Inconsistency of literalists vs science

The Genesis account as written by Moses under the inspiration of God says he ( God ) created the world is six days. The argument of literal or figurative interpretation is easily resolved by those who understand language usage and have a willingness to search for the truth. John 8:32. There are some 500 various vehicles of thought used in the Bible. ( Bullinger, E.W. Figures of Speech: Grand Rapids, Baker, pg 9). This necessitates a sound methodology for interpreting and making rational conclusions based on the evidence available. The failure to properly interpret language can be disasterous. Consider the following:
1. The Jews did not recognize the Savior’s figurative use of “temple” when he said, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19). In this case, “temple” referred to his body, and the resurrection thereof from the grave. Their lack of understanding resulted in a false charge against the Lord at the time of his trial (cf. Mt. 26:61; 27:40).
2. Jesus once said that the foxes have their holes, but the Son of man has no where to lay his head (Lk. 9:58). In this text, “foxes” is used of a literal animal that inhabited the land of Canaan. In another setting, Christ, referred to Herod Antipas, saying, “Go say to that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected’” (Lk. 13:32). In this text “fox” is employed in a figurative sense. By way of the figure known a metonymy, the ruler was characterized as a cunning and destructive “varmint” - he was the “beast” who had John the Baptizer beheaded (Mk. 6:14ff). Surely, the rational mind recognizes Herod is not a varmint ( fox).
3.When Christ sought to encourage the disciples to persevere in prayer (Mt. 7:7ff), he gave three illustrations of how fathers generally exercised care with regard to their children. If the youngster was hungry, and asked for bread, the benevolent father would not taunt the child by giving him a stone. Similarly such would be the case with reference to an “egg” or a “fish.” The Lord then said, “If you [the disciples] then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Mt. 7:11).
The Master was not suggesting that the disciples were “evil” in an absolute sense (as Satan is – cf. Mt. 6:13), but, compared to God, even the best of men are “evil.”

The question is did Moses use literal language for the cretion account?

God created all things in a literal twenty four hour period. The evidence is overwhelming to the rational mind. Consider the following:
1. The Hebrew word (yom) is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This word is used 1,284 times and on a few occasions it does not mean a literal 24 hour day. However, the context clearly defines such usage ( Gen. 26:8;4:3,2:4, Jer. 46:10, Psalms 95:8,9). In Gen. 2:4, the total number of days of creation ( 6) is in view. In Psalms 95, the wandering in the wilderness of Israel is being chronicled. In Jeremiah 46:10, the punishment for the sins of Israel is being recorded.
2. The word phrase evening and morning as it relates to yom is used some 100 times in the Old Testament. It always refers to non-prophetic literal time. Furthermore, when the word yom is preceded by a numeral in a non-prophetic passage it is always a reference to literal time ( Gen. 8:3, Numbers 18:25, Exodus 20:11).
3. The plural form yamin appears 700 times in the Old Testament. In each of these 700 cases, it refers to literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11 God created the earth in six literal days.

The evidence provided by the inspired writers who had direct knowledge by the revelation of God, the creator of all things, teaches the Genesis account of creation was one of six 24 hour days.

The evidence for a six days of creation is irrefutable. Those who question the account simply reject the inspired evidence provided. They do so without examining the text in a sound manner. An idea they would reject when filing their income taxes.

They accept, with their position, the Bible is a book that cannot be properly understood in context with all figures of language considered. God was not capable of teaching man his origin through the writen word. If man is incapable of understanding an ominpotent God in this matter, what makes the evolutionist think he can impart his wisdom to us being uninspired and fallible? This is utter nonsense.

God either spoke the world into existence or he did not. One cannot have it both ways. ( Cf. Psalms 33: 6,9).

 

John6:63,

If you'll read my post you'll see I did not blast McDowell. And yes he has done alot of good. That doesn't mean I agree with all of what he does. My problem with him and others like him is that they in many cases present the facts in a way that is not 100% honest. Many of the arguments about thermodynamics and carbon dating are simply WRONG. That doesn't mean that everything in the books is wrong, or that evolution has been proved.

