Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.

Creation: What’s the Point?

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | Comments (127)

Believing in evolution is not inconsequential. It has serious implications for the way we view our world—not just the beginning, the end too. The issue is purpose. God alone possesses the right to assign purpose to His universe, because He created it.

An evolutionist may set a purpose for himself, or adopt what society chooses for him—it’s rather arbitrary though. He doesn’t know who or what he is, doesn’t know where he came from or where he’s going, and doesn’t even know why he exists in the first place. Evolution robs him of reasons, strips him of purpose, and leaves him with a bleak and daunting outlook on life.

Contrast that with the Christian who takes God at His Word. He knows where he came from and who created him; he knows in whose image he was created; He knows why he’s here, where he’s going, and how he fits into the overarching purposes of God in history. See the difference? Listen in, as John MacArthur puts it in perspective . . .

Listen to this 4-minute clip:

Launch Player  |  Download  |  Full Sermon

Now that you’ve listened to John, consider the following: Where does an evolutionist find his purpose for existence? If he has one, on what grounds, or on whose authority, can he claim any purpose for his life? Further, what rules govern the pursuit of his purpose? Take it to the thread.


Make a Comment

Click here to subscribe to comments without commenting.

You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.

Submit

#1  Posted by Alex Soriano  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 1:12 AM

What’s left for the evolutionist is to base his purpose on the best human philosophy, morality or religion. He may dwell much on the past as a traditionalist; he may emphasize more of the present life as existentialist or simply dream the Utopian future of his temporal existence. Well, he may also combine and dress it with some variety of Christianity – he can even proof text the bible (from different translations) and mix it with some quotes from Koran, Buddha and Kant to support his combination and come up with a purpose statement – maybe not far from the purpose-driven-life.

The evolutionist can write and publish his purpose statement with a green cover and on the center is the blue planet showing part of the eastern and western world, and below is a subtitle ‘Earth is what I am here For.’

#2  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 4:57 AM

I thought the audio clip was very insightful, but I don’t see what the comments above have anything to do with what was said in the clip. Mr. MacArthur talked about several of the purposes for God’s creation, including: His Glory (including the glory of His redemption,) demonstration of His grace and mercy, and a bride for His Son. These are all strong, Biblically based reasons for creation.

So why bring evolution into the discussion? Well the answer has become painfully obvious… equivocation. The idea is that by even mentioning evolution, we are essentially discussing atheism, naturalism, materialism and determinism. These ideologies certainly stake their claim on the science of evolution, but why do so many Christians choose to fully surrender science, logic and reason over to the enemy? It’s throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If anyone takes the time to give some thoughtful research to Scripture and perhaps seek the advice of trusted pastors or Bible teachers, one can easily see that evolution is not only perfectly in-line with Bible teaching, it in fact underscores and affirms the truth of God’s Word.

Evolution itself is a testimony of God’s glory. The anthropic principle is demonstrated in numerous ways throughout all of evolutionary theory showing that an unimaginable string of perfectly conditioned circumstances must be in place for the process to have happened at all. This theistic principle is still the primary focus of secular scientific endeavors including the search for life elsewhere in the universe. To deny the reality of evolution is to deny God the fullness of praise and honor due to Him. Evolution demonstrates God’s providence, wisdom, power and authority. He designed it. He sustains it. It was His idea. To deny evolution is to deny God’s truth.

For some more reading on this subject I would suggest:

“The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” by John Barrow and Frank Tipler

#3  Posted by Peter Heffner  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 8:15 AM

Where does an evolutionist find his purpose for existence? If he has one, on what grounds, or on whose authority, can he claim any purpose for his life? Further, what rules govern the pursuit of his purpose?

Evolution is a system that denies the existence of God, personality, and all things spiritual.

Evolution is a system built on death. For it is only by mass death that all but some certain mutation is stricken from the gene-pool.

Evolution is a system built on horrific suffering. For death strikes each of trillions of living individuals over billions of years through the pain of diseases such as cancer, starvation, scabies, and thousands of other tortures. Death strikes as the lion tears limb from limb.

Evolution is as system built on superstition. For it requires the irrational belief that everything comes from nothing, that disorder naturally leads to order, and that the evolutionist must seek absolute laws to prove that all is random.

Evolution is a system built on massive sin. For its only moral teaching is that the individual must survive, at whatever cost. Causing others suffering and death are the only means whereby competition is exterminated.

The evolutionist's purpose for existence is to die.
The evolutionist's grounds or authority for any purpose is himself.
The rules governing the evolutionist's purpose is to destroy competition.

The theistic evolutionist adopts evolution and blames it on a god who, however, left the world billions of years ago and only appears from time to time to keep the cycle of suffering, death, and mutation going. This he calls "progress."

#4  Posted by Orlando Delgado  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 8:36 AM

Joey #2,

I do think Alex Soriano’s on #1 is actually nailing the issue at hand right in the center of the head. Reason is because here you are with your belief stating something that sounds good, looks good, and even makes you feel good about human achievements as it refers to the theory of evolution. According to you and those of your belief “Evolution itself is a testimony of God’s glory.” Please… This not the God of the Bible, but your God, the one of your imagination, the one created by Darwin in order to fit your, his belief. There is not even a hint in the Genesis account that support your view, there are a lot of writings about it from godly and non-godly people (against and in favor), but bottom line is not in the Bible.

Indeed, what Alex stated goes in line with everything. I know I will not convince you because you are so deep into your faith in evolution and whatever man has put into your imagination; therefore refusing God’s miraculously power to create an man out dirt and a woman out the man’s side (rib). For your kind of belief it is easier to reconcile God with man’s theories.

All this talk about evolution in order to twist Genesis also parallels with other philosophical views that also attack Scripture. For instance, Oprah Winfrey, William P Young (author of The Shack) both believe that Jesus is not the only way to God. They claim that there are many roads to God and that Jesus is ‘a’ way. Definitely, God said let there be… and people of your view say or read (do not know how) in Scripture God created something and let it evolve.

Finally, may the Lord have mercy on me for being so hard headed believing his Word as He gives it to me, and may he also have mercy on you for what to me is a heresy, and a blasphemy of his work when you state “Evolution itself is a testimony of God’s glory.”

In Love, may the Lord makes you see His Glory according to His Word. Amen.

#5  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 8:52 AM

#2 Joey Hodge

Thus thou believe God cannot create the heavens and earth in six days?

God Bless

#6  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 9:25 AM

#5 Millard writes:

Thus thou believe God cannot create the heavens and earth in six days?

Of course He can do it in six days if He wants. Do you believe God could not create the heavens and earth in four days? How about 45 minutes? How long does He need? What is the limit of His power? You see, this is in no way an issue of potency as you imply.

#7  Posted by Orlando Delgado  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 9:40 AM

Joey #2,

Please listen to JM on today’s broadcast; it is very ‘insightful’ as you politely state your disagreement.

As you suggested, “For some more reading on this subject I would suggest:

‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle’ by John Barrow and Frank Tipler”

I found a better one: “The Bible: The Beginnings” by God the Holy Spirit

God Bless!

#8  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 9:56 AM

re # 2

Joey wrote:

"If anyone takes the time to give some thoughtful research to Scripture and perhaps seek the advice of trusted pastors or Bible teachers, one can easily see that evolution is not only perfectly in-line with Bible teaching, it in fact underscores and affirms the truth of God’s Word. "

Hi, Joey, my questions to you are: have you taken the time to do that? What have you been researching? what "trusted pastors" are you talking about?.

I've been reading a lot of posts here through the series and don't see anyone submitting any "proof" for evolution whatsoever that is found in the pages of scripture (and, please agree with me that you know we were taking scripture as the absolute authority). So please, help me understand what you meant, or, are you just pulling our leg??

