Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
Wicknight said:
Yes, I agree with that. I did not mean to imply otherwise. My 'just' meant chemicals and nothing other than chemicals. The value we place on that is our own decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So we ask ourselves these questions about the nature and meaning of life:
Non-theistic evolution tells us we are just complicated forms of matter, that our self-awareness is just the result of chemical processes. That our conscience and emotions reflect only a chemical response conditioned by long evolutionary processes, and are not objectively of value.
No it doesn't. You inserted "just" and "only" a number of times in that sentence, but that is doing exactly what you just said science can't do, make moral judgements on what we are and our value.
Saying something is "just" X implies that it is less than something else. It wasn't Tom Cruise is was just the postman. I won the lotto but I just won 10 euro.
So you are biasing your own set up here. You don't think being the product of evolution makes us that interesting or important, but that is "just" your opinion on the matter. Science isn't telling you that.
Evolution doesn't tell us we are just chemicals. It tells us we are chemicals. How important that is up to the persons themselves.
That is my point - non-theistic evolution tells us what it supposes we are (and does not offer a valuation of that).
Fine. You have a higher regard for chemicals than for a spirit being that will never cease to exist. I can't see the sense in that, but I know the Turner prize exists, so I'm not surprised at what human nature may fancy.Personally I think being the result of evolution is far more amazing than being magically produced by God.
You could indeed, in both above uses of the word. The first use would be accurate in saying God alone created us, the second would express your Turnerite values.I could just as easily say to you that Christianity teaches that we are just the product of God, rather that the amazing product of natural selection.
Of course if Christianity is false, our neighbour has no objective value. You are losing the point. If evolution (non-theistic) is true, then our neighbour has no objective value. If Christianity is true, then he has immense objective value.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So regardless of how we might feel about throwing our neighbour off the cliff, Reason tells us it is of no objective value.
That holds just as true in Christianity. A person has no objective value in Christianity either. It has subjective value based on God's opinion on how valuable we are. That is God's opinion on the matter. You might have a different opinion. God will stick a lightening bolt up your ass if you disagree, but that doesn't make his opinion any more objective. It is not a fact of nature, like the speed of light.
I agree that science gives us facts, not morals. Reason applied to science and informed by conscience/revelation provides the morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Theism will inform our Reason that we are more than complicated chemicals and may have to give an account for treating others badly.
Only because God says so and some people believe we should do what God says because they agree with following God.
But that has nothing to do with science.
Yes, Humanism is an ideology, not a science.Humanism will take a similar stance, the UN Charter of Human Rights says so and we should do what it says as well, because we agree with it.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
kiffer said:
Thanks for the considered response.There's more and we could get more technical but well... what's the point?
Wolfsbane, there are huge problems with this paper, although on the plus side he does go out and gather samples bring them in and do some work on them... it's a rich tapestry.
As you say, I'm not qualified to deal with the technical arguments. I'll post another article when I get time. 0 -
-
-
-
-
....and my point is that it is modern scientific evidence itself that is DISPROVING the idea of spontaneous Evolution ... while supporting the Biblical account of Direct Divine Creation!!!!
I don't advocate spontaneous evolution but even if it were true a true reading of the Bible does not contradict it......everything from polystrate fossils and 'living fossils' to Mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosome Adam to DNA to the complex specificity of biomolecules and biochemical cascades supports a straighforward reading of Genesis 1 and 2... and the IMPOSSIBILTY of spontaneous evolution!!!
That maybe so but the Bible does not say that the earth was void and without form when God created it, it says in several different place in Scripture that it was created not a waste........and the Gap Theory ....is full of logical GAPS!!!!:eek::pac::):D
Like what? A gap is a gap, just because it is not filled in by specific descriptions does not mean that it is not there. It would be like looking at a mountain range from a distance, it all looks like one big mountain until you come to the first peak of the foothills and then notice that there is a vast valley between them and the next mountains in the range. From a distance one can discern vaguely that a gap is present even though you cannot tell what is in that gap........and arguing that there are billions of (unmentioned and unaccounted for) years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 does nothing for the credibility of either Genesis or Science!!!!
I would say that it only does nothing for the credibility of certain interpretations of Genesis which contradict the findings of Science........so here are the said verses:-
Gen 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That is an English translation of Hebrew text which is better rendered that the earth became a waste and a desolation as apposed to was a waste and desolation. Go check out the Hebrew words. The word translated was in Genesis 1:2 is Hayah and it means to become or became.Verse 2 is obviously a direct descriptor of what the Earth looked like in the immediate aftermath of it's creation in Verse 1 ... and there is nothing between these two verses to indicate that ANY life-forms existed between these two verses!!!:D:)
I'm not saying that there is any life forms suggested in Genesis 1:2. You only need go to Jeremiah 4:23-26 to know that lifeforms where there after the devastation that came on the earth as described in Genesis 1:2. The prophet describes birds flying away after he saw the earth laid waste and fruitful places lying in ruins, plus there was no man but there was cities, and all this after he seen the devastation that Genesis 1:2 describes.
"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger." Jeremiah 4:23-26
Now which earth that was without form and void is Jeremiah talking about here? Remember there was no man so it can't have been the flood devastation of Noah's time. There were birds, mountains, cities and fruitful places before the devastation. If that is not an indication from scripture itself that there was lifeforms between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 then I'm not sure what is. And what about Isaiah 45?
