Creation questions

[Paul of Eugene]

It does say in the Bible that if a prophet predicts something and it fails to come true - that prophet is a false prophet.

Well, YEC as prophecy is not true, because of numerous proofs that the earth and the universe are far older than 10,000 years.

Therefore, it is biblical to turn to another way of prophesying from Genesis 1.

 

[Craigbythesea]

NEVER is having simple faith in what God said an insult to the Christian faith.

No, not if the believer is only three years old and not especially bright.

However, putting the philosophies and declarations of men ahead of what God said is ALWAYS an insult to the Christian faith.

Amen! Absolutely! (But of course no one in this thread is doing that.)

 

[Craigbythesea]

In fact, the most important elements of the Bible and the Christian faith stand in direct contradiction to the philosophy of naturalism... that you accept as TRUTH.

I believe the Bible, but I do NOT believe some hocus pocus interpretations of it (and I don’t believe that God does either).

 

[Craigbythesea]

Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the data and the scriptures are either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.

Anyone who disagrees with the point of view of tens of thousands of biologists when there is not even one Ph.D. biologist teaching in a major university who agrees with them is, in my highly educate opinion, either ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or mentally ill.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Liz Ward wrote,

How long before you start denying the resurrection, Craig?

I believe in the Resurrection because the data available overwhelming supports that event. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11 because the data available overwhelmingly contradicts that particular interpretation. I believe the Bible, but I do not believe ridiculous, misinformed interpretations of it that are contrary to established fact.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Liz,

That was a bit uncalled for.

No one here denies the resurrection. Craig has stated that he disagrees with a literal Genesis 1-11 - and he has given his reasons. They are valid and are the result of extensive study.

You do not have to agree with them - but it is wrong for you to make such statements - effectively questioning the salvation of others.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I will leave this as an open statement to the proponents of a literal Genesis 1-11:

I respect the faith of those who hoold to the literalist position. I do not see it as the best position - but I don't think I'm going to convince anyone here.



Several observations I'll ask you to keep in mind:

1. As an old earther I do NOT doubt God or His power or His ability to do whatever He says He has done. And I resent implications that I "cannot believe" or that I "think the Bible is in error". Those are completely false.

2. There ARE numerous reasons to see Genesis 1-11 as religious epic and not intended to be a factual account. Any expert in ANE studies can vouch for this. Again I do not expect you to agree with them - but they do exist and are a valid line of argument.

 

[Liz Ward]

Charles,

Anyone who calls fellow Christians liars, wihtout offering proof, is highly suspect in my book. I have now asked Craig, twice, for the proof that creation scientists are deliberately misleading others. So far he has neither offered proof nor retracted his accusation.

Liz

 

[icthus]

Craigbythesea, and all you guys who have got nothing better to do than to keen on questioning things about Scripture that you simply do not understand, are you actually believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and an Infallable and Inerrant Holy Bible? I really cannot see how these pointless arguments from so-called "science" can ever said to cause one to grow closer to the Lord Jesus? Why this need to think that the Creation account in Genesis cannot be literal? Why do you dismiss the excellent work of Dr Henry Morris, who has more authority in his little finger on these issues, than all of you guys put togather. Go away and read the Genesis Flood, by Henry Morris and John C Witcombe, and then come back and tell me that what they say is incorrect. I can tell you this now, you will NEVER be able to contradict their sound scholarship. If you people really want to learn about the Truth about Genesis chapter one, then I strongly suggest that you get hold of a copy of a book by Dr Weston W Fields, "Unformed and Unfilled. The Gap Theory", in which he deals with, the days of Creation, the young earth, a detailed study of the Hebrew Grammar, etc. Stop playing the devils advocate by trying to show that you know more than God, and humble yourselves under the Holy Spirit, and learn the Truth from Him.

 

[Travelsong]

The earth and the universe are very old. Wake up people. You're alienating countless people from Christ simply be denying common sense.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Why do you dismiss the excellent work of Dr Henry Morris, who has more authority in his little finger on these issues, than all of you guys put togather?

It was written over a generation ago. His arguments on C14 dating are just not valid.

 

[just-want-peace]

You're alienating countless people from Christ simply be denying common sense.

Au contrere' TS, people are being alienated because "believers" don't believe.

If a Christian doesn't accept God's word as He had it written (His inerrent WORD), then why should a non-believer believe that "I am the way--", or "No man comes to the father but by me", or that the only sure option for eternity is that Jew that claimed to be GOD?

If you start doubting what is so specific and understandable, how can you, or more importantly, WHY should you believe any of the other stuff?

These very chapters that you want to allegorize, de-literalize, parabalize etc, etc, holds the key as to why all the rest of scripture IS!

 

[Charles Meadows]

JWP,

If you start doubting what is so specific and understandable, how can you, or more importantly, WHY should you believe any of the other stuff?

This has been answered already. The gospels were clearly written as documents of witness for Jesus' ministry and resurrection. The old earther looks at Genesis 1-11 and sees an account that was meant to glorify God above the pagan "gods" - not to give a blow by blow of actual world formation.

These very chapters that you want to allegorize, de-literalize, parabalize etc, etc, holds the key as to why all the rest of scripture IS!

De-literalize?

Who said they were literal to begin with? I would argue that the young-earther is OVERLITERALIZING these and making a stumbling block that Moses did not intend to give us!

 

[just-want-peace]

---Moses did not intend to give us!

CM, you made a statement earlier, shown below, along this same line of Moses intentions.

What many of us "old earthers" suggest is NOT that a literal Genesis 1-11 is to be rejected due to implausibility (and therefore limiting God) but rather that the literal interpretation WAS NOT INTENDED BY MOSES HIMSELF.

Therein lies the basic difference why I accept these chapters as literal, but you don't.

It's my belief that the ENTIRE bible was written by men, under the direct inspiration of GOD Himself as to what to write, and how to word it.

Therefore Moses intentions had zilch to do with what or how it was written as God had it done just exactly as He desired.

Apparently you believe that Moses just wrote a synopsis of the oral/written tradition handed down from past generations.

If you do not believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures, then I understand your position.

However, if that IS truly your belief WHY do you (assuming you do) believe the virgin birth, the resurection, water to wine, feeding of 5,000 etc, etc ad infinitum.

There are many miracles that science says can't be, but God says that were, so how do you reconcile denying part while accepting other parts( if you do accept them)?

 

[Charles Meadows]

If you do not believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures, then I understand your position.

I believe that scripture does not contain errors - but scripture was written (over and over) by HUMAN hands using HUMAN language (the nuances of which keep changing over time).

However, if that IS truly your belief WHY do you (assuming you do) believe the virgin birth, the resurection, water to wine, feeding of 5,000 etc, etc ad infinitum.

Because the NT is saying unquestionably that these things happened. The NT books were written specifically to witness to these things.

I think that the earliest accounts in Genesis were written in a different vain - using theological epic and not intending to be literal blow-by-blow accounts. That's perfectly consistent with ANE writing style. Remember God was writing TO THE ANCIENT HEBREWS and not just to 21st century westerners.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

No where in the Bible does it say that Moses was inerrant or that he always got things right. He was a human being and all human beings make mistakes. We should not assume that Moses got the creation story right just because our first grade Sunday school teacher told us that he did.

First off, this is a straw man. I doubt that anyone here who believes in the creation story believes it because of a SS teacher. I rejected Christianity in high school and did not believe in the creation story until after I became a Christian in late 1990, beaucoodles of years after high school.

When you say we should not assume Moses got the creation story right, are you saying that the account in Genesis is not from God?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Why do you dismiss the excellent work of Dr Henry Morris, who has more authority in his little finger on these issues, than all of you guys put togather. Go away and read the Genesis Flood, by Henry Morris and John C Witcombe, and then come back and tell me that what they say is incorrect. I can tell you this now, you will NEVER be able to contradict their sound scholarship.

Neither John C. Whitcomb nor Henry Morris had ANY formal training in the biological sciences. Had they simply studied the very basics of genetics and ecology, they would have known for an absolute, undeniable fact the Gen. 6-8 is not and could not possibly be a literal account of an historic event. Indeed, John Whitcomb has no formal education at all in the sciences and was no more qualified to write about the Genesis flood than Fred Flintstone. His B.A. degree was in ancient and European history. His master’s degree and his doctorate were both in theology and are VERY old degrees (he completed his doctorate in 1957). Christians who are totally lacking in the necessary education to write on technical subjects have no business writing on them. John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris have made a laughing stock out of God, his word, and the Christian faith, and anyone who has gone to the trouble to study the subject for them self knows that.

Dr. Charles Meadows and I are both eminently more qualified to write on Genesis 6-8 than either Whitcomb or Morris, and that is a simple fact.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Liz Ward wrote,

Anyone who calls fellow Christians liars, wihtout offering proof, is highly suspect in my book. I have now asked Craig, twice, for the proof that creation scientists are deliberately misleading others. So far he has neither offered proof nor retracted his accusation.

Whether or not the creationists at AIG or the ICR are “fellow Christians” I do not know, but in other threads they have been extensively quoted by name making false statements about themselves, their data, the data collected by others, etc. These extensive and very numerous quotes were totally ignored by the fundamentalist extremists on this message board and no purpose was served by posting them. If you honestly want to know the truth about this matter, you are perfectly free to search out these threads and read them for yourself.

In the academic world, creation “scientists” are universally known to be liars, fools, or something much worse. True scientists want to know the truth and they spend their lives in pursuit of it. Creation “scientists” spend their lives looking for ways to deceive themselves and their reading public. Have you ever heard of one single creationist who was an agnostic without any theological assumptions to prove?

I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything, like the creation “scientists” do; I am asking my readers to honestly and prayerfully study these matters from both sides.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Marcia wrote,

First off, this is a straw man. I doubt that anyone here who believes in the creation story believes it because of a SS teacher. I rejected Christianity in high school and did not believe in the creation story until after I became a Christian in late 1990, beaucoodles of years after high school.

I sincerely hope that you are not serious here. Are you not familiar with the literary device that I am using in this post? I sometimes wonder if anyone on this message board, other than Charles Meadows and I, have studied the interpretation of literature.

When you say we should not assume Moses got the creation story right, are you saying that the account in Genesis is not from God?

I am saying that we need to evaluate and interpret Gen. 1-11 without the encumbrances of preconceptions that may lead to wrong conclusions.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
It does say in the Bible that if a prophet predicts something and it fails to come true - that prophet is a false prophet.

Well, YEC as prophecy is not true, because of numerous proofs that the earth and the universe are far older than 10,000 years.

Therefore, it is biblical to turn to another way of prophesying from Genesis 1.

That is nonsensical reasoning. First Genesis 1 is not prophecy, it is history. Second, Genesis 1 says nothing about the age of the earth. That was Bishop Ussher.