Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Usually what that means is "I have bad hermeneutics."
Taking things literally that are NOT literal is NOT believing precisely what God says AT ALL.
It is the opposite.
JFTR, I don't think that simply believing precisely what God said qualifies as a "weak YEC talking point"!
I would call it FAITH!
So the lord did NOT create the Universe in 7 literal days?
he did NOT create Adam as a special act , nor take Eve out from him then?
So jesus was wrong when he talked about Adam and Eve in the beginning, seeing them as first Humans then?
And hebrews wrong that God created all things, and paul wrong that Jesus created all things direcly, NOT evolving them?
No. The Lord did not create the universe in seven days. Even if you were a young earth creationist you still would not believe the Lord created the universe in seven days. You would believe the Lord created the universe six days.
Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to think that the "days" are literal 24 hour periods.
Thirdly, Adam was a real man and he was the first human being.
I'm old earth myself, and creationist.
That said, the Bible is absolutely scientifically accurate in telling us man is made from the dust of the ground. We ARE composed of the elements just as the dust is.
But far too many people get the mental image of a God that looks like an overgrown man somehow alighting on earth and making mud pies and then bringing them to life. And that isn't at all what Genesis says.
It tells us God made us out of the dust of the earth. It doesn't say how. So it doesn't eliminate the possibility of evolution. I believe there is a degree of evolution (micro) and some limited degree of macro, since there are separate species than can breed. Usually produces sterile offspring, but still breed.
If we are going to play Catholic and give history and tradition equal weight, then we can no longer believe in the sperm and egg producing a pregnancy. Nope, we have to believe men deliver tiny tiny fully formed humans into the woman's "nest" without her contributing an egg. After all, that was the historical and traditional understanding of some of Paul in the NT. "In Adam's fall we sinned all" was based on that view. Anybody want to take that on, holding to "what was taught for centuries is good enough for me?"
Now, if you want a good example of twisting yourself into knots to try to hold on to what "has always been taught" in the face of clearly visible facts, look to the RCC and the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception. It seems to be a response to the discovery of the human ova.
If we let the Bible speak for itself, and don't try to superimpose ideas like "its a creation myth" OR "we are supposed to take it all as literal science. No poetry, no liturgy" then we just don't find those conflicts.
Am I made out of dirt physically? Yes indeed, science backs up the Bible or the Bible predates science accurately, take your pick. Does that mean God made mud pies to make me? No, it doesn't say that. He might have. Or He might have just spoken. Or He might have used evolution in order to prepare our bodies to have those dna codes that allow us to save lives with modern medicine.
I remember Him having a few choice words for Job regarding creation. It is enough to stick with what He has revealed to us. There is enough there for an eternity of awe and worship of Him. What He chooses not to tell us is His business.
Really??? You're sure about that?It tells us God made us out of the dust of the earth. It doesn't say how. So it doesn't eliminate the possibility of evolution.
Not "might have." Did.... He might have just spoken.
Or He created those DNA codes from the beginning. Which He did.Or He might have used evolution in order to prepare our bodies to have those dna codes that allow us to save lives with modern medicine.
I don't believe He has "chosen not to tell us" anything. He's told us precisely how it was done.What He chooses not to tell us is His business.
First, the Church until modern evolutionary era, and critical thinking came in, pretty much held to a lieral 7 days period, that would be the 'historical" position!
sabbath was A DAY of rest, modeled after God restring A DAY! And the Hebrew term can mean otherwise, but majority oftime used for 24 hr day!
So thesistic Christians hold to adambeing first humna, created by God supernaturally, NOT via evolutionary process, on prior sub human primates?
Really??? You're sure about that?
Genesis 1, NASBThe Hebrew word translated "formed" is yatsar, which (for example) is translated "potter" in 2 Kings 19:25, and "maker" in Habakkuk 2:18, both examples of workmen, craftsmen, who form their works with their hands. This is strongly indicative of God taking a handful of dust and forming it into man, and they "breathing" (a literal breathing out of air) to give His creation life. Sorry, but the words in the Hebrew tell us exactly "how He did it.
7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Not "might have." Did.
Or He created those DNA codes from the beginning. Which He did.
I don't believe He has "chosen not to tell us" anything. He's told us precisely how it was done.
First, the Church until modern evolutionary era, and critical thinking came in, pretty much held to a lieral 7 days period, that would be the 'historical" position!
sabbath was A DAY of rest, modeled after God restring A DAY! And the Hebrew term can mean otherwise, but majority oftime used for 24 hr day!
So thesistic Christians hold to adambeing first humna, created by God supernaturally, NOT via evolutionary process, on prior sub human primates?
Sad that some Christians place their "faith" and trust in unproven, and mosely "junky" "facts", and bypass the fully accurate word of God!
Shouldn't we be fitting the scientific "facts"thru the lense of the Bible, NOT try to make sure the bible "accomodates" science, no REAL scientific facts willbe againstBible truths, unlike the "theory of evolution!"
Not seven days, six!
God did not work on the seventh day! Six days!
The church held to a literal six day creation as 24 hour periods of time for the same reason that the church believed for nearly 1500 years that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe and all the planets revolved around it.
They took bad science to the Bible and assumed the Bible supported it.
And yes many Christians who believe God used evolution also believe that Adam was a special creation of God.
Google Hugh Ross, reasons to believe.
Also Google the framework hypothesis theory of Genesis 1 and two
This in totally uncalled for....it nothing to do with "placing faith" that is such a red herring.
Real science should attempt to "close off anything" which might cause one to shade their conclusions. ( A practical impossibility for fallen and fallible creatures as ourselves, but to do real science, every effort should be made to account for and control any variables that we are aware of.)
No gap Theory in scriptures, No extreme aging like billions of yeras...
Know the reasons/facts given, its goes back to either we take the bible in a literal intended fashion, or try to "squeeze it: into a framework to accomodate the so called facts!