Jump to content


Photo

Old Earth Theology Is Incompatible With The Bible


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 19 May 2007 - 12:57 AM

This comment right here makes a valid point I never really put together until now.
Evolution is the basic support, and excuse for someone to live a certain type lifestyle.
To do what ever with the human body they see fit because through evolution, we were not directly created by God. Nor in His image. Evolution is the basic idea that man can sin, and there is no one to answer to.

View Post

It seems as if you are making evolution a scapegoat for the sins of man in an attempt to make one view preferable to the other. There was sin before the theory evolution. I am going to get to the 'image' and 'direct' points further down.

For even a theistic evolutionist has to deny certain parts of God's word in order to make the one belief he prefers supreme over the other.

View Post

'Deny' is a word that weasels your point into place rather than makes way for an honest discussion. I can just as easily claim that you are preferring your clouded interpretation of Genesis 1 to the actual creation that God has made that is before your eyes.

Evolution is man's way of accepting man's ideas over God's. And anything you put in front of what God says, becomes the correction of God. Which in turn becomes God itself. For how does something become the correction of a God when God is all knowing? So Evolution also denies God's Omniscient.

Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.

Evolution also has to deny God's ability to create in 6 days. Which is denying the power of God to do anything. It causes a phobia I call: The "God did it syndrome". Which denies God's Omnipotent.

View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong : I just heard the claim that the Young Earth Creationist's 'version'of the Bible is a perfect representation of God's own mind. You can probably understand why, at this point in your post, I'm getting a little frustrated. It is almost as if you are trying to provoke me by claiming that I am violating the 1st commandment everytime I do my biology homework. Evolution is a theory of how life on earth diversified, not a god.

For the second point, I want you to understand the implications of your statement and consider my revision of your statement using the same logic. "6 day creationism is denying God the ability to have created the universe in six seconds. You are denying God's omnipotence." Sounds silly, yes? God created the universe either way you look at it. How long it took doesn't matter with respect to his power.


Evolution is the total opposite of God's creation. God's creation is God's alpha for man kind. It takes away that God created man directly.

View Post

Directly? He directly created the entire universe and formed man directly in His own image.

1jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
If what you believe denies the word, then the record in which the word will bear in heaven will deny you. Because hear[sic] again, a trinity is being denied to believe in a theory.

View Post

Again, this is a claim that you know exactly every Truth of the Word and are standing here before me in judgment. Every minute doctrinal detail that contradicts the absolute truth, according to what you have just written, will be damn you.
Ephesians 2:8 and John 3:16 contradict directly your application of this verse.

Evolution also takes away God's Holiness. By making the comment that man was created in His image sound like God is some type of animal because man had to evolve from one. So the actual evolving process mocks God as well. And makes God lower by suggesting He too evolved from animal. For how do you make an direct image of one's self, have it evolve from an animal, if you are not implying that the original, in which the man was made was animal as well?
Besides, how does God evolve into God if we, who are made in His image, had to evolve from animal to look like Him? It puts into question the image of God, the role of authority in heaven (animals don't rule in Heaven). And suggests that God did not create man in the manner His word says He did. So if God's word is not true in the creation account. Then it's not God's word. Which brings to question: Who's word is it? Because only man, and Satan are capable of the sin called a lie.

When you read this part of scripture, do you believe that God is saying that we were created in His exact physical likeness?


Evolution also denies the spiritual Heaven's power and authority over a temporal world (Physical world). And gives more power to temporal things. And makes the temporal world god. By making a spiritual God have to obey "all" temporal laws. Which would also deny that eternity exists because temporal death is more powerful.

Three questions:

1) What part of the evolution theory supports God?
2) What part of God's word supports evolution?
3) What part of God's word supports old earth?

There is no reasoning behind the statement that evolution gives more power to a temporal world or makes it a god. It is simply a theory of how life on earth diversified.
1) Ta-da! No part of it. Gravitational Theory? None there, either. :)
2) No bible verse alludes to the change in allele frequency of a population over time and mutation.
3) The gap hypothesis you posted in the "Heya" thread lends direct scriptural evidence of an old earth.

These points, however, are in my view moot when you consider how they can be turned into nearly anything you want to demonize.
1) What part of General Relativity Theory supports God?
2) What part of God's word supports General Relativity Theory?
3) What part of God's word supports curved spacetime?

In order for God to have create through evolution, both have to have support for the other. For can it be explained as to why God would leave out the process of evolution, that would have been an important process in the creation? And why God left out Old Earth (actual time passage), but make it clear that He created in 6 days?

He doesn't tell you how He created. Did He use electromagnetism to arrange all of the molecules when He created and fine tuned the gravitational constant on day 2? It doesn't say. A question I have for you is : how do you propose He did it accounting for all of the observations we have made about the universe reading only scripture? Genesis wasn't written as a technical reference to the workings of the universe.
In addition, as Mr. Williams pointed out earlier, God didn't use the word sphere in describing the earth perhaps, as he suggested, because there was no word for it. Could it possibly be the same case with, dare I say, evolution?

Remember, you can't deny what is written without denying one of God's trinities.
1jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and [color=red]these three are one.

