Evening and Morning before the sun....

[Jorge]

For reference purposes I'll repost this :

All of this stems from the fact that YEC is a position that refuses to compromise on the authority of Scripture. Refusal to compromise, if you didn't know, is a sure way of becoming despised. Compare that with OEC and TE, these are NOT despised -- in fact they're very much 'accepted' -- by materialistic Naturalists. Why? The answer is simple : because OECs and TEs are willing and do compromise on certain Scriptural teachings, adopt Naturalistic beliefs, and then actively promote some of the same things as these - their ideological enemies!

If that wasn't clear try this : the enemy of my enemy is my friend. YECs don't compromise, OECs and TEs do. As mentioned above, OECs and TEs (like grmorton, oxmixmudd and others) fight against YECs. In that sense they have become allies of materialistic Naturalists with a common enemy - YECs.

There is a lot of confusion in the above comments, though this is a common YEC perspective.

It's a "common YEC perspective" because of the facts, KB. Try visiting sites like Talk.Origins and report what you see. To save others from the suspense, I'll answer that : you'll see ardent Atheists, Agnostics and just about every Christian denomination in a unified front promoting billions of years and evolution while fiercely and unrelentlessly attacking YECism. You are entitled to your opinion but the facts speak for themselves.

I would not characterize the YEC position as a refusal "to compromise on the authority of Scripture", though they like to cast it this way. Rather, it is a refusal to reconsider their interpretation of Scripture. The situation is somewhat like the Amish--they are given a traditional interpretation that they must follow, and are not allowed to question it. If they do, they are ostracized (witness Glenn Morton's experience with YEC for a prime example).

Nonsense! We do not allegorize, mythologize, add to and delete from Scripture just so that we can accommodate billions of years, soul-less protohumans and a macroevolutionary goo-to-zoo-to-you process. OECs and TEs do precisely that.

I do not believe that OEC and TE are "'accepted' -- by materialistic Naturalists". I have attended lectures by Francis Collins twice in the past few weeks, and both times he made the atheists in the crowd very uneasy. Atheists do not like the overt Christian worldview of a TE or OEC.

Read carefully what I had written and think. Try to deny that an Atheist would call an OEC / TE a "brother" in certain areas whereas there is
absolutely NO compatibility -- NO area -- where an Atheist could have the same "brotherly fellowship" with a YEC. Could it be any clearer?

The atheist elevates the creation to the place of God and worships it instead of God (Rom 1:25). The Christian (even the OEC and TE) worships the Creator rather than the creation, and this is makes the atheist uneasy. Further, the Christian Gospel seems foolish to those trapped inside a naturalistic, atheistic worldview (1 Cor 1:18-21). This is unavoidable. But what is avoidable is insisting on the man-made foolishness of flood geology and other ridiculous, pseudo-scientific claims.

Read the previous words and meditate on them. Add to the list (evolution, gigayears, etc.) the Flood account.


Jorge

[ck11]

Actually, our debate has nothing to do with salvation in that acceptance of a 6000 year old universe/Earth, created in six literal 24-hour days is not at all necessary for one's salvation. In that way we are actually arguing trivialities. I can't speak for others but in my case Iagree with Jorge when he says "we're turning people away from God." This has been an issue for Christians for centuries. St. Augustine discussed it in his "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (De Genesi ad libri duodecim):

Oh, I think you are wrong here. Wasn't it Jorge who commented earlier that Carl Sagan is burning in Hell because Sagan chose to use reason rather than revelation when studying origins issues?

And why is this whole issue focused so specifically on the education of children? If it is a scientific issue that is not important for larger religious concerns, why not just focus on, say, the distribution of research funding (which the YECs rarely complain about)?

If it is trivial, why is it so contentious? To the YECs, why is this so important?

[rogue06]

Originally posted by ck11
Oh, I think you are wrong here. Wasn't it Jorge who commented earlier that Carl Sagan is burning in Hell because Sagan chose to use reason rather than revelation when studying origins issues?

I missed that comment from Jorge, so I can hardly comment on it. Still, it seems that he once did make a similar remark about Sagan burning in Hell, but because he was an atheist.

Originally posted by ck11
And why is this whole issue focused so specifically on the education of children?
If it is a scientific issue that is not important for larger religious concerns, why not just focus on, say, the distribution of research funding (which the YECs rarely complain about)?

Good question. It seems that some of the YECs who are so desperate to teach their religious beliefs in schools aren't so much concerned about their kids (who are exposed to the YEC POV at home and probably in church as well), but the kids they can't control (i.e., other people's kids)

Originally posted by ck11
If it is trivial, why is it so contentious? To the YECs, why is this so important?

While trivial in the sense that it doesn't effect our salvation one way or another, I believe that YECs lend ammo to those who wish to mock and ridicule Christianity (and thus turn away many who might want to join) and makes a mockery of scientific inquiry as well. To me, it seems that the YECs see this as an issue of questioning what God says. Basically, if you question their literal reading of any part of the Bible (Creation, Flood...) then you are calling God a liar. What they don't see is that it is two very different things to question what God says and to question a particular intrpretation of what God says. Most YEC are incapable of doing this.


Of course Jorge or some other YEC may disagree.

[oxmixmudd]

I will respond here, but it does seem clear you are not willing to consider what I am saying. I will cut my comments when they don't aid in understanding your response to reduce the length of the post.

It is a general principle that one takes the scripture at face value unless there is clear evidence it should not be. This is in all cases how one determines when a passage should not be taken literally.

Really? I thought the Holy Spirit teaches us in all things?

Samurai - if you believe what you have just said then you should be able to go into a back room, pray a bit, and then walk onto a tarmac and fly a 747 to moscow. Are you seriously suggesting that is a realistic way to learn to fly airplane?

What you have done is grossly missapply the scripture and it is just a smarty little response that avoids the point and the question. We do not just arbitrarily take every text at face value. And there are several factors that drive the mode of interpretation. This is a very serious topic, and it is a set of rules developed to help keep people from falling into gross herasy.

