Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate

[alanmolstad]

I used to live in Seattle and got to go see and hear Bill Nye many times.

I have also gotten to attend an 8-week cl*** on young earth creationism taught by Ken Ham personally .

I heard that Bill and ken got togather for a debate the other day....but I have yet to hear any reviews of the event.

I should do some research, but if anyone finds a good review post the link for me?

[DrDavidT]

i saw the debate and i thought it was a poor one as Nye was off topic and Ham really didn't make good points.

[MichaellS]

Been thinking about this myself. I’ve seen the dismal remarks and that it is said neither contestant stood out on either position. Yet, for the purpose of your thread here Alan, I did locate what I think is the extensiveness of this debate in transcript form:

Debate Transcript (http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate)

I too have sat under Mr. Ham locally, a fine instructor. Mr Nye's programs I found very interesting and as I recall seldom referenced his supposed mentor, Mr. Sagan.

Hello Dr., nice to have you on board with us!

[DrDavidT]

Thanks but I do not know how often I will visit here. It seems very slow and my time can be limited.

I found Nye to avoid many of the issues Ham raised as his purpose was not to debate but bring attention to some cause he had. I was actually bored when I viewed it as no one hit any home runs or destroyed the other's argument.

[alanmolstad]

I tried to read the text of the debate. ..but it put me to sleep

[alanmolstad]

I have not seen any recording of the debate.
From just reading a bit of the thing I was surprised to see so much "extra" **** was allowed to be presented.

It was not really a debate but seems more on paper to read like it was a chance for both sides to quote all the things that have written in the past on the topic...

[DrDavidT]

The recording were available just after the debate. it might be on youtube but I haven't looked for them. it was a very disappointing debate but Nye needed it to get national attention again.

[MichaellS]

The recording were available just after the debate. it might be on youtube but I haven't looked for them. it was a very disappointing debate but Nye needed it to get national attention again.

The video is provided at the bottom of my above link "Debate Transcript".

[MichaellS]

I'm not so convinced as this debate being such an unprofitable disappointment. If this is the opinion, I would have to ask just what was it you were anticipating when one's faith meets up with universal disbelief, speechlessness?

Take the opening alloted time for each, some 35-min. What would you say of the "presentation" and following 5-min "re****le"?

My opinion of this section is that Mr. Ham provided the greater amount of tangible evidence between the two. Mr. Nye invited us to reason with him on many fronts as did Mr. Ham. But as Mr. Ham included the one to drive home, and that was the item of "observational science" as opposed to observations made after the fact. Which one? Why the line of linage being detailed in the bible of course, form Adam to Christ. The historical accompanyment also within the bible concerning that linage isn't something Mr. Nye wanted nor could contest with anything founded.

[alanmolstad]

I attended Ken hams Origins cl***
...while Ken was a nice enough guy the cl*** was silly

[MichaellS]

I attended Ken hams Origins cl***
...while Ken was a nice enough guy the cl*** was silly

Really, , I can only wonder why his cl*** seemed to lack for you. Possibly, a much earlier version of the content than when I attended in '01, as I don't know how far back to date his "origins" breakout.

[alanmolstad]

I attended in about 1993 in Seattle, at a church at the eastside.
Ken Ham taught us, for 8 weeks personally.

It was a complete waste of time....lacked any value at all...

I came away from the experience with the conclusion that the whole idea behind his "Young earth" concept is a lie.....


Later I got a chance to attend a seminar taught personally by Dr Hugh Ross, and it was far, far...FAR FREAKING BETTER!!!!!

[alanmolstad]

One of the things I remember fondly of Dr Walter Martin was that when a question about the age of the earth came up, or about evolution, Walter would always give an answer that allowed for the vast amount of time held true by science.

Walter always made sure that the Christians like myself that believe 100% in an Earth that is Billions and Billions of years old, and that we are here via evolution were given the room and the freedom within his answers to believe as our hearts move us to.

[MichaellS]

One of the things I remember fondly of Dr Walter Martin was that when a question about the age of the earth came up, or about evolution, Walter would always give an answer that allowed for the vast amount of time held true by science.

Walter always made sure that the Christians like myself that believe 100% in an Earth that is Billions and Billions of years old, and that we are here via evolution were given the room and the freedom within his answers to believe as our hearts move us to.

Agreed, as long as your use of "evolution" conforms with Dr. Martin’s comment on evolution here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGtZIRJHMF4) around the 5:30 mark and continued on pt-5.

[MichaellS]

I attended in about 1993 in Seattle, at a church at the eastside.
Ken Ham taught us, for 8 weeks personally.

It was a complete waste of time....lacked any value at all...

I came away from the experience with the conclusion that the whole idea behind his "Young earth" concept is a lie.....


Later I got a chance to attend a seminar taught personally by Dr Hugh Ross, and it was far, far...FAR FREAKING BETTER!!!!!

This (https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/gap-theory/the-gap-theory-part-a/) piece back in 1980, lacks value? Got any favorites that tend to jump out as especially deceitful?

[alanmolstad]

Agreed, as long as your use of "evolution" conforms with Dr. Martin’s comment on evolution here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGtZIRJHMF4) around the 5:30 mark and continued on pt-5.

Notice what i said...
"One of the things I remember fondly of Dr Walter Martin was that when a question about the age of the earth came up, or about evolution, Walter would always give an answer that allowed for the vast amount of time held true by science.


Walter Martin always gave an answer on this issue that allowed for the Billion and billions of years that science informs us about.

This is directly counter to the message put out by the Young Earth teachers.

Young Earth Creationism is a myth...its an invented lie by people that have an outward appearance of someone who has read the bible,but when you question them you find out that they know only what their binders allow them to see.

[alanmolstad]

my personal view is that evolution works with the text of genesis nicely...

[MichaellS]

my personal view is that evolution works with the text of genesis nicely...

Apparently not so with Dr. Martin's view. I might need a more specific link to what you are claiming he taught.

[alanmolstad]

If you listen to him, you notice that Martin objects to what he calls "chance"...more of a "god-less chance"

But as evolution is not a matter of chance, then Martin is actually objecting not so much to the teachings of evolution, but to the teachings that there is no god controling the universe.

That is what Martin objects to.


What Im saying is that whenever Martin had to answer a question on his radio show about evolution and creationism, he always made sure that within his answer he allowed for Christians who believe in a "old earth"|

This is the key thing to keep in mind, in that Martin allowed for the Billions and billions of years that science teaches have happened from the time of the Big Bang.

This also puts martin at odds with the many Creationists that held to an earth that was only 6,000 years old.

[alanmolstad]

If you listen to him, you notice that Martin objects to what he calls "chance"...more of a "god-less chance"

But as evolution is not a matter of chance, then Martin is actually objecting not so much to the teachings of evolution, but to the teachings that there is no god controlling the universe.

That is what Martin objects to.

Just listen to his arguments against the idea of "chance" being responsible for life on the earth.
Over and over Martin attacks the idea that random chance free of God's hand was responsible for life on the earth.



What Im saying is that whenever Martin had to answer a question on his radio show about evolution and creationism, he always made sure that within his answer he allowed for Christians who believe in a "old earth"|

This is the key thing to keep in mind, in that Martin allowed for the Billions and billions of years that science teaches have happened from the time of the Big Bang.

This also puts martin at odds with the many Creationists that held to an earth that was only 6,000 years old.

