A literal 6 24-hr days?

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Regarding Origen, Helen, the point was that he had a wide following among the early Christians.

So did the other Gnostics, which is why the epistles fought so hard against them! Error can easily have a large following, Galatian. The truth is never the province of the majority. If they stumble on it by accident, they usually correct themselves rather quickly, actually, and show that the majority of people do, indeed, prefer error.

We were discussing what the early Christians thought about creation.

Yup, we were, and I have reference you and quoted sections to you for five years now to show you that what you claim is wrong. I doubt you have read much of it but that, also, does not stop it from being the truth. Early Christians were never in doubt as to the truth of Genesis.

Fact is, as you learned, that even at the beginning, widely-respected Christian theologians knew that a literal 6-day creation was not consistent with Scripture.

Fact is, that your repetition of that lie does not make it true. Fact is, that your use of "as you learned" is a piece of arrogance that presumes I will believe something because you said it, when I know from far more worthy sources that what you are saying is not the truth. Galatian, I am sick to death of your pronouncements of truth which are not truth but are rather combinations of RC blather and evolutionist imaginings. It would be wonderful if you were actually interested in presenting the truth.

Augustine and Clements won out over Origen, but the point is this understanding of a figurative Genesis was not merely held by the faction that ultimately won out over the others. It was widely known.

I don't care who "won" in any human arena. I care what the truth is. And the fact is, the majority of early Christians -- and later Christians -- never questioned the truth of Genesis. It appears Jesus never questioned the historical truth of it or referred to it in any way except as historical truth. Same with all the writers of the various books of the Bible. So I'll read Bible, thank you, and I will look to those who actually have done the extensive research, such as Robert Bradshaw has done, and let you go on trying to talk others into your versions, which only serve to intimidate those who are not aware of the truth.

But, Galatian, the truth will out, despite all your pronouncements -- both in terms of creation and in terms of history.

The fact that most Christians thought that the world was considerably younger than it is, is understandable; scientists of the time didn't know any better, either.

Interesting the way you can try to play both sides in order to protect your backside, isn't it?

But we don't hold Scripture as being at fault for references to the Earth as circular, with pillars.

How kind of you! However that statement is only ludicrous in light of the fact that the very word 'pillars' is a translation error and not part of the original Hebrew. But then, I've posted material presenting that before, too, and you paid no attention to that, either.

Creationism, as we know it today, is a very recent doctrine.

Any ideas 'as we know them today' are necessarily recent by definition. However the knowledge that Genesis is presenting true, unvarnished and unallegorized history has been accepted for many thousands of years.

[Administrator: please confine arguments about Roman Catholicism to the forum for other religions. This was edited to remove the part dealing with that.]

[ May 12, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[The Galatian]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Regarding Origen, Helen, the point was that he had a wide following among the early Christians.

So did the other Gnostics, which is why the epistles fought so hard against them!

I'm a little surprised that you think Origen is a gnostic. It is faith, not knowledge that Origen sees as saving.

Error can easily have a large following, Galatian.

Indeed.

The truth is never the province of the majority. If they stumble on it by accident, they usually correct themselves rather quickly, actually, and show that the majority of people do, indeed, prefer error.

That would explain the last election, I suppose. However, I doubt if finding what the least number of people believe would be a good guide to the truth.

Barbarian observes:
We were discussing what the early Christians thought about creation.

Yup, we were, and I have reference you and quoted sections to you for five years now to show you that what you claim is wrong.

I think the early fathers of the Church are more authoritative than latter-day opinions on what they thought. As you can see, the early Christians observed that Genesis could not be literal. Clements, Augustine, and Origen were just a few of them, but they were highly regarded and represented a very large number of the Christians of that time.

I doubt you have read much of it but that, also, does not stop it from being the truth. Early Christians were never in doubt as to the truth of Genesis.

The truth, no. The literalness, yes.

Barbarian observes:
Fact is, as you learned, that even at the beginning, widely-respected Christian theologians knew that a literal 6-day creation was not consistent with Scripture.

