Evolutionism vs the Gospel

[BobRyan]

In this thread - I would ask that evolutionists not divert the topic to Evolution's odd use of what it calls "science".

Lets use this thread as a good reference thread for Christian evolutionism vs the Word of God.

Apeals to good exegesis and letting the text speak for itself are intended for this thread.

Evolutionist have made two opposing claims in recent posts.

#1. The Bible uses creationist terms because Bible cultures were too far in the dark when it came to science to clue them in on evolutionism.

#2. The Bible actually does teach in favor of evolutionism -- you are just reading it wrong.

Obviously for many Bible-believing Christians - neither of those positions are true - but these two claims are made "anyway" so lets address them.

My affirmation is that "IN SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL THAT is in them". As in "SIX evenings and mornings".

My affirmation is that this is the "ACCOUNT of the heavens and the earth in the day they were MADE".

This thread is also the right place for how the Gospel requires that God be our Creator and that fully intelligent perfect man - "fall" into sin as a trustworthy accurate part of the starting point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

In this thread - I would ask that evolutionists not divert the topic to Evolution's odd use of what it calls "science".

It's hard to talk about science without mentioning science.

Lets use this thread as a good reference thread for Christian evolutionism vs the Word of God.

That's about as possible as making it as a thread for Christian metallurgy vs. the Word of God.
As you've learned, the Word of God is completely consistent with evolution. How could it be otherwise?

Apeals to good exegesis and letting the text speak for itself are intended for this thread.

Evolutionist have made two opposing claims in recent posts.

#1. The Bible uses creationist terms because Bible cultures were too far in the dark when it came to science to clue them in on evolutionism.

I don't know about "Evolutinism" (no one seems to know what that is) but it's pretty obvious that evolutionary theory, solid state electronics, etc. were not suitable subjects for God's message to man about Him and us and our salvation.

#2. The Bible actually does teach in favor of evolutionism -- you are just reading it wrong.

Haven't heard anyone say the Bible teaches in favor of "evolutionism." However, Christians generally accept that it's consistent with evolution.

Obviously for many Bible-believing Christians - neither of those positions are true

A minority. But it's not important to one's salvation, so you can relax about it.

My affirmation is that "IN SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL THAT is in them". As in "SIX evenings and mornings".

It's not an orthodox view, but there are people of piety, wisdom, and intelligence on both sides of the question.

My affirmation is that this is the "ACCOUNT of the heavens and the earth in the day they were MADE".

This thread is also the right place for how the Gospel requires that God be our Creator and that fully intelligent perfect man - "fall" into sin as a trustworthy accurate part of the starting point.

I have yet to meet a fully intelligent man. Only God is "fully intelligent." Man's fall is quite true, although I'm pretty sure you don't like the way it happened.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let me start this thread by re-posting from my summary in the other thread.

I came to this debate with a strong bias towards a young earth. But I was ultimately convinced otherwise. And there was a whole lot of praying and studying (spiritual and scientifically) involved in that. And I ultimately decided that when everything was put together that the only option that was viable was OEC / TE. I felt that anything else was not intellectually or religiously honest. A young earth was ruled out by the physical evidence. Complete naturalism was ruled out by experiencing God in my live personally and believing the Bible.

You say that we have not ever provided you with any scriptural support. Not true, I did so and The Galatian repeated it recently. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass... And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good... And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

You have also been pointed out many indications that the creation account was not meant to be literal. The reference to the "evening and the morning" for three days before there was a sun to give us an evening and a morning. The different order of the creation presented in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. There are many areas where no concern was given to the physical realities. The long discussion on the Jewish geography, for instance. (Which you never refuted. You instead showed where other people believed other things or were wrong about things. You never addressed the issue of the Jews and the other people of the Middle East at the time.) It seemed like it would be unproductive with you to delve into some of the other such areas like the four legged insects and classifying bats as birds.

 

[A_Christian]

There is a very simple explanation concerning the evening and the morning prior to the LORD's creation of the "lights" to rule both day and night and the stars. God was dividing his creation into moments of EQUAL time periods. A 24 hour period remains a 24 hour period whether there are sun, moon, and stars or not. We have the reference of a year for the earth to go around the sun; however, anywhere in the universe earth time would remain earth time.
GOD designed time not man, and HE set the rotations to fit HIS conception of the time HE created.

The Orthodox Jew believes very differently from the Reform Jew and there are groups within groups. The simple fact is if a Jew doesn't have it right where it concerns his Messiah, why should he be any better at understanding his Genesis story. It is the Holy Spirit that brings the ENLIGHTENMENT and not secular education. To GOD, only the enlightenment that comes from HIM is not secular. Your or my perspective of a topic holds no weight in GOD's eyes.

