Stunning victory of Creation

But we are talking about Genesis, not about Moses' words to the children of Israel at Sinai.

Luis </font>[/QUOTE]Who do you think the initial recipients of Genesis were? Moses gave his writings to the people of Israel to establish their nation. Those writings detailed who they were, where they came from, and commandments for conduct in light of their special position with God.

 

I think you misundesttod the issue, we are not infallibles, we are doing the opposite of what you said, we are not fixing on one interpretation,God's Word is true not our humble approch to it.

We rely on the Bible, but in order to understand it rightly we have to use all the tools God has made available to us, what I was trying to say is that we cannot ignore the achievements of the people who studied the bible before us, specifically I was talking about literary genres and form criticism.

I was referring to a way of reading the bible that misses a lot of its richness and turns it into a wooden supposedly historical account

Yes, that is call the "analogy fides"

I don't understand that statement, people hold differnt interpretations for a variety of reasons, and I do not think it matters much wich traslation you use, KJV, NIV, NRSV or even the Hebrew text.

Where is that interpretation? Probably most contemporary christians do not hold Gen 1ss as historical accounts.

Without outside evidence? What does it mean? If you are reading a text, any text, you are bringing your lifetime experiences with you, and if you are a christian, I hope you will look for the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Actually only a minority of christians are literallist, (except in this forum), but you are reinforcing my point here, because the bible is for all generatiuons, it cannot be fixed to any age view of nature, its message is eternal.

Blessings,

Luis

 

Obviously it was Israel, but Genesis is not a part of the laws given at Sinai.

Luis

 

So you acknowledge that if God in His sovereignty decided to create the world fully fitted for His purposes including what would appear to natural, fallible, carnal men to be an appearance of age in 6 days- there is no reason why He couldn't?

You have that backwards. I have no problem accepting any theory of origins that can be reconciled to God's inspired special revelation in written language without twisting, distorting, and ultimately denying the meaning of what was said.

I have identifed my standard. I do not believe that species arose over millions of years by accumulated genetic complexity for two reasons. One, we don't observe that in nature- changes and adaptation but no increased complexity resulting in the formation of new species. Two, (and more importantly) it does not conform to the outline nor details of what God's Word said happened.

Or not. I am not placing a box around God as you appear to be attempting again.

God could have done it in a millisecond or a million years. He could have made things fully mature or they could have matured over millions of years or He could have matured them in a short period of time.

So? I don't think I ever said that the changes were necessarily minor. I said they occurred relatively recently according to the biblical time frame and that the animals created reproduced after their "kind"- meaning that they inherited all traits and abilities to adapt from their parents.

Not so long as you are talking about them coming about descendents of equal or less genetic complexity. It is the idea that ascent, not descent, that I have a problem with... both biblically and evidentially.

True.

Let me rephrase for accuracy. One, what God said is literally true and man's interpretations based on the assumption that everything occurred by a long string of natural processes is inaccurate.

Two, what God said in no way represents what actually happened and He could not have created the world with more ease than one of us could create a doghouse even though He is infinitely more capable of creating the world in 6 days than we are capable of building a doghouse in 6 days.

That is ridiculous and offensive. You think that we are failing just such a test for looking what the word of Genesis actually say and accepting it. God said it. It would be far more deceptive to say something knowing that someone would presume it to be literally true while it wasn't even a close parallel to the truth than to build something knowing that someone could possibly misunderstand your method of construction.

Whoever is wrong on this subject, it is because of our fallibility, not dishonesty on the part of God. You presume that human interpretations of nature are true. I presume that what God divinely inspired is literally true. One of us is wrong.

But it is in His nature to say something knowing that almost everyone who believes in Him for 4000+ years would draw a false conclusion from it?

Reference? What context? What are the cross-references used to determine the interpretation? On what basis is it thought to be non-literal? Was it said in a way that the audience knew that it was non-literal or could they have believed it was literal?

This was miraculous event and we have absolutely no idea what the mechanics were. Poor example. Further, isolated figures of speech and metaphors are not on par with a detailed passage that gives every internal indication of being literal and was accepted as literal throughout the rest of scripture.

This parallels what evolution does to microevolution. It expands it beyond the limits of context and application.

Or environmental conditions on land were much more effective in purging these things out... or they don't all go back to the same ancestor.

Not unless this occurs without the influence of intelligence.

Which is exactly what the proponents of macroevolution do except they couch their unsubstantiated claims in technical jargon and blend it with microevolution by obscuring the difference even though there is no evidence anywhere that microevolution ever results in macroevolution.

I don't presume naturalism so I don't presume this to be a problem for God.

Or immature animals were taken, or only the best examples of the "kinds" were taken on board and many species perished completely.

Just gave you a way.

Did you know that all of these capabilities were inherited and that none of them arose spontaneously? Did you know that the result of all of these duplications and mutations was never the evolution of a new species or anything like such a transition?

No limits on God... limits on man. I believe God's ability to accurately represent what He wants us to believe is infinitely more effective than man's ability to interpret nature or to expand those interpretations into a factual history of what must have occurred.

Once you accept God and His creative ability, you do not have to presume/favor naturalistic processes... and I don't.

 

Obviously it was Israel, but Genesis is not a part of the laws given at Sinai.

Luis </font>[/QUOTE]Genesis was part of the writings delivered by Moses to the Israelites prior to their entry into Canaan. For proof, I would refer you to "The Fundamentals" collated by RA Torrey.

Whether it was written before or after Moses visitation with God, it should be apparent that God had an opportunity to correct him.

 

We wouldn't know his reasons, but we know that he did what he did, becauses he so desired. He is Lord and he doen't owe us any explanation.

His Word tell us what he did exactly as he wanted it, not for us to have "an account", but for every generation to understand his love and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Both are true, no difficulty here.

Because YEC is not supported by the evidence.

Again, that is what we believe.

Blessings,

Luis

 

Luis, UT, et al.

Is a literal reading of Genesis possibly true? If you say it is not, in what way is God not able to create everything according to the outline and timeframe detailed there?

 

Macroevolution is not supported by the evidence. It is an extrapolation of the evidence at best.

 

And another thing...

Here is my evidence:

What is, is. Nature is not dependent on either of us being right. If creation is true or evolution is true... nature will not change one iota.

God is.

God could have created through natural processes. God could have created by a supernatural act of will- neither is beyond Him.

God said He created by a supernatural act of will.

I am not sure what evidence could be stronger than an eyewitness account by the Creator of something whose very nature precludes deception or flaw.

 

I am not about to wade through all six pages of this thread. I do know this: evolution and creation do not, and have never mixed. You cannot be an evolutionist and a believe the Bible at the same time. If you assert anything to the contrary then you are just plain confused and do not know your Bible very well. There is absolutely no possibility (theologically speaking) that God, in His Word, has left any room for evolution.
Evolution is an atheistic system, a philosophical system of thinking designed for those who do not believe in God. Julian Huxley, one of the greatest advocates of evolution, said: "I do not believe in evolution because of it credibility; rather, I believe in it because to believe in God is far too incredible."
Huxley knew that evolution was a flawed system from the beginning. He believed in it because he did not want to believe in God, and he could think of no other alternative. He wasn't religious. When one admits belief in God, he automatically admits that God is his creator and master, and that he is his servant. Huxley could not bring himself to admit to this.
Perhaps some of the evolutionists on this board don't want to admit to the same thing.
DHK

 

Very misguided individual, but at least an honest one!!

 

It is able, that is not the question. How he did it is.
We claim that a good interpretation of Genesis does not exclude evolution.

Luis

 

Macroevolution is not supported by the evidence. It is an extrapolation of the evidence at best. </font>[/QUOTE]May be, but the weight of the evidence points towards evolution rather than to YES, specially regarding the idea of a very young earth, which is ridiculous in view of the geological data.

Luis

 

We do not deny that, we just disagree on the method.

Luis

 

That is not true, the bible is absolutly silent on the issue, as it is on electronics, or biochemistry.

Again with the atheists issue, we do not care about what atheists think, this is a debate between baptists believers. By the way, evolution is no more atheist than the law of gravity.

Blessings,

Luis

 

If you had any knowledge of the Hebrew language and the precise words that are used in the first chapter on Genesis one, then you would know that God didn't leave any disagreement for the method of creation. He told us exactly how he created the world in six literal days. There is no other interpretation. There is no allegory here, and no proof of one. The Hebrew does not allow for one; only man's wishful thinking and his unbelief.
DHK

 

Nice job evading my whole post. If you don't want to deal with the reality of the fact that God created things mature, then just say so. Say you don't want to deal with it, but your being perplexed doesn't change anything. It just shows you are unwilling to consider this possibility.

Bro Tony

 

That is not true, the bible is absolutly silent on the issue, as it is on electronics, or biochemistry.</font>[/QUOTE]The Bible is not silent on evolution.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.

Evolution starts with the origin of the earth, with things like the "Big Bang" taught as fact in public schools. This is a denial of Genesis chapter one. "In the beginning God was." God is eternal; not gases, not matter, but God. Evolution is not science but a religion based on faith. One must choose between the religion of evolution and the religion of Christianity. Both require faith. Christianity is backed up with the Word of God, i.e., the Word of Christ, who rose from the dead to demonstrate that He is who he said he was--God. Evolution has nothing to back it up. No one was there at the Big Bang. No one saw it. No one heard it. It is pure speculation. It is by faith that one accepts it. It is pure religion and fancy fairy tales.

Check the history of evolution. That is why I gave you a quote from Huxley. It originated, not from men of science--but from men of religion who had rejected God. It is an atheistic system of religion that takes more faith to believe in than any religion I know of. True science is observable facts, recorded, and then classified. No one has observed evolution taking place, and it still does not take place today. Who observed the Big Bang take place?
DHK

 

If you had any knowledge of the Hebrew language and the precise words that are used in the first chapter on Genesis one, then you would know that God didn't leave any disagreement for the method of creation. He told us exactly how he created the world in six literal days. There is no other interpretation. There is no allegory here, and no proof of one. The Hebrew does not allow for one; only man's wishful thinking and his unbelief.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I took three classes of Hebrew, we used the inductive method and read and analized Genesis 1-11 in Hebrew. But I have to strongly disagree with your statement about your interpretation, which is only one of man's wishful thinking in trying to fit God's Word and creation into a narrow interpretative scheme.

Blessings,

Luis

 

Dear Brother DHK:

First of all let me say that I checked your profile and I deeply respect your calling as a missionary.

The Big Bang is a cosmological theory that has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological theory. It is not a denial of Genesis. Obviously no one saw it but we have plenty of evidence pointing to irs reality.
By the way if you think that the Big Bang is hard to swallow, wait to read about String Theory.

Actually it is simply a biological theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth, it is not accepted due to the authority of any man, but because the body of scientific evidence supporting it is enormous.

In Christ,

Luis