Fundamentalist view on creation vs. evolution

Catching up a bit:

Peter101: the petroleum industry is consistently surprised by where there is and is not oil. I would not count too much on their dependency on old age or even rock type any more for the discovery of oil:

And

There are plenty more articles in various journals, magazines, and newspapers to indicate that there are plenty of surprises in this field so that I think it would be wise for you not to indicate that oil seekers are depending on the accuracy of ancient ages!


Galatian: Christ did not have to say anything about the reality of Genesis 1 and 2. He is God. He takes responsibility for His Word. There is nothing but the opinion of modern men who are preferring men’s minds over God’s Word that says anything in Genesis is allegorical. It is presented as literal history. You cannot accept it that way, but that has nothing to do with its accuracy as history. To paraphrase your words: Repeating that it is an allegory does not convert it from history to allegory.

Meatros: John6:36 has said nothing about agreeing with him in order to be right. He has stated that one must either believe what the Bible says or not. This is not a ‘scotsman fallacy.’ Nor is it being narrowminded. It is simply the truth. You either agree with the Bible or you do not.
However John is most certainly right when he refers to the slippery slope of questioning. There’s questioning and then there’s questioning. “What is meant by this?” is a different question from “Is this really true as stated?” The second does indeed start one on a very slippery slope of depending on the mind of man. Jesus knew better than that. So should we.

Genesis 1 and 2 present themselves as straightforward historical narrative. Who are YOU to say they are not?

And when you say you believe the ‘deep truth’ of the Bible, aren’t you really only saying that you will only believe those things which you believe the Bible is representing and which you already have in mind to be true? You already said you are glad to find a church which coincides with your world-view. In other words, it is your world-view which reigns in your life, not any truth which might challenge it. That is a dangerous position to hold.

And who are you to question the opinion of qualified scientists or their qualifications in the blanket way you did? One does not have to be evolutionarily indoctrinated to be a good scientist!

Back to Peter101 – you told John he ignored science at his peril? WHAT peril? Science will not save him from a thing! I would suggest to you, rather, that you ignore God’s Word at YOUR peril, for it is God who saves, not science. I would also remind you that science changes its mind about things daily. God doesn’t. His Word stays. He stays. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and the only Rock on which it is wise to build.

In the meantime, the flat earth bit was invented in the early 1800’s. It was NEVER a common belief among men! That is a bit of propaganda you have fallen for along with the evolutionary junk. It takes quite a bit of twisting of material, which some evolutionist popularizers are excellent at, to try to get the Bible to say the earth is flat. It never does. Nor did mankind, as a whole, ever think that in terms of the earth or the Bible. Please, just as you cautioned John about not knowing enough about C14 dating to say anything, I would caution you not to talk about what you have not studied, either.

And, finally, in response to Meatros’ claim that “Yec Christians tend to give the majority of Christians a bad image.”
Bad to whom?
Worse than the Catholics with the Crusades and Inquisitions?
Worse than the Jesus Seminar who have essentially dismantled the Bible in an effort to get it to fit their preconceived world-views?
Worse than the Christian evolutionists who teach kids that we really did come from ape ancestors because “God did it that way”?

No, YEC Christians are not giving anyone a bad image. Some may be ignorant of a lot of science, but a lot of us are not ignorant there. And all of us have learned or simply known that we can trust the God of the Bible to communicate accurately and clearly in what He tells us. We are only giving ‘worldly Christianity’ – the kind that accommodates to men’s itching ears – a bad time with our ‘bad image.’ The image of those who simply and completely believe God is not a bad image to give. You just don’t happen to agree with it.

 

John6:36 stated his opinion:

You can believe the bible, without believing it to be literal.

This being the case, how is he *not* being closeminded? He even admits it:

By your interpretation, by mine they are not straightforward historical narratives. Who are *YOU* to say that my interpretation is any worse then yours?

If you want my opinion on something, please ask, don't assume. I've change my position on the bible. I used to be a YEC, hardcore, I'm not anymore in light of the overwhelming evidence contrary to YEC. After viewing the evidence I decided to study the bible a lot more indepth/read other books by bible scholars. My opinion is very open on the issues of YEC, Creation, bible inerrancy, evolution, etc. It's just that at this particular time, the evidence supporting YEC and bible inerrancy is weak.

This is ridiculous. You are building a strawman. Do you live by someone elses world view? Why do you assume your worldview is any better then mine?

Totally missed my point, didn't you? Please highlight or qoute *EXACTLY* where I said that a scientist has to have an evolutionary indoctrination.
I said:

Which means that I believe the scientists John was referring aren't evolutionary biology scientists. Where are you getting the idea that I said that John's scientist buddies aren't good scientists????

Nice strawman, who here is advocating that the 'flat earth' paradigm is a common belief??

Bad to non-christians. Bad to the people we try to convert to Christianity.

You've misrepresented my opinions and my statements quite enough. In addition I sense hostility coming from you, why?

 

Oh, you mean sort of like Aesop's Fables?

And if being close-minded means refusing a lie when you have found the truth, I guess all of us would qualify in different areas, don't you think?

By your interpretation, by mine they are not straightforward historical narratives. Who are *YOU* to say that my interpretation is any worse then yours? </font>[/QUOTE]That has NOTHING to do with any interpretation of mine! That is the indication in the Hebrew via grammar and structure. That is the indication of all of the Bible writers who refers to incidents at the beginning. It is also the conclusion of those who know Hebrew and have studied the material in a non-religious frame. It presents itself, and is presented by the author(s) as straightforward historical narrative. Whether or not any of us agree or disagree with that is entirely beside the point.

If you want my opinion on something, please ask, don't assume. I've change my position on the bible. I used to be a YEC, hardcore, I'm not anymore in light of the overwhelming evidence contrary to YEC. After viewing the evidence I decided to study the bible a lot more indepth/read other books by bible scholars. My opinion is very open on the issues of YEC, Creation, bible inerrancy, evolution, etc. It's just that at this particular time, the evidence supporting YEC and bible inerrancy is weak.</font>[/QUOTE]My apologies. Without any 'attitude' on my part, please allow me to ask you this: on what do you base your faith? On what rock have you built?

This is ridiculous. You are building a strawman. Do you live by someone elses world view? Why do you assume your worldview is any better then mine?</font>[/QUOTE]I was just accepting what you said. My worldview is formed by the Bible, actually. And as I study it more and more, there have been changes! I do know my world-view is biblically-based, for better or for worse! On what do you base yours?

From what you said.

Nice strawman, who here is advocating that the 'flat earth' paradigm is a common belief??</font>[/QUOTE]By bringing it up at all, you -- in a historical context.

Bad to non-christians. Bad to the people we try to convert to Christianity. </font>[/QUOTE]That's not at all what I have seen. Conversions are not due to science, first of all. They are due to a person's response to Christ Himself. They are due to a person's reaction to his own heart when God shows him just how rotten it is in its natural state. We read in Romans 2 that it is God's kindness that leads us to repentance, not cosmology or science! What is hurtful to non-Christians in terms of looking seriously at Christians has nothing to do with science! It has everything to do with whether or not Christ is the core of a person's life and whether or not the person's life is reflecting that in day-to-day words and actions.

Don't give YEC more power than it has...

I'm pretty wary of those who come on to Baptist Board with an aim for this forum in particular, and who then proceed to ridicule or mock the beliefs of others and to ignore the solid science coming from the opposition.

As a creationist (who used to be an evolutionist), I know to respect a good part of the science that comes from your side. There is a tremendous amount of solid work being done by those who believe evolution to be true. For me, personally, the trick is in teasing it apart from the opinions and presuppositions. What is sad is that so many on the evolution side seem to feel that if a scientist is also a creationist, his brains must have simply dropped out and he has nothing worthwhile to say.

That has seemed to be your attitude here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

No I don't mean 'sort of like Aesop's fables'.