Already addressed.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 May 2007 - 03:11 AM

It seems as if you are making evolution a scapegoat for the sins of man in an attempt to make one view preferable to the other.  There was sin before the theory evolution.  I am going to get to the 'image' and 'direct' points further down.


Is the percentage of those who believe evolution bigger, or smaller when it comes to the comparison of those who believe God, and those who don't?

'Deny' is a word that weasels your point into place rather than makes way for an honest discussion.  I can just as easily claim that  you are preferring your clouded interpretation of Genesis 1 to the actual creation that God has made that is before your eyes.


Would you like me to make this a more detailed debate, in which I will list each verse and you tell me why it's wrong? And we will see who is making the personal interpretation.

And weasel? Most be someone I know from somewhere else that called my response the samething. Considering I only have heard this term twice now.

Correct me if I'm wrong : I just heard the claim that the Young Earth Creationist's 'version'of the Bible is a perfect representation of God's own mind.  You can probably understand why, at this point in your post, I'm getting a little frustrated.  It is almost as if you are trying to provoke me by claiming that I am violating the 1st commandment everytime I do my biology homework.  Evolution is a theory of how life on earth diversified, not a god.


Any thought, any action, or anything that is put first and formost in your life is your God.

Example: If anytime a football game is on sunday, and I would rather watch it then go to church. Who am I saying I put first and formost in my life just by my actions?

And I never made that claim in which you post. But I see you are into catagorization of people by making that comment.


For the second point, I want you to understand the implications of your statement and consider my revision of your statement using the same logic.  "6 day creationism is denying God the ability to have created the universe in six seconds.  You are denying God's omnipotence."  Sounds silly, yes?  God created the universe either way you look at it.  How long it took doesn't matter with respect to his power.


Your 6 second example is a classic. It is what every atheist likes to use as their arguement example. And yes it is silly as you say. Because how did a week become seven days if God did not create in 6, and rest on the seventh?

Exodus: 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


Directly?  He directly created the entire universe and formed man directly in His own image.


So did man evolve or not?

Again, this is a claim that you know exactly every Truth of the Word and are standing here before me in judgment.  Every minute doctrinal detail that contradicts the absolute truth, according to what you have just written, will be damn you.Ephesians 2:8 and John 3:16 contradict directly your application of this verse.


Did I dam you to hell? Or did what was written in the word? I used biblical examples, I did not use personal opinions. If you felt guilt, it was none of my doing. I have no control over how God's word makes one feel.

As far as you only listing verse by placement, and not by wording. Are you avoiding the use of God's word in this debate?

When you read this part of scripture, do you believe that God is saying that we were created in His exact physical likeness? 


So now we get down to what you actually believe about this. Just by you question I know that you don't. So if you believe it was not an exact likness, what does God look like? And can you prove it with scripture?

There is no reasoning behind the statement that evolution gives more power to a temporal world or makes it a god.  It is simply a theory of how life on earth diversified.
1)  Ta-da!  No part of it.  Gravitational Theory?  None there, either. :)
2)  No bible verse alludes to the change in allele frequency of a population over time and mutation.
3)  The gap hypothesis you posted in the "Heya" thread lends direct scriptural evidence of an old earth.


More silly comparisons? I'm not the one who believes in evolution, and all that science claims about why God's word is wrong. So the comparison does not apply. Besides, why do you think science cannot figure out exactly what gravity is? It's because it is a invisible force that is beyond sciences comprehension. But yet scientists like to make fun of which verse, even though they know less about it?

These points, however, are in my view moot when you consider how they can be turned into nearly anything you want to demonize.
1)  What part of General Relativity Theory supports God?
2)  What part of God's word supports General Relativity Theory?
3)  What part of God's word supports curved spacetime?
He doesn't tell you how He created.  Did He use electromagnetism to arrange all of the molecules when He created and fine tuned the gravitational constant on day 2?  It doesn't say.  A question I have for you is : how do you propose He did it accounting for all of the observations we have made about the universe reading only scripture?  Genesis wasn't written as a technical reference to the workings of the universe. 


The arguement is moot. But can you see God condemning everyone who did not believe this just how you wrote it? For what book will God judge us by? Will it be a book written by men that were not inspired by God? Will it be Darwin's book? In order for God to be the rightous judge, He has to also be judging from the rightous word. Will God be sending anyone who does not believe in evolution to hell? Because if it is true as you claim it to be. Then it has as much power to condemn everyone who does not believe it, as anything else. So who will it be that will be thrown into hell over this theory?

In addition, as Mr. Williams pointed out earlier, God didn't use the word sphere in describing the earth perhaps, as he suggested, because there was no word for it.  Could it possibly be the same case with, dare I say, evolution?
Already addressed.

View Post



Because God can see into someone's heart means that both the Father and the Son have vision we do not have. The vision in the spiritual realm allows you to see through physical objects. So God is speaking of a vision here that we do not have.

And example of this vision is when someone in graphics does cad design with 3D objects. When the cad design is finished, and the customer sees the finished product. He does not see the internal workings of lines, circles, etc... that the designer had to work with in order to make it look like it does. So he could tell the customer these things and the customer would not understand unless he showed the customer what he did on his cad program. Problem is with God's word, we don't have the example of what is being seen as they see it.

#23 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 19 May 2007 - 11:11 AM

Is the percentage of those who believe evolution bigger, or smaller when it comes to the comparison of those who believe God, and those who don't?

It isn't a popularity contest. Are the percentatge of Sunni Muslims greater than [insert your denomination?] Does that make them right?

Would you like me to make this a more detailed debate, in which I will list each verse and you tell me why it's wrong? And we will see who is making the personal interpretation.


No one takes the exact same thing out of scripture when they read it. Many interpretations can be ruled out, however, by our understanding of history, reality and other scripture.

And weasel? Most be someone I know from somewhere else that called my response the samething. Considering I only have heard this term twice now.
Any thought, any action, or anything that is put first and formost in your life is your God.  Example: If anytime a football game is on sunday, and I would rather watch it then go to church. Who am I saying I put first and formost in my life just by my actions?

I'm flattered, to be honest. I don't really write like someone that old, do I? :) Weasel wasn't meant to be a personal accusation, but an attempt to question the validity of an appeal to emotion in said statement.
Anyways... that I would rather goto biology class than church? No. I see what you're getting at, though, and agree wholeheartedly that we should always put God first in our lives.

And I never made that claim in which you post. But I see you are into catagorization of people by making that comment.

I drew this from : "If what you believe denies the word, then the record in which the word will bear in heaven will deny you. Because hear[sic] again, a trinity is being denied to believe in a theory." I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I read this as : Young Earth Creationism is right, therefore evolution denies the trinity. If you deny the trinity, you're doomed, so you, Zed, are doomed.

Your 6 second example is a classic. It is what every atheist likes to use as their arguement example. And yes it is silly as you say. Because how did a week become seven days if God did not create in 6, and rest on the seventh?  Exodus: 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Well, I'm a sucker for the classics. My pastor used it to illustrate a point, once. (Not attempting an appeal to authority : he would shudder at the thought of accepting evolution.) Why did the subject just change from His omnipotence to the six days of the week? I demonstrated that it is bad logic to put God in a box and say the earth can't be older or He isn't omnipotent. Are you limiting God more or less when you confine Him to a strict literal interpretation?
You've pointed out here why it was important for God to write that it was one week instead of in a different fashion : to set out the framework for one week. I agree that there was a reason why God wrote it the way He did.


So did man evolve or not?

Did I dam you to hell? Or did what was written in the word? I used biblical examples, I did not use personal opinions. If you felt guilt, it was none of my doing. I have no control over how God's word makes one feel.
As far as you only listing verse by placement, and not by wording. Are you avoiding the use of God's word in this debate?

I accept that he did evolve. In my humble opinion, this doesn't detract from God's glory and has no impact on our relationship with God. I still haven't heard the process God used in the six literal days. I was interested in hearing this. If it doesn't exist, my question as to the "how" remains.

If you're asking whether or not the Bible verse you posted had something to do with the damning of theistic evolutionist, my answer is "no."
I just assumed everyone here knew John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 by heart.

So now we get down to what you actually believe about this. Just by you question I know that you don't. So if you believe it was not an exact likness, what does God look like? And can you prove it with scripture?

Exodus 33:20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." We're too sinful to look upon His face.
Jesus was both true man and true God. 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
The physical appearance of the holy spirit is implied in the naming process :) .

More silly comparisons? I'm not the one who believes in evolution, and all that science claims about why God's word is wrong. So the comparison does not apply. Besides, why do you think science cannot figure out exactly what gravity is? It's because it is a invisible force that is beyond sciences comprehension. But yet scientists like to make fun of which verse, even though they know less about it?

Science makes the claim that the earth is old and that life on earth shares a common ancestor. This contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. Your argument is that it cannot be the least bit figurative. Mine is that it might very well be. If you are right, we both believe in Christ as our personal Savior and have eternal life. If I am right, we both believe in Christ as our personal Savior and have eternal life.
I wouldn't say science is never going to understand gravity, or that it bears significance on this argument. If you claim that gravity will never be understood because it is a mystery that God created, power is taken away from God when we find the mechanism of gravity.
Abiogenesis without divine intervention is likely an impossibility. Why would I be ashamed of God's intervention?

The arguement is moot. But can you see God condemning everyone who did not believe this just how you wrote it? For what book will God judge us by? Will it be a book written by men that were not inspired by God? Will it be Darwin's book? In order for God to be the rightous judge, He has to also be judging from the rightous word. Will God be sending anyone who does not believe in evolution to hell? Because if it is true as you claim it to be. Then it has as much power to condemn everyone who does not believe it, as anything else. So who will it be that will be thrown into hell over this theory?

No, I can't see God condemning becuase of anything other Disbelief. God will judge us by the Bible as He prescribed in the Bible. No, certainly not Origin of Species, Icons of Evolution, Refuting Evolution or Starlight and Time. Certainly God will not be damning anyone who doesn't accept evolution just as he won't be damning everyone who does accept it just because they do.
Nobody is going to be thrown into hell over this, that is one of the main points I'm trying to get across.

