If you said that God didn't really stop the Sun from moving in Joshua - that he actually stopped the Earth from moving - then I could claim that as being in clear opposition to the word of God. Yet, you seem to have no trouble accepting a nonliteral interpretation of Joshua. What's the difference?
-
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!
See who is a Creation Scientist
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Now that’s a funny statement. We can “observe” gravity everyday, I’m experiencing it right now, oops, I just dropped my pen and it fell to the floor.
Evolution in terms of macroevolution isn’t “observable”. A dog is still a dog, whether it be in the good ‘ol US of A or China. </font>[/QUOTE]Everybody knows that the pace of evolution, as measured by the human life span, is slow. When I was a child, I once told my mama that the hands on the clock were not moving. She told me they were moving, just to slowly to be seen.
Mama was right!
Dogs are dogs. But they aren't wolves any more.
In spite of the slow pace of evolution, speciation has been observed. Here is a link to some examples of that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
For those who choose not to take Genesis literally, you can have your evolution but you are going to have it without the Bible and that is the real issue as I see it for those trying to reconcile evolution and the Bible.
The real dilemma for those who try to meld the Bible and evolution together is that they are not willing to face what is so obvious and that is - a decision has to be made. Specifically…are they going to believe in the Bible or are they going to believe in Evolution? So called scientific facts or discoveries based primarily on how the evidence is interpreted are just too attractive to them. And so they have to justify evolution by somehow making it dovetail with the Bible.
Isn’t it interesting that the Bible has to have it’s obvious meaning adjusted to agree with science? Yet science is never adjusted to agree with the Bible’s meaning on any given topic. Think of how science explains the origins of the universe (Big Bang). Now contrast that with the Bible’s explanation of the origins of the universe (creation). So called scientific studies have concluded that the Big Bang is the explanation but then where is their evidence? Scientific conclusions are suppose to be based on observable evidence and when not observable, they are determined by processes that are to have been constant and unchanged for eons of time. So conclusions are drawn based on processes that are observable today to determine what happened allegedly billions of years ago. It does not get any more unscientific than that. The fact that the Earth exists and that scientists agree that the Earth has not always existed proves that processes existed in the beginning that do not exist today. So you cannot establish conclusions about the past based on processes that exist today and then claim those processes that exist today have always been and have always remained constant. (One of the flaws in Carbon dating)
By all definitions, the Big Bang would then be defined as a miracle but then scientists can't believe in miracles because they are not repeatable and are not able to be studied scientifically.
One of the main issues that seals any attempt to meld evolution and the Bible together is that those who believe that way are going to have to explain why all of the death that took place, represented in the fossil record, prior to Adams' fall. There was no death prior to Adam and Eve's fall.
ex-nihilo
The real dilemma for those who try to meld the Bible and evolution together is that they are not willing to face what is so obvious and that is - a decision has to be made. Specifically…are they going to believe in the Bible or are they going to believe in Evolution? So called scientific facts or discoveries based primarily on how the evidence is interpreted are just too attractive to them. And so they have to justify evolution by somehow making it dovetail with the Bible.
Isn’t it interesting that the Bible has to have it’s obvious meaning adjusted to agree with science? Yet science is never adjusted to agree with the Bible’s meaning on any given topic. Think of how science explains the origins of the universe (Big Bang). Now contrast that with the Bible’s explanation of the origins of the universe (creation). So called scientific studies have concluded that the Big Bang is the explanation but then where is their evidence? Scientific conclusions are suppose to be based on observable evidence and when not observable, they are determined by processes that are to have been constant and unchanged for eons of time. So conclusions are drawn based on processes that are observable today to determine what happened allegedly billions of years ago. It does not get any more unscientific than that. The fact that the Earth exists and that scientists agree that the Earth has not always existed proves that processes existed in the beginning that do not exist today. So you cannot establish conclusions about the past based on processes that exist today and then claim those processes that exist today have always been and have always remained constant. (One of the flaws in Carbon dating)
By all definitions, the Big Bang would then be defined as a miracle but then scientists can't believe in miracles because they are not repeatable and are not able to be studied scientifically.
One of the main issues that seals any attempt to meld evolution and the Bible together is that those who believe that way are going to have to explain why all of the death that took place, represented in the fossil record, prior to Adams' fall. There was no death prior to Adam and Eve's fall.
ex-nihilo
If you said that God didn't really stop the Sun from moving in Joshua - that he actually stopped the Earth from moving - then I could claim that as being in clear opposition to the word of God. Yet, you seem to have no trouble accepting a nonliteral interpretation of Joshua. What's the difference? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you call your local weather station and harp on them for using “sunrise” and “sunset”? Joshua wasn’t a scientists, I’m guessing he didn’t know that the earth rotated. He was in battle and needed more daylight. So naturally what he observed on a daily basis, just as we observe on a daily basis was the sun “rising” and “setting”. So naturally he ask God to stop the sun. It’s called phenomenal language.
And God answered and provided Joshua’s need.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
But, a dog can mate with a wolf, just as a bobcat can mate with a house cat. they're STILL a kind of dog and cat....jeeze... </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if you want some observed instances of speciation that meet the criterion of not being able to reproduce, go to the web site I posted above. Or, just consider horses and donkeys. That they have a common ancestor is shown by the fact they can have offspring. But the offspring - a mule - is always infertile, showing they are a different species by the definition of not being able to reproduce!
Paul of Eugene
New Member
If you said that God didn't really stop the Sun from moving in Joshua - that he actually stopped the Earth from moving - then I could claim that as being in clear opposition to the word of God. Yet, you seem to have no trouble accepting a nonliteral interpretation of Joshua. What's the difference? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you call your local weather station and harp on them for using “sunrise” and “sunset”? Joshua wasn’t a scientists, I’m guessing he didn’t know that the earth rotated. He was in battle and needed more daylight. So naturally what he observed on a daily basis, just as we observe on a daily basis was the sun “rising” and “setting”. So naturally he ask God to stop the sun. It’s called phenomenal language.
And God answered and provided Joshua’s need. </font>[/QUOTE]Its not that simple. The scripture doesn't just quote Joshua saying the sun stopped its motion. The scripture says on its own that the sun stopped its motion. Have you considered that?
If you said that God didn't really stop the Sun from moving in Joshua - that he actually stopped the Earth from moving - then I could claim that as being in clear opposition to the word of God. Yet, you seem to have no trouble accepting a nonliteral interpretation of Joshua. What's the difference? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you call your local weather station and harp on them for using “sunrise” and “sunset”? Joshua wasn’t a scientists, I’m guessing he didn’t know that the earth rotated. He was in battle and needed more daylight. So naturally what he observed on a daily basis, just as we observe on a daily basis was the sun “rising” and “setting”. So naturally he ask God to stop the sun. It’s called phenomenal language.
And God answered and provided Joshua’s need. </font>[/QUOTE]Its not that simple. The scripture doesn't just quote Joshua saying the sun stopped its motion. The scripture says on its own that the sun stopped its motion. Have you considered that? </font>[/QUOTE]Ummm, no, it is quite that simple. Joshua 10:12 records: Then spake Joshua to the LORD… hence the word spake. Further on in the verse Joshua says in the sight of Israel, Sun stand thou still… Joshua 10:13: And the sun stood still… Joshua 10:14-…that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of the man…
What that tells me is that Joshua spake to the LORD that the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the LORD hearkened unto the voice, meaning the LORD answered Joshua’s plea.
That simple…
Paul of Eugene
New Member
So right there, the Bible literally declares the Sun halted its own motion across the sky. It is this very verse that Martin Luther claimed as he railed against the upstart Copernicus, who sought to let mere science inform us as to what was really happening, when scripture teaches us otherwise.
Today, you see, because the science has become so plainly true, you accept the science of the thing instead of the literal scripture of the thing. Oh that it should come to this - you, John6:63 taking science over scripture! (sigh)
Using fancy words such as "phenomenological" does not change this. Everybody watches you doing it right in front of our eyes.
We all do it. I do it to. we have to, because we know the science is sound. That's what we do, when we know the science is sound.
I'm not complaining about doing that. Instead, I'm claiming the right to do it in other areas of sound science, such as evolution and the age of the universe.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
John6:63, I think you are wasting your time trying to convince these Psalm 14:1 people about the truth.
What is really sad is that Paul of Eugene is a member of a Southern Baptist Church. I know he would not be allowed to join our Independent Baptist Church, thank God! We would, however, allow him to hear the truth about the Gospel.
What is really sad is that Paul of Eugene is a member of a Southern Baptist Church. I know he would not be allowed to join our Independent Baptist Church, thank God! We would, however, allow him to hear the truth about the Gospel.
Some "Creation Scientists" have the unique gift of being able to do both.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen 1:1-2 KJV
Does this tell you what God did before the beginning? What happened between the beginning and the time when the earth was without form, and void? If the Bible is silent on a particular scientific finding (or theory) does that mean it didn't happen or is untrue?
So the processes that exist today are different than the processes that existed yesterday? What about last week, last year, last century? What is the cutoff? In your studied opininion when did the processes change so that we can't take conditions today and make a reasonable guess what may happen tomorrow?
Exactly!
Some scientists do believe in miracles.
You want scientists to repeat miricles? That's God's specialty.
Just how would you go about studying a miracle scientificlly?
Can you provide scripture to back this up?
ex-nihilo, I being a bit of a "devil's advocate" with this. I don't know all the answers (obviously). I'm just hoping that everyone involved, includung myself, thinks about and studies the issues rather than simply repeating pat answers and opinions.
"ex-nihilo" hmm...I like that!
[ September 10, 2004, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Michael52 ]
Well, the bible isn’t clear on the HOW God done it. You see, the bible doesn’t say what you claim it says: Sun halted its own motion across the sky… You’re adding to the word of God….a big NO, NO.
The bible says nothing about the suns own motion. It just says the sun stood still and from Joshua’s vantage point it did just that, stood still, and that’s how he recorded it.
God doesn’t reveal HOW He done it, only that He answered Joshua’s plea.
Now concerning evolution and creation, God DID reveal HOW He made a literal human named Adam, which was from the dust of the ground. We know HOW God made the animals, in the same manner. Therefore, since we know HOW God done it, we can dismiss evolution.
Now back to Joshua, since God didn’t reveal HOW He stopped the sun, what we know from science is that the earth rotates. We can now SAFELY conclude that God stopped the earth from rotating, which to Joshua, it appeared that the sun stood still.
OK, let’s recap. Genesis-God reveals HOW He done it. Joshua-God doesn’t reveal HOW He done it.
It’s really that simple…
Charles Meadows
New Member
John 6:63,
No one would doubt that God can do wnatever He wants. The resurrection may seem unlikely to a nonbeliever - but the bible is quite clear in saying that Jesus dies and then rose again! Indeed Paul made it 100% clear that this is the cornerstone of our whole faith.
I am not a professed evolutionist, but I am an old earth advocate. When reading Genesis 1, as one who has studied near eastern languages, I do not think that the passage was meant to be literal. As such I have no problem accepting some of the conclusions of natural science regarding the origins of the earth.
I think some fundamentalists have simply decided that all of the bible must be taken literally. Anyone who disagrees is called a liberal. I think this stems from a fear that if we allow any traditional beliefs to replaced we'll end up giving away the whole farm, deity of Christ and all. Not true.
No one would doubt that God can do wnatever He wants. The resurrection may seem unlikely to a nonbeliever - but the bible is quite clear in saying that Jesus dies and then rose again! Indeed Paul made it 100% clear that this is the cornerstone of our whole faith.
I am not a professed evolutionist, but I am an old earth advocate. When reading Genesis 1, as one who has studied near eastern languages, I do not think that the passage was meant to be literal. As such I have no problem accepting some of the conclusions of natural science regarding the origins of the earth.
I think some fundamentalists have simply decided that all of the bible must be taken literally. Anyone who disagrees is called a liberal. I think this stems from a fear that if we allow any traditional beliefs to replaced we'll end up giving away the whole farm, deity of Christ and all. Not true.
Then how do you explain away the genealogies of the bible? Adam created on day 6 lived to be 930 years old.
I have to disagree with ya. That’s exactly why my family and I left the United Methodist Church. In a meeting w/ the pastor SHE (that's the problem w/ the UMC) eluded to the fact that she didn’t believe in the virgin birth of Christ and that neither did we. Without hesitation we left, and found an IFB church right down the road.
I don’t really look at it as wasting my time. Anytime I discuss creation, I’m glorifying God and His awesome ability to create, which He revealed to us through His Word. Paul and the others can refuse to believe, but God, IMO, will reward me for my faith in Him and His Word that He promised to preserve, when I stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ.
It looks like to me that some of the SBC’s are starting to make a left hand turn anyway. I visited one SBC and I walked away feeling that the church focused more on the praise music and their light show and less on the preaching of the Gospel. But Paul would be more than welcome to join our church, only he wouldn’t. The very first visit he would walk away knowing exactly where our church stands in regards to the bible and its doctrine.
Charles Meadows
New Member
John6:63,
" a meeting w/ the pastor SHE (that's the problem w/ the UMC) eluded to the fact that she didn’t believe in the virgin birth of Christ and that neither did we"
I wouldn't go to a church with a SHE pastor either - especially if the pastor deniedthe virgin birth!!
But I don't think that seeing Genesis 1 as nonliteral means rejecting the virgin birth!
" a meeting w/ the pastor SHE (that's the problem w/ the UMC) eluded to the fact that she didn’t believe in the virgin birth of Christ and that neither did we"
I wouldn't go to a church with a SHE pastor either - especially if the pastor deniedthe virgin birth!!
But I don't think that seeing Genesis 1 as nonliteral means rejecting the virgin birth!
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Well, if you read with understanding of what the words commonly mean, for a body to suddenly stand still IS for a body to stop its own motion.
Of course, that's merely the literal interpretation, and I for one freely grant you the right to move away from the literal interpretation of scripture to what you really know happened.
I only ask that you admit you did it.
Gup20
Active Member
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;
The truth is, Evolution is #1 the opposite of the account given in scripture, and #2 omits God's role in the direct creation of man, and #3 makes the scriptures incongruent and fallible. Clearly, it is a 'high thing that exhalts itself AGAINST the knowlege of God'.
How many evolutionists avoid talking about the real issues by creating fairy tale arguments to discuss in their stead? This does nothing to deal with the question other than try to mock and discredit the question. It is neither an answer nor does it even deal directly with the question. It is clever hand waiving intended on distracing people from the fact that they have no real answer.
This is very true. The church of England has embraced evolution and today it is all but entirely dead. The 'older' christians have been convinced and have a foundation in belief for the Word. But any new christians... or young people coming into the church have NO REASON to believe the Bible where it pertains to Jesus or morality when THE CHURCH tells them that Genesis can't be trusted and Science can. Each generation pushes that door farther and farther open until you have young people who aren't already convinced the Bible is true coming in and seeing how 'science' is in direct opposition to the Word of God. They are far more clever than their older counterparts and say "If Genesis is wrong - and even the church agrees - then how can anything else in that book be right".