gcthomas
New member
They are wrong. Simple as that - when physical evidence contradicts uncorroborated written claims, then a rational person with go with the physical evidence.
Let us know when you are willing to have a rational discussion. :up:
Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
They are wrong. Simple as that - when physical evidence contradicts uncorroborated written claims, then a rational person with go with the physical evidence.
Let us know when you are willing to have a rational discussion. :up:
6days
New member
There have always been some willing to compromise...willing to believe anything other than what scripture clearly says.Alate-One said:
There have always been some willing to stand on the truth and authority of scripture.
Historian professor, Dr Benno Zuiddam“God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”
Alate-One said:
Yes... we believe because of evidence.
#1 evidence is God's Word.
We believe God created in six days.
We believe He created man from the dust.
We believe He created Eve from man's rib.
We believe He created light before He created the sun.
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"Alate-One said:
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".
And...
Whatever the argument is you are attempting to make about "formed" and "filled", seems to be a foolish distinction between two words that are interchangeable in Hebrew and in scripture, 'bara' and 'asah'.
For example...Genesis 1
V21 God created (bara) fish and birds.
V25 God made (asah) the animals.
Or
V26 God is speaking of making man.
V27 God created man.
Or
Nehemiah speaks of God making the angels.
Psalms speaks of God creating the angels.
Etc
6days
New member
Alate-One said:
Albert Mohler wrote an open letter to Gilberson at Biologos in which he said
“You are straightforward in your celebration of evolution, and you utterly fail to demonstrate how an embrace of evolution can be reconciled with biblical Christianity. Your rejection of an historical Adam and Eve is one precise point at which the Gospel of Christ is undermined, and your proposed ‘new and better way to understand the origins of sin’ is incompatible with the Bible’s clear teaching.”
Karl Gilberson one of the developers / contributors to Biologos howver has made statements that should concern Christians... For example in a book he stated “…my belief in God is tinged with doubts and, in my more reflective moments, I sometimes wonder if I am perhaps simply continuing along the trajectory of a childhood faith that should be abandoned. As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to his faith.”
(He had a job at a Christian college which he later lost)
The Biologos motto in part is to get Christians to "see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation." But they do this by being dogmatic about evolutionism, and compromising on God's Word. They accept articles from non believers such as Michael Ruse, who urges Christians to compromise.
http://biologos.org/blog/author/ruse-michael
See his articles 'Accommodation and proud of it'.
Ruse has written things such as...
"Even the miracle of the Resurrection can be treated this way. The real miracle was not some reversal of life-death processes, but that, on the third day, the disciples who were downcast and lonely suddenly felt a great lift and that life was meaningful for them..."
From his book 'Darwinism and Its Discontents' p.280
Interplanner
Well-known member
Modern science since T. Huxley is entirely deliberate, to draw on Peter's comment in 2 Pet 3 about 'willfully ignorant' (they simply decide to ignore). It is simply the imposing of a 'closed system of natural causes and effects' on the world. It had no basis from the start. Politically, it is a reaction to the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to re-assert a centralized state. This is found in the legal trail in which the president of Harvard who came into office in 1869 almost immediately appointed a legal Darwinian, Langdell, to head Harvard Law and begin the process of purging direct-handling of Biblical truth from the public.
To show the extent of such deliberate procedure, we should look at the fate of Lake Missoula. The expert on the Lake Missoula breach and flooding, in which massive amounts of slurry and water reshaped the northwest, was Bretz, whose main work was 1923-32, published in all the main geology journals of the time. But then he was suddenly discarded. The US Geological Survey discarding of Bretz' decades of compiling evidence of massive flooding over 6 states of W Canada and the NW (even if it was later than the Biblical flood) was a "rejection on general principles." USGS simply did not want to hear about all this happening in 2 days, about 600 ft of water over Spokane, 1000 at Walla Walla, 6000 ft thick rapid sedimentary deposits around the world, Grand Coulee as evidence of the "edge" of the ice sheet, etc.
That's modern "science." The explanation is much more political than practical. Those who want a centralized state have to have a centralizing religion that they can manage to make that happen.
The answer to this is the sustained belief of a universe in which God acts. It's great to hear scientific data that "supports a global flood" as was given all Friday and Saturday at the Seattle Creation Conference. But it is not just scientific data at the end of the day, just a catastrophe. It is part of God's redemptive work from before the foundations of the world.
That is at least a sensible response. It's impossible to deal with someone who will not accept that words might mean what they plainly say and will not give any good reason that they cannot mean what they plainly say.
And when the evidence lines up with what is written, then we get interested.
Let us know when you are willing to have a rational discussion. :up:
Interplanner
Well-known member
And yet to 'bara' is also to use existing material, like in Gen 2. I don't think the words were meant to be pressed into "positions" like that. 'estosa' in 2 Pet 3 uses existing materials.
Alate_One
Well-known member
As you are doing right now. You should see with pre-scientific eyes as Martin Luther did, that the firmament is something stars are "stuck" in like a ceiling. That kind of language is all over the Bible.
Yes, as Martin Luther did. Oh wait you didn't want to talk about that did you?
But they didn't all believe in the YEC version of the cosmic fall where every possibly conceivably bad thing on earth (and outer space) is due to the fall of Adam and many Christians still don't today.
The Bible isn't scientific evidence. Early scientists who were almost invariably Christian understood this. They recognized their interpretations of scripture didn't match the evidence.
| Men of Rock | |
And we can find scholars on either side of the debate. That doesn't solve the disagreement. A large number of Biblical scholars accept the documentary hypothesis and that the Gospels were rarely written by the apostles themselves.
It doesn't matter what the particular words used are, The first few verses are about creating places and the next view stuff is created to live in them. It may very well have been a device to help people remember it since very few people were literate for many centuries.
Consider this. Your need for scripture to support science is evidence you value science over scripture.
Last edited:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Fine. you don't like Giberson? Try Denis Lamoureux.
We could talk about the AiG split and allegations of misconduct or we could recognize that organizations have all kinds of people in them with a variety of failings.
6days
New member
Alate-One said:
As I said...there always have been people willing to believe to believe things other than what the Bible clearly says. For ex. God's Word clearly says "For in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth...."
Sure... Luther was correct in what he said about God creating in six days. He certainly was not correct in everything he said.Alate-One said:
"They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."Alate-One said:
The Bible is our source of absolute truth in all matters it touches on. (history, science, theology).Alate-One said:
His Word tells us to trust in Him, and not lean not on your own understanding.
Of course there are scholars who disagree with what God's Word clearly says.Alate_One said:
And.....
authorship is your attempt at moving goalposts. We consider all of the gospels as God's inspired Word.
It may very well be that God created man with much greater intelligence than you and I have. Adam could speak...he was intelligent....he had knowledge. It very well may be that God spoke plainly so you and I could understand scripture.Alate-One said:
God's Word is absolute truth and always in harmony with science.Alate-One said:
Alate_One
Well-known member
But he said the exact same thing about the firmament as you are "what God plainly says" and all.
You are just as compromised as anyone.
And on this we agree. It doesn't actually matter which humans wrote the scriptures. But my point was scholars can disagree and think things we do not always agree with. So your argument that some scholars agree with you doesn't really mean much.
That is my position. That God spoke to mankind in ways they could understand. You make the mistake of thinking God's purpose was to teach us science.
6days
New member
Scripture says " For in six days, God created...."
Scripture plainly tells us... six days.
We imagine it to say something different.
Another strawman argument.
God gave us scripture so we can know our past...and our future.
But you reject the past He tells us about.
His Word tells us He created in 6days.
His Word tells us he created plants before He created the sun.
His Word tells us man was formed from the dust.
His Word tell us that woman was formed from mans rib.
His Word provides our sin nature due to first Adam
His Word tells us death and suffering are the result of Adam's sin.
His Word tells us of salvation offered by Last Adam.
H
6days
New member
Alate_One
Well-known member
And you still haven't explained why what Martin Luther saw as scripture clearly stating isn't actually clear.
| "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." |
Wick Stick
Well-known member
I'd say it's 2 / 38,262 of a book.*
Are those the same thing? No. Not really.
Dickens said "it was the best of times," but if I read the rest of that book, I will discover that "it was the worst of times" as well, and that the author was framing societal issues by creating a juxtaposition of the two apparently contradictory judgments.
Context, context, context.
Jarrod
*KJV, courtesy of http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html
Hiding behind dead people won't help you. The Bible says "six days." Unless you have good reason to show that it cannot mean what it plainly says, we are justified in sticking with what we believe.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Friend, I'm trying to show you this has all happened before and when science said something else, after a while a lot of scriptures magically became figurative that had been literal and "plain" before.
It didn't kill the Christian faith then, there's no reason it will now.
6days
New member
Not sure who Lamoureux is, or the connection to Biologos?
Anyways..... Its not that I don't like Gilberson. I don't like the heresy that he, and Biologos promote. They are not interested in promoting Christianity....not interested in science. Their mission is to promote evolutionism. Gilberson admits to the faith destroying belief system of Biologos He explained how evolution changed him..."It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to these stories—the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam’, the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred."
From Gilbersons (heretical) book Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.
Biologos is an organization that claims to be Christian but has little to distinguish it from a Muslim or Jewish organization. They mostly appear to be a heretical organization attempting to get Christians to compromise on their beliefs. They deny the inerrancy of scripture and put a higher value on mans opinions than Gods Word.
Biologos claims the Bible is wrong
“Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine "
Biologos claims mans opinions trump God's Word
"If our steadily improving scientific understanding can fully explain events, how can we say that God was involved in those events? "
Biologos claims Jesus made mistakes,
“If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons.”
Christian doctrine hinges on our understanding of the creation account. The doctrine of sin, death, salvation, impunity and more are founded in Genesis.
Because Biologos rejects the six day creation account, they then reject the inerrancy of scripture...reject doctrine of impunity.... compromise on other doctrines all resulting in a ineffectual gospel.
Jose Fly
New member
I agree. The Bible very clearly says the entire universe was created in 6 literal days. Christians everywhere should make that abundantly clear, as often and as loudly as possible. :up: