Creation

[Guest shiloh357]

23 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The word yom is flexible and can mean more than a 24 hour period.

Only in certain contexts such as in prophecy that contain the phrase "in that day"  where it means, "at that time."  Genesis 1 does not use "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day and this is true because it is used in connection with ordinal numbers and the modifiers, "morning and evening."

Quote

Regardless, the face-value meaning may not necessarily be what is being conveyed.

The literal meaning is what is being conveyed.   You need to stop  trying to use "face-value" as an equivalent to "literal."  They don't mean the same thing.

Quote

 

Geology and astronomy strongly support the concept of an ancient earth, rather than just a few thousand years old. Additionally, what I said was there are "multiple lines of evidence". Paleontology, anatomy, biogeography, and genetics all support the concept of life development over very long periods.

 

A few thousand years IS ancient.   And when science begins with the assumption that Evolution is true despite not being intuitively observed or even empirically proven, their results will be skewed.

Quote

I think you may be misunderstanding my point of view. Again, I believe evolution is a tool of God's, not a creative entity in itself. The consistent record of Biblical prophecy coming true strongly supports the authenticity and divine inspiration of the Bible, but this does not contradict my beliefs about the Bible in any way.

It's your beliefs that contradict the Bible's claims.  And God would never use Evolution because it violates His revealed character/nature.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Only in certain contexts such as in prophecy that contain the phrase "in that day"  where it means, "at that time."  Genesis 1 does not use "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day and this is true because it is used in connection with ordinal numbers and the modifiers, "morning and evening."

Are you sure you want to stand by this statement? You know I can use Google and check on the use of yom in the Bible, right?

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

The literal meaning is what is being conveyed.   You need to stop  trying to use "face-value" as an equivalent to "literal."  They don't mean the same thing.

I used "face-value" very specifically in this context due to your objections to the use of the word "literal". A "face-value" interpretation of yom as a 24-hour period is not required to get the point across that God is the creator of all.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

A few thousand years IS ancient.

Fine, fine... But a 4.6 billion year old earth and a 13.8 billion year old universe is quite a bit more ancient than a few thousand years. I think we can agree on that.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

And when science begins with the assumption that Evolution is true despite not being intuitively observed or even empirically proven, their results will be skewed.

Which scenario do you think is more intuitive?

1. We know how fast light travels, and we can estimate the distance of stars from earth. We have a mathematical equation that tells us time = distance/rate. Thus, we can determine the time it has taken for light to reach the earth.

OR

2. We don't really know how, but light must have traveled at a different rate in the past and throws off calculations by a factor of over 100 million.

Evolution is quite intuitive if you look at the facts of genetics, anatomy, paleontology, and biogeography (and likely a few others) objectively. You don't object to small-scale evolution that has been directly observed, but you refuse to consider that "macro" evolution is simply "micro" evolution with more time. Again, this is quite intuitive.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

And God would never use Evolution because it violates His revealed character/nature.

This is pure conjecture and you are placing yourself in a position to know what God would or would not do. What evidence do you have that would support this conjecture?

[one.opinion]

52 minutes ago, Cletus said:

and still to this wonderful day, that God has made, there is absolutely still absolutely zero evidence of evolution.  none whatsoever. 

Why do you use this claim when we can see evolution occur in front of our very eyes? Weeds have evolved herbicide resistance. Bacteria have evolved the ability to break down nylon, a synthetic polymer that was invented in 1935. Some human island populations have evolved improved diving ability when compared to other human populations. The list is very long...

[Riccardo]

6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Are you sure you want to stand by this statement? You know I can use Google and check on the use of yom in the Bible, right?

I'm sorry bother if it seems like we are ganging up on you ? The fact that there is a seven day cycle to include the weekly Sabbath should prove that it is a 24 hour day.    I'll not discuss this any more 

God bless brother

 

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, Riccardo said:

I'm sorry bother if it seems like we are ganging up on you ? The fact that there is a seven day cycle to include the weekly Sabbath should prove that it is a 24 hour day.    I'll not discuss this any more 

God bless brother

 

It is no problem, my brother, but I appreciate the gesture!

I believe the Exodus passage could be interpreted as symbolic without having to match timespan. 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Are you sure you want to stand by this statement? You know I can use Google and check on the use of yom in the Bible, right?

Yes, go for it. 

Quote

I used "face-value" very specifically in this context due to your objections to the use of the word "literal". A "face-value" interpretation of yom as a 24-hour period is not required to get the point across that God is the creator of all.

When have I objected to the use of the word, "literal?"   I only object to the misuse of that term to mean, "face-value."

 

Quote

Fine, fine... But a 4.6 billion year old earth and a 13.8 billion year old universe is quite a bit more ancient than a few thousand years. I think we can agree on that.

Which scenario do you think is more intuitive?

1. We know how fast light travels, and we can estimate the distance of stars from earth. We have a mathematical equation that tells us time = distance/rate. Thus, we can determine the time it has taken for light to reach the earth.

OR

2. We don't really know how, but light must have traveled at a different rate in the past and throws off calculations by a factor of over 100 million.

The distance of stars from earth is based on assumptions that have not been proven, empirically. Stars are visible from the earth on day four.

 

Quote

Evolution is quite intuitive if you look at the facts of genetics, anatomy, paleontology, and biogeography (and likely a few others) objectively. You don't object to small-scale evolution that has been directly observed, but you refuse to consider that "macro" evolution is simply "micro" evolution with more time. Again, this is quite intuitive.

Micro-evolution isn't anything but adaptation within in a species to environment.  It only produces variations in a species, not another species.   To argue that it would result in macro-evolution over time is simply wishful thinking.

 

Quote

This is pure conjecture and you are placing yourself in a position to know what God would or would not do. What evidence do you have that would support this conjecture?

Everything that God has created reveals His character:

First of all, God's chief attribute is holiness.  Before God is anything else, God is holy and that means that God hates sin.   But in evolution, what the Bible calls "sin" is merely part of the evolutionary process.   That's why many "Christian" evolutionists re-tool Genesis 3 to mean that Adam and Eve didn't really sin in the garden, but are a mythology about the evolution of man's knowledge.  Evolution is by nature, an assault on God's holiness due to its inability to account for God's holiness.

Secondly, Evolution is about survival.   What would Evolution look like if we decided to make everything about survival of the fittest in human society?   Anyone could justify any kind of horrible murder.   Evolution operates from the principle of the survival of the fittest and if we apply that to  humanity, people who are born with physical deficiencies, or mental deficiencies would be justifiably destroyed in order to preserve resources for those more fit to survive.   Abortion is the fruit of an evolutionary worldview.  

In fact, that speaks to the issue of the lack of the sanctity of human life.   An evolutionary worldview looks at man as a higher primate, as well as a cosmic accident.  Abortion makes perfect sense if man is nothing more special than a chimp or ape or whatever.   In an evolutionary worldview, killing a human being who is weaker and a drain on resources is no more immoral than eating an ice cream sandwich.  

In fact, that idea that Jews were descended from non-human chimps or apes or some other animal made it easer to murder them during the holocaust.  The first step in justifying murder is dehumanizing the victim.   It's why abortion is justified because an unborn baby is dehumanized by calling it a fetus and /or an inanimate mound of flesh.    

Abortion  was created by Margaret Sanger to rid the world of black people.   She was an evolutionist who viewed blacks as inferior and she had a vision for sterilizing all black people in order to render the "inferior" race extinct.  She was a racist and her Eugenics came from that.   It is not surprising because the full title of Darwin's book is: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"  and Darwin in "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex" addresses the issues of race.  "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."  Racism finds it's strongest support in Evolution.

God would not use evolution because it contradicts the core of his essential character of holiness, love, self-sacrifice and the sanctity and dignity of human life.   One only needs to look at how it would work among human beings to see its cruelty and lack of any redeeming virtues to demonstrate why it is opposed to the redemptive nature of God.
 

[one.opinion]

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Only in certain contexts such as in prophecy that contain the phrase "in that day"  where it means, "at that time."

Here is a screenshot from http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3117.html that shows an entry from Strong's concordance for "yom":

Clearly, the word is more flexible than you have claimed.

Next, let's look at your objections to evolution as something "God would never use"

Quote

 

Everything that God has created reveals His character:

First of all, God's chief attribute is holiness.  Before God is anything else, God is holy and that means that God hates sin.   But in evolution, what the Bible calls "sin" is merely part of the evolutionary process.   That's why many "Christian" evolutionists re-tool Genesis 3 to mean that Adam and Eve didn't really sin in the garden, but are a mythology about the evolution of man's knowledge.  Evolution is by nature, an assault on God's holiness due to its inability to account for God's holiness.

Secondly, Evolution is about survival.   What would Evolution look like if we decided to make everything about survival of the fittest in human society?   Anyone could justify any kind of horrible murder.   Evolution operates from the principle of the survival of the fittest and if we apply that to  humanity, people who are born with physical deficiencies, or mental deficiencies would be justifiably destroyed in order to preserve resources for those more fit to survive.   Abortion is the fruit of an evolutionary worldview.  

In fact, that speaks to the issue of the lack of the sanctity of human life.   An evolutionary worldview looks at man as a higher primate, as well as a cosmic accident.  Abortion makes perfect sense if man is nothing more special than a chimp or ape or whatever.   In an evolutionary worldview, killing a human being who is weaker and a drain on resources is no more immoral than eating an ice cream sandwich.  

In fact, that idea that Jews were descended from non-human chimps or apes or some other animal made it easer to murder them during the holocaust.  The first step in justifying murder is dehumanizing the victim.   It's why abortion is justified because an unborn baby is dehumanized by calling it a fetus and /or an inanimate mound of flesh.    

Abortion  was created by Margaret Sanger to rid the world of black people.   She was an evolutionist who viewed blacks as inferior and she had a vision for sterilizing all black people in order to render the "inferior" race extinct.  She was a racist and her Eugenics came from that.   It is not surprising because the full title of Darwin's book is: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"  and Darwin in "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex" addresses the issues of race.  "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."  Racism finds it's strongest support in Evolution.

God would not use evolution because it contradicts the core of his essential character of holiness, love, self-sacrifice and the sanctity and dignity of human life.   One only needs to look at how it would work among human beings to see its cruelty and lack of any redeeming virtues to demonstrate why it is opposed to the redemptive nature of God.

 

What you have characterized is an atheistic viewpoint of evolution. If God actually did use it, then this entire block is meaningless. God cannot use a God-less process, it is a complete logical contradiction. What you should attempt to consider is what would evolution look like IF God really did use it. Otherwise, you are only addressing a strawman.

[siegi91]

On 12/4/2018 at 6:19 PM, 1sheep said:

Yes . I agree. But not in the sense you mean it. You are not qualified to defend the gospel!

You are being strung along like a rag doll because you have no biblical understanding. Atheists love unlearned " christians" like you!  They preen. 

This atheist cannot really make a difference between learned and unlearned Christians, since her knowledge of Christianity is still very fragmentary.

 

[siegi91]

On 12/4/2018 at 12:01 PM, shiloh357 said:

No, it's not circular.  

There is internal evidence for the credibility of the Bible.   Circular reasoning would argue that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.   That's not what I am saying.

I am speaking only to the credibility of the Bible's claims with respect to historical claims and whether or not the Bible's historicity has any credibility based on what we know archeologically and historically.

All of the Bible's truth claims are rooted in historical and geographic fact.  They take place in a setting of real places, people and events, many of which we can historically verify.   While we cannot yet verify every historical event that the Bible records due to the fact that only 20% of the ancient near east has been uncovered and/or lost to history (such as the Library of Alexandria, the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem, etc.), it can be strongly argued that the Bible is accurate insofar as it can be checked.

And we need to maintain a sharp distinction between "unverified" and "discredited."  Simply because we don't yet have evidence one way or the other  regarding a specific event recorded in the Bible doesn't mean the account is untrue or discredited.

 

True, but many books are set in places that correspond to real places. That does not entail, logically, that any story depicted in them are true because of this fact only. That would be a little too easy, don’you think so?

 siegi

 

[enoob57]

6 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

 

True, but many books are set in places that correspond to real places. That does not entail, logically, that any story depicted in them are true because of this fact only. That would be a little too easy, don’you think so?

 siegi

 

As long as you are at the denial because of the existence of lies truth will never be available to you... but know this lie is totally and completely reliant upon truth to exist (FIRST)!

Edited December 6, 2018 by enoob57