#9  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 10:04 AM

Orlando,

I appreciate your comments, but you are simply confirming my earlier point that evolution is introduced into the discussion merely as an equivocation backed up by clumsily built straw men. You want to view it as an attack on Scripture, but you should know that is merely a ploy of the enemy to divert attention away from real attacks on the Bible, Christianity and the works of the Spirit. Your argument would be correct if you were addressing naturalism which is an ideology which attempts to use evolution instead of evolution itself which is merely a science, one which not only defies naturalism, but demonstrates the purpose of creation, which was the subject of Mr. MacArthur’s audio clip. This concept is seen throughout scripture, in verses such as Romans 1:20.

I know I will not convince you because you are so deep into your faith in evolution

The foundation of my faith is the special revelation of God to man through the Holy Bible. To say I put some faith in evolution is a fair statement, but if you are being honest, you also put faith in science any time you take medication or ride in a car. In fact, you put faith in the specific science of evolution if you have every gotten a flu shot or owned many domestic breeds of dog.

…refusing God’s miraculously power to create an man out dirt and a woman out the man’s side (rib).

As I mentioned in my previous post, to attempt to make this an issue of potency is to just add another layer to an existing straw man. God’s power is in no way lessened by evolution.

God said let there be… and people of your view say or read (do not know how) in Scripture God created something and let it evolve.

Let’s be clear. I never said that Scripture mentions the process of evolution, any more than it mentions microbes or galaxies. That doesn’t mean that the Scriptures conflict with their existence, or that their discovery does not give cause to glorify Him.

... something to think about.

#10  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 10:09 AM

Joey writes,

Of course He can do it in six days if He wants. Do you believe God could not create the heavens and earth in four days? How about 45 minutes? How long does He need? What is the limit of His power? You see, this is in no way an issue of potency as you imply.

Actually, Joey, the reply is very potent, because God DID create in 6 days just at the Bible states. It is reading into the text the historical constructs of the way Darwinian evolution says the world came into existence.

#11  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 10:17 AM

Joey writes,

To say I put some faith in evolution is a fair statement, but if you are being honest, you also put faith in science any time you take medication or ride in a car.

This is a non sequitur. Medicine and engineering are utterly unrelated to the history of the world as presented by evolutionary philosophy. Keep in mind: Ultimately, the disagreement is not really with science as it is history. The Bible present one view of history, evolutionary philosophy presents another. They are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be harmonized.

#12  Posted by Alex Soriano  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 10:31 AM

Joey

Thanks for recommending a book but I don’t have much time read and I don’t even have much to buy one. However, as you said, we need to find a trusted Pastor or a Bible teacher on this matter of evolution, well you may read this: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html

Ask for me, I would be contented memorizing Colossians 1:16. That’s sufficient enough to solve the teleological argument of my existence and your existence and the existence of John Barrow and Frank Tipler.

Let me also recommend a book: “The End for which God Created the World” by Jonathan Edwards. It’s free online and it’s thin you can read it in one day. Edwards was a trustworthy pastor, give him a chance to speak.

By the way, anyone can give me a verse in the bible which supports the theory of evolution? Please explain it to me base on authorial intent. I’v been reading the bible for 15 years – maybe I’d missed that one.

#13  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 11:43 AM

#8 Jorge writes:

have you taken the time to do that?

yes

What have you been researching?

Primarily the Scriptures themselves in the English NKJV, NIV and ESV. I also refer to various lexicons and dictionaries for Hebrew and Greek. I also research a variety of reputable scholars and theologians including Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Alvin Plantiga, Dr. J.P. Moreland, Dr. Normal Geisler, Josh McDowell, etc. I will at times refer to other resources, but take with a grain of salt the ones that are less inclined to rightly handle the word of truth.

what "trusted pastors" are you talking about?.

Those who have demonstrated to you personally to have a firm grasp on the Scriptures, who bear fruit in their walk and are demonstrably qualified to address such matters.

I've been reading a lot of posts here through the series and don't see anyone submitting any "proof" for evolution whatsoever that is found in the pages of scripture

And you shouldn’t. Anyone who would dare to do such a thing is overstating to say the least. We call this eisegesis and it is a poor way to study Scripture. You will notice that I never stated that Scripture “proves” evolution. On the contrary, it is evolution which offers proof of what is contained within the Scriptures.