[alanmolstad]

Let me show you how this question of "chance" is to be understood by the Christian regarding evolution

In the Bible story of Jonah and the Whale we see a very good example of how we should look at the teachings of evolution...(or chance)...and of God's control of the universe.

In that story the person of Jonah is at one point on a ship in the middle of a great storm.
The men on the ship want to understand why this storm is so bad and who is to blame for it?, so that cast lots and the lot falls on Jonah.

Now consider this casting of the lot onto Jonah.


Was it simply "chance"?

was this part of the story only dumb luck?

Or is there something about the casting on to Jonah that makes you see God's hand in it?

THAT......that answer is how we should view the way evolution has formed all life including humans on this earth.

For because of our faith when we read about the casting of the Lot onto Jonah we see God's hand in it.

But can we prove it?......no.

There is no way to prove it was God's hand in the casting of the Lot onto Jonah....Its just due to our faith that we think that is what happened, but there is no proof.

however if a scientist were observing the men on the ship cast lots, and watched the lot fall onto Jonah, then that scientist would consider the results to be what you would expect if the casting of the lots were done in a manner consistent to the laws of probability and chance.



finally, in an answer to a lady on the question of the age of the earth,I remember that Walter's answer was, "What difference does it make?"

What Martin was saying is that it does not matter to a Christian from a faith or salvation point of view what age of the earth is.
This is because we hang our salvation and faith on the fact that there IS a God who created the earth.....and it does not matter how long ago that that happend.

[alanmolstad]

here is an interesting side note...

Did you know that the numbers that science teachers in evolution teaches for the rise of modern man, are kinda close to the numbers given by the Young earth Creationists?....



Consider:
Lets say you invent a time machine and are able to travel back into time and kidnap men from past ages.
How far back can you go before you start kidnapping men who can be discovered to not be true modern men?

The answer is about 10,000 years.
If you go back past that then at our current level of science we would be able to tell the difference between that man from the past and a common man of this modern age.

In my Ken Ham ORIGINs cl*** I had to read a lot of the works of a guy names Henry Morris, and in one of his works he talks about a concept called "gap genealogy"
He therefore allows for a lot of lost information in the Text, and admits that this could push the time of the creation back even to 10,000 years ago.

[MichaellS]

Let me show you how this question of "chance" is to be understood by the Christian regarding evolution

Was it simply "chance"?

Or is there something about the casting on to Jonah that makes you see God's hand in it?

THAT......that answer is how we should view the way evolution has formed all life including humans on this earth.

For because of our faith when we read about the casting of the Lot onto Jonah we see God's hand in it.

But can we prove it?......no.

There is no way to prove it was God's hand in the casting of the Lot onto Jonah....Its just due to our faith that we think that is what happened, but there is no proof.

You will certainly have to elaborate why the Christian should feel at ease with “chance”.

V10 But “the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of the LORD” Or are you also saying the very pivotal New Testament verse 10 in Acts: “And they drew lots” was also “chanced”, by the activity of divination?



What Martin was saying is that it does not matter to a Christian from a faith or salvation point of view what age of the earth is. This is because we hang our salvation and faith on the fact that there IS a God who created the earth.....and it does not matter how long ago that that happend.

Not unless it conflicts with existing scripture.


“It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man.” (Psalm 118:8)

Since you were so well accustom to Mr Ham whom you found to be deceitfully leading the sheep astray, what collection of works by Mr. Martin can you point me to that would at least begin to counter the scriptures Mr. Ham presents us with?

[alanmolstad]

You will certainly have to elaborate why the Christian should feel at ease with “chance”.

V10 But “the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of the LORD” Or are you also saying the very pivotal New Testament verse 10 in Acts: “And they drew lots” was also “chanced”, by the activity of divination?

if you mean this story found at Acts 1:26 ?

"Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

Then it is only by faith that the men did this to decide what person to advance into the position as being "one of the 12"

Is there any proof that this was done by the command of the Lord?....no

Is there any hint that God's hand was seen in the outcome?.....no

Thus it is only by faith that any see God's hand in this drawing of the lot in that story.



But to return to what i was saying....
The drawing of lot is not just "random" chance, if we mean "anything could happen",for we know that the drawing of the lot will conform to the known rules of probability that govern such things.

This is why when a scientist looks at the evolution of humans and all life on this earth and looks for proof that there was a "god' controlling the development of life, he will NOT FIND such proof!

All of evolution and the path it has taken to develop life on the earth has always been completely within the rules that govern such things (just like drawing the lot seen above)

But so how does a Christian look at the same facts found by science and come away with an understanding that evolution is just a tool of the Lord's hand?
>>>>The answer is : By Faith!





It is by faith that when I look at the history of the earth, and the evolution of life here, that I see God's hands at work.

It is by faith that when I read the story of Jonah and the whale and see the casting of the lot onto Jonah that this was by God's hand that the lot fell on Jonah.

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]Since you were so well accustom to Mr Ham whom you found to be deceitfully leading the sheep astray, what collection of works by Mr. Martin can you point me to that would at least begin to counter the scriptures Mr. Ham presents us with?

I got to know Mr Ham as well as can be expected while attending an 8-week cl*** that he taught to a small group of students including myself.
I also got to meet with him socially and attended a small backyard party where we shared some food and played volleyball. (He is taller than I am by the way)

So I have no problem with who mr Ham is as a person.

But the teachings of YEC (young Earth Creationism) are an invented lie that was dreamed up because people just did not know any better and now refuse to listen to reason.

YEC is a false teaching....its like believing that the cross guarantees riches and all our healing and health (as the "name it and claim it" teachers teach within the church.)
Its a false idea, taught by Christians who dont know any better.

[alanmolstad]

now as for you request > "what collection of works by Mr. Martin can you point me to that would at least begin to counter the scriptures Mr. Ham presents us with?"

I have no idea...

I grew up listening to all of Martins radio shows for many years while I lived in a large city and faced many hours stuck in trafic listening to the radio.
I have one book by Walter martin (The Kingdom of the Cults) and that is about all I have of his "works"



I can however point you to something else that might be all I can do...and that is to tell you another story about the cl*** Ken Ham taught.

At one point Mr Ham had made use of a blackboard, (or overhead projector, I'm not sure) and wrote down what he believed was the creation week time line of things that were made....

Ken started his week with the idea that the first thing God made was the "light"


At this point I asked the only question I ever asked in that cl***, I raised my hand and asked, "What does the Bible say God created first "In the beginning"?"

I tried to point out that what the bible teaches in black and white is different than what Ken was teaching...





I talked after cl*** about my question when I was approached by a few of the other students and they questioned me as to my point?
I told them that "While Ken goes on and on about the "light" being created first, and then he has to struggle to invent a 'sourceless-light" to make his views conform with the text on later days, the bible actually teaches something vastly more simple"

So I asked the guys the same question, "What does the Bible teach was the very first thing God created "In the Beginning?"

The answer I got was "The Bible says that In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth"

Good answer by the way...

So I then asked the students, "Tell me what are the heavens?"

[alanmolstad]

Now the truth is,,,,,of the other students that heard my question that day, a few caught my point, and a few others resisted .

One student who strongly objected to the point I was making answered my question with> "Well Alan that may be what the Bible says, but it means something else)

My answer to him was that Im not asking him to tell me what it means, Im only asking "What does the Bible say?"

