CREATION: TWO BASIC VIEWS

[Artimaeus]

To rejest a literal 6 day, 24 hour creation is to reject the Bible. We can quibble over details about particular words, or variations on the "proper" interpretation of a verse here and there and that is great. I have learned a lot from discussions of this sort. However, the Genesis account of creation is quite clear (overall) and to believe that millions of people have "misinterpreted" Genesis (the whole story, not some little detail) for thousands of years but has in the last few years came to be understood by a few "enlightened" people amounts to calling God a liar. It was not their ignorance that made them think it was a 6 day, 24 hour creation, that is the way the facts are presented and any reasonable reader would think that is the intent of the author. If that was the intent of the author and it isn't true then He is a liar. This is not a minor detail, this is 11 foundation chapters of a book which is the foundation of the whole Bible. If he fooled us on such a big deal, then how do we know He isn't fooling us on other big deal issues. Maybe Jesus did swoon, maybe the miracles were poetic license, maybe the Bible is just a compilation of thousands of years of human wisdon with the obvious anachronisms edited out.

 

[Johnv]

Since you are no doubt taking the word of God out of context(you reject the literal six days of creation even though Scripture is clear on it),

With all respect, I think that literal six day folks are taking Gen1 completely out of context. But rather than expound, it's probably a matter best left fot eh creation/evolution debate.

 

[Grasshopper]

Many believe in a literal 7 days. The question is how long is a day.

 

[Johnv]

(duplicate post deleted... my fingers are too fast!!!)

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Many believe in a literal 7 days. The question is how long is a day.

Oops!

Yes, good point. For arguement sake, I was referring to a literal, 6 day, 24 hour per day, creation. I wasn't clear. Sorry...

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Johnv:
(duplicate post deleted... my fingers are too fast!!!)

Judging from your posts maybe your brain is too slow.

(Just kidding, don't hurt me.)

 

[Johnv]

Nuthin' but love, Art

 

[Deacon]

Artimaeus am I misunderstanding you? Are you appealing to past understandings and history regarding the meaning of Scripture? Are you really saying that if it isn’t so it is like calling God a liar? You wrote above:

However, the Genesis account of creation is quite clear (overall) and to believe that millions of people have "misinterpreted" Genesis (the whole story, not some little detail) for thousands of years but has in the last few years came to be understood by a few "enlightened" people amounts to calling God a liar.

The idea that because “millions of people” misinterpret or misunderstand the meaning of God’s Word in no way effects God’s truthfulness. If I misunderstand you does that make you a liar? No, It makes me a poor student. Look back in history. Martin Luther was in a similar situation as you describe. One man against all church history.

”The taunts flung at him by his enemies found an echo in his own tormented self-questioning. ‘How often has my trembling heart palpated—are you alone the wise one? Are all the others in error? Have so many centuries walked in ignorance? What if it should be you who are in err, and drag so many with you into error, to be eternally damned?’”

Artimaeus, don’t make a case on the beliefs of the past. Martin Luther’s famous response to Johann Eck was, “Unless I am convicted by Scripture or by right reason (for I trust neither in popes nor councils, since they have often erred and contradicted themselves)—unless I am thus convinced, I am bound by the texts of the Bible, my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. God help me. Amen”.

 

[The Harvest]

Originally posted by The_Narrow_Road:
The Bible is NOT a Science book, but where it does speak of scientific things, you can be assured it is 100% accurate. Just as everything was created in six LITERAL 24 hour days, so to is the rest of the Holy Bible Truth we can lay down our lives on. God is NOT a man that He should lie. Let God be true and every man a liar. Oh, His word speaks so much about His power, yet man rejects it for man's reasoning.

If you reject the six 24 hour days of Creation, then you must reject the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, Christ as the One Saviour, etc. To accept some of Scripture and not all of it is pathetic. It isn't cut-n-paste Bible knowledge.

www.AnswersinGenesis.org
www.icr.org
www.drdino.org

well at least there is someone here with some sense. amen The_Narrow_Road.

 

[The Harvest]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Why are there two creation accounts in Genesis? Because two different versions of the myth were put in one place.

THE MYTH??????? Joshua, I fear that you are in BIG trouble at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Honestly, how can you (a pastor) say that the Creation story is a myth? Unbelievable.

 

[Johnv]

Whoa, since when is a belief in a literal 6 day creation a requirement for Salvation? It is not. Rev. Joshua et al are certainly entitled to their biblical interpretation, even if others have a different one.

 

[The Harvest]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Whoa, since when is a belief in a literal 6 day creation a requirement for Salvation? It is not. Rev. Joshua et al are certainly entitled to their biblical interpretation, even if others have a different one.

who said anything about salvation?

josh's "interpretation" of the Bible is that it is a myth (his own word). in other words he believes the Biblical Creation account is not true. Personally i agree with Paul in Rom 3:4 yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. But then that verse shows people that they aren't the Final Authority, so Josh probably just ignores it.