"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens, He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited, "I am the LORD, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18 (NASB version)....and yes, whole books have been written about what supposedly went on between these two verses, with nothing to support their contentions only IMAGINATION!!!
Well I beg to differ. As I have shown above, Scripture itself supports this view.I think that the Evolution Books should be kept in the Fiction Sections of Bookstores...they can be a rollocking good read and have great pictures....and they allow for some escapism from the routine of daily life ....
IMHO I think you need to do a little bit of bridging the gaps when it comes to science and the Bible instead of widening them with what I consider ill informed interpretations of Scripture. The Bible was not originally written in English, so taking an isolated literal English translation of it and squeezing it into what science is finding is IMO dodgy to say the least. I say that you don't have to when you read the Bible in its original inspired form. Remember that '... no prophecy of scripture is a private interpretation' 2 Peter 1:20. I have no truck with your knowledge of Science at all, it greatly exceeds mine but you should work on your Bible translations a little bit, or am I being unfair?
Sorry if I am, I'm trying to be as kind as I can about what you are saying....at least such a conference promises to touch on the 'Seven Deadly Sins' ... something that used to be very close to the heart of Roman Catholocism!!!:D
I think their time would be better spent if they actually start preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God's Word instead of traditions and doctrines of men which do nothing but hinder it and make it void, as Jesus Himself warned against.
Oh and P.S. :pac::D;):p:):rolleyes::eek:0 -
.....Soul Winner wrote: »I don't advocate spontaneous evolution but even if it were true a true reading of the Bible does not contradict it.
....so a 'true reading' of Scripture doesn't contradict the idea that physical matter and energy is all there is and IT produced all life!!!!
....kinda gives God very little (i.e. no) credit for ANYTHING!!!!
That maybe so but the Bible does not say that the earth was void and without form when God created it, it says in several different place in Scripture that it was created not a waste.
....Gen 1:2 says that it was 'void and without form' IMMEDIATELY after it was created....the other verses to which you refer rule out billions of years of being in 'a state of waste' before life appeared .... thereby actually ruling out Evolutionists 'long ages' interpretations (of billions of years of 'waste-land' before the first life emerged)!!!!
Like what? A gap is a gap, just because it is not filled in by specific descriptions does not mean that it is not there. It would be like looking at a mountain range from a distance, it all looks like one big mountain until you come to the first peak of the foothills and then notice that there is a vast valley between them and the next mountains in the range. From a distance one can discern vaguely that a gap is present even though you cannot tell what is in that gap.
...the Gap Theory seeks to insert enormous levels of supposedly 'missing' information between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 WITHOUT any evidence that such information exists!!!
...are there similar 'gaps' in essential information between every other verse in scripture??
...and if there are ... then the Scriptures would be so defective as to be worse than useless.
The Gap Theory is actually a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture and thus is gravely heretical!!!!
I would say that it only does nothing for the credibility of certain interpretations of Genesis which contradict the findings of Science.
....what finding of science contradict Genesis???
That is an English translation of Hebrew text which is better rendered that the earth became a waste and a desolation as apposed to was a waste and desolation. Go check out the Hebrew words. The word translated was in Genesis 1:2 is Hayah (waw) and it means to become or became.
...such a translation/interpretation makes no sense without the reason why the Earth became a waste-land being given.
....the translation/interpretation that the Earth was 'void and without form' is logically consistent with the reason provided in the first verse ... that it had just been Created.
...so unless you are going to argue that Scripture is nonesense or grossly deficient in information (which would be heretical) then the translation/interpretation that Earth was 'void and without form' (and indeed covered by water) immediately after its creation is the correct one!!!!:)
I'm not saying that there is any life forms suggested in Genesis 1:2. You only need go to Jeremiah 4:23-26 to know that lifeforms where there after the devastation that came on the earth as described in Genesis 1:2. The prophet describes birds flying away after he saw the earth laid waste and fruitful places lying in ruins, plus there was no man but there was cities, and all this after he seen the devastation that Genesis 1:2 describes.
....so let us look at Jer 4:22-29 to get the full picture of what is going on in these verses. It turns out that Jeremiah is prophesising the ruination of Israel, if they don't turn away from their (present) evil ways and repent .... Israel and the Earth will return to it's barren state (without living creatures) in the immediate aftermath of Creation.
Jer 4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein
"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger." Jeremiah 4:23-26
...this is what Jeremiah is PROPHESISING will happen if Israel doesn't repent!!!
there will be no men OR birds and the Earth will become barren again!!!
.... and "the birds of heaven were fled" means they had disappeared i.e. are dead ALSO!!!!
...and the reference to cities being broken down means that men are present before the prophesised event would take place....thereby ruling out that this was referring to the supposed gap between the Creation of Earth and the appearance of men billions of years later!!!!!!
Now which earth that was without form and void is Jeremiah talking about here? Remember there was no man so it can't have been the flood devastation of Noah's time. There were birds, mountains, cities and fruitful places before the devastation. If that is not an indication from scripture itself that there was lifeforms between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 then I'm not sure what is.
