Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Yep. So it certainly doesn't have to mean "day."

Compromising Christians have difficulty believing that God means what He says. The meaning of the word is always clear by the context. Nobody thinks Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3 long periods of time.

'Yom' (day) certainly can mean a period shorter than 24 hours. It can also mean a long period of time, but the meaning is clear in context. From the hundreds of times the word is used in the Old Testament, it is only in Genesis, the foundation to the Gospel, that people want to take the word out of context..

People who compromise on Genesis 1, continue to change what God says throughout scripture. For example ... Gods words "but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days theLord*made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord*blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Ex. 20:10,11


Isnt the meaning the word easy to understand! In context it is 6 literal days.*


Lexicographers who are the most qualified Hebrew scholars are united...The days of creation are literal 24 hour days.*


James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11*intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

 

[Stuu]

Even Mother Theresa had times of doubt. If one is honest in one's faith, one has to be willing to expose it to reason and evidence.

It's a shame the nasty Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu didn't show a bit more honesty instead of shamelessly and cynically manipulating people as she did.

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

Right, so you will understand my confusion then.

I might. I will certainly try.

Apparently not. I am supposed to accept Jesus, the man-god, and then my 'sin' stops being my responsibility. So, what will the man-god do now if it has taken responsibility for my 'sin'?

He appeared to take away sin, true. But He also appeared to give you a new life. Those who are in Christ are dead to sin and alive to God unto righteousness spiritually.

Romans 6:11 NASB - Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:13 NASB - and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

This is where salvation is, where a person's life is turned completely around at the moment of repentance unto faith in God and the risen Lord, Jesus the Messiah (the Christ).

Maybe it will burn itself in sulfur along with all those it judged harshly.

That assertion is unfounded Biblically. But I think you are trying to connect the lake of fire with the idea of atonement being applied to the life, purpose, person, and plan of God in Jesus Christ His Son. It is He who died for us. If you read the New Testament writings you will see that those who are righteous, starting with Jesus and then to those He has imputed righteousness to, do not end up in the lake of fire.

I can't have that, sorry. As Alwight has pointed out to you, vicarious atonement is immoral. I take responsibility for my actions myself, thanks.

As I have said it makes sense to take responsibility for your actions including sins you have committed. There comes a point though when a person has done all they can up to that point in making restitution for what they have done. They can't dwell on sin that is in the past if they have confessed it to God, repented, and turned to faith in God. If God brings it up again, bring it up to Him again in prayer. But if everyone is behind because they are responsible for their own sin they need to also know that Jesus didn't just die for them He died for all the others who want to take responsibility for their own sin too.

If a Guinea worm is the punishment for a crime I never committed then your god is inherently unjust already.

I really don't know what you are talking about. But if you are saying that it must not have existed in the garden because all it can do is experience pain? Well, maybe our idea of its nervous system is being applied incorrectly. Obviously God has a purpose for us in pain and suffering. To suffer for doing right makes much more sense than to suffer for doing wrong. So don't let someone tell you that if you come to Christ you will suffer no longer. But no one needs a complex about it.

This is the visiting of the sins of the father on the son. It's immoral.

Stuart

Visiting the sins of the father on the son IS immoral. And it is not supported by scripture either.

 

[alwight]

No. I'm not Catholic and I'm not a Theologian. I am a Bible-believing Christian. This means I have read the Bible and I know what it says, and that "Theological word" is not a part of my vocabulary. Therefore I am communicating to you now that it doesn't have to be in order for me to be saved, whatever it is, and it doesn't have to be for you either.

Even if you are a total adherent to Biblical scripture then not evaluating what else is out there beyond the Bible is imo not exactly being inquisitive or doing justice to your brain's full potential or in making your own mark as an individual critical thinking person. Is that really what your God would want?
It's just being imo rather too content to credulously accept whatever others say or may have once said in Christianity as though that alone is satisfactory and all you need.

But surely life is for learning from and reaching your own conclusions about and not simply accepting whatever you are told or read about in Biblical scripture or even allowing for the possibility that it "ain't necessarily so"?

OK you are a creationist because that seems to be what the Bible suggests literally and you don't want to look elsewhere for ideas, but science has many amazing stories to tell too, and all of which, unlike Biblical scripture, you can form an opinion on by evaluating what the physical empirical evidence is, rather than simply believing the words of say some guy called Paul.lain:

 

[Jacob]

Even if you are a total adherent to Biblical scripture then not evaluating what else is out there beyond the Bible is imo not exactly being inquisitive or doing justice to your brain's full potential or in making your own mark as an individual critical thinking person. Is that really what your God would want?
It's just being imo rather too content to credulously accept whatever others say or may have once said in Christianity as though that alone is satisfactory and all you need.

But surely life is for learning from and reaching your own conclusions about and not simply accepting whatever you are told or read about in Biblical scripture or even allowing for the possibility that it "ain't necessarily so"?

OK you are a creationist because that seems to be what the Bible suggests literally and you don't want to look elsewhere for ideas, but science has many amazing stories to tell too, and all of which, unlike Biblical scripture, you can form an opinion on by evaluating what the physical empirical evidence is, rather than simply believing the words of say some guy called Paul.lain:

The Bible says God created. So from creation, with or without the Bible, I know there is a Creator... God.

 

[6days]

Even if you are a total adherent to Biblical scripture then not evaluating what else is out there beyond the Bible is imo not exactly being inquisitive or doing justice to your brain's full potential

The same argument can be made against atheism, but neither argument is very valid. Many of the fathers of modern science, and current scientists are fully committed to the Word of God. In fact some say it was their literal adherance to scripture that is responsible for the birth of modern science.*


The fact is science is performed equally well by Biblical creationists, atheists, and theistic evolutionists. We make sense of the evidence based on our beliefs. Example....

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer

*(Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan"

 

[6days]

The Bible says God created. So from creation, with or without the Bible, I know there is a Creator... God.

There it is... the bottom line is the Bible...our source of absolute truth.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Also, WallStreet, I accept an Old Earth. I just don't accept Long Time Periods called Days, which are longer than one Day, that only Contain a Single Evening and Morning.

What are the Hebrew Words used at the End of Each Creation Day Description, which are Said in English as Evening and Morning, Do they mean, Not Evening and Morning, in Hebrew?

=M=

Also, How do you justify, God allowing the Sun To Shine Through the Firmament, a Day After He Created Plants?
How did the Plants Survive?
I mean, if you think that the Days were really Time Periods of Thousands, if not Millions of Years.

Mark you bring up some interesting points I must admit, but here is something I found in the godandscience forum where I have spent a lot of my time, (mostly arguing for the authenticity of the shroud of turin). Still I am open to the evidence for your interpretation, But like I said you bring up some good points.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Introduction

The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 109 years old. The universe is ~14 x 109 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way (for a discussion of this topic, see Dr. Hugh Ross' book, A Matter of Days).

Hebrew Words

Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.

Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:


In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:6)

Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding CreationThis verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.

The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:
1."This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20)
2.Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15)
3."For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4)
4."And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)

The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.

As far as God letting light shine through the firmament, again Mark, we cant just assume it is one literal day, but I do remain open in that regard to different interpretation.

I was a theistic evolutionist and my change from evolution to ID/old earth took 5 years so like I said you do make some interesting points for me to ponder

 

[wallstreeterww]

Even if you are a total adherent to Biblical scripture then not evaluating what else is out there beyond the Bible is imo not exactly being inquisitive or doing justice to your brain's full potential or in making your own mark as an individual critical thinking person. Is that really what your God would want?
It's just being imo rather too content to credulously accept whatever others say or may have once said in Christianity as though that alone is satisfactory and all you need.

But surely life is for learning from and reaching your own conclusions about and not simply accepting whatever you are told or read about in Biblical scripture or even allowing for the possibility that it "ain't necessarily so"?

OK you are a creationist because that seems to be what the Bible suggests literally and you don't want to look elsewhere for ideas, but science has many amazing stories to tell too, and all of which, unlike Biblical scripture, you can form an opinion on by evaluating what the physical empirical evidence is, rather than simply believing the words of say some guy called Paul.lain:

Actually alwight, genesis can be interpreted in a few ways because many Hebrew words have more then one meaning. In Levantine Arabic (my parents first language) they have picked up many of these words from the ancient Hebrews (because they lived right on the border of Israel (Lebanon for example is where my parents are from originally) and they still retain these Hebrew words and still retain the multiple meanings for them. It is because I researched this that I formed an opinion of my own and I was in awe at how accurate genesis is.

Also after being an evolutionist for 41 years, I left evolution for ID/old earth because I formed an opinion of my own. The theory of evolution is wrought with philosophical assumptions that have very little to do with science and whenever I asked thease questions to an evolutionist and to myself I saw that there wasn't a very strong explanation for them and my faith in evolution started to go away. It wasn't based on a theological assumption, my decision to leave evolution was based on the lack of evidence for some of its major assumptions. The fact that someone like Stephen J Gould saw some of this and tried to rescue the theory with another theory that was based on his philosophical assumption and flimsy evidence started to convince me that these people weren't just interested in science but also interpreting that theory based on their philosophical worldview.

I could remember when my faith in evolution took a turn fior the worst and that was when I watched Stephen Meyers video "signature in the cell". That was a video that totally captivated me.

It was because I dared to question what was taught to me in college as an absolute fact that I eventually left evolution. I've always been a rebel nerd or non comformist lol. I don't say that my opinion is absolute law but I did my share of research to come up with my own independent opinion.

As far as evolution or ID, it doesn't hurt or help a persons salvation either way. Faith in Christ is what does that.

alwight since you deem yourself to be an independent thinker who forms an opinion of your own, tell me in your well researched opinion is the shroud of turin a clever forgery or the real deal?
This is my specified area of expertise since I have studied it extensively for 5 years.

 

[wallstreeterww]

It's a shame the nasty Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu didn't show a bit more honesty instead of shamelessly and cynically manipulating people as she did.

Stuart

I see we have another brainwashed follower of Christopher Hitchens who wrote a book about Mother Teresa in which he didn't provide in footnotes or sidenotes to verify his viscous claims against Her.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Barbarian said ""Barbarian observes:
Even Mother Theresa had times of doubt. If one is honest in one's faith, one has to be willing to expose it to reason and evidence.""


Mother Teresa had what we call in Catholicism as a Dark night of the soul. If you look at it correctly Barbarian her faith was actually growing more duiring this time then ever before when God had her spiritually on a tricycle bike. I have experienced the dark night and it is the most horrible feeling on earth, but it is during this time that you can either grow your faith or lose it completely.

I decided through an act of the will to say yes to and trust Christ. It is when your faith is tested that it can grow more then ever. It isn't about exposing your beliefs to logic and reason, It is about trusting the wisdom of God which is beyond all human reason and logic. In the end when u go through this darkness you start to really understand that it was never about me , it was about Christ all along.

Faith is from God and he can either bring you out of it or bring you deeper into it, depending on what he feels you need to go through for the betterment of your soul.

I could never trust scientism because science isn't meant to answer many questions about truth.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hi MC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hello GM,

How're you doing buddy!! I see you are back and raring to go. How was the vacation? Was it for 3 days?? Hey GM, you can catch more friends with honey than you can with vinegar. Just keep that in mind. Have a good heart like you do with me and how you treat me. Treat others exactly the same way and your whole life will turn around. Think of them first and you, second. Then you will amass many friends here. I'm just giving you the tips you need to feel welcome all of the time. Trust me about my advice to you. Give it a chance.

And You Will Transform!

Michael

 

[alwight]

The same argument can be made against atheism, but neither argument is very valid. Many of the fathers of modern science, and current scientists are fully committed to the Word of God. In fact some say it was their literal adherance to scripture that is responsible for the birth of modern science.*


The fact is science is performed equally well by Biblical creationists, atheists, and theistic evolutionists. We make sense of the evidence based on our beliefs. Example....

What YECs actually do 6days is to presuppose that Genesis is the literal truth which then must always invalidate any rigorous science at all which seems to contradict it. YECs are therefore shackled to a Biblical account and are closed to simply doing honest science based on the evidence. So yes while it isn't a belief in a god that is anti-science it is presupposition that an ancient scripture must first be adhered to evidence-free that is.

 

[alwight]

Actually alwight, genesis can be interpreted in a few ways because many Hebrew words have more then one meaning. In Levantine Arabic (my parents first language) they have picked up many of these words from the ancient Hebrews (because they lived right on the border of Israel (Lebanon for example is where my parents are from originally) and they still retain these Hebrew words and still retain the multiple meanings for them. It is because I researched this that I formed an opinion of my own and I was in awe at how accurate genesis is.

I gather that Sarah Palin learned much about Russia because it can be seen from Alaska.lain:
What specifically would you think I might find awesome and accurate from Genesis that was based in empirical evidence rather than spin or apologetics? A global flood perhaps?

Also after being an evolutionist for 41 years, I left evolution for ID/old earth because I formed an opinion of my own. The theory of evolution is wrought with philosophical assumptions that have very little to do with science and whenever I asked thease questions to an evolutionist and to myself I saw that there wasn't a very strong explanation for them and my faith in evolution started to go away. It wasn't based on a theological assumption, my decision to leave evolution was based on the lack of evidence for some of its major assumptions. The fact that someone like Stephen J Gould saw some of this and tried to rescue the theory with another theory that was based on his philosophical assumption and flimsy evidence started to convince me that these people weren't just interested in science but also interpreting that theory based on their philosophical worldview.

Well, I've never been an "evolutionist" myself because that is a word that creationists use for someone who happens to think that what the evidence does indeed show is that Darwinian evolution is the best explanation, not "evolutionists" themselves.
Evolution isn't an ideology, religion or a way of life, it simply something that explains the evidence, which could be falsified by evidence were it to be the wrong explanation.
Despite what you seem to allude to here, Punctuated Equilibrium presumably, the ToE has never been "rescued" to my knowledge. Science however is not fixed in stone tablets or ancient scripture, it can be wrong sometimes and typically adapts as new and better information comes along.
If however you think that the ToE can be falsified by it then by all means please quietly PM me first with the details for me to check, I promise not to use it to become rich and famous myself.

I could remember when my faith in evolution took a turn fior the worst and that was when I watched Stephen Meyers video "signature in the cell". That was a video that totally captivated me.

It was because I dared to question what was taught to me in college as an absolute fact that I eventually left evolution. I've always been a rebel nerd or non comformist lol. I don't say that my opinion is absolute law but I did my share of research to come up with my own independent opinion.

As far as evolution or ID, it doesn't hurt or help a persons salvation either way. Faith in Christ is what does that.

alwight since you deem yourself to be an independent thinker who forms an opinion of your own, tell me in your well researched opinion is the shroud of turin a clever forgery or the real deal?
This is my specified area of expertise since I have studied it extensively for 5 years.

I have already responded to "signature in the cell" in an earlier post to you, if I have missed your response to it please say and I'll have another look.
Here it is again:

What do you mean exactly by "left evolution"?
Darwinian evolution is either a theory that individuals think explains the evidence or it is not. I personally regard it as established fact btw, but if it can't explain the evidence then that would indeed be interesting but not something that requires invoking a supernatural or even particularly worrying to me.
If however you are not as personally convinced by the ToE as me would that then necessarily mean that something else, a creator perhaps, was therefore true?
No, I don't think so, since for me it's fine to simply admit when we don't know rather than there having to be another pole we are for some reason compelled to go and nail our flag to.

Call me a cynic but I think that books such as "signature in the cell" primarily exist because there is a ready market for anything that panders to those who simply don't want the ToE to be true, which may then tend to suggest that a preconceived version of a god might after all be true, that a supernatural entity is running the show, that their lives do have hope, purpose and meaning.
But as a cynic I tend to notice mainly that plenty of money is there to be made from such enterprises. lain:

The Shroud of Turin we can return to later perhaps?

 

[The Barbarian]

Mother Teresa had what we call in Catholicism as a Dark night of the soul. If you look at it correctly Barbarian her faith was actually growing more duiring this time then ever before when God had her spiritually on a tricycle bike. I have experienced the dark night and it is the most horrible feeling on earth, but it is during this time that you can either grow your faith or lose it completely.

This is true.

I decided through an act of the will to say yes to and trust Christ. It is when your faith is tested that it can grow more then ever. It isn't about exposing your beliefs to logic and reason, It is about trusting the wisdom of God which is beyond all human reason and logic.

In Catholicism, we acknowledge that God and our faith is reasonable and accessible to logic. It would be to turn our back on Augustine, Aquinas and all the rest to make it mere fideism.

I could never trust scientism because science isn't meant to answer many questions about truth.

This is the truth. I don't know what "scientism" is, but apparently, it's not anything like science.

 

[resurrected]

In Catholicism, we acknowledge that God ... is ... accessible to logic.

cite?

 

[The Barbarian]

Christopher Hitchens who wrote a book about Mother Teresa in which he didn't provide in footnotes or sidenotes to verify his viscous claims against Her.

I think you meant "vicious", not "viscous", although the former also happens to be true.

vis·cous
adjective \ˈvis-kəs\

of a liquid : thick or sticky : not flowing easily

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viscous

 

[noguru]

I was a theistic evolutionist and my change from evolution to ID/old earth took 5 years so like I said you do make some interesting points for me to ponder

What specifically (even if there is more than one point) brought about this change from theistic evolution to ID/old earth?

 

[6days]

I was a theistic evolutionist and my change from evolution to ID/old earth took 5 years so like I said you do make some interesting points for me to ponder

Imagine how difficult it is for atheist scientists to convert and trust Christ as their Savior....and then the journey from evolutionism to 6 day Biblical creation. There are a number who have done so.


I would be interested in your thoughts on a thread I did a couple weeks back called a "compromising position." I believe its on page 2 of threads. You can disagree with me but I'm curious on your thoughts.