Because God can see into someone's heart means that both the Father and the Son have vision we do not have. The vision in the spiritual realm allows you to see through physical objects. So God is speaking of a vision here that we do not have.
And example of this vision is when someone in graphics does cad design with 3D objects. When the cad design is finished, and the customer sees the finished product. He does not see the internal workings of lines, circles, etc... that the designer had to work with in order to make it look like it does. So he could tell the customer these things and the customer would not understand unless he showed the customer what he did on his cad program. Problem is with God's word, we don't have the example of what is being seen as they see it.

View Post

I agree, but for different reasons.

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 May 2007 - 01:02 PM

I'm curious. Can you provide a verse that says we should believe more in what we see over what is written?

#25 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 19 May 2007 - 01:42 PM

I wouldn't say I am believing more in what we see than what is written. I am looking at what is written in a different way based on what I see in God's creation.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.


There is no excuse not to see God when you look at His creation. His creation is not deceptive, then, in making us choose "His Word or His Creation." I believe there is Biblical support for the claim that they are compatible.

Edit : Changed wording.

#26 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2007 - 06:30 PM

There is no excuse not to see God when you look at His creation.  His creation is not deceptive, then, in making us choose "His Word or His Creation." I believe there is Biblical support for the claim that they are compatible.


Maybe you should open a thread and explain how naturlistic explantions for life are compatible with Biblical explanations.

I've yet to see a "Theistic Evolutionists" that was not not 100% Evolutionist, and 0%Biblical in their approach to the Evolution vs. Creation debate. I've asked before, more than once I believe, and have yet to get a response. Maybe you'll break the trend.

Terry

#27 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 May 2007 - 09:59 PM

Zedekiah Dacorath,

Let's see how much evolution supports the word of God. Or is it the direct opposite of what God inspired man to write about creation?

------God's word--------------------------------------Evolution

1) Earth before sun.------------------------Sun before earth.

2) Oceans before land.---------------------Land before oceans.

3) Light before sun.-------------------------Sun before light.

4) Land plants first.-------------------------Marine life first.

5) Fruit tree before fish.--------------------Fish before fruit trees.

6) Fish before insects.----------------------Insects before fish.

7) Plants before sun.-----------------------Sun before plants.

8) Marine animals before land animals---Land animals before marine animals.

9) Birds before reptiles.--------------------Reptiles before birds.

10) Man brought death into the world.----Death brought man into the world.

11) God created man.----------------------Man created God.

12) Atmosphere between two layers of water---Atmosphere above water.


When something is the direct opposite of the other. And you have to choose one for truth. What does that make the other?

Example: If you are accused of stealing something, and you tell the person you are accused of stealing from you did not do it. But I say you did. What am I calling you by being the opposite of what you claim as truth?

----What you claim.------------------------------What I claim.
No I did not take object.------------------------Yes you did take object.

So when the person who makes the decision about this chooses to believe one and not the the other. By default the other becomes a liar. This is what exact opposites do when truth is the decision. You have to choose one, and deny the other.

1) So If I choose creation as it is written. God becomes my truth and the opposite becomes what?

2) So if I choose evolution as it was written. Darwin becomes my truth and the opposite becomes what?

If the truth in the book upon which God will judge us is not absolute. Then the judgement of a righteous and just God has no meaning. For can God let someone into Heaven on a lie (a lie that was written about creation)? Can God send someone to hell on a deception of truth (If creation is not true)? Do you think that some people in Heaven will be there by mistake? Do you think some people in hell will be there by mistake?

#28 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 20 May 2007 - 10:02 AM

Maybe you should open a thread and explain how naturlistic explantions for life are compatible with Biblical explanations.

I'll work on getting to it if I'm still around by summer time :)


Let's see how much evolution supports the word of God. Or is it the direct opposite of what God inspired man to write about creation?

Hold up, what about the verses that illustrated how we are left without excuse before God's creation?
Regardless, I believe you are posing a false dilemma: that Genesis is either plainly literal or fiction. That is not true. Not all verses are taken literally, and I believe there is reason to believe scripturally and based on His creation that they are not taken to be that way. Among them, poetic repetition and the use of symbols. Genesis 2:4 says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven." What do you think the word day here means? It cannot be taken literally, for example, if you take Genesis 1 as literal.
Genesis 1-3 serves to give us the historical account of Adam and Eve, God's relationship to man and the establishment of the Sabbath from God to man.

Example: If you are accused of stealing something, and you tell the person you are accused of stealing from you did not do it. But I say you did. What am I calling you by being the opposite of what you claim as truth? So when the person who makes the decision about this chooses to believe one and not the the other. By default the other becomes a liar. This is what exact opposites do when truth is the decision. You have to choose one, and deny the other.

In this example, you are either a liar or telling the truth. In actuality, we both sincerely believe what we do. Neither of us is lying.

1) So If I choose creation as it is written. God becomes my truth and the opposite becomes what?
2) So if I choose evolution as it was written. Darwin becomes my truth and the opposite becomes what?

As it is literally written, but that doesn't mean that it is how it was intended to be read. If we were to read Revelation literally, we'd be in a whole heap of confusion. But symbols and poetic language similar to that found in parts of the old testament give away its intended meaning. I would also like to point out again that the theory of evolution is an explanation of how life diversified, not a church instituted by a one : Reverend Charles.

If the truth in the book upon which God will judge us is not absolute. Then the judgement of a righteous and just God has no meaning. For can God let someone into Heaven on a lie (a lie that was written about creation)? Can God send someone to hell on a deception of truth (If creation is not true)? Do you think that some people in Heaven will be there by mistake? Do you think some people in hell will be there by mistake?

Absolute truth isn't the same as how something is literally written, as I attempted to illustrate earlier. I've already discussed what I think is damning and what isn't.
I believe, as taught in most protestant churches, that there is a Holy Christian Church; that there is salvation outside of just one denomination. Just because, for example, one denomination doesn't have the absolute true belief regarding the obligations of a pastor doesn't mean they are damned for missing this piece of doctrine. Justification is through faith.


Lets take a look at two views :
1) I say the earth is 6,000 years old and if you believe otherwise, you're damned to hell because it is incompatible with the Bible. An unbeliever looks at you and says, "Okay, you have fun with that."
2) I say the earth is 6,000 years old and if you believe otherwise, you're not going to hell, but you're wrong. Christ still loves you and you can still have salvation through faith in Him, but I'd like you to give me a chance to convince you otherwise. An unbeliever has a chance to come to Christ that he wouldn't have had in 1), and you now have a chance to correct his view if he accepts Christ.

#29 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 May 2007 - 07:06 PM

I'm going to have to disagree with this. I don't see how this this piece of doctrine is all important to the church; why assuming an interpretation of Genesis that doesn't change our relationship with God is going to make the entire Bible fall apart.

View Post


For one we have scores of testimonies to the effect, perhaps the best example is Charles Templeton, the Billy Graham of his day. Here’s his list why he rejected God, in his book “Farewell to God”:

1. Physicists who say ‘it took billions of years for the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, and our world to evolve to its present … form.
2. Anthropologists who say that ‘our earlier ancestors did not suddenly appear fully formed, but were anthropoid creatures who lived on the earth millions of years ago.
3. Geneticists who say it is ‘nonsense’ to believe that the ‘reason for all the crime, poverty, suffering, and general wickedness in the world’ is sin.
4. Geologists who say ‘there is no evidence whatsoever of a worldwide flood’ as told in Genesis.
5. The two ‘Creation stories … each differing from the other at almost every point.
6. The ‘fables’ (in Genesis 1 and 2) which have ‘remained the grounds of Christian theology across the centuries.
7. Noah and his family were too primitive to have built the Ark.
8. All the animals could not possibly have fitted on the Ark.
9. Where did the water come from for the Flood?
10. The ‘grim and inescapable reality’ that ‘all life is predicated on death. Every carnivorous creature must kill and devour another creature. It has no option

All of these ‘objections’ have solid answers, but unfortunately at the time he went to Princeton in the 50s, there wasn’t a significant creation movement to refute these claims.

I'm not sure that I follow. It doesn't say He created weeds on the spot, just that they would grow when he tries his hand at farming. We can both agree that there weren't weeds in the garden according to this verse?


That’s right, and the point I’m making. Creation was a paradise, then man’s sin brought death and a curse to creation. Creation is winding down, a contradiction to evolution theory that states that all life arose over time from a pile of molecules.

The questionnaire:
1) [Abortion criminalized] - Yes.
2) [H*m*s*xuality] Criminalized? No. Is it wrong? Yes, but is it the government's concern? No.
3) [pornnography] Criminalized? No. Is it wrong? Yes, but is it the government's concern? No.
4) [adultery] Criminalized? No. Is it wrong? Yes, but is it the government's concern? No.
5) Leaves a really unchristian taste in the mouth, eh? "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7 If he/she continues sinning without repentance, he/she will goto hell.
Captial punishment, however, serves to eliminate those that are never going to be functioning members of society ever again. Kill H*m*sexuals, adulterers and mothers who had abortions? Send them to la guillotine if you really think it best. What happened to the God that is compassionate and whose enemy is death, and weeps for it?

I think I scored a 20%, F-  :)  Will you take my test? It is an extrapolation of sorts. I implore you not to take it the wrong way, I am merely prodding.

1) Is it acceptable to physically harm someone who practices H*m*s*xuality?
2) Should work on the Sabbath day be criminalized?
3) Should the theory of evolution be criminalized?
4) Should coveting your neighbor be criminalized?
5) What is the limit to legislating the laws of the Bible?


These are good questions. Don’t take this the wrong way but your answer is the pretty much the same answer I have been getting for years and I could have wrote your response for you. :) I’m also glad to see you admitted flunking the test. :) Most people think Bill O’rielly is conservative, but his views, which seem to mirror yours, would have been regarded as far left for most of this country’s history. A gradual and largely unniticed shift to left has caused people to now think he is right of center and even conservative.