Most scientists (most are lost) believe the earth is old after examining the facts. Many have an anti-creationist bias - but many do not. The simple fact is that there are alot of things we don't know, but many of the ones we do know support the earth being old. So the presentations by McDowell and others are NOT CORRECT and NOT HONEST! As such I don't think it's right to equip young Christians with this sort of stuff. That being said McDowell has done alot of good, and I wouldn't criticize him openly so as not to make any of the weaker believers stumble. But we should tell it like it is!

 

"God either spoke the world into existence or he did not. One cannot have it both ways. ( Cf. Psalms 33: 6,9)."

I actually agree with Frank!

It's a perfectly fine stance to assert this!! What Christian doesn't believe that God created everything? The problem is going a step further and saying that all the evidence supports YEC when it doesn't!

 

Satan is the prince of this world. Can anyone not imagine who brought about ALL the CONFUSION and WHY?
Who is going to understand this principle better, an agnostic/atheist science professor training University students or a Bible believing Christian living day by day on FAITH and in prayerful study of GOD's Word?

Which is going to be more attuned/receptive to the LORDS leading? Which is more likely to become a tool of Satan for misguiding others?

There is an old saying, "Things are seldom what they seem----skim milk masquerades as cream." (HMS Pinafore). I believe evolution is a wolf in sheep's clothing, but that is what the GOD says to me in HIS Word.

II Peter chapter 3

 

I know that GOD is PERFECT! The Bible tells me so.
I know that GOD's creation was VERY GOOD! The Bible tells me so.
I know that the ENTIRE BIBLE must be read and examined and studied in light of itself. You cannot pick one verse and hang your hat on it without a clear understanding of its place in the whole! The Bible tells me so. The book of Psalms is a book of songs and poetry. The words are expressive of GOD's grandure on a HUMAN scale. And yet who can deny that PSALM 22 is a perfect picture of Christ's crucifixion on a cross yet to be borne at a future date... The Bible tells me so!

 

"Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible tells me so..."
If You can believe this based solely on His words;
Then why, oh why do you doubt His account of Creation?
In His service;
Jim
And don't tell me you don't. I can read.

 

Jim,

I doubt the interpretations and doctrines of fallible men. No old earth Christian thinks that Genesis is wrong - rather he/she thinks it is misinterpreted by literalists.

 

God said he created the world in six literal days. The inspired evidence is overwhelming. The harmonious evidence from the inspired writers teaches us God spoke the world into existence in six literal days ( Yom). The evidence has already been posted.

There has been no assertion about the word for day and it's meaning in immediate and remote context. Again, the evidence for both the immediate and remote contextual meaning of the word have been posted.


The only false animal I hear or see is the howling evilutionist who rejects the word of God on this matter.

 

Paul:
As for your Sun argument, you must live in your own little corner of the world. Of course, the world does not have corners. However, that is exactly what you believe Isaiah meant when he said by inspiration in Isaiah 11:12,  And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Actually, the figure of speech, four corners of the earth, represents it's entirety, not that there are four literal corners.

Anyone who attempts to interpret scripture without acknowledging the various vehicle's of thought will make many errors in finding the truth.

 

Frank - you have made some very good points in favor of God's Word.

However consider this.

#1. IT is no coinsidence that evolutionism is the brightest alternative for atheist evolutionists to the account in Genesis. They know full well that their bacon is saved in evolutionism -- because there atheism finds its "widely accepted alternative" to the God "account" for origins.

#2. When atheist evolutionist scientists are confronted with the junk-science gaffs and blunders of evolutionism they "Cling to evolutionism anyway" because they have "not other option" as atheists. It is the best - anti-God story around.

#3. It is impossible to argue textual vageries in scripture once God's OWN Exodus 20:8-11 summary is ADDED to the Gen 1-2:3 account of origins. IMPOSSIBLE to obfuscate the text and befuddle the reader once you combine those two sections of scripture.

Chritians evolutionists therefore avoid the text AND notably avoid the combined effect of Exodus 20 when applied to Gen 1-2:3 -- as can be seen on this subject area.

#4. The text of scripture unravels and implodes like a house of cards when you cut out the Gen 1-2:3 foundation and the Law of God in Ex 20:8-11. So many references are made to these key facts of salvation history by NT authors that there is not hope of gutting one part of scripture and leaving the rest alone.

#5. Evolutionists here quickly "Demonstrate" the truth of this as they GN to attack not ONLY the account for origins, but the account of geneologies, the ages of the people the Bible chronicles, the events, the flood, the direct acts of God... Once they fall off that cliff...

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jesus was born of a virgin "yes REALLY"!

In fact it is true EVEN though there is poetry and sybmolism used elsewhere in scripture.

Imagine that!!

Jesus really raised the deadn and was really raised fROM the dead.

Yes "really"! Even though there IS poetry and symboolism in scripture.

Jonah was swallowed by a fish-- yes REALLY.

God created the world in SIX days and rested the 7th day just like He said. --- Yes "really".

Each of those days consisted of exactly one evening and morning (for the slow class) "yes Really"!

And this is true EVEN though there exists poetry in some sections of scripture.

This seems to continually "surprise" Christian evolutionists - but the other evolutionists and the other Christians are pretty clear on the issue of what scripture is claiming vs what evolutionism claims.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well, I'm back. Again. Sort of.

I have power again but no DSL. Gasp. So this is through dialup. Double gasp. Actually we were lucky. This far inland it was just wind and rain. No damage that I can see in my neighborhood but I cannot say the same about those south of here or even of nearby communities. We all need to be keeping them in our prayers.

The conversation seems to have moved on a bit, but I still have something to say. Helen was asking if there has been a change in me. No. I like Helen and hope her opinion of ME has not changed.

Let me explain what I am doing. The YEers always seem to see that personal attacks are a valid way to fight this battle. You can see that even in this thread. They use terms like "evilutuion." They those who accept an old earth "fools" and of the devil. They blame all the world's evils, without evidence of course, on acceptance of an old earth.

In truth, it was as much the dishonesty of the YE people as anything else that led me away from YE. I ususally stay relatively quiet on that, it rearing its head every once in a while. But since Bob's junk science thread, I have brought it to the forefront. The tactics of manu of the YE leaders are dreadful. And they cause much harm. This harm is my reason d'etre (can I spell French?) for involving myself in this battle.

I am not just making personal attacks. I am exposing their deceit. I am not just making general attacks rather than arguing the facts as some do. I am giving very specific examples that thus far no one seems to be able to defend. If they YEers cannot take the heat of having the problems of their side exposed, maybe they should quit basing so much of their verbage on slander and personal attacks.

In the mean time, the problems are still out there.

 

Then he did a very poor job of doing so.

The article in question, the scientific one not the dishonestly misquoting one, shows the importance of proper sample selection. It also shows that trained geologists know how to take proper samples to avoid such problems. Morris proved nothing.

What he could have done, was use the article to show the importance of proper sample selection and then shown where scientist did not use proper smaple selection in similar cases. THAT would have been a good and valid use. Instead, he said that getting the wrong date for deliberately improperly selected samples meant that dating was invalid without bothering to give the ever important context. WIthout the context, he was just being dishonest with the data.

As far as your concrete analogy, why would I be expected to be able to date concrete in the manner you suggest? It makes no sense.

You want to try and defend any of the others?

 

I have documented quite a few lies by YE leaders. If you think that the same can be said of mainstream science then why don't you document a few things you consider to be lies being taught today and we can examine them. Nobody will defend the ones I have presented or admit that the people in question are wrong*, maybe someone can show you the truth in what you think are lies or admit that someone on the other side is making a mistake.

*I would love, just once, for YEer to admit that someone on their side di something wrong. These debates usually have an unending string of false claims. Once the claims are shown to be false one of two things happen. They either make a new false claim or they reassert the same thing without new evidence or contridicting what was posted. You never see Yeers concede a point nor criticize their own. I would be perfectly willing to concede points (and have told some when I thought they made good points) and have no proplem criticizing old earthers if they are found to be making mistakes. It would be refreshing to just once have someone agree that these are bad tactics and should be refraned from.

 

The point, if we can ever get back on topic, it that even those of you who insist that the Creation be literal take other parts of the Bible as non-literal when you find the evidence convincing. You have no basis in the words themselves to doubt a flat, geocentric earth with a dome overhead with fixed stars and a path for the sun to take through the sky and windows through which the weather can be poured. BUt you do not actually belief this. Because you use outside evidence to let you know that this is not literal. Of course before we knew this, people used these verses to insist otherwise. Look at the experiences of Galileo and Copernicus. In the days of GG, some religious people who were just as insistant on geocentrism for the same reasons you insist on a young earth refused to even look through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter as the orbited that giant planet. Today the same thing. Your eyes are blinded to the reality of the situation. You refuse to even consider (most of you. I know Helen has changed sides and so this my not apply to her and there may be others.) the possibility that you might have the wrong interpretation. Yet, you seem to have difficulty putting into words how you decide what parts to take literally and which to take non-literally.

 

"IT is no coinsidence that evolutionism is the brightest alternative for atheist evolutionists to the account in Genesis. They know full well that their bacon is saved in evolutionism -- because there atheism finds its "widely accepted alternative" to the God "account" for origins."

Why would an atheist be looking to explain Genesis? THis does not make sense.

"When atheist evolutionist scientists are confronted with the junk-science gaffs and blunders of evolutionism they "Cling to evolutionism anyway" because they have "not other option" as atheists."

When have you shown this? You examples have thus far all been shown to be a case of you leaving the full information out of grasp of the readers. Once the information is put into the context of the full statement, a different statement emerges that what you aassert.

You yet hay support for your claims about the archy conference?

"Jesus was born of a virgin "yes REALLY"!

In fact it is true EVEN though there is poetry and sybmolism used elsewhere in scripture.

Imagine that!!

Jesus really raised the deadn and was really raised fROM the dead.

Yes "really"! Even though there IS poetry and symboolism in scripture."

EXACTLY!!!!

Just because some parts are poetic and some symbolic and some non-literal does not mean that ALL of it is poetic or symbolic. You have just torn down one of the great fallacies of the YE crowd. Thank you!

 

Classic obfuscation, misdirection and sidetracking on the evolutionist's part.

But it leads to the obvious question. What in the world do you think to gain by doing that?

Do you really think it is that unclear to the reader that Atheist evolutionists NEED a non-God solution like evolutionism to account for "origins" and that the Gen 1-2:3 "Account" that God gives is totally unnacceptable to them?

I can not believe that you would offer the above response.

In an effort to keep it simple I have only given the 4 obvious examples.

1. The Abiogenesis imaginings of evolutionists.
2. The horse series fantasy.
3. The myth that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate BETWEEN TRUE Birds and True reptiles.
3. The evolutionist "dream" that the much needed "massive decrease in entropy" needed for eovlution from molecule to human brain - will one day be SEEN in nature.

In each case - you simply show that atheist evolutionists "cling to evolutionism anyway".

Nope. In every case you simply show that you think that the fact that atheist evolutionists cling to evolutionism inspite of its blunders should "be a compelling point with Bible believing Christians" or at least to real scientists.

Not even once has that been found to be true. Rather "the point remains" even though you try to obfuscate the point by adding "yes but atheist evolutionists have no other option" (in essence).

Your tactics have been rife with signs of "pure desperation" in these key areas where the blunders, gaffs and flaws of evolutionism are exposed IN the atheist evolutionist texts THEMSELVES.

For your part - you have been unnable to find such problems in the Creation Scientists texts.

We could not ask for a more glaring contrast.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"I can not believe that you would offer the above response."

WHy not exactly? I still do not think that many atheist are very concerned with what Genesis says. Any more so than they are concerned with any other part of the Bible. They don't believe it.

"1. The Abiogenesis imaginings of evolutionists.
2. The horse series fantasy.
3. The myth that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate BETWEEN TRUE Birds and True reptiles.
3. The evolutionist "dream" that the much needed "massive decrease in entropy" needed for eovlution from molecule to human brain - will one day be SEEN in nature."

You never offered any factual dispute for the references I gave you that showed that common materials can act as catalysts to make optically pure compounds.

You have never shown that any problems with the modern horse series. YOu have only misquoted scientists on the matter of the original series before so many additional fossils were found.

You have never substantiated your chief claim that a group of "atheist scientists" at a conference in the 1980s said that archy was only a bird. You have never explained the scores of traits that archy shares with NO other birds but does share with the theropod dinosaurs. YOu just call it "unique." Well maybe my dog is realy a "unique" lizard.

You ignore that your entropy source disagrees with your conclusion. YOu just cut that part of the staement out.

 

Why don't you put one of your horse quotes up again so we can all see how far out of context you quote. The most persuasive, and most dishonest, is the Simpson one about the series not really being in nature. That would be a good one.