PDA

View Full Version : Why we take it literally.



disciple
08-15-2014, 06:56 AM
Some Christians say that asking people to literally believe in the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve and creation hurts the cause of Christ and cons***ute a threat to
Christianity. But without a real Adam and Eve, the Bible loses its basis for the fall, sin, the need for redemption, and the need for Jesus and atonement. Perhaps it is easy to regard the Creation account in Genesis as a fairytale, but if we say that, what other scripture do we have to discount in order to keep the fairytale premise consistent?
We have 3 reliable sources who agree with the account of Adam and Eve. Luke’s genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel links Jesus to Joseph, David, Abraham, and, ultimately, Adam. It would make no sense for Luke to mention real person after real person only to come to the climax of his genealogy by mentioning a mythical figure. One who denies that Adam was a real person has reason to also question whether the rest of Luke’s figures are actual people as well. If one denies that Adam was a real person, it is difficult to make sense of Paul’s ****ogy of the relationship between Christ and Adam. Paul tells us that sin came into the world through one actual person (Rom. 5:12). Paul also makes a direct connection between Adam and Christ: 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
Even if one p***es over Luke and Paul, one must deal with Jesus and his teachings. In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, Jesus refers to Genesis, speaking of God’s order in creating Adam and Eve and relating that literal act to the ins***ution of marriage. It’s difficult to think that Jesus could be wrong about his own creative event.
So if we say these things are only stories and opt for evolution, how do we ask people to follow Christ? Why should they? They have no basis to believe they need redemption.

Christodoulos
08-15-2014, 03:59 PM
Some Christians say that asking people to literally believe in the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve and creation hurts the cause of Christ and cons***ute a threat to
Christianity. But without a real Adam and Eve, the Bible loses its basis for the fall, sin, the need for redemption, and the need for Jesus and atonement. Perhaps it is easy to regard the Creation account in Genesis as a fairytale, but if we say that, what other scripture do we have to discount in order to keep the fairytale premise consistent?
We have 3 reliable sources who agree with the account of Adam and Eve. Luke’s genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel links Jesus to Joseph, David, Abraham, and, ultimately, Adam. It would make no sense for Luke to mention real person after real person only to come to the climax of his genealogy by mentioning a mythical figure. One who denies that Adam was a real person has reason to also question whether the rest of Luke’s figures are actual people as well. If one denies that Adam was a real person, it is difficult to make sense of Paul’s ****ogy of the relationship between Christ and Adam. Paul tells us that sin came into the world through one actual person (Rom. 5:12). Paul also makes a direct connection between Adam and Christ: 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
Even if one p***es over Luke and Paul, one must deal with Jesus and his teachings. In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, Jesus refers to Genesis, speaking of God’s order in creating Adam and Eve and relating that literal act to the ins***ution of marriage. It’s difficult to think that Jesus could be wrong about his own creative event.
So if we say these things are only stories and opt for evolution, how do we ask people to follow Christ? Why should they? They have no basis to believe they need redemption.


All you're saying is that if religion is true then science must be false.

And this is why you are seriously hurting the cause of Christ.

This is why you are holding him up to ridicule by his sworn enemies.

Mankind is in need of redemption with or without evolution.

You never address the question or the point that all the books of the Bible were not written at the same time or for the same purpose.

You don't understand that in ancient times allegory was the means of conveying spiritual truths.

The problem that you and others like you have is that allegories or parables do not have to be geographically, historically or even theologically correct to be spiritually true.

The Bible infers a flat earth[ disk shape] ;does that mean that Galileo was lying to us?

tdidymas
08-15-2014, 11:06 PM
Some Christians say that asking people to literally believe in the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve and creation hurts the cause of Christ and cons***ute a threat to
Christianity. But without a real Adam and Eve, the Bible loses its basis for the fall, sin, the need for redemption, and the need for Jesus and atonement. Perhaps it is easy to regard the Creation account in Genesis as a fairytale, but if we say that, what other scripture do we have to discount in order to keep the fairytale premise consistent?
We have 3 reliable sources who agree with the account of Adam and Eve. Luke’s genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel links Jesus to Joseph, David, Abraham, and, ultimately, Adam. It would make no sense for Luke to mention real person after real person only to come to the climax of his genealogy by mentioning a mythical figure. One who denies that Adam was a real person has reason to also question whether the rest of Luke’s figures are actual people as well. If one denies that Adam was a real person, it is difficult to make sense of Paul’s ****ogy of the relationship between Christ and Adam. Paul tells us that sin came into the world through one actual person (Rom. 5:12). Paul also makes a direct connection between Adam and Christ: 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
Even if one p***es over Luke and Paul, one must deal with Jesus and his teachings. In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, Jesus refers to Genesis, speaking of God’s order in creating Adam and Eve and relating that literal act to the ins***ution of marriage. It’s difficult to think that Jesus could be wrong about his own creative event.
So if we say these things are only stories and opt for evolution, how do we ask people to follow Christ? Why should they? They have no basis to believe they need redemption.

There is an obvious premise in your argument here - "if the creation account in ch. 1 is figurative, then Adam cannot be a literal person." Or else, "if Adam was a literal person, then Gen. 1 MUST be interpreted literally." I don't agree with your premise. There was time between the beginning and the creation of man, which your proof texts do not address.

There are some things about the Gen 1 account of a literal 6-day creation that contradict things about known science today, such as (not an exhaustive list):
1. There were 3 evening/morning days (24 hr periods - literal days) before the sun, moon, and stars were created
2. The light on day 1-3 had to have a different source than the sun, moon, and stars, which source does not exist today
3. Day and night were not governed by lights until the 4th day - so how do you get evening/morning the 1st 3 days

Then you have to somehow reconcile the YEC 6000 year old universe with evidences of long ages (100's of 1000's of years), such as observations of supernovas and ice core samples which accurately and mathematically put events in space and on earth at > 100,000 years. So then there are only a few possible conclusions we can arrive at, e.g. these two:

1. Gen. 1 is a scientific, historical, chronological account, and the scientific evidence we see is simply an illusion; then we have to take Gen. 1 literally with blind faith. (the YEC stand)
2. Gen. 1 is a figurative account of creation which has no scientific basis (its value is religious, not scientific). Therefore the "6 days" is about creation order, not about science. Then the scientific evidences about long ages of the universe and of earth can be accepted, as well as the archeological evidence of the existence of man which appears to be about 6000 years.

I happen to think that #2 is more reasonable.
:)TD

alanmolstad
08-16-2014, 06:37 AM
the bible does not teach that the sun was created on the 4th day...

Christodoulos
08-16-2014, 02:53 PM
the bible does not teach that the sun was created on the 4th day...

so what? did it stand still also?

tdidymas
08-16-2014, 10:34 PM
the bible does not teach that the sun was created on the 4th day...

Gen 1:16-19
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

I disagree with your statement.
:)TD

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 03:49 AM
Gen 1:16-19
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

I disagree with your statement.
:)TD

look for the text say the "sun" was made..........it does not say that the sun was made.
what does it say was made?.........LOL

also notice the part that says the stars was "made" was added....it does not actually say the stars was made on the forth day.....:)

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 03:55 AM
so when does the bible say the sun and the moon and all the stars as well as all the things in space were made?................the answer is genesis 1:1

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 06:38 AM
a lot of bible students are taught by their teachers that "God made the sun on the 4th day"....but if the bible student were to actually go read the text for the 4th day , they would see that "This is not what the text says..."

The problem is that if you just take the Text as written, then you totally destroy all the Young Earth arguments....
Yes, its true.
If you just read and believe the Genesis text as we see it written in the bible you don't find any issues with their being an Old earth,,,or any disagreements with Evolution....nor any reason for Bible students to worry that they need to invent all kinds of anti-science concepts like the "sourceless light"


most if not all the arguments that bible students hear about the great "Genesis /Evolution" debate are actually a debate between good science on the one hand, and false teachings about what the bible says on the other.




What Im saying is this:

If we as Bible students just read the Text of Scripture as it is written, then we will never need to fear science, never need to think the Bible stands against the teachings of Evolution, never live in fear that our children are learning bad things in school....





So what does the bible say?
It says that the first thing God made in the beginning was_________?
The answer is that the very first thing God made in the beginning was the "Heavens"

Now there are a few different meanings to the word "heavens" to be sure in the Bible....and Im not here to force you to believe that the term "heavens" must mean only one thing here at Genesis 1:1.

But I am here to tell you that among the many different ways to correctly understand the word "heavens" that one of these correct meanings is the idea for the sun, the moon, and all the things up in the sky like stars and planets, and asteroids and black holes, and etc, etc, etc....all that stuff out there in space.

This fits correctly with what Science teaches by the way...

So right here in the Bible we find an accurate account of how the universe was made.

No need to invent a "sourceless light".........no need to have the Genesis "day" be any different in its nature and cause than any other day.


Now the word 'day" is also important to see how both Science and Genesis walk in agreement.....but I shall deal with that in a later comment.

tdidymas
08-17-2014, 12:56 PM
I agree with what you say about not believing in a "sourceless light." But here is where we differ in interpretation:
Gen. 1:1 is a general introductory statement to what is said in ch. 1; and ch. 1 is introductory to ch 2 and beyond. Therefore, when it says "God created the heavens and the earth," this is a brief introduction to how it was done in ch. 1.

Furthermore, "the great lights" mentioned on day 4 has to be the sun and moon, since the same context says "he made the stars also." Most everyone who has a common-sense approach to Gen. 1 agrees with this idea, therefore if you are wanting to correct everyone else with your idea, the burden of proof is on you to show by exegesis just exactly what those great lights are, if indeed you don't believe them to be the sun and the moon.

You argue that day 4 doesn't say "sun", but neither does it say "sun" in verse 1 either!! It appears to me that you're just nitpicking at words. Give us a hermeneutic that proves what the great lights are. You can see that my interpretation is based on context and what historic orthodox Christian teaching has given us. If you want to change this idea, you need to do a lot more work on it.
:)TD

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 02:25 PM
I agree with what you say about not believing in a "sourceless light." But here is where we differ in interpretation:
Gen. 1:1 is a general introductory statement to what is said in ch. 1; and ch. 1 is introductory to ch 2 and beyond. Therefore, when it says "God created the heavens and the earth," this is a brief introduction to how it was done in ch. 1.


Where does it say in the Bible that Genesis 1:1 is only an introduction?.......

is that idea in the Bible or did some guy make it up because it agreed with some other things that he agrees with but that are also not in the bible?

if you can find me any verse in the Bible that teaches what you said about Genesis 1:1 I will have a look.
But if all you got to support that idea is the fact that it agrees with what you want the bible to have said?.......then you are alone on that.



I believe there is a far better way to read the bible that does not require adding things and discounting verses as being only an "introduction"
The better way is to just read the Text as it is written....and believe it as written.

Thats all......
Just read and believe.

No need to invent things to add to the text, no need to make some verses meaningless...no need to add concepts that flay in the face of science.

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 02:40 PM
Furthermore, "the great lights" mentioned on day 4 has to be the sun and moon, since the same context says "he made the stars also."

But friend, the Text does not actually say that !

Go look it up,,,check it out...*
The text does not say that God "made" the stars also on the 4th day!



What this means is that if you support the idea that the "greater light has to be the sun with the idea that God made the stars also on the 4th day, but that in truth the Bible does not say that the stars were made on the 4th day, then your whole support for the 'sun and moon" stuff falls like a House Of Cards!



* http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-16/

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 02:49 PM
You argue that day 4 doesn't say "sun", but neither does it say "sun" in verse 1 either!!
But I have never said that God ONLY made the sun on the 1st day!

Have I ever said that the sun was the only thing made on the 1st day?.......

So what did God make on the first day according to the text?.....
The answer is?......EVERYTHING!


Thats right, God made everything in the cosmos on the 1st day...from not only our own star the sun, but also all the billions and uncountable billions of galaxies that are themselves filled with uncountable billions and billions of stars and worlds and moons and rocks, and dust and giant gas bodies, and black holes that all the other things that our science is yet to discover!

All created here in Genesis 1:1......all given the correct ***le too by the way.
For the word the Bible uses is the really only correct word it could use to describe just how much God created at this first moment of creation!>>>>>>>>"Heavens"!


In the beginning God created........_________, what?

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 02:56 PM
Give us a hermeneutic that proves what the great lights are. ....

"Hermeneutics" = is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts.


Here you go Tdidymas....
The "light" of the 1st day is the very same "light" talked about on the 4th day.

The light is the same.....

So if the light is the very same light that we have already talked about on the 1st day, what is so different now on the 4th?

The answer is found in what we read about the light on the 4th day..
Thats all we have to do to learn the answer...Just read the text!


It's than simple.

Just read the text as it appears and dont feel the need to twist the text into saying things that dont appear .

For what we read is that there is now a "greater" light...and a "lessor" light.


So the light of the 4th day and the 1st day is the same light, but the "AMOUNT" of light seen on the earth is now changed!


The source is still the same source.
The source for the light on the 1st day is the same source on the 4th day, AND (You are going to want to pay attention to this next part).......and its the very same source for the same light we see today!

The source for the Light never changed from Genesis 1:1 to today .
The source is still the same.

But on the 4th day we do now find that the "AMOUNT" of light is said to now have changed.

alanmolstad
08-17-2014, 03:41 PM
http://www.geocreationism.com/scripture/genesis-1/genesis1-14to19-sun-moon-stars.html

I think this is a nice way to understand the Genesis text that does not require a person add to the word of God, nor take away things, make other things meaningless, etc.

Its a lot more easy just to read the text as it appears and believe it....

disciple
08-18-2014, 06:22 AM
“All you're saying is that if religion is true then science must be false.”

No, I think proven scientific discoveries show the Bible to be correct. Christianity
has nothing to fear from real science, theories are something else.

“And this is why you are seriously hurting the cause of Christ.”

Could you explain how believing what the Bible says hurts the cause of Christ?
People discount the Resurrection as much as the creation account, should we also
call that an allegory?

“This is why you are holding him up to ridicule by his sworn enemies.”

God inspired the scriptures, not you or I.

“Mankind is in need of redemption with or without evolution.”

So was man created perfectly sinless or not? How did sin enter the world, did man choose
to sin or is sin part of evolution?

“You never address the question or the point that all the books of the Bible were not written at the same time or for the same purpose.”

I don’t disagree with that.


“You don't understand that in ancient times allegory was the means of conveying spiritual truths.”

So what Luke and Paul wrote about Adam and what Jesus said about creation are allegories” “

The problem that you and others like you have is that allegories or parables do not have to be geographically, historically or even theologically correct to be spiritually true.”

I think that works fine if you are a gnostic.

disciple
08-18-2014, 11:51 AM
There is an obvious premise in your argument here - "if the creation account in ch. 1 is figurative, then Adam cannot be a literal person." Or else, "if Adam was a literal person, then Gen. 1 MUST be interpreted literally." I don't agree with your premise. There was time between the beginning and the creation of man, which your proof texts do not address.

There are some things about the Gen 1 account of a literal 6-day creation that contradict things about known science today, such as (not an exhaustive list):
1. There were 3 evening/morning days (24 hr periods - literal days) before the sun, moon, and stars were created
2. The light on day 1-3 had to have a different source than the sun, moon, and stars, which source does not exist today
3. Day and night were not governed by lights until the 4th day - so how do you get evening/morning the 1st 3 days

Then you have to somehow reconcile the YEC 6000 year old universe with evidences of long ages (100's of 1000's of years), such as observations of supernovas and ice core samples which accurately and mathematically put events in space and on earth at > 100,000 years. So then there are only a few possible conclusions we can arrive at, e.g. these two:

1. Gen. 1 is a scientific, historical, chronological account, and the scientific evidence we see is simply an illusion; then we have to take Gen. 1 literally with blind faith. (the YEC stand)
2. Gen. 1 is a figurative account of creation which has no scientific basis (its value is religious, not scientific). Therefore the "6 days" is about creation order, not about science. Then the scientific evidences about long ages of the universe and of earth can be accepted, as well as the archeological evidence of the existence of man which appears to be about 6000 years.

I happen to think that #2 is more reasonable.
:)TD

Hi TD,

Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpert the creation account as literal and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation. Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan. This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years. It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 11:55 AM
Hi TD,

Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpert the creation account as literal and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation. Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan. This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years. It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.

I totally disagree with about everything you have posted above....from the start I think you are adding things to the text and building one false argument on top of another....

disciple
08-18-2014, 12:12 PM
I totally disagree with about everything you have posted above....from the start I think you are adding things to the text and building one false argument on top of another....

Hi Alan,

I think it's fine that you disagree. I don't think I have added anything to the text, I have given my opinion and what I believe about the text. There is also a difference between a false argument and one you just don't agree with. What do you consider false about my statements?

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 12:27 PM
..... What do you consider false about my statements?

thats a very good subject for my next post....I will go over that post and add my own comments where I think things you have stated simply do not find support in the Bible....

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 12:36 PM
Because i do not understand how to break up your post into nice little sections...(any advice on how to do that would be helpfull) I will just post your whole comment in regular type, and then slide my own comments into the mix in what i hope will be BOLD type...




Hi TD,

Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpret the creation account as literal
I agree, I always read the text in Genesis as it it truly means just what it says....



and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation.

Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all.
"not good"???
Thats just your opinion...there is not a single word to support this idea you have here...and because you base a lot of other things on this opinion you are building a whole foundation on nothing but your private views...






Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan.
Again this is just your personal opinion....not a word in the Bible supports this view



This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years.
Again, this is your personal opinion.....



It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.


Now lets move on from all the things you have posted that simply are not found in the Bible, and go back to the simple words of the text and allow the text to tell us whats going on and when.

First, in Genesis 1 verse 1 , what does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning"?????

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 12:52 PM
so while you re-read the Genesis 1 verse1 and attempt to answer my question, Im going to tell you a story.


a long time ago I was In a cl*** taught by a very well known Young earth Creationist....

His name was Ken Ham.

He taught my Sunday morning adult Bible cl*** for around 8 weeks at our church in Seattle.
He is (I think) the most well known and well respected YEC writer and researcher in the world.

Well....needless to say after the 8-week cl*** was over a lot of the people in my cl*** had a lot of issuesand questions about Genesis and what we really should believe.
There were a few voices that did stand up and started to give a bit more bible-backed view of the Genesis story, and I am proud to say I was among them that entered into this work of providing answers to people who had doubts.

However I was challenged by a lot of the cl*** to as I began to openly disagree with what Ken Ham had been teaching.

One of the first places where I disagreed was on the question, "What did God make first?"
This was the real heart of the problem I had with Ken Ham as he had all kinds of ways to prove that "light" was the first thing God made....and as Ken also taught that the sun was not made until the 4th day, Ken Ham had then needed to invent a whole pile of ways to have "light" before there was any 'source" for that light.

Once the door was open to adding invented ideas , the pile of extra-Biblical ideas that were used as "foundation" for other even more wild ideas grew and grew, the pile-on of one false YEC idea on top of another false YEC idea just never stopped!



This is the main thing a person has to deal with when debating a believer in Ken Ham's version of creationism.
The fact that the Young Earther will pile-on one invented idea on top of another....and use this as their foundation to add even more false ideas to the growing pile or error.

So I had to pin people down on the question as to "What does the Bible say God made first in the beginning?"
Over and over I would ask them...."What does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning?"



How did this question do?
Well, the truth is, that this one simple question actually did a very good *** at helping many Bible students see the real need to allow the Bible to say what it means...
It also showed the cl*** the members of the cl*** who could disregard easily what they saw clearly the Bible was teaching as they pushed their own YEC agenda.


The question helped people see that there are some people that have their own ideas what they think the "Bible should have said"....and so they struggle to twist the Bible in an effort to make it more correctly line-up with YEC teachings....






Just so everyone knows where I stand on YEC teachings....I believe Young Earth Creationism is an invented idea of a bunch of false Bible teachers, and it fools many Bible students that unfortunately never bother to open their Bibles and check out what it being said.

disciple
08-18-2014, 01:13 PM
Because i do not understand how to break up your post into nice little sections...(any advice on how to do that would be helpfull) I will just post your whole comment in regular type, and then slide my own comments into the mix in what i hope will be BOLD type...






Now lets move on from all the things you have posted that simply are not found in the Bible, and go back to the simple words of the text and allow the text to tell us whats going on and when.

First, in Genesis 1 verse 1 , what does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning"?????



Ok Alan, I don't mind listening to what someone has to say. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 01:39 PM
Ok Alan, I don't mind listening to what someone has to say. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.CORRECT!

First, I have to tell you that answering that question, or rather allowing yourself the will to answer that simple question puts this conversation a lot farther down the road.

The truth is, I run into a lot of YEC believers that simply refuse to answer that opening question because they don't like where the answer found in the Text takes them in the future conversation they can clearly see approaching them.



and now back to our topic....

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 01:54 PM
so according to the text, the first thing God made "In the beginning" was ________"the Heavens"

Now I know a lot of people have found many different ways to define the term "heavens", and Im not going to stop now and try to prove that only one meaning fits the context here.....(thats ****s a lot of time pointlessly)

All I want to tell you is that among the many, many ways to understand the term "heavens" that one of the ways is that it is a word that helps us describe all the "stuff" in the sky......all the stars....all the worlds.....all the billions and billions of other galaxies.....all the gas, all the space dust....all the black-holes.

In fact, the term "heavens" is about the only single correct word that can be used to describe all of the creation of such things.

So, the use of the word "heavens" is not only correct when considering the poem-like nature of the genesis story.....its highly scientifically accurate too!



God made the "heavens" first.........so he made the stars.......so he made our star.....he made the sun.
yes, its true.....right here at Genesis 1:1 we are reading about God creating all the needed 'light source"we will ever have on the earth.


There is no need to invent a "sourceless light"

There is no need to be embarr***ed with a light is talked about before a source is made to cause that light.

No need to think that the "light" of Genesis was in any way , shape, or form different than the normal light we see all around us today...





The Bible lists the source first thing right off the bat......







So that issue is taken off the table

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 02:05 PM
But.......lets get back to the text and deal with the first question that now can pop up as we read....

The question is about the 'darkness"
If the Bible has told us in unmistakable terms that the stars including our own sun are created....then why is the earth said to be in "darkness"?


The answer is found in another part of the Bible that happens to also be talking about this very same time in earth's history.....
*** 38
https://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=***+38&version=NIV

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 02:13 PM
check *** 38 verse 4 to confirm that we are dealing with the same moment in time as is dealt with in genesis...


Then look at this -
"Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness'


So in *** we read about the seas, and them being in "darkness".....but we also are told the reason the *** seas and the Genesis "waters / the deep" are in darkness too.....

"clouds"

disciple
08-18-2014, 02:19 PM
Gotta go Alan, more tomorrow.

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 02:21 PM
Gotta go Alan, more tomorrow.
dang,,,,,I did not know yu were watching my posts in real time!!!!

Im screwing around doing laundry and stuff to get ready for a trip...I should have posted a lot more

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 02:27 PM
(I will try to make this up to you by posting now a bunch of things so that we have plenty of areas to talk about at your return.)

Another thing we learn here at *** 38 isall about the "waters" that the Spirit of God is busy "hovering" over in Genesis.....we learn where they came from....

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 02:29 PM
The seas are said to have "burst forth from the womb,".........

and according to science, very true too....

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 02:36 PM
Ok....time to do a little review so we can get a grasp of what we have looked at so far....


In Genesis the first thing the bible tells us that God made was the "heavens"....
and the term "heavens" can be talking about all the stars, and our sun is just a star too....so that means that right at the start of the genesis story we have the real "source" for all the light talked about later in the story....

The earth is said to be covered in water....and in *** we learned where this water came from...

Now many people have tried to twist into the story that the "waters"and "the deep" was not talking about the seas.....but there is no need to do such things....The "waters" and "the deep" can be just normal ways to talk about the seas of the earth.....

and the reason why the sea was in darkness is told to us as being just normal but very 'thick" clouds........




So there is nothing very weird or odd about the opening of the genesis story at all!
If you just stick to the text you dont need to invent all the stuff that the YEC rely on to make the story read they way they want.....

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 02:52 PM
Now let us also review where we have seen the Young Earth teachers go off the deep end on the issues we have looked at so far...

What happens is that because the YE teacher holds that the sun was not made until the 4th day, this has caused them to need to invent an answer that at least 'sounds' correct....even if there is nothing really in the Bible to support it at all.

Thus because the YE Teacher has to drag the suns creation to the 4th day, they came up with all kinds of ways to light the earth for the "Let There Be Light" verse, that does not need the sun to be around.....


This is also kinda like what the Young earth teacher will do when they need to deal with the question of "the waters" and 'the deep" that appear in the story before they believe any rain has fell on the earth yet.....

They invent answers....


they need to invent all kinds of answers, that pop in and out of favor depending on what YEC book you are reading...
In one book a YEC writer might push the "sourceless light" idea, but in a later book a different YEC writer might dismiss that idea as silly.....



I just think that if you stick close to the story as written you dont need to do any of the stuff......
The story reads just fine as is...and in complete agreement with evolution and science by the way......

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 03:08 PM
"he made the stars also."



So if Im correct, and if the bible does teach that god made the stars at genesis 1:1...then why does the Bible later say that God made the stars on the 4th day?




The answer is- Thats not actually what the text says on the 4th day.


But people read it there, How can i say its not there when you can open the Bible and see it there?

The answer is - go look a bit closer at the text there.
Here is a link to the text in question. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-16/

How does the verse read?....
it reads "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.



So the way the text reads, Im totally wrong correct?

except i noticed something odd about that Bible verse....whats with the italic words "he made"?


and what does it mean again when you read a word in italic in your Bible?
The answer is that the Bible will put a word in italic when its simply added by the editor and does not appear in any translation or old m****cript.

So the fact is, the people that push the idea that god made the stars on only the 4th day, base their idea on what is clearly an addition to the text by the editor....and ...well......thats not really a good idea to base a foundational idea on such paper-thin proof.......

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 03:11 PM
so..if you take out the "he made" addition to the verse, and just stick to the parts you know are meant to be there...does the sentence work?.....
The answer is YES!......it works just fine......

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night the stars also"

All it says is that the lesser light will rule the night and the stars also.........its no big deal...Thats after all what the lesser light still 'rules" or overpowers the darkness of the night and the sky filled with stars......

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 03:27 PM
So according to the srict reading of the text...the sun was NOT made on the 4th day
The moon was NOT made on the 4th day....and
The stars were NOT made on the 4th day.....



So all the struggling that the Young Earth teachers do to make that all happen on the 4th day is silly, and not needed in the slightest way.

The story works just fine as it appears, it does not need us to run around 'fixing' it with our additions.....

Christodoulos
08-18-2014, 06:55 PM
So according to the srict reading of the text...the sun was NOT made on the 4th day
The moon was NOT made on the 4th day....and
The stars were NOT made on the 4th day.....

So all the struggling that the Young Earth teachers do to make that all happen on the 4th day is silly, and not needed in the slightest way.

The story works just fine as it appears, it does not need us to run around 'fixing' it with our additions.....

All this proves is that Genesis is a compilation of creation stories common to the area ;and that each chapter has a compilation of events within it.

it's not scientific :get used to it..

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 07:22 PM
The Genesis story is religious.....it just happens to agree with the scientific...LOL


Genesis and science talk about the same time in earth's early history.
They speak to us from different points of view, but they talk about the same moments.
They say different things in different ways , but they are always walking in agreement.

Christodoulos
08-18-2014, 07:27 PM
The Genesis story is religious.....it just happens to agree with the scientific...LOL


Genesis and science talk about the same time in earth's early history.
They speak to us from different points of view, but they talk about the same moments.
They say different things in different ways , but they are always walking in agreement.

To a point but the female of the specie was not carved out of man's rib. Where do you see that in science. ?

The " same moments?" six days is the same as 14 billion years?

Get real, I thought you were smart..

And yes, as a life long Christian ; God created the heavens and the Earth through totally natural processes.
Processess which include the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN BIOLOGY.
you need to study more and read a lot more than you have been ..

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 07:59 PM
To a point but the female of the specie was not carved out of man's rib. Where do you see that in science. ?

.
are you saying that no amount of science will ever in even the next billion years ever understand how you can take a few cells from a person, and manipulate them in such a manner as to produce independent life?

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 08:03 PM
The " same moments?" six days is the same as 14 billion years?

.

Actually, as we read in Genesis 2, the 14 billion years are spoken of as taking place on a single "day"



How long are creation days?...well as we read there are endings to the frst 6 days of the creation week...
But what about the 7th day?...

The answer is that in all the the book of Genesis or in fact in all of the entire Bible there is no stated ending yet to the 7th day.

So if the 7th Day of Genesis has not ended yet, how long has it been going on so far?......
The answer is that its hard to tell for sure in the Text.....but clearly we can see its been running so far for millions and millions of years just counting from the creation of mankind alone...

Christodoulos
08-18-2014, 08:04 PM
are you saying that no amount of science will ever in even the next billion years ever understand how you can take a few cells from a person, and manipulate them in such a manner as to produce independent life?

As an after thought? NO!

how was man made to reproduce . or was he?

If not ,then was he created with cojones or not? If so, for what purpose?

Did Eve come first and then the cojones?

Or were their two dissections.

You can't bluff your way through this.

Hey, I want to ask you .. how do I put someone on a IGNORE MESSAGING ?

Can you instruct.. there's this **** bugging me ..

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 08:10 PM
As an after thought? NO!

how was man made to reproduce . or was he?

If not ,then was he created with cojones or not? If so, for what purpose?

Did Eve come first and then the cojones?

Or were their two dissections.

You can't bluff your way through this.

Hey, I want to ask you .. how do I put someone on a IGNORE MESSAGING ?

Can you instruct.. there's this **** bugging me ..
The answer is found at Genesis 1:28
From the get-go Adam was able to have kids....thus he was as much a male as any of us who came from him....

Christodoulos
08-18-2014, 08:19 PM
The answer is found at Genesis 1:28
From the get-go Adam was able to have kids....thus he was as much a male as any of us who came from him....

from the get go there was no Eve.. How was he going to procreate? was he a self actualizing **** with a womb?

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 08:25 PM
from the get go there was no Eve.. How was he going to procreate? was he a self actualizing **** with a womb?
again the verse answers your question....from the get-go they were able to have kids.
There is a strong hint in the story that Adam suffered the loss of a rib, but I see nothing in the text to suggest that anything else was taken or added during this time.

So if anyone were to suggest that Adam was not created a normal "male" they would need to support this with Scripture....as there is none to support that idea, it fails.

the Bible does tell us clearly that the first "man" was Adam.
This is a good text-proof to support the idea that Adam was just created a normal male as are the children who stem from his loins.

Christodoulos
08-18-2014, 08:37 PM
again the verse answers your question....from the get-go they were able to have kids.
There is a strong hint in the story that Adam suffered the loss of a rib, but I see nothing in the text to suggest that anything else was taken or added during this time.

So if anyone were to suggest that Adam was not created a normal "male" they would need to support this with Scripture....as there is none to support that idea, it fails.

the Bible does tell us clearly that the first "man" was Adam.
This is a good text-proof to support the idea that Adam was just created a normal male as are the children who stem from his loins.

Eve was not part of the original plan.. Only after Adam became lonely and needed a help mate did the rib become Eve.

So ,how was Adam to procreate if Eve had not been necessary. ? Answer the question without any B.S.

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 08:42 PM
Eve was not part of the original plan.. Only after Adam became lonely and needed a help mate did the rib become Eve.

So ,how was Adam to procreate if Eve had not been necessary. ? Answer the question without any B.S.
The answer is , was Adam told to have kids before Eve was introduced to him?......no.

before Adam or any man meets his wife we are not commanded to have children.
before I met my wife, I was still a male....I still had all the bits I would need.
So there is no support at all for the idea that Adam was any different than His future children.
Once again, that idea "Fails"

Christodoulos
08-18-2014, 08:46 PM
The answer is , was Adam told to have kids before Eve was introduced to him?......no.

before Adam or any man meets his wife we are not commanded to have children.
before I met my wife, I was still a male....I still had all the bits I would need.
So there is no support at all for the idea that Adam was any different than His future children.
Once again, that idea "Fails"

The idea does fail ,because the idea was allegorical from the get go. but good try!

alanmolstad
08-18-2014, 08:54 PM
so there is nothing in the Genesis story that can not be taken very literal...

while it is true that we can find great hidden meanings in the events of the story, we also can find very real history too!

tdidymas
08-18-2014, 11:29 PM
Hi TD,

Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpert the creation account as literal and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation. Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan. This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years. It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.

You presume again that the entire earth is Eden, but not true. Eden was located in Eastern Turkey, and the garden had distinct boundaries. When they sinned, they were cast out into the larger world where the thorns and thistles already were. We also cannot presume that "good" means pristine, since the Heb. term can also mean "it fits His purpose well", which I believe is true to the context. A good read is "The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World" by William Dembski, in which he points out that God could have created the universe with decay from the beginning, in anticipation of sin coming in with Adam and Eve, such that the effect of sin is retroactive to the beginning of creation, just as Christ's redeeming sacrifice was retroactive to the beginning. So then, Adam and Eve did not experience the curse of the ground until they were cast out of the garden where God kept them separated from it.

In regard to dominion, Adam had it only in Eden. He was given a command to multiply and fill the earth, a command that God knew Adam would never fulfill. It was when they were cast out of the garden that the environment went from pristine to corrupt. Furthermore, when Rom. 5 says that death came through Adam, it is talking about spiritual death. Physical death of animals and plants already existed.

:)TD

tdidymas
08-18-2014, 11:51 PM
so..if you take out the "he made" addition to the verse, and just stick to the parts you know are meant to be there...does the sentence work?.....
The answer is YES!......it works just fine......

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night the stars also"

All it says is that the lesser light will rule the night and the stars also.........its no big deal...Thats after all what the lesser light still 'rules" or overpowers the darkness of the night and the sky filled with stars......

This is a strong argument until you look at the whole context:

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; [He made] the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
This is the context of the 4th day, and it clearly states "God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth" - if God PLACED them (or SET), then it means that God placed them there on the 4th day. If you claim that clouds were removed on that day to expose what was there already, then you are changing the text.
:)TD

alanmolstad
08-19-2014, 05:04 AM
although times have changed, let me tell you a little story that shows how the two lights were "set".

I grew up in a small town and before Christmas at the main store on main street they would hang a curtain in the main store front window and coverup what was being prepared to show .
Then on an evening before Christmas they would pull back the covering and people could see for the very first time the things that the store had for sale this year that were new and interesting.

Now, it is true that when they pulled back the covering the things that were sitting in the window were new to the people looking.

But its not like the things just suddenly appeared there in that moment the curtain was pulled aside.
But it was the first moment that people were allowed to see what was behind the curtain.


The two lights are a bit like that in the Genesis story.

The "source" of all the lights talked about in Genesis is introduced early on with the words "In the beginning God created the heavens..."
But we also had a world covered in darkness as we learned in the book of *** that I talked about in the comments before this.

So although we have plenty of source for light, and plenty of the sun's light burning brightly, the thick clouds of the book of *** have cast the earth in "darkness"

The story advances, and we get the "Let there be light" and there is suddenly some light on the earth.
But notice it's not a lot of light.

Yes, if you look at the wordings here at this early part of Genesis all you can see as far as light goes is that there is a noticeable difference between "day" and "night" but not much else.

So we are able to tell the difference between "day"
But what does the word "day" mean?
The answer is: that you have a "day" when the part of the earth you are standing on, (or in this case the part of the earth the Spirit of God is hovering over) turns in the direction of the sun.
Same is true when the bible tells us that due to the thinning clouds we now can see when it is "night"
The reason we have something called a "night" is when the part of the earth we are standing on turns away from the sun.

So everything is in place to have normal days and nights, just like we have today!
We have an earth spinning in its rotation and orbit around the sun.

That is when we have days and nights, today as well as way back in the story of Genesis.

No need to invent weird "days" and weird 'nights" and weird reasons to have them before there was a sun.
The reason we see days and night in Genesis is the same reason we have them today.


In the book of *** we learned about the thick clouds that cast the earth seas in darkness at the time of Genesis, but we also know that in our age we dont see such clouds anymore.

What happened to the clouds?.....
the answer is that they thinned out and slowly allowed more and more of the sun's "Greater light" to be seen on the earth.
This is why the sun's light is talked about in a progressive way on the 4th day.

Notice that the things the greater amount of light show us on the 4th day.
Its a slowly clearing sky.....and finally even the dim light of the stars is able to be seen though the clearly sky.


and on that note, have you noticed that the story of Genesis does not say that the "sun" was made on the 4th day?
Do you know why it does not say that the "sun was made" on the 4th day?....it could not say that!

The sun was already made and burning brightly in the heavens from the beginning.
But on the 4th day that amount of light is talked about.


This is like what is going on right now on other of our sister worlds.
While the inner planets around our sun are not covered in a blanket of thick clouds anymore, we yet still see that on the outer words there still is a covering of thick clouds around worlds like Neptune ( see http://nineplanets.org/neptune.html )

The ground of that planet is likely cast in thick darkness as was the earth at one time too. (as talked about in Genesis)
And because the sun's solar wind has not yet stripped away the thick clouds you continue to have this darkness on the outer worlds.
But if you could slowly strip away the clouds around the planet Neptune what would you see?

The answer is: that at first you would be only able to tell the difference between day and night, as you started to be able to tell when the part you are standing on turned toward the sun and then turned away from the sun.
Later as more of the clouds thinned away you would be able to see the reflected light off of the many moons around Neptune, and also be able to tell when the tilt of the planet gave you different seasons, like winter and your summer.
You would be able to tell when a year on Neptune had happened.

the final thing you would be able to see and inform you that all the thick clouds have all thinned away would be that at night you would be able to see the stars.


Now, the day you are first able to make out the stars you might think that on that same day "god made the stars today"...but that would be wrong.
It might appear to you that the "stars are brand new", but thats not really the case.
the stars are billions of years old, but your being able to see them is brand new.

God has "set" them before you for the first time....

tdidymas
08-19-2014, 08:44 AM
although times have changed, let me tell you a little story that shows how the two lights were "set".

I grew up in a small town and before Christmas at the main store on main street they would hang a curtain in the main store front window and coverup what was being prepared to show .
Then on an evening before Christmas they would pull back the covering and people could see for the very first time the things that the store had for sale this year that were new and interesting.

Now, it is true that when they pulled back the covering the things that were sitting in the window were new to the people looking.

But its not like the things just suddenly appeared there in that moment the curtain was pulled aside.
But it was the first moment that people were allowed to see what was behind the curtain.


The two lights are a bit like that in the Genesis story.

The "source" of all the lights talked about in Genesis is introduced early on with the words "In the beginning God created the heavens..."
But we also had a world covered in darkness as we learned in the book of *** that I talked about in the comments before this.

So although we have plenty of source for light, and plenty of the sun's light burning brightly, the thick clouds of the book of *** have cast the earth in "darkness"

The story advances, and we get the "Let there be light" and there is suddenly some light on the earth.
But notice it's not a lot of light.

Yes, if you look at the wordings here at this early part of Genesis all you can see as far as light goes is that there is a noticeable difference between "day" and "night" but not much else.

So we are able to tell the difference between "day"
But what does the word "day" mean?
The answer is: that you have a "day" when the part of the earth you are standing on, (or in this case the part of the earth the Spirit of God is hovering over) turns in the direction of the sun.
Same is true when the bible tells us that due to the thinning clouds we now can see when it is "night"
The reason we have something called a "night" is when the part of the earth we are standing on turns away from the sun.

So everything is in place to have normal days and nights, just like we have today!
We have an earth spinning in its rotation and orbit around the sun.

That is when we have days and nights, today as well as way back in the story of Genesis.

No need to invent weird "days" and weird 'nights" and weird reasons to have them before there was a sun.
The reason we see days and night in Genesis is the same reason we have them today.


In the book of *** we learned about the thick clouds that cast the earth seas in darkness at the time of Genesis, but we also know that in our age we dont see such clouds anymore.

What happened to the clouds?.....
the answer is that they thinned out and slowly allowed more and more of the sun's "Greater light" to be seen on the earth.
This is why the sun's light is talked about in a progressive way on the 4th day.

Notice that the things the greater amount of light show us on the 4th day.
Its a slowly clearing sky.....and finally even the dim light of the stars is able to be seen though the clearly sky.


and on that note, have you noticed that the story of Genesis does not say that the "sun" was made on the 4th day?
Do you know why it does not say that the "sun was made" on the 4th day?....it could not say that!

The sun was already made and burning brightly in the heavens from the beginning.
But on the 4th day that amount of light is talked about.


This is like what is going on right now on other of our sister worlds.
While the inner planets around our sun are not covered in a blanket of thick clouds anymore, we yet still see that on the outer words there still is a covering of thick clouds around worlds like Neptune ( see http://nineplanets.org/neptune.html )

The ground of that planet is likely cast in thick darkness as was the earth at one time too. (as talked about in Genesis)
And because the sun's solar wind has not yet stripped away the thick clouds you continue to have this darkness on the outer worlds.
But if you could slowly strip away the clouds around the planet Neptune what would you see?

The answer is: that at first you would be only able to tell the difference between day and night, as you started to be able to tell when the part you are standing on turned toward the sun and then turned away from the sun.
Later as more of the clouds thinned away you would be able to see the reflected light off of the many moons around Neptune, and also be able to tell when the tilt of the planet gave you different seasons, like winter and your summer.
You would be able to tell when a year on Neptune had happened.

the final thing you would be able to see and inform you that all the thick clouds have all thinned away would be that at night you would be able to see the stars.


Now, the day you are first able to make out the stars you might think that on that same day "god made the stars today"...but that would be wrong.
It might appear to you that the "stars are brand new", but thats not really the case.
the stars are billions of years old, but your being able to see them is brand new.

God has "set" them before you for the first time....

Out of its context, this looks like a very convenient theory. However, let's look carefully at what some other of the context actually says:
v. 16 says the 2 great lights were "made", which is the same verb as is used in other days for beasts, plants, etc. This term is equivalent to "created" since: "created" was used in both v. 1 for the heavens and earth, and in v. 21 for all living things in the sea, and BOTH terms were used for man in v. 26-27. Many terms in the scripture are this way, different terms used interchangeably for the same meaning, in fact all languages do this.

Therefore the common-sense conclusion to this is that the "great lights" (i.e. sun and moon) were CREATED on the 4th day, this would be the literal interpretation.

Furthermore, your theory that the cloud receded "slowly" (i.e. like natural processes today, as you describe) would be wrong, since it happened in a single 24-hr period.
:)TD

alanmolstad
08-19-2014, 08:58 AM
the light of the Sun is not the same thing as the Sun itself in the same way the sound of my truck is not the same thing as my truck my truck can be running and if I'm inside the house I can hear it but the moment I step outside I hear the sound of my truck its not appeared and it's not the truck suddenly started up its just at the moment I was able to first. That's the truth that I hurt its the same way with the Sun with printing for billions and billions of years it's just that when the clouds parted and Finn that we were able to see it

alanmolstad
08-19-2014, 08:58 AM
I'm at work until I am NOT typing this I'm using my voice translator on my phone so there are some errors I will fix it when I have time hopefully you will be able to tell what I meant to say

alanmolstad
08-19-2014, 09:00 AM
I'm going to have to wait before I respond the translator on my phone is not adequate you're not getting exactly what I meant to say

alanmolstad
08-19-2014, 10:52 AM
I'm at work so I just don't have the time right now to respond and the way I am responding now I am speaking into my cell phone and it's trying to translate my words into printed text but it doesn't do a very adequate *** sometimes what I wanted to say is this that the sound of my car running is not the same thing as my car just as the light of the Sun is not the same thing as the Sun when its night time I don't actually see the light of the Sun but that does not mean there was no Sun the Sun is still burning as brightly as ever this just as much light hitting the earth as ever it's just because of rotation of the earth place where I am standing has turned away from the Sun is so I can not the sun's light that's all the text at the fourth day is saying to us the light of the Sun was not seen before and now it is this is why the text does not say that the Sun was created or made on the 4th day but it does say that the light did become seen on the fourth day it was mademore clear to the person who is standing on the earth and remember when you read the first part of the book of Genesis we are given the point of view of the person who is telling the story the person is the person of the Holy Spirit who is said to be hovering over the waters with your point of view that's why there is day and night unless you have someone who has a point of view on the earth there is no day and night day and night does not happen in outer space Dez night does not happen in orbit but Dan night does happen if you are on the ground or in this case hovering over the surface of the waters because there was no ground yet

alanmolstad
08-19-2014, 10:58 AM
one of the errors that people make when they read the book of Genesis is it they take the point of view of someone watching the story unfold from the position of orbiting in space looking down at the whole earth sorta like astronauts this is wrong this is not the point of view of Genesis this is not the point of view of the writer of Genesis this is not the point of view of the person who is telling us the story of Genesis we are told the point of view of the writer of Genesis and that is the point of view of someone who is hovering over the surface of the waters that's why that verse is there it tells us to take that point of view the point of view of someone who is hovering just over the surface of the water that person will experience what we called day and night

disciple
08-19-2014, 11:00 AM
You presume again that the entire earth is Eden, but not true. Eden was located in Eastern Turkey, and the garden had distinct boundaries. When they sinned, they were cast out into the larger world where the thorns and thistles already were. We also cannot presume that "good" means pristine, since the Heb. term can also mean "it fits His purpose well", which I believe is true to the context. A good read is "The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World" by William Dembski, in which he points out that God could have created the universe with decay from the beginning, in anticipation of sin coming in with Adam and Eve, such that the effect of sin is retroactive to the beginning of creation, just as Christ's redeeming sacrifice was retroactive to the beginning. So then, Adam and Eve did not experience the curse of the ground until they were cast out of the garden where God kept them separated from it.

In regard to dominion, Adam had it only in Eden. He was given a command to multiply and fill the earth, a command that God knew Adam would never fulfill. It was when they were cast out of the garden that the environment went from pristine to corrupt. Furthermore, when Rom. 5 says that death came through Adam, it is talking about spiritual death. Physical death of animals and plants already existed.

:)TD

I see from Gen. chap 1, that Adam, Eve, animals and vegetation were on the earth.

“And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

I also see that Gen. chap. 2, the Lord plants a garden on earth and put Adam and Eve in the garden.

“The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

My point was, that what was on earth before God planted the garden in Eden, was not corrupt and was considered by God to be very good. I see no mention of thorns and thistles at the end of chap. 1.

Christodoulos
08-19-2014, 04:29 PM
Are you a biologist?

So ,what do you really know?

All you know is what Ken Ham would like you to know.

You hardly know the scriptures or how to read them.

tdidymas
08-19-2014, 10:30 PM
one of the errors that people make when they read the book of Genesis is it they take the point of view of someone watching the story unfold from the position of orbiting in space looking down at the whole earth sorta like astronauts this is wrong this is not the point of view of Genesis this is not the point of view of the writer of Genesis this is not the point of view of the person who is telling us the story of Genesis we are told the point of view of the writer of Genesis and that is the point of view of someone who is hovering over the surface of the waters that's why that verse is there it tells us to take that point of view the point of view of someone who is hovering just over the surface of the water that person will experience what we called day and night

Here is where our paths diverge. Your interpretation here is very weak and appears like a mere opinion compared to my previous explanation from the scriptures. I am very far from convinced.
:)TD

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 01:21 AM
Here is where our paths diverge. Your interpretation here is very weak and appears like a mere opinion compared to my previous explanation from the scriptures. I am very far from convinced.
:)TD

could you narrow down for me what part of my post you were thinking of?

the stuff you quoted i wrote on my phone by talking into it however the phone does not break my spoken words up into sentences.

so my posts yesterday look like silly huge wads of text!

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 03:47 AM
Here is where our paths diverge. Your interpretation here is very weak and appears like a mere opinion compared to my previous explanation from the scriptures. I am very far from convinced.
:)TD


Lets go over the text in question , and allow me to show you what i think is being talked about and why...


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good,


The reality is that this is an Anthropomorphism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism )
Where we find the Bible talking about God in terms that are describing human stuff.

This is like saying "The right hand of God" when because god is pure spirit he lacks hands and feet....

So when we read that God sees things, or learns things, or speaks as is said he does in Genesis, that we understand that this is just a way for us to understand some things God wants us to know about Himself, that otherwise we would never understand.

God does not see like people see, because he has no eyes.

God does not speak the way we speak for god has no lips.

God does not "hover" like a bird because God has no wings

But yet we do read that god sees, God speaks, and God hovers as this helps us understand something about what God wants us to know about Himself.




Thus.......


When in the beginning of the Genesis story we read that the Spirit of the Lord was "hovering" over the waters, this is for a very good reason.....
Because it tells us something important to the rest of our story.
For actually gives the reader a "point of view" ......


Why do we need a "point of view"?
The answer is : that it gives us a mental point of view to take and keep in mind as we read the rest of the story.


So what is the Genesis point of view that the Bible wants us to take?
The answer is : that we are to take the point of view of the Spirit of God who is said to be "hovering" over the water.


This is the Genesis point of view.
We are to read the story as someone who is hovering over the water.


This is very important, as it sets the tone for all the rest of the story.

Once we take the correct "hovering" point of view, then the very next part of the text makes complete sense.
For in the very next part of the Text we read that now the Lord starts to "speak" and "see" things.
But the point of view we are to take while reading about the God looking and speaking is one where the Lord is said to be "hovering" just over the water.

So when the Lord is said to "see" something happen in the sky in the genesis story, the mental point of view we are to read this with is not like we are looking down at the earth from the International Space Station, rather we are to have the Point of view of someone who is hovering over the water and looking UP at the sky!



The problem is that because of all the space photos of NASA we have slipped into the trap of thinking that the Genesis story should be understood from the point of view of God being like some sort of an astronaut......
But this is an error and it leads to a false idea as to what the Genesis store is saying.

The writer of the Genesis story had an earth-bound point of view in his mind when he wrote this genesis story.and so when we read it we should read it within the context of the way it was written.

The correct Point of view of a person hovering just a bit over the water can help you understand why the bible then talks about 'days".
The "days" of Genesis are only talked about after the idea of the "hovering" point of view is introduced.

Days are important to the story.

Question, what is a day?
The Answer is:, Days are the result of the earth where you are located spinning in its rotation toward and then away from the direct sun's light.

Days dont happen in deep space.

Days dont happen to someone who is floating high around above the earth in orbit.

But when you are hovering over over the water, and you have a real earth-bound 'location" then because of the rotation of the earth you will experience the rising and lowering of the sun....and thus experience what is commonly known to us as a "day"







tdidymas This is the best answer I got for you.
I spent a LONG time on this post....I re-worked on it over and over to get it to not only say what i wanted to say, but I also got it to look on your computer screen the way i wanted it to appear so as to be easy to read and understand.

In other words.....I hope you can take the time to give it a glance and with luck this will make any confusing and poorly written posts I made before more clear.

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 04:29 AM
Therefore the common-sense conclusion to this is that the "great lights" (i.e. sun and moon) were CREATED on the 4th day, this would be the literal interpretation.

:)TD



Here is a story that might help you understand how I think about one little Bible error i see lots of people make.



I was debating with a friend of mine who is a Jehovah's Witness.
We were talking about John1:1

The problem was that every time my friend would read the verse he would add 'a god' to the verse.

Even when I proved that it should read "GOD" he still would add "a god' whenever he was talking about it.

The "a god' addition happen so fast that i doubt he actually knew he was doing it.


The same thing happens to good Christian bible students when they read the Genesis story dealing with the 4th day....
The may read with their eyes, "greater light" but their minds automatically re-translate this into "the sun"

They may not even realize they are doing this form of adding to the word of God.
It happens so fast....
It's subconscious....


But I think that what they are actually doing is replacing what the Bible actually says, with something else that just agrees with what they would have wished the bible had said in the first place.


I simply put forward to you that you might try once to just read the text as it appears, and to not change things.....
Just read it as it appears , regardless of what they might do to other things you believe in...


Thus when you are reading about the "greater light' dont mentally write over the top of that "The Sun"
Just read whats there and don't force yourself to rewite anything!

So what are we supposed to do when we read about the "greater light"???????
The answer is : just leave it be what it is......its a "Greater LIGHT"!!!!!!!!!


a greater "LIGHT!"






No need to rush in and fix the bible.
No need to rewrite anything.
The Bible is talking about a "greater amount of light, and thats-that....no big deal.......

Lets think of it another way.
The "sound" on my old truck is "greater" than the lessor sound of my new car.
But is the sound of my truck the same as my truck?.....no!

Is the sound of my car the very same thing as the car itself?.....no!

I can have the truck around and there is no sound at all .
I can look at my truck running and be in a location where I cant hear it at all.
So the sound of something is not the same as the thing itslef.....


the "light" of a star is not the same thing as the star itself.
You can have a star in our sky that because of many things you cant see.
Even right now as i write this the stars are all shining down on me just as much as ever, yet because its noon I dont see any 'light" from the stars at all.....they are all still there...they have not changed a bit....
But many things cause a star's light to be visible or invisible....



In the story of Genesis we read about "Darkness" that covers the earth.
in the book of *** we learned the reason for the darkness was thick clouds that covered the seas.
So although the sun itself was unchanged and was burning just as much then as it does to this very day, yet due only to the thick Clouds talked abut in *** the earth was in darkness.....


But on the 4th day of Genesis we read about the thinning of these clouds to the point where even the dim light of the stars was now seen..




Thus we are reading on the 4th day of Genesis NOT about the creation of the sun, moon, and stars at all.
What we are in fact reading about on the 4th day is just what it says there.....the "light" is now greater.

the amount of light hitting the earth has changed.

this is a very big deal....

The sun has not changed.
The amount of heat and light flowing from the sun in unchanged.
But the amount of light seen on the surface of the earth has changed a lot.....

and that is what we read about on the 4th day!

disciple
08-20-2014, 06:15 AM
Hi Alan, You said:
"a lot of bible students are taught by their teachers that "God made the sun on the 4th day"....but if the bible student were to actually go read the text for the 4th day , they would see that "This is not what the text says..."

The problem is that if you just take the Text as written, then you totally destroy all the Young Earth arguments....
Yes, its true.
If you just read and believe the Genesis text as we see it written in the bible you don't find any issues with their being an Old earth,,,or any disagreements with Evolution....nor any reason for Bible students to worry that they need to invent all kinds of anti-science concepts like the "sourceless light"

Ok, so looking at the text from the King James Version,
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this created light. This was not a "sourceless" light, the Creator was the source.
God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence.
On the fourth day the system we have now was ins***uted as the Earth’s temporary lights (until the new heaven and earth) were made (vs. 16), so the diffused light from the first day was no longer needed. I don't see this explanation adding to or changing the text, nor is it anti-science.

disciple
08-20-2014, 09:14 AM
check *** 38 verse 4 to confirm that we are dealing with the same moment in time as is dealt with in genesis...


Then look at this -
"Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness'


So in *** we read about the seas, and them being in "darkness".....but we also are told the reason the *** seas and the Genesis "waters / the deep" are in darkness too.....

"clouds"
The clouds and darkness are being described as a garment for the sea. The commentary ***ociated with the verses you referenced from https://www.biblegateway.com/p***age...38&version=NIV explains.

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 10:55 AM
I don't know what commentary your reading but I can tell you one thing .....if that commentary is telling you that the darkness of the book of *** is not the very same darkness listed in the book of genesis then it is in error..

The darkness is the same darkness in both books.

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 11:01 AM
the source for all the LIght is giving us in Genesis 1:1 the heavens

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 01:57 PM
oh and I'm at work so I just don't have the time right now to dig into the commentaries and find out what the heck is going on but I'll give it a look when I get home

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 05:56 PM
The clouds and darkness are being described as a garment for the sea. The commentary ***ociated with the verses you referenced from https://www.biblegateway.com/p***age...38&version=NIV explains.

Im finally home and I have the free time to check out your link...BUT, for some reason it does not work for me?????

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 06:50 PM
well......I have not seen any new posts , so to keep the topic advancing I think I should post a comment that deals with a whole bunch of issues and see if that might get a response or two...LOL


The thing Im asking people to try is that i want them to just allow the Genesis story to simply and clearly tell us what it has to say.
And, I'm also asking people to stop adding things to the text .

What I see going on is that in an effort to maintain these teachings in a Young Earth, and to fight against the teachings of Evolution, there are many Bible students that have gotten themselves swept-up in the use of bad bible study habits.

I first noticed this when after I attended an 8-week ORIGINS cl*** taught by Ken Ham personally, I noticed that many of the things we had been taught that support Young Earth Creationism simply did not come from the Bible.

I also noticed that while many YEC believers claimed to be supporting a "literal" interpretation of the Genesis story, But the real facts are that they twisting things around, they adding new meanings that are totally out of context, they are subconsciously replacing words found in the text with their own words that back-up what they want the Bible to teach!

Young Earth Creationism seemed to me to be more an "invention" pulled out of thin air rather than the literal interpretation of the Scriptures that was being claimed.

The Genesis story reads completely normal to me, and there is no need to invent things to make the story work.
There is no need to invent a "sourceless light, nor try to blame the light onto "god" when we read right at the start that God had created the source for all the light in the story.

And that source of the Genesis light is still the same source for the light we see today!

So there is no need to struggle to explain the light source at all......
The light was just normal light, and the source of that light was just a normal physical source that is still around today.


The Bible teaches that the first things God created was the "heavens"
This therefore gives us all the "source' for the light we will need in a moment.

So right off the bat was have a physical "source" for the "let there be light" verse that appears in a moment.

God is NOT the source for the Light in Genesis...

We read that the Spirit of God is hovering above the waters.
This give us out "point of view" as we read the rest of the story...the point of view is an "earthbound point of view"

Taking the correct POV We are not up in space as we read this story, we are hovering above the water, looking up at the sky.

The "waters appear right away in the Genesis story but are we to believe that the earth was created "wet"?.....NO.

The water that fills the seas came forth from underground as we read in Genesis 2 and at *** 38

So the earth was created "dry"and only later saw the introduction of water.

There is nothing in the Genesis or the rest of the whole Bible story that bans animals death before the sin of Adam.

Adam was not created in the garden.

The topic on the 4th day is NOT the creation of the sun.

The topic is only the greater light that now is seen on the earth.
The sun was made at Genesis 1:1......but the thick clouds talked about at *** 38 have thinned enough to see the dim light of the stars on the 4th day.....

and regardless of what it may say in your translation, the Bible does not actually say that God "made the stars" on the 4th day.
Thats an addition by some editors, placed into the text only because it fit into preconceived Young Earth teachings....

alanmolstad
08-20-2014, 08:47 PM
My personal conclusions?

I believe that the Genesis story works hand-in-hand with evolution.

I believe the Text supports the idea that the universe is billions of years old.

I believe that even the account of the creation of man fits within the teachings of evolution.

I believe the word "day"in Genesis has many meanings, and among the meanings supported by the Genesis text is the idea that a "day" can talk to us about an unknown amount of time....

I believe that the first 6 days of the Creation week all have nice clear endings, and this points us to the fact that in the Bible there is not even a hint that the 7th day of the creation week has had an ending.

I believe that right now, as we have this conversation, we are still in the middle of the 7th day of the creation week....




another conclusion I have come to is that some YEC believers simply will refuse to open their Bibles and read what is says in black and white once they start to discover what the text actually says there.

The very first time I stood up in my Sunday school cl*** and asked (following the ORIGINS cl*** taught by Ken Ham) I asled the cl***, "What does the Bible say God created first "In the beginning"?.....I ran into some people that after checking the text , would not answer that question.

I ran into people that wanted to defend their YEC ideas so baddy that they would close their bible in front of me and tell me, "I dont care what it says there Alan, I know what it means".

The conclusion I came to after seeing this type of thing happen over and over is that There is none so blind as he who shuts his eyes and will not see....

disciple
08-21-2014, 05:28 AM
My personal conclusions?

I believe that the Genesis story works hand-in-hand with evolution.

I believe the Text supports the idea that the universe is billions of years old.

I believe that even the account of the creation of man fits within the teachings of evolution.

I believe the word "day"in Genesis has many meanings, and among the meanings supported by the Genesis text is the idea that a "day" can talk to us about an unknown amount of time....

I believe that the first 6 days of the Creation week all have nice clear endings, and this points us to the fact that in the Bible there is not even a hint that the 7th day of the creation week has had an ending.

I believe that right now, as we have this conversation, we are still in the middle of the 7th day of the creation week....




another conclusion I have come to is that some YEC believers simply will refuse to open their Bibles and read what is says in black and white once they start to discover what the text actually says there.

The very first time I stood up in my Sunday school cl*** and asked (following the ORIGINS cl*** taught by Ken Ham) I asled the cl***, "What does the Bible say God created first "In the beginning"?.....I ran into some people that after checking the text , would not answer that question.

I ran into people that wanted to defend their YEC ideas so baddy that they would close their bible in front of me and tell me, "I dont care what it says there Alan, I know what it means".

The conclusion I came to after seeing this type of thing happen over and over is that There is none so blind as he who shuts his eyes and will not see....

Hi Alan,

I can understand your position on Genesis 1:1, although I don't totally agree with some of your conclusions but we do agree that God did indeed create the heavens and the earth. But where is your Biblical evidence for the evolution of man. I don't want to put words in your mouth but do you believe man evolved from apes? Genesis tells us how God created man, the theory of evolution adds to the text, something which you seem to be against. Will you comment?

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 07:09 AM
okay I'll be posting something on that real soon

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 07:32 AM
notice that I said that evolution and Genesis work hand in hand with each other I did not say that Genesis teaches evolution nor do I find evolution in the text of the Bible for what I have said is it the two concepts do work hand in hand with each other to give us a more rounded understanding of history they are not in contradiction although they do not say the very same

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 07:50 AM
both Genesis and evolution trace life back to the very same source the earth itself

John T
08-21-2014, 09:18 AM
Im finally home and I have the free time to check out your link...BUT, for some reason it does not work for me?????

It does not work because it proves that you are wrong in this debate! :p

disciple
08-21-2014, 10:17 AM
both Genesis and evolution trace life back to the very same source the earth itself

Hi Alan,
On the subject of human evolution I must refer back to what Jesus said in Matthew 19:4
"And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female". Jesus didn't say that God made it possible for life to evolve in the beginning, He said God made them, just like He made the heavens and the earth. In my estimation Jesus still carries more weight than Darwin or any scientific theory. You said,"Young Earth Creationism seemed to me to be more an "invention" pulled out of thin air rather than the literal interpretation of the Scriptures that was being claimed." Isn't the idea of human evolution the same thing?

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 10:35 AM
What does genesis say man is made from?

Where is all life from in genesis?

according to evolution all life including human life all stems from the same source ......well guess what that's the same idea that we get in Genesis!



the very same source is the source for life in Genesis as it is the same source for life in evolution there is no difference

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 10:42 AM
what this means is evolution is a tool of our most holy God thus it deserves to be respected and in fact dismissing evolution is missing the tools that God used to create his world.....

young earth creationism is An invented idea that is replacing what God has given us in his Bible therefore young earth creationism is an insult to God's holy ways...


it also means that in a very real way scientists that study the earth and evolution in the history of the world are in fact holy men pursuing something that is a very good thing to pursue the study of God's world in the study of God's work......

I am just so sick and tired of so many people accusing scientists are being anti God or anti religious the truth is that the very first scientist in the world was Adam when you look at what Adam did he wasn't just the gardener for the garden .......for the Lord brought all the animals to Adam to find out with Adam would name them anDth study them and then Adam with name the animals and after that that was their name this is action of a true scientist

disciple
08-21-2014, 10:44 AM
What does genesis say man is made from?

Where is all life from in genesis?

according to evolution all life including human life all stems from the same source ......well guess what that's the same idea that we get in Genesis!



the very same source is the source for life in Genesis as it is the same source for life in evolution there is no difference

It says God formed man from the dust of the ground and even if you read that as the elements of the earth it is a far, far stretch to put faith in what Darwin theorized. Why would man have to evolve from lower forms? There is nothing in the scripture to indicate this.

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 10:56 AM
It says God formed man from the dust of the ground and even if you read that as the elements of the earth it is a far, far stretch to put faith in what Darwin theorized. Why would man have to evolve from lower forms? There is nothing in the scripture to indicate this.
so the place where evolution traces man back to the ground of the earth is exactly the same place with the book of Genesis trace is all human life back to not only human life but all life stems from the earth itself we are part of the earth that is come alive

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 10:58 AM
Why would man have to evolve from lower forms? .

that is a question you could ask God he is the one who came up with the idea of using the earth to create humans

disciple
08-21-2014, 11:19 AM
that is a question you could ask God he is the one who came up with the idea of using the earth to create humans

Ok Alan,

Looks like we have taken this topic as far as we can. Thanks for all the time you spent and I look forward to future discussions.

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 06:25 PM
There is nothing in the scripture to indicate this.
What we find in the Bible works within Evolution, but it does not teach Evolution itself.

The deal is that in Genesis we can trace back all life to a common source.
Both human and animals life is traced back in the Bible to the very earth itself.

This is also true within the teachings of Evolution, for in evolution we all see that the common source for all life, (Both animals and human) is the earth itself.

So the source for Life in the Bible is the earth, and the source for life in evolution is the earth.

So the Bible and evolution do not openly disagree.

This is why I tell you that Evolution and the Bible walk hand-in-hand.
They do not say the same things in the same way, but they do agree and work with each other nicely.

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 06:38 PM
We have to remember, that we are but dust.
Many Young earth believers want to build-up what man is...they want us to be some sort of KING of the universe, and not at all connected to the lower forms of life on this earth.
I notice many times how terrible some YEC believers think the teaching that humans evolved from the apes is....how it makes us look like we are nothing but monkeys........they look down on the apes and make fun of the suggestion that we share anything in common with them.

They point out to me that "Man is made in the image of GOD!...not the image of the ape!"


But the Bible teaches us differently.
The Bible tells us over and over that we are nothing but dust.....the very dust of the earth.
And the Bible tells us that when we die we RETURN to the earth, for the earth is where we are all from!

As far as made in the image of God goes, this is true, but we need to always remember, "It has nothing to do with our flesh"
The flesh of man is of the earth, the image of God that men are has nothing to do with our arms and legs.
For when we die our dead flesh goes into the ground from where it had come, and our Spirit goes to the Lord who gave it.

alanmolstad
08-21-2014, 06:47 PM
v. 16 says the 2 great lights were "made", which is the same verb as is used in other days for beasts, plants, etc. .......


Yes!.....the lights were made!
(Thats what I have been trying to tell you all this time!)

Question:The what was made?....
Answer: The LIGHTS were made!....yes, yes, yes....!


The sun was made already, but due to the clouds the light was unable to reach our earthbound point of view ....this is what the earth was in "darkness"

But on the 4th day we read about the "light"...and the 'amount of light is talked about"...some "GREATER"...some LESSOR"....

Greater and lessor are AMOUNTS of light.....
They are the different amounts of new light that was not seen until on the 4th day.


The source for the light was already made at Genesis 1:1
But the "light" was unseen until the thick clouds talked about at *** 38 had thinned away.


So I would never tell you in a million-zillion years ( thats 6,000 years for you Young Earth people) that God did not make the "lights" of the 4th day.
Did the Lord make the lights on the 4th day? Sure He dd!

But let us also keep in mind that the Bible also clearly told us at Gen 1:1 that God had already made the Source for the light.

alanmolstad
08-22-2014, 04:47 AM
Ok Alan,

Looks like we have taken this topic as far as we can. Thanks for all the time you spent and I look forward to future discussions.

A few of my posts on this topic were done while I was at work, and I tried to use my cellphone and have it translate my spoken words into text.

The results were mixed.
The phone does a very good *** for most of the time, however every once in a while I noticed that the word I wanted to say is replaced with some other word that must have sounded close to it.

The other issue with the way the cellphone does text is that there is no "sentence", there is no way to end a sentence and start a new one.
All you end up with is a huge wad of text that is very hard to read.

I have tried to go back and fix a few things I noticed were wrong, and I have tried to return to topics once I got on to my home laptop and re-worked them to make things very clear as to what I was talking about on the phone with you.

I hope that all the things I have been able to share have had a chance to be read.
If you have gone over the many things I have posted on this topic and noticed something you think is in error?...or if there is some conclusion that i have come to that you would like to see the support from Scripture?...then just ask me to address it.

I have tried to show why I think the Young Earth Creation ideas are totally in error, I have tried to show how a strict reading of the Text does not have any disagreements with both an Old Earth and with Evolution.


If you or anyone else have anything that they want me to look at, or think about, Please let me know!

disciple
08-22-2014, 05:08 AM
A few of my posts on this topic were done while I was at work, and I tried to use my cellphone and have it translate my spoken words into text.

The results were mixed.
The phone does a very good *** for most of the time, however every once in a while I noticed that the word I wanted to say is replaced with some other word that must have sounded close to it.

The other issue with the way the cellphone does text is that there is no "sentence", there is no way to end a sentence and start a new one.
All you end up with is a huge wad of text that is very hard to read.

I have tried to go back and fix a few things I noticed were wrong, and I have tried to return to topics once I got on to my home laptop and re-worked them to make things very clear as to what I was talking about on the phone with you.

I hope that all the things I have been able to share have had a chance to be read.
If you have gone over the many things I have posted on this topic and noticed something you think is in error?...or if there is some conclusion that i have come to that you would like to see the support from Scripture?...then just ask me to address it.

I have tried to show why I think the Young Earth Creation ideas are totally in error, I have tried to show how a strict reading of the Text does not have any disagreements with both an Old Earth and with Evolution.


If you or anyone else have anything that they want me to look at, or think about, Please let me know!

Hi Alan,

All of your posts were understandable and while I don't agree with you on all points, I appreciate the fact that you write not with arrogance and pride but with sincerity and what seems to be a desire to help. Good ***.

alanmolstad
08-22-2014, 01:18 PM
It does not work because it proves that you are wrong in this debate! :pI Am never wrong

alanmolstad
02-09-2015, 10:10 AM
"Hermeneutics" = is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts.


Here you go Tdidymas....
The "light" of the 1st day is the very same "light" talked about on the 4th day.

The light is the same.....

So if the light is the very same light that we have already talked about on the 1st day, what is so different now on the 4th?

The answer is found in what we read about the light on the 4th day..
Thats all we have to do to learn the answer...Just read the text!


It's than simple.

Just read the text as it appears and dont feel the need to twist the text into saying things that dont appear .

For what we read is that there is now a "greater" light...and a "lessor" light.


So the light of the 4th day and the 1st day is the same light, but the "AMOUNT" of light seen on the earth is now changed!


The source is still the same source.
The source for the light on the 1st day is the same source on the 4th day, AND (You are going to want to pay attention to this next part).......and its the very same source for the same light we see today!

The source for the Light never changed from Genesis 1:1 to today .
The source is still the same.

But on the 4th day we do now find that the "AMOUNT" of light is said to now have changed.

This answer I have to say is one of my best to this issue of the lights of the 4th day.

I may have to copy/paste it on a few forums Im a member of?

alanmolstad
10-13-2017, 08:46 PM
seems I always get the last word......