Ok, moving forward, by your own standards you accept that certain types of abhorrent behavior should be punished. But how do we know which ones should be criminalized and which ones shouldn’t? As Christians we should appeal to the Bible. I hope you would agree with this. The Bible is the source for truth, so if our beliefs contradict what the Bible teaches we need to go with the Big Guy upstairs. I would have given the same answers above you gave when I was a teenager/young adult (except I was worse and thought abortion should be legal). But at a point in my life I realized I was trusting my own wisdom over God’s, when instead I should trust God’s standard. It turns out there is a ton of wisdom in his standard that would greatly improve life and save tons of lives.

Just for some perspective, abortion, H*m*s*xuality, and adultery were capital offenses in the early history of this country. They then became just crimes, in fact only recently were the last of the sodomy laws struck down. So over time, just like the frog placed in water that is slowly boiled, our standards have drifted away from the Biblical standard and our society has decayed into the mess it is in. We keep becoming more and more liberal. Why? Isn’t one of Satan’s desires is to bring about our misery and death? The destructiveness of abortion goes without saying. But consider H*m*s*xuality. The life expectancy of a h*mosexual male is around 40, due to the obvious S@xual disease factor, a depressing lifestyle that produces drug use and a suicide rate far above average, and a murder rate far above age. In societies that have capital laws against H*m*s*xuality, you have very few dead h*m*sexuals and very few families devastated by the loss of a loved one. We can't see what God sees, so we should trust his wisdom. Liberals want to “tolerate” a h*mosexual right over the cliff and to his grave, true “agape” love is warning him of the danger and doing everything you can to get them to leave the self-destructive lifestyle. Similar wisdom applies to the family devastation that adultery and p*rn*gr*phy (which is a form of adultery) can bring.

Regarding John 8:7, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." This is the common Christian problem of being “nicer than God”. You have already admitted there is some standard of judgment we should follow (ie criminalize abortion), so you are not being consistent. I hope you see that any view that is the same view of the world’s, always produces double-standards such as this. Another example is rapists and child molesters. Are we not to cast stones, that is, judge them? Of course! It is a cliché and false teaching when Christians say we must not judge. In the John 8:7 passage, and in the oft-used, Hillary Clinton favorite “thou shalt not judge”, Christ is telling us to not judge like a hypocrite. Both passages provide this proper context when read in their entirety. Christ does call on us to judge, not like a hypocrite, but instead “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment ." - John 7:24. The apostle Paul chided the church of California, er, Corinth, for not judging even trivial issues: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” - 1 Cor 6:2. Also, if you do not think we as a society should judge, then feel free to rip the book of Judges right out of your Bible! :)

Also, there is a Biblical standard (I would have to find it, and will if asked) that newly decreed criminal statutes cannot be implemented on past offenders, essentially a grandfathering effect. So if abortion were criminalized, it would go against Biblical principles, and therefore wrong, to put former abortion doctors in jail. Only when they commit the crime after the new law goes into effect would they be required to face their due punishment (which the Bible says should be execution).

Now to your questions. The answer to all of them is of course NO. Regarding the Sabbath and things like believing in false idols (for which evolution would qualify), these were ceremonial requirements placed on the Jews, so they were to be held to a higher standard. But given the New Covenant, the ceremonial laws no longer apply (they never applied to gentile nations).

So this gets to the core of the dispute we are having. You claim believing in evolution and an old earth is not a slippery slope for Christians, I believe it is and have many examples to show it. Remember, ever single liberal church in the world began with a compromise of Genesis. There are simply no known exceptions. This is as close to proof as you can get for the slippery slope I speak of.

Thanks for the time you have taken to discuss this.

Fred

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 May 2007 - 08:59 PM

I wouldn't say I am believing more in what we see than what is written. I am looking at what is written in a different way based on what I see in God's creation.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


KJV
Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is the reason I use only the KJV bible. A twist here and there of a few words and you can reverse the meaning. The NIV translator was OEC. And believed the gap theory. So the translation he did was worded to support his personal view. Though I don't which transaltion you quoted from.

The KJV maybe hard to understand, but it keeps a neutral view.

Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.


Romans 8:19
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

This is another example of why I use the KJV. The word creature is omitted. And reveal does not replace manifestation. Manifest in God's word is when a spiritual being manifests (appears) to the physical world.

There is no excuse not to see God when you look at His creation.  His creation is not deceptive, then, in making us choose "His Word or His Creation." I believe there is Biblical support for the claim that they are compatible.

Edit : Changed wording.

View Post


So which is more true? The temporal creation, or the written creation? Evolution is still a theory. God will not be judging us on theories. He will be judging us on absolutes.

#31 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 20 May 2007 - 09:43 PM

KJV
Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

View Post


Doesn't that refute your entire arguement? How can you deny things that are clearly seen that conflict with the written word?

#32 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 May 2007 - 10:31 PM

Doesn't that refute your entire arguement?  How can you deny things that are clearly seen that conflict with the written word?

View Post


What does invisible mean?

I see I'm going to have to break down the verse:

Romans 1:20 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

1) For the invisible things of him.
What are the invisible things of God? Anything spiritual. Wonder why you can't see gravity? Wonder why science cannot explain where it comes from? Wonder why it can't be duplicated? Because it is invisible because it's part of another realm. But if you have a better explaination, I'm all ears.

2) From the creation of the world are clearly seen.
We can see the affects of gravity. We can work out equations to explain it to a limited extent. So we know it's there. But it is still invisible, correct?

3) Being understood by the things which are made.
The affect gravity has on physical objects. This is why we understand it (gravity) by the things which are made (physical things). This is because we see the affects of it on these things. But still it is invisible.

4) even his eternal power and Godhead.
This is where the invisible things come from. The eternal realm.

5) So that they are without excuse.
If you can see the affect, but deny the power of where it comes from. You are without excuse.

Gravity affects everything in the creation in one way or another. But still it is an invisible force that science cannot fully explain, or duplicate.

#33 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 21 May 2007 - 12:15 PM

For one we have scores of testimonies to the effect, perhaps the best example is Charles Templeton, the Billy Graham of his day. Here’s his list why he rejected God, in his book “Farewell to God”:
All of these ‘objections’ have solid answers, but unfortunately at the time he went to Princeton in the 50s, there wasn’t a significant creation movement to refute these claims.

That's a bummer. I see how this could work both ways, then, for different people. If he didn't think there was a contradiction,

That’s right, and the point I’m making. Creation was a paradise, then man’s sin brought death and a curse to creation. Creation is winding down, a contradiction to evolution theory that states that all life arose over time from a pile of molecules.
These are good questions. Don’t take this the wrong way but your answer is the pretty much the same answer I have been getting for years and I could have wrote your response for you. :)

Maybe there's something to it ;)

I’m also glad to see you admitted flunking the test. :) Most people think Bill O’rielly is conservative, but his views, which seem to mirror yours, would have been regarded as far left for most of this country’s history. A gradual and largely unniticed shift to left has caused people to now think he is right of center and even conservative.

Well... if it was curved with how you did on my test... :)
No doubt the country has moved left, but to be fair, it started with the Declaration of Independence.

Ok, moving forward, by your own standards you accept that certain types of abhorrent behavior should be punished. But how do we know which ones should be criminalized and which ones shouldn’t? As Christians we should appeal to the Bible. I hope you would agree with this. The Bible is the source for truth, so if our beliefs contradict what the Bible teaches we need to go with the Big Guy upstairs. I would have given the same answers above you gave when I was a teenager/young adult (except I was worse and thought abortion should be legal). But at a point in my life I realized I was trusting my own wisdom over God’s, when instead I should trust God’s standard. It turns out there is a ton of wisdom in his standard that would greatly improve life and save tons of lives.
Now to your questions. The answer to all of them is of course NO. Regarding the Sabbath and things like believing in false idols (for which evolution would qualify), these were ceremonial requirements placed on the Jews, so they were to be held to a higher standard. But given the New Covenant, the ceremonial laws no longer apply (they never applied to gentile nations).

My coloring. I think some of the laws in the questions you posed were extracted from the Old Testament.

Just for some perspective, abortion, H*m*s*xuality, and adultery were capital offenses in the early history of this country. They then became just crimes, in fact only recently were the last of the sodomy laws struck down. So over time, just like the frog placed in water that is slowly boiled, our standards have drifted away from the Biblical standard and our society has decayed into the mess it is in. We keep becoming more and more liberal. Why? Isn’t one of Satan’s desires is to bring about our misery and death? The destructiveness of abortion goes without saying. But consider H*m*s*xuality. The life expectancy of a h*mosexual male is around 40, due to the obvious S@xual disease factor, a depressing lifestyle that produces drug use and a suicide rate far above average, and a murder rate far above age. In societies that have capital laws against H*m*s*xuality, you have very few dead H*m*sexuals and very few families devastated by the loss of a loved one. We can't see what God sees, so we should trust his wisdom. Liberals want to “tolerate” a h*mosexual right over the cliff and to his grave, true “agape” love is warning him of the danger and doing everything you can to get them to leave the self-destructive lifestyle. Similar wisdom applies to the family devastation that adultery and P*rn*gr*phy (which is a form of adultery) can bring.

You reap what you sow; I don't know about legistating these into laws. I'm not entirely sure that it is this government's responsibility.

Regarding John 8:7, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." This is the common Christian problem of being “nicer than God”. You have already admitted there is some standard of judgment we should follow (ie criminalize abortion), so you are not being consistent. I hope you see that any view that is the same view of the world’s, always produces double-standards such as this. Another example is rapists and child molesters. Are we not to cast stones, that is, judge them? Of course! It is a cliché and false teaching when Christians say we must not judge. In the John 8:7 passage, and in the oft-used, Hillary Clinton favorite “thou shalt not judge”, Christ is telling us to not judge like a hypocrite. Both passages provide this proper context when read in their entirety. Christ does call on us to judge, not like a hypocrite, but instead “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment ."  - John 7:24. The apostle Paul chided the church of California, er, Corinth, for not judging even trivial issues: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” - 1 Cor 6:2. Also, if you do not think we as a society should judge, then feel free to rip the book of Judges right out of your Bible! :)

I find here that you aren't taking the Bible literally enough. (<odd grammar?) The woman was going to suffer capital punishment and Jesus intervened. The stones weren't just symbols of judgements, yes? In the end, do any of us have truly righteous judgment other than God's final judgment? I'm not using this as an excuse not to judge, but to move away from legislating questions 2-5.

So this gets to the core of the dispute we are having. You claim believing in evolution and an old earth is not a slippery slope for Christians, I believe it is and have many examples to show it. Remember, ever single liberal church in the world began with a compromise of Genesis. There are simply no known exceptions. This is as close to proof as you can get for the slippery slope I speak of.

Thanks for the time you have taken to discuss this.

Alright. What if the slope started higher up with my five questions?

Thank you as well, I very much enjoy discussion.




Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

You're right, I think I prefer this wording.
Being understood by the things that are made still makes a strong case for the absence of deceit in God's creation regarding the appearance of the earth.
Invisible meaning unseen mechanisms, I would agree with this conclusion.

I would say the agreement ceases when we claim that gravity will never be understood because it is a force that comes from another realm. If we were to make this claim and later the exact mechanism of gravity was discovered, would Christianity be weakened?

#34 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 May 2007 - 04:29 PM

Zed,

Care to address post # 27?

#35 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 21 May 2007 - 06:08 PM

Already did, it was addressed in #28 ;)

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 May 2007 - 07:01 PM

Zedekiah Dacorath,


------God's word--------------------------------------Evolution

1) Earth before sun.------------------------Sun before earth.

2) Oceans before land.---------------------Land before oceans.

3) Light before sun.-------------------------Sun before light.

4) Land plants first.-------------------------Marine life first.

5) Fruit tree before fish.--------------------Fish before fruit trees.

6) Fish before insects.----------------------Insects before fish.

7) Plants before sun.-----------------------Sun before plants.

8) Marine animals before land animals---Land animals before marine animals.

9) Birds before reptiles.--------------------Reptiles before birds.

10) Man brought death into the world.----Death brought man into the world.

11) God created man.----------------------Man created God.

12) Atmosphere between two layers of water---Atmosphere above water.

View Post


You only addressed the part you wanted to address. Here is the part that you skipped. Is, or is not evolution the exact opposite of creation?

#37 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 22 May 2007 - 04:45 AM

Regardless, I believe you are posing a false dilemma: that Genesis is either plainly literal or fiction. That is not true. Not all verses are taken literally, and I believe there is reason to believe scripturally and based on His creation that they are not taken to be that way. Among them, poetic repetition and the use of symbols. Genesis 2:4 says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven." What do you think the word day here means? It cannot be taken literally, for example, if you take Genesis 1 as literal.



Genesis 1-3 serves to give us the historical account of Adam and Eve, God's relationship to man and the establishment of the Sabbath from God to man


; so no, evolution isn't the opposite of Creation. It is either God created it somehow or He created it with evolution... (Question of how you think He created it still stands. Ex. He used electromagnentism to shape every molecule of man, for example.)

#38 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 22 May 2007 - 09:29 AM

And Jesus turned water into wine. And a man was told to put forth his withered arm and immediately, it became like the other. To ascribe to God anything less than miraculous power seems to be inconsistent with the abilities he demonstrated while on earth. A man dead for days, and starting to smell, is called out, alive.

And the question needs to be asked, if God did simply get the ball rolling so to speak and use evolution, how is that a witnessing tool to the power of God? And Jesus Christ told them, "From the beginning, he made them male and female." Not asexual single celled organisms.

If the scientist states: We don't need a supernatural explanation. This all came about on its own. Well?




God bless,
Al

#39 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 22 May 2007 - 11:26 AM

And Jesus turned water into wine. And a man was told to put forth his withered arm and immediately, it became like the other. To ascribe to God anything less than miraculous power seems to be inconsistent with the abilities he demonstrated while on earth. A man dead for days, and starting to smell, is called out, alive.

I'm not ascribing God with less than miraculous power. ;)

And the question needs to be asked, if God did simply get the ball rolling so to speak and use evolution, how is that a witnessing tool to the power of God? And Jesus Christ told them, "From the beginning, he made them male and female." Not asexual single celled organisms.

Either way He created it, it was Him that created the entire universe. The point is all of creation points to His power.
Is Jesus talking about about humans and marriage, or the nature of the earth's biodiversity?

If the scientist states: We don't need a supernatural explanation. This all came about on its own. Well?
God bless,
Al


I don't think there has to be a supernatural explanation for everything to give more power to God; He made it so that the world is explainable to some extent. Just because we understand electricity doesn't take any power away from Him.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 May 2007 - 02:22 PM

I would say the agreement ceases when we claim that gravity will never be understood because it is a force that comes from another realm. If we were to make this claim and later the exact mechanism of gravity was discovered, would Christianity be weakened?


Nope. My faith would not be weakened because my faith is not always based on trying to be right, or being right. It based on finding truth. So it would change according to the acceptable evidence. Faith does not require someone to deny truth, it requires the truth claimed to support what the truth is based on (God's word).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users