#14  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 12:01 PM

#10 Fred writes:

Actually, Joey, the reply is very potent, because God DID create in 6 days just at the Bible states.

I don’t follow Fred. Are you suggesting that since God created in six days he simply was not powerful enough to do it faster? I hope that’s not what you are trying to say.

This is a non sequitur. Medicine and engineering are utterly unrelated to the history of the world as presented by evolutionary philosophy.

It’s not non sequitur because Orlando was suggesting that faith in evolution is based on what man has put into imagination. I was simply showing that man puts lots of things into our imagination which we all place some degree of faith in. That’s all.

Again, the concept of, “evolutionary philosophy” has nothing to do with evolution as science. If you want to argue against a particular naturalistic philosophy, then go ahead. I’ll back you up. Lumping evolution as a science together with such philosophy simply doesn’t work.

#15  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 12:15 PM

I can't answer the questions, but I wanted to say this. I was having coffee with a friend yesterday. She's had a very difficult life growing up in Germany around the time of the II WW. Her father treated her very badly (physically and verbally). She eventually moved out of there and marries this guy who only gave her grief and sorrow to this day. Anyway, she was talking about how her husband is such a hypocrite (she is not a Christian, they are both Catholics), goes to mass every morning and comes home to mistreat her. I've had some conversations with her about Genesis in the past, and she doesn't believe a word of it, she says evolution makes sense and that's what she believes.

After mentioning her husband, she goes: there's no reason for my being, there's no purpose, I've had a tough life, my father treated me like junk, all the men that I've met treated me badly, there's no point or purpose for my existence, I don't care where I go after I die.

So there I was, telling her how precious her life is in the eye of God, and that her life is not a mistake or just happened by "chance".

E.

#16  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 12:23 PM

# 2 Joey.

You may think you have a high view of God. You don't.

"To deny the reality of evolution is to deny God the fullness of praise and honor due to Him."

People who believe in evolution do not believe they were created as the image of God. They have a very low view of themselves and all human life.

E.

#17  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 12:33 PM

re # 13

Joey wrote:

"On the contrary, it is evolution which offers proof of what is contained within the Scriptures."

Hi, Joey, care to elaborate?.

I won't bore you with a list of bible verses that tell us God created everything out of nothing, that He did it by just speaking it into existence, that He did it in six days (and rested the seventh), that there was a flood that wiped out the whole earth, etc. Can you give me one verse that says evolution is even possible?

About: "I will at times refer to other resources, but take with a grain of salt the ones that are less inclined to rightly handle the word of truth."

Why, oh why would you even entertain those?

P.S: by now you must realize I'm a simple man. Please dumb down your answers a little so I can understand. Thank you.

#18  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 12:39 PM

# 9 - Joey Joey... hmmmm....

I literally laughed out loud when I read this:

"You want to view it as an attack on Scripture, but you should know that is merely a ploy of the enemy to divert attention away from real attacks on the Bible, Christianity and the works of the Spirit."

I don't even need to comment on that one.

Now, get it straight, will ya? evolution is NOT science!

So, if I get into my car and I have "faith" that it's not going to explode the moment I turn the key, that's the same science as evolution? how's your point even logical? it is NOT! How many times you have seen cars NOT exploding? How many times have you seen evolution happening?

oh yes, yes, on a piece of paper, called "theory".

#19  Posted by Peter Heffner  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 12:47 PM

All aspects of modern learning have been corrupted. It is a given that the content of liberal arts are not reliably true, but are anti-God, anti-Christianity and anti-Western civilization. The same lack of reliability is also rife in the theoretical physical sciences, especially anthropology and anything incorporating the evolutionary hypotheses. The ideology is so stiffly policed that those showing genuine intellectual curiosity and gift are driven out of academia. Seeking the truth is incompatible with pushing ideology.

This ideology runs counter to Scripture. Evolution cannot be supported there. Many have already noted that death is the "achilles' heel" of theistic evolution. That death came only after the Fall has been well established on this site through Scripture.

But here is some common sense.

Evolution removes God from his creation by pushing back the age of the universe to beyond comprehensibility. God last truly appeared trillions of years ago. This can neither be empirically tested nor rationally understood.

Evolution is a random process. And theistic evolution says that God throws the dice.

Theistic evolution means that God made trillions of mistakes and his creatures pay the price: through endless misery, bloody suffering, and tortured deaths. Evolution must have misery and death to exterminate all forms of life but the few, whose destinies likewise lie in misery and death.

Theistic evolution makes God the author of sin. God depends on evolution which requires misery and death. Thus God requires misery and death for life to progress. Thus God requires sin and by throwing the dice of evolution is the author of the sin that evolution demands.

Theistic evolution makes redemption impossible. If God desires misery and death for life to progress, then why would he redeem anyone from it? If God made a world evil and a horror, who could trust him to redeem anyone to goodness? And who could trust that the truly good exists anywhere? If God made the world evil and a horror, then is not God himself evil and a horror?

#22  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 4:30 PM

#16 Elaine writes:

People who believe in evolution do not believe they were created as the image of God. They have a very low view of themselves and all human life.

Many people have a very low view of themselves for lots of reasons. Your comment is very prejudicial though. I can personally testify to it as being untrue. Do you have any data to support your generalization, or were you just making an observation? There's nothing wrong with that. I just wanted to make sure.

#23  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 5:12 PM

#2 Joey Hodge

It would be a good thing to get a book on

The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham

I read it and other books by Ken Ham. You can visit the Creation

Museum and find out the point of Creation. Just a thought.

God bless.

#24  Posted by Alex Soriano  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 7:14 PM

Joey Quoted Romans 1:20 to support the concept of evolution.

I think this one is a clue why Joey believes in evolution; because the context of that portion of Romans talks about the depravity of man – that their corruption is so radical thus they failed to see God despite of the plain and simple evidence seen in creation.

To see creation in the lens of evolution theory is just another demonstration how pervasive human depravity is. I think evolution is not actually an intellectual problem; it’s a moral one, because, in the final analysis of those men and women, who espoused any form of this theory as basis of their purpose in life, end up in utter immorality – for example: Friedrich Nietzsche and his admirer Hitler.

While it seems to appear that there is a fair quantity of materials to support evolution; in fact, we can manipulate logic and impose empiricisms to it like what John Barrow and Frank Tipler did, at the end of the day, we must bring this theory on its relevance in our daily existential struggles.

How does this theistic evolution theory applies to the friend of Elaine Cavalheiro? Look Joey, I don’t know about you but for me being lived in the 3rd world where people are devastated by extreme poverty and hunger, when you go the people and present Christ as Lord and Savior, evolution theory won’t work at all. It’s not relevant at all. They perceived that as fatalism not faith.

#25  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 8:22 PM

# 13 Joey wrote:

"You will notice that I never stated that Scripture “proves” evolution. On the contrary, it is evolution which offers proof of what is contained within the Scriptures."

I really wonder if you could find an (or another) evolutionist that would agree with this statement of yours.

As I understand you, you're saying that evolution "proves" God (or how He does things).

I'm not really surprised. You seem like the kind of person who would believe anything (UFO's, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, tooth fairy, etc.) if anything remotely hinting at "proof" were to be produced (as long, of course, it is presented by anyone respectful).

Let us agree on some things, at least.

God created everything.

The only meaning to existence evolution can give is "survival of the fittest".

In evolution, no one has ultimate authority. As long as everyone agrees with the latest findings (which won't take long to debunk, as many have).

I appreciate your sincerity, but scripture is too clear on this subject. God did not need evolution to bring about His plan for mankind.

#26  Posted by Orlando Delgado  |  Tuesday, July 27, 2010at 8:24 PM

Alex #12 wrote:

By the way, anyone can give me a verse in the bible which supports the theory of evolution?

If you go to the evolutionist bible, you can find a whole book by the title “The Origin of Species” by their prophet CR Darwin. You will not find it in the Holy Bible of the God creator of all things, father of the Savior of the entire world, Jesus the Christ.