 

[The Galatian]

We know, from a number of different sources of evidence, that the length of the day has changed significantly over time.

God didn't make days to be eternally the same.

And "yom", as noted before, can mean any particular length of time in ancient Hebrew.

 

[Gup20]

It's hard to talk about science without mentioning science.

It's hard for a Creationist to believe evolution because it contradicts so much of scripture.

In fact, we have already seen that The Galatian does not believe in the Bible, or at least that is the impression we get from his posts. He has stated that that he doesn't believe the majority of what is written in the Bible, or at least that he is able to determine which parts he can believe or not -

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />GUP: Genesis 1 & 2 (regardless of whether you think so or not) DIRECTLY and irrefutably says that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour (solar) days.

GALATION: Fact is, it nowhere says six literal 24 hour (solar) days. You've been misled. Go and look. Not there.</font>[/QUOTE]In fact this is AFTER I showed him that the word YOM was used, and that in the Hebrew scripture, whenever YOM is used in condjunction with a number, or with the word morning, or with the word evening, it always means a literal, ordinary day. Each day of creation is marked with "And the evening, and the morning were the [number] day".

Genesis 1 & 2 describe six of these liteal 24 hour days where God created every living thing on the earth.

The 10 commandments confirm this -

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I just looked. It doesn't say that "life only creates more of itself", and it doesn't say that life doesn't turn into other kinds of life. In fact, it refers to life as a "kind", not kinds.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

So everything was created and reproduces after it's own kind. We see nine kinds mentioned (including man). The New Testament also supports this idea - that organisms are not all of the same ancestry genetically:

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

Barbarian on misunderstanding "yom":
Doesn't say "literal days". In fact, a litereal reading would rule out literal days, because there would be no sun, no mornings and no evenings.

For one thing - time was created on day 1. This means the passing of time began to happen. We have light, which is separated from darkness. We have the rotation of the earth. We know that the earth got form - meaning the natural laws of universe of gravity, for example, were in place. With the rotation of the earth, we know that any fixed light source could give us evening, morning, and observable passage of time. Because light was already created and separated from darkness, the rotation of the earth can give evening and morning.

As you've learned, the Word of God is completely consistent with evolution. How could it be otherwise?

This is extremely foolish. We can see from the Bible that, not only is a completely different story given than evolution, but ALL CHRISTIANS mentioned in the Bible were under the impression that Genesis was accurate and true - inclusing Jesus and Paul. Consider that if these two were incorrect in what they believed, then your salvation is worthless.

If you can throw out Genesis as a fairy tale, then you can throw out Jesus as a fairy tale.

The Galation believes that the Word of God (the Bible) is a marvellous fairy tale. He believes that Genesis 1 (account of creation) didn't happen. He believes that Genesis 6-8 (the flood) is also a fairy tale. He believes that Genesis 5 and 10 are false (the geneologies).

The Galatian would have you believe that the OT law was wrong and false - I remind you that the 10 commandments repeat that the earth was created in six literal days.

The Galatian would have you believe that Jesus and Paul are both false teachers that preach lies. Jesus is fond of quoting Genesis (which Galatian has already declared false) and so is Paul.

However, the Galatian somehow expects us to believe that he is a Christian - a follower of christ - yet he challenges both the Father and the Son as false. (remember that the 10 commandments are directly from the voice of God the Father).

He has reasoned himself out of his own belief. He has undermined his own faith.

Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

-- yet the Galatian dismisses the Law -- the 10 commandments anyway. I wonder what Jesus thinks of that? Lets look 2 verses earlier and find out.

Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Also, Galatian, you keep trying to give this false assertion that the majority of Christians believe evolution. This just isn't the case. In fact, until I came to this message board, i had never met any. I have been going to church since I was 3, an average of 3 services a week, and I had never met a christian who believed in evolution. So, while you may hold particular belief, it is wrong of you to attempt to speak for all ... or even a majority ... of christians.

I came to this debate with a strong bias towards a young earth. But I was ultimately convinced otherwise.

I admire your honesty. So we can see then, that the clearest, plainest interpretation remains the literal translation. Even you believed it when you were a young Christian. You must see, UTE, that your faith was put in doubt by the world and it's system of beliefs. The Bible in no way advocates evolution or that worldview. So then, you were convinced by the world, as was Eve in the Garden.

The beautiful thing about being a christian is that there is grace for detours such as yours. God will visit you and continue to love you regardless. However, you must see the error of your ways. You are not only following a wrong path for yourself, but you may also happen to influence someone else to stumble and fall away from Faith in Christ. They may not be as strong as you in your commitment to Christ, regardless of your disbelief in portions of scripture. Someone else may come upon your words before they reach that commitment and relationship with Christ and will certainly fall away - as dismissing any part of scripture undermines the whole and leads to rejection of the whole.