 

[Johnv]

I'm, neither siding nor disagreeing with Rev Joshus, but to be clear, he did not say it was not true. He said it was myth. In otherwords, he's stating that he doesn't believe the stories are factual.

There's a big difference between saying the Bible is true and the Bible is fact. I believe the Bible to be true. But factually, you'll find contradictions. Why? Because, while some books were written to be a historical account, others were not.

Requiring a belief that Genesis is factual is not mandatory for Baptists. And the last time I checked, a 6 day 24 hour creation was not a matter of doctrine. One is welcome to, but not required to, believe in it.

 

[Baptist Vine]

Back on page 3 of this thread somebody posted that recent scientific discoveries prove, or indicate at least, that the speed of light is not constant?

What discoveries? By whom?

What scientists or universities have accepeted this?

Surely you can't be serious.

If it were true that recent scientific discoveries had the speed of light not constant this would be all over the news and written in all the scientific periodicals - but there is no such indication.

 

[Helen]

It is very much true. My husband, Barry Setterfield, published the seminal paper on this in 1987. Last year alone there were over fifty papers on this subject in main scientific journals.

Here is some of Barry's material:
www.setterfield.org

 

[Johnv]

BV, while I'm no pro on the subject, there have been discussions for years about the effect that gravity has had on the speed of light. We know that gravity can bend light, but whether or not it can slow light is the "big if".

Rather than going on in detail and bore the world, I'll do a very brief, and very crude, summary.

If gravity has an effect on the speed of light, then many have calculated that the only way for this to occur is if the gravity of matter is incredibly great. Calculating the total mass of everything in the universe if it were in one point in space and time (big bang point), it may be possible that light has slowed by approximately 1.3% over the last 100 million years, representing an average -0.04 m/s change per year. However, since all matter is moving away from a central point, and if gravity is indeed a phenomenon that is the result of a decline in speef of light, then gravity today is no longer relevant to the speed of light. On the other hand, if gravity has played a role in the speed of light in the past, then the universe must be at least 15 billion years for the speed of light to be at the speed it is now, accounting for the effects of gravity on it.

Also, there are papers which discuss a change in the velocity of light, as opposed to the speed of light (arguing that one or the other may be affected, but not both).

At any point, such findings so far are quite preliminary are far from conclusive on the subject.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Deacon:
[QB] Artimaeus am I misunderstanding you? Are you appealing to past understandings and history regarding the meaning of Scripture? Are you really saying that if it isn’t so it is like calling God a liar? You wrote above:
The idea that because “millions of people” misinterpret or misunderstand the meaning of God’s Word in no way effects God’s truthfulness. If I misunderstand you does that make you a liar? No, It makes me a poor student. Look back in history. Martin Luther was in a similar situation as you describe. One man against all church history.

Not, quite. I don't think majority rules regarding the meaning of scripture. I was appealing to the plain, regular, ordinary, natural reading of the text. It isn't a small detail nor is it a verse with questionable meanings. This is a crystal clear, LARGE PORTION of scripture that to any reasonable, average reader would leave them with the understanding that the author was telling them that these events took place over a six regular day period of time. I know the word day is used in different ways. Examples:
"Back in my day we had to walk two miles to school."
"I lost my hat 3 days ago."
Do you think anyone had any trouble figuring out whether I meant 24 hour periods or periods of time. The context sets the meaning. The context in Genesis is clearly 24 hour periods to any even casual reader. There is no good reason to believe that He meant anything else. People are, of course, free to do that, but, that does not make them reasonable.

 

[Helen]

Johnv, Gravity has nothing to do with the change in velocity of light. It is a result of the increase in the ZPE. Check Barry's website.

 

[The_Narrow_Road]

So, the Bible is truthful, yet not factual.
These two are different? If the Bible says that the earth is round(which it does), then you would say it is truthful but until Science "proves" that the earth is actually round you'll not accept it as factual? So when Jesus said He was the way the truth and the life was that truthful and factual or just truthful? If you can't accept ALL of the Bible as truth and fact, then you should not accept any of it. On what basis do you determine if something is truth and factual or just truth? By science? The same science that says we come from evolving dust? You have just made the word of God nill and void in your own mind. Yes, one must accept a literal six 24 hour days of creation. Why? Because it is SO evident in the Scriptures. If it wasn't a literal six 24 hour days, then was Christ really in the tomb for 3 literal 24 hour days? If not, then the Bible is false because it was prophesied that He HAD to be in the tomb 3 days just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Did Adam live 930 years or was it 9,300 years? Who determines your answer?

"having ears, they do not hear; having eyes, they do not see"

LET GOD BE TRUE, EVERY MAN A LIAR!

 

[The Harvest]

Amen The_Narrow_Road! I couldn't have said it any better. How can a person that claims to be saved not believe the Bible (all of it) to be truthful and factual? I don't get it. Maybe it has something to do with 1 Cor 2:14. Maybe they are saying "I can't understand this, so I'm not going to believe it"