six day literal creation?

Mercury,

I'm sorry, but I don't accept any other version besides the KJV. In my Bible verse 4 and 5 are one sentence. Verse 5 is the END of the sentence, it ends with a period. Now, I do not have any of those versions you mentioned, so I would not have any way of looking up the "sentence structure" myself. I have no problem with what I read in my Bible in that regard.

As to verse 19, Ive given you my reasons for what I think of it. I really also have no problem with the possibility with the idea that God created a single individual example of each animal in order to bring them by Adam. I figure if GOd put it that way, than He had a reason for it. Much of what I read, if I don't understand it completely, I take by faith that someday I'll get it. I do study more, and ask questions, don't get me wrong. But I do not believe EVER that MACRO-evolution is a Biblical point of view. There are too many reasons for it NOT to be.

So, one verse that I am not able to grasp completely is not going to throw me into a belief of evolution.

 

"Now, I do not have any of those versions you mentioned, so I would not have any way of looking up the 'sentence structure' myself."

The internet is a wonderful thing.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

This link has a few Bible versions online. With Google, you should be able to find more.

 

Thanks UTE,

interesting that simply by changing the punctuation the NIV has made chapter 2 contradict chapter 1. In my Bible they don't contradict at all, because the punctuation wasn't changed.

Thats as far into KJVO that I will get in this thread.

Besides this, I think Ive had my say.

 

The NIV does not create a contradiction.

Genesis 2:8 says, "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and thre he put the man he had formed."

No contradition.

Garden created first, man formed and placed in the garden!

 

Isn't the point of Genesis 2 that God created the universe (v. 4), and in the day he fashioned land and sky, and before the shrubs and grass sprouted (throughout the land/existed in the earth), he formed man out of the dust of the ground and placed him in the garden he had already made (Genesis 1:3-31)?

In making the garden of Eden, how much of the vegetation had to cover the whole earth?

So no bush existed and grass had not yet sprouted, but the garden was already formed! And God made man and placed him in the garden.

Where's the difficulty?

 

Joseph Botwinick wrote,

Science and theology are two very different disciplines than need to be separated from each other. However, creation “science” is really not science at, but an outgrowth of some very naïve religious concepts and a radically inadequate understanding of Old Testament literature and its appropriate application to the Christian Faith.

Joseph,

Thank you for your questions and the Christian manner in which you asked them. Yes, I do believe that God created the universe. No, I do not believe that the entire Pentateuch is nothing but epic narrative. I believe, however, that it is absolutely obvious to any intelligent and knowledgeable reader of Genesis 1-11 that that particular portion of the Pentateuch is redacted epic narratives.

There is no “conclusive” proof that the world is old, but the evidence is so overwhelming that I would not hesitate to stake my life on the statement that the universe is billions of years old in terms of the ability of man to grasp the concept of time, and I believe that virtually all scientists alive today would stake their life on that statement as well.

My personal experience in dealing with Christians is that very many of them believe that it is acceptable to willfully and deliberately mischaracterize, distort, ignore, exaggerate, and otherwise mishandle scientific data in order to promote their own personal religious beliefs, and that they do it not only very frequently, but on a routine basis. My personal experience in dealing with scientists is that such mishandling of scientific data is rare unless those scientists have a compelling reason to mishandle the scientific data. Most of the scientists that I have personally known had no compelling reason to mishandle the scientific data, but certainly some other scientists working for drug companies, for example, have been known on occasion to violate the principles of science. But the very most compelling reason to mishandle the scientific data has been, historically, to force the data to conform to preconceived, very ignorant and intolerant religious views, and almost without exception, my personal experience has been that those who are guilty of such mishandling the scientific data are those who tenaciously and foolishly hold to the very ignorant and intolerant religious view that the earth is young.

Most of the scientists with whom I have personally been acquainted were evolutionary biologists who had no reason at all to mishandle their own data or the data that had been collected by others. And although their employment was secular in nature (most of them were university professors at secular universities), to characterize them personally as being “secular” scientists would be very inappropriate because most of them were men of faith as well as science. The concept that evolutionists are atheists is based upon the willful, deliberate and malicious misrepresentation of them by Christians, and especially those “Christians” who promote the false religion of creation “science.”

 

Would you please give us an example since you are now discussing something that I actually have a lot of knowledge about?

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]It disturbs me greatly when Christians make ridiculously false statements that they themselves know absolutely nothing about. I have studied the Book of Revelation more than most Christians have, but I know from my studies that my knowledge of that book of the Bible is totally inadequate for me to teach it or even post about it on this message board. Many individuals, however, have not studied the Book of Genesis enough to know from their owns studies that their knowledge of that book of the Bible is totally inadequate for them to teach it or even post about it on this message board, and yet they do so anyway, heaping confusion and ignorance upon confusion and ignorance. Perhaps I should begin to post on Revelation to illustrate how absolutely ridiculous and irresponsible such behavior is.

• I believe that Christians should TALK about what they know about, and LISTEN to what they don’t know about.

• I believe that Christians should WRITE about what they know about, and READ AND STUDY what they don’t know about.


NOTE: I NOT writing about any specific individuals, but a problem that I have seen over and over again on this message board, in Christian fellowships, in popular Christian literature, etc., etc.

 

IOW's, since the words read in their normative, literal sense disagree with what you have predetermined to be true... anyone who accepts biblical creationism is ridiculous, irresponsible, confused, ignorant, and not qualified to debate the subject...

Your interpretations of the observed evidence in nature is far more speculative, ridiculous (when stated as certainty), and irresponsibly proud than those you condemn in your post.

 

The “words read in their normative, literal sense” have led countless millions of naïve readers to come to the absolutely ridiculous conclusion that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate, historical account of an actual event that no one could possibly believe were it not for their personal religious beliefs.

From my personal point of view, uninformed individuals who belittle the knowledge of the learned and who believe that they have understanding and that the scholar does not are the ones who have a problem with pride—a problem that is commonly known as arrogance.

Note: Please do not interpret my words as being a reference to you or your knowledge, for they are not. Indeed, I do not know you, nor do I have knowledge of your educational background.

 

The “words read in their normative, literal sense” have led countless millions of naïve readers to come to the absolutely ridiculous conclusion that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate, historical account of an actual event that no one could possibly believe were it not for their personal religious beliefs.</font>[/QUOTE] Count me among those "naive readers" who believe in a God fully capable of doing what He said He did without regard for the artificial limitations placed upon Him by naturalism.

"uninformed" is subjective. You count yourself as "informed" because you have been thoroughly trained/indoctrinated by evolutionists.

I count myself as informed because I trust the sovereign Creator of the universe to be able to communicate effectively for Himself. If He wanted to be ambiguous about the time needed and sequence of creation, He certainly could have been. He wasn't.

In fact, He didn't have to say anything at all about creation. He could have simply said "I did it" and left it up to evolutionists to fill in the blanks.

I have sufficient intelligence and education to know the basic premises of evolution and to reject them. Further, I have sufficient faith in God not to suspect His ability to communicate even when it disagrees with the opinions of men on any topic.

You guys would love to turn this into a question of "interpretation". It really isn't. Many of the events recorded in Genesis are either true or false. Either God did speak things into existence ex nihilo or He didn't. Either "morning and evening" mean a day or they don't. Either men lived over 900 years or he didn't. Either God told Noah how to build a boat that would survive the flood that He said would cover every mountain or He didn't.

There is no internal evidence to suggest that the account was not to be taken literal. There is a word that describes the act of telling someone something while knowing that they will take a false impression away... that word is "lie".

You are assigning motives to God without reason when you suggest He made up some elaborate story for creation. Even if you say that He did so because the ancients would not have understood.... the bottom line is that He lied to them.

It is the absolute height of arrogance to suggest that God reserved the truth of creation for us moderns after misleading sincere believers in Him for at over 3000 years.

 

Ditto ...

 

Scott

That was quick! ;o)

 

Why do we Christians that hold to the fundamentals of the faith have to defend ourselves from those that claim to have the same faith?

This is 2005, we should be ALLOWED to believe so that we can get out and witness to a lost and dying world. AND THEN, if we fail to disciple those that God draws to Himself through His ministry in our lives, you can proselitize them to believe like you do ...

 

Well, I'm naive, then. I guess the writer of Hebrews was, too:

 

Peter was naive, too!

 

Oooo...oooo...I want to be naive, too. Can I, huh, huh, can I?

 

Could it really be?

Are those believers place a value upon faith starting to outnumber the others?

PS, you really do have my permission to be naive in the Lord - I have faith that He agrees.

 

I'm a tad late here, but I would say six days. Six 24 hour days.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/442

 

The important thing is "God created!" How and how long God chose to do this is immataterial. It could have been six literal days or six billion years. Remember time has no meaning to God - Since He is eternity.

Let's just accept the fact that God did it!

If pressed, I tend toward the gap or day/age theories.

Just my two cents.

Tim

 

I agree that it does not matter at all if God created the earth in six literal days or not. However, it is important to make it known to the unbelievers that not all Christians got their education from a dog-training school, and that the Christian faith is not based upon willful ignorance.