Evolution does not stand up to biblical scrutiny

[jude1:3]

And all the Days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty Years: and he died. - Genesis 5:5



But days really mean millions of years right ?

[alanmolstad]

Im asking for what the Bible says in Black and white!!!!!!


Im not asking, "What do you think it means?"
I dont care what you think it means.



Im asking - "Where does it clearly state that the 7th day has ended just as it clearly states the first 6 days ended?"





Is there such a clear ending or is there not?

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im asking for what the Bible says in Black and white!!!!!!

And all the Days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty Years: and he died . - Genesis 5:5

[alanmolstad]

still cant find that verse eh?

Gosh it must be frustrating.... LOL

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

still cant find that verse eh?

I Already found the verse that said Years have p***ed....

[alanmolstad]

still looking for the verse that teaches just as clearly that the 7th day ended, as it teaches that the first 6 days ended...


and unless you got a verse?...you dont got squat!

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

still looking for the verse that teaches just as clearly that the 7th day ended, as it teaches that the first 6 days ended...


and unless you got a verse?...you dont got squat!

And all the Days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty Years: and he died. - Genesis 5:5



There you go.

[alanmolstad]

yes,,,,It must be so frustrating.....

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

yes,,,,It must be so frustrating.....

It must be frustrating to you that no one buys in to your Heretical Theistic Evolution.

[alanmolstad]

yes,,,,It must be so frustrating.....

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

yes,,,,It must be so frustrating.....

[jude1:3]

I'll give some other people on the forum a chance to talk some sense into you.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by jude1:3

I'll give some other people on the forum a chance to talk some sense into you.

What I see is this-

When I talk to a bible student that wants to believe in the YEC teachings but learns (by opening his Bible) that the YEC teachings are just not there, and that what Im saying actually does appear in the text, is that they will normally ***ume that they have failed in some manner, and will likely hope that someone else with more "Bible Smarts" will take over for them.

They ***ume that the Bible "must" teach the YEC teachings the way they have been taught by the YEC books, videos, and websites, and so they credit their own inability to find the YEC in the Bible to be just their own fault.

They ***ume that someone else could do better than they did.


Some Bible students will part company with me with the words, "I know you are wrong Alan, I know the YEC teachings are correct, I just cant prove it right now"

But Im here to say that its not actually anyone's fault that they cant find and prove any of the YEC teachings.
This is because the YEC teachings are not found within the Bible.


The YEC teachings are invented by men and spread around the web in videos and on websites, but they are not in any way based on the Bible.

When you look at the information you get on a YEC website or in a Ken Ham video, what you find is summations of what the YEC teachers believe the Bible should mean.

Not what the Bible actually says...

The YEC videos and websites are putting out their own version of what they think the text means...


I dont do that.

I just tell you what the Bible says.


My questions to our friend MichaellS here are not about what he should think the text "means", rather Im simply asking him what does the text "say?"

[alanmolstad]

6 days with very clear ending....

each of the endings is written the very same way.....no way to miss them.

The writer of Genesis is making a strong point by doing this.
He clearly wants us to know for 100% that 6 of the creation week days have ended!


but this also points us to the lack of any ending on the 7th day....

There is no way to miss that point the writer of Genesis is making too.

[jude1:3]

Just so you know it's all in good fun Alan. I agree with some stuff you post but I defenitely don't agree with your stance on Theistic Evolution.

[MichaellS]

Edited back

[MichaellS]

Edited back no2

[MichaellS]

You state that I know you are right? Are you kidding me?

What spell of delirium have you encountered to wage such evil imaginations over the meaning of six days of work and one of rest? I am supposed to ***ume you are right while driving out simplicity?

The only instance in the word of God that permits an altered response to the Sabbath day is Romans 14:5, “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike, ,”

If the Lord “rested on the seventh day from all His work” (Gen 2:2), if Isaiah called the Sabbath the "Lord's Holy Day", if the Lord “called the light day” (1:5), then there is no spiritualizing of it, the night came and put an end to it till again we come to recognize the “Lord’s Holy Day”. It is open and night puts it to an end. You are under a delirious train of thought my friend. Not only, but have allowed it to captivate for you an evil conclusion as I have pointed out to you in the scriptures which you find inconvenient.

Gee, I wonder why Alan finds contrary scriptures inconvenient? Do you suppose they don’t agree with his “Hand in Hand” formula? Do you suppose he considers those scriptures that challenge that formula EVIL?

Well, how about it, after the many attempts to clear the air between us from the word, and you going mute on those references, is that what you are describing for us here, that those references we gave you are to be considered Evil words?

That Alan maintains all the references we gave from the Bible that challenges Alan’s proposal in Genesis, Alan considers Bible p***ages as EVIL? That our mentioning Bible verses to Alan, he should consider those verses as EVIL? Verses informing His children of his will should be tossed out as EVIL?

WOW!

No, I am not interested in your formula when you cannot stand up under the soundness of those verses. You failed at it, remember? They are a cutting sword that you cannot stop though you have convinced yourself if you stop us, the word of God we bring will stop as well.

Ha. I appealed to your reason long ago, but your willingness to nurture this entrenched error is too great for you to repent, isn’t it? Funny thing about that is nooobody here buys that, and my last next to the last post stands, though people can continue to “set aside” scripture to collectively feed a tradition, repentance still happens. Some will hear and repent, but resistance has to come from within.

, , Bubble gurgle, bubble gurgle.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

You state that.....

I asked you a question about Genesis 1:1 *

....you ducked the answer and tried to change the topic.

how did that work out?






* hint: it's near the front of the Bible.

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I asked you a question about Genesis 1:1 *

....you ducked the answer and tried to change the topic.

how did that work out?

* hint: it's near the front of the Bible.

You don’t get it do you, , You invalidated your ability to set the narrative by

“SETTING ASIDE” scripture. See post http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...l=1#post169454

Why is other scripture given proper stance to apply to Genesis? It is unanimous; John 1:1 begins the inspection of Genesis. A Genesis formula tradition-builder’s problem is, where does he stop the NT inspection so his deception can survive?

More deflection is sure to reappear to shield this inspection.

[alanmolstad]

Still ducking my Genesis 1:1 question eh MichaellS?

[alanmolstad]

MichaellS....still ducking my Genesis 1:1 question eh guy?

So sad...
It must be so frustrating for you to think you know so many things about the Bible, and yet be so openly totally unable to answer a simple question asked about the very first verse of the bible...

How embarr***ing for you...