Vatican blasts Creationism as "useless"

[larryjf]

So will I
Consensus of the teaching of Jesus' Church

Please site this consensus.
Simply saying something is a consensus doesn't really mean that it is.

 

[Matt Black]

I challenge this assertion. Please provide evidence that what you claim is true and that you are not bearing false witness against historic and contemporary Christians.

Oh, for starters, Justin Martyr, Origen, St Augustine of Hippo. And in case you think they are all 'too Catholic', John Calvin also took an allegorical approach to Genesis 1 & 2

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes; that's clearly historical

There is less historical and scientific evidence for the resurrection (and Jesus' other miracles) than for the miracle of creation.

 

[Matt Black]

But more theological evidence that the Resurrection be interpreted literally, not the two creation accounts (which are contradictory anyway on a purely literal basis)

 

[annsni]

But more theological evidence that the Resurrection be interpreted literally, not the two creation accounts (which are contradictory anyway on a purely literal basis)

Umm - no they're not. Read Genesis 2:8 and you might get some insight. Genesis 2 is speaking after creation - of the creation of Eden and all that's in it.

Some people want to read their own information into Scripture and when it doesn't jive with what Scripture says, they become a greater authority and decide what's true and what's not. That's not the way to properly interpret Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But more theological evidence that the Resurrection be interpreted literally, not the two creation accounts (which are contradictory anyway on a purely literal basis)

Incorrect. If you deny the creation accounts, you lose the basis for sin and death, and thus the resurrection becomes unnecessary. Furthermore, there is no basis for saying that they are contradictory. That is the foolish and vain imaginations of people looking for problems. That did not arise out of the text.

 

[larryjf]

Oh, for starters, Justin Martyr, Origen, St Augustine of Hippo. And in case you think they are all 'too Catholic', John Calvin also took an allegorical approach to Genesis 1 & 2

Calvin believed that the earth was young, that God created everything in 6 consecutive days, that God created Adam and Eve directly.

Calvin (Calvin, J., Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 78.):

Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men.

Calvin (Calvin, Genesis, p. 105):

I have said above that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the contemplation of his works.

Luther also makes a contribution to the topic

Luther (Martin Luther in Jaroslav Peliken, editor, "Luther's Works," Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1-5, Vol. 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), pp. 3, 6):

He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without Allegory, just as we customarily do we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.

As far as Augustine, he takes way too many liberties with the creation account. Do you agree with him that the dry land and bitter sea represents the division between the people of God and the unfaithful?

That's quite a stretch as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

As an Orthodox Christian, the creation account, be it a literal interpretation of Genesis or not isn’t dogma. Many Orthodox Christians believe the Earth is Billions of years old and some 10,000 years old.

We do however believe that God created the Earth and that there was a literal Adam, Eve, a garden with two trees we read about in Genesis and a Fall (as evident in our hymnography and iconography).

In XC
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Brethren,

Remember who you are dealing with when dealing with the papacy.

"The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. "

Both the London Confession and Westminster affirm this.

RB

 

[Revmitchell]

"The days of creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake."



Martin Luther as cited in E. Plass, What Martin Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1991, 1523.

 

[Revmitchell]

"We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the evershifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles."



C.H. Spurgeon, The Sword and the Trowel, 1877, 197

 

[Matt Black]

Umm - no they're not. Read Genesis 2:8 and you might get some insight. Genesis 2 is speaking after creation - of the creation of Eden and all that's in it.

Bzzt! Wrong - try again: Gen 1 says that humans were created last, after plants (3rd day); Gen 2:5-7 states that Man was formed before the plants. Further, Gen 1 gives the creation period as 6 days, Gen 2:4 as one day. Need I go on?

Some people want to read their own information into Scripture and when it doesn't jive with what Scripture says, they become a greater authority and decide what's true and what's not. That's not the way to properly interpret Scripture.

No, some of just accept that the literalist view of Gen 1-2 is plain incorrect.

 

[larryjf]

Bzzt! Wrong - try again: Gen 1 says that humans were created last, after plants (3rd day); Gen 2:5-7 states that Man was formed before the plants. Further, Gen 1 gives the creation period as 6 days, Gen 2:4 as one day. Need I go on?

No, some of just accept that the literalist view of Gen 1-2 is plain incorrect.

The point of Gen 2 is to focus in on man, not the entirety of creation as was the case in chapter 1.
The point of Gen 2 in relation to the plants is that God made them, the same God who made the heavens and the earth (as in the preceding verse). It shows us that because the plants were made directly by God and not by being planted. It tells us that these plants were relying completely on God since it was not until after they were created that the sun was created to support them naturally.

Now that creation is set in order, chapter 2 is shows us that one of the jobs of man is to plant/tend the earth...with the plants. God's miraculous power of creation is giving way to His providential sustaining of creation.

Bottom line, it doesn't say that man was before plants, rather it speaks of man's creation after the creation of plants, but before they were to be planted/tended by man.

That's why it leads into the account of the Garden itself.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bzzt! Wrong - try again: Gen 1 says that humans were created last, after plants (3rd day); Gen 2:5-7 states that Man was formed before the plants. Further, Gen 1 gives the creation period as 6 days, Gen 2:4 as one day. Need I go on?

No, you should start over. Gen 1:26 and 2:5-7 are not contradictory at all. The plants of Gen 2:5 are the plants that needed man's cultivation, which is seen by the direct reference to man's cultivation. There were many plants that did not which God created directly, but he placed man in the to cultivate and keep plants.

Your comments on Gen 2:4 show that you don't understand Hebrew and haven't had it explained to you by a capable teacher. In Genesis 1, all the uses of day are uses that only ever mean twenty-four hour day. The use in 2:4 is a completely different use since it is a genitive construction which can be used to indicate longer periods of time. There are loads of data I could post to support this.

No, some of just accept that the literalist view of Gen 1-2 is plain incorrect.

They are incorrect.

 

[annsni]

Bzzt! Wrong - try again: Gen 1 says that humans were created last, after plants (3rd day); Gen 2:5-7 states that Man was formed before the plants. Further, Gen 1 gives the creation period as 6 days, Gen 2:4 as one day. Need I go on?

Let's see - God made the world. On the day He created man, he created a garden for him to live in. What's so hard about that??

No, some of just accept that the literalist view of Gen 1-2 is plain incorrect.

And some people doubt God's Word.

 

[Revmitchell]

Similarly, John Calvin stated, “Albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years. ... God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”


J. McNeil, Ed., Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1, Westminster Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1960, 160–161, 182

 

[webdog]

As an Orthodox Christian, the creation account, be it a literal interpretation of Genesis or not isn’t dogma. Many Orthodox Christians believe the Earth is Billions of years old and some 10,000 years old.

...and some, like me...both.

 

[tinytim]

And some Christians believe in aliens, and that black men came from riverbank mud...
some Christians believe that women will be made into men when they go to Heave...

Some Christians will believe anything....

The point is NOT what some Christians believe...

But what saith the word of the Lord!!!

God created it... he told us what he did... to say he is lying is dangerous...

But hey, it's your life, (no one in particular) if you want to call the God of the universe out on this... go for it....

Just let me know, so I can move as far away from you as possible!

Either Believe God or not.

 

[YOUTUBECANBESAVED]

Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs is insane

Quote:
As an Orthodox Christian, the creation account, be it a literal interpretation of Genesis or not isn’t dogma. Many Orthodox Christians believe the Earth is Billions of years old and some 10,000 years old.


...and some, like me...both.


I think this Young Earth Phenom that is going on is all political not based on science but to attack evolution , which they are free to do , but they are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

I agree with a day is eons and it is that simple end of story, the idea that Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs is insane and people should have their head examined for believing that tripe.

this video makes my point, but I think Fundamentalist it is too late they will believe that Adam and Eve did walk with the dinosaurs because there private interpretation of scripture, problem is they act so inflamed and like bent out of shape when someone disagrees with them as evidence with the attack on Matt in this thread.

Please look at the Video and you tell me if you believe if Dinosaurs walked with Adam and Eve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TME30pPBw58


This Christian Couple went to see it to the literal six day museum here is their thoughts , Has anybody else gone to this and I forgot to ask is there a discount for kids, 20 dollars seems steep.

http://samandemilyjackson.blogspot.com/2008/04/last-monday-sam-and-i-took-little-day.html

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I agree with a day is eons and it is that simple end of story, the idea that Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs is insane and people should have their head examined for believing that tripe.

We are told to trust scripture above our own understanding. And we are told those who don't will mock us.

So mock away.