Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Okay, let's look at one of these matters again. You claimed [here] that Matthew 9:2-6 shows that "Jesus saw no distinction between SIN and DEATH and DISEASE and INFIRMITY." The result of this is that when Jesus told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven, you believe that at the same instant he was also physically healed (rather than the healing taking place when Jesus later told the paralytic to "get up").

Earlier, I tried to show [here] that this does not line up with other miracles, in particular based on John 9:1-3. You ended up reinterpreting that passage to line up with your view of Matthew 9 [here], and when I confronted you on this [here], you said your remarks had been "off the cuff" but then continued to do the exact same thing again [here]. This time, I'll take a different approach.

Gup, I'm sure you believe that Jesus can forgive our sins too. Remember 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Note that we are cleansed from unrighteousness, not from disease and infirmity. I believe that when God forgave my sins, it was just as supernatural and real as when God forgave the sins of the paralytic. And yet, when God forgave my sins, it did not remove all disease and infirmity from my body! I know many Christians who confessed their sins, accepted Jesus, and were forgiven, and yet who still suffer from the same illnesses they had before. Forgiveness of sins is real, but it is not the same thing as physical healing.

Now, I have only given one verse to make my case, but I am using a principle that is supported by dozens more, as well as by the lives of people in churches around the world. Is there a flaw in my argument, or are you willing to back down on your interpretation of Matthew 9 and John 9?

 

Often, I say that Genesis 1 is like a parable. That is true, as far as it goes, but unlike a parable Genesis 1 describes a real event: the creation of the world! Perhaps by using that comparison I've confused you about the fact that I believe creation was real and was done exclusively by God.

Perhaps a better comparison can be made to another passage that I interpret similarly to the beginning of Genesis: Revelation 1:18. It reads (Jesus speaking), "I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." Note that again I believe Jesus is talking about real events. He really died, he really, bodily rose from the dead, and he really conquered death and Hades. But, I don't think Jesus took physical keys from death and Hades! I think that is a picture of a real event. It is a picture of an event for which there were no human witnesses, and it is presented in a way that makes sense to humans. (See the similarity to creation? )

Now, perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think Jesus did recover physical keys to death and Hades. Regardless, hopefully you can see how believing in the physical keys is not the important point. What is important is believing in the One who holds them! So, while I do not take this verse entirely literally, I do take the entire verse seriously. I do not believe my faith is in any way compromised compared to one who takes the keys as literal, physical objects.

Having laid that groundwork, let me explain in detail how I view Genesis 1. If nothing else, perhaps it will lead to more creative insults for the last five pages of this thread!

First, I think God's purpose in Genesis 1 is to establish that he is the only Creator and that he is involved with his creation. He revealed this without giving us the answers to questions that we have the God-given ability to answer on our own. Genesis 1 doesn't tell us the shape of the world, and it uses terminology that would be very familiar to those who believed in a flat earth surrounded by water covered by the canopy of the heavens. The account is given from an earth-based perspective, so there is no hint that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa. While these may seem to be gross oversights for those who see the text as scientific in nature, it makes sense if you believe that the text is more interested in telling us about God and his relationship to humanity than in spilling all the secrets of how the universe works.

Further, God revealed the indescribable wonders of creation in a way that would make sense to the earliest humans as well as us. Even though I think we know more about the universe now than people did in Moses' day, there are still huge mysteries. Genesis 1 doesn't require an understanding of the immensity of the stars or the amazing complexity of plant life. Instead, it tells of a creative act beyond our imagination by using terms we can understand.

Probably the most creative act a person can do is to make a story. Whether told orally or acted out on a stage or produced in a movie, a story allows a person to create a universe of their own, populated with the vistas and characters of their choosing. It is a form of creation that is known to virtually all cultures in all times, even though the methods of storytelling change. Genesis 1 describes how God, the Master Playwright, created this universe, which is his creation. It describes the three realms and the three groups of characters that make up this creation.

The first three days describe the three realms. The first realm (1:3-5) is outer space, viewed from earth. If you picture yourself on the top of Mt. Everest looking straight up, you'll get an idea of this realm. It is the upper reaches of the sky, higher than the birds. If you stay there for days (wearing your oxygen tank to prevent delusions, of course), all you'll see aside from the sun, moon and stars (which come later), is a gradual progression between light and dark, day and night.

The second realm (1:6-8) is sea and sky. Picture yourself on a tiny island just big enough to stand on. You're surrounded by the sea in every direction, and above you are only the clouds of the sky.

The third realm (1:9-13) is land. Note that this realm is created fully-furnished with all kinds of plants and trees. It, like the other realms, is complete except for the characters who will inhabit it.

The last three days describe the three groups of characters that inhabit these realms. First, the characters for the outer space realm are added (1:14-19). Note that the sun is described as governing the day while the moon governs the night: the personification is only natural since these are characters, not merely set dressing.

Second, the characters are added to the sea and sky (1:20-23). A scientist may wonder why whales and bats aren't created with the other mammals, but the point isn't to scientifically classify the animals. Instead, birds and fish (and bats and whales) are all characters that inhabit the second realm, and so they are all created on the fifth day.

Finally, the characters that live on the land are created (1:24-31). This includes livestock, bugs, wild animals, and humans.

One thing I like about this interpretation is that everything fits on the right day. In fact, if you moved any one thing to a different day, it wouldn't make as much sense. It is similar to how the creation account is sometimes divided into three days of forming that correspond to three days of filling, but unlike in that view, the creation of plant life on day 3 isn't a problem. Unlike a literal scientific reading, the creation of light first, then plants, then the sun makes perfect sense, as does the personification of the sun and moon. It also explains why humans are lumped together with half the animals on the sixth day rather than having one day for animals and one day for humans.

So that's how I interpret the first chapter of Genesis. It's an account of God's creation explained in terms all humans can understand and relate to: a grand play being created of three realms with three corresponding groups of characters. It is not intended to explain the mysteries of the universe, but rather to point to the One who created those mysteries.

[ August 11, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

Your opinion is based on something from Hugh Ross? Yikes. That's a pretty tenuous opinion to base upon.

That guy is a known liar... moreover he adds things to the scripture that aren't there... he quotes verses that he makes up.

For example, Ross paraphrases John 3:16:

John 3:16, if you’ll permit—“For God so loved the human race that He went to the expense of building a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.”’

One glaring ommission from this new translation is Jesus, for example. Remember what I have been saying about evolutionary (humanistic) thought leading to rejecting Christ?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp#hebrew

From Here:

This is in response to Bill D’s 21 May 97 post [on an online discusion group] concerning a radio program in which Hugh Ross appeared. As reported in Bill’s posting, it appears that Hugh Ross has committed a number of ‘Rossisms’, which I define as ‘confident overstatements which are clearly false’. Below I will cite and correct four of the Rossisms reported in the posting:

1. ‘[Ross claims] the book is full of mathematical errors.’ False. As evidence I point out that Ross has yet to make such claims in a peer-reviewed scientific journal where I can answer him. Furthermore, since 1994 Ross has backed out of several radio debates when he found out I was to be his opponent.1,2,3,4 These are not the actions of a man who is confident he has a real case.

2. ‘[Ross claims] Russ had acknowledged the existence of these math errors.’ No, I haven’t acknowledged any math errors. I did acknowledge one minor verbal error — a phrase in my book — which is irrelevant to my main argument.

3. ‘[Ross claims] that when these errors are corrected they prove an old universe rather than a young universe.’ Wrong again. Shortly after publication of my book, Ross made this claim in a newsletter to his supporters.5 On March 7, 1995 I faxed him a letter detailing the ‘off-the-wall’ nature of his criticisms and correcting them. He did not reply to me. On March 26, I sent him a hard copy. He still did not reply.

Finally in May I published my letter openly.1 He still did not reply to me personally, but in August he finally responded publicly.2 In that letter to an editor, Ross did not defend his criticisms specifically, but rather said that he had consigned that job to several of his friends. Thus far, no criticisms from those friends have appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, creationist or otherwise. (I’m hoping that will change.) Instead, Ross’s friends are relying on back-door circulation of letters and unreviewed pamphlets. They are hiding from their supporters the existence of a public exchange of articles between them and me in a non-peer-reviewed layman’s newsletter,6,7 particularly concealing the fact that I replied. As far as I know, Ross himself has not personally committed to print any technical criticisms about my book since August 1995.

4. ‘[Ross] elaborated further that he had discussed these errors with Russ…’ That is not true at all. Ross has not communicated with me since his last letter to me on April 15, 1993. In that letter he finally answered my persistent requests that he be an official ICC reviewer for my forthcoming paper on cosmology. He refused to commit himself to that job. Since 1993 he hasn’t corresponded or spoken with me at all. So how can he claim to have ‘discussed’ the alleged errors in my 1994 book with me? If that is what Ross actually said, it is hard for me to imagine it as anything but a direct, conscious lie.

************

Bill seems worried that the enemies of young-earth creation science may eventually find something wrong with my paper. Some of my other creationist friends have the same worry. But what would be so bad about that? Do I, like the Bible, have to be inspired and inerrant? No. I’m proposing a scientific theory, not writing new Scripture! If any of you are placing your faith in any supposed inerrancy of mine, you're in for a rude shock. I make mistakes!

Instead, place your faith in an inerrant Word of God. Read it straightforwardly. Does it tell you that the world is young? That is the message I get, loud and and clear. Well then, even if my theory should turn out to be wrong, we know that a correct young-world cosmology exists.

Let’s seek it vigorously — and accept whatever mistakes we may make along the way with cheerfulness and courage!

Cordially in Christ our creator,
Russ Humphreys


Also see Humphreys Answers Critics


In short, UTE, it's unfortunate to see that you still have no Biblical arguments, but only try to attack with the 'word of man'. In this case, it is the word of a very confused and dishonest man, Hugh Ross.

 

You are going to quote Humphreys as complaining about Ross not submitting his claims to a peer reviewed journal?

Pot...Kettle...Black.

Call me when Humphreys submits this "work" to an astronomy or physics journal.

 

Would you accept a critique from Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal? They are surely out on your fringe element of "science."

"Starlight and Time is the Big Bang" Conner and Page, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1998), p. 174-194.

Or what about the Creation Research Society Quarterly? They are surely part of the same fringe.

John Byl, "On Time Dilation in Cosmology," CRSQ 34(1997):26-32, p. 28

 

Bob, could you point out where I said that? You've mentioned it a few times, but I can't remember saying that myself. I think what I've said (and definitely what I mean) is that God allowed the inspired authors of Scripture to write in language they and their audience was familiar with. "Creationism" is a modern attempt to interpret some of this language as science and history.

[ August 11, 2004, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

Sorry, Bob. I should have known better than to ask you to provide an actual quote.

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God"

Among his glories is the fact that He made them millions and billions of years ago. They cry this out every night.

The creation on earth praises him

Ps 148:7-10
7 Praise the LORD from the earth,
Sea monsters and all deeps;
8 Fire and hail, snow and clouds;
Stormy wind, fulfilling His word;
9 Mountains and all hills;
Fruit trees and all cedars;
10 Beasts and all cattle;
Creeping things and winged fowl;
NASU

And the praise they tell is how he created them from common origin over millions of years.

He who carved the 10 commandments from stone placed the fossils in the stones and placed the uranium in the rocks - 3 billion years ago, based on the decay results we've measured here on earth - even longer, based on analysis of meteorites and moon rocks . . .

So yes, as Jesus said, man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that procedeth from the mouth of God, and unlike some I accept that which He created by His word and what it says about how old it is and how life evolved.

 

Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

Jesus equates the two sentences as meaning the same thing. So do we err to do the same?

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Let me ask you also - Jesus went around healing many people from sickness and disease. Everywhere he went he did this. Why would this be necessary? Why didn't he simply take the approach that "your bodies are worthless... this natural realm is worthless... just believe on me and when you die you will be saved"? Why did he go around healing and delieving from sickness and disease if he didn't mean for us to do the same??

1Cr 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

If we are to imitate Jesus and be 'Christ Like' (Christians) should we not do the same? Should we not minister to the flesh as well as the spirit?

So, do you believe physical healing is real? Do you believe that someone can be physically healed today?

It was not my intention to categorically accross the board state that forgiveness of sin is healing. It was my intention to show that in Matt 9 and John 9 Jesus makes a connection between sin and death/disease. I surely believe that one can be forgiven of sin without physical healing manifesting in one's body... however, it is a revelation from God to realize what Jesus was saying when he says 'your sin is forgiven you'. He equates sin with death and disease. He was purposefully demonstrating that. Keep in mind that in Matt 9 it says that the faith of those who brought the man with palsy was strong. Jesus healed the man on THEIR faith... not necessarily on the man's own faith. It wasn't this man's belief in Jesus (aka Salvation) that healed him. He wasn't forgiven of his personal sin for eternity... he was forgiven of the sin that reigned in his mortal body. That sin was forgiven/destroyed/ended and the man was healed.

Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard [that], he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

In doing some word studies and what not to answer this I came accross some very interesting scriptures.

The word for 'SAVED' in the new testament is sozo {sode'-zo}. For example:

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

However, I found MANY instances where this word (sozo) has to do with physical healing, and not only spiritual salvation. I will bolden the word sozo in each of these verses:

Mat 9:21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
Mar 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: [I pray thee], come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mar 13:19 For [in] those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
Mar 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jhn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [[the world is already judged! Christ came to save us from that judgement!]]
Jhn 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Act 4:9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
Act 14:8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:
Act 14:9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
Act 14:10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Moreover, the word SALVATION (soteria {so-tay-ree'-ah}) also has both pysical and spiritual implications:

Luk 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
Act 27:34 Wherefore I pray you to take [some] meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.

At what point, however, does it not become real? Did God create the heaven and earth? You say yes, He did. Did God create light? You would probably agree he did. But where does the reality end and the fairy tale begin according to you? For example, is the order in which things were created proper in Genesis? Does the Bible describe literal days of creation? Are the really only days between the creation of plants and the creation of whales and the creation of cattle and the creation of men? You see, you claim it's real and then you proceed to deny the reality of it at every turn.

I can see your point, however, you are indeed wrong because the Keys represent something real. They represent control over the gates of hell, and who goes there... and who leaves there. There is no part of those verses that doesn't represent something real. Moreover it is in the proper order and sequence. For example, if I said Z x Z = 4, we know that Z represents something else. Moreover we can determine from the context what Z is. However, it does not negate the sentence as non-literal or non-real simply because representative language was used. Z still stands for something real... if it didn't the whole would not make sense. In the same mannor, Genesis - EVEN IF COMPLETELY ALLEGORICAL - still represents literal, actual events that must have happened ... and happened in the order specified. That means that earth, and plantlife came before the sun, for example - so theistic evolution still has a problem with Genesis... even if it is non-literal or allegorical. Those still have to represent actual events (as you claim to believe).

What you are really saying is that "actual events happened... we don't mind giving GOd credit for the things we don't understand (how it all started)... but we know the things we do understand (what happened since the start) didn't happen as the Bible says they did". You are STILL trying to assert Humanism over God's Word.

As I have already thoroughly demonstrated, history shows us that neither the Jews nor anyone else believed in flat earth throughout history. This is a recent ideology.

What's your number? He submits work all the time.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp

Moreover, his work is often published in TJ. That is peer reviewed... many secular scientists even review that journal.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp
http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightwars.html

What you fail to realize is that this is peer review. That is not an article or paper submitted... it is criticism on the forum pages of the journal. Humphreys managed to successfully rebutt that criticism. In case you are not aware, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal is now simply called "TJ". It is produced and distributed by the Answers in Genesis ministry.

http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/catalog/Magazines

I have been subscribed to TJ for some time now. It is a wonderful scientific journal.

You shouldn't add to scripture PoE. No where in scripture does it even hint that millions of years exist. If you tally up the years the Bible says, it actually tells us that the earth was about 4000 years old when Jesus came.

The verses you quoted say nothing whatseover of millions of years, evolution, or any other Humanisticly influenced ideology.

Well that is certainly a non-existant interpretation you pulled out of no-where.

He who carved the 10 commandments in stone also directly stated the earth was created in six days.

Actually, you have just described to us how you judge or believe the "word that procedeth from the mouth of God" according to what you interpret in the physical creation. Where YEC'ers differ is we interpret the creation according to the Word of the Creator.

 

"What's your number? He submits work all the time.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp

Moreover, his work is often published in TJ. That is peer reviewed... many secular scientists even review that journal. "

But then you say

"Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal is now simply called "TJ". It is produced and distributed by the Answers in Genesis ministry."

I do not exactly call that an unbiased peer review. You know that what I meant was for a real journal to review the work. I did not see anything in your links to indicate that this has ever been done. How can an AIG publication be trusted to give a fair shake to such a publication? Remember that they require their members to agree ahead of time that their "results" will confirm to their statement of faith.

"The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

So their conclusions are drawn beforehand and they explicitly state that anything that goes against their preconceived ideas are by definition wrong, even if they don't know why.

So, back the original challenge. When Humphreys submits it to Science, Nature, American Journal of Physics, Astrophysics, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Annalen der Physik, Astronomy, Astrophysical Journal, Theoretical Physics, Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Astronomical Journal, or General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology to name a few then will you get back to me. I do not exactly consider a group whose conclusions are drawn from the beginning and then everything shoehorned into that or ignored really counts.

If his work was valid, then the real experts in astronomy and physics would not be able to poke holes in it. So what is he afraid of?

 

Gup, I could respond to the whole exposition of your sin = disease position, but I had trouble getting past your first statement:

Can you not see what you are doing here? Jesus does not equate the two things! He rhetorically asks which is easier, and the answer is that neither is easy at all. Jesus is not talking about the effort required to say the words, but rather the authority required to make the two statements. Both statements require the authority of God, but that does not mean the statements are the same. Just because a police officer has the authority to both arrest and fine someone does not mean that arrests and fines are the same thing!

I really think you're out in left field here, Gup. It's not just that I disagree with your interpretation, but I can't even see how you're getting your interpretation! Frankly, when I see that this is how you read the Bible, I'm glad we disagree on what other passages mean.

Absolutely. It happens daily in hospitals around the world, and I also believe that it often happens miraculously as an answer to prayer.

 

Yo, UTE, you are missing something here. ALL secular journals require conclusions that agree with evolution or the material will not be even sent to peer review, let alone considered for publication. That is sort of preconceived conclusions, right? Thus, in your exact words, "So their conclusions are drawn beforehand and they explicitly state that anything that goes against their preconceived ideas are by definition wrong, even if they don't know why."

TJ is a real journal, despite your derogatory indication otherwise. It is peer reviewed by qualified and competant scientists in the fields associated with any submitted article.

Now as a side note, Barry and I don't agree with some of what Humphreys says, and we don't agree with some of the stands taken by Answers in Genesis, nevertheless, we do respect TJ as a good peer-reviewed science journal.

We have not found that agreeing or disagreeing with something automatically makes it right or wrong. So we subscribe to a number of peer-reviewed journals both creation and evolution oriented -- for neither will touch the other's material except to insult it.

That is bad science on both sides where that much is concerned. Just as your own quote, used above, indicated.

 

Paul of Eugene,

No one is saying valid science is a fairy tale. Evolution is presumption based on wishful thinking based on rebellion against God. The vast numbers who believe it, wittingly or unwittingly, do not make it science, let alone true.

True science agrees with the Bible. The data stands. It is the evolutionist interpretations which have no basis in fact and are not and cannot be supported by actual science, in genetics, biology, geology, or any other field.

 

Hi, Helen, welcome back! Lemme post to Gup20 then I'll get to your post in a bit.

Originally posted by Gup20:

You shouldn't add to scripture PoE.
</font>[/QUOTE]I did not add to scripture. The quote marks I use show where I ceased quoting and started editorializing. You shouldn't fabricate accusations like that.

Of course not. The human instruments God used to write the scriptures were unable to understand those kinds of numbers - they were not properly prepared for them. Instead, it is because we know that they millions and billions of light years away that we know they existed millions and billions of years ago; we are seeing them by their light.

The figures about the millions and billions of years didn't come from the Bible verses; however, the bible verses DO assert that THE WITNESS OF THE HEAVENS IS RELIABLE.

Its based on evidence. There are ways to measure the speed of light. There are ways to measure the distance to the galaxies. Distance equals rate times time. Its elementary. Knowing the distance, knowing the rate, we therefore know the time.

And Humphrey's work is discredited.

He who carved the 10 commandments in stone also directly stated the earth was created in six days.
</font>[/QUOTE]And it is perfectly feasible to interpret His words as not being literally meant.

Actually, you have just described to us how you judge or believe the "word that procedeth from the mouth of God" according to what you interpret in the physical creation. Where YEC'ers differ is we interpret the creation according to the Word of the Creator.
</font>[/QUOTE]God's universe proceded from His "Mouth" when He created all things by speaking them into existance. What He made cannot lie. We can believe what it tells us.

 

Yes, the order is entirely proper! As I explained, moving even one element to a different day would ruin the symmetry of the account. Genesis 1 is a literary masterpiece as well as being inspired Scripture, and not one jot or tittle is out of place. However, while the order is entirely proper, I do not believe it is chronological. Giving a chronology is not the purpose of the order in Genesis 1.

And yet, you do the same thing with the keys of Revelation 1:18. You believe they're real, and yet you deny that they are physical keys. You think they just represent something metaphysical. Do you think God was not capable of giving us the honest details of Jesus' control over the gates of hell? Or, can you see that honest is not tied to literal, and that God will provide his word as he chooses?

Exactly -- every part represents something real. When it says God made light -- that represents something real. So too when God made the firmament, although we probably have a different idea of what that is than the original writer did. Everything mentioned as having been created by God really was created by God, and so were many things that aren't mentioned, such as the creation of angels. Every part represents God's very real creation, but it describes it in language that, like the keys of Revelation 1:18, is something tangible that humans can more easily relate to.

I know you like to take a mathematical approach to Scripture, but that approach often fails. Language is not mathematical. You are constricting yourself by limiting the type of truth God can convey to you through his word. If you took this strict 1:1 approach to Jesus' parables, for instance, it would often lead to severe error.

Your final statement goes further than your argument proves. You said the keys of Revelation 1:18 represent control over the gates of hell. I claim that the six days of Genesis 1 represent the work week and the seventh day represents the Sabbath. This is not just something I made up: both Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 2:3 make this parallel clear. Now, since the keys represent something else, that means we don't have to treat the keys completely literally. Similarly, since the days of creation represent something else, we don't have to treat the days completely literally.

We don't know the actual historical details for how Jesus took control over the gates of hell. We don't need to know. Perhaps there were some kind of keys, or perhaps there were words spoken, or perhaps it was something totally beyond our comprehension. It doesn't matter; we know that it happened, because we can read that Jesus holds "the keys of death and Hades", and understanding what the keys represent is more important than knowing how literal they are.

We also don't know the actual historical details for how God created the world. We don't need to know. Perhaps creation happened over an actual span of time, perhaps it was instantaneous, or perhaps any mention of time regarding that event is erroneous. It doesn't matter; we know that it happened, because we can read that "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth", and understanding what the days represent is more important than knowing how literal they are.

 

Hold on - I never called any valid science fairy tale... I called Evolution a fairy tale!!

Flat earth and dome are modern ideas not present until more recent history. It was not around until critics of God's word invented it as a straw man to poke holes in the scripture. This is well documented in history.

The fact that you use this as an argument only shows your desire to 'poke holes in the scripture' aswell. But you shoudl be aware that no man can serve two masters. Your true intentions are clear. A house divided against itself cannot stand however, and your point of view has fallen in this discussion.

The world and everything and everyone in it is not only physical, but there is a supernatural realm as well. We see the supernatural touching the physical realm many times in scripture (any miracle... for example red sea crossng... burning bush... people healed... weather changed... animals talking... etc etc etc). We see that the supernatural has an avenue, then, to effect just about every aspect of the physical world (shoes and clothes didn't wear out, meal never ran out for elijah, shadrack-meshack-abednego not hurt by fire, Daniel not hurt in lion's den etc).

Evolution science (which is different from other sciences) has a committment to ignore any and all evidence that does not lead to the pre-determined conclusion. It is committed to explaining the history of the earth through natural means ONLY. However we know from the Word of God that the history of the earth is full of supernatural influences and events. By definition, then, evolution is a science based on the intentional dismissal of all non-naturalistic evidences or influences. Because of this, it can never lead to absolute truth... because it intentionally excludes absolute truth.

Then you should cease and desist immediately! Clearly God's word and evolution are not compatible with each other, yet you try to present it as such. You use humanism to compell people to allow anti-christian ideas into scripture for the sake of being politically correct or staving off persecution. The only person's less dedicated to truth than christian evolutionists is atheistic evolutionists (unless you count Satan Worshipers). ;p

Yep... I got 66 books absolutely crammmed full of Young Earth evidences. Collectively we call it the Bible. It is the Word of God. Any ideas you have that don't jive with that evidence is wrong.

How do you know Satan is real? Perhaps he is simply allegorical or non-literal as is your view of Gensis or Jesus. Afterall, doesn't he come from that book science has proven can't be trusted?

Or is it that the science is wrong. Is it that God's word is infallible and man's word is fallible. I think so. Like Eve, you are allowing humanistic (satanic) influences to obscure the word of God.

You have demonstrated the 'truth of man'... we proclaim the Bible and it's truth. Therefore it is not us you reject, but the One we proclaim through quoting scripture.

Can the word of man be called truth in comparrison to the Word of God? I choose to hear and obey God rather than worry about believing the ideology of men.

Like you, they were dedicated secular humanists who disregarded God's Word gladly. Men Like Darwin, Lyell - both of which absolutely rejected christianity in their autobiographies - developed the theories of evolution as a way of attacking Christianity. In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed: ‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ This was later called uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell. This is a not a refutation of Biblical teaching of Creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/hutton.asp

For more on the history (by an actual historian) see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv11n2_scrip_geol.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1113geology.asp

Clearly both History and the Scripture is on my side here. Early man held views that were much more accurate than those of just 200-300 years ago. Why do you suppose this was? Probably because they were far more intelligent that we are. But also, we must realize that Adam walked and talked with GOd. In his 900 years you think he never asked? God gave Adam his intellect. Adam was created knowing how to speak, for example. Is it unreasonalbe to think that he may have been created with other knowledge, or that when he saw something he didn't understand he could just ask God about it. Noah built an Ark solely on the verbal schematics! These people were obviously intelligent.

The Biblical evidence speaks for itself. You have chosen to disregard it and believe the opposite. YOu have further demonstrated you have no Biblical basis for doing so (as we still have seen no Biblical support of millions of years or evolution - whereas I have shown gobs of support for thousands of years and creation). Because you have demonstrated that you have no biblical basis for your view, and we have demonstrated how our view is based in scripture, it is therefore logical for you to give up your humanistic worldview in order to believe the Word of God if indeed you claim to be a christian and claim to believe the Bible. If you will simply admit that you believe man's word over God's word, then there would be no more logical basis for believing the Bible over evolution. When you do so, tread carefully however, because your salvation is predicated upon the words of scripture, and believing men's word over GOd's word is a sure path to eventually giving up your very salvation.

That is excellent advice. Lets ALL look at the word of God as our guide and as absolute truth!! Amen!! However, one caveat I would add is that God's word is far more important than man's fallible interpretation of physical evidence. You should always make sure your theories and ideas do not contradict scripture before examining the physical evidence.

In fact it contradicts evolution. Indeed the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but in ANY area it touches upon it is true. So where it talks about geology (the flood for example) it is true. When it talks about biology it's true. When it talks about anthropology, it's true.

We haven't made that claim. However, we will say that truth is far more powerful than fiction. You can believe evolution and be saved... but the two are not compatible beliefs. They are opposites and you will gravitate towards one or the other. We are here to encourage you to gravitate towards Jesus and towards God's Word - away from the Humanism of the world.

We are here also to encourage those who reject the Gospel because science tells them the Bible's history is wrong that they have been lied to by humanism. Like Paul demonstrated, the most effective way to evangelize those without a solid foundation in the Word is to lay the foundation of Genesis and characterize Christianity and the Savior within the context of creation and the fall.

 

If Humphreys will not submit his work to the review of actual experts in the field, how can he expect to get any respect for his ideas. We see this over and over with YE work.

It is false to say that YEers never get published. They get plenty of work published in the "secular" journals when it is up to snuff. It is very rare for them to even attempt to get their YE stuff reviewed. And if it isn't good science, then it does not need to be published. Plenty of material that is not YE gets rejected also.

It is also false to say that ideas that go against the mainstream do not get published. There are always new and controversial ideas in science and many of these are able to get published. YEers like to point this out continuously as potential problems with science. But yet they will not generally submit to even get it checked out.

BTW, welcome back. I hope your move went well.

 

Fortuneatly you have already admitted that you ignored my entire post and all the Biblical evidence I gave.

So in response to you, let me give you a link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2741/16.html#000230

YOu have just disproven the uniformitarian principle upon which all evolutionary theory is based.

The supernatural (prayer) effecting the natural (physical health).