My point is that if you just allow the Bible to "say" what it wants to "say" then you will find that the Genesis story fits within the teachings of science and evolution, and that there most importantly is No Need to invent a "sourceless-light" just to make everything work...

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]You will certainly have to elaborate why the Christian should feel at ease with “chance”.

]

I hope by now I have been able to show how a Christian has no need to run around screaming "The sky is falling!" just because nature follows a set of rules that govern things like evolution or the casting of lots.

The truth is that before I can talk about how"chance" fits into a story in the Bible we first have to define what me mean by the term "CHANCE".

What we see in evolution is not just "random acts where anything could happen" rather evolution follows a set of rules about probability that govern how things like this happen.


So in a very real way, all of the objections that Walter martin might raise in that recording against evolution are not atually against the teaching itself,but rather Martin objects to the idea that there was no hand of God always in control.

So Martin was attacking the idea of godlessness.....

But I have also heard Walter Martin many times during his show always allow for the vast amount of time needed for evolution to be true.
So in doing so, Walter Martin allows for people that we might call, "Theistic evolutionists"....(People that believe God worked within evolution to create life)

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]

V10 But “the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of the LORD” Or are you also saying the very pivotal New Testament verse 10 in Acts: “And they drew lots” was also “chanced”, by the activity of divination?


There are many stories in the bible where we see men make use of casting lots to decide between two or more things.

its a common way to do things, essentially flipping a coin.


Now when we flip a coin we can have two views of what we are doing...
Are we leaving the matter up to God to decide?....or are we leaving it up to dumb luck?

When we were flipping a coin at the start of a backyard football game to see who kicks off, are we saying that "God controlled the flip"?

What we know for sure is that the flipping of a coin, or the casting of lots has to be as fair...there cant be even the hint that one outcome was 'fixed" or the whole thing is fake.

Thus be it with evolution, or with the casting of lots onto Jonah, it has to always appear to be subject to the rules of nature and probability that govern such things...with no outside force interfering or else the whole thing will be pointless .

But the problem some Christian have is when they read a book about evolution and dont see it talking about "God's hand" they react as Walter martin also does by attacking the idea of a "Godless evolution"

Yet what I think is that before we race to attack, we should first sit back and see that science and evolution are just the tools of the Master...they are not the same thing as the Master.

They are like feeling the wind, or hearing the thunder, they might be caused by the Master but they are not the Master...

So why should we object that a science book teaching on evolution does not talk about God?....Its so silly!
Evolution is not God.
You cant look at evolution and expect to see God....just like you cant feel the wind **** and think you feel "god"...nor can you look at fire and say to yourself,"That is God"

God is not the wind

God is not the fire.

God is not the earthquake.


But God can cause the wind to ****, the earth to burn, the ground to shake,just as God has used evolution to shape the form of man.

[MichaellS]

I hope by now I have been able to show how a Christian has no need to run around screaming "The sky is falling!" just because nature follows a set of rules that govern things like evolution or the casting of lots.

The truth is that before I can talk about how"chance" fits into a story in the Bible we first have to define what me mean by the term "CHANCE".

What we see in evolution is not just "random acts where anything could happen" rather evolution follows a set of rules about probability that govern how things like this happen.


So in a very real way, all of the objections that Walter martin might raise in that recording against evolution are not atually against the teaching itself,but rather Martin objects to the idea that there was no hand of God always in control.

So Martin was attacking the idea of godlessness.....

But I have also heard Walter Martin many times during his show always allow for the vast amount of time needed for evolution to be true.
So in doing so, Walter Martin allows for people that we might call, "Theistic evolutionists"....(People that believe God worked within evolution to create life)

In the site Dr. Martin helped in the founding of we find this objection to that theory:

Neither Human nor Theistic Evolution (http://www.equip.org/article/neither-human-evolution-nor-theistic-evolution-1/)

[MichaellS]

I got to know Mr Ham as well as can be expected while attending an 8-week cl*** that he taught to a small group of students including myself.
I also got to meet with him socially and attended a small backyard party where we shared some food and played volleyball. (He is taller than I am by the way)

So I have no problem with who mr Ham is as a person.

But the teachings of YEC (young Earth Creationism) are an invented lie that was dreamed up because people just did not know any better and now refuse to listen to reason.

YEC is a false teaching....its like believing that the cross guarantees riches and all our healing and health (as the "name it and claim it" teachers teach within the church.)
Its a false idea, taught by Christians who dont know any better.

“Refuse” reason? Okay, I’ll present the contention of some of the scripture from the link, that is if you count on the truth of scripture more than one’s own personal feelings. For if I only show forth my own expressions of personal belief without holding it up to the light of truth that is found in the bible, to see how it will fare, then this also refuses reason.

Mr. Ham maintains Old Earth theorist might have trouble with this one for instance:


“The gap theorist must also choose to ignore any evidence consistent with a belief in a young age for the earth, possibly no greater than 10,000 years. There is much evidence for this—e.g. the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the quan***y of meteoric dust on the moon, the breakup of galaxy clusters, etc.

Exodus 20:11 states, “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.” Note the emphasis, “and all that in them is.” If the fossil record was in the earth after the six days of creation and before Adam sinned (as gap theorists suppose), then God would have had to make that strata during the time limit of six days, since it is an integral part of “all that in them is”!”

Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?

[alanmolstad]

“Refuse” reason? Okay, I’ll present the contention of some of the scripture from the link, that is if you count on the truth of scripture more than one’s own personal feelings. For if I only show forth my own expressions of personal belief without holding it up to the light of truth that is found in the bible, to see how it will fare, then this also refuses reason.

Mr. Ham maintains Old Earth theorist might have trouble with this one for instance:



Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?
as far as I know, the "Moon dust" arguments have been dropped from the modern printing of the books by the Young earth teachers...

as for your question > "Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?"
I dont understand what you are asking me?

Im not sure what I am objecting to?...what do you mean "strata"?

as far as I know, NASA puts the age of the universe back in time about 13 to 16 billion years or so.....

As far as I know there is no credible evidence that goes back farther yet...but it may be something we will learn in the future.

i would have no trouble learning from science that the age of the whole universe is over 20 billion years...or more.

[alanmolstad]

as for the "days" of genesis...thats where the Young Earther gets mixed up>


the problem with the Young Earther and the way he does "Bible Math" is that while the YE teacher will trace back modern man to about the same date as evolution will trace back the rise of modern man, the YE teacher is then stuck with what he thinks is a whole creation of the universe just a few hours before the rise of man.


So in other words its not the age of modern man where the YE teachers get lost at...its the fact they think the whole universe started at the same time!

So what i do is point out to the YE teacher that while they trace back the age of the rise of modern man to the same age as evolution holds, (And thats fine) we need to look a bit closer to what the Bible actually says about theses "Days" that seem to screw up the YE thinking.


For example...
The days of Genesis have very clear starts and endings....for all 6 of the days...

But what about the 7th day?

Is there an ending tacked on to the 7th day in the Creation week story?

How about the whole book of Genesis, is there any hint that the 7th Day has ended at any point in the book of Genesis?


How about the whole Bible?...is there any hint that the 7th day of Genesis has ended in the bible?




My conclusion is thus_
If there are clear endings to 6 days in Genesis, and there is clearly NO ENDING yet seen of the 7th day, that (and here is the important part)
That this is no accident!

[alanmolstad]

so how long do I think the 7th day of Genesis has lasted so far?........millions and millions of years..


how long with it last?.....I have no idea.

[MichaellS]

as far as I know, the "Moon dust" arguments have been dropped from the modern printing of the books by the Young earth teachers...

as for your question > "Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?"
I dont understand what you are asking me?

Im not sure what I am objecting to?...what do you mean "strata"?

as far as I know, NASA puts the age of the universe back in time about 13 to 16 billion years or so.....

As far as I know there is no credible evidence that goes back farther yet...but it may be something we will learn in the future.

i would have no trouble learning from science that the age of the whole universe is over 20 billion years...or more.

Strata, which is the plural of Stratum, which is a single layer of sedimentary rocks which KH stresses the Old Earth theorist cannot have it both ways per his comment.


“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is" (Ex20:11)


“gap theorists suppose, , the fossil record was in the earth after the six days of creation and before Adam sinned, , then God would have had to make that strata during the time limit of six days, since it is an integral part of “all that in them is”!””

Why would He do that, just so we could believe in evolution? Com'n.

[MichaellS]

as for the "days" of genesis...thats where the Young Earther gets mixed up>

the problem with the Young Earther and the way he does "Bible Math" is that while the YE teacher will trace back modern man to about the same date as evolution will trace back the rise of modern man, the YE teacher is then stuck with what he thinks is a whole creation of the universe just a few hours before the rise of man.

So in other words its not the age of modern man where the YE teachers get lost at...its the fact they think the whole universe started at the same time!

So what i do is point out to the YE teacher that while they trace back the age of the rise of modern man to the same age as evolution holds, (And thats fine) we need to look a bit closer to what the Bible actually says about theses "Days" that seem to screw up the YE thinking.

For example...
The days of Genesis have very clear starts and endings....for all 6 of the days...

But what about the 7th day?

Is there an ending tacked on to the 7th day in the Creation week story?

How about the whole book of Genesis, is there any hint that the 7th Day has ended at any point in the book of Genesis?

How about the whole Bible?...is there any hint that the 7th day of Genesis has ended in the bible?

My conclusion is thus_
If there are clear endings to 6 days in Genesis, and there is clearly NO ENDING yet seen of the 7th day, that (and here is the important part)
That this is no accident!

Some likable commentary here. Just like in the reading of prophesy, we are not to think of ourselves too highly as we ought, but soberly. I think now I get the gist of your version of faith which confesses in it being “no accident”. On the one hand it is of a peaceable sort, but a little too laid-back for a warrior’s vigilance.

[alanmolstad]

Some likable commentary here. Just like in the reading of prophesy, we are not to think of ourselves too highly as we ought, but soberly. I think now I get the gist of your version of faith which confesses in it being “no accident”. On the one hand it is of a peaceable sort, but a little too laid-back for a warrior’s vigilance.
I didnt understand a word of that, but I always try to offer to all that if I ever write something that is worth my looking at a 2nd time?...or if there is a point you have a question about?...just ask!

[alanmolstad]

Strata, which is the plural of Stratum, which is a single layer of sedimentary rocks which KH stresses the Old Earth theorist cannot have it both ways per his comment.





Why would He do that, just so we could believe in evolution? Com'n.

Im no expert in that topic...
The Bible I know, and there is nothung in the bible that teaches against the idea that the earth hasbeen here for billions of years, and that the layers of earth we see are as they appear.....a true record of earth's history going back millions and billions of years.


no need to invent ways around this.

The simple truth is the best answer....the earth is old...

[alanmolstad]

There are 2 questions that the Young Earth Creationist does not like to be faced with.

Q1 - What does the Bible say God created first "in the beginning"?

Q2 - Where in the Bible does it teach that the 7th day of Genesis is ended?

[alanmolstad]

There are 2 questions that the Young Earth Creationist does not like to be faced with.

Q1 - What does the Bible say God created first "in the beginning"?

Q2 - Where in the Bible does it teach that the 7th day of Genesis is ended?


And that is where we point out the flaws in Young Earth thinking...
When I ask "What does the bible say God created first "In the beginning"? Im pointing out that Im not telling them what the text means, Im just showing them what the Text says.

It says in black and white things that the YE teacher does not want to address.

I dont have to twist things around to make it fit my views.
i dont have to invent things, I dont have to pull reasons out of thin air.
I can simply read the text as written and say...."Amen"


When the Bible says that the first thing God made"In the beginning" was the heavens...I can say "Amen"

the same is true for the 2nd Question I ask the YE teachers - "Where is the ending for the 7th Genesis day in the Bible?"

The YE teachers have no answer for that question.
They add an ending only because it needs to go there in order for Genesis to agree with young earth teachings.

But if you dont add your own invented ending to the 7th day....If you simply read and say, "Amen" Then you read a story that fits with modern science and the teachings of evolution.......


and "Amen" to that as well!

[MichaellS]

And that is where we point out the flaws in Young Earth thinking...
When I ask "What does the bible say God created first "In the beginning"? Im pointing out that Im not telling them what the text means, Im just showing them what the Text says.

It says in black and white things that the YE teacher does not want to address.

I dont have to twist things around to make it fit my views.
i dont have to invent things, I dont have to pull reasons out of thin air.
I can simply read the text as written and say...."Amen"


When the Bible says that the first thing God made"In the beginning" was the heavens...I can say "Amen"

the same is true for the 2nd Question I ask the YE teachers - "Where is the ending for the 7th Genesis day in the Bible?"

The YE teachers have no answer for that question.
They add an ending only because it needs to go there in order for Genesis to agree with young earth teachings.

But if you dont add your own invented ending to the 7th day....If you simply read and say, "Amen" Then you read a story that fits with modern science and the teachings of evolution.......


and "Amen" to that as well!

Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?

You have said quite a spiel up to now, but low on returning the scriptural volley, just keep on giving more rhetorical inspiration. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but now I’m beginning to wonder if you have a personal problem with confirming that inspiration with the word of God every now and then?? And I think you know what I mean, , not every last item, but not a barrage of comments on end either.

God bless.

[alanmolstad]

Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?

You have said quite a spiel up to now, but low on returning the scriptural volley, just keep on giving more rhetorical inspiration. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but now I’m beginning to wonder if you have a personal problem with confirming that inspiration with the word of God every now and then?? And I think you know what I mean, , not every last item, but not a barrage of comments on end either.

God bless.

Once again,,,did not really catch that.

But if you have a question or a doubt about something I have written, just let me know and I would be happy to have a 2nd look at the post again...

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?



"should I?"



that part I did catch, and I yet still don't understand why you would not?

I simply wanted to maintain a constant conversation on this website so as to encourage new posters.
To that end I would ask that if you would like to post more of your answers to my questins, that it would be helpfull to continuing this conversation and useful toward getting more people to chime in.

[MichaellS]

"should I?"



that part I did catch, and I yet still don't understand why you would not?

I simply wanted to maintain a constant conversation on this website so as to encourage new posters.
To that end I would ask that if you would like to post more of your answers to my questins, that it would be helpfull to continuing this conversation and useful toward getting more people to chime in.

Now your talking Partner. I couldn't agree more in the very spirit of your tone, , excellent!!

[alanmolstad]

In the site Dr. Martin helped in the founding of we find this objection to that theory:

Neither Human nor Theistic Evolution (http://www.equip.org/article/neither-human-evolution-nor-theistic-evolution-1/)

I have written personally to Hank on this problem he has understanding Genesis....LOL


Hank is just flat-out wrong about much of what he thinks and teaches on Genesis...

