Was Jesus a Creationist?

Unfortunately, the bottom line is, that's what we have.

That's a nice sentiment but the plain facts are throughout history sincere Christians have prayed and sought to reason rightly and still disagreed with each other, sometimes violently.

We are all men and our understanding of God's word is always done with our human thinking and our human limitations.

The interpretations of God's word change over the centuries. It was not to long ago that all the orthodox were condemning Copernicus for his upstart views that the earth moves around the sun, contrary to the plain teaching of scripture. This is historical fact. Can you imagine trying to persuade Martin Luthor that Copernicus was right, and he (Martin Luthor) was wrong? He would quote scripture after scripture to you to prove the errors of Copernicus. As do you, for the alledged errors of Darwin and with as much rejection of the findings of science. But the Bible tells us knowledge will increase in the last days. It's too bad you cut yourself off from that knowledge.

 

Paul of Eugene:

Again, I tell you that interpretation of
scripture must come from inspiration of the
Holy Spirit. Only a believer has access to
the mind of GOD.
Yes, men made mistakes---and usually they were
relying on their OWN logic. Martin Luther was
no less infallible then the pope.
Does the sun spin? Did GOD bring the universe
to a stop in order to keep the sun from setting?
Your guess is as good as mine. The sun was
stopped. It was a miracle---we would have had to
have been there to fully appreciate it.
Have men of GOD been dupped? YES, the Bible
records it. GOOD EXAMPLE-- read Joshua chapter
9. Pay strict attention to verse 14...

Sir, I value science; however, I also value my
Bible. I believe you're the one who is ignoring
the valuable information that the BIBLE has to
offer for the sake of humanly imagined theory.

 

This is the crux of the issue; Your interpretation of the bible leads you to believe that he (and I) are ignoring valuable information. However I'm sure he (and I) feel differently. Who's to say who is right?

I'm betting that I feel just as biblically justified in accepting science as you feel biblically justified for ignoring it.

 

Meatros:

I don't ignore science. I simply realize that
the MAJORITY of the scientific community
throughout the world isn't SAVED in anyway
shape or form. They have no love for GOD
nor the Bible. They simply don't consider it
and I will not fall down and worship their
academic reasoning as inspired or superior.
They have their resons and I do believe, because
of their lack of regard for the Creator, that they
are being controlled and lead by the lord of this
present world.

 

Now hold it right there: Do you have any proof what-so-ever of this?

You are basing all of this on an assumption. Do you know that the majority of Christians ACCEPT evolution? (I have provided links in the past and I will do so again if you wish).

 

Meatros:

There is no safety in numbers. The term "Christian" is used very VERY loosely.
Not everyone who says LORD, LORD....
Read 7:21-27 (funny that Jesus uses a story
about a flood there).

 

WHUPS...I posted a response about a different thread...

 

You brought numbers up, and BTW you failed to support your assertion that the majority of scientists aren't saved. This sounds like dodging the issue.

Just because *you* don't consider someone a christian doesn't mean Jesus/God doesn't consider that same person a christian. Why don't we leave it up to God to decide who's saved and whose not, it saves us the trouble of judging others.

 

I mean seriously, what gives you the right to say that your interpretations are any better then mine?

And yes you are interpreting things if you are going to stick to your theory about Vredefort being related to the flood.

 

Getting back to the subject title of this thread for a minute...

John 1: 1-4 SHOWs Christ to be "a Creationist".

Col 1:13-19 SHOWS Christ to be a Creationist WHOSE creationist truths are tied to the Gospel.

Rev 14:6-7 SHOWS Christ to be a Creationist that explicitly TIES Creationism TO the gospel.

How could anyone seriously doubt that a review of God's Word would have it any OTHER way?

Bob

 

So how do you explain the meteor's Bob, or do you prefer just not to think about them?

 

First of all - you do not need to "explain every leaf and flower" to accept God's Word as "true".

The idea that "proof by puzzle" is a kind of "other proof" is a fallacy.

Secondly - (as noted already) the catastrophic events of the world wide flood include geothermal events as well as "other events" that have not been fully video taped. Meteors included.

We also have the "opening" left in Genesis 1:1-2 that the planet was created "in the beginning" but the process of "bringing life" to the planet and creating the hydrosphere as well as the solar system were explicitly actions taken during those 7 "evenings and mornings".

There has been no claim "even by atheists" that 7 sequences of "evening and morning" used to constitute "billions of years".

But getting back to the subject of this thread - my post above showed Christ to "be" a creationist in that He is the source of promotion of that very doctrine.

Bob

 

Can't do it can you? The one flaw in the argument, and it's paramount to proving a young earth and you can't even TRY to give me a response.

 

As stated - speculation and mythology do "present a kind of proof". You have presented nothing.

The Meteor impact on earth can be measured primarily by the fact that Meteor content is high in Nickle. The hydrosphere is responsible for washing significant amonts of that material into the rivers - resulting in nickle deposits in the river deltas. Coring of the river deltas shows that the Nickle content only accounts for something less than 10,000 years of Meteor activity on earth.

Of course - that is a fact that our atheist friends would ignore if at all possible - hoping that speculation and mythologies of evolutionism could "replace the Word of God". That is perfectly understandable for atheists - but why should Christians embrace their tactics?

The point remains - what "evidence" do our evolutionist Christian bretheren "expect to find" in defense of God's Word regarding a literal 7 day creation week? What evidence do they "expect" and then failing to find it - declare that evolution "not God's Word" is true.

The point remains - unnanswered in spite of all the bluster in the post above. Would anyhone like to take a crack at answering?

Bob

 

You are answering the wrong question Bob. Currently I'm actually ignoring the evidence that the meteor struck earth a billion years ago. Nice try though, I have to applaud the effort, even though your information is totally inaccurate and irrelevant to the conversation.

Keep in mind Bob, that I'm not arguing the age of the meteor craters. So with that in mind would you like to try to actually answer my question or are you going to continue to misdirect?

 

If you had read the detail of the last 3 posts you would see the points answered. You have not demonstrated any meteor activity outside of that which I outlined for the flood and for the open door of Genesis 1:1-2.

As for the subject title of this thread - the texts I gave above show Christ to be the author of the Creationist position. Care to respond to the subject at hand - yet?

Bob

 

You know Bob, I don't think you quite understand something. The Vredefort is a world ending meteor. It happened in Africa. The destruction would have been huge-planetary. I haven't even seen an argument that refutes the damage that a meteor this size would have done.

It's laughable that you would try to fit it in with the flood. You constantly scream about biblical literalism, yet you can't find a passage that would support your weak assertion.

The fact is, even if you could explain this meteor, there are several, several more just like it.

I'm going to make some popcorn because your response should be interesting.

 

Speculation and guessing about an African Meteor is "less than compelling" to say the least.

Conjecturing that it could not happen in the Genesis 1:1-2 gap and that it could not happen in the flood scenario - is even "less compelling".

When will this obvious principle be accepted by those who reject the Biblical account - "speculation forms a poor second-best to God's Word" - EVEN when it is speculation about Meteor impacts in Africa.

Amazing though that may seem to a few.

Bob

 

Facts please. You are going to have to substantiate this one.

95 % of all meteorites that fall to the Earth are of the stony variety which have a composition to the earth's surface, not high in nickel. To quote NASA:

Which makes sense since most asteroids are C-type asteroids which are stony in nature and many meteors are believed to have formerly been peices of asteroids. Over 75% of known asteroids are C-type and the actual percentage is likely much higher since they have a very low albedo.

I believe you are also being much more speculative in your response to the issue of meteor and asteroid impacts than the scientific issues you sidestep. Unless you have some evidence you are witholding or are not properly articulating. Kind of ironic.

 

Facts - Nickle IS the primary element in a certain predictable precentage of meteors as we know with some degree of certainty the composition of that belt in our solar system.

It is based on PERCENTAGES that the Nickle content is used as "an indicator" of the overall meteor activity.

This is not a hard concept - but in making "every effort to dispel any data supporting God's Word" many of our evolutionist bretheren will "grasp at straws" to discredit the Word of God EVEN though hard sciences refute their efforts.

Bob