Fact is, that your repetition of that lie does not make it true.

It is true. Augustine, for example, commented on the impossibility of mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Fact is, that your use of "as you learned" is a piece of arrogance that presumes I will believe something because you said it, when I know from far more worthy sources that what you are saying is not the truth.

Bad habit, that. I don't mean to annoy you with it, or presume you are ignorant.

Galatian, I am sick to death of your pronouncements of truth which are not truth but are rather combinations of RC blather and evolutionist imaginings.

I don't think calling names helps in any way.

It would be wonderful if you were actually interested in presenting the truth.

I don't say anything here that I don't think is true, Helen. You know me better than that.

Barbarian observes:
Augustine and Clements won out over Origen, but the point is this understanding of a figurative Genesis was not merely held by the faction that ultimately won out over the others. It was widely known.

I don't care who "won" in any human arena.

Which is O.K. But it is germane to the question of whether or not early Christians thought Genesis is figurative or literal. Neither they nor later Christians, some of whom thought Genesis is literal, questioned the truth of Genesis. "Figurative" doesn't mean "false".

It appears Jesus never questioned the historical truth of it or referred to it in any way except as historical truth.

I'd be pleased to see where he said it was literally true. His repeating an allegory does not convert it from allegory to literal verse.

But, Galatian, the truth will out,...

That's good. As I said, a Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

Barbarian:
The fact that most Christians thought that the world was considerably younger than it is, is understandable; scientists of the time didn't know any better, either.

Interesting the way you can try to play both sides in order to protect your backside, isn't it?

It's a matter of historical fact. I'm not surprised that the early Hebrews thought that the world was a disk instead of a sphere, either. These are not the message of the Bible, Helen; they are incidental to what God is telling you. It is about Him and us, and our relationship, not the shape of the Earth, or the way He created it.

Barbarian observes:
But we don't hold Scripture as being at fault for references to the Earth as circular, with pillars.

However that statement is only ludicrous in light of the fact that the very word 'pillars' is a translation error and not part of the original Hebrew.

There seems to be some question as to whether the Bible contains errors or not. I think this could be one, but reading all sides, I remain unconvinced.

But then, I've posted material presenting that before, too, and you paid no attention to that, either.

Hearing an argument, one sometimes finds it unpersuasive. You're certainly a very articulate advocate for your beliefs, but some of it, I don't see as convincing.

Barbarian observes:
Creationism, as we know it today, is a very recent doctrine.

Any ideas 'as we know them today' are necessarily recent by definition.

Modern creationism is largely the work of the Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price, especially YE doctrines.

However the knowledge that Genesis is presenting true, unvarnished and unallegorized history has been accepted for many thousands of years.

I'm not the only person to show you that the early Christians had differing opinions on that.

[Administrator: please confine arguments about Roman Catholicism to the forum for other religions. This was edited to remove the part dealing with that.]

[ May 12, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
I'm a little surprised that you think Origen is a gnostic. It is faith, not knowledge that Origen sees as saving.

To quote the opening line of the section I quoted for you on him, Galatian: Perhaps the man who did the most, however, to blend the Scriptures with Gnosticism was Origen (185-254 A.D.).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The truth is never the province of the majority. If they stumble on it by accident, they usually correct themselves rather quickly, actually, and show that the majority of people do, indeed, prefer error.

That would explain the last election, I suppose. However, I doubt if finding what the least number of people believe would be a good guide to the truth.</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, the idea of Gore handling either the 9/11 attack or Iraq is truly comforting (please consider that extremely sarcastic).

And to address your straw man, the fact that the truth is not the province of the majority says nothing about where it may be found. So your sarcasm is noted.

I think the early fathers of the Church are more authoritative than latter-day opinions on what they thought.