The second part of this is the logical fallacy, begging the question. You are assume that it is a lie because (IMO) you are more comfortable with it that way.

Of course it's not your interpretation. It's only an interpretation when applied to the other person. Yet the very next sentence you present is: That is the indication.

I base my faith on a variety of factors, which include (but not limited to) the following: Experiences I've had, the bible, what I've read, how I've grown up, the people I know, etc.

I base my world view on the current world around me and my religious views on the bible. The bible doesn't tell me how to enter accounting information into a computer for example. I use the current world around me to inform me of this.

Then you read it wrong. Again this is what I wrote:

This does not imply that John's scientist buddies don't know about whatever field of science they are studying. Again, all this means is I don't believe John's scientist friends are evolutionary biologists. There are a lot of different types of scientists out there, some are evolutionary scientists, but some are also astronomers.

I *didn't* bring it up actually, Peter101 did. He said:

My point was that you didn't have to imagine it, there are people who *still* believe this. I participate on another board with a geocentrist in fact. I wasn't, and I'm still not saying that it's the majority view of Christians. You implied that I said it was a 'common belief among men', which I did not. I was pointing out to Peter101 that people still believe it, not that it was some sort of mainstream Christian dogma.

I agree with you that Jesus/God is the way to repentance, so on that point I concede. However it's still difficult for a non-christian to take me seriously in my effort to convert them when my religious beliefs fly in the face of scientific evidence.

As you should be, however where have I mocked/ridiculed someone? I may be critical of a poster, but that's not mocking or ridiculing someone, that's disagreeing with them.
Where has the 'solid' science been presented to the contrary of my claims? Where have I openly ignored it?

There are people who disagree with evolution whom I think are intelligent. There are people who agree with evolution whom I think aren't intelligent. Their preference for either isn't a relevant factor in determining intelligence (at least to me), it's the content of their posts that does that.

 

No I don't mean 'sort of like Aesop's fables'.

Then how do you mean?

As far as the intended meaning of Genesis 1-2, here:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98sep/einwechter.shtml

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Hosea.htm

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cxb.htm

http://www.truthsearcher.com/DaysOfGenOne3.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3569.asp -- a short but well-written quick explanation of some of the material

http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-how_long_were_the_days_of_gen1.html

www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/rsixdays.pdf

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx8c.htm

http://www.jewishpath.com/holidays/gematria/yom_kippur_2001.html

www.credoquarterly.com/laboratorium.pdf

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~derjn/wfs3hn.html

This list could go on for quite a long time. I encourage you and other readers here to pay attention to what these articles have to say.


Oh, and it seems you are confusing a 'flat earth' with geocentricity. They are not connected.

Also, the straightforward reading of the Bible does not conflict with science at all -- only with the interpretations currently accepted in mainstream science. That is something else which should not be confused.

 

Actually I was referring to what I actually wrote.

Therefore when I said:

I was not out of line.

 

Genesis 1 and 2 present themselves as straightforward historical narrative.

That's one opinion. But the problem is that Gen1 and Gen2 are two different creation accounts written by two different authors. Some of the details in them are contradictory if the stories are literal, but not if they're allegorical. Since the Bible is without error, to present Gen1 and 2 as literal means that there are factual errors in the Bible, which cannot be so. However, Gen 1 and 2 are read for the purpose they were written, rather than a factual account, then the Bible remain error free.

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;In the meantime, the flat earth bit was invented in the early 1800’s. It was NEVER a common belief among men! That is a bit of propaganda you have fallen for along with the evolutionary junk. It takes quite a bit of twisting of material, which some evolutionist popularizers are excellent at, to try to get the Bible to say the earth is flat. It never does. Nor did mankind, as a whole, ever think that in terms of the earth or the Bible. Please, just as you cautioned John about not knowing enough about C14 dating to say anything, I would caution you not to talk about what you have not studied, either.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Helen, you totally misunderstood my post. Don't jump to conclusions so fast. I never claimed that the belief in a flat earth was common. I only used it to illustrate how you and others might view people who believe in a flat earth. Read for comprehension, please.

 

The Jews of the early OT believed in a flat earth. This is a historical fact. Those who say otherwise are plain wrong. Moses, being educated by egyptians, may have known the the surface had a curve to it (per ptolomy's observations), but the egyptians firmly believed that the earth was generally flat.

 

Genesis 1 – 2:4a were written by one author and Genesis 2:4b – 5:1a were written by another. That is true. However they are not two opposing accounts; they are simply two accounts written by different people: God and Adam.

Please also reference from some kind of expert or scholarly source the information that ancient Jews believed in a flat earth. I find this one a little hard to swallow since they were at the crossroads of some of the major trade routes from the east!

 

Where's my response?? Why was it deleted without so much as a say so?

Why am I being censored-I didn't say anything really inflammatory, I just disagreed (with good cause) John's claim?

[Administrator: The thread was degenerating into personal remarks. The sentence inciting your response was removed, as was your response. Neither added anything positive to the thread. Read the rules.]

:Edited to include:

Thanks for the explanation, while I don't exactly agree-I do concede that my vantage point of what I wrote is probably a bit skewed.

[ May 09, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Meatros ]

 

I know you didn't answer me. I had a post right below yours that is now gone, that's what I was referring to.

 

...they [Gen1 and Gen2] are simply two accounts written by different people: God and Adam.

How can that be, since Genesis was the last book of the Torah that was written? (even though it's traditionally listed as the first book).

Please also reference from some kind of expert or scholarly source the information that ancient Jews believed in a flat earth. I find this one a little hard to swallow since they were at the crossroads of some of the major trade routes from the east!

J.D. Douglas, et. al, "Old Testament Volume: New Commentary on the Whole Bible"
Charles Laymon, "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible,"
John Marks, "The Book of Genesis."
Gregory Riley, "The River of God"

Additionally, a paper written by Stanley Weinberg reads as follows

"From ancient times each concept has had its supporters. The Sumerians, Babylonians, ancient Egyptians, early Hebrews, and most Greeks believed in a flat earth. Some ancient Greek scientists, as well as many Church
Fathers - for example, Origen, the Venerable Bede, Albertus Magus, and St. Thomas-Aquinas - supported the round earth. In late medieval and early modern times, Roger Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, and Magellan held that the earth is round."

The entire paper can be found at the following link:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/flatrth1.pdf

 

The Genesis "account" provides a chronological "Sequence" in Genesis 1-2:4.

Exodus 20:8-11 "summarizes that Sequence" as follows "SIX days YOU shall work... For in SIX days the LORD Created the Heavens and the Earth the seas and ALL that are in them and rested the seventh Day THEREFORE the Lord blessed the seventh Day".

The form is direct, explicit and binding. It sets an exact equivalence between the concept of "DAY" at Sinai and the concept of "DAY" in Genesis 1-2:3. It statues that as surely as God worked for 6 days and rested the seventh - so surely did God bless and sanctify that day - making it an obligation upon the people at Sinai to - "do likewise" in the EXACT sequence on the exact days God identified.

They could not "pick a sequence of your own" nor could they "pick any Tuesday" - rather God said "Tomorrow IS the Sabbath". This represents an iron-clad lock-down NOT only on literal seven days - but also on exact equivalence in to the concept of DAY in Genesis 1 AND even identifying the very DAY in the Sinai week that maps to the exact DAY in Genesis 1.

Impossible to miss. And the PRIMARY audience "Got the message" as do most Christians, Jews and even Atheists when they read this - it is clear "what was intended".

Whether they "like" it or choose to believe what they are reading - depends on the bias that they bring when they come to the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, when do you go to Church?

 

After Eratstosthenes, (about 400BC)every educated person in the Mediterranian world knew that the Earth was a sphere, and also knew how big it was.

The Hebrews inferred that it was a disk much earlier, from the observation that the Earth leaves a circular shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses. Hence the "circle of the Earth" in Scripture.