I can't help but think how you would benefited greatly by wonderful ministries such as Answers in Genesis when you were younger. Before your decision to turn to the world for answers instead of trusting in the infallible, absolute truth of the Bible.

I would encourage you, UTEOTW, to go to www.answersingenesis.org and read the Q & A section in it's entirety. The spirit which lives in you cries out for this truth and I am confident that in going there and reading it (even if you have read some of the articles before) your spirit will be blessed and encouraged. Your faith will increase exponentially, and your reading comprehension of scripture will also increase.

You need to take a good step outside your condition and re-examine this issue with prayer and study. There are now many more answers available from a science standpoint that - while not as mature as many evolutionary theories - are at the very least possible. I promise you will not be disappointed!! Imagine how delightful it will be when we are scientifically advanced enough when we are scientifically able to proclaim that the Bible is true from the first word to the last. Well, you won't have to imagine very much after a thorough examination of the AiG site and it's Q&A section. It will start you onto a path of the highest level of belief in the written Word then you have ever experienced. Imagine having the ability to witness to your unsaved scientific friends without having to hold half of the Word behind your back. To show them the whole of scripture and how it is possible, true, and how the God that created and did all this is interested in a personal relationship with Him.

The simple fact is if a Jew doesn't have it right where it concerns his Messiah, why should he be any better at understanding his Genesis story. It is the Holy Spirit that brings the ENLIGHTENMENT and not secular education. To GOD, only the enlightenment that comes from HIM is not secular. Your or my perspective of a topic holds no weight in GOD's eyes.

Bravo, and Here Here!

 

[Gup20]

And "yom", as noted before, can mean any particular length of time in ancient Hebrew

As I noted, by the context, we can see that there is only ONE clear and definitive intended meaning. These are literal, ordinary days.

 

[BobRyan]

A note to our Bible believing Creationist posters -- this thread is going to be very difficult for our evolutionist friends as it deals explicitly with the Bible basis for Creation and against the claims of evolution for "origins" and the "fall of man" and clear connection this has for "the gospel".

To our evolutionist bretheren - what do you mean when you say God had to use this language because the people of Bible times were "ignorant"?

Are you saying that truth is "relative"?

Are you saying that God would have used evolutionist terms if the Bible were authored today - instead of creationist terms?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

It's hard for a Creationist to believe evolution because it contradicts so much of scripture.

It contradicts some of the extra doctrines some people have added to scripture. But not to scripture as it's written.

In fact, we have already seen that The Galatian does not believe in the Bible,

Rest assured that Barbarian believes in the Bible, as it is written. He objects to additional doctrines being added.

He has stated that that he doesn't believe the majority of what is written in the Bible,

No, that is absolutely untrue. You should be careful never to bear false witness, even carelessly.

or at least that he is able to determine which parts he can believe or not -

Again, this accusation is wholly false. I never said such a thing, and certainly don't believe it.

Genesis 1 & 2 (regardless of whether you think so or not) DIRECTLY and irrefutably says that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour (solar) days.

Barbarian observes:
Fact is, it nowhere says six literal 24 hour (solar) days. You've been misled. Go and look. Not there.

In fact this is AFTER I showed him that the word YOM was used, and that in the Hebrew scripture, whenever YOM is used in condjunction with a number, or with the word morning, or with the word evening, it always means a literal, ordinary day.

No, that's wrong. You are assuming what you propose to prove. Yom may mean any length of time.

Each day of creation is marked with "And the evening, and the morning were the [number] day".

Of course, there can be no morning or evening with no sun, so again, we recognize that this verse is not literal.

The 10 commandments confirm this -

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

On what evidence do you claim that repeating an allegory changes it to literal history?

Barbarian observes regarding earlier claims:
I just looked. It doesn't say that "life only creates more of itself", and it doesn't say that life doesn't turn into other kinds of life. In fact, it refers to life as a "kind", not kinds.

(verse showing that God said "kind", not "kinds")

So everything was created and reproduces after it's own kind.

None of the verses you mentioned said anything about reproduction, much less what you claimed they said earlier.

We see nine kinds mentioned (including man). The New Testament also supports this idea - that organisms are not all of the same ancestry genetically:

It says nothing about genetics whatever. It says only that the flesh of various organisms differs. Which is true. However, it is also true that you have more genes in common with a fly than you have differences.

Barbarian on misunderstanding "yom":
Doesn't say "literal days". In fact, a litereal reading would rule out literal days, because there would be no sun, no mornings and no evenings.