And none of anyone is more authoritative than God, who is responsible for what is in His Word. However, the link to Robert Bradshaw's work which I have given you at least a dozen times through the years gives exactly who thought what. I can see why you don't like it, but that is not the fault of actual history. The early church leaders wrote plenty, so we can still see what they thought today. You are picking a phrase here or there and trying to use it to give evidence that they thought as you are claiming, whereas in a number of cases their own words contradict your claims. So yes, let's look at their own words, in context, and completely. That is something you have yet to do on this forum.

As you can see, the early Christians observed that Genesis could not be literal. Clements, Augustine, and Origen were just a few of them, but they were highly regarded and represented a very large number of the Christians of that time.

No, I don't see that. The early Christians were, first of all, Jews, who knew and believed their own Scriptures rather thoroughly. Origen and Augustine were both extremely faulty in their doctrine, as I have given you evidence of on this thread, and Clement does not claim what you say he claims, so as far as I am concerned, since you are simply repeating the same things over and over again without any referencing or quotes in context, that wraps it up as far as I am concerned.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Galatian, I am sick to death of your pronouncements of truth which are not truth but are rather combinations of RC blather and evolutionist imaginings.

I don't think calling names helps in any way.</font>[/QUOTE]I am not calling you any name at all. Get your defensiveness straight. You are Roman Catholic. If that is name-calling, then so is calling me a born-again Christian, if you would like to attach that to me. I do consider RC propaganda to be blathering. My opinion, not name-calling anyone. You are also an evolutionist. Is that calling you a 'name'? What you do present are the imaginings of other evolutionists, or perhaps some of your own. There is no name-calling there. Bad opinions are not name-calling.

I don't say anything here that I don't think is true, Helen. You know me better than that.

To say I disagree with you would be to call you a name by implication, so I dare not do that.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It appears Jesus never questioned the historical truth of it or referred to it in any way except as historical truth.

I'd be pleased to see where he said it was literally true. His repeating an allegory does not convert it from allegory to literal verse. </font>[/QUOTE]You've pulled this one so many times! That is not what is in question. You are twisting the point to try to squeeze out of the fact that the literal history of Genesis is presumed throughout the Bible. If it were allegory, it would have been stated, just as other allegories and parables were so labeled. Adam and Eve are referred to as real, individual people. The Flood is referred to as a real, historical event. Etc. etc. The grammar is that of narrative Hebrew, not allegory or poetry or parable. This has been said and referenced for you time and again. Yet you still keep your own belief system intact. How? By totally ignoring any facts that go against it. And those are facts. If you were truly interested in the truth, you would pay attention to the facts. Instead you have this litany of repetitions which follow from forum to forum and board to board without even a nod to contradictory facts or the lack of logic in some of your arguments. That is up to you. No one can make you pay attention to facts or logic. But here on this board I will point them out as often as you present them and I see them.

I'm not surprised that the early Hebrews thought that the world was a disk instead of a sphere, either.

Reference that, please, from extra-biblical writings from the Jews. Thank you.

These are not the message of the Bible, Helen; they are incidental to what God is telling you. It is about Him and us, and our relationship, not the shape of the Earth, or the way He created it.

If Genesis were not part of the message of the Bible, it wouldn't be in the Bible. Trusting God to tell us the truth has a great deal to do with our relationship with Him.

There seems to be some question as to whether the Bible contains errors or not. I think this could be one, but reading all sides, I remain unconvinced.

A biblical error and a translation error are two different things. Here is the material again, from literally years ago, the first time I wrote it up for you and Orion:

NOW, REGARDING PILLARS


1 Samuel 2:8 --

NIV --
He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.

For the FOUNDATIONS of the earth are the LORD's;
upon them he has set the world.


KJV --
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust and liftest up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the PILLARS of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

The word translated "foundations" in the NIV and "pillars" in the KJV is masuq. It is used only twice in the Bible. The second time the NIV translates it as "stood" in 1 Samuel 14:5 -- One cliff STOOD to the north toward Micmash, the other to the south, toward Geba.

The KJV translates that verse as -- The forefront of the one was SITUATED northward over against Michmash, and the other southward over against Gibeah.

According to the Strongs, the word masuq means something narrow, which the KJV translators then decided would be like a column or pillar. However this might be a case of God's Word being way ahead of science, for the rocky crust of the earth is indeed narrow. It is also a foundation and we are situated upon it.

And, actually, the Bible does NOT say, in the Hebrew, that the earth is immoveable upon foundations, the way several of you (many of you?) imply. Masuq, the verb in question is not the normal word used for "foundation" either. It is a word whose primary root, tsuwq, means "compress, oppress, or distress." It has a the connotation of being confined. In the full word, as used ONLY TWICE in the Bible, it has the meaning of being forced into a narrow place, or constrained. It can also be used for "to straighten" or "to pour out" as in smelting metal.

So what we have is the indication in the verses in question NOT of the earth being immoveable on physical pillars or a foundation, but of a sense of opposition and constraint. The earth is being held in constraint by the Lord until such time as HE decides all is finished. It will not be moved or destroyed until that time.

 

[The Galatian]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
I'm a little surprised that you think Origen is a gnostic. It is faith, not knowledge that Origen sees as saving.

To quote the opening line of the section I quoted for you on him, Galatian: Perhaps the man who did the most, however, to blend the Scriptures with Gnosticism was Origen (185-254 A.D.).

Perhaps you'd be best served by reading what he had to say. Gnosticism is a very specific religious idea, and the idea that faith is required for salvation is contrary to everything in gnosticism.

Barbarian observes:
However, I doubt if finding what the least number of people believe would be a good guide to the truth.

Yeah, the idea of Gore handling either the 9/11 attack or Iraq is truly comforting (please consider that extremely sarcastic).

I'm thinking that any president who did not do what Bush did in response, would have been impeached. It was a no-brainer. And Bush did very well with it.

And to address your straw man, the fact that the truth is not the province of the majority says nothing about where it may be found. So your sarcasm is noted.

I'm just suggesting to you that what the majority thinks is not a good index to truth or error.

Barbarian observes:
I think the early fathers of the Church are more authoritative than latter-day opinions on what they thought.

And none of anyone is more authoritative than God, who is responsible for what is in His Word. However, the link to Robert Bradshaw's work which I have given you at least a dozen times through the years gives exactly who thought what.

As I said, Robert Bradshaw's opinion of what people think is less convincing than what those people themselves have to say about it. We'll just have to disagree on that.

As you can see, the early Christians observed that Genesis could not be literal. Clements, Augustine, and Origen were just a few of them, but they were highly regarded and represented a very large number of the Christians of that time.

No, I don't see that. The early Christians were, first of all, Jews, who knew and believed their own Scriptures rather thoroughly. Origen and Augustine were both extremely faulty in their doctrine, as I have given you evidence of on this thread, and Clement does not claim what you say he claims, so as far as I am concerned, since you are simply repeating the same things over and over again without any referencing or quotes in context, that wraps it up as far as I am concerned.

The issue was not whether or not Augustine et all were right or wrong. It was whether or not they accepted Genesis as literal. And they did not. And they were highly regarded as authoritative by early Christians.

Barbarian observes:
I don't think calling names helps in any way.

I am not calling you any name at all. Get your defensiveness straight.

You are Roman Catholic. If that is name-calling, then so is calling me a born-again Christian, if you would like to attach that to me.

I think we would both be pleased by someone calling us these names (in the correct order, of course).

I do consider RC propaganda to be blathering. My opinion, not name-calling anyone.

Would you feel insulted or mocked if I said you were "blathering"?

You are also an evolutionist. Is that calling you a 'name'? What you do present are the imaginings of other evolutionists, or perhaps some of your own. There is no name-calling there. Bad opinions are not name-calling.[/quote]

Even if it's a faulty opinion, such mocking and insults are not appropriate here.

Barbarian observes:
I don't say anything here that I don't think is true, Helen. You know me better than that.

To say I disagree with you would be to call you a name by implication, so I dare not do that.

That's very nice of you. I mean that sincerely. But it is true; I don't say anything here that I don't think is true.

It appears Jesus never questioned the historical truth of it or referred to it in any way except as historical truth.

Barbarian observes:
I'd be pleased to see where he said it was literally true. His repeating an allegory does not convert it from allegory to literal verse.

You've pulled this one so many times!

The facts don't change. Jesus never said any of the allegory in Genesis was literal. He merely cited the verses. That does not make it literal.

That is not what is in question. You are twisting the point to try to squeeze out of the fact that the literal history of Genesis is presumed throughout the Bible.

I know you believe that, but you need some evidence for it.

If it were allegory, it would have been stated, just as other allegories and parables were so labeled.

But not all of them are so labeled. Would you like some examples?

Barbarian observes:
I'm not surprised that the early Hebrews thought that the world was a disk instead of a sphere, either.

Reference that, please, from extra-biblical writings from the Jews. Thank you.

The Bible says that the Earth is a disk. Other peoples had inferred this as well, from the fact that the earth casts a circular shadow on the moon during eclipses. A few hundred years before Christ, educated Jews must have known as well as everyone else that it was a sphere, not a disk.

Barbarian, on shape of the Earth and other such:
These are not the message of the Bible, Helen; they are incidental to what God is telling you. It is about Him and us, and our relationship, not the shape of the Earth, or the way He created it.

If Genesis were not part of the message of the Bible, it wouldn't be in the Bible.

Of course. But He's not talking to you about the formation of the solar system, or plate tectonics, or abiogenesis, except in a very general and figurative way. What He's telling you is something very important about us, and His reasons for making us the way we are.

Barbarian, regarding Helen's suggestion of a particular error in the Bible:
There seems to be some question as to whether the Bible contains errors or not. I think this could be one, but reading all sides, I remain unconvinced.

A biblical error and a translation error are two different things.

Since the Bible is inspired by God, wouldn't all errors be translation errors? But even so, aren't they still misleading?

Here is the material again, from literally years ago, the first time I wrote it up for you and Orion:

quote:
KJV --
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust and liftest up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the PILLARS of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

The word translated "foundations" in the NIV and "pillars" in the KJV is masuq. It is used only twice in the Bible. The second time the NIV translates it as "stood" in 1 Samuel 14:5 -- One cliff STOOD to the north toward Micmash, the other to the south, toward Geba.[/quote]

How exactly is the Earth set upon these two cliffs? That seems absurd.

And, actually, the Bible does NOT say, in the Hebrew, that the earth is immoveable upon foundations, the way several of you (many of you?) imply.

The Bible says rather clearly:

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

I don't see how any literalist could disagree with Luther, who observed that a literal reading of Scripture would not allow a moving Earth.

 

[Helen]

Galatian/Barbarian/Pat/whomever else you are:

I leave you to yours. Anyone who has paid any attention at all to my posts and yours can see who is doing the referencing and who is doing the twisting.

You are not going to change, which is sad. But since I am only responding to you as a way of showing others where the truth lies, I think that has been done in my other posts here and so that is enough.

 

[The Galatian]

I think we've both laid out our arguments and the facts for them rather well. Others can read them and make their conclusions as they will.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion, Helen.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is an excellent example of a half-baked argument against trusting God's Word as it reads.

Galation
The Bible says rather clearly:

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

I don't see how any literalist could disagree with Luther, who observed that a literal reading of Scripture would not allow a moving Earth.

Anyone who knows about the physics of planetary systems "knows" that they ARE in fact - moving in orderly progression NOT in random motion. God act in establishing the Earth and fixing the motion of our solar system and Galaxy such that we have a living system - is nothing short of a miracle.

The half-argument suggested by Galations "suggests" that "we would not know this if we actually BELIEVED our Bible because we would EXTEND the text to say that FIXING the Sun and the MOON in the sky meant they are MOTIONLESS and the earth not being moved OUT OF its Place means it never moves - we would be thinking that IF we were ever to trust God's Word AS it reads".