So you take the word of secular science in determining which parts of the Bible can be believed at face value? Please. Faith? Where is it?

Samarai, If we were to eliminate all 'knowledge of men' prior to reading scripture, you would understand not one word of it. Knowledge derived from the natural world is a significant part of what allows us to understand the scriptures. We must know a language, the symbols which encode that language, we must understand the setting of the text, we must know a very great many things to understand scripture - all 'knowledge of men'. Faith and the Holy Spirit are other components of that understanding, and they are what enlighten our souls through the reading of the text, but you can't just ignore natural knowledge in the process, otherwise you are a sitting duck for Satanic deception. Faith and knowledge work hand in hand here. You obviously have not seen the same number of dangerously deceived people operating on 'faith alone' as I have. Have you ever seen a parent who has kept their child away from doctors to the point the child almost died because they 'had faith to believe God for healing'? Have you not noticed how many loons go off killing people in public places because "God told me to"? What you are advocating here is a very dangerous form of willful ignorance, not Faith.

4) When read simply, it does not resolve to a single meaning or is itself unclear or irrationally extreme, requiring investigation to understand which of those possible meanings is correct or if its extreme form is indeed the true intent of the author (this may be possible within scripture itself, in which case it resolves to case 3, but if not, then one must resort to extra-Biblical knowledge for resolution). And example here is the "camel through an eye of a needle" passage. It appears to be saying it is impossibly hard for the rich to enter heaven - unless one learns (extra-Biblically) that the 'eye of a needle' is an idiom in the culture of Christ for a small doorway in the wall of a city which was difficult for a camel to negotiate.[/I][/COLOR]

Yes there are parts of the Bible that use figures of speech etc. Genesis isn’t a parable
and can’t be explained to be allegory elsewhere in scripture. Other scriptures endorse the Genesis account. Jesus did. Was He mistaken?

Those other passages do not define specifically the issue of the length of the days of Genesis and maintain their meaning regardless of how long day is. The do not differentiate the issue at hand. I am not saying Genesis is not authoritative. I am saying that your interpretation of the text is not valid. That is, my interpretation fits those sayings you have referenced by Christ and in Exodus just as well as your interpretation does, yet it allows day in Genesis not to be 24 hours. Those passages you reference do not require day to be 24 hours.

I don’t know what you are trying to get at with the eye of a needle comment. No naturally a camel can’t get through one. What did Jesus say though? With God all things are possible. Are you saying He couldn’t make it happen?

Well this is just your own ignorance coming into play I guess. Jesus compares the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven with the difficulty of a camel getting through the eye of a needle. That comparison is misunderstood without a knowledge of the culture and idioms of the day. The fact Jesus says all things are possible with God avoids a critical misunderstanding (which would be that rich people can't get into heaven at all). But the actual comment is not saying it is impossible, it is saying it is very difficult and uncomfortable. It is a misunderstanding of degree. The point is that there is not other scripture one can go to gain that understanding. That understanding comes solely through the 'knowledge of men' that you label 'evil'. Yet it is knowledge we must have if we are to have a full understanding (a non-distorted understanding) of what Jesus is saying there. And indeed - that is the point I am making. There are places in scripture where you must know more than you can get from scripture alone to get a full understanding of what the text is telling us.

[I]5) The statements if taken literally are clearly contrary to what is known about the natural world. An example here that you would not disagree with is Joshua's 'long day', where the sun and moon are said to 'stand still'. We do not take these words at face value due to the clearly understood orbital relationships of the sun, earth and moon. We resolve this phenomenologically.[/I]

The clearly understood relations… Really? There is no proof that what science says about these things are true. Yes you read me correctly. No absolute proof.

Are you John Martin?

In reality, science does not deal in proof. However, if you actually believe the universe revolves about the Earth once per day, then you will have to believe that events on this earth influence the entire cosmos instantly - even to distances of billions of light years. For one can measure the variations in rotational velocity due to tidal friction with the light of quasars billions of light years away. For this to be true in a geocentric universe, the entire universe would have to be changing velocity in sync with the tides - something most people would find absurd to the point of being an indication of mental instability.

Now Genesis 1actually has two components which tell us it is not a passage which can be taken simply at face value. One is that when taken as you take it, it becomes internally inconsistent/unclear on certain key points (4).

Rubbish. If you are saying evolution were true then Genesis is wrong/inconsistent on multiple levels and clearly Jesus had it wrong when He said “in the beginning …. God made them male and female”.

You are beginning to make me think you do not know how to process logical thought. You are clearly misunderstanding Christ. God did not make them male and female in Genesis 1:1. That is 'the beginning'. God made them after he made everthing else. The beginning Christ speaks of here is their beginning, the beginning of mankind, otherwise He would not be consistent with scripture. I would never suggest an interpretaion of the scripture that had Christ being incorrect, would you? But if one correctly understands which beginning he references (the beginning of mankind) then it is true whether those days were 24 hours or billions of years.

But we have another problem with your face value reading. And that is the physical description of the structure of the universe in Genesis 1:6-8. It describes a firm expanse which separates the waters below and above. An expanse IN which are the sun,moon, and stars. Again, to take this text at face value, one is left with a physical description of the universe that is simply false (5).
[/COLOR][/I
It is often claimed firmament means solid. I don’t see that in my Stongs concordance.

That is because you aren't aware of the origin of the hebrew word raqia and its associated connotations to metal work and firmness. But the translators of the AKJV were, and that is why they chose the word 'firmament'. Most modern translations shy away from that because ... we know the sky is not firm. This is a case of mistranslation on behalf of modern understanding. The correct translation is actually as the AKJV puts it. A better rendering in modern English would be 'firm expanse'. But there is more to this than just the implications of the hebrew word, there is the entire context of seperating and supporting a vast heavenly ocean or sea above the firmament. Something mentioned again in later passages such as the psalms. These waters are also clearly some of the source waters for the flood. The firmness of the heavens as indicated by the text has long been understood, and remained part of the Church's understanding until Galileo.

And it is a long forgotten part of the age old story of people mistakenly thinking they can derive details about about the age and structure of the cosmos from Genesis.

Finally, we have another creation passage (Psalm 90) which clearly tells us (90:4) that 'day' for God can be like a very long or very short period of time. We are reminded of this fact in Peter in relation to Christs 'soon' return.

"Can" doesn’t mean "was". Because God isn’t bound by time doesn’t mean that when He says it took 6 days it wasn’t 6 days. You are hiding behind these things to try and accomodate your ungodly worldview into scripture.

If you read what I said, you would realize I understand "Can doesn't mean "was". You are the one arguing those days "must" be 24 hours. I am trying to help you realize they do not have to be 24 hours. You see, the only reason to reject the clear indications of nature would be if the text absolutely required this time period be 24 hours. But it doesn't. So your objections to the conclusions driven by the evidence of nature are not based on textual considerations, but other issues - tradition primarily.

These are the textual and scientific considerations that are not in dispute.

Really?

You can dispute that days for God can be longer or shorter than 24 hours if you wish, and you can argue the sun goes around the earth or that the sky is a firm dome with water above it if you wish, but in the larger Christian and secular community, there is no debate on these issues.

But now we return to that first issue - the issue of 'day' clearly not being defined by the normal physical parameters of 'day' on that first day through to the fourth day. That issue can only be resolved by looking at creation itself. Every scriptural reference one might use to resolve the context is itself vague in one way or the other.

Really, so exodus 20.11 is vague? Clearly we have different parameters for vague. When God says 6 days He means 6 days. Do you really think that He doesn’t mean what He says?

The context of God days and man days rests solely on what the Genesis days are. If I tell my son his model car is 'like' my car, I do not mean he can drive his little car to school. There is a comparison being made here, but its precise correlation is defined by the real definition of each side of the relation. The fact we are to imitate God in our work habits remains regardless of whether the days of creation are 24 hours or billions of years.

Genesis days were clearly normal length days

a declaration supported by ...

as they were governed by evening and morning.

A morning and an evening are defined by the Earth, the sky, and the sun. The sun and sky had not yet been created, and the Earth was without form and void. This was not a normal evening, nor a normal morning. They are representative = symbolic/metaphor.

The numerical precursor to the Hebrew yom is always indicitave of a literal day. SO since the sun was made on Day 4 are you suggesting the creation days were of unequal length?

They are all of no particular length. What they represent is established in the first 'day'. They do not represent time at all, but a unit of Gods work in bringing the universe into being, in bringing order from chaos. The 'time' value is not the point. It is a secondary relation.

Since we have the present sun on day 4 and evening and mornings after it was made were they normal days then? If not why not?

For the reasons stated above. One could, at day 4, have a literal day. It is now, at day 4, possible for the 'day' to refer to a literal day because all that is required for there to be morning and evening has been created. But the pattern of 'day' NOT being literal is already extablished, and the literary form is such that there is no reason to assume day suddenly switches from metaphor to literal on 'day' 4.

So How does God making all on land and in the sea in 2 literal days fit into your paradigm? Let me guess… you can’t afford to have that. It would invalidate your arguments.

It doesn't fit for the textual reasons sited above. It also doesn't fit the scientific evidence.

and by the the way exodus 20.10 and 11 you aluded to above never uses the word "like" God did anywhere.... that is your own loose paraphrase to help fit in your own agenda. Poor try.

You are correct in tems of the word used.

It says in vs 11: For in six days the Lord made the heavens and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.

The 'for' here connects the two and says the same thing whether the days are literal or figurative. It is more than 'like', it is saying that God did it this way as an example to us. It tells us why God divided the creation into 6 'days' of work and a seventh day of rest. It also tells us why we are to do the same - He wants us to imitate Him in our work habits. But it does not define the length of those Genesis days. It only connects God's work habits with our own. The kind of day is 100% dependent on what a 'day' is in Genesis 1. If 24 hours, then the correlation is 1:1. if not, then it is simili.

I will admit that without the obvious textual issues in Genesis 1 that imply these days are not really about time, or the scientific evidence for age, the tendency would be to assume they were the same length.

So my question to you is then this. Will you even consider the evidence from creation? It is the only evidence left that can decide the issue of what kind of 'day' is being put forward in Genesis. We know in Romans the creation is sufficient for exposing God's power and majesty. It is reasonable to assume it is not about revealing its creator as a deceiver.

Well it depends on what you call evidence. I have had the priviliged position of having being able to study evolution at University. There isn’t any hard evidence to prove it. God doesn’t deceive. The devil does.

First, In dealing with the issue of days in Genesis, we are not addressing the issue of evolution. We are addressing the length of time over which God worked. The two are not necessarily connected. Evolution requires time, but time does not require evolution. However, you are mistaken about the evidence for evolution if you mean evidence life has existed millions of years on the Earth's surface and undergone significant change in form over that time. You are very wrong. Where evolution gets more speculative is the precise progression of that change, or reasons for the change. This is what differentiates OEC from TE. OEC believes the cause of change was miraculous intervention and fiat creation of new species. TE believes it was more like ToE in operation, with some possibility for miraculous intervention at a more subtle level, or perhaps in the creation of man himself.

In who’s hands are the majority of the world? God says that because they don’t acknowledge Him they profess themselves wise but have become fools and given over to their vain imaginings.

One must be careful not to overgeneralize this verse. This does not mean everything discovered scientifically is wrong. It refers primarily to the knowledge of God and morality, not the natural world.

Can you not see it is the evolutionists and those that worship the creation rather than the the Creator the scripture is talking about?

It is not the 'evolutionist', it is people who willfully reject God. There are Christian evolutionists. Some of them have written books defending the existence of God and the Lordship of Christ (Francis Collins is one). You have overgeneralized the situation to the point of falsely assigning your brothers in Christ who publically defend the Gospel the place of the unbeliever.

It you will not apply your God given mind to understanding creation, then you are left with your opinion and centuries old tradition. You may consider that sufficient in this case, but if you do not wish to present our Lord and His Word to the word in a way as to invite mockery, you must not continue to ignore His creation.