For one thing - time was created on day 1. This means the passing of time began to happen. We have light, which is separated from darkness. We have the rotation of the earth. We know that the earth got form - meaning the natural laws of universe of gravity, for example, were in place. With the rotation of the earth, we know that any fixed light source could give us evening, morning,

No, that's wrong. If you cause a light in space, and shine it on the Earth, it still doesn't make a morning. That, by definition, is when the sun appears in the East. Even Augustine pointed this out, and he was trying to justify a literal Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
As you've learned, the Word of God is completely consistent with evolution. How could it be otherwise?

This is extremely foolish. We can see from the Bible that, not only is a completely different story given than evolution, but ALL CHRISTIANS mentioned in the Bible were under the impression that Genesis was accurate and true - inclusing Jesus and Paul.

Do you have a verse from either of them that says it is literal, rather than allegorical? I don't think so. Repeating an allegory does not convert it to literal history.

If you can throw out Genesis as a fairy tale, then you can throw out Jesus as a fairy tale.

If you think figurative language in the Bible is a "fairy tale", I don't think we can make much progress here.

The Galation believes that the Word of God (the Bible) is a marvellous fairy tale.

Another falsehood. Why are you doing this? Do you not understand that people read this and draw conclusions about you when they see that I never said such things?

He believes that Genesis 1 (account of creation) didn't happen.

Another falsehood. It happened. Genesis just happens to explain it allegorically. If you're frustrated, we can stop, but please don't make false accusations.

The Galatian would have you believe that the OT law was wrong and false - I remind you that the 10 commandments repeat that the earth was created in six literal days.

Actually, they don't. And again, you've falsely accused me. Nowhere does it say that they are literal days.

The Galatian would have you believe that Jesus and Paul are both false teachers that preach lies.

Have you no sense of shame at all? Do you not know you will eventually stand before Him?

Jesus is fond of quoting Genesis (which Galatian has already declared false)

As you know, I've already told you it's true. Like most Christians, I just don't believe your additions to it.

However, the Galatian somehow expects us to believe that he is a Christian - a follower of christ - yet he challenges both the Father and the Son as false.

No, that is a lie, also.

yet the Galatian dismisses the Law -- the 10 commandments anyway.

Yet another lie.

Also, Galatian, you keep trying to give this false assertion that the majority of Christians believe evolution.

No, I said that a majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

This just isn't the case. In fact, until I came to this message board, i had never met any. I have been going to church since I was 3, an average of 3 services a week, and I had never met a christian who believed in evolution.

I've met Christians who didn't know anyone who thought drinking was prohibited. And yet there are entire subcultures of Christians who think so. Our own circle of friends is hardly a good sample, especially, when they aren't representative of Christians as a whole.

So, while you may hold particular belief, it is wrong of you to attempt to speak for all ... or even a majority ... of christians.

Nevertheless, it is true. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and most Lutheran churches all acknowledge this truth. And that is a large majority of the world's Christians. There are many others, of course. I learned most of what I know of the paleontology and evolution of mososaurs in North Texas from a theologically conservative Southern Baptist.

Perhaps you would be less aggressive and accusatory, if you understood that God will love you and accept you even if you don't accept evolution. There are people of faith and learning and wisdom on all the different sides of this issue. It's not a salvation issue.

You probably will not want to learn from AIG; they have a history of dishonesty in their articles. Would you like some examples?

 

[The Galatian]

To our evolutionist bretheren - what do you mean when you say God had to use this language

I don't remember anyone saying He "had" to do anything. He chose to do it.

because the people of Bible times were "ignorant"?

Actually, it appears that He didn't mention many kinds of natural phenomena, because they weren't really important to the Word He was giving us.

If it had been essential for us to understand evolution or organic chemistry, I'm sure He would have been able to tell us.

Are you saying that truth is "relative"?

What an odd question. Why would you think truth was relative?

Are you saying that God would have used evolutionist terms if the Bible were authored today - instead of creationist terms?

I don't think anyone knows that, but God. I suppose He would have used things we know about today, as used things people knew about then. Whether or not any particular phenomenon would have been mentioned, I don't know.

 

[danrusdad]

Galatian: "It contradicts some of the extra doctrines some people have added to scripture. But not to scripture as it's written."

You say you object to doctrines people have added to scripture.

Does this mean that by reading the Bible alone, in a straightforward way, that you would come to the conclusion that God created through/using/by evolution? You would reject a "literal" 6-day creation in favor of a so-many billions of years creation with no other information?


If so, which scriptures specifically would lead you to an evolutionary conclusion?

If not, then you are adding to the scripture to support your belief and are guilty of "adding doctrines" to scripture yourself.

You seem to think that only those with the necessary "scientific" knowledge can rightly divide the word. If perfect "scientific" knowledge were necessary for us to comprehend God's revelation, why didn't he provide it?

Is that loving, merciful, etc.?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bob,

This is a good question. And YES this IS the most difficult for evolutionists to answe BECAUSE of the NT references to Adam.

