, and speculating that all humans lived in its basin prior to the flood. This would mean that the genealogies after Noah just list some prominent people in the line, rather than each father and son. It would also mean that humans were more advanced at this point in time than is commonly accepted.

And, if you're wondering why I'm unwilling to take a firm stand one way or another, it's mainly because of the lessons one can learn from history. Luther took a very firm stand on what the Bible said about geocentrism. Unfortunately, his stand, which was shared by other church leaders, is now an embarrassment. Science eventually showed he was incorrect, and we've adjusted our interpretations to better accord with what creation has revealed. The same thing could happen again, and so I don't want to wager my faith or my trust in the Bible on things that, if I'm wrong, really shouldn't matter. If the Bible is wrong about the physical resurrection of Jesus, that's a good reason to no longer consider it trustworthy. However, if what I think the Bible says about the flood turns out to be wrong, that's not a good reason to toss it away. Just as the Bible can be true and still meet all the criteria of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 even in a post-geocentric age, it can also hold true even if certain theories about how Noah's flood happened are shown to be wrong.

Anyway, hopefully this explains why I'm noncommittal when it comes to discussing the flood.

Mercury · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by shannonL:
If a world wide flood had never happened before Noah and hasn't happened since then, how can any scientist say it didn't happen. They have nothing to go by. No template.

Not true. We have a template for knowing what animal tracks look like. We have a template for knowing what animal burrows look like. We can examine layers supposedly set down rapidly by a global flood and see these animal tracks and burrows. This shows us that a worldwide flood was not going on as these layers were deposited. (More details [here] and [here].)

We also have a template for knowing what fossilized forests look like when they are destroyed by a flood. We have a template for knowing how long it takes for new forests to grow. When we see layers of forests on top of each other, this again shows us that these layers were not all deposited by a flood, because whole new forests could not grow -- underwater -- during the half-year of the flood. (More details [here].)

We also have a template for knowing how things are sorted due to a flood, and again this does not match what we see in the fossil record. We see certain kinds of trees, including all the pollen from them, all fossilized in the same range of layers. Flowers and grass are only found near the top layers. Animals are not sorted by size, mobility or density, but rather they appear in a way consistent with common descent. What explanation is there for this, if there was a global flood?

There's many, many, many more examples. If this is truly something you're interested in, then research some of the reasons why creationists a couple hundred years ago who were looking to support a global flood instead ended up falsifying it. Then, see if you can find a better explanation for the data than what is generally accepted. If you honestly undertake this sort of research, it's a one-way ticket to accepting an old earth and no global flood.

Also, Mercury why would God have to form animals from ground already created? There is no reason on earth why he just could not have produced a horse pig or whatever from out of nothing.

No reason on earth?

God doesn't have to do anything. But, if you read Genesis 2:7 and 19 literally, the ground existed before the man and animals, and was the material from which they were formed.

Faith in Scripture alone is what is missing in your theories.

No, I think faith in Scripture alone is very dangerous. It is a reality-denying outlook, which is totally out of place for one who claims that the God they believe in created reality.

The gospel we share is weak if it doesn't line up with reality. If Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, then our faith is worthless. If the God we proclaim isn't really the creator of the world, then why should someone be interested in hearing about him? The matter of jibing faith to reality is of utmost importance. Otherwise, our faith is reduced to something akin to believing in Santa Claus -- just an entertaining story to encourage good behaviour.

garpier · Jun 26, 2005

Mercury
If as you acknowledged a universal flood is more likely according to the Bible, then why not believe the Bible. Yes i understand that there are "things hard to be understood" in the Bible, but that does not negate the plain teachings of the Bible. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." If we can believe the Bible in regards to salvation, why do we discard it in matters like creation and the flood? Remeber "every word of God is pure". I may not understand all the problems you cite, but that is my lack of understanding, not the fault of the BIble. You are on shky ground when you say that "faith in Scripture alone is dangerous." Taken in context, the Scriptures are trustworthy and accurate in everything they touch on. I for one would rather believe God than the fallible thoughts of man.

OldRegular · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by Mercury:
No, I think faith in Scripture alone is very dangerous. It is a reality-denying outlook, which is totally out of place for one who claims that the God they believe in created reality.

This statement is unreal coming from someone who claims that they have been saved through the sacrifice of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Is this the fruit of Faith in theistic evolution?

Perhaps Evolutionist A. J. Mattell's remarks are prophetic:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

OldRegular

Mercury · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by garpier:
If as you acknowledged a universal flood is more likely according to the Bible, then why not believe the Bible.

I do believe the Bible. As I mentioned, I even lean toward thinking the flood was universal. However, I'm not going to be dogmatic about it because, for example, geocentrism is also more likely than the alternatives according to the Bible. Sometimes an interpretation that seems more likely is still wrong, and examining reality can reveal this.

If we can believe the Bible in regards to salvation, why do we discard it in matters like creation and the flood?

We don't.

I may not understand all the problems you cite, but that is my lack of understanding, not the fault of the BIble.

If that works for you, that's fine. There are others for which the answers to the problems are as obvious as the answers to the problems with the geocentric system. I do agree that this isn't the fault of the Bible, but rather the fault of those who try to make the Bible speak to more issues or in more detail than it was intended to speak.

I for one would rather believe God than the fallible thoughts of man.

That doesn't help decide these issues. Reality does not just exist in the thoughts of man -- it really is. And, reading the Bible requires us to think -- a fallible process. When there are conflicts, we need to determine whether our interpretations of Scripture or creation are faulty. Truth cannot contradict truth, so the problem must be with us.

Mercury · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, I think faith in Scripture alone is very dangerous. It is a reality-denying outlook, which is totally out of place for one who claims that the God they believe in created reality.

This statement is unreal coming from someone who claims that they have been saved through the sacrifice of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Is this the fruit of Faith in theistic evolution?</font>[/QUOTE]No, it's the fruit of listening to what Scripture tells us about the importance of our faith being grounded in reality:

1 Corinthians 15:13-20: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

Faith must jibe with reality. Otherwise we misrepresent God, the author of both Scripture and creation.

Perhaps Evolutionist A. J. Mattell's remarks are prophetic:

You can continue to blast other Christians based on the words of atheists, and I'll continue to defend my beliefs based on Scripture.

garpier · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by Mercury

I do believe the Bible. As I mentioned, I even lean toward thinking the flood was universal. However, I'm not going to be dogmatic about it because, for example, geocentrism is also more likely than the alternatives according to the Bible. Sometimes an interpretation that seems more likely is still wrong, and examining reality can reveal this

What is more real than the Bible? It says there was a universal flood. (This is not an interpretation but simply taking God's Word at face value)It is alluded to numerous times in both the Old and New Testament. But because of what is percieved of as "science" the flood is questioned by many. Mainly ii is questioned by those who do not believe the Bible is true. (I refer to men such as Lyell, Darwin and others who were responsible for making evolution popular.) Many such men have been guilty of falsifying there work to provee their points. (Haeckle for example) In a field that is so fraught with hoaxes why should any Bible believer take any evolutionary claim as serious? There is a valid explanation from a Biblical viewpoint along with the research to support it. (Not that there needs to be any support for the word of God to be true) When you subject the statements of God's pure Word to the theories of man you are placing man above the authority of God's Word. That not only is unwise but dangerous as well. You have stated that you believe the Bible is the Word of God. If that is the case why nor accept what it has to say on the fact of a world wide flood? (You already said that it appears to support a world wide flood) You trust it literally for your salvation, why not accept it literally in this matter as well?

garpier · Jun 26, 2005

also don't be so certain that geocentricity is wrong. Of course what is meant by geocentricity may differ from person to person. A careful reading of Genesis one shows that the universe was created out of the earth of day one. That would mean that the earth is at the center of the universe. (geocentric) How all the pllantes, star and sun move is a matter of one's viewpoint. In other words all motion is relative to the one viewing the motion.

OldRegular · Jun 26, 2005

Mercury

You are the one who made the statement:

No, I think faith in Scripture alone is very dangerous. It is a reality-denying outlook, which is totally out of place for one who claims that the God they believe in created reality.

I simply believe that for a Christian to make such a statement is unreal.

In previous posts I have indicated that some people have Faith in evolution and have been criticized for use of that term. From your statement above it appears that criticism was unwarranted.

By the way, which part of Scripture doesn't "jibe with reality"?

Mercury · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by garpier:
What is more real than the Bible?

Wrong question. The right question is what is also real. Creation is also real.

But because of what is percieved of as "science" the flood is questioned by many.

An examination of creation has revealed much evidence that does indeed pose serious questions to the idea of a global flood. Those questions remain unanswered.

In a field that is so fraught with hoaxes why should any Bible believer take any evolutionary claim as serious?

Why should you take any medical claim as serious? Medicine has had far more hoaxes than geology or paleontology.

Science is far less "fraught with hoaxes" than biblical interpretation is fraught with cults. That doesn't invalidate either science or the Bible. In science, the hoaxes have been revealed by scientists -- including some hoaxes that weren't even perpetrated by scientists. It would be strange to blame science for being self-correcting.

There is a valid explanation from a Biblical viewpoint along with the research to support it.

Often claimed, but nobody seems to be able to present that explanation or do the research. You demurred when asked to present an explanation for a number of pieces of data that conflict with a global flood. Unless you're willing to provide an explanation, it does no good to assert that there is one.

When you subject the statements of God's pure Word to the theories of man you are placing man above the authority of God's Word.

Again, you attempt to create a hierarchy of truth, which ignores the fact that all truth has the same Source. You also seem to ignore the possibility that Scripture may be misinterpreted by some. I'm sure you think some of my interpretations of Scripture are wrong, so I'm surprised you don't recognize that reading Scripture requires the thinking of a fallible person -- just as examining creation does.

You have stated that you believe the Bible is the Word of God.

No, I tend to avoid that phrase, especially the capitalized form, because it can lead to confusion between the Bible and Jesus. The Bible is inspired by God and is God's word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a concise summation of what it's good for. It is not the entirety of God's word, nor is it the Word who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. In biblical usage, the phrase "the word of God" often refers to specific pieces of revelation (some of which aren't recorded in the Bible) rather than to the Bible as a whole. I think it is misleading to use it to refer to the Bible exclusively, and since that is how the phrase "the Word of God" often comes across, I avoid using it, except when referring to Jesus.

(You already said that it appears to support a world wide flood)

I think you may be confused about the difference between a universal flood (wiping out all humans except those saved by the ark) and a global flood (one that covered the entire planet). The three main views are global, universal and local, and I'm undecided between universal and local. I think the flood was worldwide from the perspective of Noah, just as the sun stopped from the perspective of Joshua.

also don't be so certain that geocentricity is wrong. [...] In other words all motion is relative to the one viewing the motion.

If the earth really is immovable and everything spins around us, that would mean stars are spinning through the sky at many times greater than the speed of light. It would mean gravity is a fraud. Planets would dance back and forth instead of proceeding in orderly, roughly elliptical orbits that are explainable through relativity.

Anyway, if you accept both the geocentric model of the universe and a global flood, at least you are being more consistent than most who hold to a global flood.

Mercury · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by OldRegular:
In previous posts I have indicated that some people have Faith in evolution and have been criticized for use of that term. From your statement above it appears that criticism was unwarranted.

I don't have faith in evolution. I have faith in God, and that includes faith that God created the universe I live in. That leads to my acceptance of evolution, because the evidence in creation points that way.

By the way, which part of Scripture doesn't "jibe with reality"?

None of it!

It's only faulty interpretations of Scripture that do so.

UTEOTW · Jun 26, 2005

"In a field that is so fraught with hoaxes why should any Bible believer take any evolutionary claim as serious?"

Name a single hoax that is being used to support the theory today.

---------------

"It's only faulty interpretations of Scripture that do so."

Paul33 · Jun 26, 2005

Oh please.
The theory of evolution expounded by Darwin and todays neo-Darwinists is materialism pure and simple. There is no room for a supernatural God or a supernatural dimension. All such talk is simply man's attempt to explain meaning in life and has evolved from man himself, the highest product of evolution.

The "progress of evolution" inspired eugenics and Hitler's holocaust. We have since rejected eugenics, but "science" and philosophy has kept the "evolutionary ethics" of Darwin. Peter Singer is a good example of a proponent of "evolutionary ethics."

To believe in evolution, including theistic evolution, is a failure to see the philosophical underpinnings of Darwin's theory. There simply is no room in the theory for God.

Paul33 · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by garpier:
also don't be so certain that geocentricity is wrong. Of course what is meant by geocentricity may differ from person to person. A careful reading of Genesis one shows that the universe was created out of the earth of day one. That would mean that the earth is at the center of the universe. (geocentric) How all the pllantes, star and sun move is a matter of one's viewpoint. In other words all motion is relative to the one viewing the motion.

Here is classic misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1-2. The universe wasn't created out of the earth and Genesis 1 doesn't teach that. The misinterpretation of Genesis 1 does teach that.

Genesis 1:1 is a description of God creating a fully functioning universe. Numerous references in Scripture refer to God stretching out the heavens and establishing the earth's foundation (core).

Genesis 1:2 describes the earth's core in its original creation, namely a planet of land mass surrounded in water and darkness (Job 38:4-9).

The earth's biosphere was then shaped and formed to make it habitable for man (Gen. 1:3ff).

It is amazing that YEC continue to misinterpret the Scriptures by claiming that the earth was formed first, and then, later (day four) the sun, moon, and stars were made. But the Scriptures teach that the starry hosts were formed and put into place when God stretched out the heavens!

Day four is the "appointment" (asa) of the sun, moon, and stars to "govern" the days and seasons. It is not the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Those were created in Genesis 1:1.

Mercury · Jun 26, 2005

Originally posted by Paul33:
The theory of evolution expounded by Darwin and todays neo-Darwinists is materialism pure and simple.

It is only as materialistic as any other scientific theory, such as general relativity, electromagnetism or germ theory. Scientific theories do deal with natural explanations, but they do not rule out the supernatural.

There is no room for a supernatural God or a supernatural dimension.

Only if one excludes God from being involved in the natural. I think such an approach denies the central doctrine of creation: that God made the universe. If one doesn't see gravity and the other forces as denying the fact that God holds the universe together, then one should accept that natural processes just describe some of the ways God works.

The "progress of evolution" inspired eugenics and Hitler's holocaust.

They say the debate is over when someone invokes Hitler. It's especially ridiculous when used by Christians, since there's many quotes from Hitler showing how he used the Bible and what it says about creation to support his twisted philosophies. Of course this proves nothing, because Hitler's misuse of evolution, creation or Christianity in no way proves evolution, creation or Christianity wrong. It just exposes how fallacious this line of reasoning is.

I'm going to save Ute the effort and copy from [his post] the last time this came up:

Quoting from Mein Kampf.

"Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"The folkish-minded man, in particular has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

"Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. ' "

Again, to be absolutely clear, these quotes do not prove Christianity wrong. The fact that Hitler used the Bible and creation for his own purposes does not disprove the Bible or creation. The fact that Hitler used some evolutionary ideas for his own purposes does not disprove evolution.

The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member