Tolken

Fresno Joe - Beloved, This Dear Man Clearly Said A Pagan (A Godless Atheist) Became His Teacher

Blessings Fresno Joe, but I admit I have no idea what you are referring to? Who claimed or intimated that my friends somehow became my teachers?  We exchanged thoughts and ideas relative to my beliefs and their questions... that Shiloh, as a way to avoid the subject at hand, posed the question recalled this same question. That Shiloh finds my answers "meaningless" is laughable to me as I find his non-responses quite lacking in the narrowest of ways.

Shiloh357 - I don't know what it is, but you give the most vague meaningless answers to the simplest questions.

Then again perhaps I'm not as arrogant as some who think they have all of the answers.  Interesting that these same people are incapable of responding other than to ask questions of which only answers within their narrow perspective will suffice. I have responded to your distortions of Genesis...you seem unable to respond in kind so a different tact is in order...interesting.

Shiloh357 - So is that a Yes or a No???

It was a Yes, with qualifications, as I believe God created a dynamic world not a static one...don't you?

Shiloh357 - So do you believe in Evolution and by that I mean, do believe that God caused species to evolve into entirely different species and do you believe that man is evolved from another species or creature?

I simply claim Ecclesiastes 3:11... as you know I do believe in God ordained processes but as to the details I stay away, so involved years ago to no end.  I certainly reject naturalism/materialism and of course abiogenesis ... common descent/ancestry seems a stretch I can't reach but little problem with speciation, mutations, natural selection ...sorry best I can do and as far as I go.  Now, having confessed to simply "I don't know" I would only add that I'm open to possibility. As for "man" it is possible he evolved to a point where "God breathed in to him the breath of life, as I believe "Our image" to be immaterial/non-physical.  Again, as noted we can not know God from beginning to end, so I tend to keep an open mind on some things and close it as quickly as possible on the key issues.

Shiloh357 - God is still the agent of creation.  Created matter still did His bidding.  The land didn't create the animals God.  You need to read into verse 25 where it says that God made the animals after their own kind.

I don’t believe I meant to imply that the land created but rather God through by land/earth/dust. I have read verse 25 and clearly it is explanatory...unless you do not believe that God’s command was the sole operative agent and all sufficient? What follows the command must be an explanation if we are to believe what Genesis and supporting verses state.

Quote - Mediate creation does mean that God told the earth to create the animals.  It simply means that God created out of physical matter.  You are skewing the facts.

That is your opinion whereas I believe it is quite possible that “God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced”. This does not negate that God is the sole creator in any way, simply how God chose to create. As you state “Created matter still did His bidding”, and that is all I am suggesting.

Quote - Mediate creation does mean that God told the earth to create the animals.  It simply means that God created out of physical matter.  You are skewing the facts.

(I take it you meant "does not mean") No, I’m not skewing the facts or the written word...scripture says “let the land produce...”, I’m suggesting just what you wrote “created matter did His bidding”...how, by a God ordained process. (And yes, I also use mediate creation as defined as God using an intermediate agency to accomplish His purpose/creation) So mediate creation can be so defined, for as I noted above “At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it is an openly debatable point.” I simply see in God’s word both levels involved.  Further, I have little interest any longer in the details, specifics, debate, and such on evolution...I simply view the term as a process of life’s diversity and the particulars can be battled out elsewhere.  As Chesterton said “for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside of time.

Shiloh357 - Your position can't be supported by any evidence or you would have produced some evidence. Frankly you have nothing and trying to redefine evolution is proof that your reasoning is dead in the water.

Skirt the issue if you will...you may check other threads in which I qualified in the same exact way. There is no need to redefine evolution as you have chosen your definition and I have chosen mine.  As you are aware many YEC hold to any number of evolutionary details, natural selection, mutations, etc. so it all comes down to defining terms.  That you find the term "evolution" abhorrent in any manner is a problem you have not me.

Shiloh357 - It nothing but your personal opinoin, your personal reading of the text and what you want the text to mean.  You are trying read Evolution into the text.

Do you believe that God’s commands are the sole operative of creation?  Does Gen. 1:24 command the “land to produce...”? If God’s commands are sole and all sufficient then what follows must be explanatory otherwise show me how the commands are not sole/all sufficient? 

Shiloh357 - The difference is that immediate creation was that which was created out of nothing.  Mediate creation is simply creating out of existing matter.  Either way God is the agent of creation.  Nothing evolved.  God called it into existence and it arrived perfectly as God intended without the need of millions of years of evolution. 

Which is why I noted this ...“At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it an openly debatable point.” Show me in Gen. 1:24 where God called living creatures into existence ...I will show you where God commanded the land to produce living creatures?  And you call that my personal reading?  The text nowhere states "And God said, let there be living creatures..." it seems you are reading into the text.

Cobalt1959 - I am reading Genesis "plainly," and I am not deriving the same meaning from it, and I have never met anyone else who got the meaning that you place on it either.  So saying "I read it and get this meaning" is not proof.  It is only personal opinion, and since you offer no explanation of how you actually arrive at that meaning, you are not engaged in any interpretation or exegesis. 

Perhaps one should read “plainly” but with their critical thinking intact.  It is not my personal opinion but a standard of theology, one need only peruse a Systematic Theology book or read the writings of myriad theologians past and present to gain insight on the use of the term.  One will even find Mediate creation on answersingenesis.org, so prior to engaging in a discussion of Genesis 1 it would be wise to have some understanding of accepted terms.

Quote - As shiloh says, Genesis 1:24  talks of the animal kinds, (miyn).  God created the animals, and the species of animals, at the same time.  There was no evolutionary process at creation that involved animals evolving into other types of animals.  Your "plain reading" of the text which you claim illustrates a mediate process is dispelled in the next verse:

First a general look at Genesis 1 and it’s construction.  “And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5)  One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

You conveniently left out that germane part of the verse... “And God said, let the land produce...”. Understanding as we do that the command is the sole operative then one can’t help but notice that the command/fiat is directed not to animals but to the land.  Gen. 1:24 speaks to the mediate creation of animals as we know that animals like “man” were created from the “dust” of the earth/land.  Earth/Land/Dust being a pre-existing material thus at one level clearly mediate creation. The passage avoids “let there be living creatures...” but again if the command itself is the sole operative then it is quite plain what God is commanding...the land.

Quote - Genesis 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Here again is where one needs to read Genesis with some critical thinking though it is quite “plain”. If as scripture states the sole and only operative agent in creation was God’s commands (Psalm 33:6, etc.) then logically what follows the command/fiat is explanatory.  “And God made...” statements are not the operative commands, but an explanation of results.

Quote - Verse 26 says that same thing about man.  Verse 21 says the same thing about the sea creatures.  All three verses say that God created the animals and man Himself, directly, not through a "process."  And if there were no theory of evolution to use to interpolate on the text, no one would come up with the meaning you do from verse 24.

Verse 26 is so clearly mediate creation as man was made from “dust”, just as were the animals and plants. At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it an openly debatable point.  The further question regarding man becomes does “Our image” mean spiritual or physical?

So the verses in question do not actually state that God made anything directly but through mediate creation. The question then becomes, how?  Creation was obviously a supernatural event however were the processes that we see today invoked by God at the outset?  Is it not possible that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?

Once again “evolution” rears it’s ugly head based on your definition of the term. You will note, if you so choose, that nowhere in the previous thread did I support a specific “evolution”.  The only thing suggested was the use of the term to mean “God ordained processes”.  Further, with a modicum of consideration one will realize that there exists a vast array of things we wouldn’t know if it wasn’t for science, and any number of things that support the scriptures.

Shiloh357 - You have been avoiding that issue every time it is brought up in other threads as well.  So I am surprised that you are grasping for any excuse you can find to not address it here.

Can you please direct me to the post where you addressed the 4 words other then to say they don't mean what I state they mean? Further did you first answer whether "Our image" was spiritual or physical?  Would someone like to start a thread on this?

Cobalt1959 - It is also telling that you completely avoid the question as to whether man himself was part of this "process."

As this is not the thread to discuss I would look forward to discussion on another thread.  I will only note that neither you nor Shiloh addressed those 4 words other than to suggest they didn't mean what they say?  I will address man when someone addresses those 4 words, as I previously stated.

Shiloh357 - God is the agent of creation. He is not telling the earth to create.  God is doing the creating.  Evidently you are unwilling to accept that important truth.  You are perverting the Scriptures.

God speaks into existence all that is.  That isn't Evolution, its creation.

I am not trying to get around God's commandments.  Where does that come from.

Yes, to some degree you certainly are...God commands the land/water (yes, I'm a broken record because simply put that is exactly what scripture states...plainly)  God's commands are the sole and only operative agent of creation. All that I am pointing out is that in various verses God's commands/fiats are clearly directed, and they are directed to empower through agency thus "Let the land/water/etc.   Where does God directly command the creation of vegetation, fish, birds, animals, etc., He doesn't but He does command various sources...therefore the bible states mediate creation.  How is what I've stated contradictory to scripture?

Further, my use of evolution in no way supports abiogenesis or any definition of the term that would eliminate God, thus I prefer God ordained processes. Unless one can show where "Let the land/water/etc." is not a command to a process then the interpretation based on a number of sources stands from my perspective. Other then dismissing the "four words" please show where this is reading into Genesis? A simpler question - Does God command the land/water/etc. to produce, or not? 

Shiloh357 - The burden of proof is on you and until you prove your position, I don't have nothing intelligent to refute.

I offered sufficient proof by the plain reading of Genesis...where God commands the land/water/etc. to produce, obviously there is nothing to refute because that is exactly what the bible states. Mediate creation, as in God commanding the land/water...not trees, bushes, plants, fish, birds, or any animal but rather land, water, etc.

Again, explain your way around God's commands/fiats...I'm just relating what God's word says. My position is proven simply by posting the verses on the other hand obviously it is irrefutable as you and others can offer no reasoned response other than denial of God's word.

Cobalt1959 - And when it comes to the animals, you rest your assertion on four words that do not have the meaning you place upon them.

First, it involves more then one verse but I did use  Gen. 1:24 as an example. So I have posited my general interpretation of those "four words", and still I await anyone to offer a "substantial" counter perspective.  Or perhaps you are suggesting that the "four words" are meaningless, especially if not in line with your view?

Shiloh357 - You need to believe the Bible instead weaving fairytales..

Actually, I believe the Bible and still you have no explanation for "Let the land, waters, etc.",  mediate creation is not  "my invention" but clearly in the text. That Creation was a supernatural event is not the question, rather the question is how?  I have offered an intellectually honest answer which you and others are incapable of addressing except for vague attempts to belittle. That is where we stand...........

Shiloh357 - Your position lacks complete intellectual credibility and should be treated as the empty, pointless drivel that it is.

As you are aware this is pointless...the scriptures clearly state Mediate creation as "Let the land produce..." suggests. I have asked for interpretation/view/perspectives on that clear statement and received nothing in return but a feeble attempt with "you are imposing", "empty claim",  "fertile imagination", "intellectual credibility".

Once again, "And God said, Let the land..." please explain how that is not a command for the land, water, etc. to be the "agency" of His creation? Further, since this commanded agency would clearly involve God imbuing the land, water, etc. with the capacity to produce how does that not strongly imply a process?  Show me how one comes to the conclusion of "immediate" creation when as noted the scripture says no such thing?    

Shiloh357 - the one with the empty responses is you.  You are the one making stuff up and trying to insert it into the Bible as if it were "clearly stated."

So essentially you can not explain what "Let the land...", Let the waters...", etc. mean in terms of creation? 

I am simply reading what the Bible says, and any "thinking" person would give pause to "Let the land..." as opposed to "Let there be living creatures...". In 6 days God commanded all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced.  That you seek to impose a particular pejorative version of "evolution" into this is of your doing not mine.  

Shiloh357 - Cobalt is right. You are imposing what you want on to the text.  There is no clear statement about a mediate creation or any processes.  Your continued empty claim to that effect isn't going to get off the ground.  You see what you want to see, and not what the text actually says.  Your position is weak and baseless and no thinking person should accept it.

Another empty response... Please explain to me how "And God said, Let the land produce..." does not clearly lead a "thinking" person to conclude mediate creation?  How is that not clear?  What have I imposed, as that is exactly what the text states. Why does the text state "Let the land..." please explain? At this point I would just as easily suggest that you and others "see what you want to see and not what the text actually says". 

Shiloh357 - Your arguments have no substance and certainly have no truth in them.

My assertion is quite simple, the scripture clearly states (again using Gen. 1:24) "Let the land produce..." please explain to me how that means anything other then mediate creation? The Bible does not say "Let there be living creatures...", nor "Let there be vegetation....", nor "Let there be in the water living creatures...", nor etc., God invokes the land to bring forth/produce living creatures. Again, I appreciate that many find the term "evolution", which allows for much equivocation, but there is absolutely no suggestion of common ancestry involved on my part or in any sense abiogenesis.

Quote - You are trying write Evolution into the text of Genesis when the very wording of the text (which you of necessity must completely ignore) precludes the possibility of Evolution.

Why the capital E for evolution...it would seem that you are attempting to impose into my view something that was never stated. As I've noted my use of "evolution" is defined only as a "God ordained process", nothing more with the specific details as yet not fully known.  Also, I believe that you and others are simply avoiding what is plainly written in the text.

Quote - The problem is that you don't seem to want to face the fact that when the Bible says that God saw what He had made on the days of creation and said "it is good" it meant that it was as "good as it can be." 

It isn't at all a problem for me, the problem lies in the simple fact that you believe in "immediate" creation when the bible as referenced in the various verses states no such thing.  The only thing that the bible states is that God's commands were "so" and then on a specific day.

Quote - You still have not dealt with, as far as I can tell,  the problem that the creation of man presents for your claim that Evolution is present in Genesis 1.

What were living creatures made from?  What is "our image", physical or spiritual?

Cobalt1959 - You want to believe evolution over what the Bible says, and you are forcing your personal beliefs onto the text.

Obviously there exists no ability to answer "Let the Land..." , the fact that it clearly states mediate creation, and the fact that it imposes a process. Attempting to assert what I "want" to believe hardly addresses the scripture. Further, there is no suggestion on my part to equate darwinsim/neo-darwinism as to the details of the God ordained processes stated in Genesis, other than to allow the use of the term "evolution", though not in the extreme context which you and others choose to impose. 

Shiloh357 - That is complete and utter nonsense.   There are NO processes mentioned, certainly not evolutionary ones.  You are trying to pencil into the Bible what isn't there.

Note my answer above to Cobalt1959 and show me where I've used a pencil?  So good and very good is perfect? I guess we have different definitions of "perfect".

Cobalt1959 -  I thought you would have something a little more substantial since you spoke on this process with so much confidence.

Perhaps a delicate reading of Genesis would be of benefit.  "And it was so."...What was so? That the command "Let the land..." was so.  When was the command/fiat given..."Let the land ..." Gen. 1:13, "Let the waters..." Gen. 1:20, etc. So please explain how these commands/fiats, the sole creative act, not express processes?  The designation of a specific day is paired with a command(s). So there is no denial of "In six days...".

Quote - God spoke things into existence as they were designed to be, from that moment.

That is not what scripture states...God commands "Let the ..." and that is mediate creation. Further I will answer your question regarding man when we come to some resolve of the general issue.

Cobalt1959 - I'm still waiting to see you illustrate that process you are talking about from the book itself.  Since you are convinced as to what the process is, it should be very simple for you to show it to us, scripturally.

Gen. 1:24 "And God said,'Let the land produce living creatures'.....And it was so."  Clearly then the bible speaks of mediate creation, a process.

Cobalt1959 - Evolution would be a pretty clumsy way for an all-powerful God to go about creating it.

Why? Again, a plain reading of Genesis 1 states processes, any aversion to the term "evolution" does not diminish that fact.