Several things about Genesis 1. I agree with you that YOM means a day. YOM does have other meanings, but in this case it means a 24 hour day. Seeing a YOM as an "epoch", or a million year period is quite unseemly and would be very uncharacteristic for early Hebrew writing. The question is whether or not the account is meant to be figurative, designed to counter some of the near eastern creation epics like Enuma Elish.

I have never had a problem with this argument at all. Do we need proof to believe God's word???

No.

If a Christian wants to believe in a young earth based on a literal Genesis 1 then fine! Science will never be able to 100% prove anything about the beginnings of the earth.

On the other side of the coin...

If one chooses to interact with science then it must be done truthfully! The evidence points to an old earth whether we like it or not!

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian on God's creation:
It contradicts some of the extra doctrines some people have added to scripture. But not to scripture as it's written."

You say you object to doctrines people have added to scripture.

Yes, it actually has kept people from coming to God, and has caused other Christians to lose their faith when they discovered that these added doctrines could not be true.

Does this mean that by reading the Bible alone, in a straightforward way, that you would come to the conclusion that God created through/using/by evolution?

It means, for example, even though reading the Bible would not make you aware of electrons, any doctrine that declares electrons false on scriptural grounds is man's addition. That applies to evolution, solid state electronics, natural selection, or anything else.

You would reject a "literal" 6-day creation in favor of a so-many billions of years creation with no other information?

There are two reasons to do so:

1. The text itself clearly says it is literal, since a literal reading of Genesis gives you logical contradictions

2. The evidence God has given you in creation itself clearly refutes a young Earth.

It seems perverse to deny His testimony to us. However, it's not a salvation issue.

If so, which scriptures specifically would lead you to an evolutionary conclusion?

Scripture is not a science text. Even though scripture does not tell me about frame shift mutations, God has give us minds and curiosity to find these things, if we need.

If not, then you are adding to the scripture to support your belief and are guilty of "adding doctrines" to scripture yourself.

Evolutionary theory is a science. We conclude it's right, because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it. And because it is consistent with scripture. You might as well say that electricity was adding doctrines.

You seem to think that only those with the necessary "scientific" knowledge can rightly divide the word.

The Word is accessible, precisely because God did not make it a science text. It's a simple message to man, about God and about our relationship with Him. Don't try to add all sorts of other things.

If perfect "scientific" knowledge were necessary for us to comprehend God's revelation,

It's not. My objection is those adding things to scripture, not those who realize that it's not about science.

Is that loving, merciful, etc.?

If I could cause even one person to keep his faith, because he didn't think he had to believe in man's doctrine of creationism, that would be the most loving and merciful thing I could do.

That's happened, BTW. And it is the accomplishment for which I am most grateful.

 

[Gup20]

It contradicts some of the extra doctrines some people have added to scripture. But not to scripture as it's written.

Yet I have shown you verse upon verse supporting the YEC position, and you and all other evolutionists have already claimed that evolution is entirely unsupported by scripture.

This means that you are believing the evolutionist worldview over the Biblical world view in spite of a complete lack of Biblical support. Whereas, I have shown you verse after verse that describes the YEC position.

Clearly, you take the word of man as more authroitative than the word of God. You are one for which it is written "casting down imaginations that exhault themselves against the knowlege of God". Evolution exhalts itself as a direct contradiction to scripture. Clearly, you have stated that you do not believe the Word.

So then, we can see that you also do not believe in Jesus Christ.

Rest assured that Barbarian believes in the Bible, as it is written. He objects to additional doctrines being added.

You have alrady demonstrated that you do not believe the word as it is written. For anyone to deny the plainly written text in the Bible advocating a young earth is foolishness. It is there, and no ammount of wishing or hand waiving on your part can change that.

GUP: He has stated that that he doesn't believe the majority of what is written in the Bible

The Galatian: Again, this accusation is wholly false. I never said such a thing, and certainly don't believe it.

You have said that you do not believe in a literal six day creation, yet this is exactly what the text says:

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Clearly, you do not believe the Bible is true. Therefore, because Jesus Christ and his teachings are based upon Genesis and the rest of scripture, we can deduce that you do not believe in Jesus Christ.

Fact is, it nowhere says six literal 24 hour (solar) days. You've been misled. Go and look. Not there.

I am sorry, friend. Your atheistic, humanistic teachers had an agenda and did not tell you the truth. The actual fact of the matter is that they are literal days. The days in Genesis 1 have no other possible meaning but ordinary days. Moreover, the context (and plain reading) of other scripture holds this to be true (such as Exodus 20:11).

No, that's wrong. You are assuming what you propose to prove. Yom may mean any length of time.

