Author Topic: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED  (Read 48665 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13170
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #50 on: September 08, 2010, 09:22:05 PM »
Quote
But what if the word serpent wasn't in the Bible. Say both the serpent and the hamster are called "animal" in Hebrew. Is a translator allowed to translate it as dragon/hamster?
My question for you would be: Is the original Hebrew that way?
Nope. It's chimp in Hebrew. Didn't you know that?  :winkgrin:

It was just an example Lefein. Not a claim.
Serpent:

ָנָחשׁ
nāḥāš: A masculine noun meaning snake. It is used to refer to an actual serpent (Exo 4:3; Num 21:6; Deu 8:15; Ecc 10:8; Amo 5:19); or an image of one (Num 21:9), but it is also used figuratively. Some of these symbolic uses include the tempter (Gen 3:1-2, Gen 3:4, Gen 3:13-14); the tribe of Dan (Gen 49:17); wicked rulers (Psa 58:4 [5]); and enemies (Isa 14:29; Jer 8:17; Jer 46:22).

נחשׁ
nâchâsh
BDB Definition:
1) serpent, snake
1a) serpent
1b) image (of serpent)
1c) fleeing serpent (mythological)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from H5172
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1347a

H5172
נחשׁ
nâchash
BDB Definition:
1) to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
1a) (Piel)
1a1) to practice divination
1a2) to observe the signs or omens
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1348

ָנַחשׁ
naḥaš: A verb meaning to practice divination, to observe omens. This verb described the pagan practice of seeking knowledge through divination, which was expressly forbidden in the Law of Moses (Lev 19:26; Deu 18:10); and was used as an indication that the kings of Israel and Judah were wicked (2Ki 17:17; 2Ki 21:6; 2Ch 33:6). In its other usages, Laban used divination to confirm that Jacob was a blessing to him (Gen 30:27); Joseph claimed that a cup helped him practice divination (Gen 44:5, Gen 44:15); and the Arameans took Ahab's words as an omen (1Ki 20:33).


Quote
Quote
Same for yom. Is a translator allowed to translate it as day instead of "age" "period" or something similar?
As long as the translation is correct.  Time = time, so long as it is time.
I don't agree with that. HS inspired things a certain way. Do we know better than HS? Jesus was in the grave for 3 months and 3 minutes. That's a correct translation because it's also time?
For me it's simple. If HS inspired 'period' then the translation must be 'period'. Of course I have no problem with lenghty commentaries explaining why that 'period' in that context has to mean a 24 hour day.
 :2c:
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 11:14:19 PM by WhiteWings »
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 6148
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #51 on: September 08, 2010, 10:57:13 PM »
YOM =day  H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours),
 whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially):
- age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
Gen 4:3  And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
TIME  in this verse is the same as "yom" DAY in Gen. 1:5
H3117 yôm as DAY  in Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Very curious. It tells me all the more that Genesis 2-? is more allegory that history.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 02:42:55 AM by micah7:9 »
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline Lefein

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1170
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #52 on: September 08, 2010, 11:41:43 PM »
Quote
It was just an example Lefein. Not a claim.

And I understood it as such.  My point was that what it says is the issue, not what it is translated to.  We still have enough of the original text to fall back on when we are uncertain, whether or not Satan embodied himself as a serpent/wyrm/dragon (all of which are serpentine creatures, myth or not), or a hamster.

Quote
I don't agree with that. HS inspired things a certain way. Do we know better than HS? Jesus was in the grave for 3 months and 3 minutes. That's a correct translation because it's also time?
For me it's simple. If HS inspired 'period' then the translation must be 'period'. Of course I have no problem with lenghty commentaries explaining why that 'period' in that context has to mean a 24 hour day.

There is more to translating a word like "Time", than just translating the word itself.  Context, and surrounding words determine much of it - Hence, time = time, so long as the translator is correct, it is correct.

CLV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred, it rouses up quarrels, Yet love covers over all transgressions.
KJV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2010, 12:03:20 AM »
willieH: Hi Shawn...   :Sparkletooth:

Though you are under no obligation to answer my points, ignoring them only substanciates them concerning you.

It is easy to see that you are attempting to use the "thinktank" method of encapsulating my entire post, avoiding the DETAILED content of it, ...and with the question which is asked at the end, you cannot see that question #2 of the 3 questions you ask, has already been ANSWERED in the post you respond to!  :mshock:

Here are your questions (separated):

[#1]Have creationists ever considered their interpretation of scripture is inaccurate?  [#2] Do you really believe man walked with the dinosaurs?  [#3] Don't you think a few of those dinosaurs would have had a few human bones where their stomachs should be?  

Here is the answer to #2:

SECOND --- There has to be an explanation that aligns the evidence which "seems" representative of a massive amount of TIME, with the Biblical account of time being, 6000 years... For the WORD of God is the TRUTH (above ANY scientific THEORY or CONJECTURE)... and the TRUTH notes that (approx) 6000yrs has taken place in time, since Adam's creation on the 6th "day"...

You purposely IGNORED the point made here... The WORD of God is TRUTH, certainly ...ABOVE... any conjectures of FINITE men, who in their arrogance call themselves "scientists"...

The WORD notes an approximate time frame of 6K years... Science IGNORES this figure because it does not align with their conjectures that the Earth must be OLDER than the WORD says that it is... Using their LACK of knowledge of the DINOSAURS as a foundational element that they claim, "establishes" their CONJECTURE (because in the end, they/you have no "proof", only speculations)  :laughing7:

THIRD --- Science bases its conjectures (theories, hypotheses), upon proximity to ITSELF, which in the end, IS the problem concerning their determinations of the Earth and its "AGE".  

IOW, because there appears discrepancies such as strata layers in the earth, dinosaurs, etc... that they use to determine that the stated time frames noted in the HOLY WORD of GOD, are not possibly correct... and therein lies the fault in their FINITE determination of the INFINITE source of the Earth and Universe which they observe.  There IS an explanation which brings these (science's view of Millions of years VS 6000 years), but they will not consider it.

You only have proved this statement by the LACK of response to it, below.  :winkgrin: (that there IS an explanation, but SCIENCE and its proponents shall NOT LISTEN to it -- they IGNORE it instead, hiding from the TRUTH which says that DEATH ENTERED this WORLD via the SIN of ADAM)

Also, the WORD notes that DEATH entered (into the CREATION) by Adam's indescretion -- Rom 5:12 -- so prior to Adam's sin... death had no portion within the Creation, having NOT ENTERED.

This includes the "evidences" such as Dinosaurs which had LIVED, and DIED... and which "evidences" are YET present IN the CREATION, as we speak.  :JCThink:
 

FIRST --- Instead of responding to this you have chosen to IGNORE it.  Many practice this method concerning the TRUTH.  :sigh:  

The "bones" of DINOSAURS (evidence of their life and subsequent DEATH) are found existent within a WORLD (this one) in which GOD says IN HIS WORD (which YOU IGNORE), that DEATH entered THIS WORLD via and upon, the SIN of ADAM -- Rom 5:12

SECOND --- Don't know what kind of "scientist" you are (or aren't), but it doesn't take a "ROCKET SCIENTIST"  :laughing7: ...to note that if DEATH entered THIS WORLD, via ADAM's SIN... and indeed there is EVIDENCE of DEATH (human, dinosaur, etc)... found in THIS WORLD, that the DINOSAURS had to have had their existence IN THIS WORLD, in some moment AFTER the SIN of ADAM.

MORE you IGNORE:

The "Creation" is the "beginning" of the REVELATION of the WORD which was (is, will be) within Him... All that proceeds from Him, has ALWAYS been part of Him, as He does NOT CHANGE!  :dontknow:

The word "created" noted in Gen 1:1 can and DOES mean DISPATCHED...

The "Earth" was (is, will be) ETERNALLY present in the Heart of YHVH... but its PHYSICAL presence was yet to be manifest by the Revelation of the WORD within YHVH, which is the maker of ALL things -- John 1:3 -- Col 1:16 -- and therefore, nothing PHYSICAL (including "dinosaurs" which were once living PHYSICAL entities), had yet to "BE".

The book of the REVEALING of the WORD of YHVH (Revelation of JESUS CHRIST), upon IT's "REVEALING" ...notes in concluding that "revelation" that DEATH passes away...  and shall no longer be an existent thing...

The WORD does NOT CHANGE -- Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- neither does YHVH -- Mal 3:6... so WHY would DEATH --- of the "DINOSAURS" and other things in a "prior creation" which had to have been produced by the WORD as well (for the WORD is the maker of ALL THINGS that are "made"), ...have existed prior to THIS EARTH, and evidence of their DEATH, survived to be EXISTENT in "this creation" as well?  

Is God revisiting DEATH which preceeded in a prior creation?  If so, WHY?  What REASON exists that He did not "do away" with it in THAT "creation"?  Why let another (this) Creation effort fall to DEATH as well?  :dontknow:

If the WORD of GOD is LIFE (which it IS) -- John 14:6 -- which also PUTS AWAY DEATH in IT's "revelation" and conclusion -- Rev 21:4 -- Why was it [death] allowed to survive a previous "creation" and extend into this one?

REASON dictates that LIFE conquered DEATH in and ON, this Earth... If the WORD declares that DEATH shall PASS AWAY permanently... why was it "re-allowed" to CONTINUE to exist from a "prior" creation?  

That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.  God is REVEALING His WORD in and on THIS Earth... and CHRIST died ONCE (not twice) for ALL. -- Heb 9:26 -- 10:10

The TRUTH is that the WORD of God makes no such statement (of the existence of a "prior creation")... it is nothing but an "imagination", just as is ...the "Big Bang".

 :sigh:  And finally you IGNORE this:

No matter who argues the point (from either spiritual or scientific viewpoints)... the FACT remains that GOD's WORD (which notes a 6000 year  time frame... is the TRUTH... and somehow, the "ANCIENT evidence" fits within that time frame.

NOW to address your other "2 questions"...

QUESTION #1:

[#1]Have creationists ever considered their interpretation of scripture is inaccurate?

FIRST --- The very same question can be asked of "science"...  :dontknow:  No matter who is projecting a viewpoint, ...because we are incomplete as far as KNOWLEDGE is concerned...  We must ALL in HUMILITY confess that our viewpoint is possibly INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE or otherwise.

SECOND --- Can't speak for you, Shawn (wouldn't think of it), ...but as for ME, ...being a DEVOTED believer in the WORD of God as "the TRUTH"... and IT's notation of a 6K year time frame, requires within that belief, that the TRUTH is that the Earth and Creation are 6K years old.  

REASON is also incorporated in the WORD... and the TRUTH my friend, ...is that SCIENCE will not align itself with the WORD, due to its arrogant, fickle and incomplete position which... within their claim to be SCIENTISTS, ....indeed are amidst exalting their pathetic FINITE and relatively miniscule KNOWLEDGE (accumulated over a few thousand years)... ABOVE the INFINITE and ETERNAL WORD of God, which notes the WORLD to be 6K years old.

THIRD --- One cannot "sit on the fence"... thinking that Science's deduction which OPPOSES the WORD, is somehow "aligned" with it.  No more than an "agnostic" can truly call him/herself a BELIEVER in God.

Either the WORD is correct and "the TRUTH".... OR... Science is correct... for the world cannot BE... 6K years old, and at the same time be BILLIONS of years old.

Funny enough (and I will be very curious as to whether or not you respond to this, but):

YOU have made a statement in another post in this thread, which actually helps to conclude WHY and HOW the Earth is INDEED 6K years old, even though it appears to be older.  Do you even know what YOU said, that in part, explains the "conundrum"? :dunno:

QUESTION #3:

[#3] Don't you think a few of those dinosaurs would have had a few human bones where their stomachs should be?

Hmmm... Why would you ASSUME that DINOSAURS ate bones? Most modern predators, eat the flesh around the bones, leaving the bones...  

Even though you know absolutely NOTHING of the eating habits of DINOSAURS (nor do I), you think to deduce that they consumed their prey WHOLE or in part, and that ELIMATION of things such as BONES was not part of their digestive process.   As well, that you know NOTHING of the DIGESTIVE systems of the DINOSAURS means that due to that lack of KNOWLEDGE, their systems might have been capable of DISSOLVING "bones" of which YOU KNOW NOTHING, eh?

I would like to REVISIT and answer straight-up --- your Question #2...

Quote
[#2] Do you really believe man walked with the dinosaurs?

YES... Men even today, live amidst predatory animals which are capable of killing and eating them.  There are primitive tribes in remote areas which LIVE IN PROXIMITY to and amidst MANY species of animals capable of killing AND eating them.  :dontknow:

If you are a believer in God, then you know that God has given MEN intelligence ABOVE all animals... and even though some men will perish in confrontation... MORE animals will perish when the 2 find confrontation.

...willieH  :cloud9:

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2010, 12:46:54 AM »
Honestly, Willie your posts are exhausting and lengthy.  I have no desire to debate with you for various reasons but one is your aggessive debating style.  The second is because you include too much information in your posts.  Be concise, and civil and you will get a proper response.

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 6148
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2010, 12:56:43 AM »
Willie I find your posts tremendous in a good way. There is so much there to study and learn from that I print them out and study your text I have yet to find you to  error from the Book.
Peace and Love Through Jesus  :happy3:
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline Lefein

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1170
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2010, 01:09:20 AM »
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format.  The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...Like make up, those things should "enhance" the beauty of the sentence, rather than replace it.

Will, from a brother to another; essay form please?  And if you have alot of text, resizing it to be smaller would be helpful too.  Just for my convenience atleast, but certainly I only ask out of suggestion, not out of command.

I too have lengthy "odd" posts that I should probably figure out how to deal with...

Peace to you.
CLV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred, it rouses up quarrels, Yet love covers over all transgressions.
KJV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2010, 01:25:33 AM »
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format.  The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...Like make up, those things should "enhance" the beauty of the sentence, rather than replace it.

Will, from a brother to another; essay form please?  And if you have alot of text, resizing it to be smaller would be helpful too.  Just for my convenience atleast, but certainly I only ask out of suggestion, not out of command.

I too have lengthy "odd" posts that I should probably figure out how to deal with...

Peace to you.

I have never read a complete post of Willie's because they are too wordy.  The advice I would give is to shorten, and make the concise and to the point.  Essay style is certainly nice.  For every Micah there is a guy like me who will feel overwhelmed by the style.  I'm sure Willie has good things to say and should be heard (his thoughts should be read).  I think Willie this would get you a better response from a wider crowd.  The colors and fonts and all that jazz are distracting and make the posts seem disjointed.

Also, I find certain styles of debate abrasive.  I'm sure there are those here who don't care for my style as well.  I can be salty and cranky but I do try to respond in a loving manner.  I don't always succeed.  I know you are passionate about your stances but respecting other positions will open people up to agreeing with you on some points.  What can be frustrating is when you get theologic chest thumping, stubborn dogmatic positions and guys who are unwilling to concede on points.  This isn't about being right.  This is about learning.  That is my take at least.  Take it for what it's worth.

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 6148
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2010, 02:05:08 AM »
I believe what you post is all well and good. What I will say, and I am adamant, you can have all your "theologic chest thumping, stubborn dogmatic positions and guys who are unwilling to concede on points.  This isn't about being right."
Its about the truth and not opinons on what one considers to be what the Bible says. D.L. Moody said, "Its what the Bible teaches; not what the Bible says."
Moody was a damnation speaker, but he got that part right, the Bible says alot of things and all that the Bible says can be construed to be what ever one wants it to be.
Be be assured, the Bible teaches and the Teacher is the Holy Spirit and that is the bread and the wine, that is where one will grow in Grace and in Spirit into the full stature of a son.
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline thinktank

  • Silver
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2010, 02:38:55 AM »
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format.  The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...Like make up, those things should "enhance" the beauty of the sentence, rather than replace it.

Will, from a brother to another; essay form please?  And if you have alot of text, resizing it to be smaller would be helpful too.  Just for my convenience atleast, but certainly I only ask out of suggestion, not out of command.

I too have lengthy "odd" posts that I should probably figure out how to deal with...

Peace to you.


I'm glad im not the only one. I mean seriously what's up with the caps willie bro, i'm dying to take the mick out of you'r style but have not for polite reasons. Since your a fan of prestyn I often think that his spirit has infected yours, for he also has similar style.


Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2010, 02:53:26 AM »
I believe what you post is all well and good. What I will say, and I am adamant, you can have all your "theologic chest thumping, stubborn dogmatic positions and guys who are unwilling to concede on points.  This isn't about being right."
Its about the truth and not opinons on what one considers to be what the Bible says. D.L. Moody said, "Its what the Bible teaches; not what the Bible says."
Moody was a damnation speaker, but he got that part right, the Bible says alot of things and all that the Bible says can be construed to be what ever one wants it to be.
Be be assured, the Bible teaches and the Teacher is the Holy Spirit and that is the bread and the wine, that is where one will grow in Grace and in Spirit into the full stature of a son.

I don't think any of us would disagree with that.  With that said, if the Holy Spirit has revealed something different to me than someone else then maybe there is a reason for that.  What the Bible says seems to be different to many people who claim to have been lead by the Holy Spirit.  Some of these same people butt heads and accuse each other of all sorts of wrongs.

Maybe I'm taking your posts the wrong way Micah but you seem to have some unforgiveness in your heart towards me.  If I have somehow offended you I apologize.   

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 6148
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2010, 03:39:19 AM »
No  absolutly none at all.
"What the Bible says seems to be different to many people who claim to have been lead by the Holy Spirit.  Some of these same people butt heads and accuse each other of all sorts of wrongs." Shawn

I really believe that those battles come from just that "what the Bible says." What the Bible says is so chuck full of man's understanding and the doctrines he has created to suit his needs, it keeps man on the outside of what The Lord is doing. I dont know when, but somewhere along the way[and I believe that it is in God's plan and purpose] He has put this maze of spiritual understanding in "the race for the high calling," and we all see through this glass darkly  1Co 13:12  for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
And we all know in part, and it is love, faith, and hope that is the needle, thread, and  cloth that will bring us together as one.
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2010, 03:48:14 AM »
No  absolutly none at all.
"What the Bible says seems to be different to many people who claim to have been lead by the Holy Spirit.  Some of these same people butt heads and accuse each other of all sorts of wrongs." Shawn

I really believe that those battles come from just that "what the Bible says." What the Bible says is so chuck full of man's understanding and the doctrines he has created to suit his needs, it keeps man on the outside of what The Lord is doing. I dont know when, but somewhere along the way[and I believe that it is in God's plan and purpose] He has put this maze of spiritual understanding in "the race for the high calling," and we all see through this glass darkly  1Co 13:12  for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
And we all know in part, and it is love, faith, and hope that is the needle, thread, and  cloth that will bring us together as one.


Well said.  I like that.  I totally agree.  That maze of spiritual understanding is very evident.  It should call us to an understanding and a love for one another.  We are all on this path...none of us completely understand and that along with love, faith and hope should bond us.  It shouldn't seperate us.

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 6148
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2010, 06:07:30 AM »
I believe what the Bible teaches, that God is preparing the heavens and the earth, it is an action being done, and it is not done still, but He will finish is work, in His time.
One has to believe what the Word of God teaches is founded on faith,
Heb 11:1  Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

OR one will be inclined to conjure up what ever flips and flops in his mind. The mind is a beautiful thing and a terrible thing to waste.

For it is the mind that is vulnurable....
2Co 11:3  But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.

With that said, I believe that creation is 6000 years old, for this is the Truth of the Word. ALL of the other "things" that man discovers and finds scientificlly to have happened, must, is, and will be within the 6000 years of The Creator, I dont care how many "man" years it took.
 
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2010, 08:07:17 AM »
willieH: Hi Shawn...  :happy3:

Honestly, Willie your posts are exhausting and lengthy.

Right backacha, Shawn, ...Honestly, with all due respect, ...I think your posts are too limited and short of information...  :Sparkletooth: 

I have no desire to debate with you for various reasons but one is your aggessive debating style. 

You are welcome to this excuse... :rolleye:

Let's face it brother, ...the "various reasons" are that you are UNABLE to respond, so you don't...  :dontknow:

You claim to be "scientific" and a person (which barely graduated high school) such as myself easily confounds your conjectures... and then in order to escape dealing with me, you name ME as "aggressive".  Please! :laughing7:

The second is because you include too much information in your posts.  Be concise, and civil and you will get a proper response.

Give me a break!  :omg:

In what way have I been "UNCIVIL" to you, Shawn?  I have only stated the TRUTH!  What is UNCIVIL about that?  If you are speaking of me indicating that you IGNORED what I had written, is that not TRUE?  You IGNORED my answer to you quite thoroughly, did you not?   :dunno:

Then you criticize me because I answer IN DETAIL?  You would rather I answer with LITTLE or NO information (as do you) so YOU are able to deal with it?  :mshock:

My KJV Bible has 1834 pages of writing... FAR IN EXCESS of the short reply I made to you.

As far as I am concerned, if you do not accept that the Earth is [approximately] 6K years old, then you contend with the WORD of GOD not with me...

The WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years...  :dontknow:  So your "scientific" position (which has no proof, rather is purely conjecture)... is that which OPPOSES the WORD... and your association with, and alligiance to such a position means that you OPPOSE the WORD as well... 

Just curious...

Have you figured out yet what YOU have said that in part, "solves the puzzle" of the Earth's age?  Or is that TOO MUCH work for your scientific mind to deal with?

I wish you no ill, brother Shawn... but IMO, you and your "scientific" position, ...are in over your head here at Tentmaker, and when you find difficulty, you quickly resort to STRAWMAN fallacies (such as my "debating style" or "aggressiveness" or "various [unnamed] reasons") in an effort to escape dealing with the difficulties that YOU yourself, have placed yourself amidst.

No credentials given by institutions of MAN are needed in the discussion of SPIRITUAL matters, bro...

Just the SIMPLE information of the TRUTH -- Psalm 19:7 -- which ALWAYS has, ...and ALWAYS will, CONFOUND those who oppose the WORD and the FACTS mentioned within it (in this case "scientific" speculations without basis in TRUTH).

Peace...  :Peace2:

willieH  :winkgrin:

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 6148
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2010, 08:16:54 AM »
WELL...I for one am exhausted!
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2010, 08:18:49 AM »
Willie

If that is your style then so be it.  I just won't read your posts...just like I didn't read that one.


Online WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13170
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2010, 08:31:03 AM »
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format.  The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...
Select, copy and paste into Notepad and you have something that's more essay format.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11315
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2010, 08:57:30 AM »
Quote from: willieH
The WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years... 

The Bible doesn't actually say that, does it?

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2010, 09:09:00 AM »
Willie

If that is your style then so be it.  I just won't read your posts...just like I didn't read that one.

I have no "style" except as labeled by YOU... 

