Jump to content
Scott Free

7000 Years of Creation is Incorrect Speculation.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Creation are stages of evolution each millions of years long (a requirement of macro-evolution) is not Scriptural.

The current ultra-literal interpretations that lead to young earth creationism are not required by the text, and having a rigid interpretation, regardless of what other evidence comes to the scene, is causing unnecessary conflict and ridicule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

The current ultra-literal interpretations that lead to young earth creationism are not required by the text, and having a rigid interpretation, regardless of what other evidence comes to the scene, is causing unnecessary conflict and ridicule.

A young earth is what is stated in Genesis... literal 24 hr days! Even in Exodus God place a comparative which seals the deal... 
It is of old 'Hath God said' any departing from the 24 hr day of Genesis is departing from the plain intent of Scripture on this point. The best part about the Scriptures is that God has said it and either people stand with God or with whatever the influence is that they think is more likely not of God... 

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

literal 24 hr days

Is this story told from the reference of someone placed on Earth? No, it is from the point of view of God and a day to Him might not be what we expect. The whole area of hermeneutics requires more sophistication than simply saying the most literal interpretation of every verse has to be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

Is this story told from the reference of someone placed on Earth? No, it is from the point of view of God and a day to Him might not be what we expect. The whole area of hermeneutics requires more sophistication than simply saying the most literal interpretation of every verse has to be correct.

Seeing how God was telling Moses how all of it happened so He could write it down for us ‘I AM sure’ the communication was from where man began and not from God’s no begin... this is so obvious that any other point of view is quite understandably ridiculous ... God’s Word is the communication from a beginning, man’s beginnings, that is the obvious  and all else is departure from intent of the text from the very start! Evolutionary thought is anti Scripture...

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

Evolutionary thought is anti Scripture...

Amen!!

2 Peter 2:14
Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

They don't want to cease from sin, so they do away with the relevancy of the word of God. What better way than to start with the beginning. Darwin even admitted he wrote his idea as a way for getting back at God for "killing his child." People hide behind pseudo-science as more accurate than the word of God. Jesus spoke in parables so the wicked wouldn't latch onto the truth. This remains firmly entrenched today.

Isaiah 5:21
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!

Galatians 1:6-7
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Evolution is indeed another gospel. Plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 9:35 AM, thomas t said:

a) you let your way of believing in your God be subjected to the information you get from scientists. Often scientists are atheists, so how can they be given the authority to teach you spiritually? The great teachers were Paul, a craftsman, and Peter, a fisherman, neither of them natural scientists.

Furthermore, if you didn't know anything about science and believe God you would simply believe the Bible in what it says without having these thoughts of metaphorical interpretation.*

The big theological lesson I get from science (and scientists) is the incredible beauty of God and His creation. He is enormous - calling into being the vast expanse of the universe that is practically too large for the human mind to understand, yet He ordered the tiniest atoms (and subatomic particles) in such a way to sustain all that He has made. CLICK HERE for a short article with an embedded video (I'll have to check it out later) on the fine-tuning of the universe.

Paul was extremely well-educated, and Luke was a physician. Sure, God has used many uneducated people throughout history, but He has also used well-educated scientists like Luke, back in history, and Dr. Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project, current Director of the National Institutes of Health) to spread His good news.

I am extremely careful about letting science (and scientists) form my view of the world, especially when what it says is in apparent contrast to what the Bible says. I was raised as a Young Earth Creationist and my gradual shift to an acceptance of an ancient earth and evolutionary explanation of life came through about a decade of work.

You may be familiar with the great Francis Bacon and his "two book" hypothesis. He wrote “God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation.” Bacon far preceded the theory of evolution, of course, but Bacon was a strong proponent of studying the natural world as evidence of God's work.

I'm sure you are familiar with Augustine of Hippo. One of his rather famous comments in The Literal Meaning of Genesis has been translated as

Quote

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Now Augustine put his thoughts in much stronger language than I would use, but there it is. I do not want to disparage anyone that has carefully examined scientific evidence, but makes careful effort to study the scientific claims of evolution and evidence. Rather, I include this to encourage Christians to choose, if they engage in discussions about evolution, to investigate the evidence and understand it as much as possible instead of depending on occasional quotes they have picked up here and there.

On 11/9/2018 at 9:35 AM, thomas t said:

b) If the Theory of Evolution were to be true.... then God is consigned to the sidelines. In fact, the Theory of Evolution doesn't allow for God to have created even 2 animals seperately of each other. There's only one such theory narrowing the space for possible divine interventions. If an angel came and lifted up the pencil in front of you - gravitation remains valid. But if God created just one little worm seperately - then the Theory of Evolution is worng in its entirety due to the issue of common ancestry as taught by evolutionist scientists.

I disagree with this interpretation. I believe God's complete reign over all He created is unquestioned. To me, the intricacies of all of the molecular interactions required to allow a single cell to function and survive points to a Designer with a plan in mind that took billions of years to unfold. The beauty and complexity of this developments leaves me in awe of my Creator.

I've been writing a bit in two different threads, so I'm not sure I've mentioned this here, but science is completely unable to preclude any sort of God's divine action outside of the natural laws that He established.

On 11/9/2018 at 9:35 AM, thomas t said:

c) if you think that the first three chapters of Genesis are to be interpreted metaphorically... then every child reading this text in a literal understanding wouldn't have the advantage as announced in Mark 10:15...  

"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Mark 10:15

But children aren't literature and/or history scholars educated enough to find metaphors everywhere. Nevertheless, it's in the Bible where the kingdom of God is explained and that children know so well according to this verse...

I believe it is a bit of a stretch to use this passage as evidence of a literal 144-hour creation. I have worked with children in church for about 15 years and one thing I love about them is that they do not build up walls of caution and acceptable behavior that we adults do. I believe Jesus taught us to enter His kingdom without reservation, pretense, or conditionally.

On 11/9/2018 at 9:35 AM, thomas t said:

d) you might be getting rude to God. Are you married? If so, how would your partner react in the following discussion?

 

YOUR PARTNER - I cleaned the house between 2 und 4 pm.

YOU - well, maybe in a metaphorical manner. Noone can know. Maybe somehow during the last 20 years.... The tidiness evolved on it's own, my dear. Isn't this great?

This is something to consider, and it is certainly possible that I am mistaken. I am not foolish enough to claim 100% certainty in my position on something that happened long before I was ever on the planet. But I also know for a certainty that my Lord loves me very much and knows that I am genuinely attempting to understand what He did in His creation to the best of my ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

but science is completely unable to preclude any sort of God's divine action outside of the natural laws that He established.

Hi One,

thank you for your reply.

First, it comes to my mind that common descent is what the ToE teaches. I'm citing wikipedia here, if wikipedia is wrong here, could you please cite a better source?

Quote

 There is "massive"[1] evidence of common descent of all life on Earth from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA)

So, the ToE is very clear about how many common ancestors there are: just 1, the "LUCA". If this were to be true, then God could not have created just one worm seperately. This is why I conlude that this theory, contrary to all other theories, excludes divine interventions for the most part.

 

30 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

but He has also used well-educated scientists like [...] Dr. Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project, current Director of the National Institutes of Health) to spread His good news.

Please show where he used this scientist to spread the good news of salvation?

43 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm sure you are familiar with Augustine of Hippo. One of his rather famous comments in The Literal Meaning of Genesis has been translated as [...]

Believe me, I'm interested in a good atmosphere in debate just the way Augustine probably was.

In my opinion, God shows his truth irrespective of the persons concerned. "For God shows no partiality." it says in Romans 2:11. Even if Augustine may have thought otherwise: if God makes children und uneducated people understand less of the Gospel... then he would favor the well-educated.

Now you could say, Gen 1-2 is not about salvation. But it's about the details and reveals how God is acting.

 

Regards,

Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thomas t said:

So, the ToE is very clear about how many common ancestors there are: just 1, the "LUCA". If this were to be true, then God could not have created just one worm seperately. This is why I conlude that this theory, contrary to all other theories, excludes divine interventions for the most part.

I should probably clarify that my acceptance in evolution isn't the same as an atheist's acceptance of evolution. For example, being fairly familiar with the intricate details of cells lead me to believe that it is far more likely that God made the first organisms intact, rather than the evolution of abiotic chemical reactions eventually developing into a living cell. In short, what I accept from science is distinct from what an atheist would accept.

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

Please show where he used this scientist to spread the good news of salvation?

Here is a good example - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

Dr. Collins is able to share his journey from an atheist to a follower of Jesus in this PBS interview. I haven't done an extensive search, but I'm sure there are other examples of how Collins leverages his notoriety as a prominent scientist to confess Jesus Christ as his Savior. 

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

Now you could say, Gen 1-2 is not about salvation. But it's about the details and reveals how God is acting.

Agreed. What do you think of the theological points that I derive from Genesis 1-3 that I posted earlier?

Quote

 

* God is the one and only Creator.

* God sustains all He has created.

* God made mankind specially, and as a culmination of His creative work.

* God imbued mankind with the ability to commune with Him.

* Mankind chose their own way, instead of God's, and brought sin into the world.

* We are now all sinners and are in need of a Savior in order to re-establish that connection with God.

* God promised that the Savior would come.

 

Thomas, thank you for offering genuine conversation, it's a nice break from my usual experience here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Seeing how God was telling Moses how all of it happened so He could write it down for us ‘I AM sure’ the communication was from where man began and not from God’s no begin... this is so obvious that any other point of view is quite understandably ridiculous ... God’s Word is the communication from a beginning, man’s beginnings, that is the obvious  and all else is departure from intent of the text from the very start! Evolutionary thought is anti Scripture...

The Scriptures tell us that “the heavens declare the glory of God” - Psalm 19:1 and that God’s “invisible attributes . . . have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” - Romans 1:20. I respect your view, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I should probably clarify that my acceptance in evolution isn't the same as an atheist's acceptance of evolution.

But your acceptance of evolution flys in the face of Romans 5:12 & 1 Corinthians 15:21, so currently you cannot claim to be a Bible-believing Christian, one.opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×