Genesis 1:2

[nebula]

Please refer to the response I directed One Light to for my final word on the matter.

 

Actually, let me post this again, since it seems to have gotten lost.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

My belief is that God's revelation of creation was not presented in a way that was meant to be interpreted scientifically, like YEC tries to make of it. (After all, they want it taught in science classes.) It was meant to be interpreted theologically. I refer back to what I wrote a few posts ago concerning the ancient Hebrew mindset.

Was God interested in telling the people, "Look at what I can do in 24 hours!"? Or was He telling the people, "This is how I turned the darkness into a new dawning!"?

While the first interpretation may give you a sense of the bigness of God, it also makes Him seem, well, "out there", unapproachable. The second gives a sense of the nearness of God, like the gentle hands caressing an injured bird an healing its wings. Instead of God's magnificence being the "big power", His magnificence is being the healer, the deliverer, the restorer - like we see Jesus when He walked this earth.

When darkness is surrounding me and my life is in chaos, I don't need the Great Cosmic Being who created a septillion stars and innumerably more planets in 24 hours, I need the God who is attached to my chaos, darkness, and void, and will bring me into His light, make order of the chaos, and bring new life out of the void. Interpreting Genesis 1 for scientific historicity does not give the latter to me.

So how do I interpret the "days" of Genesis? I have no reason to believe that "time" was God's concern in this, and thus it is not mine either.

I read Genesis 1 to find God, not find the earth and the cosmos.

[Enoch2021]

The reason youth are leaving the church and not seeking to go there can be for what they perceive as a lack of love, judgmental attitudes and critical spirits.  I hear Christians on the radio and TV talk disparagingly of others and especially if they do not agree with them politically or religiously .  They point out the sins of the world, but do little to really show the love of Christ to others.  They are not warm, welcoming, understanding, seeking the good of their neighbor, being there for those in need, inviting them to their homes and showing hospitality.  They are not truly being like their Master.  I have, at times been guilty of this behavior, during my Christian life.  I wonder how many I have repelled for Christ, rather than attracted for Christ.  I hope G-d gives me more time to make it up.  It makes me sad to see the state of the Church today.  It is hard to sometimes to tell the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian in the US today.

 

 

 

I have to agree with alot of what you said but would like to add "science" and "evolution" to your list.....what they perceive as a lack of love, judgmental attitudes and critical spirits.

 

"I wonder how many I have repelled for Christ, rather than attracted for Christ."

 

IMHO, That would depend on how you did it.  If you showed them the TRUTH and the CLEAR Teachings in the WORD, Then you did your duty.  It's THEIR decision, and the Work of the Holy Spirit, whether to accept or reject @ that point.

 

We don't SAVE, only GOD can do that.

 

Also, The LORD doesn't subscribe to "The End Justifies The Means" scenario.  If you think he does, please read 1 Samuel 15 for a wake up call.

[Enoch2021]

 

"In addition, the Creation account given is very similar to the stories of creation given by other cultures. Comparing what God revealed in Genesis to what the nations at the time said"

 

Then you said....

 

"Are you searching the Scriptures to know the Creature or to know the Creator?"

 

From your first statement, I would ask that question of you?

It is valid exegesis to study Scripture in light of the culture and the time to interpret it as they would have.

Ask yourself, was God giving the Israelites revelation to counter modern science, or was God giving the Isaelites revelation to counter the creation account they were brought up with in Egypt?

Anyway, it's late and I have work I should have started 3 hours ago.

Please refer to the response I directed One Light to for my final word on the matter.

 

 

"It is valid exegesis to study Scripture in light of the culture and the time to interpret it as they would have."

 

Mularky!!  GOD wrote HIS Love Letter to Me.  Moreover, we're talking about the first few chapters Genesis!!  I grant you, there is some insight into: Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and others, dealing with the "Culture" that can be gleaned from Scripture without a doubt.  But GOD is the the one who drove those "cultural" changes most likely to drive out the Centuries of Pagan Worship that encompassed the "Culture".

 

 

You also FAILED to Address 99.9% of the content of my post.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

are trying to PROTECT people from these doctrines, right?

Protect them from what?

Do I need protection too?

Protection from what?

 

 

75% of churched youth leave the church altogether within two years of graduation from high school.  Many of these Christian youth grew up in a social church bubble and their lazy youth leaders never taught them any critical thinking skills, never exposed them to the challeges they would face in college and how to respond to them.   As a result many churched youth attend university science classes and their atheistic/agnostic professors convince them that the Bible is wrong, that God didn't create the earth in six days and that Genesis is a fairytale.   They graduate from college with a shipwrecked faith and are unable to believe the Bible, not just about Genesis;  they can believe any of it.   None of it can be trusted.   We have one member on this board who is a good example of what I am talking about. She is a young girl just out of university or just about to graduate and she was on fire for Jesus going into college and is a professed atheist now and she credits her atheism, in part to the science professors at her university.

 

OEC puts science in the dirver's seat when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture.  It means that the Bible must bow the knee to theories of fallible, little men.  It means that science wields more authority than God does, since God's word can't be trusted as a true and accurate record of history.

We've already agreed in prior posts that these are nonessential matters, so what kind of protection do we need?

 

 

I didn't agree with nonessential.  I said I didn't believe that a person had to be YEC in order to be saved.   There is quite a bit of difference between saying it is a nonessential issue and saying it is nonessential for salvation.   There are all kinds of essential teachings in the Bible that are nonessential for salvation.

Do you honestly believe God needs all of us to believe exactly as you do in these nonessential matters in order for us to be effective Christians and ambassadors for Christ?

Not at all.  But God does expect us to honor and trust His word even when trust His word makes us look foolish in the eyes of the world.   Trusting in God's word above everything else DOES make you a more effective Christian and Ambassador for Jesus.  In fact, I have never seen an effective Christian who didn’t have that kind of trust.

 

 

 

Look at all the old earthers here at this forum who have spoken up.

 

 

Do you see your light any brighter than theirs? Do you see their belief in these "false doctrines" (your words) in any way hurting their Christian witness?

I don't. Do you?

 

 

 

The potential is there.   You have no idea who all is reading and those who diminish the authority of God’s words in deference to science may be planting seeds that eventually will bring a harvest they didn’t intend.   It may not be something you are even aware on this side of eternity.  How devestating to find out that someone read your words and agreed that the Bible’s account of creation can’t be trusted to be factual and that maybe one day, down the road, maybe years later that seed is watered by others who don’t think the Bible can be trusted and some day, it germinates and grows in to unbelief, and that person teaches their children the same thing.  You never know what kind of harvest will come from seeds of compromise you sow today.  I would not want their blood on my hands when I stand before the throne.

 

 

Look at Abraham. He compromised on God’s word to him and we are still reaping the harvest of that error, 4000 years later.

 

 

Has it ever occurred to you that believing in a young earth might be a stumbling block for some people? Some seekers just may think, there is no way I could believe this, so I might as well not even try to consider the claims of Christ?

 

No that doesn’t occur to me because no one’s faith has ever been shipwrecked by those who teach us to trust God’s word.  There is not one reported case of someone losing their faith solely based on what the Bible says.  

 

 

I can find scores of people whose faith was shipwrecked when they decided to abandon the biblical record.  It didn’t happen overnight, but they end up walking away.  OEC is one step down that slope for some people.   If someone looks at the Bible and says, I can’t believe that, it is because there is a competing influence that tells them the Bible can’t be trusted to be true.

 

Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it and many Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past.  It is more of a stretch to make YEC fit and as Spock said could be a stumbling block to those who are seeking, but cannot get past a mere 24 hour period being the initial creation of the earth.  OEC explains it scientifically, with Bible references and does not compromise G-d as the great and wonderful creator; who has been creating from the very, very, very beginning.  Before earth was formed.

