neal4christ
New Member
Thank-you very much, Ron. You cleared up some misconceptions in my mind. See? Wasn't that easy?Good enough?
God Bless,
Neal
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!
Thank-you very much, Ron. You cleared up some misconceptions in my mind. See? Wasn't that easy?Good enough?
Neal,Originally posted by neal4christ:
I understand what you are saying, Grant, but evolution, in its current form, is an explanation of origin. All things are a result of chance, not God. Evolution, as a theory, is not just the changing of animals over time (though that is all the word itself means). It encompasses origin and offers an explanation of it. In its present form, evolution is fundamentally contrary to the notion of God. However, it is interesting that even from the evolutionist frame of mind, the evidence seems to point to a singular event that they cannot explain "why" it happened.
In Christ,
Neal
I understand that you see them as separate. However, having obtained a four year degree in a field that deals with a good bit of science and math from a state university, which you attend one now, I can say with a fair level of confidence that it comes as a whole package. Origin is assumed when evolution is talked about. Religion is totally separate from science (I have had this said by a professor in a class of 500). While we may understand the distinctions, in its present form, the scientific establishment does not.Now, there may be people who push these theories, but these theories I see as separate from the "evolutionary" theory.
If the earth wasn't round, would it change your faith in God??? What kind of question is that?? The Bible teaches that the creation account is literal. Why hypothesize about a non-reality?? Why ignore the evidence and the revelation of God? I have no need to. If that is too educated for you to accept then I am not sure what to say about it. I really don't have many more answers about it. It seems pretty clear unless you have an agenda otherwise.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
If the creation account is not literal, will that affect your faith in God? Would it change anything, and if so, what?
I don't know where in the world you got this from. I don't know of anyone who says Scripture is easy to understand in all of its parts. The RCC doesn't even believe that the believer that interpret Scripture on their own. ACcording to the catechism, the only allowable interpretation is that given by the church and her bishops.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
What a contradiction. I thought Scripture was supposed to be easy to understand, and we don't need anyone to guide us but the Holy Spirit. Now it takes the exact correct English translation, comparison of translations, and a grasp of Hebrew to get the REAL meaning behind it.
I don't know why you would think that nmost versions of Genesis 1 are false based on what I have said. You will have to explain how you came to that conclusion. I believe most versions of Genesis are very accurate although I have not read them all. And you don't need to be a biblical scholar. You simply need to study God's word.Based on what you've been saying, most versions of Genesis 1 are false. I need to be a Biblical scholar to NOT find problems, all because I have to interpret it literally.
Yet the text of Genesis seems to contradict you. God talks about day and night before he talks about the sun. Your unwillingness to accept that causes you to demand that Genesis 1 is wrong. I simply reject that. I don't think God was limited by the sun. You assume that the sun came first. I don't. I assume that the day came first.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
*sigh* I give up. Statements like "24-hour periods are established by God, not the sun" defy using your noggin that God gave you. Yes, God established 24-hour days by ESTABLISHING THE SUN!
I agree.Our God is a God of order, and things work because God wanted them to work that way.
This is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow. Huge jump ...So, we have 24-hour days because God put the sun where it is.
Why do you propose to tell God what he must do to make time?? Does time exist without a watch?? Not by your logic used here. You insist that God could not establish 24 hour days becuase there was not cosmic watch to measure it by. I completely reject that. The only reason there are 24 hour days is because Christ is upholding all things by the word of his power, because he is holding all things together.Time existed before the earth had its sun, but there were not "days" that equaled "24-hours" because that unit of time is dependant on the sun's location to the earth. You are trying to argue that time existed before the sun; great, I agree. And 24-hour periods existed before the sun; great, I agree. However, 24-hour "days" would be meaningless without a sun. If God wanted to be talking about literal 24-hour days, he would have made the sun first so that it would make sense.
And there is your problem. I never said that Genesis 1 is wrong. I wish you'd stop lying about me.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Your unwillingness to accept that causes you to demand that Genesis 1 is wrong.
Really? Because my Bibles say that God created the animals after Adam in Genesis chapter two. If I was alone, stranded on an island, and found a Bible for the first time, I might wonder what's going on. Now, if I also had the Hebrew Bible, and I knew Hebrew, maybe I could clear this up. But there are doubts that that will happen. So how is this man alone on the island supposed to reconcile this? There IS a contradiction in this Bible: Animals come first, then man comes first. What is he supposed to believe about the Word of God, since you say he must accept it to be literal?Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I don't know why you would think that nmost versions of Genesis 1 are false based on what I have said. ... And you don't need to be a biblical scholar. You simply need to study God's word.
Chapter 1 through 2:4 is a "sequential timeline" with each event outlined in a specific sequence over a specified unit of time. Its purpose is to account for the origins of all life, the weekly cycle and the day of Worship that God gave mankind - in explicit literal detail.Originally posted by trying2understand:
A question for those who hold to a literal six day Creation:
After taking Chapter 1 of Genesis as literal, what do you believe about Chapter 2?
In Chapter 1 God creates:
1) Grass, herb & fruit trees
2) Birds & creatures in the sea
3) Cattle, creeping things & beasts of the earth
4) Then after all of that, God creates man
In Chapter 2 God creates:
Before any plant of the field was on earth...
Before any herb of the field was grown...
God mad man
Then God made the animals
Why is Chapter 1 literal and Chapter 2 seemingly ignored?
#1. Carson can not bring himself to just say "The Genesis account is TRUE" because in fact - he does not believe it at all.Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Before this thread goes any further and BobRyan accuses Catholics of spiritualizing Genesis to the point of disbelieving the narrative altogether, I intend to point out the nine requirements that all Catholics must affirm with regard to the truths of creation.
1. Cration out of nothing (ex nihilo) (CCC #296)
2. Special and immediate creation of the human soul (CCC #366)
3. Unity of man and woman (CCC #371-373)
4. Original happiness of our first parents (CCC #375)
5. Divine command to test man's freedom (CCC #396)
6. Man's transgression of the divine command (CCC #397-398)
7. The fall of our first parents (CCC #390)
8. The doctrine of original sin and its effects (CCC #402-406, #417-419)
9. The promise of salvation (CCC #410, 411)
....A mythos does not tell a fable; that is to misunderstand the nature of mythos altogether.
Carson's speculation is not credible to any student of Hebrew history. There is no question that Jews before the NT period accepted the Genesis "Account" as literally true.Carson said --
I figured I should make some clarifications.
The Bible teaches that the creation account is literal.
Nowhere does the Bible say "The creation account is to be read literally". Rather, it is to be read literarily as all literature should. Some literature, when read literarily, is read exclusively literally (i.e. strict prose). Other literature, when read literarily, is read exclusively figuratively (i.e. allegory).
You're approaching the text with the assumption that the Creation narrative is to read strictly literally, when the ancient author probably did not have that intention.