I have shown you repeatedly how the days in Genesis actually man literal, ordinary days. There is not denying it. You can choose to ignore the Biblical evidence if you wish, but this will not sheild you from being wrong. In fact, your eternal destiny depends on your belief in scripture. You are trying to continue your sharade of serving two masters. This thread has exposed your true master.

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

We have seen in this thread which master you hold to. You even try to deny words written in scripture to justify your position.

Your actions are directly influenced by the King of Darkness. You are a liar as is your master.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Like the serpent, you have directly contradicted God's word. You have also now been exposed as a liar.

Of course, there can be no morning or evening with no sun, so again, we recognize that this verse is not literal.

There is no need for the sun, only a fixed light source. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Time is not dependent on our Sun. Time is dependent on Light. Morning and evening do not require our sun, they only require light. Again, we have demonstrated that light was prsent... therefore evening and morning are literally possible.

Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

On what evidence do you claim that repeating an allegory changes it to literal history?

We have already demonstrated how neither of these verses (Genesis or Exodus) are allegorical. Furthermore your description of these verses as allegorical serves to demonstrate more fully your disblief of the Bible and scripture. For example, you have called the Law in Exodus (the 10 commandments) allegorical.

Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

None of the verses you mentioned said anything about reproduction, much less what you claimed they said earlier.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The context of the kinds is clear.

Another falsehood. Why are you doing this? Do you not understand that people read this and draw conclusions about you when they see that I never said such things?

So the Bible isn't an allegorical fairy tale? Please, by all means let me know if you think the Bible is literal. This would be a marvellous and wonderful change of heart for you.

I am not here putting words in your mouth. It is you who are making these rediculous claims. I am simply exposing your lies to the light of truth. If that light hurts your eyes or pride, I am sorry and apologize. It is not me who exposes the lie but the spirit of truth within me illuminating your falsehood.

Another falsehood. It happened. Genesis just happens to explain it allegorically.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Like the Serpent, you can contiue to contradict scripture. But repitition will not give your lies any more truth.

Actually, they don't. And again, you've falsely accused me. Nowhere does it say that they are literal days.

Yet again you deny plainly, clearly written scripture. If this is fairy tale, (the 10 commandments) then the law is fairy tale, and he who came to fulfil the law (Jesus) is also fairy tale.

I don't know what religion you are touting, but it is not christianity.

Have you no sense of shame at all? Do you not know you will eventually stand before Him?

How can you believe this? This comes from that Book of allegory and fairy tale.

In fact, Jesus and Paul both quote Genesis as literal, yet you claim it is not. So then, you have dismissed not only Genesis, but Jesus and Paul's teachings as allegorical, non-literal, fairy tale.

As you know, I've already told you it's true.

The facts can speak for themselves. You have claimed that Genesis is not true, and that it is allegorical rather than acutal. You believe it is a nice story.

However, you claim Evolution... a position that contradicts scripture (allegorical or literal interpretations) to be fact. You recognize that the Bible does not advocate evolution in any way, het you are willing to dismiss so much of scripture to believe the word of man above the Word of God.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> However, the Galatian somehow expects us to believe that he is a Christian - a follower of christ - yet he challenges both the Father and the Son as false.

No, that is a lie, also. </font>[/QUOTE]I think not. You have already described how the world was not created in six days. Again lets look at the actual scripture.

Exd 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So you have called the Father a liar.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

Jesus quotes Genesis 1 as literal. So you have called Jesus, the Son, a liar.

Perhaps you would be less aggressive and accusatory, if you understood that God will love you and accept you even if you don't accept evolution.

Perhaps you will one day see the error of your way and see that you cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and man. Creation is the Word of God, evolution is of the mind of man. I stand upon the Word.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

I will indeed unashamedly resist the work of Satan. Including those who would come to destroy the Word as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[Gup20]

I don't think anyone knows that, but God. I suppose He would have used things we know about today, as used things people knew about then. Whether or not any particular phenomenon would have been mentioned, I don't know.

Do you not know, or haven't you heard? The Bible still contains prophecy that has YET to happen. Therefore, God knew the intelligence of the people he wsa writing to in the day that the scripture was written. It is absolute truth. It is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Meaning that even when we die and all things are revealed it will be exactly as it is written today.

Yes, it actually has kept people from coming to God, and has caused other Christians to lose their faith when they discovered that these added doctrines could not be true.

The religion of Evolution has kept FAR FAR more people from becoming or remaining christians than has any other false doctrine. We can see in the United States alone that we have gone from a Bible-based society to one that espouses the abcence of christianity in all sects of public and private life. Evolution has advanced the religions of atheism and agnosticism and advanced the secular agenda into nearly every public arena.