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?

You have said quite a spiel up to now, but low on returning the scriptural volley,]

IfI understand this part of your comments, (And I much confess that I dont understand a bunch of things from your posts in general) I believe you are asking for a step by step, verse by verse examination of what I think is being talked about in the Genesis story?


I shall go find a useful OT Bible Text website that has the text up so I can copy-paste and I will start going over the different verses and adding my own comments as to what it is talking about.


The only reason I have not done that so far is that Im more into just showing people what the Genesis story "says".....and I try not to be too forward in teaching them what i think it "means"


My reasoning is that what I think it "means" is just the very same as to what it "says"

Therefore I start out by only asking people "What does it say?
I ask "What does it say?" because most of not all of the Young Earth Teachings are not based on what the Text says, but what teachers like Morris and Ham thought it "means" regardless of what it actually "says"

[alanmolstad]

Genesis 1 (New International Version)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here we see the first things God made.
"The heavens" is clearly listed first of all the things God would go later on to make.
What is the "heavens"?

The answer is that in the Bible we see many different things talked about and named "Heaven" or "Heavens"
Now of these many different things, we do see the idea for the full canopy of stars in the night sky....
So the idea of the "stars" is well within the scope of different meanings the bible will use in connection to the term "Heavens"

So "stars" = "Heavens"
This seems clear enough as to what the Bible wants us to understand as the first things God made in the beginning....Stars, but also all the other things up there in the stars, for the term "Heavens is not just talking about the stars like our sun, but also "all in the heavens"is the context i get from this 1st verse of Genesis...

To me this includes the many things we do find in outer space besides just the stars.

So right at the start of Genesis we find an idea that fits nicely within the concepts of the Big Bang idea as well as what we know from modern science as to how the universe evolved.

It has one different however....the Bible is very sure who caused this to happen..."God created"
The idea that God Created this universe is not an idea found in science at all.
There is no known way to test for a God in science, thus we should never expect to read that one day science proved "God did it"

[alanmolstad]

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,


"The deep" is a term that mostly and ONLY is talking about waters....
The word "deep" shows us that we are not just talking about a little stream, but rather we are dealing with seas of water...vast seas....


"the earth was formless and empty"....the word "was" here, is tricky, for it is based on a word that can mean both "was" or it can mean "became"
and in many ways this is true here too.

We should keep this in mind as we read this section, that the earth was or became something.
What was it?...... "Formless and empty"


What do we take Formless and empty to mean?....
Well "formless" is talking about a foggy uncertainty to the outline.
The earth is still there, the earth is still real...still hard ground...
But it's outline is unsure as seen here...

In Bible school the image I was taught as to what this "formlessness" was talking about was that you were to imagine standing on a road on a very foggy day.
You hear a sound.....the sound grows louder and louder...the sound now resembles the sound of a large truck.
But as you look into the fog you cant see the truck yet.

the sound grows....now you start to see a dark shape on the road....its hard to see, but its clearly something.



The truck was always there, always real, always made of hard steel and iron....But as you looked at it from your view point it was "formless"

[alanmolstad]

"the earth was formless and empty"

The word "empty" is only talking about a lack or people.

The image I have is that of a large sports arena, with seating for many, yet its before the game starts and so all the seats are empty.

The earth was created empty, but its a type of emptyness that expects to be "filled"

[alanmolstad]

shall I go on?.....

[alanmolstad]

asyou never got back to me, I guess I should just sum up the rest of what I was going to write if you needed to see more of how I go over the text verse by verse.

I would have pointed out that the place where the Bible draws all life from, both animal life and human life according to the teachings of Evolution is "the earth itself"
The earth is the final place where the teachings of evolution will trace back life to.

Then I show how the text in Genesis teaches the very same thing, that all life, be it human or animal, all come from a common starting point in the Bible...(The Earth)


Next I would likely deal with the events of the 4th day.
The deal with the 4th day is that this is the point where the Young earth teachers had to start adding things to the text and re-working the first part of the story to make everything fit with how they wanted the 4th day to read.

But I show how it is not necessary to add all that junk to the story (like the invention of a "sourceless light)

The story of the 4th day reads like a normal story with no need to add things to it to make it work with the first part of the Genesis week.

We remember that at the first day the Text tells us that God created the "Heavens" and so we take this to be talking about the "stars" and as our sun is just a normal star that was created also "In the beginning"we have all the source for the light talked about on the 4th day.

I point out that the words "also made the stars" is an addition to the text and does not actually belong there at all.




point by point I can show what Im talking about is the only correct way to understand the Genesis story...

[MichaellS]

asyou never got back to me, I guess I should just sum up the rest of what I was going to write if you needed to see more of how I go over the text verse by verse.

Hi, if I only had ample convenience, I would be on here more. If you will only be a tad bit more patient, I’ll try to respond eventually.:)


I would have pointed out that the place where the Bible draws all life from, both animal life and human life according to the teachings of Evolution is "the earth itself"
The earth is the final place where the teachings of evolution will trace back life to.


Curious Alan, with your use of quotations here, “the earth itself”, are you referring to something previously said by yourself or someone else?


Then I show how the text in Genesis teaches the very same thing, that all life, be it human or animal, all come from a common starting point in the Bible...(The Earth)

This is not something I can support in good conscience.


“by him all things are held together.” (Colossians 1:17)

“, , by him all things subsist - Or are sustained, , The meaning is, that they are kept in the present state; their existence, order, and arrangement are continued by his power. If unsupported by him, they would fall into disorder, or sink back to nothing. - Barnes' Notes on the Bible

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]Curious Alan, with your use of quotations here, “the earth itself”, are you referring to something previously said by yourself or someone else?




I always am quoting the Bible...even if I dont list the chapter and verse, Im still always quoting a source and not just myself...

[alanmolstad]

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:


12 The land produced vegetation:

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts







So all animals are from the Earth itself.
But what about humans?
Are we from a different place than all the animals, or are we from the very same place?


"you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken"








God commanded "the ground" of this earth to bring forth life.
And we humans are from this very same source.

[alanmolstad]

so I was dealing once with a person who held that the Bible was all myth, and had nothing in agreement with modern science at all.


I asked him, "Where does your godless evolution trace all human life back to"
"The great apes and man share a family tree" was his answer.

"Good answer" I said.
But then I asked, "Is that it? Is that all the farther back in time evolution goes? Apes appear out of thin air and we evolved from them after that happened?"

"Well no not at all" came his answer, "The evolution of mankind goes back millions and millions of years before the rise of apes"

"So ok I get that" I then go on to ask, "And can you tell me where this story of evolution started at?"


He paused and suggested that there were likely just simple cells in a tide pool that split and caused all evolution from then on


I challenged this, by asking, "But what came before even that first simple cell?"

This got him to think for a moment, then he answered, "Before that I would guess that the very building blocks of life are what was the start"



"Another Good answer" I told him...."And where are even the most simple building blocks of life from?"

His answer was "They are a natural part of the earth itself, we are a natural evolved part of this planet"





His answer is correct....and it fits nicely next to what the Bible teaches at Genesis 3:19

[MichaellS]

so I was dealing once with a person who held that the Bible was all myth, and had nothing in agreement with modern science at all.


I asked him, "Where does your godless evolution trace all human life back to"
"The great apes and man share a family tree" was his answer.

"Good answer" I said.
But then I asked, "Is that it? Is that all the farther back in time evolution goes? Apes appear out of thin air and we evolved from them after that happened?"

"Well no not at all" came his answer, "The evolution of mankind goes back millions and millions of years before the rise of apes"

"So ok I get that" I then go on to ask, "And can you tell me where this story of evolution started at?"


He paused and suggested that there were likely just simple cells in a tide pool that split and caused all evolution from then on


I challenged this, by asking, "But what came before even that first simple cell?"

This got him to think for a moment, then he answered, "Before that I would guess that the very building blocks of life are what was the start"



"Another Good answer" I told him...."And where are even the most simple building blocks of life from?"

His answer was "They are a natural part of the earth itself, we are a natural evolved part of this planet"





His answer is correct....and it fits nicely next to what the Bible teaches at Genesis 3:19

It is amazing to me here with all you have ***erted thus far and I still have no idea where your belief in creation leaves off and evolution kicks in?

[MichaellS]

all life, be it human or animal, all come from a common starting point in the Bible...(The Earth)

I think you do see why I would feel your above claim would conflict with Col 1:17 don’t you?


“by him all things are held together.”

[alanmolstad]

It is amazing to me here with all you have ***erted thus far and I still have no idea where your belief in creation leaves off and evolution kicks in?
I may not understand your question...
I believe that evolution is a tool of God, that He used to create this universe.

So evolution is as old as the universe is old, and a natural part of it, like light and sound and gravity...

so evolution kicked-in at the Big bang.....

[alanmolstad]

I think you do see why I would feel your above claim would conflict with Col 1:17 don’t you?

God is always before all things, and in Him we are....thats no issue here.


What we are talking about is that God used evolution to bring life to this world...and the evolution is a holy tool of God's hands.....and should be respected as such.

[MichaellS]

God is always before all things, and in Him we are....thats no issue here.

What we are talking about is that God used evolution to bring life to this world...and the evolution is a holy tool of God's hands.....and should be respected as such.

That’s where I thought you were going, I just wanted to be sure.

So what you are further saying here is that the work of His creation at work today is done by the progression of evolution. Is that close? Truly, there is a New Testament teaching that deals with evolution. That teaching has to do with how the outer man will benefit from the inner man’s growth in Christ and the transformation within.

Other than this, if progression is a product of creation, then what of the use of this word in Colossians 1:17: “, , held together.” That may make or break the defining issue over this whole concern. I do think it noteworthy that roughly half of the translations out there use one of the two words, either “held” or “consist”. Fair to say that the word itself, “held” right off the bat doesn’t sound entirely conducive to the movement of progression, but stationary. Let’s see this verb once from Strongs:



4921. sunistémi and sunistanó
Strong's Concordance
sunistémi and sunistanó: to commend, establish, stand near, consist
Original Word: συνίστημι, συνιστάνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Short Definition: I commend, prove, am composed of, cohere
Definition: I place together, commend, prove, exhibit; instrans: I stand with; I am composed of, cohere.


Possibly, you have a differing use of the word “evolution”. One that doesn’t recognize something evolving as James said doesn’t occur.


“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:7)

[alanmolstad]

That’s where I thought you were going, I just wanted to be sure.

So what you are further saying here is that the work of His creation at work today is done by the progression of evolution. Is that close? Truly, there is a New Testament teaching that deals with evolution. That teaching has to do with how the outer man will benefit from the inner man’s growth in Christ and the transformation within.

Other than this, if progression is a product of creation, then what of the use of this word in Colossians 1:17: “, , held together.” That may make or break the defining issue over this whole concern. I do think it noteworthy that roughly half of the translations out there use one of the two words, either “held” or “consist”. Fair to say that the word itself, “held” right off the bat doesn’t sound entirely conducive to the movement of progression, but stationary. Let’s see this verb once from Strongs:




Possibly, you have a differing use of the word “evolution”. One that doesn’t recognize something evolving as James said doesn’t occur.


I did not understand a bloody word.....sorry.






All I can say is that the Lord used evolution as a tool, that he created to form life in the universe.

[alanmolstad]

“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:7


every good thing = love peace, joy, etc

every perfect gift = the gifts of the Holy Spirit


from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation = God does not get old, time does not change God







I dont have the slightest idea where you were headed with that bible verse?...
It has zero to do with the point I am making about Evolution being a tool of the Lord to bring life to this universe.


God is unchanged by time...
But the universe changes moment to moment because of the p***ing of time.
That is why we say that God is not like anything else in creation.

[MichaellS]

I dont have the slightest idea where you were headed with that bible verse?...
It has zero to do with the point I am making about Evolution being a tool of the Lord to bring life to this universe.

I can understand why Alan. I too wouldn't dream of touching that verse if I wanted to maintain something counter to what I have been accustom to for so long, and yes, you are not alone.

Once more:

V7 “Every good thing”

Could I invite you to consider the ramifications of those words? What says Genesis? For verse 7 is seen there a direct connection:


“And God saw that it was good” (Gen.1:4,10,12,18,21,25)

If you refuse to admit this connection, which I hope you don’t, either way the truth wins out.

[alanmolstad]

I'm in my car...but is that last quote really from James 1; 7 as you listed? ..


Seems different for some reason to me

[alanmolstad]

Is that in James 1:7?

[MichaellS]

I'm in my car...but is that last quote really from James 1; 7 as you listed? ..


Seems different for some reason to me

Oh be careful there my friend, ,

[MichaellS]

Is that in James 1:7?

Yes, I'll talk later, , like when sitting still.

[alanmolstad]

Can you quote me James 1:7 ?

[alanmolstad]

Evolution is good...as much as is light and love and peace...

[MichaellS]

Evolution is good...as much as is light and love and peace...

Let me know when you stop driving okay? I'm not comfy w/dat.

[alanmolstad]

I'm sitting in cat..but waiting for wife in store

[alanmolstad]

I have a hard time understanding your posts.
You speak in a manner that is hard for me to read.

Sometimes I get the real feeling that you are using a translation program?

[alanmolstad]

You wrote: “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:7)"


So Im driving around and I glance at your post above, and it just seems to not sound like I remember it??????



The way I remember James1 verse 7 it reads - "That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord."

[alanmolstad]

anyway.....

" God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good"


this is where we learn that evolution is "good'

for we learn that it was out of the ground that both animal and humans developed , and this is totally in harmony with the teachings of evolution.


The "ground" was commanded by God to bring forth life...and it did.

[MichaellS]

You wrote: “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:7)"

So Im driving around and I glance at your post above, and it just seems to not sound like I remember it??????

The way I remember James1 verse 7 it reads - "That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord."

Your memory serves you well on the first half of that chapter, , you’re right. It’s verse 17, not “7”. My missed accuracy.

So, back to that which I first asked for, is verse 17’s “good” the same as Gen.1:4,10,12,18,21,25 “good”?


“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17)

“And God saw that it was good” (Gen.1:4,10,12,18,21,25)

[alanmolstad]

“Every good thing ( and it might be said that the story of Genesis and the tool the Lord used to create life (Evolution) could be placed into this verse for they truly are "good" things the Lord has made)


given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or (The "whom" here is clearly only God, for God is unchanged with "no variation" and not effected by time, for God is not bound by time).”


shifting shadow ( while it is true that God is unchanged, this is now compared to the world of nature and its ever-changing state. The idea ever-changing "shifting shadows"is talking about how Nature is not to be compared to the Lord steadfastness...This builds on the verse at James 1:11 were we just read about how all of nature changes and what it today blooming with soon fade and is "destroyed"...)

[MichaellS]

“Every good thing ( and it might be said that the story of Genesis and the tool the Lord used to create life (Evolution) could be placed into this verse for they truly are "good" things the Lord has made)


given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or (The "whom" here is clearly only God, for God is unchanged with "no variation" and not effected by time, for God is not bound by time).”


shifting shadow ( while it is true that God is unchanged, this is now compared to the world of nature and its ever-changing state. The idea ever-changing "shifting shadows"is talking about how Nature is not to be compared to the Lord steadfastness...This builds on the verse at James 1:11 were we just read about how all of nature changes and what it today blooming with soon fade and is "destroyed"...)

If so, then the Christ himself would have certainly recognized this and said as you maintain; this is just “the world of nature and its ever-changing state”, and not like My Father when He cursed the fig tree.

But He didn't recognized “the world of nature and its ever-changing state”. But rather it’s UN-“shifting shadow” as it was intended. If we want to ***ume anything less, we obscure His reasoning He stood upon that day! At this point, I can’t tell you how shaky a contrary position sounds.


"May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" – Jesus Christ (Mark 11:14)

[alanmolstad]

If so, then the Christ himself would have certainly recognized this and said ......
um...what???!

You cant interpet the lack of something in the Bible as for or against anything...
The Text teaches what I believe, and I try to NEVER add to the text...what it says is what I beleive.

When we start to say "Well why did not Christ say ___" we are going off the deep end.


Its like a guy I knew who was debating me over his being gay.
He defense of being gay was to say to me, [SIZE=4]"If being gay was wrong then certainly Jesus would have spoken out on the topic".....

He was attempting to use the lack of something in the Bible as support for his views.
You cant do that...

[alanmolstad]

. But rather it’s UN-“shifting shadow” as it was intended.


UN-shifting shadows?

I think you totally misunderstand that verse...

lets quote it to make sure we both see the verse as it is written:

James 1:17 New International Version
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.



Do you see the point of the part dealing with the "shifting shadows?
The idea is that shadows are from the sun, and the sun is always changing its position, its never stopped, and so that is the context here.
The idea is that God is unchanged, as compared to "shifting shadows"







That is why it says the father does not change like____ ______. Like what?



Like "shifting shadows"

[alanmolstad]

What James is talking about in these set of verses is that God is unchanged....and this is totally unlike nature around us that is always changing.

James goes on at 1:11 to point to flowers that today bloom yet under the hot sun it " withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed"


James is showing us that all things created and part of nature (including evolution, the creation, the story of Genesis) are not like God at all.

Creation changes and is always going from one state to a different state.
But God does not change....God is constant....unchanging.


The term "Shifting shadow" = the universe, the whole Genesis creation, the evolution of all life

[MichaellS]

You cant interpet the lack of something in the Bible as for or against anything...
The Text teaches what I believe, and I try to NEVER add to the text...what it says is what I beleive.

Translated if I'm understanding you correctly; "The Text teaches what I believe" and nothing more???

If it comes that close to upsetting you, what else can one expect but to launch a huge defense saying I'm adding to scripture. Nice try, but entirely false. You're attempt at dissing me is actually dissing scripture, not me. Take it before the Lord brother.

Because the Lord cursed an UN-changed understanding of nature, you now attack me because I pointed it out? What exactly was added? Nothing! The only thing changed here is an uprooting of your narrow and unyielding view, even when that view can’t accept the truth. And that’s my fault? Com’n.

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]Translated if I'm understanding you correctly; "The Text teaches what I believe" and nothing more???



It teaches what Im talking about...as for could it teach even more?....it could, as I have many other things I have not talked about that this verse also deals with that I also teach.

But for this topic, it is true that the verse teaches the same as what Im talking about.....yes

[alanmolstad]

James is pointing out that nature changes.



That is what Im saying...that is what James is saying also ...

[alanmolstad]

so as we see, "Nature changes' and that comes out in this Jamese 1:17 verse with the phrase "Shifting shadows"


In our modern world we tend to view shadows at things that don't move...because we turn on a light in a room and the shadow cast by the light bulb does not move .
But we have to get rid of that modern mindset and go back to the world of the writer's time.
The shadows that James had in mind in his words are cast by the sun.
The shadow was a thing that was always known to be never be stopped.
A shadow cast by the sun is always shifting in its position....always in motion.

The whole concept of the "Sundial" was based on this understanding that the shifting shadows were means to mark the time.




Now when we take this correct understanding of the "shifting shadows" to the verse you listed, we can see easily that James was simply comparing the stationary Lord to the ever-changing world found in nature,

[MichaellS]

James is pointing out that nature changes.


That is what Im saying...that is what James is saying also ...

Where does James say that the original design intents of God change? By what I can tell (and as with the fig tree), that is one heckuva shaky limb to hang reasoning on V17. Not even close, but your welcome to try.

[MichaellS]

UN-shifting shadows?

I think you totally misunderstand that verse..."

No, just a condensed rewording.


“with whom there is no, , shifting shadow”

Or un-shifting. No change.

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]Where does James say that the original design intents of God change?
James compares and contrasts the Lord to the "shifting shadows"


the shadows are caused by what again?...oh yes, the SUN!

The sun is a creation of who again?......oh yes, the LORD!



While I don't think James had the story of Genesis in mind when he wrote this section of his letter, it still does relate to the universe that God made that he declared to be "Good" in Genesis.

What James is pointing out to us is that while humans tend to be fickle and our hearts are always changing, the lord is not.
The Lord does not change.
The Lord is not fickle.
What the Lord was like yesterday he will be like tomorrow.


This is the idea behind what James says about the lord being NOT LIKE "shifting shadows"

In other words, God is not like the creation he created and called "good"
So this points us to the understanding that even if the universe is subject to change and destruction, it still is called "Good" by the Lord.




So there is nothing at all that James has written here that runs counter to the teachings of Evolution.

In fact, the idea of evolution is kinda what James was pointing to with his use of the term, "shifting shadows"

[MichaellS]

James compares and contrasts the Lord to the "shifting shadows"

the shadows are caused by what again?...oh yes, the SUN!

The sun is a creation of who again?......oh yes, the LORD!

Pure conjecture. Good night, James isn't comparing anything! James is describing what comes from the Lord, not setting up contrast. Back to the verse:


V17 “Every good thing given, , is from above, coming down from the Father”


While I don't think James had the story of Genesis in mind when he wrote this section of his letter, it still does relate to the universe that God made that he declared to be "Good" in Genesis.

That’s because me as the evolutionist can’t understand things continue just as God intended.


What James is pointing out to us is that while humans tend to be fickle and our hearts are always changing,

Humans, or the children of God?


“be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness” (II Peter 3:17)


This is the idea behind what James says about the lord being NOT LIKE "shifting shadows"

Half right, because me as the evolutionist doesn’t want to be reminded that “every good thing given” just as the Lord understood the fig tree to be under creation that day – as it was intended – unchanged from the original design – creation - from God the Father - which remains intact and unchanged – took action because of that aberration from the original design. I do apologize for bringing that up again but I’m afraid it’s true; God’s design hasn't changed.

So what your trying to feed me here is God changes His mind on what He gives? But that’s what you’re saying. God doesn’t change but everything He creates He does change? See what I mean by unyielding? ‘God doesn’t change, but everything in His big bag of tricks He’s constantly fiddling with’? Preposterous!

Man is still created in the similitude of God (James 3:9), and dies, and another life comes into the world bearing what? Is “made after the similitude of God”, unchanged from the original intent of design clear down from His first created man. You say this has changed? No, I don’t think so. I think you will probably try to foster this idle notion on others too. All it is, is an unscriptural flaunt. But remember,


“Love does not brag, it is not puffed up” (I Cor. 13:4)

But this most certainly is a brag Alan! When you say God is constantly fiddling with the original design of creation, you are inserting meaning. Unchanged? “Oh that only belongs to God”. True, He is unchanged, but v17 isn’t telling us things coming from Him are always different. V17 declares creation that continues to come from Him aren’t given to change. To say He is always diluting the original design is tampering with this verse.


In other words, God is not like the creation he created and called "good"
So this points us to the understanding that even if the universe is subject to change and destruction, it still is called "Good" by the Lord.

So there is nothing at all that James has written here that runs counter to the teachings of Evolution.

In fact, the idea of evolution is kinda what James was pointing to with his use of the term, "shifting shadows"

Conjecture with a capitol C. The whole point was that everything coming from Him is without “shifting shadow”, not Him trying to - whatever you’re point is – trying to mix creation all up to make life interesting? Geesh, And I’m the one adding to scripture eh?


“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17)

One thing that appears most convenient to your advantage is that you don’t want to address me specifically when I ask a specific question, , just a generalized response. I can only say it is generalized when you would rather not engage my terminology. For your answer doesn’t come very near at all at answering me regarding it.


Post#85: Where does James say that the original design intents of God change?

[alanmolstad]

Yes James is indeed comparing and contrasting the Lord to the world of nature at 1:17

This is actually very clear as its simply James building on points he had raised in 1:11 where James talks about how men who have high position now will soon p*** away like a flower that "withers" under the hot sun.

James goes on to encourage people to stand firm in their faith at 1:12 but this also is compared to other men who when tempted "they are dragged away"

So James is clearly comparing and contrasting in this whole section of his letter things with other things.

Now when we get to your verse at James 1:17 we can see very easily that James is continuing to compare and contrast in his letter.
The verse at :17 talks about "Good Gifts"...but what gifts is James talking about?

the gift James is talking about appeared in his letter as "Faith" and "Wisdom" and "perseverance" leading to a "mature" believer.
James goes on to say that such gifts come from a Lord that does not change like the ever changing "shifting shadows"


So now we have a very clear understanding of what James is teaching us in this first part of his letter.

James compares and contrasts the Lord to the world of nature.
For nature is always changing (shifting) but the Lord is not.

yet, in Genesis we learn what the Lord called this ever- shifting nature that he created...He called it "Good"




So there is not one single word in this section of James that goes against the fundamental teaching of Evolution, (and that is the ability of nature to "change")

[alanmolstad]

Now some Young Earthers are totally mixed up as to what the Bible is teaching us as to what happens on the 4th day?

The Young Earther reads the Text for the 4th day, and thinks "Oh no!, it says the sun was not made until now?....I must go back and fix what I teach happened on the 1st day!!!!"

this is why the young earther came up with the concept of the "sourceless light"
They had to invent this idea because they had read about a light at the start of Genesis, and now they believe the source for light was not made until the 4th day....

Thats why all Young Earth teachers are guilty of adding to the word of god.

They have to add to the word of God in order to twist the text into teaching their ideas about a Young earth.



However....if you dont feel the need to race to rescue the Lord from what the text says by adding on your own to the text the idea of a "Sourceless light" then you will start to see actually that what the text says on the 4th day fits correctly with what Science teaches us about the universe.


So.....I will begin to take a closer look about what the text really says in black and white on the 4th day....and I will see if we really need to add anything to it?....

or does the text work just fine as written?

[MichaellS]

I would like to continue this, but not without an answer to my question. You see, I gave up on asking you to define your use of the term “evolution” some time ago. This is especially true when you like to couple the term with your frequent, yet disturbingly random points.

There simply isn't a clear understanding of what it is your saying when you say “evolution”. That's why I therefore find the need to just come out and ask you:


Post#85: Where does James say that the original design intents of God change?

For one minute and I think you are referring to the design of His given life cycle, the next minute I think you are wanting to name my monkey cousin. It’s all over the place.

If you don’t mind, let’s try to put this one behind us by answering this please.

Thanks!

[alanmolstad]

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.


Thus we see by looking close to the Text on the 4th day that at no point does it say that God made the "sun"on the 4th day.

What was different on the 4th day.
On the 4th day we see clearly that the Text only deals with the key terms of " greater" and "lesser"
greater and lesser are terms that are dealing with the "amount"of light......not its "source"


So on the 4th day the amount of light does change, but the source is not talked about at all.

So there is not reason to believe that the sun was created on the 4th day..
Thus, if the sun was not created on the 4th day, then we dont have to invent a "sourceless light" to understand where the "Let there be light" verse at the start of the story got its light from!!!!!!!

[alanmolstad]

But then you may say to me - "But Alan, you teach that the sun was not made on the 4th day. But now if the sun is just another star, then why does the text say that God made the stars on the 4th day?"



The answer is......the Text actually does not say that God "made" the stars on the 4th day......(go check it out)

[MichaellS]

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.


Thus we see by looking close to the Text on the 4th day that at no point does it say that God made the "sun"on the 4th day.

What was different on the 4th day.
On the 4th day we see clearly that the Text only deals with the key terms of " greater" and "lesser"
greater and lesser are terms that are dealing with the "amount"of light......not its "source"


So on the 4th day the amount of light does change, but the source is not talked about at all.

So there is not reason to believe that the sun was created on the 4th day..
Thus, if the sun was not created on the 4th day, then we dont have to invent a "sourceless light" to understand where the "Let there be light" verse at the start of the story got its light from!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, was this intended for me?

[alanmolstad]

So now that we have looked at the events of the 4th day and see no reason at all to believe that it was on that day that the "sun" was made, we can go back to the start of the Genesis story and go over it point by point and see how it works.

I will post a short scripture followed by what we have come to see it is talking about.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So right here at the very start of the Genesis account we have the creation of the "Heavens"
The term "Heavens" as we have discussed means a varity of things in the Bible, but among the meanings of the term we find that it means the whole canopy of the stars in the sky.
The sun, being a member of the "heavens" is thus created in our story at this time.
In addition, we also see that the "earth" is also listed as having been now created by God.


2 Now the earth was formless and empty,...We have looked at the fact that the word "was" also has the meaning of being "was/became" . The terms "formless" meaning with an unsure outline, and "empty" meaning no people, are describing the state of the earth.


darkness was over the surface of the deep,...We have already looked at the reason for this "darkness", and that it was caused by the thick clouds that the early sea was wrapped in as described in *** 38.
The term "the deep" is always talking about a great sea.....

So what we have at this point of the story is a description of an early earth that is covered with a great sea, and is wrapped in darkness due to a covering of thick clouds.


We now come to the key verse in the Genesis story that will help us understand the point of view of the whole of the creation week account.


and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.