RonaldBruno Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 452 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 175 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2019 This topic was moved from the Worthy Welcome section. I've had a few responses, two in opposition and the rest just welcomes, but no general consensus. Darwin had an effect on this world. He was not a believer in Christ, however, because his theory received SO MUCH opposition, he appeased them by saying he wasn't an atheist, but an agnostic. What's the difference? They are both unbelievers. By saying you are an agnostic, it avoids critisms, arguments ... guilt and shame I suppose. So saying you have doubts or the existence of God cannot be proven is a more neutral and less inflammatory position to take. My Dad was an atheistic and He used to tell us not to tell anyone ... ssshhh. Anyways, after 160 years, only 10% of the planet are staunch atheists. But how has this indoctrination of the TOE in schools effected the rest of us? Well, most think it is a complicated theory involving sciences that they never care to delve into or challenge so they accept it. But how does this harmonize with Creationism? It doesn't, hence a compromise must take place. Theistic Evolution, where God started things out and natural took over and finished it, is the compromise. Oh, but of course, God is behind it all. That isn't what Genesis claims - literally. Genesis claims He created very physical thing living and non- living within SIX 24- hour days. This BUMPS up against "science". Well, their science anyways. So they must interpret Genesis to mean something to conform to this new view. Distort Genesis, call it an allegory and claim that God dis not make finished kinds but simpler forms that evolved into more complex life forms, and change what a day means That opens up a whole new way of looking at the entire Bible. So when something doesn't work with "science" (btw, this is not empirical science folks), then it must be symbolic and so you explain it away. I for one am a YEC. I take Genesis and most of the Bible literally, including Revelation. Appearing half of the Christians on earth accept this Theistic Evolution or Gravitational Evolution. I think Catholics do, but most Protestants don't. I'm new here. What's the consensus on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonaldBruno Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 452 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 175 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/26/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 $teven posted rebuttal: Good topic for discussion, although I would point out that Genesis chapter 1 does not say 6 24-hour days. It does say six days, yes, but we also know that they weren't six days as measured by cycles of the sun and moon, since they didn't exist until the fourth day. The days were indeed alternating periods of darkness and light but not on account of the sun rising and setting. -------------- RonaldBruno response: The earth rotating on its axis completes its cycle in 23 the. 56 min. The light came from God at that time and the darkness was on the opposite side. -------------- $teven added: That is true, the Light was on account of God's presence and Darkness being His absence - which is analogous to the state of one's soul when His spirit is present and when it's not. Therefore, I would surmise Light isn't necessarily a state of illumination but that indicating God's presence. Hence, a day would be counted as the duration of 'time' when God was present and at work, bringing our world into being. How long was each working day in actual human hours? Who knows? Consider this statement by Jesus himself from John 9:4 "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: thenight cometh, when no man can work." This is also reflective of what was happening as our world took shape. Jesus wasn't referring to illumination in the physical sense when he used the term 'day' but rather the presence of God on earth - which he was. -------------- RonaldBruno : You are changing the literary meaning of light. The context is creation and God just created the earth and light (the physical spectrum) on the first day. The darkness was not something symbolic for God's absence, He was not absent. The darkness is identified as night as we all know and understand what that means. Your idea that it couldn't be a 24 hour/day because the sun and moon were'nt created yet, is not logical since when the sun and moon are created on day 4, their creation was also identified as occurring within one day. And since the botanicals were created on day 3, they needed the sun on day 4, not thousands or millions of years later! $teven: I'm not attempting to change the meaning of light at all, merely pointing out terminology used in scripture isn't necessarily literal. Case in point, Genesis 2:4 states: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Clearly, the term 'day' used in this instance is not literally a period of 24 hours - as we've both agreed Creation was a six-day process. Note as well the use of 'generations' to describe the transformative stages of Creation, instead of days. Consider this excerpt from Genesis 8: [8] Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; [9] But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. [10] And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; [11] And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. Logically speaking, what do you suppose the odds are that an olive tree submerged in torrents for over 10 or 11 months would still have a leaf remaining on its branches for that dove to take back to Noah. I'm quite certain in the resurrection all these improbable and seemingly impossible things will be quite clear to us. However, for now, I see them as potential distractions - as we are called to salvation to provide personal sanctuaries or dwelling places for God's spirit here on earth. And like Eden, there are conditions that apply. If our hearts and minds are susceptible to discussions about what is or what might be, we run the risk of being drawn from away from our central mandate. Remember, God said to Adam and Eve, 'do not eat the fruit. Don't even touch it.' They didn't have to know or understand why. Obeying God's command was enough. At our place in time, our command is to love God and each other. We don't need to know or understand the 'how?' of our existence - except that it's God's doing. ------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonaldBruno Posted September 1, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 452 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 175 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/26/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 1, 2019 Gen 2 is speaking an extension of chapter one, it is filling in details, a common Hebrew literary style. The chapter begins with the statement that God finished His work of creating the heavens and the earth and everything in it and rested on the seventh day. That first verse is a summary of Chapter ONE. And Moses summarizes it simply and clearly: Everything was finished. It did not need evolution. He made finished living organisms, whether mature trees or seedlings in the ground, as a flourishing garden would be. Your translation of Gen 2:4 uses "generations". In various other translations, "history", "account" or "origins" are used. So the account of creation in verses 5 &6 speak of the "day" when He specifically made the botanical garden. You stated, "generations" means a "trans-formative stages of creation". No it doesn't, it's just giving you a more detailed account and then continuing on about the climate, rivers and garden. He describes an environment that did not have rain, but a mist went up and watered everything. It was like a water canopy that protected life from harmful UV rays, which some scientists say shortens life at a cellular level. Then more details are filled reiterating what was stated in chapter one, that he created man and goes into more details. As far as Gen. 8 goes, the olive tree, which has a lifespan of over three hundred years, can thrive in altitudes of up to 20,000 feet (The Ark is said to have rested at 14,500 feet on Mt. Ararat. Many trees survive being underwater during flood periods. I don't know if these trees died or lied dormant and then came to life again. I suppose the time it took for the waters to recede from 20k feet to 14k feet, maybe a month or so, a tree could start sprouting leaves. God can do that, He wasn't angry with the trees. As a matter of God's power, He could sustain all plant life that wasn't ripped out of the ground by rapid flowing currents and as soon as the ground appear, immediately sprout a leaf for the dove to pick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts