Re: Re: Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists
| Posted On: 01/25/07 01:49:04 AM |
Age 50, WI |
I agree that "Old Earth Creationist" seems to me to be an oxymoron. Which reminds me to ask someone who might know: What's up with John Ankerberg? He buys into the Hugh Ross bit about the days of Genesis not being literal 24 hour days! In fact he claims in a letter he wrote to Dave Hunt, dated 12-6-2006, posted on his website (www.johnankerberg.org) that he has "documented" the "false scientific evidence" of "Young Earth scholars." Then he lists 12 such claims, including arguments I thought were without question, such as "That the Earth's magnetic field decays too rapidly to allow for an old Earth," and "That lunar dust accumulates too quickly fo allow for an old Earth," and "That a comets lifespan is only a few thousand years...," and "That the trails of human footprints beside or crosing over dinosaur prints prove that donosaurs were contemporaneous with humans, not millions of years old," and "That rapid sedimentation and peat deposition following the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption demonstrate that geological processes are rapid, not gradual;therefore, the earth could be young," etc., etc. He says, "All of these scientific arguments presented as evidence for the Young Earth position have been proven to be scientifically false." I'm confused about this statement and am hoping that someone with scientific creditials will answer these objections. I am convinced that he is wrong Biblically about the days being perhaps long periods of time. I think Ken Ham and Kent Hovind (who both have appeared on his show) make tremendous sense in holding to the literal sense of day meaning 24 hour day.
|
Re: Re: Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists
| Posted On: 01/22/07 10:01:51 AM |
Age 46, AL |
With all due respect to your powers of observation, it appears that they have been swayed by "millions of years" thinking. In fact, the present processes of erosion and geological change quite easily accomodates a young earth position of roughly 6,000 years. Current processes of erosion would have choked the sea had millions of years passed. Current processes would have created a sea so salty as to be a virtual wasteland had millions of years passed. Furthermore, modern day examples such as the eruption of Mount St. Helens reveals that much change can happen in a relatively short period of time. You simply don't need millions of years to achieve the geographical features observed today. Finally, by simple reading of God's word, we see an event described in history that more than accomplishes a tremendous amount of change in the earth's features from the original creation - that would be the flood during Noah's life. The huge amount of tectonic plate movement, mountains forming, valleys forming, land masses shifting, volcanism, earthquakes and erosion due to water would have serious impacts for hundred, if not thousands of years on this earth. It was an event never before seen nor to be ever seen again. Thus, it has no comparison when measured for geographical change. The point is, God's word gives us a clear picture of traumatic global change which science confirms. It is only when we try to go to science first, that we end up having to distort the Bible to try to "make it fit" with what the changing ideas of science tell us. I, for one, choose to stand upon what God revealed to us rather than depending upon what fallible scientists try to explain.
|
Response
| Posted On: 01/20/07 04:11:57 PM |
Age 18, MN |
From our discussion, I have determined that this is what we agree on: God's Word is infallible; God is infinite (all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.); I agree that the word 'day' can be something other than 24 hour periods; I agree that interpretations that man makes are re-interpretations if they're different from God's; I also recognize that Adam didn't know everything (before and after the fall). Now there are others, and I hope that I got this correct for what we do agree upon. Here's what we do disagree upon: Whether or not the Genesis 1 days were literally 24 hours each or not (even though the word 'day' can have multiple meanings, you can read in the context and as I'll say again, according to the Hebrew language rules, it does mean 24 hour days); we disagree on whether there was physical death prior to the fall or not (There may be some I've missed, but anyway, that's my summary). Now, I don't know what you view on the issue of whether Noah's (really God's) Flood was local or not, whether or not there were "Pre-Adamic" creatures, etc. so I won't even make a case on that. Here are my final statments: I again state explicitly that you can be a Christian and believe in millions/billions of years. I also would say that I could be wrong about this. However, from what I do understand as of now, the earth is 'young', the days were 24 hr. periods, and physical death (in addition to spiritual) came after the Fall.
Have a great day, God Bless, and hope you're all staying healthy in this flu and cold season!!
|
Re: Questios and Comments
| Posted On: 01/20/07 12:26:18 PM |
Age 63, OH |
The day in Genesis could be taken just from language to mean earth day of course; I stated that from the beginning that the word day has many meanings. So it could be long or short from the rules of language. Jonah I think is clearly a case where the word day means a earth day. I think it is stated that Jesus rose on the third day;and I think it means earth day but He was not in the Grave for 72 hours but for only a little more than 36 hours if you look into it. I am NOT saying that the Bible is wrong. What makes God perfect, is it not that He has no imperfections. A imperfection can be something wrong or something missing. God is missing nothing. One of the things that make Him perfect is that He is the "Ancient of Days". Adam was not the ancient of days but a new creation so was MISSING this. God was the One who had all truth and wisdom; He was missing no truth or no wisdom. Adam did not have all truth or all wisdom but was very short on both. So Adam was not perfect. God is the only being in the universe that is perfect, has ever been perfect, or ever will be perfect. There is none like Him, no not one. God wrote the scriptures and His interpretation is the original. Any interpretation different from His is a reinterpretation. Any of mans interps. no matter how far they Go back is a re-interp if it differs from God's. I am constantly looking for God's interp and care nothing for any of man's that differ from His. The 7th day has a number in front of it and we are still in the 7th day. God is still in His rest. The 8th day is the day of new beginnings and when Jesus comes back it will be the start of the 8th day. This book that states this rule of Hebrew is written long after Bible and could be wrong.-- lounewton1347@yahoo.com
|
Re: Re: Re: Perfection??
| Posted On: 01/20/07 11:32:58 AM |
Age 63, OH |
Good answer brother we can always agree on that answer the CROSS. I want to preach nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Newton
|
Re: Re: Perfection??
| Posted On: 01/19/07 05:52:56 PM |
Age 56, OR |
Yes... CROSS... NO
|
Re: Re: The Word
| Posted On: 01/19/07 05:44:32 PM |
Age 56, OR |
Dear OH 63.
"Let there be.." in context, as stated clearly means CREATED/MADE/CAUSED TO EXIST.
I used the word "let", on its own to make a simple point about old English, amongst others that I see you failed to mention.
The mere fact that words have to be understood in their context of time also does not allow us the disingenous liberty of construing fault where none lies.
Please re-read your previous comments about Creation as a word being distinct from LETTING something be or happen. I have no distinction Sir, but you did.
I hope you are not aware of the NIV's true intentions, besides the obvious one to make money. There are over 6,000 changes or omissions in that version that a great many Christians find anathema. It is based on the Gnostic Alexandrian text and Vaticanus that wishes (amongst other things) to deny the Deity of Jesus.
As you are well aware, I hold that NO promise of God changes. Perhaps the words TODAY may have different connotations, that is why we ought to be students of the Word. Since man is ever changing, ever fluid in his understanding and always seeks to suppress the Truth, I do not find it hard to believe that some would not like to take the literal Genesis (as written) for the Truth. They would like to add to it, for that way it suits their purposes. The opponents of the 1611 KJV and other similar reprints mostly object to the CREATIONIST elements within that are hard to explain away. In order to go with an 'old earth' or evolutionism belief, you really do have to get something like the NIV to back you up. Even the NKJV says "The first day..." (not 'a' first day).PGW
|
Questios and Comments
| Posted On: 01/19/07 05:43:17 PM |
Age 18, MN |
Well, it is true that some of the early church fathers thought that the days of Genesis were not literal 24 periods. However, if I recall my history correctly, they proposed that the universe's existence was instanteous (such as St. Origen), not dragged out for millions of years. As for the verse, "He called the light 'day'..." I need to point out that the following was "and the darkness He called 'night'". Now, that sounds pretty much like the typical 24 hours we know today, approx. 12 hrs. of daylight and approx. 12 of darkness. And I don't deny that the scriptures do fit with reality (i.e. God's creation account matches the creation). The debate here is about what the creation was (in terms of time). As far as innoncence and death, I'm pointing out that man was originally created to live forever and COULD HAVE LIVED FOREVER IF ADAM AND EVE HADN'T SINNED. I don't see exactly where you showed that man was in fact, not created perfect by God originally. As far as all the animals being vegetarian originally, that is stated explicitly in Genesis that is the case. Once sin came into the world (via mankind), there was the genetic possibility of animals switching from being veggie-eaters to meat-eaters, because of God cursing the ground and so forth. As far as 'kinds' are concerned, I should point out a few things. One: We don't know what the conditions were before the Great Flood. Two: However, we do know from science about genetics (to a certain degree) and that (from even secular sources) genetic variation for animals can be rapid. Three: If God made 'kinds' (dog kind, cat kind, horse kind, etc.) with the genetic ability to have different variations within kinds, then when Adam was naming all the animals that were there back then, not now. Poodles for example (as a domestic variety) haven't always existed in earth's history, but dogs have since Day 6. Now if these animal kinds got off the Ark (Noah's) and began to spread all over the earth, well, you can eventually get splinter groups moving up north and down south. Because this can be rapid genetic changes (especially if there's a need to keep the population in existence, such as after all the oher animals got wiped out in the Flood), it is totally reasonable to assume that the genetic variability could result in (using dog's as an example) coyote's, wolves, beagles, etc. Side Note: My point with Dr. James Boice was that he admitted that the plain reading of the Bible said that the days were what we experience (give or take a few seconds) today. Now, I'll say again for all who read this, you can be a Christian and believe in millions of years or even in evolution (though I would say that they're being inconsistant). However, let me explain (for myself and for even other 6-day creationists) why there there is a problem with the issue of six days. First, the debate over this is about whether or not we can trust God's Word completely. If the Hebrew language rules say, "If the word 'day' (yom) has a number, evening and/or morning, or night attached with it, it means your typical 24 hour day". Now, if this is the case, then it can't be anything but that in Genesis 1 (incidentally, I would point out that if the days in Genesis weren't literal days, then Jonah's still in the great fish and Jesus hasn't risen yet, if you take the logic to it's conclusion). Now, we have generations of people who are not believing in the Bible's reliability, even Christians. If we say that the Bible (God's Word) can be reinterpreted (as I would suggest stuffing millions of years, death and suffering before sin, etc.), then we can reinterpret in other areas right (such as morality)? I'm not saying that this affected the salvation of those who believed or still believe in millions/billions of years, I am saying that people are now not even trusting the Bible in Western Civilization (on the whole). This is the concern. 6-day creationists do have answers for things such as age-dating, genetics, physics, astronomy, etc. without reinterpreting God's Word. God Bless and have a great day!!!
|
Re: Perfection??
| Posted On: 01/18/07 05:20:56 PM |
Age 63, OH |
A very good question. And we know that if God said it then it is true. But notice very carefully what God said; " Thou was perfect in THY WAYS ---- until iniquity was found--- ". God is simply saying that until Satan said that he could be like God; that Satan's behavior ( or Satan's ways) was perfect. Just like Adam's ways were perfect until Adam listened to his wife instead of doing what God said. Anytime we think we can decide right from wrong then we put ourselves in the same position as Satan, who said he could be like the most high. We can not tell right from wrong or our right hand from our left; the only thing we can do is to go to Jesus and ask Him to lead us the way he wants us to go. Do me a favor draw a big circle on a piece of paper. Now let's say that the circle contains perfection, and everything in the circle is perfect. Can you find imperfection in the circle. Newton
|
Re: Response
| Posted On: 01/18/07 04:59:18 PM |
Age 63, OH |
1st of all the old universe is not a NEW idea. Some of the early church fathers thought that the days in Genesis were not earth days but had nothing to do with time. Like I said in some other post God is saying that there was darkness and He had victory over the darkness. He planned for it from the beginning and "let there be" light and a new day dawned as God said HE called the light day. In the 1600's Isaac Newton who made it his life work to study the bible; thought that the universe was even older than they are saying now. I did not study science and then the Bible; but studied the scriptures and asked God about these things and He showed me that the days in Genesis were long days. After the Holy Spirit showed me I was unsure because everyone seemed to disagree. But the Holy Spirit was very patient with me and confirmed His voice with the scriptures; and showed me in the scriptures that they were long days. A more recent thing God has done is to show me that His creation agrees with His account of His creation. You can,t have it both ways; you said man could not die because God made man perfect; so now that you see that man was not created perfect can't you see there is a possibility that man could die. The Bible states very clearly that God did not create the universe with plan A and then after the fall Go to plan B. He did not create animals that all were vegetarians and then after the fall made them kill and eat. Some animals were made to be sacrificed and others were made to eat them. This was to demonstrate right from the start that SOMETHING INNOCENT HAS TO DIE FOR LIFE TO BE POSSIBLE. This was to show what our creator would do for us right from the start as Paul says in his letters. Also we have the same kinds of animals now as we did then. What would God view as important to make a "kind"; their appearance or their inside makeup and their behavior. Newton
|
Re: The Word
| Posted On: 01/18/07 04:05:21 PM |
Age 63, OH |
What God says is certainly true. I believe everything that God says. But it seems to me you have written a dangerous thing on post above. Do you mean that you believe that many promises of God could now mean the opposite. He promises eternal life but are you saying it could now mean the opposite, death. I disagree very strongly with this; I think the scriptures mean just what they say; life means life and "let there be" means "let there be". I am not willing to make the scriptures null and void to prove my point. If I would ever disagree with the scriptures (which I don't ) then I would be wrong. Just as you are wrong now in your post above about "let there be" meaning the opposite of what it says.
|
Re: The Word
| Posted On: 01/18/07 03:48:16 PM |
Age 63, OH |
You are absolutly correct; the English language has changed since Tyndale's 1534 but also since KJV 1611. This is why I read the NIV a lot as it is in our language; and that is the purpose of a translation in the 1st place. Maybe that is your problem; you are reading 1611 English which as you say is FAR different. I suppose a lot of the words in 1611 had a opposite meaning than what God intended. Wow that could be the reason you see things as you do; the 1611 KJV is written in 1611 English. I have done a word study on the Hebrew in the passage "let there be" and also the English. 1st the NIV translates into modern day language "let there be", also the KJV, NKJV, and almost every translation that I have. 2nd if you do a Hebrew word study and a old English and modern English you will find it means just what God said; He is saying these steps of the creation were different than the three He created steps.
Newton
|
Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists
| Posted On: 01/17/07 10:43:42 PM |
Age 21, OH |
Well said.
|
Perfection??
| Posted On: 01/17/07 06:58:09 PM |
Age 56, OR |
Sir, I noted that earlier you said,"But man was not perfect; how could imperfection be found in perfection."
God said of Satan,"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." PGW
|
The Word
| Posted On: 01/17/07 06:39:13 PM |
Age 56, OR |
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand for ever."
Isaiah 40:8
At the time of Tyndale, the word "LET" could easily have meant just the opposite depending on context.
The meanings of words in the English language often change over time. Sometimes a meaning becomes entirely reversed; for example, nice used to be a negative word meaning "stupid", "wanton", or "lazy", but now means "agreeable", "pleasant" or "attractive".
It is a good thing that we be encouraged to worship the Creator and not the creature.
Words change, but the sense of them to a diligent student who retains a sense of history can easily be understood.
--And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. PGW
|
The Word
| Posted On: 01/17/07 06:15:55 PM |
Age 56, OR |
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand for ever."
Isaiah 40:8
|
Response
| Posted On: 01/17/07 11:02:14 AM |
Age 18, MN |
I hope that I can still respond even though this article isn't marked "New" anymore: Well sir, I don't deny the possibility that I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the days in Genesis 1=long periods of time (I must have not communicated something very well so I apologize for the confusion). Let me first define what I meant by perfect. I mean that Adam and Eve lived in paradise and had the choice to either obey or disobey God. They were designed to live forever. Now, God is not only perfect, but He is holy. He can't go against His own nature. He wants us to love Him, but He can't simply force us by not giving us the choice to either obey or disobey. Now as far as the creatures being named are concerned, the indication from the Bible is that there were 'kinds' not 'species'. We have a dog kind (which includes coyotes, wolves, poodles, St. Bernards, etc.), a cat kind (lions, tigers and...well not bears OH MY! :D), etc. AiG has some great articles on that for genetics and baraminology. As far as the animals needing to eat, they would have been vegetarian before the fall (again, AiG has some great articles on the subject). Now as far as fitting scripture into my preconcieved ideas, let me share this quote from the late Dr. James Boice, a Bible teacher: We have to admit here that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists' view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and an even older universe. James Montgomery Boice, Genesis, An Expositional Commentary, Vol. 1, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, pp. 5762, 1982." (I cut and pasted this from AiG's website in case you're wondering). My point is sir (with all due respect), is that I could say the same about you. As far as the word day is concerned, I do admit that it can have more than one interpretation. However, I would contend that in Genesis 1, the days are the typical day we talk about (approx. 24 hours). I do have one question, considering that it wasn't until the early 1800's that the idea that the earth was 'old', my question is then, why did they change this (and why do you accept this?)? My point is that, here's the church, accepting that the days were 24 days and then suddenly they change that: What changed the idea in the first place? I hope I'm not sounding harsh, but there are my questions and answers. God Bless and have a great day!!
|
Re: Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists
| Posted On: 01/17/07 03:00:12 AM |
Age 27, TN |
ok, we know the Bible says the earth was created by God, we know humans were created by him. he made it in 7 "days".
i look around at his creation and i just feel in my heart that something had to have created this place, but I also look at the earths surface, places like Arches National Park in Utah, Grand Canyon, etc, and I can't help but think the earth appears to be WAY older than 6000 years. even much older than 25,000 yrs. the way the earth's crust is folded, eroded and washed away. either God created the earth to look old for his own amusement or it is in fact, as old as it looks and seems.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists
| Posted On: 01/16/07 11:12:59 PM |
Age 63, OH |
Just because something is popular that is evidence that it is not from God not that it is from God. I will read William Tyndale's Bible. You are saying it is OK to lie and steal as long as you preach.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists
| Posted On: 01/16/07 05:57:03 PM |
Age 63, OH |
If God does not use words considering that we hold them to have a particular meaning and then use them with that in mind so that we can understand what He is saying then why would we read the Bible. If what you say is true then anyone would be foolish to read it; they instead should just check with you and find out what these words mean since they must be in some language that no one understands but you and as you say God. If you think that any paper printed page with even God's words on it is eternal then you need to read the scriptures to see that God says that it is all going to pass away. The Word is eternal and will never pass away but the Word is a person not a book. You follow the book; but I choose to follow the Author of the Book. Newton
|
|
|
|
|
