seekeratthesea Posted August 30, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 160 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2008 The current theory of human origins in the secular culture is atheistic evolution. Please correct me where I am incorrect, but it teaches: 1. Big Bang where everything that exists exploded and all matter scattered out 2. Heavenly bodies began to form, which resulted in stars and later planets 3. Our earth cooled down from a hot rocky mass and eventually it started raining on the rocks and after time, simple life formed 4. Life became more complex and crawled out of the oceans and changed over time until man The Bible could not contradict this teaching any more than it does. 1. God created earth before the sun 2. God created the earth covered in water 3. God created man and dinosaurs the same day (day 6) 4. God created plants, animals, and man with different kinds of flesh, all designed to reproduce after their kinds. I could use other examples to show how the Bible and the theory of evolution are at odds, but this should suffice. We all have a decision to make. Do we accept God's word as the authority in our lives and abandon man's teachings, or do we continue to compromise the Bible and say, "yes, the origin part of the Bible is wrong, but you should trust the morality anyways." Think of it like this - if we tell the young people growing up that God was wrong when He told us about creation (or He purposely hid the truth in the gap theory or other theories), what is to stop them from abandoning the rest of the Bible as wrong? Look at Europe for an example of what happens when you unlock that door! I think you are incorrect in what the Bible puts forth on a number of fronts... 1. The Bible is not a science book, and as such it is not trying to give scientific descriptions of what happened. If I were to say that the sun rises in the east and someone else goes into great detail about the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, would you tell me that I am wrong in what I said about the sun? 2. In Gen 1:1 when it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", I take that to mean that everything that was created was created at that point. You will notice that Gen 1:16 does not say "and then God made two great lights", it just said that God made them, it does not tell us when they were made. Look at it this way. Let Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted August 30, 2008 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2008 (edited) Look at Europe for an example of what happens when you unlock that door! Can i ask exactly what you mean by this? Edited August 30, 2008 by ollkiller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted August 30, 2008 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2008 They teach evolution as if it has been a proven fact, yet if you look deeply into it they say its a theory. Sorry for flagging this again. Theory of evolution essentially means facts of evolution. I have no problem if you dispute these facts. Everyone has to evaluate the information in front of them and choose what they believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted August 31, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.06 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2008 I believe in the literal creation that God created everything. I have also taught my daughter this and told her that I don't care if she brings home and F in sience when they tell her the earth was created out of nothingness on its own. The world wants christains to be tolerant, and that when christain teachings are taught that another side is represented, yet wont even allow the possiblity of creation in the class rooms for considersation. They teach evolution as if it has been a proven fact, yet if you look deeply into it they say its a theory. As a theory, it should be taught as such, yet sadly alot of youths take it as fact, or partually as fact, if they believe in God. Its sad that the minority are making the rules for the magority, but we are told that in the last days people will call evil good, and god evil. Denying the creator of us, and putting ourselves as evolved creation is just evil. Forget about trying to teach her science, learn grammar and spelling and teach her that. Learn what a scientific theory is. Rude and arrogant won't catch any flies, my friend...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted August 31, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Your guess is as good as mine, but I do not question God's word on the literal 6 day creation nor on the young earth. The credibility of the entire Bible balances on the inerrancy of Genesis 1. I agree that the credibility of the entire Bible balances on the inerrancy of Genesis 1, what it does not ride on is the need for a 24 hour day. The dogmatic attraction to the idea of a 24 hour day adds nothing and raises many questions that don't have a good answer. On the contrary, there is nothing dogmatic but rather a conviction that the Bible needs to be believed for what it plainly asserts regardless of our inability to answer whatever questions. "I don't know yet but this is what the text seems to imply" is a very good answer that avoids the troubles of scepticism and adding to/substracting from the Word of God. I contributed these ideas to a similar discussion: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/6000-...86#entry1079586 What do you think? We Christians live by the promise of spending eternity future with God. Moses will also be there. All questions will have an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted August 31, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted August 31, 2008 For many people it is dogmatic, there seem to be either a fear that if they think outside the 24 hour box that they will somehow be agreeing