Bible Forum

The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

It is currently Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:48 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:58 pm
Posts: 52
Location: B.C Canada
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
Name of your church: Bethel Baptist Church
Quote:
I think it is a stretch to simply look at speciation in the context of large and small ducks. Did all ducks come from an duck "kind" or did all/most birds come from an avian "kind"? I think if you acepted the ark to be filled with all animals of the sub-species level, you would still have too many animals to put on the ark. If, on the other hand, you had only primary species, then you would be in the dilemma of having a large amount of intra-species evolution that is on such a large scale that it does not seem plausible. I am not saying God could not do this, but I see no direct evidence from scripture that He did.


I may believe that all "ducks" came from 1 Kind of duck, but compared to what evolutionists, believe that we came from slime, i find my idea much easier to believe, now i am curious what you as an OE believes, even if as you mention ahead (which i will get to) that the day "yom" means one day, and it was only later that god made "the first day", this only takes care of...the age of the solar system and our earth, land animals still have not been introduced, and when they are, there is no more places for you to put gaps of time, even if you could! the flood dates have no gaps in them so i then ask you what do you suppose happened on the ark? you yourself are stuck to belive in some sort of mass speciation!
Quote:
I looked at the AIG article and it really does not aswer what I see as the fundamental questions. I think this article might be a good read for you.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml


i found this article kind of scary, your article goes on to say that fish would of had a very hard time to survive during the flood, this is true, they would have, but in an OE flood, nothing is different, we still see a global flood that would have been hard for the marine habitat, furthermore it goes to say that the ark couldn't withstand the punishment of the condition implied.. check out AIG's view of noahs ark...the thing is a tank!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... od-and-ark

Quote:
Mind you that I (nor this author) is doubting the legitimate literal interpretation of scripture. We are just recognizing that the story that the AIG proponents tout as legitimate has a whole lot of issues that are not addressed. As I read the AIG article, I noticed the usual transition of anyone who doubts thier theories is automatically labeled with the secular evolutionists. Their quote:

Quote:
"We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview."


What i read here, is that their idea is equally valid, and the reason it is rejected is because THEIR depiction is not in with the "secular evolutionary worldview"
they are saying that evolutionary thinking has taken over a lot of peoples minds, which it has, and i agree, is your model not a creation model? then it does not deal with what they consider the majority, although you are right, they do disagree with the OE idea. As do i? but again, its not about biblical authority that's all! this simply my, and AIG's take on it.

Quote:
The reason AIG's models are rejected is that they really don't make any sense. Other Creation models do make sense and are not rejected on scientific grounds.


They don't make sense? they fit within my interpretation of the biblical time scale, and leads us perfectly into todays time. I see no issue, i am not playing the "i don't see it, so i wont recognize it" card, i sincerely understand and agree with models i read.
Quote:
Thanks for the directions to this article. I have seen it an read it before. The issue is whether the Bible is simple or simplistic. I would claim that the Bible is simple in its message but it is not necessarily simplistic in its approach. To give a short lesson on why this is an issue, let's take the Hebrew word for day (yom) in Genesis 1. While it can be a literal 24 hour day, it in no way is exclusively used that way even in scripture. It is recognized by every legitimate Hebrew scholar that the word has three different meanings similar to our word for day. 1) roughly 12 hour period from sunrise to sunset; 2) a 24 hour period from sunrise to sunrise; or, 3) a finite yet undefined period of time ("back in my day"). The issue of ordinals is brought up many times, but it is just as proper linguistically for their use with the third definition as with the second since the time periods are being distinguished by God's different creative activities during those different periods of time.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... od-and-ark
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
The great debate videos, talk about YE vs OE :)

I agree that the bible should be read in context, so does AIG and all YE creationists, its a universal fact, we read everything in context and build our understanding, I believe god knows how long a day is, if he made things in days, but then on gods 3rd day of work, the solar system saw its first day. My explanation me be hard to understand, please watch those videos for further understanding, the only other way i can explain it is..think of a daily checklist that god has.

Day 1- he creates Heavens and Earth
Day 2 -he creates Light, dark, Morning, Evening
day 3 - heturns on the system, and it runs, "it was good", and the solar system had its first full day!

god lives outside of time, so he made a time for us, and used our language for us to understand how long it took him to do all that he did, to show his majesty and glory.

Edit: another link on the Yom and day.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/day.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/Wang.asp

In love and in Christ
For gods glory
God bless
Jordan
Gorship

_________________
To Live is Christ, To Die Is Gain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:54 pm
Posts: 2193
Location: Atlanta
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: http://northpoint.org
Gorship writes:
Quote:
Day 1- he creates Heavens and Earth
Day 2 -he creates Light, dark, Morning, Evening
day 3 - heturns on the system, and it runs, "it was good", and the solar system had its first full day!

If you accept this as a literal set of events, then you should address how you reconcile this with Genesis 2 which says man was created in the same day as the heavens and earth, and that the chronology was:
Day 1 -- he creates heavens and earth and man
After man, in this order (without specifying whether it was the same day or later): plants, animals, Eve

This is what amazes me, that people who accept a literal 6-day chronology of creation from Genesis 1 must deny the literal reading of Genesis 2. Gorship, how did you decide that Genesis 1 is the literal one and Genesis 2 is not?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:00 pm 
Offline
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 4892
Location: Administrator of Site - D/FW
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: CountrySide Bible Church
Cobra,

You seem to bring this up in any thread discussing Genesis and/or Creation. This has been answered by more than one member throughout the forum so any explanation Gorship offers will be disregarded as the rest have been. Members can use the search feature to find you opinion on this matter as well as the replies that give the "flipside" of your arguments here.

So now I am officially asking you to " Please refrain from posting the same message numerous times in multiple threads throughout the forum." If you have any questions please re-read the Code of Conduct.

Thank you.

_________________
Jennifer Dent
Site Administrator

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Learning Environment
The Administrators Desk Blog

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:22 am
Posts: 197
ccousine wrote:
How would you explain Luke 3:23-38, with Genesis, Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4. These are quotes right from Jesus' mouth. This is where I really have trouble with OE creationists. I believe the Bible, until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong. If it is wrong, then the whole Bible for me comes into question. If that happens, then I will question my faith as a whole.
I haven't talked origins here in while, so I might as well jump in... :D

To let everyone know where I'm coming from up front...
I was raised with YEC and was taught YEC in both High School and College. It was years later and after much Bible study that I realized that YEC is not taught in Scripture and is nothing more than a man made tradition that is adopted by a minority of Christians.

For me it all comes back to what Scripture says...
- the use of 'yom' in Gen 2:4 gives us insight as to how 'yom' is used within the immediate context of Gen 1 and 2.

Even the three passages you reference fail to support the YEC position
- Luke 3:23-38 explicitly shows that there are gaps in the Genesis geneologies (Compare Gen 10:24 with Luke 3:35-36)
- And the YEC understanding of 'beginning of creation' in Mark 10:6 comes into direct contradiction with the sequence of events given in Genesis 1. According to Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were created on day 6 (the last day of creation, not the beginning of creation).

Now I have no problem with a person saying they personally believe the earth is 6000 years old, I have a number of Christian brothers and sisters who believe that, and that's ok. However I take strong exception to those who claim that the Bible clearly teaches YEC. It doesn't... and those who claim it does are equating a man made YEC tradition with the authority of Scripture.

The real harm of equating the YEC tradition with the authority of Scripture is seen when people turn their back on the Gospel or shipwreck their faith because they actually do buy into the premise that Scripture is just as fallible as the man made YEC tradition.

Scripture does not explicitly teach YEC and we as Christians should try our best to avoid claiming Scripture says something that it doesn't.

In Christ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 21
Faith: Christian "other"
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Dear Paco I agree but it appears that presently there seems to be a surge in allegorising everything so are we very far away from some saying that what is written in the bible about Christ and his life , death and resurrection isnt what really happened , but it is open to anyones interpretation of it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:47 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Shreveport, LA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
markepp wrote:
ccousine,

Unfortunately I do not have enough time right now to dive into these issues right now. It looks like you are relatively new to the forum and I would encourage you to look through this debate on some of the other threads. Some of these issues have been dealt with I'm sure.

Also, I do not want to get this thread so far off topic. When I can respond, I would think another thread would be in order. I will try to let you know where that will be.

- Mark
:)

Ccousine,

Please see this new thread for my response
http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php?f=154&t=9126&p=87364#p87359

-Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:54 pm
Posts: 2193
Location: Atlanta
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: http://northpoint.org
onesiphorus wrote:
Dear Paco I agree but it appears that presently there seems to be a surge in allegorising everything so are we very far away from some saying that what is written in the bible about Christ and his life , death and resurrection isnt what really happened , but it is open to anyones interpretation of it

I hope you don't mean to imply that anyone not choosing Genesis 1 as a play-by-play account of 6 days of historical events of creation will also jump to denying the death and resurrection of the Savior. That would be escalating a single man-made tradition of interpretation to an essential of Christianity.

The same alarmist technique could be applied to anyone who believes Jesus was speaking figuratively about the wine He handed the disciples at the last supper -- declaring if you don't believe He was literally handing them a glass of blood, you don't believe Jesus gave His life for us.

It is not an appropriate way to view the situation, because it tars honest believers seeking the truth as deniers.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 21
Faith: Christian "other"
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
AS christians the truth is in His Word and the answers are in the scriptures , if religion wants to cast doubt on the truths in His Word in order to fit nicely and comfortably within the world and mans wisdom and knowledge then that is wrong . Honest believers look and seek the truth within the word , it is not alarmist we are told to study the word . OE> YE< GAP theory etc are just ways of trying to organise the truths in a way that fits into mans wisdom , and all that about the wine is really not worth a peply


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:47 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Shreveport, LA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
onesiphorus wrote:
AS christians the truth is in His Word and the answers are in the scriptures , if religion wants to cast doubt on the truths in His Word in order to fit nicely and comfortably within the world and mans wisdom and knowledge then that is wrong . Honest believers look and seek the truth within the word , it is not alarmist we are told to study the word . OE> YE< GAP theory etc are just ways of trying to organise the truths in a way that fits into mans wisdom , and all that about the wine is really not worth a peply
I think Cobra's point about the wine is an extremelyu insightful comment. I am saddened that you do not recognize it as such.

Are not honest believers told to seek the truth from nature as well. I know I bring it up alot, but should not we also read Psalm 19 as a command to investigate our natural world.


Quote:
Ps 19:1-11
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous.
10 They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb.
11 By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.
(NIV)
I think this passage shows a healthy relatonship between nature, scripture, and religous practice, don't you.

-Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 21
Faith: Christian "other"
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
How is the comment on the wine insightfu, when the scripture explains itself from the scriptures

I would agree 100 % with your quotation and that is the point I am trying to make , except the religious practice , what does that mean ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:21 pm
Posts: 643
Location: Great Midwestern Bible Belt
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Methodist
onesiphorus wrote:
AS christians the truth is in His Word and the answers are in the scriptures , if religion wants to cast doubt on the truths in His Word in order to fit nicely and comfortably within the world and mans wisdom and knowledge then that is wrong . Honest believers look and seek the truth within the word , it is not alarmist we are told to study the word . OE> YE< GAP theory etc are just ways of trying to organise the truths in a way that fits into mans wisdom , and all that about the wine is really not worth a peply
I read this and wonder to myself is it truly a crisis of faith to believe that the Earth is old and the processes that going on here take a long time? Is faith so fragile that a different time line of life would destroy belief in Jesus? As best that I can tell knowing the Truth about the Bible and history is to know God and all that God has done in this world...and several others. Challenging theological presuppositions about the age of the Earth seems to me to be a sign of spiritual maturity and growth in knowing about the nature of God. Hiding the light of Truth under something does not appear to me to glorify God or even allow for a discussion of this topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 21
Faith: Christian "other"
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
You can challenge theological presuppositions as long as you like thats fine but how it is a sign of "spiritual maturity " that I question The Jews reqiure signs the greeks seek after wisdom ,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:21 pm
Posts: 643
Location: Great Midwestern Bible Belt
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Methodist
onesiphorus,
In some ways theology is sort of like the purchase of a box of cheap Chocolate Chip ice cream. You can buy it and take it home in great anticipation that it a joyous celebration for the taste buds. Once home the box is opened only to find...no chocolate chips is evident on the top. So in great disappointment you take back to the store demanding your money back because you didn't find any chocolate chips. The store manager asks if there is anything wrong with the ice cream and you respond yes there are no chocolate chips. The manager ask if you actually tried the ice cream. Your response is no because you know that the whole box is exactly like what can be seen at the top of the opened box...regular ice cream. The manager responds that perhaps next time it would be helpful to scoop some out before returning the ice cream to the store. In this way I think spiritual growth means to dig a little deeper in scripture and theological studies before assuming everything is exactly as it seems on the surface..this is spiritual growth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group