....the 'earth' that he is referring to is the Earth of Jeremiah's time and he is prophesising that it will return to the lifeless 'earth' in the immediate aftermath of Creation if the people continue in their evil ways!!!
Your statement that "there was no man" is contradicted by your statement that there "were birds, mountains, cities and fruitful places before the devastation"!!!!
And what about Isaiah 45?
"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens, He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited, "I am the LORD, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18 (NASB version)
....yes God Created the Earth with the intention that it be inhabited and that it be fruitful!!!
....how is that in contradiction with the fact that for the first two days there was no life on Earth???
Originally Posted by J C
....and yes, whole books have been written about what supposedly went on between these two verses, with nothing to support their contentions only IMAGINATION!!!
Soul Winner
Well I beg to differ. As I have shown above, Scripture itself supports this view.
...you may disagree with me ... but you cannot deny that all such books are based upon imagination and wishful thinking...because the Bible say NOTHING between verses 1:1 and 1:2!!!!
IMHO I think you need to do a little bit of bridging the gaps when it comes to science and the Bible instead of widening them with what I consider ill informed interpretations of Scripture. The Bible was not originally written in English, so taking an isolated literal English translation of it and squeezing it into what science is finding is IMO dodgy to say the least. I say that you don't have to when you read the Bible in its original inspired form. Remember that '... no prophecy of scripture is a private interpretation' 2 Peter 1:20. I have no truck with your knowledge of Science at all, it greatly exceeds mine but you should work on your Bible translations a little bit, or am I being unfair? Sorry if I am, I'm trying to be as kind as I can about what you are saying.
....there are no 'gaps' to be bridged between science and scripture!!!!
....there will always be 'yawning chasms' between the imaginings of Atheists and assorted Materialists and Scripture ... but NONE of these imaginings are supported by scientific evidence!!!
I think their time would be better spent if they actually start preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God's Word instead of traditions and doctrines of men which do nothing but hinder it and make it void, as Jesus Himself warned against.
....and touché for all Evolutionists and their erroneous interpretations of Scripture and Science!!!:):D
Could I also point out that many Roman Catholic clergy are Young Earth Creationists and many lay Catholics are Creation Scientists and ID Proponents.
Oh and P.S. :pac::D;):p:):rolleyes::eek:
....thanks :pac::D;)0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:...so a 'true reading' of Scripture doesn't contradict the idea that physical matter and energy is all there is and IT produced all life!!!!
....kinda gives God very little (i.e. no) credit for ANYTHING!!!!
I never said that a true reading of scripture contradicts the idea that physical matter and energy is all there is and IT produced life, it just doesn’t contradict geologic data or the time frame needed for evolution to take pace. Whether the geological data or evolution is true or not does nothing to the true rendering of scripture. They could both turn out to be false but even if they are true it takes nothing away from the Bible because what the Bible is ACTUALLY saying is not that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal 24 hours periods.J C wrote:....Gen 1:2 says that it was 'void and without form' IMMEDIATELY after it was created....the other verses to which you refer rule out billions of years of being in 'a state of waste' before life appeared .... thereby actually ruling out Evolutionists 'long ages' interpretations (of billions of years of 'waste-land' before the first life emerged)!!!!
Again I’m not concerned with what the theory of evolution needs, that theory doesn’t bother me at all. Anyone who says that evolution proves the Bible false just don’t know the Bible. I say that evolution even if it were true is not contradicted by scripture.J C wrote:...the Gap Theory seeks to insert enormous levels of supposedly 'missing' information between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 WITHOUT any evidence that such information exists!!!
It doesn’t seek to insert anything. All it does it read the verse as it was orignally written. "And the earth became a waste and a desolation"J C wrote:...are there similar 'gaps' in essential information between every other verse in scripture?? ...and if there are ... then the Scriptures would be so defective as to be worse than useless. The Gap Theory is actually a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture and thus is gravely heretical!!!!
Well here’s a gap for you. In Luke Jesus opens the book of Isaiah and reads from it, here's the scene:
"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias (Isaiah). And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is 'THIS' scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:16-21 (Emphasis all mine)
He closes the book right in the middle of reading verse 2 of Isaiah 61 and tells His audience that that scripture was fulfilled in their ears. Why didn’t He read on? Why stop in mid verse? Because the next part of that verse states that He was to proclaim God’s vengeance. And that was not part of His first coming; He will do that when He returns. This is proof that there can be a vast gulf of time between verses of scripture. Here’s how the rest of verse that Jesus read goes:
"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, (gap) and the day of vengeance of our God..." Isaiah 61:1-2
Big gap there me thinks. But that does not mean that there is a gap in every verse of scripture, but the best way to interpret scripture is to let it interpret itself. That is why Peter say that no prophecy of scripture is a private interpretation. You must corroborate it with supporting verses and tense/syntax usage utilized elsewhere in scripture, this is very important when interpreting the more ambiguous isolated verses like Genesis 1:2. Jesus Himself provides proof that gaps even in the middle of verses can be present.J C wrote:....what finding of science contradict Genesis???