I respond often in challenge to distorted information...  If you consider that a "style" then so be it... doesnt matter to me.  :dontknow:

You are welcome to do as you like... If I see you presenting (what I consider as challengeable) "distorting" information -- such as your OPPOSITION to the WORD which notes the CREATION to be approximately 6K years old, ...then I will address it accordingly, placing you in 3rd person... and you are welcome to ignore those responses as you so desire... :nod:

...willieH  :cloud9:

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2010, 09:17:34 AM »
willieH: Hi Molly...  :cloud9:

Quote from: willieH
The WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years...  

The Bible doesn't actually say that, does it?

It does not STATE that the Creation is 6K years... however this APPROXIMATE time total, is NOTED in the WORD, and is demonstratable via the reverse counting of timeframes of Historical events as noted in the WORD... So it IS indicated chronologically reverse from the present to the day of Creation.

http://biblebasics.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-age-of-the-earth-according-to-the-bible/

http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html

The "bible" ALSO, ...does not state that CHRIST lived 2K years ago... but YOU know and BELIEVE that He did, don't you Molly? :dunno:

Or, have you "insight" you shall share with us, that INDICATES, otherwise?  :dontknow:

...willieH  :icon_king:
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 09:25:22 AM by willieH »

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11315
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #71 on: September 09, 2010, 09:22:00 AM »
12 Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people.

 13 Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not judged when there is no law.

--Rom 5



This is not such an obvious verse.  What is the time of 'before the law was given.'?  

Wasn't Adam the first man to whom the law was given?

17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

--Gen 2

So, Adam is the first man who had language [as far as we know] and who,  therefore, could receive the law [the Word of God].

So when is the time before the law was given?  Another era?--

13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

--Rom 5



The first thing God does after he places Adam in the garden is give him the law.  But, this verse refers to a time before that when there was sin in the world but no law, so the sin was not counted.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11315
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2010, 09:26:10 AM »
Quote from: willieH
It does not STATE that the Creation is 6K years... however this APPROXIMATE time total, is NOTED in the WORD, and is demonstratable via the reverse counting of timeframes of Historical events as noted in the WORD... So it IS indicated chronologically reverse from the present to the day of Creation.

Well, I will agree that we can deduce Adam at 6000 years ago because I know that Kepler and others did the work to determine that, and I tend to trust their work [although I have never recreated it myself].

But--that just gets us back to Adam.  All sorts of things could have gone on before Adam.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11315
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #73 on: September 09, 2010, 09:45:33 AM »
God does seem to 'speak' to the men in Genesis 1, but he doesn't put any limitations on them.  He basically says, go and have fun boys and girls, rule, subdue, and [re]fill the earth. Eat the fruit of any tree you want.  Be happy!

[Because God is not placing any limitations on them, he doesn't actually have to speak to them--he could just give them those attributes, without limitation.]

Adam is the first man to have an actual rule to follow [the law?].  And, this denotes, if not the first language, certainly the first sophisticated language.

He is also given a specific job--to dress and keep the garden of God.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 09:59:42 AM by Molly »

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #74 on: September 09, 2010, 10:10:34 AM »
12 Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people.

 13 Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not judged when there is no law.

--Rom 5

This is not such an obvious verse.  What is the time of 'before the law was given.'?  

Wasn't Adam the first man to whom the law was given?

17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

--Gen 2

So, Adam is the first man who had language [as far as we know] and who,  therefore, could receive the law [the Word of God].

So when is the time before the law was given?  Another era?--

13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

--Rom 5

The first thing God does after he places Adam in the garden is give him the law.  But, this verse refers to a time before that when there was sin in the world but no law, so the sin was not counted.

I think you need to re-read this Molly...  :dbook:

SIN, ENTERED via ADAM -- and therefore WAS not "in the world", until it ENTERED!

DEATH entered the Creation (in which DINOSAUR bones, which are BY PRODUCTS of DEATH, ...exist due to DEATH) ---> via ADAM... period!

...willieH  :cloud9:
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 10:20:12 AM by willieH »