with science, and that is not acceptable. Or for some it is a badge of honor in the fight against evolution, even though the two have nothing to do with each other. In my opinion, reading Gen 1 and 2 together, the text does not seem to imply a 24 hour day. I don't believe God wants me to check my brain at the door when I read the Bible and just blindly accept things. Not, ever one does this, but many do. I think the case can be made well for both 24 hour days and for longer days. I think that a plain reading of the text does not assert a 24 hour day. Nothing is lost by the days being longer. Do not trivialize such important an issue. What is here at stakes is the inerrancy of God's Word and His Providential Hand in conserving and transmitting His Oracles as first recorded under His inspiration, which in the case of Genesis involved a face to face talk with Moses. If Genesis cannot be trusted as a faithful record of the historicity of the miraculous creation of 'heavens and earth and all of its inhabitants' then everything else loses credibility as well. A day on earth lasts 24 hours both now and at the time when Genesis was written. If your only verifiable source on origins were Genesis, as it was for its first hearers in Mt Sinai, you would not have a choice to understand it otherwise. It is undoubtedly explicit in terms of context, use of language and re-iteration (like at the solemn occasion of giving the Ten Commandments!) The only reason why you fail to accept it is because the prevailing scientific paradigm differs radically from it. I'm sorry but I don't feel any compulsion to compromise on that issue for I esteem divine revelation higher than human speculation. If that means living inside a box I'm more than happy to dwel in it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Do not trivialize such important an issue. What is here at stakes is the inerrancy of God's Word and His Providential Hand in conserving and transmitting His Oracles as first recorded under His inspiration, which in the case of Genesis involved a face to face talk with Moses. The exact length of the "day" in Genesis 1 is not really an issue of innerrancy. If the Bible specifically stated that each day is 24 hours in Genesis 1, THEN you would have an inerrancy issue if some says, that the Bible is wrong about the length of the "day." As it stands, the threat to inerrancy where this issue is concerned is not the length of the days of creation. It is whether or not God is the creator and that the creation account is a faithful account of how God did this. Genesis is not attempting to give us a scientific account of creation. Even if a person does believe in a longer period than 24 hours for each of the days of creation, such a belief offers no credible threat to upholding the inerrancy of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted August 31, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Even if a person does believe in a longer period than 24 hours for each of the days of creation, such a belief offers no credible threat to upholding the inerrancy of the Bible. I beg to differ. The Bible is meant to be understood for what it plainly says when the context is inescapably and literally narrative as opposed to figurative. For me to say that the days in Genesis do not mean 24 hours is to believe that the text is wrong because the billions of years proposed by retrograde scientific speculation are right. I disagree both biblically and scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Even if a person does believe in a longer period than 24 hours for each of the days of creation, such a belief offers no credible threat to upholding the inerrancy of the Bible. I beg to differ. The Bible is meant to be understood for what it plainly says when the context is inescapably and literally narrative as opposed to figurative. For me to say that the days in Genesis do not mean 24 hours is to believe that the text is wrong because the billions of years proposed by retrograde scientific speculation are right. I disagree both biblically and scientifically. The problem is that I am not advocating a "figurative" approach at all. I would also posit that believing the that "day" mentioned is not 24 hours, but a longer period of time is not a "figurative" approach either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted August 31, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted August 31, 2008 please show me where it says it is a 24 hour day in the Bible. You're quoting a generalization. Go back to chapter 1 and see how days are described. It's totally different. thank you for proving this point for me...there seem to be either a fear that if they think outside the 24 hour box that they will somehow be agreeing with science, and that is not acceptable. Or for some it is a badge of honor in the fight against evolution I can imagine this same argument in the church when it was said that the earth was not the center of the universe. Those that dogmatically said that can't be the case, no matter what. Sorry, but science and the Bible do not have to be at war with each other. I'm not afraid of knowledge and I'm proud of practical, useful science that helps us advance, understand, mitigate suffering and improve our quality of life. Speculation about origins with a naturalistic agenda to dishonour our Creator is not useful, practical science. Miracles do not have a scientific explanation yet they are nonetheless real. Creation out of nothing in the short span of six solar days was the first recorded miracle in the Bible. Dogmatism is bad for any cause whether religious or scientific, but there's nothing wrong with being dogmatic about revealed truth. So those who hold the essentially volatile and upgradable nature of human knowledge as a dogma need to learn their lesson as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts