User Tag List

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 224

Thread: Evolution and its effects.

  1. #91
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    LOL. I notice you omitted all of your "scriptural" evidence for creation not taking place in 6 literal evenings and mornings and God resting on the 7th.
    As St. Augustine noted, long before anyone knew about evolution, the text itself says that it's not a literal history, citing mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

    I would consider myself in good company with anyone who accepts the biblical creation story, including SDAs.
    SDAa reject the Biblical creation story, substituting a literalized revision of Genesis.

    I have to laugh at your assertion that the Biblical account of creation was first proposed by Ellen White.
    Ellen White substituted her new ideas to revise the Biblical account.

    She made a few revisions to God's word. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

    You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

    The most greivious harm YE can do to you, is to lead you to reject the majority of Christians who accept the Biblical account as it is; a figurative description of creation. Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

    Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.

    That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
    You've added a new requirement to be God's follower; "You much believe Ellen White's revision of His word."

    Josephus, who lived just a day or two before Ellen White was born, confirms the literal six day account of creation in his writings.
    Josephus also believed that the Jews should acknowledge Rome as the highest authority in their lives. So there is that.

    You know, back in 70 A.D.
    Yep. Josephus, like so many others, thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who formed a kingdom here on Earth. When that didn't pan out, he joined with Rome. Jesus's followers took a different path.

    That's only 1700+ years before Ellen White's day.
    There have always been those who wished to edit His word to their satisfaction. White is far from the first.
    This message is hidden because ...

  2. #92
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    LOL. I notice you omitted all of your "scriptural" evidence for creation not taking place in 6 literal evenings and mornings and God resting on the 7th.
    As St. Augustine noted, long before anyone knew about evolution, the text itself says that it's not a literal history, citing mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

    I would consider myself in good company with anyone who accepts the biblical creation story, including SDAs.
    SDAa reject the Biblical creation story, substituting a literalized revision of Genesis.

    I have to laugh at your assertion that the Biblical account of creation was first proposed by Ellen White.
    Ellen White substituted her new ideas to revise the Biblical account.

    She made a few revisions to God's word. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

    You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

    The most greivious harm YE can do to you, is to lead you to reject the majority of Christians who accept the Biblical account as it is; a figurative description of creation. Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

    Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.

    That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
    You've added a new requirement to be God's follower; "You must believe Ellen White's revision of His word."

    Josephus, who lived just a day or two before Ellen White was born, confirms the literal six day account of creation in his writings.
    Josephus also believed that the Jews should acknowledge Rome as the highest authority in their lives. So there is that.

    You know, back in 70 A.D.
    Yep. Josephus, like so many others, thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who formed a kingdom here on Earth. When that didn't pan out, he joined with Rome. Jesus's followers took a different path.

    That's only 1700+ years before Ellen White's day.
    There have always been those who wished to edit His word to their satisfaction. White is far from the first.
    This message is hidden because ...

  3. #93
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,141
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,013 Times in 9,144 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    There have always been those who wished to edit His word to their satisfaction. White is far from the first.
    And you're far from the last.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 25th, 2019)

  5. #94
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,165
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 646 Times in 435 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    166568
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    As St. Augustine noted, long before anyone knew about evolution, the text itself says that it's not a literal history, citing mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.



    SDAa reject the Biblical creation story, substituting a literalized revision of Genesis.



    Ellen White substituted her new ideas to revise the Biblical account.

    She made a few revisions to God's word. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

    You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

    The most greivious harm YE can do to you, is to lead you to reject the majority of Christians who accept the Biblical account as it is; a figurative description of creation. Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

    Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.



    You've added a new requirement to be God's follower; "You must believe Ellen White's revision of His word."



    Josephus also believed that the Jews should acknowledge Rome as the highest authority in their lives. So there is that.



    Yep. Josephus, like so many others, thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who formed a kingdom here on Earth. When that didn't pan out, he joined with Rome. Jesus's followers took a different path.



    There have always been those who wished to edit His word to their satisfaction. White is far from the first.
    And still no scripture to back up your assertions that Moses taught that the days of creation weren't literal days.

    I just have to laugh at your attempt to arouse prejudice by bringing up Ellen White. It just shows how desparate you are. You've completely abandoned the subject--evolution--to try to raise prejudice. It's the sure sign of a lost argument. As I would imagine there are quite a few people here who have never read Ellen White and yet they still believe the Biblical account, they will be pretty amused, as I am, at your assertion that they are clinging to an SDA only doctrine. The creation story stands on it's own to those who have faith in God as it is scripture and all scripture was given by inspiration of God.

    All I had to do to disprove your assertion about Ellen White being the author of young earth creationism is to show that at least one author of spiritual material taught young earth creationism existed before she did. That's why I chose Josephus. But I could have chosen from a multitude of authors. Here is one:
    Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
    7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
    8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
    9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
    David lived approximately 1500+ years before Josephus, so I've traced young earth creationism back more than 3000 years before Ellen White.

    Here's a link on the views of how early Christian's viewed creation and the age of the earth. https://answersingenesis.org/christi...h-on-creation/ Notice how many of the Christians down through the centuries taught, and believed a young earth.

    Notice that even your claim of Augustine is deceitful for Augustine believed in a young earth of 6000 years. He believed, not in evolution, but in an instaneous creation so to use him to support evolution is just patently dishonest.

    Also notice the time frame as to when old earth ideas entered Christianity. Where your ideas of scripture come from is the French revolution that was based on hatred of God and the Bible. The ideas of the neologists all came from there and then spread into Christianity through the German seminaries who began teaching the same trash the French were. Nathaniel Whiting, a linguist, Bible translator and Baptist preacher, wrote a small book on this and traced how neology came to enter the Christian church. Here's an excerpt from his book Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology:
    The term Neology, or Rationalism, has been applied to the actual creed of a large portion of the members of the German church, who profess a nominal adhesion to the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, while they reject its fundamental principles, and maintain tenets which the Saxon reformers would have regarded as "damnable heresies." Like many other forms of error, Neology did not make its first appearance among the common people. In all countries, the simple faith of this class in the book of God, and their reverence for its instructions, have made them the well known conservators of truth. It is seldom that their course of life is such as to drive them to the necessity of impugning the authority of the Scriptures. Neology had its birth among those, who held the part of "watchmen on the walls of Zion;" among professors of theology, whose rank, learning, and talents gave them a controlling influence over the opinions of the religious world. These were the men, who applied their strength to rend down the pillars of the temple of truth, who labored by every insidious art of false interpretation to pervert and render
    4
    powerless that book, which its Author designed to be "a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, until the day should dawn and the day-star arise in our hearts." All experience proves that heresy is rather the offspring of the heart than of the head. When the moral condition of the soul is such, that man has nothing to fear should all Scripture be, in very deed, the word of Jehovah; no ordinary strength of temptation will lead him to wish it untrue; still less will he wish to persuade others that it is not entitled to full credit. He, who has felt the power of divine truth, as applied to his conscience by the Holy Spirit, convincing him of sin, and leading him to the Lamb of God,-will not lightly esteem the book which embodies that truth, nor wish to shake the confidence of others in "the law of the Lord," which "is perfect, converting the soul."
    Unhappily, in the case before us, the German church was a national establishment. The public authorities patronized the church, because they supposed its influence would give stability to political institutions. Princes paid an external respect to the Bible because they appreciated the commandment,-"Render to CÊsar the things which are CÊsar's," rather than that, which with equal clearness says, "and unto God, the things which are God's." Both in the Protestant and Catholic states civil rulers exercised a control in the appointment of preachers, pastors and professors of theology. Thus a door was opened for the admission of unconverted men into religious offices. While the magistracy insisted on high literary qualifications in all candidates for the ministry, and demanded those still more elevated
    5
    from men who aspired to theological professorships, the most important of all requisites, vital piety, attracted but little attention. The results are obvious. Men, who were accurately acquainted with the sciences, familiar with the varied topics of biblical literature, with the history, languages, customs and antiquities of the East, might be found occupying the station of teachers in theology, though destitute of the first elements of religious experience, and strangers to the power of godliness. Such men as they knew nothing of the influence of the Spirit on the soul, despised and ridiculed the very language by which God describes that influence, as the mystic phraseology of enthusiasm.
    It could not be expected that such guides would quietly acquiesce in the popular belief that all scripture was given by inspiration of God. Disliking the moral restraint which the Bible imposes, so long as it is regarded as a revelation from heaven; chafed in the false position into which they had blindly thrown themselves; often obliged, especially if pastors, to perform duties entirely foreign to their tastes, and yet fettered by the force of public opinion, and restrained from an open avowal of their sentiments, they were compelled to wait for a more convenient season, when their principles might be exhibited, without hazard, in the face of the world. Before that season had arrived, the metaphysical skepticism of Hume, and other authors of the English deistical school, had found its way to the continent. The writings of these authors attracted the attention of numerous readers in the ranks of the German ministry. They were often translated
    6
    and published with pretended refutations, in which the author allowed himself to defend truth with sophistical arguments, and thus effectually betrayed the cause which he appeared to defend. The unwary reader was led to suppose that what he had heretofore deemed to be truth, was error which could not be logically sustained. In some cases, these writers asserted that a proposition might be true according to the principles of sound philosophy or metaphysics, yet, when examined theologically, it was very questionable. The reader was left to infer that sound philosophy and religious truth could hold no alliance-that Christianity was not based on facts-that a sincere Christian, of course, could hold his position only by believing without evidence, and at the very best, must be but a sorry philosopher. At a later period, the productions of the French encyclopedists obtained an extensive circulation in Germany. The lively style and sparkling wit of these writers enchanted many of the Germans, who had hitherto been content to plod along the beaten path usually taken by men, who confine their attention to plain matters of fact. The want of solid thought, so characteristic of the French school, was overlooked in the admiration paid to eloquent phraseology and flights of imagination. At this disastrous era, vital piety was rapidly declining in Germany. With the exception of a few favored spots, the life-giving influence of the Holy Spirit was hardly felt. In the church, the form of godliness existed, but its power was gone. German pastors, instead of searching the Scriptures with prayer, that they might learn and follow the Divine
    7
    will, toiled in composing elegant disquisitions on some point of ethics. "Christ crucified" was more rarely the theme of their sermons. Men, who had not known what repentance was by personal experience, ceased to call on the; sinner to turn to God and do works meet for repentance. Philological dissertations, critical essays on oriental archaeology and languages, took the place of those plain, pungent addresses to the conscience, which, in a happier age, rendered the preaching of Luther and Justus Jonas so effective in warning sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
    An event now burst upon the world, which was destined to give public sentiment an impulse which it had not felt since the fall of the Roman empire. It was not a reformation, but a revolution. A convulsion commenced in France, which tested the stability of every institution, creed and opinion known to the civilized world. That its final results were not unmingled evil, can never be ascribed to the virtues of those who directed the storm. It is a consolation, amidst the wildest outbreaks of human extravagance, that still "the Lord reigneth," that he can "restrain the wrath of men, and cause the residue of that wrath to praise Him." The example of an entire nation, which arose as one man, to vindicate its freedom, and proclaimed itself the champion of the oppressed and the supporter of liberal sentiments, enlisted the best wishes and the warm admiration of all who paid more attention to words and acts than to principles. The actors in this drama were equally impatient of political and religious control. Making no distinction between
    8
    the corruptions of the Papacy and the religion of the Saviour, they assailed both with the same blind fury. Those who could wield the pen, deluged Europe with pamphlets and volumes filled with the bitterest attacks on Divine Revelation. The ruling powers of the new republic, which sprang to light like the prophet's gourd, however inconsistent with themselves in everything else, remained constant in their enmity to the word of God. The unsparing boldness of French skeptics was communicated to "kindred spirits" among the more cautious Germans. Public sentiment received a shock from the revolution, which went far to destroy its conservative power. Lax sentiments on the subject of religion were hardly considered as a reproach to the clergy: still, while the members of this order received salaries for the avowed purpose of teaching the truths of the Bible, some respect for appearances must be preserved-a sort of conventional decorum, in the treatment of that book, was yet necessary. The time had not arrived when a religious instructor might announce that he believed in no other religion than that of nature. Some latitude might be allowed, on the ground that though he was not a believer of Luther's school, yet he was a rational Christian, as might naturally be expected of one, who lived in "the age of light." He might be a skeptic in heart and life, so long as he pretended to be a disciple of Christ. He must profess to believe the Bible, while he was allowed, by every art of fallacious criticism, to explain away all those doctrines, which hold a vital alliance with the redemption of man. However revolting such
    9
    hypocrisy may seem to men of integrity; in Germany, multitudes were found, men of varied condition, possessing talents which gave currency to their opinions, who would stoop to such hypocrisy. By acting thus, they have given a memorable lesson to the world. They have proved, that in the cause of divine truth, genius and learning are worse than useless, if their possessor is destitute of an upright and humble heart-if he does not fear God and tremble at his word.
    Such was the origin of Neology. Its form has varied with the changing breath of public opinion and the exigency of circumstances. At one period, it boldly took the field against evangelical religion, and hardly sought a disguise. In the writings of Fichte and Forberg, and some others of the transcendental school, it would have received the name of atheism, in our land. In the hands of other artists, it has assumed the shape of the Pantheism of the Greek philosophers. Now it is "liberal Christianity," or "Rationalism"-again it is marked by an icy indifference to all revelation. Like the demons of Milton, its votaries, turning from the promised land lit up with the beams of the sun of righteousness, survey their congenial domain-
    "A frozen continent Lies dark and wild, beat with perpetual storms Of whirlwind and dire hail."
    The influence of the moral condition of the heart on the interpretation of the Scriptures has long been a subject of familiar remark. As the preacher, destitute of vital piety, will not appreciate the spiritual element in truth, because he
    10
    has not experienced its power-so he will not present it in its living energy, and will be at the test, a mere "hewer of wood and drawer of water for the congregation of the Lord." Thus it is with the interpreter. In all that addresses itself to the conscience of man, he is sure to fail, because, in his own conscience, there is no chord that responds to the touch of truth. If, perchance, he should feel at all, he will be offended with those declarations which announce his danger as a sinner, and his entire dependance on God. "That blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," is a strange thing to him, one that excites no aspiration for the rest that awaits the saints. With a temper of mind, which is "earthly and sensual," his expositions will bear the stamp of the mould through which they pass. That which belongs to this present world, that which is earthly, he may appreciate, but the "new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness," lies beyond his ken. The writings of neologists afford lamentable illustrations of this principle.
    We find the descendents of the original neologists in people like you and organizations such as The Jesus Seminar, a wholly satanic organization.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to ffreeloader For Your Post:

    ok doser (June 26th, 2019)

  7. #95
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    And still no scripture to back up your assertions that Moses taught that the days of creation weren't literal days.
    More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.

    I just have to laugh at your attempt to arouse prejudice by bringing up Ellen White. It just shows how desparate you are.
    My experience is that SDAs tend to be committed Christians, who live their faith. They're just wrong about this particular point. Since God doesn't care if you interpret it literally or accept that it's not literal, SDAs aren't in any trouble with God over it.

    But she did invent YE creationism:

    Denial of Deep Time Emerges

    Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Evangelical Christians published The Fundamentals which laid out what they believed to be the fundamentals of the Protestant Christian faith. This launched the Fundamentalist movement. One thing that might surprise many people considering the modern connotations of the term “fundamentalist” is that the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement did not have a problem with evolution or deep time. One of the original Fundamentalists, Benjamin B. Warfield, a prominent conservative theologian of the day, even talked about how evolution could be the process used by God to create life.

    It was not until the 1960s that denial of deep time and evolution became prevalent in Evangelical circles in the United States. If this is the case, then where did the Young Earth Creationist movement come from? Why did the position of many American Evangelicals shift so dramatically?

    Although most conservative Christians did not reject evolution or deep time in the early 20th century, there was one group that did, the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). The Seventh Day Adventists are a theologically orthodox sect of Christianity which was founded by the prophetess Ellen White in 1863. One of their more visible beliefs is that church services should be held on Saturday instead of Sunday. Ellen White had a series of visions which her followers took to be divinely inspired. Among these visions were insights into how the world was created. From her visions, she concluded that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago in six literal days and that all the rock layers and fossils within them were laid down in a global deluge based on the flood account recorded in Genesis 6-9.

    https://www.ancient-origins.net/huma...say-yes-008146

    The great Baptist theologian, Charles Spurgeon, noted that the Bible is consistent with millions of years of Earth's history. SDA changed that:

    During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

    Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), pp. 72-101. On Ellen G. White, see Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row,...

    https://counterbalance.org/history/floodgeo-frame.html

    You've completely abandoned the subject--evolution--to try to raise prejudice.
    I'm just showing you that your doctrines have very modern roots. No point in denying the facts. Instead of dealing with the issue, you're just complaining about my motives. It's the sure sign of a lost argument.


    As I would imagine there are quite a few people here who have never read Ellen White and yet they still believe the Biblical account, they will be pretty amused, as I am, at your assertion that they are clinging to an SDA only doctrine.
    That's an important point. YE creationism, as it is today, was originally an SDA-only doctrine. But as you see above, an Adventist, George McCready Price, successfully proselytized evangelical Christians to his SDA doctrines. Before him, most evangelicals were OE. That was the form of creationism that was presented at the Scopes Trial. Bryan openly admitted that creationism had no difficulty with millions of years of Earth history.


    The creation story stands on it's own to those who have faith in God as it is scripture and all scripture was given by inspiration of God.
    This why White's revision of Genesis is such a problem for creationists. We all believe that we are understanding His word correctly. But there are countless different interpretations among His people. It is a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word, unless you accept my interpretation of it." You are in error here, but that doesn't mean you aren't a good Christian. It's not a salvation issue in any way.

    All I had to do to disprove your assertion about Ellen White being the author of young earth creationism is to show that at least one author of spiritual material taught young earth creationism existed before she did.
    See above. You lose.

    [quote\That's why I chose Josephus.[/quote]

    It was easier for Josephus, because he rejected most of the teachings of the Torah.

    Notice that even your claim of Augustine is deceitful for Augustine believed in a young earth of 6000 years.
    Nope. I told you accurately that St. Augustine denied a literal six day creation week. Which is correct. Perhaps you're upset and forgot what I wrote. You are forgiven, but try to do better. St. Augustine also believed that everything developed from the potential God placed in the initial creation, which is also entirely inconsistent with YE creationism as it is today:

    It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. It is thus that God unfolds the generations which He laid up in creation when first he founded it.
    ...
    This tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. ... took its shape as it ]developed with all its parts.

    ... One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true of animals.
    ...
    In the tree, then, there [is] invisibly present all that develop into the tree. And in this same way we must picture the world at creation
    ...
    it includes also the beings which water and earth produced in potency and in their causes before they came forth in the course of time.
    ...
    The works which God produces even now as the ages unfold have their beginning in the original creation.

    St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

    He believed, not in evolution, but in an instaneous creation so to use him to support evolution is just patently dishonest.
    See above. An English translation is still available. Might be worth reading it?

    Also notice the time frame as to when old earth ideas entered Christianity. Where your ideas of scripture come from is the French revolution that was based on hatred of God and the Bible.
    St. Augustine was long before the French Revolution. You're just wrong on that one.

    Neither YE creationism nor evolution is inconsistent with Christian faith. Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way. You're setting needless barriers to keep people from coming to Him. Please don't do that.
    This message is hidden because ...

  8. #96
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,051
    Thanks
    34,071
    Thanked 8,576 Times in 5,503 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.
    This is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy.

    I'm inclined to take what God wrote for Israel on the stone tablets as is:

    "For in six days God made the heavens and the earth..."

    Tell me, Barb, was there any reason for the Israelites to believe that when God used the word "yom" in the 10 commandments, that He meant anything other than what they knew as a "yom"?

    My experience is that SDAs tend to be committed Christians, who live their faith. They're just wrong about this particular point. Since God doesn't care if you interpret it literally or accept that it's not literal, SDAs aren't in any trouble with God over it.

    But she did invent YE creationism:

    Denial of Deep Time Emerges

    Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Evangelical Christians published The Fundamentals which laid out what they believed to be the fundamentals of the Protestant Christian faith. This launched the Fundamentalist movement. One thing that might surprise many people considering the modern connotations of the term “fundamentalist” is that the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement did not have a problem with evolution or deep time. One of the original Fundamentalists, Benjamin B. Warfield, a prominent conservative theologian of the day, even talked about how evolution could be the process used by God to create life.

    It was not until the 1960s that denial of deep time and evolution became prevalent in Evangelical circles in the United States. If this is the case, then where did the Young Earth Creationist movement come from? Why did the position of many American Evangelicals shift so dramatically?

    Although most conservative Christians did not reject evolution or deep time in the early 20th century, there was one group that did, the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). The Seventh Day Adventists are a theologically orthodox sect of Christianity which was founded by the prophetess Ellen White in 1863. One of their more visible beliefs is that church services should be held on Saturday instead of Sunday. Ellen White had a series of visions which her followers took to be divinely inspired. Among these visions were insights into how the world was created. From her visions, she concluded that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago in six literal days and that all the rock layers and fossils within them were laid down in a global deluge based on the flood account recorded in Genesis 6-9.

    https://www.ancient-origins.net/huma...say-yes-008146

    The great Baptist theologian, Charles Spurgeon, noted that the Bible is consistent with millions of years of Earth's history. SDA changed that:

    During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

    Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), pp. 72-101. On Ellen G. White, see Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row,...

    https://counterbalance.org/history/floodgeo-frame.html
    And yet, Jesus Himself said: God made man at the beginning of creation.

    That means at the beginning. Not millions or billions of years after the beginning.

    I'm just showing you that your doctrines have very modern roots.
    And we have shown you that those roots stretch all the way back to Moses.

    Do you believe Moses? or do you believe the evolutionists?

    No point in denying the facts.
    Yet you continue to do so.

    I wonder why...

    Instead of dealing with the issue, you're just complaining about my motives. It's the sure sign of a lost argument.

    That's an important point. YE creationism, as it is today, was originally an SDA-only doctrine. But as you see above, an Adventist, George McCready Price, successfully proselytized evangelical Christians to his SDA doctrines. Before him, most evangelicals were OE. That was the form of creationism that was presented at the Scopes Trial. Bryan openly admitted that creationism had no difficulty with millions of years of Earth history.


    This why White's revision of Genesis is such a problem for creationists. We all believe that we are understanding His word correctly. But there are countless different interpretations among His people. It is a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word, unless you accept my interpretation of it." You are in error here, but that doesn't mean you aren't a good Christian. It's not a salvation issue in any way.
    The Hebrew and Greek versions are still available, Barb. It's not like they've been lost and all we have are second-hand translations.

    You believe that you are understanding His word correctly, but your interpretation of what is actually written is just one of many. It's a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word unless you accept my interpretation of it.

    See above. You lose.

    \That's why I chose Josephus.
    Fix your formatting. You need to replace "" with "]". I inserted a ] here just so it wouldn't mess up my formatting.

    It was easier for Josephus, because he rejected most of the teachings of the Torah.

    Nope. I told you accurately that St. Augustine denied a literal six day creation week. Which is correct. Perhaps you're upset and forgot what I wrote. You are forgiven, but try to do better. St. Augustine also believed that everything developed from the potential God placed in the initial creation, which is also entirely inconsistent with YE creationism as it is today:

    It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. It is thus that God unfolds the generations which He laid up in creation when first he founded it.
    ...
    This tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. ... took its shape as it ]developed with all its parts.

    ... One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true of animals.
    ...
    In the tree, then, there [is] invisibly present all that develop into the tree. And in this same way we must picture the world at creation
    ...
    it includes also the beings which water and earth produced in potency and in their causes before they came forth in the course of time.
    ...
    The works which God produces even now as the ages unfold have their beginning in the original creation.

    St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram
    And what Moses wrote and what Jesus said still trumps Augustine.

    God made the heavens and the earth in six days, and He created man at the beginning of the creation.

    See above. An English translation is still available. Might be worth reading it?

    St. Augustine was long before the French Revolution. You're just wrong on that one.
    And Moses and Jesus and David and many others were LONG before St. Augustine.

    Neither YE creationism nor evolution is inconsistent with Christian faith.
    Rather, it's one or the other, it cannot be both.

    Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way. You're setting needless barriers to keep people from coming to Him. Please don't do that.
    Maybe you should look in a mirror...

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Right Divider (June 26th, 2019)

  10. #97
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Barbarian observes:
    More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    This is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy.
    Nope. Just pointing out the fact. Since Moses never said that the creation week days were literal, it's an error to claim that he did.

    And I'd be happy to see your support for your argument that if Moses repeated a figurative verse, that changes it to a literal one.

    Tell me, Barb, was there any reason for the Israelites to believe that when God used the word "yom" in the 10 commandments, that He meant anything other than what they knew as a "yom"?
    The fact that it us used for "always" "in my time", "forever", etc. And as St. Augustine pointed out, it's logically absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

    And yet, Jesus Himself said: God made man at the beginning of creation.
    Hm... that's testable interpretation of His words...

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

    Sorry. He makes it clear what is there at the beginning of creation, and there's no male and no female. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humans, not the beginning of the creation of the world.

    Do you believe Moses? Or do you believe the creationists?

    Instead of making a desperate attempt to limit God's people to only those who share your new doctrine, why not just admit that Christians differ on this, and leave it to God?

    You believe that you are understanding His word correctly, but your interpretation of what is actually written is just one of many. It's a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word unless you accept my interpretation of it.

    And what Moses wrote and what Jesus said still trumps Ellen White

    God made the heavens and the earth in six days
    As you now realize, Genesis itself rejects that belief.

    [/QUOTE]and He created man at the beginning of the creation.[/QUOTE]

    And you now see that God specifically listed what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there.

    We came later. How much later, God does not say.

    And Moses and Jesus and David and many others were LONG before Ellen White.

    As I said, your struggles to push other Christians away from God, only removes you from God. Let it go.
    This message is hidden because ...

  11. #98
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,051
    Thanks
    34,071
    Thanked 8,576 Times in 5,503 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Your formatting is atrocious. Fix it please.

  12. #99
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,051
    Thanks
    34,071
    Thanked 8,576 Times in 5,503 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Barbarian observes:
    More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.


    Nope. Just pointing out the fact.
    The fact is that your claim is an argument from silence.

    Since Moses never said that the creation week days were literal,
    He never said they were figurative either.

    it's an error to claim that he did.
    Then it is equally an error to claim that he did not.

    Rather, what you should do is let the passage speak for itself, read it plainly, without interpreting it.

    Try letting a third grader read the passage, and ask him what he thinks it means, and that's probably what it means.

    And I'd be happy to see your support for your argument that if Moses repeated a figurative verse, that changes it to a literal one.
    You lost me... where did this come from?

    The fact that it us used for "always" "in my time", "forever", etc.
    A fact which is not in question whatsoever...

    And as St. Augustine pointed out,
    Forget Augustine for a moment, Barb, and focus on what the Bible itself says. You'll have a better time understanding it that way.

    it's logically absurd
    This is an appeal to incredulity.

    to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.
    No, Barb, it's not.

    Hm... that's testable interpretation of His words...


    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

    Sorry. He makes it clear what is there at the beginning of creation, and there's no male and no female.
    In other words, you're calling Jesus a liar.

    Here's what Jesus said:

    And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ - Matthew 19:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

    Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humans, not the beginning of the creation of the world.
    Sorry, but that's not what the verse says.

    It says:

    And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ - Matthew 19:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

    "The beginning of humans" is something you've added. It's not in scripture.

    Do you believe Moses?
    Yes.

    Or do you believe the creationists?
    Only because they agree with Moses.

    Instead of making a desperate attempt to limit God's people to only those who share your new doctrine,
    Please show (by quoting the portion of my post) where I have done so.

    why not just admit that Christians differ on this,
    Where have I disputed this fact?

    and leave it to God?
    In other words, you want me to concede the discussion simply because you want to be right?

    Sorry, Barb, but that's not how discussions work.

    I'm only interested in finding out the truth. Not in opinions.

    You believe that you are understanding His word correctly, but your interpretation of what is actually written is just one of many. It's a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word unless you accept my interpretation of it.
    Right back atcha.

    [Section removed due to questionable formatting]

    As you now realize,
    No, Barb, that's just your imagination.

    Maybe you really are going senile, because you haven't convinced me of anything.

    Genesis itself rejects that belief.
    Saying it doesn't make it so.

    [Section removed due to questionable formatting]

    And you now see
    No, Barb, that's just you going senile.

    that God specifically listed what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there.
    Sorry, Barb, but this is you being deliberately obtuse.

    There's more to "the beginning" than just Genesis 1:1.

    Barb, would you say that the first six days of creation would be at the beginning of creation, as opposed to the first six days after billions of years not being at the beginning?

    In other words, which fits better?

    A) At the beginning of creation, man was made on day six, followed by about seven thousand years of recorded history.
    OR
    B) After billions of years, man was made at the beginning of creation, followed by about seven thousand years of recorded history.

    We came later.
    Again, calling Jesus a liar.

    Jesus said at the beginning.

    Barbarian says "we came later."

    Who's right, Jesus or Barb?

    How much later, God does not say.
    God said on day six.

    Barbarian says "we came later".

    Who's right, God or Barbarian?

    As I said, your struggles to push other Christians away from God, only removes you from God. Let it go.
    Please drop this argument unless you can show where I have attempted to do such.
    Last edited by JudgeRightly; June 26th, 2019 at 04:18 PM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Right Divider (June 26th, 2019)

  14. #100
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    and He created man at the beginning of the creation.
    Barbarian observes:
    And you now see that God specifically listed what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there.

    We came later. How much later, God does not say.

    And Moses and Jesus and David and many others were LONG before Ellen White.

    As I said, your struggles to push other Christians away from God, only removes you from God. Let it go.


    The fact is that your claim is an argument from silence.
    Rather, your argument is that he didn't say one way or another so it's the way you'd like.

    He never said they were figurative either.
    Right. He just doesn't say, either way. Could be literal, or it might not, as far as scripture goes.

    Then it is equally an error to claim that he did not.
    It would be an error to say that he claimed it was figurative. But it would be correct to say that he didn't say one way or the other.

    (Barbarian mentions that that he now realizes that Moses didn't say the Genesis story was literal)

    Maybe you really are going senile, because you haven't convinced me of anything.
    When people realize they messed up, and don't want to admit it, they often become angry and verbally abusive. You're not unique in that.

    In other words, you're calling Jesus a liar.
    I could equally say you're calling God a liar.

    Here's what Jesus said:

    And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ - Matthew 19:4

    And here's what God says:
    Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

    So, either God is contradicting Himself, or these aren't the same beginnings. One or the other

    "The beginning of humans" is something you've added. It's not in scripture.
    See above. They can't both be correct if they are talking about the same beginning.

    You're getting agitated and abusive now. Perhaps you should take little time to calm yourself. Take a little time, get that pulse down, and come back when you can do this embarrassing yourself.
    This message is hidden because ...

  15. #101
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,677
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,213 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285396
    There are two ways of dealing with this:
    1. Consider Genesis to be figurative, and live in peace with science.
    2. Consider Genesis to be literal, and pretend that the science is wrong.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to chair For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (June 26th, 2019)

  17. #102
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,051
    Thanks
    34,071
    Thanked 8,576 Times in 5,503 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    There are two ways of dealing with this:
    1. Consider Genesis to be figurative, and live in peace with science.
    2. Consider Genesis to be literal, and pretend that the science is wrong.
    False dichotomy.

    There's a third option.

    Consider Genesis as generally literal, but recognize the figures of speech as figures of speech, and the woodenly literal as the woodenly literal, and use science to prove it.

  18. #103
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,051
    Thanks
    34,071
    Thanked 8,576 Times in 5,503 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Rather, your argument is that he didn't say one way or another
    Correct.

    so it's the way you'd like.
    Incorrect.

    Here's why:

    The way we determine what it means is by context, not just of the passage, but of the entire Bible.

    The way you're attempting to interpret it is according to what men said who lived after the Bible was written, rather than letting the Bible speak for itself.

    You do this by constantly referring to Augustine, Spurgeon, and even White, hardly ever quoting Scripture.

    Contrast that with the fact that not once have I or any other YEC on this thread or others used anything other than Scripture itself to defend our beliefs.

    Based on that alone, who's view is more Biblical?

    Right. He just doesn't say, either way. Could be literal, or it might not, as far as scripture goes.
    Context context context, Barb.

    Jesus, said more that determines what he's talking about:

    And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘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.”They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” - Matthew 19:4-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0&version=NKJV

    Jesus directly quotes Moses:

    Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV



    It would be an error to say that he claimed it was figurative.
    Who said anything about anything being figurative or literal?

    That fact does not change whether what is being talked about is literal or figurative.

    There's a figure of speech called a "synecdoche," which is when part of something is used to refer to the whole.

    From Wikipedia:

    A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa. A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts.



    Jesus was using "the beginning" as a synecdoche to refer to the entirety of creation.

    But it would be correct to say that he didn't say one way or the other.
    Rather, it would be correct to not assume one way or the other without considering the facts.

    And the facts are that God created the heavens and the earth, then light, then the continental crust in the midst of the waters (what we call "hydroplates"), then the seas, then grasses, herbs that yield seeds, and fruit trees that yield fruit, then the stars, the sun, and the moon, then aquatic creatures, then birds of the air, then land animals, then man.

    In order to claim billions of years, you would have to rearrange that order.

    (Barbarian mentions that that he now realizes that Moses didn't say the Genesis story was literal)
    You know, it would help greatly if you didn't refer to yourself in the third person.

    Who is "he"?

    You or me?

    Because you said it was me.



    Twice in fact.

    Which is why I suggested that you were going senile.

    Would you like to retract your claim?

    When people realize they messed up, and don't want to admit it, they often become angry and verbally abusive. You're not unique in that.
    The only one who messed up here was you.

    See the above image.

    I could equally say you're calling God a liar.
    You could say a lot of things. Doesn't mean they'll be true.

    But, I do deny that I am calling God a liar.

    In fact, I'm the one asserting that God told the truth when He said "for in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that is in them."

    Here's what Jesus said:

    And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ - Matthew 19:4


    And here's what God says:
    Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.


    But see, here's the thing:

    Genesis 1 records more about the beginning than that.

    It also says:

    Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the third day.Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. - Genesis 1:3-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

    Which, if we consider Exodus 20:11, and the context in which "yom" is used in that verse, means six literal days.

    Which means that your position doesn't fit at all.

    So, either God is contradicting Himself, or these aren't the same beginnings. One or the other
    False dichotomy.

    God is not contradicting Himself, because "the beginning" is referring to the entire six [literal] days of creation.

    See above. They can't both be correct if they are talking about the same beginning.
    Why not?

    If Jesus is talking about the beginning of creation ("creation" being the entire period of existence of the universe), and Moses wrote about the first six days of that creation, then there's no issue at all.

    You're getting agitated and abusive now. Perhaps you should take little time to calm yourself. Take a little time, get that pulse down, and come back when you can do this embarrassing yourself.
    You're confusing "agitated and abusive" with "passionate about the truth."

    Second (and final) warning. Show a little more respect for others.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Right Divider (June 26th, 2019)

  20. #104
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,141
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,013 Times in 9,144 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    There are two ways of dealing with this:
    1. Consider Genesis to be figurative, and live in peace with science.
    2. Consider Genesis to be literal, and pretend that the science is wrong.
    This is pure anti-science propaganda. Science is the process of eliminating ideas based on the evidence. It doesn't eliminate ideas because you want yours to win.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 26th, 2019),Right Divider (June 26th, 2019),way 2 go (June 27th, 2019)

  22. #105
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    As was noted on TOL before, increased public acknowledgement of evolution correlates well with the marked drop in violent crime over the past few decades.

    And likewise, it has happened along with an increasing satifaction most Americans feel about their lives. Not much terror going on.

    These seem like good things to me.
    This message is hidden because ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us