Well the geological data (right or wrong) says that the earth is billions of years old right? Now a literal English interpretation of Genesis will say that the earth is only 6000 plus years old. Are these not contradictory? My argument is that there need be no conflict at all. If one reads the original one sees clearly that what the English translates is not necessarily correct. Yes the earth was without form and void but that is a very limited phrase. What caused it to become without form and void or more literally a waste and a desolation? Isaiah says that God did not create it a waste place. At least I have other verses of scripture to back up what I’m saying. What are you proof texts for God creating the earth a waste place?J C wrote:...such a translation/interpretation makes no sense without the reason why the Earth became a waste-land being given.
Why should God give a reason as to why the earth became a waste and desolation though? And why is that lack of an explanation in Genesis 1:2 proof that there wasn’t a pre Genesis 1:2 fruitful place? Another proof text is when God commands Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. Why say replenish if it hadn’t been plenished prior to them coming on the scene? Why not just say plenish the earth or fill the earth instead re-fill it or replenish it?J C wrote:....the translation/interpretation that the Earth was 'void and without form' is logically consistent with the reason provided in the first verse ... that it had just been Created.
If that was the case the why didn’t the original author just say that? Why use the word Hayah at all? Why not just write. "In the beginning God create the heavens and the earth a waste and a desolation"? Why does the author even bother to put in the word Hayah translated was here and became nearly everywhere else in scripture when used in its verb form as it is in Genesis 1:2?J C wrote:...so unless you are going to argue that Scripture is nonesense or grossly deficient in information (which would be heretical) then the translation/interpretation that Earth was 'void and without form' (and indeed covered by water) immediately after its creation is the correct one!!!!
What are your proof texts for that assertion?J C wrote:....so let us look at Jer 4:22-29 to get the full picture of what is going on in these verses. It turns out that Jeremiah is prophesising the ruination of Israel, if they don't turn away from their (present) evil ways and repent .... Israel and the Earth will return to it's barren state (without living creatures) in the immediate aftermath of Creation.
Jer 4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein
But you’ve just proved yourself wrong by quoting from verse 22 to 29. If what your saying was right, then the earth would now be barren and without form and void because Israel didn’t repent and turn back to God. Jeremiah’s appointment was to tell them what was going to happen to them if they didn’t turn back to Him. They were to be put into bondage to the Babylonians for 70 years, THAT was their punishment, not killing everything on the earth.
You see you must be careful with scripture it can turn around and bite you in the ass if you're not careful with it. Jeremiah 4:22 is unrelated to Jeremiah 4:23 in the sense that it has anything to do with what Jeremiah sees in vision from verse 23 onwards. You can see that even in the English, the tense has suddenly change to a past tense. "I beheld the earth and lo it was a waste". That is not a future prophecy because that is not going to happen to the earth in the future. What happens to the earth in the future is clearly outlined in Revelation, Daniel, Zachariah and others. And although there will be calamity, none of these books suggest that the earth will be made completely desolate like it was in Genesis 1:2. You read Revelation and Daniel and you will see that their prophecies concerning last day events have plenty of men running around. Not so with Jeremiah 4:25, that is a past tense vision not a future one, again you need to corroborate scripture with scripture. This is why it is dangerous to read scripture in isolation. You must allow it to interpret itself by using other scripture.J C wrote:...this is what Jeremiah is PROPHESISING will happen if Israel doesn't repent!!!there will be no men OR birds and the Earth will become barren again!!!
Again that cannot be right because it does not gel with other scriptures concerning the end time events because in those scriptures you will find lots of men in existence. And even if what Jeremiah did see did concern the future, then we would not be here because Israel did not turn from their ways and if what your saying was the punishment then there could be no man now.J C wrote:.... and "the birds of heaven were fled" means they had disappeared i.e. are dead ALSO!!!!
The word for fled is Nadad in Hebrew. It has nothing to do with dying. It has to do with fleeing or escaping.J C wrote:...and the reference to cities being broken down means that men are present before the prophesised event would take place....thereby ruling out that this was referring to the supposed gap between the Creation of Earth and the appearance of men billions of years later!!!!!!
Well then why are there still men around now? Israel did not repent of their sin. If destroying everything was their punishment then why didn’t it happen? They kept sinning and God put them in bondage.J C wrote:....the 'earth' that he is referring to is the Earth of Jeremiah's time and he is prophesising that it will return to the lifeless 'earth' in the immediate aftermath of Creation if the people continue in their evil ways!!!
But Jeremiah was talking about Israel. And they didn’t turn from their evil ways, which is why God put them in bondage for 70 years to the Babylonians. The reason for the 70 years was to get back all the Sabbath years that they did not keep when the entered the land with Joshua. Every seventh year they were supposed to let the land lie un-ploughed. They didn’t do this so God got those years back by sending them into bondage. Their punishment was not for God to destroy the earth again as He did between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. As already said if that was the case then we would not be here now would we? This is why a common sense study of scripture is very important. You will find that scripture has a great way of interpreting itself once isolated verses are not used to support a position that other verses of scripture do not allow for.J C wrote:Your statement that "there was no man" is contradicted by your statement that there "were birds, mountains, cities and fruitful places before the devastation"!!!!
Not if you view it as a past tense vision.J C wrote:....yes God Created the Earth with the intention that it be inhabited and that it be fruitful!!!
....how is that in contradiction with the fact that for the first two days there was no life on Earth???
If there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 then no life on the first two days does nothing to contradict that. From Genesis 1:2 onwards we have a re-creative period. You can even prove this from Genesis itself. The darkness that was covering the earth was not because there was no sun, moon or stars, it was because there was possibly black ash or smoke covering the whole earth from either a huge cosmic collision with an asteroid or comet which caused the darkness or some other calamity like a super volcano exploding on earth, killing everything. Genesis does not say that God created the sun, moon and stars after Genesis 1:2, they were already created in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." All Genesis says in realtion to the sun, moon and stars is that God appointed them for specific purposes in relation to the earth after the desolation described in Genesis 1:2. They were already there, otherwise you could not have plants growing in verse 11 before the He appointed the Sun and Moon to rule day and night in verse 14.J C wrote:...you may disagree with me ... but you cannot deny that all such books are based upon imagination and wishful thinking...because the Bible say NOTHING between verses 1:1 and 1:2!!!!
Wishful thinking for what though? It either says what it says or it doesn’t. And as already said, just because there is no description of what went on during Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 does not mean that that is proof that there is no gap between them. How can that be proof of no gap? Is there proof of a gap in Isaiah 61:1-2 between where Jesus says "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears" and to when He is to proclaim the day of vengeance of the LORD? No, but there is a mighty big gap of time there all the same, isn’t there?J C wrote:....there are no 'gaps' to be bridged between science and scripture!!!!
....there will always be 'yawning chasms' between the imaginings of Atheists and assorted Materialists and Scripture ... but NONE of these imaginings are supported by scientific evidence!!!
I agree that is true in some case but unrelated to what we are discussing.J C wrote:....and touché for all Evolutionists and their erroneous interpretations of Scripture and Science!!!
Well I hope you are no including me there. I am no proponent of the theory of evolution per se, I don’t know enough about it to be one. I do believe that evolutionary adaptation to environmental changes takes place in nature though but I don’t subscribe to the idea that life is driven by spontaneous mutations and natural selection or that life just sprang into existence from non living matter without God. But I wouldn’t have a problem with the theory even if it were true. It wouldn’t affect my faith at all. God said "Let us create Adam in our own image", "and God breathed into Adam and Adam became a living soul" So you can have all the man like creatures running around all you like, you will never find a fossilized soul.J C wrote:Could I also point out that many Roman Catholic clergy are Young Earth Creationists and many lay Catholics are Creation Scientists and ID Proponents.
Fair play to them.J C wrote:....thanks
You’re welcome
I can't beleive that at this stage in this mega thread that this post is actually on topic. The Bible, Creationism and Prophecy :rolleyes:0 -
Soul Winner said:
Thanks for your input here, brother. Yes, I respect any commentator who treats the Bible as the word of God, even when I differ with their conclusions. Custance has a lot worthy of consideration.I'm reading a book (nearly finished) at the moment called "Without form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2" by Arthur C Custance you can actually read read it here on-line, it is a very very good read. He maintains, and backs up his conclusions with other scholars and scripture itself, that Genesis 1:2 is better translated: "And the Earth became a waste and desolation". I'm convinced, (have been for ages) that this is the proper rendering of the second verse of Genesis. If this is the case then there can be a vast gulf of time between when God created the heavens and the earth and when the earth became a waste and a desolation. The Bible gives no indication as to how much time elapsed between these verses. Wolfsbane I'd say you would really like this book.
For brief rebuttals of the language issue see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/gap_theory.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/gap-ruin-reconstruction-theories
I don't see the problem: if He had left the earth uninhabited, you would have a point (although you wouldn't be here to make it.Although I had already subscribed to this view this book has convinced me even more and is supported by Jeremiah 4:23-26 where the prophet sees the earth after it became a waste and describes things that are a missing from a previous state. And in Isaiah 45:18 where the prophet explicitly states that God did not create the earth a waste, rather it was to be inhabited.). But He moved from the waste, through the other stages over six days.
There already was light - what it was, is not explained - so it may be assumed the plants made on Day 3 were able to survive to Day 4 on that light. But I would have thought even a day without any light would not endanger a plant.Even if you factor in the account of when God made the Sun and the Moon in a later verse in Genesis 1. The word that is used for made is (Asah) which literally means appointed or given governance over but never created. He appointed the Sun and the Moon to be rulers of day and night. He did nor create (Bara) them on the forth day. One proof text is Genesis 1:11 which comes before the account of when God made the Sun: "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." If at this point in the creation there was no Sun already in existence then how can green things like plants and trees grow?
See this for the occurances of bara' (create):Even the Theory of Evolution is not contradicted. When describing the making of animals in Genesis 1:25 the word made here is again (Asah), to appoint, it is not to create (ex nihilo) from nothing or from anything else. The remnant of what animals survived from whatever caused the earth to become a waste in the first place were already there before God created Adam. My point is that we should be clear as to what the Scriptures are actually saying before we conclude that what they are saying contradicts modern scientific evidence.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV
While it is not used of the animals in 1:25, it is used of all the sea-creatures, birds and man. Were only animals left from a prior creation? No, the answer is that both `asah and bara' refer to the same thing here.
See this for the occurances of `asah:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6213&t=KJV
Note the use in vv26 & 27:
Gen 1:26 And God 430 said 559 , Let us make 6213 man 120 in our image 6754,
Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754
Whilst the Gapists might reconcile evolution/old earth with many points of the Biblical description, it fails totally if even one contradiction exists. Any theory is only as strong as its weakest link. Let me suggest Gapists have to deny that Noah and his family were the sole human survivors of the Flood; that man and beast were made from the dust of the ground; that Eve was made from Adam; that suffering and death came because of Adam's sin.
What do the Scriptures say about those points?0 -
Thanks for your input here, brother.
And thanks for yours brother.Yes, I respect any commentator who treats the Bible as the word of God, even when I differ with their conclusions. Custance has a lot worthy of consideration.
For brief rebuttals of the language issue see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/gap_theory.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/gap-ruin-reconstruction-theories
They are wrong on a few points. But here is just one of them:answersingenesis wrote:Firstly, a study of the history of the exegesis of Genesis 1:1-2 shows that the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation first appeared about the end of the 18th century, evidently in response to demands by geological science for long periods of time for strata formation.
This is what Custance has to say about that:Arthur C Custance wrote:It is a rare thing nowadays to find in a scholarly work on Genesis any acknowledgment of the fact that there is evidence of a discontinuity between the first two verses of Chapter One and that this was ever recognized by commentators until modern Geology arose to challenge the Mosaic cosmogony. The usual view is that when geologists "proved" the earth to be billions of year sold, conservative biblical students suddenly dis- covered a way of salvaging the Mosaic account by introducing a gap of unknown duration between these two verses. This is supposed to have solved the problem of time by an expeditious interpretation previously unrecognized. This convenient little device was attrib- uted by many to Chalmers of the middle of the last century, and popularized among "fundamentalists" by Scofield in the first quarter of the present century. Both the impetus which brought it to general notice and the company it kept in its heyday combined to make it doubly suspected among conservative scholars and totally ignored by liberal ones. However, D. F. Payne of the University of Sheffield, England, in a paper published recently by Tyndale Press entitled. Genesis One Reconsidered, makes this brief aside at the appropriate place: "The 'gap' theory itself, as a matter of exegesis, antedated the scientific challenge, but the latter gave it a new impetus".
Granted then that the view did antedate the modern geological challenge, by how long did it do so? Just how far back can one trace this now rather unpopular view and how explicit are the earlier references? And on what grounds was it held prior to the general acceptance of the views of Laplace, Hutton, and Lyell? If its antecedence can be established with any certainty, one then has to find some other reason than the threat of Geology for its having arisen. The view was undoubtedly held by early commentators without any evidence that it was being presented as an "answer" to some suspected challenge to the veracity of Scripture. It must therefore have arisen either because a careful study of the original text of Scripture itself had given intimations of it, or perhaps due to some ancient tradition about the after-effects of the catastrophe itself, such after-effects as might well have been observed by early man before the new order had effectively buried the evidences of the old. For man must have been created soon enough after the event to observe at least some of the evidence which time has since eroded away.
There is evidence of a tremendous and comparatively recent geological catastrophe still to be observed even today in certain parts of the world. There are numerous instances of mammoths and other animals which were by some agency killed en masse and instantly buried together, the preyed upon with the predator, while apparently still in the prime of life. Such animal cemeteries have frequently been reported in northern latitudes: in Siberia, for example. And similar indications may well have existed in former years in much lower latitudes where early man could have come across them and pondered their meaning. Such evidences of destruction, even if it occurred before the creation of Man, must surely have set men's minds to wondering what had been the cause. There is no reason to suppose that early man was any less observant than his modern descendants, or any less curious about the cause of such mass destruction of living forms. At any rate, here in broad outline is the situation in so far as ancient and modern literature reflects some knowledge of such an event. This outline will be explored in detail subsequently - but a summary review may help to establish the general picture. And it will show that it is indeed a long-held view.
We are in no position at present to determine precisely how the Jewish commentators made the discovery, but their early literature (the Midrash for example) reveals that they had some intimation of an early pre-Adamic catastrophe affecting the whole earth. Sim- ilarly, clear evidence appears in the oldest extant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Targum of 0nkelos)and some intimation may be seen in the "punctuation marks" of the Massoretic text of Genesis Chapter One. Early Jewish writers subsequently built up some abstruse arguments about God's dealings with Israel on the basis of this belief and it would seem that Paul in his Epistle to the Corinth- ians is at one point making indirect reference to this traditional background.
More hereWolfsbane wrote:There already was light - what it was, is not explained - so it may be assumed the plants made on Day 3 were able to survive to Day 4 on that light. But I would have thought even a day without any light would not endanger a plant.
Why does that light have to be a mystery? Why can't it simply be the Sun that was already there?Wolfsbane wrote:See this for the occurances of bara' (create):
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV
While it is not used of the animals in 1:25, it is used of all the sea-creatures, birds and man. Were only animals left from a prior creation? No, the answer is that both `asah and bara' refer to the same thing here.
See this for the occurances of `asah:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6213&t=KJV
Well pointed out and yes that does cause a problem for the gap theory in relation to the theory of evolution but it still does not solve the problem of the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2Wolfsbane wrote:Note the use in vv26 & 27:
Gen 1:26 And God 430 said 559 , Let us make 6213 man 120 in our image 6754,
Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754
The word translated man in those verses should be Adam. God created/made/appointed Adam not man per se. But even still, this took place after Genesis 1:2 and is not really relevant to the gap.Wolfsbane wrote:Whilst the Gapists might reconcile evolution/old earth with many points of the Biblical description, it fails totally if even one contradiction exists. Any theory is only as strong as its weakest link.
Like I said earlier, I'm not really bothered about the evolution end of things. You've pointed out that there is conflict there but it still does not resolve the issue of the gap between the two verses, evolution might be true or false but that gap is still there.Wolfsbane wrote:Let me suggest Gapists have to deny that Noah and his family were the sole human survivors of the Flood; that man and beast were made from the dust of the ground; that Eve was made from Adam; that suffering and death came because of Adam's sin.
I've no truck with them at all and I fail to see why a proponent of the gap theory would need to depart in belief from these events.Wolfsbane wrote:What do the Scriptures say about those points?
Well Jesus spoke of Noah and quoted Genesis so who am I to question His authority? I cannot prove them to be true but if He believed in them then I go with Him on it. All I need to believe is that He rose from the dead. Once I cross that hurdle then I'm already out in left field as far as the scientific community is concerned (those who are atheists anyway). I'm not out to try and be accepted by them just because I think that there is no contradiction between the biblical account of creation and scientific evidence. All I'm interested in is what the scripture actually saying, and as far as I've read and heard thus far there is more weight in the argument for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 than there is against that idea. To have that gap makes more sense of the rest of Genesis IMO even if we found out tomorrow that the geologic data was wrong.0 -
-
Wicknight said:
OK, let me try to put myself in the shoes of a rational materialistic evolutionist: I may not be sure that culling the genetically weak, feeble-minded, etc. will accidently destroy some vitally important gene we might need a million years from now, but I can see the shorter term benefits clearly. A nation of healthy citizens, incrementally improving in mental and physical capacities, while the compassionate/religiously constrained nations around continue to be burdened with the upkeep of the less-productive, and indeed genetically weakened with the interbreeding of the less competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Reason tells him to promote the survival of only those humans that will give us the best advantage.
Why?
Even if we ignore Atomics very valid point that it is impossible to know what traits will give us the best advantage in the first place, what purpose do you think it serves to only "promote" the survival of those humans with these traits?
What do you think that does?
I ask because we are going around in circle trying to explain to you that this does nothing for you, or your descendants. Perhaps if you explain what you think it does we might have a better way to explain all this to you.
All natural threats - but this is where human intervention can dramatically maximize my genes survival.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That does not protect against indiscriminate threats like the tsunami - but it adds to our side of the balance.
But all threats are as indiscriminate as the tsunami. The environment doesn't consciously pick out who lives and who dies.
Because the rational materialistic evolutionist is not seeking to further evolution, just his own group's interests. Evolution is a religion to some evolutionists, but not to rational ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again: it's not about placating the enviroment; it's about maximizing our group.
Why is it about that. Or why do you think it is about that?
If our competitors are willing to select us for destruction, or force us into the deserts where we will gradually diminish, then they will be the ones whose genes spread over the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The survival and prosperity of our competitors may well determine how we evolve.
No not really. What process do you think would result in that?0 -
-
....you are correct that Evolutionist Geology says that the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible says that it is thousands of years old!!!!Soul Winner
Well the geological data (right or wrong) says that the earth is billions of years old right? Now a literal English interpretation of Genesis will say that the earth is only 6000 plus years old. Are these not contradictory? My argument is that there need be no conflict at all. If one reads the original one sees clearly that what the English translates is not necessarily correct. Yes the earth was without form and void but that is a very limited phrase. What caused it to become without form and void or more literally a waste and a desolation? Isaiah says that God did not create it a waste place. At least I have other verses of scripture to back up what I’m saying. What are you proof texts for God creating the earth a waste place?
....you are also right that these statements are mutually exclusive and contradictory...so which do YOU say is the truth....the Word of God ....or the fallible hypotheses of Men???
....and 'mucking about' with the Words of the Bible trying to 'make' them say something that they CLEARLY don't say is a waste of time!!!!
...I'm sorry, but you are stuck with a SIX DAY Creation and a YOUNG EARTH ...if the Bible is to be believed... and if it is not to be believed, then the local Skeptics Club will welcome everybody in with 'open arms'!!!!:eek:
As a conventionally qualified polymath Scientist, I see the proponderance of the SCIENTIFIC evidence favouring a Young Earth and a Rapid Direct Creation...and nothing supporting the Evolutionist Account ... I accept the Word of God as true.
If I didn't see these things ... and I didn't believe the words in the Bible to mean what they say, I would probably just go and become an Atheist!!!!
....I certainly wouldn't be hanging about demorailsing myself, by arguing that the word 'black' in the Bible actually means 'white'....and the word 'Create' is a metaphor for the word 'Evolution'!!!
....it would be rather pointless ... and 'economical with the truth' if God mentioned that the Earth became a waste without giving a reason why it did so ... why mention it at all, if God wasn't going to tell us why/how it became a waste.....doubly so when a plain reading of the text would otherwise indicate that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 were describing events on the SAME DAY!!!!Soul Winner
Why should God give a reason as to why the earth became a waste and desolation though? And why is that lack of an explanation in Genesis 1:2 proof that there wasn’t a pre Genesis 1:2 fruitful place? Another proof text is when God commands Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. Why say replenish if it hadn’t been plenished prior to them coming on the scene? Why not just say plenish the earth or fill the earth instead re-fill it or replenish it?
...God DIDN'T "Create the heavens and the earth a waste and a desolation" ....they were created for life..and populated within SIX DAYS of the Creation!!!!Soul Winner
If that was the case the why didn’t the original author just say that? Why use the word Hayah at all? Why not just write. "In the beginning God create the heavens and the earth a waste and a desolation"? Why does the author even bother to put in the word Hayah translated was here and became nearly everywhere else in scripture when used in its verb form as it is in Genesis 1:2?
The EARTH was without form and void (and covered in water)IMMEDIATELY after it was Created...nothing more and nothing less!!!:)
....the Isrelites partially repented....and God MITIGATED their punishment to bondage in Babylon!!!Soul Winner
But you’ve just proved yourself wrong by quoting from verse 22 to 29. If what your saying was right, then the earth would now be barren and without form and void because Israel didn’t repent and turn back to God. Jeremiah’s appointment was to tell them what was going to happen to them if they didn’t turn back to Him. They were to be put into bondage to the Babylonians for 70 years, THAT was their punishment, not killing everything on the earth.
....and, as a result, we all survived to go on and write on the Boards.ie!!!!:eek:
....touché!!!:pac::):DSoul Winner
You see you must be careful with scripture it can turn around and bite you in the ass if you're not careful with it.
....where are you getting this stuff from????Soul Winner
If there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 then no life on the first two days does nothing to contradict that. From Genesis 1:2 onwards we have a re-creative period. You can even prove this from Genesis itself. The darkness that was covering the earth was not because there was no sun, moon or stars, it was because there was possibly black ash or smoke covering the whole earth from either a huge cosmic collision with an asteroid or comet which caused the darkness or some other calamity like a super volcano exploding on earth, killing everything. Genesis does not say that God created the sun, moon and stars after Genesis 1:2, they were already created in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." All Genesis says in realtion to the sun, moon and stars is that God appointed them for specific purposes in relation to the earth after the desolation described in Genesis 1:2. They were already there, otherwise you could not have plants growing in verse 11 before the He appointed the Sun and Moon to rule day and night in verse 14.
Ge 1:14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
15 "and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16 Then 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.
....quite clearly the Bible states that the Sun, Moon and Stars were MADE on the Fourth Day....ie AFTER Day One when the Earth was without form and void...so there was NO Sun to be darkened by any putative ash.. or anything else on Day One!!!!
...and BTW God Created the 'Heavens' on Day One...ie what we call Outer Space...without the stars or the Sun ... which were Created on Day Four!!!:D
...there is NO Gap, it reads like there was NO Gap and it logically 'hangs together' WITHOUT a Gap...so I guess you can safely say...there PROBABLY wasn't any Gap!!!:eek:Soul Winner
Wishful thinking for what though? It either says what it says or it doesn’t. And as already said, just because there is no description of what went on during Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 does not mean that that is proof that there is no gap between them. How can that be proof of no gap?
...all this talk about imaginary 'gaps' reminds me of the old marketing truism ...'even if there is a gap in the market - there may not be a market in the gap'!!!!
...in the case of Genesis there is NEITHER a Gap in the market NOR a market in the gap!!!:D
...there is no Gap there EITHER!!!Soul Winner
Is there proof of a gap in Isaiah 61:1-2 between where Jesus says "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears" and to when He is to proclaim the day of vengeance of the LORD? No, but there is a mighty big gap of time there all the same, isn’t there?
...Jesus FIRST Coming was to proclaim the Good News of Salvation AND to proclaim God's vengeance upon anybody who doesn't become Saved ... and somebody who has refused Salvation will receive God's Wrath when they die????
...so, if you share my conviction that Spontaneous Evolution is a 'load of baloney'...why do you try to 'fit' Genesis into an 'Evolutionist Framework'...that is NEITHER Scientifically NOR Theolgically sound???Soul Winner
Well I hope you are no including me there. I am no proponent of the theory of evolution per se, I don’t know enough about it to be one. I do believe that evolutionary adaptation to environmental changes takes place in nature though but I don’t subscribe to the idea that life is driven by spontaneous mutations and natural selection or that life just sprang into existence from non living matter without God. But I wouldn’t have a problem with the theory even if it were true. It wouldn’t affect my faith at all. God said "Let us create Adam in our own image", "and God breathed into Adam and Adam became a living soul" So you can have all the man like creatures running around all you like, you will never find a fossilized soul.
...that is not how the Vatican views them....the Vatican have disowned the ID Proponents...and they actively oppose the Creation Scientists within their midst!!!!Originally Posted by J C
Could I also point out that many Roman Catholic clergy are Young Earth Creationists and many lay Catholics are Creation Scientists and ID Proponents.
Soul Winner
Fair play to them.
....it's a BIG topic!!!:eek::DSoul Winner
I can't beleive that at this stage in this mega thread that this post is actually on topic. The Bible, Creationism and Prophecy :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement