So why was the Creation thread closed?

[Peggy]

The church sure fought to perserve the geocentric view of of the universe as a Bible taught theory until it was proven by science beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth revolves around the sun.

I think the same thing will happen today. People will fight tooth and nail to perserve the idea of a literal 6 day creation until they are forced to admit that the universe is, in fact, billions of years old.

Willl that cause people to lose their faith? Did people lose their faith when it was proved that the earth revolves around the sun? Or does it just mean that we need not be afraid of the truth, because God is Truth and truth will not contradict faith. Truth makes your position stronger and enhances your faith.

Fighting for the anti-intellectual idea that the earth was created in 6 literal days just makes us look foolish in the eyes of the unsaved that we are trying to reach for Jesus.

Heliocentrism did not kill Christianity. Neither will evolutionary creationism.

 

[asterisktom]

The church sure fought to perserve the geocentric view of of the universe as a Bible taught theory until it was proven by science beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth revolves around the sun.

I think the same thing will happen today. People will fight tooth and nail to perserve the idea of a literal 6 day creation until they are forced to admit that the universe is, in fact, billions of years old.

Willl that cause people to lose their faith? Did people lose their faith when it was proved that the earth revolves around the sun? Or does it just mean that we need not be afraid of the truth, because God is Truth and truth will not contradict faith.

Fighting for the anti-intellectual idea that the earth was created in 6 literal days just makes us look foolish in the eyes of the unsaved that we are trying to reach for Jesus.

1. You are equating "the church" in paragraph 1 with Christianity. The "church" that was so imperiously dogmatic - and wrong - was the Roman Catholic system. They were wrong because they relied, not on Scripture, but their scholastic traditions infused with the "theology" of Aristotle and Plato. Christianity, by worlds-apart contrast, is the church of the God, created and sustained by the Word of God.

2. Your last paragraph is IMO the most important clue to your position: "looking foolish in the eyes of the unsaved". The very fact that they are unsaved means that they think many wise things are foolish and many foolish things wise. Our message is foolish and thus we also seem foolish to them. The Bible tells us this would happen. I can give about 5 verses here off the top of my head. There is no way around this; we can either be foolishness to the world or embarrassment to God.

3. We reach the the world for Jesus by presenting Jesus - unedited, unapologized for. This is the Word of God. We don't honor Christ by denying His words.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Ex. 20:11

The same day of the week that the Lord rested on He also blessed. The same day he blessed the Jews were obligated to observe. They did not observe the Sabbath for millions of years.

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. Mark 10:6-9

These are the words of Christ. He clearly believes that Adam and Eve were historical and - here is the part to especially note - that they were the first of humans created male and female. Many try to honor the Bible somewhat and (what they perceive to be) science somewhat, holding on to both a literal Adam and Eve and earlier hominids (cave men).

Yet here is the rub: to believe in those earlier "proto-humans" is to concede their division into sexes. But to do that is to recognize the application of Mark 10 to them, conferring God's blessings and commandments - upon cave men.

 

[matt wade]

The church sure fought to perserve the geocentric view of of the universe as a Bible taught theory until it was proven by science beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth revolves around the sun.

You, once again, present Heliocentrism as fact. You say that it has been "proven by science beyond a show of a doubt". If this is so, could you provide said evidence that proves this to the scientists involved? I'm sure they would love to move Heliocentrism from the status of theory to fact. I'm not arguing for Heliocentrism, but if you are going to use it in this discussion then you need to get your facts straight about it.

Let's once again address the topic that you've failed to answer on several occasions. Your "proof" that a literal 6 day creation did not happen is that science says it is impossible. Yet, you then say that you believe in people being raised from the dead and a Jesus walking on water. You show faith in some parts of the Bible, yet you lack faith in other parts. Why the inconsistency?

If you are going to use the argument that science has proven something impossible, then you just need to quit Christianity altogether. Science has "proven" that God is impossible and that all the miracles of the Bible are impossible. If you put your faith in science, you can't also have faith in God.

 

[Jedi Knight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNj2D09cBo&feature=related We are in a spiritual war untill Jesus comes back for His own and judges the lost. Christians are to stand for truth and reject false teaching.

 

[annsni]

The Bible teaches a 6 day creation and if science disagrees, who do we trust? God or man?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Not ALL scientist agree with Evolution eather by the way. Here is the missing LINK to that.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

 

[Deacon]

There is more than one origin model.
Three popular conservative Systematic Theologies all agree;

1) Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1994).

”Both ‘Old Earth’ and ‘Young Earth’ Theories Are Valid Options for Christians Who Believe the Bible Today.” (p298).

2) Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, 1983)

“...[T]heistic evolution views God’s later creative work as occurring through immanent means. While this view is able to handle quite well the scientific data, it has some difficulty with the biblical account of creation. And any view that is to be acceptable, given the understanding of the Bible and of general revelation adopted earlier in this volume, must be in accord with both the biblical data and the scientific data. More adequate is the position termed progressive creationism. According to this view God created in a series of acts over a long period of time. … This view fits well the biblical data. “ (383-384).

3) Norman Geisler (Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 2003)

“There are numerous ways that one can account for long periods of time and still accept a literal understanding of Genesis 1-2. That is, one does not have to give up the normal historical-grammatical way of interpreting the Bible in order to embrace these views. Therefore, there is no necessary conflict between Genesis and the belief that the universe is millions or even billions of years old.” (646).

Bruce Waltke (of whom the discussion currently revolves around) supports a creation model somewhere between Progressive Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism, well within the bounds of historical orthodoxy.

Rob

 

[Jedi Knight]

There is more than one origin model.
Three popular conservative Systematic Theologies all agree;

1) Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1994).

2) Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, 1983)

3) Norman Geisler (Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 2003)

Bruce Waltke (of whom the discussion currently revolves around) supports a creation model somewhere between Progressive Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism, well within the bounds of historical orthodoxy.

Rob

Those who drink the Kool-aid of Evolution and try to marry them....obviouly still have a stained red ring around their lips. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo

 

[annsni]

I've said before that my issue with theistic evolution is that evolution is based on death and the biblical tells us that death came AFTER creation and is a result of the fall. How can evolution square with that?

 

[matt wade]

There is more than one origin model.
Three popular conservative Systematic Theologies all agree;

1) Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1994).

2) Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, 1983)

3) Norman Geisler (Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 2003)

Why do you list what men say when we have it straight from God?

I pose the same questions to you that I posed to Peggy. If you can believe in the miracles of raising from the dead and walking on water, why do you not believe in the miracle of a 6 day creation?

 

[nodak]

I've said it before, and will say it again.

It is entirely acceptable and logical to accept both Genesis 1 and 2, which differ with each other, without embracing young earth creationism.

I remember when I was first saved, and Baptist preachers in our area strongly condemned anyone not accepting the gap theory.

Now they condemn anyone who does, it seems.

God does not lie. So we have to accept both what the Bible teaches, and what He shows us in creation, since even the heavens declare the glory of God, according to His Word.

It is, in my mind, insulting to hint or teach that God would design the universe purposely to mislead us just to see if we would accept His Word over what our eyes see. And to be sure, that idea conflicts with what He Himself tells us in Romans 1.

The Holy Word makes it very clear God created all.

Good theology and accurate science will not disagree.

Poor science (such as believing it all happened by chance) and poor theology (such as believing God designed the universe to be deceptive) are both to be rejected.

Good science (telling us what can be observed in nature without speculating on ultimate cause) and good theology (dealing with ultimate cause and purpose and attributes of God) have no need of conflict.

Simply put, God does not lie. So if your theology does not square with empirical evidence, you most likely misunderstand the Bible. And if your science does not square with the Bible, you most likely misunderstand the data.

This is a Baptist board, or claims to be one. Baptists are supposed to cherish soul sufficiency. To insult, blast, or question the salvation of another just because their understanding of scripture differs from one's own is very, um, well, charitably put, unBaptistic to say the least.

 

[matt wade]

Good science (telling us what can be observed in nature without speculating on ultimate cause) and good theology (dealing with ultimate cause and purpose and attributes of God) have no need of conflict.

Simply put, God does not lie. So if your theology does not square with empirical evidence, you most likely misunderstand the Bible. And if your science does not square with the Bible, you most likely misunderstand the data.

So, according to you, I must misunderstand the Bible. I believe that Jesus raised people from the dead. I believe Jesus Himself rose from the dead. Science shows me this is impossible. Therefore, I must be misunderstanding the Bible, right? Or did I misunderstand the scientific data, and science has not proven that people can't be raised from the dead (after three days)?

 

[just-want-peace]

So, according to you, I must misunderstand the Bible. I believe that Jesus raised people from the dead. I believe Jesus Himself rose from the dead. Science shows me this is impossible. Therefore, I must be misunderstanding the Bible, right? Or did I misunderstand the scientific data, and science has not proven that people can't be raised from the dead (after three days)?

One of the favorite arguments from the "other than 6 day crowd" is that God gave us a brain and thus we should be using it!

Well, I totally agree! And that is one of the reasons that I question anybody who claims that "science has PROVEN(?) whatever", and yet CLAIMS to believe scripture when it claims stuff that science says can't be!

Resurrection
Walking on water
Feeding the multitudes
Turning water into wine
Spontaneous healing
Distance healing
Raising of Lazarus
Making demons obedient to Him
Etc, etc, etc!!!

How is one using their brain with such inconsistencies??

Pure & simple, if you can't believe what God said in ALL of His word, how can you believe in any of His word? How do you distinguish the believable from the un-believable?

How do you know you have met the requirements for salvation, since that part just may be a portion of the un-believable section??? HUH!!!!????

Face it folks, there is the same evidence re: earth to all, and the conclusion you draw is based totally and entirely on your belief system. It's your decision, whether you believe God as He said He did it, or science as science says it "happened"!

Both views are matters of faith!! The only difference is that the "6 day-ers" readily admit that it's their faith in His word that leads them to the conclusion they have, while the "non 6day-ers" claim that "science has proved ----"

By the way, that old worn out "argument" about God "DECEIVING US" is so ridiculous as to put it in the category of a liberal calling somebody a racist when they cannot refute by logic an actual argument! Sheesh!!!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

God does not lie. So we have to accept both what the Bible teaches, and what He shows us in creation, since even the heavens declare the glory of God, according to His Word.

Or it could be that the scientists start with a preconceived notion that there is no God and come up with speculative results based on their agenda. Evolution is certainly not settled and there are scientists that refute evolution. Let's not pretend that all of science is in the pocket of evolution.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is what liberals do. It is the same junk they are trying to pull with the global change myth. They try to convince everyone the science is settled. It isn't settled and evolution is losing ground.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Or it could be that the scientists start with a preconceived notion that there is no God and come up with speculative results based on their agenda. Evolution is certainly not settled and there are scientists that refute evolution. Let's not pretend that all of science is in the pocket of evolution.

More like fundies start with a preconceived notion that they have a corner on truth, and anything that varies from their narrow interpretations are false, no matter what studying God's own creation reveals. If the Bible said that clouds are made out of frogs, that's what they would cling to.

 

[Revmitchell]

If the Bible said that clouds are made out of frogs, that's what they would cling to.

So why don't you give a true, but similar, example of something from scripture. By the way we fundies, and praise God for Fundies, do believe what the Bible tells us regardless of what man made science says.

 

[Dr. Bob]

So why was the Creation thread closed?

Ah, how long have you been around the BB? When a thread hits 10+ pages it is AUTOMATICALLY shut down.

Over the past 11 years we have seen some really good discussions in the first few pages of the thread turn into name-calling and repetition. No one reads 10-20-30 pages - they just comment without even knowing the context.

It is the duty of the Moderators (and if busy, I jump in as Admin) and shut them down. Try to add a note saying it was beyond the page limit.

New people may not know this, so Peggy your post and starting a new thread on a point of discussion can educate them.

 

[nodak]

RevMitchell, you and I agree more than you realize!

Obviously, presented with a dead body that is resurrected three days later GOOD science would conclude resurrection is not only possible but observable. Only JUNK science would discard the data. God did NOT ask people to "just have faith Jesus rose." Rather, Jesus appeared to many and provided Thomas with empirical evidence. That should lead science to question why it was observed once, but is not regularly occurring. Science will tell the unbeliever Jesus was unique. Theology then can come in to explain "the rest of the story."

In the same way, IF (and this is a huge if, bear in mind) science were to present us with undeniable proof that the earth is billions of years old, that would not disprove Genesis but rather only disprove faulty understandings of Genesis.

Miracles are miracles BECAUSE they are suspensions of the laws of nature. No laws of nature=no miracles.

We don't have to be afraid of science--only of false science. False science would tell me the universe "just happened."

It is entirely possible to accept Genesis and not be young earth creationist.

This is a false dichotomy being set up: EITHER you accept science or the Bible.

The truth is many of us accept both.

Just as I believe the Bible teaches God looks on the motives an intents of the heart, and science tells me a heart surgeon deals with the physically beating organ located in the chest, I believe Genesis tells me of a real Creator who created a real physical universe, this planet, and put two specific people--Adam and Eve--upon it. But nowhere does it specify an exact date for doing that. We can guess from geneologies, but the careful student will note they are sometimes compressed. So we know for sure God did it, just not how and when.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

So why don't you give a true, but similar, example of something from scripture. By the way we fundies, and praise God for Fundies, do believe what the Bible tells us regardless of what man made science says.

Easy. The Bible talks about an ancient view of cosmology...a clear solid dome, or firmament, that had water behind it, with floodgates that open. This seemed natural from early man's observation, but we now know better. There is no dome, stars are not fixed on it, and the earth is not the center of creation.

Science isn't "man-made". It is our discovery of God's creation. I suggest if you deny science, you should not use computers, automobiles, airplanes, or medical help to name a few. To do otherwise is hypocritical.

The Bible is a tale of God's relationship with men, not a science textbook.