| Author |
Message |
Seekinglight
Registered user
Username: Seekinglight
Post Number: 584
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 9:41 pm: |     |
Asurprise, at this point, with your last comment re: Christians compromising with evolutionists, it comes across as control. Yes, I know you don't intend it that way, but that's how it feels. Folks on this thread are not agreeing with you, and it sounds like you're having a difficult time simply accepting the reality of it.
We have been over this ground before in this thread. Please let it go. Thank you. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 10:00 pm: | |
Asurprise,
I didn't see anything in the posts here that was compromising with evolutionists. I saw posts about trying to reconcile one Scripture with another. I didn't see anyone denying that God is capable of miracles. I feel like there has been no effort to understand what is being said, perhaps that fault lies with those of us raising questions about all creation from nothingness to the Garden occurring in 144 hours.
I would think that by this point that you would know me and several of the other posters well enough to know that looking good in some strangers eyes is not much of a motivator. If anything I have the opposite problem, posting without enough concern for how my words will be viewed by others.
I don't mind that you disagree with me. I just wish that you could express that disagreement without assuming evil motives on my part. I appreciate the fervor you have for supporting God's Word as true. I had hoped by the questions that I raised that I could help you, and others, understand that my devotion to God's Word is no less than your own. |
Mjcmcook
Registered user
Username: Mjcmcook
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2011
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 11:59 pm: | |
~I agree with Asuprise that~ "GOD is a GOD of miracles...But GOD is not bound by science."
I believe the words in Genesis chapters one and two are meant as literal days comprising one literal week.
For me one of the most awe-inspiring chapters in the Old Testament that I think enlarges upon the miracles of GOD creating is~ Psalm 104~
I am writing this as my belief and not as something I wish to debate~
~Blessings~
~*~mj~*~ |
Handmaiden
Registered user
Username: Handmaiden
Post Number: 241
Registered: 7-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 2:01 am: | |
i am sincerely trying to understand why, anyone who believes in sola scriptura and the Word of God, as our ultimate authority would lean toward a day age theory and not with the plain meaning of the use of the word DAY, particularly, as it is defined by evening and morning??
May i ask what the motivation is, to prefer the day age theory over the Yec position, when one acknowledges that God is not limited by laws of science and that He created a mature functioning creation (ie) Adam being 30 seconds old, had the appearance and maturity of an adult, not a new born. Trees were created not old but mature as well. etc
How do you date something that is seconds old but mature??
Science is fallible.
The word of God is infallible.
Science is based on "facts" as we now understand them.
The Word of God is based on faith, as we have every reason to TRUST in the Lord.
Over and over through out the Bible are the words and the admonition to TRUST in the Lord.
He says that He honors His WORD above His Name. Truly, how can we trust in the Lord, if we can not trust His WORD???
How can we trust His WORD, if we cannot Trust the first words, He gives to us and confirms to us again in Exodus and by Jesus, Himself. who quoted them authoritatively??
Science changes with new discoveries.
The Word of God stands immutable.
Science is based on observation.
The Creator was the only eye witness.
The same thing we base the evidence for the resurrection, the foundation of our faith and hope, on the EYE WITNESS testimony of the disciples, who went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of the bodily resurrection of our Lord.
Science has always been lagging behind the Word of God.
For example the Bible says truly that the life is in the blood.
Yet for many years science promoted the letting of blood as a cure for illness.
In fact any student of history realizes that what took man out of the dark ages and began the scientic age of discovery was putting copies of the Word of God for the first time in the hands of the common people....Godly men like Isaac Newton, who took God at His word and began investigating its truths in the natural realm.
Mathew Murray read in his bible about the paths in the sea and was the first to discover and map the ocean currents.
I remember the huge debate over the Hittites being an error in the Bible, but as time passed the Bible was proven correct.
The reliability of the Bible has been questioned and in doubt many times over the centuries and yet it has been vindicated time and again..proven to be indeed trustworthy.
Where there seems to be error or discrepancy, i think the Bible has earned the benefit of the doubt until our knowledge catches up with the unfathomable infinate wisdom of God.
It is His perogative to reveal or to conceal things from man.
He could easily have left off the words evening and morning.
He could have easily given a distinctly longer time frame for His creation.
But He says He SPOKE it into being.
Speaking is normally very, very quick.
i am not wanting to be argumentative or confrontational or dogmatic or judgmental...i am just trying to understand why one would even want to try justify a day age theory??
handmaiden |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 6:02 am: | |
Handmaiden,
Please start by reviewing some of the basic questions that I asked, like the complete discrepancy between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
When Gen 2:4 says "day"; the six day creationists don't treat this as a literal 24 hour period. Six day creationists insist that the order described in chapter 1 is critical truth but at the same time dismiss the order given in chapter 2.
Personally, I find that the day=ages answer to Gen 1 creates more problems than it solves. And I'm not sure that I saw anyone here promoting that position. That has been one of the problems on this thread, the proponents of 6 day creation are rarely responding to what the rest of us are saying but are instead issuing rebuttals to positions never espoused by people here. It is almost like discussing the Sabbath and hearing the reply arguing against a change from Sat to Sun when all you have talked about is Sabbath being fulfilled. Take the time to hear what others are saying, and respond to those points instead of points that you imagine us to be saying. Not so that we can engage in an epic theology debate but so that we are at least disagreeing about the same things.
Thanks,
Rick |
Handmaiden
Registered user
Username: Handmaiden
Post Number: 244
Registered: 7-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 9:49 am: | |
Dear Ric
Thank you for your answer. i appreciate your response that you have difficulty with the day age theory too.
i can so relate to your analogy about discussing the sabbath. 
i do want to understand more as i believe this discussion can undermine the authority of the Word. When there is an apparent contradiction i give the benefit of the doubt to God. By faith Abraham believed what God said to him. HIS ways are so much higher than our ways. i know i can never fully understand with my finite mind, His infinite ways.
i do admit that i did not start reading this thread from the very begining.
A portion had already been archived. i apologize for any mistaken conclusions i came to because of this.
i will go back and reread the entire discussion.
In the begining..the thread that never ends.
blessings
handmaiden |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2141
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 11:23 am: | |
I wrote what I wrote just in case a lurking SDA(s) were to think any former is thinking that it could be possible for the word "day" in Genesis would mean anything other than a literal day.
As long as there is any chance that the lurking SDA might think that we here on the forum think it's possible that death existed before sin; as long as a lurker might think that anyone here endorses creation possibly being done over a longer period of time; then I need to write in defense of the gospel.
Seekinglight; I'm not trying to "control," I'm simply following the Bible which urges us to "contend for the faith."
"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3
(Message edited by Asurprise on September 22, 2011) |
Got2bfree
Registered user
Username: Got2bfree
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2011
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 11:56 am: | |
Hi Ric:
I've heard the differences in Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 explained something like this:
In Hebrew literature, it was common to write an overview (Genesis 1) and then go back and look at the specifics more closely (Genesis 2). Therefore, there is no discrepancy, just a writing style we don't necessarily recognize.
What do you think of that explanation? |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 1:29 pm: | |
Asurprise, the six day creation that you are so strongly defending is not the gospel. The fact that you see everyone disagreeing with your belief on this as disagreeing with the Gospel only demonstrates the controlling, judgmental nature of your comments. The only definitive statement that we can make from the Bible about death and sin is that man did not experience death before sin. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 1:37 pm: | |
Got2Bfree,
Usually an overview followed by specifics would mean that the specifics were more accurate details. In which case Gen 2 places creation as a 1 day activity, combining elements created on different days in chapter 1 into a single day in chapter 2. And it changes the order of creation. Was man created after the plants in the garden of Eden (Gen 1) or before the plants and the garden (Gen 2)? That may sound nit picky, but it is no less of an insistence on understanding Scripture literally than an insistence on the events of a six day week is demanding Scriptural literalness. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 2:01 pm: | |
Handmaiden,
Thanks for giving your brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt. Please comment after you have read through more of the discussion. Disagree with what any of us actually said and I (and I suspect everyone else) will respect that you examined our statements and disagreed with what you found. That's reasonable. I'm not infallible. Nor capable of explaining myself perfectly.
I have really appreciated your contributions to this never ending thread. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 2:30 pm: | |
A recap of what I have seen the YEC critics say (and not say) in this discussion:
Adam and Eve were real people, created by God without sin
Adam and Eve are the parents that all the human race descends from.
Humans would have lived forever had sin never entered.
Humans did not die before sin.
And that God created by speaking things into existence.
I think we all either questioned or denied that Gen 1 and 2 were intended as scientific details of the creation process.
Most, or all, of us felt that YEC scientists played a little loosely with the science at times and we concluded that too many believers let them be sloppy scientists either through a lack of science background or though having loose standards of scientific "proof".
Regarding the possibility of animal death before sin, Scripture does not specifically address this question directly one way or the other.
There are at least two problems with applying verses about the wolf lying down with the lamb in paradise. The first, assuming that the passages are literal, is that the Bible is never specific that the state of things in paradise is a re-establishment of how they were in Eden. That may be the case, but it is not specifically stated to be the case.
The second shortcoming is the question of whether these accounts are literal or metaphorical. Prophecy uses a great deal of imagery that is meant to be understood symbolically and metaphorically. Do we also insist that Heaven (or the New Earth) will have a literal highway for captives returning from Assyria (10 verses after the Isa 11:6 quotation)? This MAY be a literal description of how the animals will interact in heaven, but one can fully believe in Scripture without concluding that this is a literal account. |
Martinc
Registered user
Username: Martinc
Post Number: 252
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 4:14 pm: | |
It appears to me that this thread won't be laid to rest while it reveals and aggravates major rifts in the body of Christ. Asurprise, you said today:
"As long as there is any chance that the lurking SDA might think that we here on the forum think it's possible that death existed before sin; as long as a lurker might think that anyone here endorses creation possibly being done over a longer period of time; then I need to write in defense of the gospel."
Are we promoting a false gospel if we suggest that there was either an old earth or death before the Fall? I'm taking you very seriously, as other Christians have said or imply this, including major YEC figures such as Ken Ham and Al Mohler. You quote Jude's admonition to contend for the faith, meaning those essential, core truths we all claim to believe. Several of the YEC leaders are drawing very sharp, dogmatic boundaries around the city of God, based on a Genesis 1 interpretation, deciding who's in and who's out of the city. If that is what you are doing, it takes us to a level of judgmentalism that makes real, honest, vulnerable conversation nearly impossible. What we will continue to have in these arguments are polemics and hurt feelings.
I too aspire to contend for the faith, however weakly. In the NT, the testing truths are clearly set around the identity and authority of Jesus. He is Almighty God, He died for our sins, was buried and raised to life, all according to the scriptures. That is a message worth living and dying for. Making other doctrines a test of faith reminds us of Adventism, where the Sabbath test decides who is in the true church. Like Colleen said, Calvary is the only hill I'm willing to die on.
Martin C |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2142
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 5:44 pm: | |
I'm sorry I came across as considering creation as an essential for salvation. You're right, knowledge of creation isn't a salvation issue. Causing people to doubt a section of scripture is undermining the Word of God though. That's what I'm concerned about.
FYI, here's what GotQuestions.org says concering a six day creation week, quote:
“The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time.”
And here's a link to what it says concerning the difference between Genesis 1 and 2:
http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 12987
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 7:26 pm: | |
Hey, everyone--we absolutely must not divide ourselves as Christ's body over issues which He has not specifically revealed. We all agree about God creating everything that exists through the Word, the Lord Jesus. We all agree that He is our Substitute and Sacrifice; His death paid for our sin, and His resurrection gave us life and broke our death sentence. He is returning, and He will take us to be with Him for eternity.
We can't divide over an issue that isn't clearly revealed. All of us honor and submit to Scripture and believe it to be God's word to us, that every word of it is for our instruction, correction, and training in righteousness.
We have to trust one another to God, believing that He who raised each of us from spiritual death, is faithful to continue to teach us and to complete what He began in us.
Philippians 1: 27-28 says,
quote:Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God.
When believers stand unified in one spirit, united by the Holy Spirit, our unity is a clear sign to unbelievers of their destruction. If we divide over things that aren't the gospel, our witness is compromised. We, as the body of Christ, are no longer a sign of God's miracle of life to unbelievers.
Colleen |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2143
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 9:14 pm: | |
Colleen, you're right. We shouldn't be divided over an issue that's not a salvation issue.
I also liked what you wrote to Jim in the On the Great Controversy thread. Quote:
"They KNEW God--they knew what He said, and instead of standing on His word and their personal relationship with Him, they actually engaged in doubt and analysis of God's word." |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 10:12 pm: | |
"Colleen, you're right. We shouldn't be divided over an issue that's not a salvation issue. "
AMEN !
The forum (this as well as here and there on other threads) lately seems so full of arguments and criticisms... some trying to reason, others seemingly like a dog with a bone,refusing to just "let it go" and wont be content unless they can convince those they disagree with that "I am right and you are wrong". It is all just making me very sad and very tired. I think I need to take a break for a while. I hope by the time I return (and I will) there will once again be the spirit of love and acceptance here that I feel is missing right now. Or maybe it's just me. I am just tired. I love you all, but I am tired of all the bickering and accusations and misunderstandings....it just breaks my heart and I cant deal with it right now.
(((Hugs to all ))
Francie |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2011 - 3:01 am: | |
Colleen,
I don't believe it was your intent, but your statements could be taken to mean that we shouldn't discuss our different views publicly but instead present a pretend unity to others. Non-believers see through these facades and have even less reason to want to be like Believers. The unity you described only comes from practicing tolerance for the variances in understandings where the issue isn't clearly or fully revealed in God's Word. There is no unity if we are constantly assuming the worst about the character and motives of brothers and sister in Christ. |
Michaelmiller
Registered user
Username: Michaelmiller
Post Number: 387
Registered: 7-2010
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2011 - 7:11 am: | |
The Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2 chronology is an interesting discussion. I too have looked at this a few weeks ago. I used to believe the explanation Got2bfree gave, but I must admit actually looking at the text in its entirety reveals that it does not line up with the account in Gen 1.
This is especially evident in more literal translations (e.g. YLT, NASB) and is less clear in some other translations, particularly where the addition of paragraph breaks split the story into disjointed fragments (almost implying that they can be shuffled around at will). Where a connecting "and" belongs or a disconnected "now" belongs varies a lot from translation to translation.
Even the time scope varies from translation to translation, with the NIV1984 (what I usually read) completely omitting the word "day" from 2:4.
If I were to read Gen 2 with the same consistent literalness that Gen 1 is read, then I must conclude that in Gen 2 creation took place in one day (not 6) and that the sequence was man, then plants, then animals, then woman. When read literally the text does not allow for any other interpretation.
This is what is at the center of the questions: are we reading the text in the way it was intended?
Michael |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2011 - 11:44 am: | |
Michael,
The word "day" exists in the Hebrew, even though some Bibles leave it out. It is the same word for day that is used in Gen 1, where there is much insistence that the day has to mean 24 hours. But if it has to mean 24 hours in Gen 2, it seems to create some challenges.
I love your point about the center of the question, we are all concerned with reading the text the way it was intended. No one is trying to deny Scripture is accurate and true. No one is trying to undermine confidence in Scripture. If anything, my comments are about trying to be very precise about what Scripture does and does not say. I would like to see people rely on Scripture alone, as it reads, rather than on the traditions about these teachings that have been handed down as the one true interpretation. |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2011 - 10:01 pm: | |
Hmmmm......maybe if I feel energetic this next week I'll write something up explaining why many Jewish/Hebrew scholars for centuries (before the advent of modern science) have thought the Hebrew syntax, grammar, and context of Genesis 1 & 2 should be understood as six distinct periods of creation followed by a seventh period without end. Even if we completely and totally ignore the record of nature, I think the Hebrew text itself gives us VERY strong clues that Moses is describing periods of indeterminate length. Our English translations really don't do justice to what is being said in the Hebrew. Again, not an essential and certainly not something we should divide over, but let me put it this way: If every scientist in the world insisted that the earth and everything in it was formed in six 24 hour periods, I would be skeptical of the science because I think the inspired Hebrew scripture strongly argues for God choosing to do something else. As it turns out, the record of nature seems to coincide with what the inspired Word conveys. No surprise there as God is the author of both. |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 2153
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 11:28 am: | |
Chris; just curious, concerning the Jewish scholars you were referring to. Had these scholars accepted the Messiah, Jesus [Who really is clearly foretold in the Hebrew scriptures, BTW] or not? |
Handmaiden
Registered user
Username: Handmaiden
Post Number: 248
Registered: 7-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 8:46 pm: | |
i find it very interesting that the accepted Jewish new year is about to begin the year is 5772. |
|