Actually your diluting and saying to the world, this or that portion of the Bible can’t be read at face value makes you a mockery to the world. God was quite capable of saying what He meant and meaning what He said. And He did. You have a limp Bible that sways and teeters with every whim and fancy of an unbelieving world and their vain imaginings. I have applied my mind to learning and I know the theories. I aced them at school and at University and I have many letters after my name.

Accurately regurgitating what you have been taught is not necessarily learning. And if you wish to debate these theories you 'know' feel free. If you have a legitimate case to make, I and many others would love to see it.

There is a passage where Paul discusses persecution and suffering in light of the authorities and laws of this world. One thing he says is that if you suffer persecution because you have violated legitimate laws, it is not persecution but rather simply a well earned rebuke and punishment. Likewise, if you come proclaiming absurd fantasies about the clear history and state of the natural world, then you deceive yourself by classifying their mockery as merely the mockery of the unbelieving choosing to reject God. For it is in reality a well deserved thrashing over your own nonsensical rantings.

The Cross of Christ is sufficient stumbling block for the unbeliever. As much as is possible, do not add to it your own ignorance and give them justification for their mockery.

Jim. Hogwash. God called us to be separate from the world not to molly coddle up to it and pander to their ridiculous assumptions about the universe.

His call for us to be separate is not a call to purposefully be fools. Jesus told us to be wise as serpents yet harmless as doves. Your willingness to be the fool for Christ is laudable, and we must be willing to be percieved foolish if necessary. But that does not mean we seek it out, or are required to bury our brains in the sand when we accept Christ. Again, let the sumbling block be the Cross, and keep stubborn foolishness based on fear or tradition out of the equation.

Do you really think science which has no room for God can help you better interpret the Word and arrive at a correct worldview? Do you think Satan wants that?

I think you can do harm to the Gospel in many ways. One is to give in to the world and compromise the truth of the Gospel - which is what you are afraid of here. But another is to be
bring shame to it by dressing it up like a clown. When you claim the Earth and Universe is but 10,000 years old, and then claim science supports that POV, that is precisely what you are doing - dressing the Gospel up in a clown suit and inviting the onlookers to laugh.

I will trust in Him and His Word. The revelations of this God rejecting world are dung.

The first part I agree with. The second part is arrogance.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Read carefully what I had written and think. Try to deny that an Atheist would call an OEC / TE a "brother" in certain areas whereas there is
absolutely NO compatibility -- NO area -- where an Atheist could have the same "brotherly fellowship" with a YEC. Could it be any clearer?

Jorge - we are called to the truth. That means I will be in agreement with ANYONE when what I perceive as the truth is also what they perceive as the truth. I will not refuse to defend someone or something from falsehood in one area because we disagree in another. YEC is essentially nothing more than a huge falsehood. It says that the belief that the Earth and Universe are <10,000 years old can be supported by proper application of the scientific method and process - and that is a lie.

And I dare you to prove me wrong. (of course, that would mean you would have to discuss the science that leads to the conclusions of age that we are discussing - something you refuse to do for obvious reasons - one can't support an age of <10,000 years for the Earth and Cosmos with proper application of the scientific method and process).


Jim

[wattsr1]

Gidday Samurai,

Samurai - are you even willing to discuss the evidence from creation? It is a general principle that one takes the scripture at face value unless there is clear evidence it should not be. This is in all cases how one determines when a passage should not be taken literally.

Really? I thought the Holy Spirit teaches us in all things?

In stark contrast to the “bleatings of some fallen men” presumably.

Really Samurai, your prideful boasting makes little sense in practical reality.

Allow me to have a few little digs while I make my point.

We have a reasonable idea as to what thunder and lightning are and how they are caused. We can find all this out from text books written by the “bleatings of some fallen men”. Now you, Samurai, may wish to term this kind of learning “the Holy Spirit” , but at the end of the day, both you and I point to the same source – a text book written by the “bleatings of some fallen men”.

So it kind of comes down to “what’s in a name”. You call it “Holy Spirit”, I call it “scientific research and dissemination of the results through text books and journals.”.

Nevertheless, your boasting leads to interesting challenges:-

1) Meteorologists have a very hard time explaining how charge separation occurs in clouds, thus giving rise to lightning in the first place.

So, given the context of Jim’s words and your response, and since the Holy Spirit teaches you all things, you could save an awful lot of folk much time and money, by telling them how that charge separation occurs.

2) Even better still. Scientists really have a very hard job explaining gravity. They can explain macroevolution quite well. They can explain microevolution very well. They can explain thunderstorms fairly well (see above). They can explain what matter is made of very well. They can explain why it rains, very well.

But gravity? That is a real thorny problem.

So, given the context of Jim’s words and your response, and since the Holy Spirit teaches you all things, you could save an awful lot of folk much time and money, by telling them what gravity is.


How about it?

No cheating now, by looking up the journals to see what the competing theories say. No making up stories either. Evidence is required for your explanations.

That last point is important. Without evidence that I can inspect, for all I know you are just one of many fallible claimants to some special knowledge, fallible claimants who reveal continually that they cannot even agree amongst themselves as to who really has that one revelation.

What I am suggesting is that you do what you say can be done.

Or have I misunderstood you in some way?




Regards, Roland

(Me? I’d sooner grovel around in the muck, mayhem, mystery and magnificence of ordinary humans. For all our warts, we are not that bad. And we are able to work a few things out. Even Jorge and you exist in that mucky world of mayhem, mystery and magnificence.)

[Samurai]

Really? I thought the Holy Spirit teaches us in all things?
Samurai - if you believe what you have just said then you should be able to go into a back room, pray a bit, and then walk onto a tarmac and fly a 747 to moscow. Are you seriously suggesting that is a realistic way to learn to fly airplane?

Sweety, we are talking about biblical interpretation not flying 747s. He will teach you concerning all things pertaining to Him.

1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I wasn’t referring to anything other than He teaching us the truth relating to biblical matters. That is what we are discussing aren't we?


Samarai, If we were to eliminate all 'knowledge of men' prior to reading scripture, you would understand not one word of it. Knowledge derived from the natural world is a significant part of what allows us to understand the scriptures. We must know a language, the symbols which encode that language, we must understand the setting of the text, we must know a very great many things to understand scripture - all 'knowledge of men'.

Really? You go too far and you know you do. I don’t know why I should stoop to answer this tripe. What utter hogwash.
You miss my point entirely by resorting to childish exaggeration. I said let me say it again:
So you take the word of secular science in determining which parts of the Bible can be believed at face value?

You don’t need a scientist to tell you what bits of the bible are acceptable and which aren’t. If I said I built a house in 6 days and rested on the seventh, it is self explanatory. That’s what God intended. The situation sadly is this. A God rejecting world of scientists come along and say. No its physically impossible to make a house in 6 days. Look at these solid foundations and enormous pillars. You then take a simple sentence and try and tell it is saying something other than what it plainly states to accommodate an alternative belief. It is your choice.

Faith and the Holy Spirit are other components of that understanding, and they are what enlighten our souls through the reading of the text, but you can't just ignore natural knowledge in the process, otherwise you are a sitting duck for Satanic deception.

No my friend. If you choose to believe something that is in contradiction to the one true God, and what He says then you are open to deception.

Faith and knowledge work hand in hand here. You obviously have not seen the same number of dangerously deceived people operating on 'faith alone' as I have. Have you ever seen a parent who has kept their child away from doctors to the point the child almost died because they 'had faith to believe God for healing'? Have you not noticed how many loons go off killing people in public places because "God told me to"? What you are advocating here is a very dangerous form of willful ignorance, not Faith.

Rubbish. Taking and believing God’s word doesn’t mean loony! Sure there are loonies of every persuasion –so called Christian ones, muslim, atheist etc. You can assume I am one, but my friend, you are dead wrong. God is real and alive today as He was in the day of Moses and His word is unchanging. Anyone says something else? Well they are wrong. Evolution is a matter of faith. Modern cosmological arguments are a matter of faith. None of these things are provable. God has proven Himself over and over to me and I will not doubt Him or His word. Nothing could be plainer. He makes clear the timeline. You have to willfully twist a simple statement into an absurdity to try and accommodate evolution and the Bible.


That is, my interpretation fits those sayings you have referenced by Christ and in Exodus just as well as your interpretation does, yet it allows day in Genesis not to be 24 hours. Those passages you reference do not require day to be 24 hours.

Right. So if I said I spent 6 days in the Carribean, I could really mean 6 weeks or 6 months, or 6 hours or 6 …. Whatever

Well this is just your own ignorance coming into play I guess. Jesus compares the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven with the difficulty of a camel getting through the eye of a needle. That comparison is misunderstood without a knowledge of the culture and idioms of the day.

Right . Thanks for the comment about my ignorance. So how is the saying misunderstood. What cultural insights have you got to add that change the obvious- without God it is impossible?

The fact Jesus says all things are possible with God avoids a critical misunderstanding (which would be that rich people can't get into heaven at all). But the actual comment is not saying it is impossible, it is saying it is very difficult and uncomfortable. It is a misunderstanding of degree. The point is that there is not other scripture one can go to gain that understanding. Yet it is knowledge we must have if we are to have a full That understanding comes solely through the 'knowledge of men' that you label 'evil'. understanding (a non-distorted understanding) of what Jesus is saying there. And indeed - that is the point I am making. There are places in scripture where you must know more than you can get from scripture alone to get a full understanding of what the text is telling us.

What are you on about? I have never labeled knowledge as evil. Any so called knowledge which contradicts the Word is rubbish. That is my point. That scripture is perfectly understandable by the way…

Are you John Martin?

No

In reality, science does not deal in proof. However, if you actually believe the universe revolves about the Earth once per day, then you will have to believe that events on this earth influence the entire cosmos instantly - even to distances of billions of light years. For one can measure the variations in rotational velocity due to tidal friction with the light of quasars billions of light years away. For this to be true in a geocentric universe, the entire universe would have to be changing velocity in sync with the tides - something most people would find absurd to the point of being an indication of mental instability.

Not getting off at this stop.

I would never suggest an interpretaion of the scripture that had Christ being incorrect, would you?

That’s funny ‘cause you state God got it wrong when He said he did it in 6 days and we need to do the same in our week.


"Can" doesn’t mean "was". Because God isn’t bound by time doesn’t mean that when He says it took 6 days it wasn’t 6 days. You are hiding behind these things to try and accomodate your ungodly worldview into scripture.
If you read what I said, you would realize I understand "Can doesn't mean "was". You are the one arguing those days "must" be 24 hours. I am trying to help you realize they do not have to be 24 hours. You see, the only reason to reject the clear indications of nature would be if the text absolutely required this time period be 24 hours. But it doesn't.

Umm which part of morning and evening do you not get? Last time I checked they provide a pretty good parameter of defining a length of time.

So your objections to the conclusions driven by the evidence of nature are not based on textual considerations, but other issues - tradition primarily.

Hogwash. “Evidence of nature” … what are you trying to say? Any school child reading Genesis would come to the conclusion that the Lord did His work in 6 days. They know what a day is, night too. You are trying to complicate a simple sentence. For in 6 days…. It isn’t that hard really.

…but in the larger Christian and secular community, there is no debate on these issues.

That’s because the secular community is controlled by the devil and the vast majority of the church isn’t where God would have them be.


The context of God days and man days rests solely on what the Genesis days are. If I tell my son his model car is 'like' my car, I do not mean he can drive his little car to school. There is a comparison being made here, but its precise correlation is defined by the real definition of each side of the relation. The fact we are to imitate God in our work habits remains regardless of whether the days of creation are 24 hours or billions of years.

The word like a day is nowhere in exodus or genesis. Its not a parable.

They are all of no particular length. What they represent is established in the first 'day'. They do not represent time at all, but a unit of Gods work in bringing the universe into being, in bringing order from chaos. The 'time' value is not the point. It is a secondary relation.

Unbelief at what the prophets have written… They are clearly defined by evening and morning

For the reasons stated above. One could, at day 4, have a literal day. It is now, at day 4, possible for the 'day' to refer to a literal day because all that is required for there to be morning and evening has been created. But the pattern of 'day' NOT being literal is already extablished, and the literary form is such that there is no reason to assume day suddenly switches from metaphor to literal on 'day' 4.

No change is required if they were literal days before the sun and after. This is what God says.


It doesn't fit for the textual reasons sited above. It also doesn't fit the scientific evidence.

That is the crunch isn’t it. You prefer a lie to the truth. Please don’t use the word evidence when there isn’t any.

In refernce to ex 20…If 24 hours, then the correlation is 1:1. if not, then it is simili.

Well God is usually pretty exact isn’t He?


In who’s hands are the majority of the world? God says that because they don’t acknowledge Him they profess themselves wise but have become fools and given over to their vain imaginings.
One must be careful not to overgeneralize this verse. This does not mean everything discovered scientifically is wrong. It refers primarily to the knowledge of God and morality, not the natural world.

I never said all science was wrong. I couldn’t function as a doctor with that stance. Where unprovable positions are taken contrary to the Word Of God, I choose the Word. Very simple.

It is not the 'evolutionist', it is people who willfully reject God. There are Christian evolutionists. Some of them have written books defending the existence of God and the Lordship of Christ (Francis Collins is one). You have overgeneralized the situation to the point of falsely assigning your brothers in Christ who publically defend the Gospel the place of the unbeliever.

No, Christian evolutionists I don’t call unbelievers In God. They just pick and choose which bits they believe in the Word, and as such are not where God wants them to be. Devils believe in God too. No I am not making a judgment call in respect to salvation. But you are in a place the devil prefers.


Accurately regurgitating what you have been taught is not necessarily learning. And if you wish to debate these theories you 'know' feel free. If you have a legitimate case to make, I and many others would love to see it.

I never claimed regurgitating was learning. Regurgitating is a bodily function.I have better things to do, than discuss a false theory. Why can I be so certain?
1) His word is contrary to it (please fit your evolutionary script into the biblical account of Eve as Jorge suggested)
2) God has spoken to me on this issue and confirmed His word.

I will never be swayed.


His call for us to be separate is not a call to purposefully be fools. Jesus told us to be wise as serpents yet harmless as doves. Your willingness to be the fool for Christ is laudable, and we must be willing to be percieved foolish if necessary. But that does not mean we seek it out, or are required to bury our brains in the sand when we accept Christ. Again, let the sumbling block be the Cross, and keep stubborn foolishness based on fear or tradition out of the equation.

Mate, you are foolish. Anyone choosing the world over the word is. I bury my head nowhere. I am extremely high functioning in a very respected well payed position. In the eyes of the world I have it “made” and don’t appear in the least bit foolish. Sure I may be deemed foolish for believing the Bible, But that is what I will do forever more. I won't profess to believe it whilst cutting out verses that aren't palatable or as faithless christians do- twist the text to accommodate a lie.

I think you can do harm to the Gospel in many ways. One is to give in to the world and compromise the truth of the Gospel - which is what you are afraid of here. But another is to be
bring shame to it by dressing it up like a clown. When you claim the Earth and Universe is but 10,000 years old, and then claim science supports that POV, that is precisely what you are doing - dressing the Gospel up in a clown suit and inviting the onlookers to laugh.

Rubbish. The world is quite capable of laughing the gospel to scorn on its own. Taking God at His word I will never be ashamed. It is God’s opinion that counts not people. God saves them, not me by the way. Taking the Lord at His word dresses up the gospel as a clown. Nonsense. You do that. In your version a day, when it is defined by morning and evening, isn’t a day. Nope. For in 6 days… doesn’t mean 6 days. Plant life came about before the sun according the bible, yet you believe we can still say the word is accurate to unbelievers? The Bible says a woman was made from Adam’s rib but evolution had men and women arising together. The Bible has the sun/moon/stars after the earth, hardly compatable with modern cosmological arguments. With just a few points highlighted you can’t claim the bible to unbelievers as an authority if it to be contorted in these few examples to accommodate the modern unprovable, conflicting arguments.

I will trust in Him and His Word. The revelations of this God rejecting world are dung.
The first part I agree with. The second part is arrogance.

Again where they are in contradiction to His word the statement stands.


Jim

[Jorge]

Jorge - we are called to the truth. That means I will be in agreement with ANYONE when what I perceive as the truth is also what they perceive as the truth. I will not refuse to defend someone or something from falsehood in one area because we disagree in another. YEC is essentially nothing more than a huge falsehood. It says that the belief that the Earth and Universe are <10,000 years old can be supported by proper application of the scientific method and process - and that is a lie.

And I dare you to prove me wrong. (of course, that would mean you would have to discuss the science that leads to the conclusions of age that we are discussing - something you refuse to do for obvious reasons - one can't support an age of <10,000 years for the Earth and Cosmos with proper application of the scientific method and process).


Jim

*****************************************************************************

So you "dare" me, huh. You must enjoy taunting me because we've been down this road many times before
and still you keep coming back with the same ol' song. As Steve Martin would say, "One more time ..."

There are matters of science and then there are matters of faith and then there are matters where the two are mixed together. People like yourself can't distinguish between these or choose not to distinguish. The former is ignorance, the latter is being willfully ignorant (you decide where you fit).

As an example, the following assertion is regarded by most as a scientific "fact" : Humans are the product of billions of years of evolutionary processes. The entire thing began with a common, single-celled 'goo' that over the eons produced every living thing alive today including man.

That's what's in the textbooks and that is what's taught as 'scientific fact' to our kids in our tax-paid public schools and it is taught as 'scientific fact' all throught higher education. Try passing a test or getting a degree or landing / retaining certain jobs unless you parrot such "facts". Go ahead, try it.

Now, as I said, that statement is regarded as science. Read my lips : it is no such thing. Whether you are an Atheist or a TE, that statement is mostly a matter of faith, not science. And in that statement people like you share the materialistic, Atheistic ideology of your God-hating adversaries.

Is any of this ever going to make it into the inner cavity of your skull?


Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

*****************************************************************************

So you "dare" me, huh. You must enjoy taunting me because we've been down this road many times before
and still you keep coming back with the same ol' song. As Steve Martin would say, "One more time ..."

There are matters of science and then there are matters of faith and then there are matters where the two are mixed together. People like yourself can't distinguish between these or choose not to distinguish. The former is ignorance, the latter is being willfully ignorant (you decide where you fit).

As an example, the following assertion is regarded by most as a scientific "fact" : Humans are the product of billions of years of evolutionary processes. The entire thing began with a common, single-celled 'goo' that over the eons produced every living thing alive today including man.

That's what's in the textbooks and that is what's taught as 'scientific fact' to our kids in our tax-paid public schools and it is taught as 'scientific fact' all throught higher education. Try passing a test or getting a degree or landing / retaining certain jobs unless you parrot such "facts". Go ahead, try it.

Now, as I said, that statement is regarded as science. Read my lips : it is no such thing. Whether you are an Atheist or a TE, that statement is mostly a matter of faith, not science. And in that statement people like you share the materialistic, Atheistic ideology of your God-hating adversaries.

Is any of this ever going to make it into the inner cavity of your skull?


Jorge

Jorge - the issue in this thread is the length of time over which this universe has existed -the length of the 'day' in Genesis 1. The data that defines the great age of the universe is a very different set than that which implies an evolutionary process for the history of life. I dare you to debate the data and implications of that data which implies great age. That is the data that is essentially incontrovertable and which requires we accept that 'day' in Genesis must be something other than a 24 hour period, or that Genesis 1 is describing some aspect of creation other than the time frame of the creation process(like Morton's days of proclamation).

That science is not something for which your comments can be shown to apply - and that is why you studiously avoid such a debate. The 'ideology' mantra, when it comes to the issue of age, is nothing more than a smoke screen. It has no substance, and you have never been able to establish ANY correlation between that data, its obvious implications, and ideology.

Jim

[rogue06]

Originally posted by samurai
<SNIP>
Right. So if I said I spent 6 days in the Carribean, I could really mean 6 weeks or 6 months, or 6 hours or 6 ?. Whatever
</SNIP>

No. But if you said you made "a day of it" or that you "worked all day" are we automatically to assume you literally spent 24 hours doing something? If we don't does this mean we think you're lying?

[rogue06]

Originally posted by Jorge
So you "dare" me, huh. You must enjoy taunting me because we've been down this road many times before
and still you keep coming back with the same ol' song. As Steve Martin would say, "One more time ..."

Perhaps he is hoping that one day you'll finally accept the challenge. From the rest of your response it is obvious that you still continue to dodge it.

[oxmixmudd]

We aren't getting very far - are we? You have taken a stance and will not be moved. So be it. But please do not then make the absurd claim that stance is based on any kind of reason or science. It is not. And bag the "I've learned these theories" line, you are not the slightest bit interested in what the data or the theories are, your mind is made up and will not be confused by the facts.

Sweety, we are talking about biblical interpretation not flying 747s. He will teach you concerning all things pertaining to Him.

Good you recognize this statement applies to understanding spiritual things. Now the problem for you is that you want to be able to make statements about the natural world derived from a specific interpretation of Genesis. And while the spiritual truths taught in Genesis are not up for much debate, the correlation of the text to the history of the universe simply is not clear. And trying to make that correlation without investigating and understanding nature is very much like trying to fly a 747 by prayer alone. That is what you are missing. History is riddled with failed attempts by well meaning Christians trying to draw correlations from scripture with the natural world without first learning what the true state of the natural world is. But unfortunately, you and many like you are not interested in learning from the mistakes of the past. Galileo should have been a sufficient lesson in this regard, but clearly each generation must learn for themselves.

1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I wasn’t referring to anything other than He teaching us the truth relating to biblical matters. That is what we are discussing aren't we?

No -we are not. We are talking about what the true structure and history of this cosmos is. And this promise may well apply - if one is willing to learn from nature what nature has to teach. But not if one ignores nature in the learning process. There is no Biblical principle from which we can expect to learn about the natural world w/o studying it. The Bible's first purpose is to teach us about spiritual things, not physical things. The chief issue in play here Biblically is understanding the text's correlation with nature. And again, one can't assess that without understanding nature. You clearly don't accept that truth, but that is your mistake and folly.

Really? You go too far and you know you do.

No, I don't. You just don't understand, nor do you appear to be trying to understand, what I am saying. There are rules for interpreting scripture. You can't just decide a passage is superficially literal and then ingore all evidence to the contrary. That leads to error and herasy.

I don’t know why I should stoop to answer this tripe. What utter hogwash.
You miss my point entirely by resorting to childish exaggeration. I said let me say it again:
So you take the word of secular science in determining which parts of the Bible can be believed at face value?

Actually, you are the one twisting the meaning. Science comes into play in interpreating scripture only where scripture speaks concerning what science understands. But any interpretation which leads to physical contradiction is incorrect. You do not seem to be able to process more than a binary on/off kind of reasoing here. And I am not sure I can find an example that will make this clear to you. Nevertheless, just because a superficial reading of Genesis fits with a 24 hour day understanding does not mean that will survive closer inspection.

You don’t need a scientist to tell you what bits of the bible are acceptable and which aren’t. If I said I built a house in 6 days and rested on the seventh, it is self explanatory.

That is because 'day' has a clear context in your statement. If you are in an environment where what a 'day' is is not clearly defined, then I would not know precisely what you mean. If you were building a moon base and said it would take 2 days - do you mean moon days or earth days? You'd need to clarify. If you say You'll read a book starting in the 'evening', I'd need to knnw where you are on the earth to understand what time that might be. If you were not on the earth but some other planet, I'd need to know the environement of that planet to know what time you are talking about as well. So ....

At the time the term day is used first in Genesis, there is no frame of reference yet established in which to define 'day'. This is something you simply refuse to even deal with in your replies, other than to claim "God knows what a day is". Well, sorry, but God is making correlations that are clearly symbolic here. He calls the dark night, the light day. This is not a time based correlation, but a property based correlation. Further, the evening and morning are defined by the presence of earth, sky, sun, moon and stars. evening and morning are not time based events but specific relationships between the observer, sun, sky, and earth. None of these things yet existed. The use of the term is not literal, it is metaphorical. There was no literal evening, nor no literal morning that first day. Each and every term used is in some way a symbol or a metaphor - yet you insist it must be literal. This is totally illogical.

<cut - you aren't listening to or disussing the fine points anyway>

Accurately regurgitating what you have been taught is not necessarily learning. And if you wish to debate these theories you 'know' feel free. If you have a legitimate case to make, I and many others would love to see it.

I never claimed regurgitating was learning. Regurgitating is a bodily function.I have better things to do, than discuss a false theory. Why can I be so certain?
1) His word is contrary to it (please fit your evolutionary script into the biblical account of Eve as Jorge suggested)
2) God has spoken to me on this issue and confirmed His word.

I will never be swayed.

This pretty much sums it up then. As I said above, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with the facts.

The reason for discussing the theory and data is simple. They are in complete contradition to your interpretation. You refuse to consider any other interpretive possibility for Genesis 1, but they are there, whether you'll admit it or not. And in reality, demanding day 1 be literal is an absurdity in that each and every part of that first 'day's description is some kind of metaphor. And when coupled with the evidence for age, the obvious conclusion is that the 24 hour interpretation is flawed. The same God who inspired the scripture made this universe. Your view of the world ignores the witness of creation and proclaims one of several possible understandings of Genesis the one and only correct understanding. This is not a legitimate way to study scipture or arrive at a proper understanding of its text - especially in light of the clear contradiction it creates. And it denies the fallability of the human in understanding the Bible. You can only maintain this view by assuming the scientific evidence is flawed, yet you will not debate it - a good sign deep down you know it is not.

As for the issue with Adam and Eve created at different times, you assume that acceptance of evolution as a basic mechanism precludes any miraculous intervention. It does not (not for a Christian anyway). It merely acknowledges God used the natural laws put in place to do the majority of the work. But this is essentially a speculative issue anyway - we do not have Adam and Eve's bones nor any artifacts attributed directly to them, and so we have no way of knowing anything specific about the events describing them in Genesis other than what Genesis tells us.

This is not the case as regards the length of time this universe has existed.


Jim

[wattsr1]

Sweety, … I don’t know why I should stoop to answer this tripe. What utter hogwash … childish exaggeration .. No my friend … open to deception. Rubbish. … you are dead wrong … You have to willfully twist … an absurdity …. Whatever … Umm … Hogwash. “Evidence of nature” … Any school child
… is controlled by the devil …You prefer a lie to the truth … you are in a place the devil prefers … faithless christians do- twist the … accommodate a lie. … Rubbish. … Nonsense

Short fuse?

Are you John Martin?

No

Well he had divine revelation too.



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

[snip]

You can't just decide a passage is superficially literal and then ingore all evidence to the contrary. That leads to error and herasy.


[snip]

It leads to, as you have already pointed out, Christians having to back-track over such things as Galileo and what he once claimed. As others have pointed out in recent posts, YECs generally used to deny microevolution too, on the grounds of Biblical texts. Now it seems most accept it.

Even more so, in these modern times, it leads to AiG having to put out a list of arguments YECs should not use.

Those arguments were always crap. Yet AiG promoted them and YECs pounded them - all based on specific interpretations of the Bible. It was pointed out to AiG and YECs over and over by Christians of all persuasions* that the arguments were crap.

Now AiG says the arguments shouldn't be used and I believe the organization justified it on the grounds of "scientific progress".

If AiG had an ounce of nouse, it would not have promoted them in the first place.



Regards, Roland

* I gather Christians of the "Sweety, … I don’t know why I should stoop to answer this tripe. What utter hogwash … childish exaggeration … you are dead wrong …You prefer a lie to the truth … you are in a place the devil prefers … faithless " kind.

Funny how you guys get the rants and the raves yet so often end up being right.

[Faid]

So you take the word of secular science in determining which parts of the Bible can be believed at face value?

Samurai, Whose word do YOU take in determining which parts of the Bible can be believed at face value?

And don't insult us by saying "I believe them all": We both know that's not true. Unless you believe the sky is solid, the Earth is a disk supported by pillars, that it stands immobile and the sun, moon and stars revolve around it.

Who dictates YOUR 'beliefs', Samurai?

Hint: It's fallible men, just like those "fallen scientists" of yours.

Like I said: The work of your God is all around you. We can measure and examine it. It's there for all to see. And what do we find? We find out the decay rates of radioactive materials. We find out the speed of light. We find out many more laws and values and constants, interwoven in the structure of the Universe. And the direct conclusion of all these values and processes and laws is that the universe is billions of years old.

Your mentors, on the other hand (and it's THEM that dictate your beliefs, not the Holy Spirit), see nothing wrong in believing the laws we observe today did not work like they did once, or that God changes them at will, or that he simply makes it look like they work. Why wouldn't he? He's Omnipotent, right? And they see no flaw, no sin in believing the laws God himself made (who else? :) ) can be disregarded, over the way THEY want to interpret his words.

Just like Galileo's accusers, they try to deny the evidence of their god's work over their own stubborn interpretation of his message. Just like Galileo's accusers, they try to justify that by defending a supposed literal meaning of Scripture. Only the passages quoted change.
Like them, they are wrong.

So don't play 'holier-than-thou' over your fellow christians. Your beliefs are originating by the teachings of men, just like theirs; only theirs are also in accordance with the WORK of their God, as we perceive it.

That is all.