It means, for example, even though reading the Bible would not make you aware of electrons, any doctrine that declares electrons false on scriptural grounds is man's addition. That applies to evolution, solid state electronics, natural selection, or anything else.

Fool. The explosion of knowlege known as the beginning to the 'age of reason' was faciliitated and perpetrated by Creationists. Young Earth Creationists such as Robert Boyle who was amoung the first with atomic theories, and other Young Earth Creationists, such as Isaac Newton.

Robert Boyle, for example, (who wrote - The Christian Virtuoso) gave credit to the creator and Genesis as the inspiration to his theories and discoveries. In The Christian Virtuoso, Boyle advocates the view that nature is a clocklike mechanism that had been made and set in motion by the Creator at the beginning and now functions according to secondary laws, which could be studied by science. Unlike the modern evolutionists who think that the most convincing evidence is that which is natural, Boyle recognized that these were secondary to the Word of God.

However, it's not a salvation issue.

While true, it is not a salvation issue, it does undermine the very scriptures that are a salvation scriptures to hold evolution instead of God's word in Genesis as truth. To dismiss a literal Genesis is to build the salvation scriptures on a foundation of sand, rather than on a solid rock.

Scripture is not a science text.

No, but it is ultimate and absolute truth. So where it touches on science and history, you can trust it's accuracy and truth.

Even though scripture does not tell me about frame shift mutations, God has give us minds and curiosity to find these things, if we need.

Has also given us the information and tools necessary to verify the Word as literal and true scientifically... something that YEC do every day. This very world proclaims and affirms a literal Genesis. But you are too blinded by your fear of man and secular humanism to see that.

And because it is consistent with scripture.

In fact, evolution is entirely a contradiction to scripture. Scripture says six literal days, evolution says millions of years. Scripture says God form man form the dust, evolution says man evolved from apes. Scripture gives geneologies leading from the creation of the earth and universe to Jesus in the span of 4000 years. Evolution puts this span at billions of years. God says in scripture that he created animals (such as whales or cattle) as discreet creatures in the space of a single day. Evolution claims it took millions of years and they evolved from the same ancestor.

So we can see that evolution is entirely inconsistent with the scriptures.

If I could cause even one person to keep his faith, because he didn't think he had to believe in man's doctrine of creationism, that would be the most loving and merciful thing I could do.

Are you one those psyco people who think that if they lock a person up and chain them to the wall in their basement they are protecting them in love? In fact, undermining scripture is not a means to protecting scripture. Giving people the turth and letting them experience God is a far better approach. Instead of giving up the battle against the lie, continue to fight for truth and show a clear, unified, inerrant, true Bible.

In case you still don't get it. Evolution is false and not true. How do I know? Because the Bible tells me so. Jesus loves us... how do I know... because the Bible tells me so. Believing in Jesus will save you from Hell... how do I know, because the Bible tells me so.

In your world, you think the following:

Galatians crazy world:
Evolution is true, even though the bible says it is not. Jesus will save you from hell because the bible says it is.

How can you build your faith on an allegorical fairy tale? The Bible says you can't....

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

If the foundation is allegorical and non-literal, so is the whole. If the foundation is true and absolute, so is the whole.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"If the foundation is allegorical and non-literal, so is the whole. If the foundation is true and absolute, so is the whole."

I would certainly disagree with this statement. Writing styles of nomadic semites in 1500 BC differ vastly from the flexible Greek and clear evangelistic focus of the NT.

Also what do you mean by allegory? The term allegory in theological use tends to convey the idea of symbolic story. It is not reasonable to see the timeline of Genesis as symbolic of longer time periods. The question is whether or not it was meant to give a factual and historical account. The passage is obviously not symbolic.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

If a Christian wants to believe in a young earth based on a literal Genesis 1 then fine! Science will never be able to 100% prove anything about the beginnings of the earth.

I have learned that in these conversations - you should never take anything for granted - you should try to get agreement on the most "obvious" parts first.

Taking Genesis to "mean what it actually says" is exactly what many Bible believing Christians are doing.

Many evolutionists "claim" that God "uses creationist stories" in Genesis (and elsewhere) because this is all the people of Bible times were prepared to hear.

In other words - TELLING them in Gen 1-2:3 that in six evenings and mornings all life on earth was made -- and then "Affirming that" in Exodus 20 as HE said "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...so in SIX DAYS YOU are to..." God was using the same timeline, the same exact meaning conveyed - the same story - the obvious creationist language - never used by evolutionists.

And "of course" the "reason" they say He did that - was to convey the "real" truth that "God is in some way responsible for life" though He does so by saying that God actualy SPOKE all life in to being in those SIX days.