 

 

"Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it"

 

"Scientific Evidence", eh?

 

Pray Tell........?

 

"OEC explains it scientifically"

 

Ok, and........?

 

Define Scientifically.....?

 

 

"Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past."

 

Which ones are those.......?

 

 

All you have given here are Assertions: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion

 

 

Can you support these with reason??

[Spock]

are trying to PROTECT people from these doctrines, right?

Protect them from what?

Do I need protection too?

Protection from what?

 

75% of churched youth leave the church altogether within two years of graduation from high school.  Many of these Christian youth grew up in a social church bubble and their lazy youth leaders never taught them any critical thinking skills, never exposed them to the challeges they would face in college and how to respond to them.   As a result many churched youth attend university science classes and their atheistic/agnostic professors convince them that the Bible is wrong, that God didn't create the earth in six days and that Genesis is a fairytale.   They graduate from college with a shipwrecked faith and are unable to believe the Bible, not just about Genesis;  they can believe any of it.   None of it can be trusted.   We have one member on this board who is a good example of what I am talking about. She is a young girl just out of university or just about to graduate and she was on fire for Jesus going into college and is a professed atheist now and she credits her atheism, in part to the science professors at her university.

 

OEC puts science in the dirver's seat when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture.  It means that the Bible must bow the knee to theories of fallible, little men.  It means that science wields more authority than God does, since God's word can't be trusted as a true and accurate record of history.

We've already agreed in prior posts that these are nonessential matters, so what kind of protection do we need?

 

I didn't agree with nonessential.  I said I didn't believe that a person had to be YEC in order to be saved.   There is quite a bit of difference between saying it is a nonessential issue and saying it is nonessential for salvation.   There are all kinds of essential teachings in the Bible that are nonessential for salvation.

Do you honestly believe God needs all of us to believe exactly as you do in these nonessential matters in order for us to be effective Christians and ambassadors for Christ?

Not at all.  But God does expect us to honor and trust His word even when trust His word makes us look foolish in the eyes of the world.   Trusting in God's word above everything else DOES make you a more effective Christian and Ambassador for Jesus.  In fact, I have never seen an effective Christian who didn’t have that kind of trust.

 

 

 

Look at all the old earthers here at this forum who have spoken up.

 

 

Do you see your light any brighter than theirs? Do you see their belief in these "false doctrines" (your words) in any way hurting their Christian witness?

I don't. Do you?

 

 

 

The potential is there.   You have no idea who all is reading and those who diminish the authority of God’s words in deference to science may be planting seeds that eventually will bring a harvest they didn’t intend.   It may not be something you are even aware on this side of eternity.  How devestating to find out that someone read your words and agreed that the Bible’s account of creation can’t be trusted to be factual and that maybe one day, down the road, maybe years later that seed is watered by others who don’t think the Bible can be trusted and some day, it germinates and grows in to unbelief, and that person teaches their children the same thing.  You never know what kind of harvest will come from seeds of compromise you sow today.  I would not want their blood on my hands when I stand before the throne.

 

 

Look at Abraham. He compromised on God’s word to him and we are still reaping the harvest of that error, 4000 years later.

 

 

Has it ever occurred to you that believing in a young earth might be a stumbling block for some people? Some seekers just may think, there is no way I could believe this, so I might as well not even try to consider the claims of Christ?

 

No that doesn’t occur to me because no one’s faith has ever been shipwrecked by those who teach us to trust God’s word.  There is not one reported case of someone losing their faith solely based on what the Bible says.  

 

 

I can find scores of people whose faith was shipwrecked when they decided to abandon the biblical record.  It didn’t happen overnight, but they end up walking away.  OEC is one step down that slope for some people.   If someone looks at the Bible and says, I can’t believe that, it is because there is a competing influence that tells them the Bible can’t be trusted to be true.

Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it and many Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past.  It is more of a stretch to make YEC fit and as Spock said could be a stumbling block to those who are seeking, but cannot get past a mere 24 hour period being the initial creation of the earth.  OEC explains it scientifically, with Bible references and does not compromise G-d as the great and wonderful creator; who has been creating from the very, very, very beginning.  Before earth was formed.

 

"Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it"

 

"Scientific Evidence", eh?

 

Pray Tell........?

 

"OEC explains it scientifically"

 

Ok, and........?

 

Define Scientifically.....?

 

 

"Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past."

 

Which ones are those.......?

 

 

All you have given here are Assertions: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion

 

 

Can you support these with reason??

Don't do it shar. Don't bite his bait here.

Enoch has on many threads made his stance pretty clear- he doesn't believe any scientific data is reliable. He discounts it all, so there is nothing you could say to move him. And then we will have to read what he has written many times over. I'm pretty sure Enoch is retired and perhaps looking to "kill" some time here. Lol

Besides, I'm sure he has read your words on these matters in other threads too. Tell him to do a search if he really wants to know your support of either scripture or science.

You have been warned my beloved sister in Christ. Choose wisely.

Spock out (and hoping)

[Shar]

I have to agree with Spock.  You can go to the "OEC New Heavens and New Earth" thread and see the many postings that have been made.  Do not want to keep posting it and definitely not on different threads.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

"Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it"

 

"Scientific Evidence", eh?

 

Pray Tell........?

 

"OEC explains it scientifically"

 

Ok, and........?

 

Define Scientifically.....?

 

 

"Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past."

 

Which ones are those.......?

 

 

All you have given here are Assertions: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion

 

 

Can you support these with reason??

Don't do it shar. Don't bite his bait here.

Enoch has on many threads made his stance pretty clear- he doesn't believe any scientific data is reliable. He discounts it all, so there is nothing you could say to move him. And then we will have to read what he has written many times over. I'm pretty sure Enoch is retired and perhaps looking to "kill" some time here. Lol

Besides, I'm sure he has read your words on these matters in other threads too. Tell him to do a search if he really wants to know your support of either scripture or science.

You have been warned my beloved sister in Christ. Choose wisely.

Spock out (and hoping)

 

 

Spock that is one of the Funniest Color Comments that I've seen, Truly. 

 

 

I do have a couple issues with your facts, however.....

 

"he doesn't believe any scientific data is reliable."  

 

Strawman!!

 

I believe (just a few for Brevity):

 

My Blood Type is O-.

 

The Citric Acid Cycle (TCA or Krebs Cycle) for Cellar Respiration.

 

Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

Einstein's Theory of Gravity.  (Note: this is getting to "Fact" Territory).....http://www.wsws.org/...5/nasa-m13.html

 

Law of Biogenesis.

 

Amino Acids Polymerize to form Proteins.

 

Sugars Polymerize to form Polysaccharides. (Starches)

 

Nucleotides Polymerize to form Nucleic Acids.

 

That the Sun's Energy will not polymerize the above molecules without the Mitochondria/ Chloroplasts(for plants), here FIRST!!!

 

That Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds).

 

Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

 

That "nature" can not produce "Specific Complexity."

 

Good, or should I go on........?

[Spock]

"Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it"

"Scientific Evidence", eh?

Pray Tell........?

"OEC explains it scientifically"

Ok, and........?

Define Scientifically.....?

"Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past."

Which ones are those.......?

All you have given here are Assertions: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion

Can you support these with reason??

Don't do it shar. Don't bite his bait here.

Enoch has on many threads made his stance pretty clear- he doesn't believe any scientific data is reliable. He discounts it all, so there is nothing you could say to move him. And then we will have to read what he has written many times over. I'm pretty sure Enoch is retired and perhaps looking to "kill" some time here. Lol

Besides, I'm sure he has read your words on these matters in other threads too. Tell him to do a search if he really wants to know your support of either scripture or science.

You have been warned my beloved sister in Christ. Choose wisely.

Spock out (and hoping)

Spock that is one of the Funniest Color Comments that I've seen, Truly.

I do have a couple issues with your facts, however.....

"he doesn't believe any scientific data is reliable."

Strawman!!

I believe (just a few for Brevity):

My Blood Type is O-.

The Citric Acid Cycle (TCA or Krebs Cycle) for Cellar Respiration.

Laws of Thermodynamics.

Einstein's Theory of Gravity. (Note: this is getting to "Fact" Territory).....http://www.wsws.org/...5/nasa-m13.html

Law of Biogenesis.

Amino Acids Polymerize to form Proteins.

Sugars Polymerize to form Polysaccharides. (Starches)

Nucleotides Polymerize to form Nucleic Acids.

That the Sun's Energy will not polymerize the above molecules without the Mitochondria/ Chloroplasts(for plants), here FIRST!!!

That Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds).

Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

That "nature" can not produce "Specific Complexity."

Good, or should I go on........?

Lol. You are just as good as I am with your color commentary.

You would have caused an instant heart attack had you included " radioactive dating" in your above list. Phew. Thanks for saving my life.

PS. O- blood- a universal donor, but not receiver. Interesting.

PPS. By the way Enoch, mind me asking your area of expertise, be it educational or occupational? Are all those biology interests your vocation? Or hobby?

[Enoch2021]

I have to agree with Spock.  You can go to the "OEC New Heavens and New Earth" thread and see the many postings that have been made.  Do not want to keep posting it and definitely not on different threads.

 

You MUST and HAVE TO agree with him.

 

 

"Do not want to keep posting it and definitely not on different threads."

 

So you're saying that justifies your continued posting of Baseless Assertions?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

 "Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it"

 

"Scientific Evidence", eh?

 

Pray Tell........?

 "OEC explains it scientifically"

 

Ok, and........?

 

Define Scientifically.....?

 

 "Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past."

 

Which ones are those.......?

 

 

All you have given here are Assertions: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion

 

 

Can you support these with reason??

Don't do it shar. Don't bite his bait here.

Enoch has on many threads made his stance pretty clear- he doesn't believe any scientific data is reliable. He discounts it all, so there is nothing you could say to move him. And then we will have to read what he has written many times over. I'm pretty sure Enoch is retired and perhaps looking to "kill" some time here. Lol

Besides, I'm sure he has read your words on these matters in other threads too. Tell him to do a search if he really wants to know your support of either scripture or science.

You have been warned my beloved sister in Christ. Choose wisely.

Spock out (and hoping)

 

Spock that is one of the Funniest Color Comments that I've seen, Truly. 

 

 

I do have a couple issues with your facts, however.....

 

"he doesn't believe any scientific data is reliable."  

 

Strawman!!

 

I believe (just a few for Brevity):

 

My Blood Type is O-.

 

The Citric Acid Cycle (TCA or Krebs Cycle) for Cellar Respiration.

 

Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

Einstein's Theory of Gravity.  (Note: this is getting to "Fact" Territory).....http://www.wsws.org/...5/nasa-m13.html

 

Law of Biogenesis.

 

Amino Acids Polymerize to form Proteins.

 

Sugars Polymerize to form Polysaccharides. (Starches)

 

Nucleotides Polymerize to form Nucleic Acids.

 

That the Sun's Energy will not polymerize the above molecules without the Mitochondria/ Chloroplasts(for plants), here FIRST!!!

 

That Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds).

 

Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

 

That "nature" can not produce "Specific Complexity."

 

Good, or should I go on........?

Lol. You are just as good as I am with your color commentary.

You would have caused an instant heart attack had you included " radioactive dating" in your above list. Phew. Thanks for saving my life.

PS. O- blood- a universal donor, but not receiver. Interesting.

 

 

LOL....I thought about Radiometric Dating,  No Joke.

 

I was going to put it in the middle of the list.....just to make sure whomever responded..... READ the Post.  LOL

 

I have been known to put "things" in the body of a post, that Lets say.....Shouldn't be there,  just to TEST.   It's a Hoot when they don't respond to those "things" in their reply