young creation?

[Old Timer]

Did you read the link I posted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neb, yes I read through most of it, mostly the teaching by Shiloh and your responses.

Now you or Shiloh correct me if I'm wrong.

Shiloh was using the creation account of Genesis to show God's plan of salvation could be seen in the creation process itself. It was an excellent series of posts. However, I did not see in Shiloh's posts any indication that he thought the creation account was ONLY symbolic and not a true account of the history of the creation.

Your responses to Shiloh's teaching indicated you saw only the symbolism of the account. You didn't deny the historicity of the account but never made reference to it. Shiloh never replied to your posts to indicated you should also be aware that the account were factual so, perhaps, I am misunderstanding both your and Shiloh

[nebula]

So . . . you are more concerned with "the Creation process" than God's plan of salvation?

[Old Timer]

So . . . you are more concerned with "the Creation process" than God's plan of salvation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nebula, of course not and I didn't say say that! I am sure you didn't mean any offense with this comment but it is a bit insulting.

There are many symbolic or precursor events in the OT of our coming salvation through Christ. Shiloh gave excellent examples of this in that thread on the symbolism in the creation process.

But, if I may ask you, where does one stop believing it was ONLY symbolic and start to believe that events ALSO actually took place?

When God saved Noah and his family was that ONLY a symbolic event? Was there a world-wide flood?

When Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, obviously a foreshadowing of God

[nebula]

That the events took place is not what I put in question.

What I question is interpreting the ancient writings by the same rules we would write things today.

When you record an event, if you are concerned about "accuracy of events" you will record it differently than if you are concerned about "making meaning out of the event."

I have come to believe the accounts in Genesis were written with the second purpose in mind, yet we waste our efforts focusing on the first purpose.

Do you really believe that is what God gave us these accounts for? To know the physical history of the planet? Is that His reason behind revealing these accounts?

[Botz]

ScientificAtheist...

Why do you believe in God in the first place? I assume this belief is based on some form of evidence? I would also assume that your belief in the bible is based on some form of evidence. Now, evidence takes many forms, perhaps it was an apologetic argument that persuaded you, perhaps personal experience, perhaps a vision, perhaps a combination of many things. But all evidence, nonetheless.

Therefore, given that your belief is based on evidence, surely it is also dependent on evidence. That means that, if new evidence arises, you can't simply throw it out before even looking at it or discussing it on the basis that it may contradict your current belief - after all, that belief was based on evidence - what epistemological basis could you have to trust this evidence and not the new evidence that you are now ignoring?

Now, of course, you may come back and say "well, actually, my belief isn't based on evidence but trust and faith". Fair enough, but then I would say that it is a blind faith, ignoring any evidence that may come along that might contradict it. You can believe in anything with a blind faith, in leprechauns, UFOs, the bible, or any other strange thing. As long as you ignore any evidence and argument against your idea, and take in any evidence or argument for it, then you will always believe in whatever you choose

Hi SA...Hope you don't mind someone with very little Scientific knowledge jumping in...but I want to respond to what you had asked Lekcit.

Why do you believe in God in the first place? I assume this belief is based on some form of evidence?

My personal experience was that one day I heard the Gospel preached and responded to it by repenting of my sins and being made 'G-d aware' by the presence of the Holy Ghost coming and living inside of me...although at the time I would not necessarily have explained it like that. From that time onwards I have never not known the presence of G-d...So the evidence is very much in the fellowship that I have with G-d...it is completely self-sustainable...I cannot escape from His Presence.

I would also assume that your belief in the bible is based on some form of evidence.

The evidence stems from having known the Creator in a personal way...eg. because I trust G-d completely I also trust what is written in the Scriptures because in them I find affirmation of G-d who made Himself known to me.

In my schooling days I was often frustrated when we had to to a critical study of a poem...many times people would say...'well the poet meant this...or the poet meant that'..but unless the poet had written down his intentions it was pretty much guesswork.

When it comes to the Bible the way I would describe understanding it would be as if I was walking and talking to a poet who had written one of those poems...and he was describing to me his thoughts as he crafted the words to form the poem...it is so much easier when you know the Originator.

Therefore, given that your belief is based on evidence, surely it is also dependent on evidence. That means that, if new evidence arises, you can't simply throw it out before even looking at it or discussing it on the basis that it may contradict your current belief - after all, that belief was based on evidence - what epistemological basis could you have to trust this evidence and not the new evidence that you are now ignoring?

Put simply...because I know G-d...literally... I am convinced there is nothing that can undermine His Word...He is not a liar or a con-artist. The only new evidence that I believe worthwhile is that which already confirms what has been established but gives a greater understanding of the ways G-d does things.

You see a Christians current belief is not in some flexible and highly unsatisfactory credo...it is based predominently upon relationship and fellowship with the risen L-rd Jesus and the Scriptures do nothing but substantiate the greatness of the One with whom we have come into this relationship with.

So when someone comes up with so-called evidence that part of the Biblical account is a fraud or just another fallible story or that G-d is a man made concept...I am 100% certain in my own mind that they have not looked at the evidence properly and therefore have come to the wrong conclusions however scholarly their argument might be...this is not burying ones head in the sand..it is a question of knowing with absolute confidence to whom you have entrusted your eternal destiny.

Now, of course, you may come back and say "well, actually, my belief isn't based on evidence but trust and faith". Fair enough, but then I would say that it is a blind faith, ignoring any evidence that may come along that might contradict it. You can believe in anything with a blind faith, in leprechauns, UFOs, the bible, or any other strange thing. As long as you ignore any evidence and argument against your idea, and take in any evidence or argument for it, then you will always believe in whatever you choose

It is based on a personal encounter with the Creator this is not 'blind faith' or believing a set of rules...although it may be frustratingly subjective to an onlooker... the evidence and experience for all these encounters is contained in the 'Manual' and can be corroborated.

It is also not just a question of ignoring so-called evidence that seeks to bring a different perspective...many Christians look deeply into all these things...and do not simply ignore them...but give well reasoned arguments and Scientific arguments why they do not believe the evidence as presented...these apologists can hardly be called blind.

Some people will never cease from arguing against the existence of G-d from whatever perspective...and they will use the subject they are most familiar with to do so...they make it their evangelical mission in life for some curious reason.

It

[Old Timer]

Do you really believe that is what God gave us these accounts for?  To know the physical history of the planet?  Is that His reason behind revealing these accounts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I beleive He gave us these accounts to know the physical history of the palnet as far as He described them. I do not believe it was His only reason.

Now I have answered your questions. You have not answered mine.

[nebula]

Do you really believe that is what God gave us these accounts for?

[nebula]

Do you really believe that is what God gave us these accounts for? To know the physical history of the planet? Is that His reason behind revealing these accounts?

That's exactly why it is there.

Again, if I were concerned about people knowing the history of the planet (as in man's relation to the Earth, I'd go into much, much more detail than was given.

Now if I were concerned about revealing the history of man's relation to God, then the account in Genesis is just fine!

[Old Timer]

If our knowing the history of planet Earth is so important to the Lord, why no mention of the Ice Age?

Why no mention of the formation of the mountains and the canyons?

Why no mention of plate tectonics?

Why no specific mention of the extinctions?

And hey - why hasn't He explained the mysteries of quantum physics?

Why did He not tell His people what the planets actually are?

And why not state in clear and concise terms, "The Earth orbits around the Sun?"

Nebula, this is my last post on this and then I

[nebula]

Fine guys -

You study the Bible to learn about the Earth . . .

I'll study the Bible to learn about God.