And we have already seen them discuss with us about the ignorance of Bible cultures which might explain (in their view) why God was so willing to use creationist stories instead of junk-science stories from the fabled halls of evolution.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Though evolutionists often like to "pretend" that the Bible language in Genesis 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 and in the NT referencing the making of mankind - Adam specifically and THEN Eve ... was never "accepted" by Bible readers in Bible times.

The facts clearly refute the notion that the OT people and the people of the early NT did not actually believe what the text says.

Notice that when pressed on this -- our evolutionist bretheren sometimes admit to the facts in this case.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/3.html#000037

Bob said
"I think I did miss that come to think of it. In fact - I was hoping this was where you would post your own statement that God used creationist models/language/text because the people of that day were not skilled in creating living planets...

Also the point YOU made in the earlier evolutionism threads - was that the REASON God used creationist models to explain the entire origin of this World, life, sun and moon etc IS that the people of that day were ignorant and superstitious. (So basically you say God was speaking in creationist models that a superstitious people would understand - but NOT speaking in scientifically true - or accurate terms).


And for those who claim that the text REALLY just says that God is creator - and nothing more -- then when you say "but not literally" you end up with Claims that "God is the Creator" is the big compromise/symbolism/poetic truth - of scripture because people were too stupid to know the REAL truth

Which places the evolutionist even farther out on the limb - AS IF -- God can't even literally be correct when saying nothing more than "God is creator."


IF indeed it were TRUE that the text ONLY said that "God is creator" and also TRUE that the text is "NOT speaking literally" then God is not LITERALLY the creator!!

IF on the OTHER hand the text is LITERALLY using Creationist stories - and then trying to get us to "disbelieve them" so that ALL we would literally take away from it is "God is creator" -- then you "ADMIT" that the text IS using creationist stories - and is NOT speaking evolutionism to the early people.

Notice what UTEOTW uses to respond to this point - defending the claim that God needed to write a creationist text, speak in creationist terms, tell creationist stories because of the ignorance of Bible cultures ---

UTEOTW responds
Was the initial audience ignorant?

Yes, at least in these matters. Were they stupid? Of course not. And there is a difference between the two. I am a reasonably smart guy, but there are many areas in which I am ignorant. (You may have a few in mind.) But that is not a strike against me.

The initial audience did not have the prior knowledge necessary to get a blow by blow account. And it was unneeded. God managed to communicate everything they needed, and that we need, to know in a succinct narrative.

Indeed - a creationist model - a creationist narrative "NEVER" used as "a form of evolutionism" by Darwin, Dawkings or anyone else. It is "clearly" and "obviously" creation stories being told in Gen 1-2:3.

SIX evenings and mornings -- a chronological sequential timeline "account" as God calls it.

It could not BE further from the "NEED" of evolutionists to "claim" that
That it is not meant to be literal

Telling what is WAS 'meant' to be is determined by the mindset of the PRIMARY audience and the other references to "ITS DETAILS" all throughout scripture.

References that are very CLEAR. (As it turns out).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

As even early theologians pointed out, Genesis cannot be literal, since a literal reading produces logical contradictions.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Taking Genesis to "mean what it actually says" is exactly what many Bible believing Christians are doing.[SNIP]

And "of course" the "reason" they say He did that - was to convey the "real" truth that "God is in some way responsible for life" though He does so by saying that God actualy SPOKE all life in to being in those SIX days.[SNIP]

And we have already seen them discuss with us about the ignorance of Bible cultures which might explain (in their view) why God was so willing to use creationist stories instead of junk-science stories from the fabled halls of evolution.

In Christ,

Bob

Scientific theories incorporated within the text of the Scriptures do not necessarily endorse the specific theory. This is a point that ‘young earth’ and ‘old earth' creationists often fail to grasp. We are frequently working with various texts in Scripture that may (or more probably may not) deal with the topic of origins. We often bend these texts into meaning what the author never intended them to mean.

It is very conceivably that the Hebrews of the time believed that the world was flat. It is even conceivable that aspects of that worldview were incorporated into the Scriptures. Even if it was so, this doesn’t mean the Bible teaches this.

Norman Giesler and William Nix, in their book, “A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and expanded (Moody Press, 1996, 1986, p58.) writes:

Inspiration covers the Bible fully and completely in the sense that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful beings. The truth of Scripture is to be found in what the Bible reveals not in everything it records. Unless this distinction is held, it may be incorrectly concluded that the Bible teaches immorality because it narrates David’s sin (2 Sam. 11:4), that it promotes polygamy because it records Solomon’s (1 Kings 11:3), or that it asserts atheism because it quotes the fool as saying “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1). In each case the interpreter of Scripture must seek the commitment of the writer of the particular passage in question. The important thing for the interpreter to keep in mind is not what the writer seems to say, not what herefers to, nor even whom he quotes, but what he really affirms in the text. [Bolding added]

Rob