One could have hoped that the a more convincing argument "could" have been made by Galation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Meatros --
Well if I have to ASSUME HOW GOD CREATED SOMETHING then how is Genesis well defined??

The Genesis "Account" does not explain in exhaustivce detail "how to BE God" or how to "CREATE a Living planetary system".

What it DOES show beyond doubt is that "God Spoke" and "it WAS" that EACH cycle was exactly "Evening and Morning ONE DAY" and that "IN SIX days the Lord Created the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them".

These are EXACT quotes.

And although many OTHER details are not so clear - THESE are very clear. And it is THE MOST OBVIOUS details that are "the most objectionable" to our evolutionist friends.

Both Atheist and compromised-christian evolutionists agree on that point.

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Christians who accept that evolution is part of God's creation have no problem at all with Genesis.

Indeed, until very recently, neither did creationists. At the turn of the century, most of them recognized that the six days in Genesis could not be literally true.

Even William Jennings Bryan, at the Scopes trial admitted that this was so.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Christians who accept that evolution is part of God's creation have no problem at all with Genesis.

Yes they do. They have to wiggle their way out of all kinds of things the Bible says! In other words, they don't dare depend on God -- they are forced to depend on themselves and their own minds. Since the natural mind of man is corrupted by sin, that puts those who are in that position in a very difficult position.

The fact that Genesis is telling the straightforward truth about creation is just that: a fact. Galatian does not accept that. That is his choice. But it does not change the truth about creation in six days less than ten thousand years ago.

I truly understand your frustration, Bob.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Galation
The Bible says rather clearly:

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

I don't see how any literalist could disagree with Luther, who observed that a literal reading of Scripture would not allow a moving Earth.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB]Anyone who knows about the physics of planetary systems "knows" that they ARE in fact - moving in orderly progression NOT in random motion. God act in establishing the Earth and fixing the motion of our solar system and Galaxy such that we have a living system - is nothing short of a miracle.

Um, reread his post again. He isn't arguing about 'random motion'. Nice strawman though. I have no problem with you interpreting the bible in that fashion though.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The half-argument suggested by Galations "suggests" that "we would not know this if we actually BELIEVED our Bible because we would EXTEND the text to say that FIXING the Sun and the MOON in the sky meant they are MOTIONLESS and the earth not being moved OUT OF its Place means it never moves - we would be thinking that IF we were ever to trust God's Word AS it reads".

Another interpretation on your part.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Meatros --
Well if I have to ASSUME HOW GOD CREATED SOMETHING then how is Genesis well defined??

The Genesis "Account" does not explain in exhaustivce detail "how to BE God" or how to "CREATE a Living planetary system". </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for finally seeing what I was saying, which was simply 'Genesis is not well defined'.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
What it DOES show beyond doubt is that "God Spoke" and "it WAS" that EACH cycle was exactly "Evening and Morning ONE DAY" and that "IN SIX days the Lord Created the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them".

If that's good enough for you then that's fine. However it's awfully vague for me to accept.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
These are EXACT quotes.

And although many OTHER details are not so clear - THESE are very clear. And it is THE MOST OBVIOUS details that are "the most objectionable" to our evolutionist friends.

Clear for you, that I will concede, not clear for several others. Please confine your hatred of evolutionists to yourself. I think we all get the point. You do not like evolutionists.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Both Atheist and compromised-christian evolutionists agree on that point.

Bob

Appeal to popularity? I'm through arguing with you. You are predjudice towards those who believe differently then you, you also lump seemingly everyone into one group and label them evolutionists-even though evolution doesn't necessarily have to do with anything. My advice for you is that you get some counsling so that you can learn to at least tolerate people with different view points then you.

I think it's a shame that your detest for the (highly inflammatory bs rhetoric) 'compromised christian' gets in the way of the information you post.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:
Yes they do. They have to wiggle their way out of all kinds of things the Bible says! In other words, they don't dare depend on God -- they are forced to depend on themselves and their own minds. Since the natural mind of man is corrupted by sin, that puts those who are in that position in a very difficult position.

How about you stick with your beliefs instead of redefining other peoples? I depend on God every day and it truly depresses me that you feel you *know* whether I do or not. Don't dare depend on God? How would you know?

Originally posted by Helen:
The fact that Genesis is telling the straightforward truth about creation is just that: a fact. Galatian does not accept that. That is his choice. But it does not change the truth about creation in six days less than ten thousand years ago.

So then we are left with the mounds of evidence that would prove God a liar? I don't think so. You accept it as fact and try to rationalize the science that indicates otherwise.

Originally posted by Helen:
I truly understand your frustration, Bob.

This statement saddens me further. Although I have been praying for Bob to see the light and to stop his demonization and hatred of those who believe differently then him, it's a tragedy to event think that you might succumb to his frustrations.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Meatros:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
Yes they do. They have to wiggle their way out of all kinds of things the Bible says! In other words, they don't dare depend on God -- they are forced to depend on themselves and their own minds. Since the natural mind of man is corrupted by sin, that puts those who are in that position in a very difficult position.

How about you stick with your beliefs instead of redefining other peoples? I depend on God every day and it truly depresses me that you feel you *know* whether I do or not. Don't dare depend on God? How would you know?</font>[/QUOTE]Well, you don't depend on Him to tell you the truth in His Word. That much I know. And that means you have to be depending on yourself to understand what He is telling you there. So how on earth can you depend on anything but yourself in the rest of your life? If you are insisting on interpreting the written, objective word of God, what are you going to do with the quiet words of the Holy Spirit inside of you?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
The fact that Genesis is telling the straightforward truth about creation is just that: a fact. Galatian does not accept that. That is his choice. But it does not change the truth about creation in six days less than ten thousand years ago.

So then we are left with the mounds of evidence that would prove God a liar? I don't think so. You accept it as fact and try to rationalize the science that indicates otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not rationalizing anything. I simply learned to tell the difference between the data itself and the interpretations foisted on it by evolutionists. A look at the primary data not only does not support evolution, it refutes it. God is not lying in His creation. We lie to ourselves by trying to make it say something it doesn't say.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
I truly understand your frustration, Bob.

This statement saddens me further. Although I have been praying for Bob to see the light and to stop his demonization and hatred of those who believe differently then him, it's a tragedy to event think that you might succumb to his frustrations. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I don't have to 'succumb' to his. I have enough of my own where dealing with evolutionists is concerned!

 

[Meatros]

Well, you don't depend on Him to tell you the truth in His Word. That much I know. And that means you have to be depending on yourself to understand what He is telling you there. So how on earth can you depend on anything but yourself in the rest of your life? If you are insisting on interpreting the written, objective word of God, what are you going to do with the quiet words of the Holy Spirit inside of you?

See, it's this type of assumption that leads you down the wrong path. I do believe in the truth of His word. I just believe that the truth is different then what you do. Therefore the rest of your slippery slope falls apart. The Holy Spirit is inside me, despite whatever you might think. It's not up to you to judge my Christianity-it's up to God/Jesus.

I'm not rationalizing anything. I simply learned to tell the difference between the data itself and the interpretations foisted on it by evolutionists. A look at the primary data not only does not support evolution, it refutes it. God is not lying in His creation. We lie to ourselves by trying to make it say something it doesn't say.

Just by claiming it doesn't make it so. Just keep in mind, what you consider evolution to be may not be what scientists consider it to be.

Oh, I don't have to 'succumb' to his. I have enough of my own where dealing with evolutionists is concerned!

Putting people into groups as you have done (and BobRyan) is not a good thing to do. You should treat people as individuals, not as a collective mass.

 

[Helen]

See, it's this type of assumption that leads you down the wrong path. I do believe in the truth of His word. I just believe that the truth is different then what you do. Therefore the rest of your slippery slope falls apart. The Holy Spirit is inside me, despite whatever you might think. It's not up to you to judge my Christianity-it's up to God/Jesus.

I'm not judging your Christianity. However I also know that there are not different 'truths' for different people. There is one truth. And if you believe, truly, and as you claim, in the truth of His Word, then you know that creation was instantaneous, by kind, and in six 24-hour days less than ten thousand years ago. Anything else is to doubt God's Word in the Bible and try to reinterpret it. And that truly is a slippery slope, for once you start rearranging the meaning, where do you stop?

Just keep in mind, what you consider evolution to be may not be what scientists consider it to be.

1. I used to be an evolutionist
2. I know there are several definitions and I have taken great pains to always define what I am talking about. In the case of the kind of evolution I am fighting, I am referring to descent from a common ancestor -- some unicellular progenator of us all, according to evolution theory. I am not fighting simple change, variation, or speciation. I am not fighting other uses of the word 'evolution.' OK?

3. If those unnamed scientists you are referring to wish to add abiogenesis, I will fight that, too. Add panspermia. However the standard implication of 'evolution' meaning descent of us all from a one-celled organism is what I am fighting here and what I am under the impression that we have been discussing.

Putting people into groups as you have done (and BobRyan) is not a good thing to do. You should treat people as individuals, not as a collective mass.

Sitting on the fence will give you a very sore crotch. You must eventually come down in one of the 'camps'. At that point you will be identified with that camp, regardless of the fact that you are an individual. I am a YEC. I disagree heartily with a number of YEC statements and people, but I am nevertheless in that camp and I know it. Of course I will TREAT people as individuals, but belief systems fall into groups.

 

[Meatros]

I'm not judging your Christianity. However I also know that there are not different 'truths' for different people. There is one truth. And if you believe, truly, and as you claim, in the truth of His Word, then you know that creation was instantaneous, by kind, and in six 24-hour days less than ten thousand years ago. Anything else is to doubt God's Word in the Bible and try to reinterpret it. And that truly is a slippery slope, for once you start rearranging the meaning, where do you stop?

Now you are playing semantics. You are not one to judge whether I "believe, truly, and as you claim, in the truth of His Word" also you are not the one to judge what is or is not His truth. For you are not Him. You see, you judge me as reinterpreting God's word, which I believe you are doing. The difference is you are judging my Christianity on it, while I am not judging yours on your beliefs.

Sitting on the fence will give you a very sore crotch. You must eventually come down in one of the 'camps'. At that point you will be identified with that camp, regardless of the fact that you are an individual. I am a YEC. I disagree heartily with a number of YEC statements and people, but I am nevertheless in that camp and I know it. Of course I will TREAT people as individuals, but belief systems fall into groups.

Must come down in one of the camps? Why? You say you've studied evolution, that you know what it means, yet you equate it with a belief system? Are you sure you are not add your preconceived notions onto the definition of evolution?

 

[Helen]

1. Defining terms is not playing semantics.
2. Evolution IS a belief system, or part of it, as it is, at its core, a belief in the human brain's ability to contradict what God's word says. You are choosing to believe man and not God. That is belief.

 

[Meatros]

1. Defining terms is not playing semantics.
2. Evolution IS a belief system, or part of it, as it is, at its core, a belief in the human brain's ability to contradict what God's word says. You are choosing to believe man and not God. That is belief.

You admit that evolution isn't a belief system-at least that it isn't in and of itself.

Also, I was pretty sure that everyone here believed that man actually wrote the bible. It was divinely inspired, but not written by God. There is a difference.

:Edited to change the 'admit' part:

It should be:

So you admit that evolution isn't a belief system-at least that it isn't in and of itself? Then would you say it does not necessarily follow that the rest of the belief system is a given?

[ May 15, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Meatros ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
1. Defining terms is not playing semantics.
2. Evolution IS a belief system, or part of it, as it is, at its core, a belief in the human brain's ability to contradict what God's word says. You are choosing to believe man and not God. That is belief.

Strong words coming from someone who teaches that stars were created before day four of Genesis Chapter One.