Joey #9

Like I said, I am very narrow minded when it comes to the bible, and cannot buy into your evolution to reconcile God’s creation. Please listen to the absurdity of your view as it relates to Scripture. Stop using scripture to support your view; it is not there, not even in Rom 1:20, not by a long shot. When evolution was invented it is when the Word of God was being attacked to its very core (and still is).

My faith is in the Lord, in his power and cannot be mixed with medicine or driving a car, they are two things completely and exclusively different. My faith in the Lord is not on any theory a man can put together, my faith is in the Salvation and the promises in the Bible, not in this carnal life, but in the next life, the eternal life. Medicine, mechanics, and combustion are true science and can be trusted (not blindly), but that is not my faith. They have been tested over and over again and we as users employ them for the physical benefit or service provided.

In evolution, there are no facts or benefits but opinions based on speculations of things the evolutionists observed in God’s creation. As I am writing to you I pray the Lord to illume your mind and spirit and change your heart on this particular issue. You claim not to be a naturalist, you sure have me deceived. Like I said, there is nothing I say that will make you change your mind, and I do not want that. That is not my job, it belongs to the Spirit of God, and I pray He transform your mind.

In Love!

#27  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 4:42 AM

#17 Jorge wrote,

Hi, Joey, care to elaborate?

Sure.

Romans 1:20 because God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in the process of evolution. The Cambrian explosion for example smacks in the face of naturalistic ideas about evolution and indicates there was an unimaginable source of organizational power at the root of the period.

Hebrews 1:11 because evolution hits a brick wall at abiogenesis the same way the universe hits a brick wall at the big bang, clearly demonstrating that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible (Creatio Ex Nihilo.) Not only is abiogenesis not understood as even plausible, naturalists are even running out of geological time to allow for the possibility of natural selection as fossil records are showing biological life fully existing and thriving relatively soon after the earth was formed.

Colossians 1:16 because perfectly timed mass extinctions allowed for the evolution of life suitable to coexist with man (also alluded to in Genesis 2:18) so all things that were created by Him and for Him (Christ) so they could dwell upon the earth together and man could have dominion over them.

I won't bore you with a list of bible verses that tell us God created everything out of nothing, that He did it by just speaking it into existence, that He did it in six days (and rested the seventh), that there was a flood that wiped out the whole earth, etc.

It would not bore me to hear your list but let me tell you this…

God did indeed create everything out of nothing. The Bible just doesn’t’ say when. He did indeed do it just by speaking it into existence. The Bible just doesn’t say what that looked like. He did indeed do it in six days. The Bible just does not say temporal or chronological days. There was indeed a flood that wiped out the whole earth. The Bible just does not say the entire planet.

So where is the problem? What does ANY of that have to do with evolution?

Can you give me one verse that says evolution is even possible?

I don’t understand the question. EVERY verse says evolution is possible because NO verse says it is impossible. Maybe that’s not what you meant. Could you clarify?

Why, oh why would you even entertain those?

For the same reason you probably do the same thing… necessity. Notice I didn’t say those who “do not,” but rather, “are less included to.” I would put Mr. MacArthur in that category. I have a lot of respect for his teachings and come to appreciate them even more in recent weeks, a lot of which is very useful; however, on the subject of origins in particular, he is simply not reading or interpreting the text very well. I might also put Dr. Hugh Ross in that category. He has a lot of good information about scientific processes and how they underscore biblical principles, but he too, I believe, does not interpret the texts very well. He also seems to make an equivocation with evolution the same way many YEC’s do.

#28  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 5:27 AM

#18 Elaine writes:

I don't even need to comment on that one.

But you did comment on it. You said you laughed out loud when you read it. I’d like to know what was so funny about my statement. I appreciate a good laugh, even if it’s at my own expense.

Now, get it straight, will ya? evolution is NOT science!

Definition of evolution: In Biology - a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

How is that not science? Furthermore, how is that not useful science? You and I benefit from the science of evolution all the time.

So, if I get into my car and I have "faith" that it's not going to explode the moment I turn the key, that's the same science as evolution? how's your point even logical? it is NOT! How many times you have seen cars NOT exploding? How many times have you seen evolution happening?

You are just making a straw man argument here. I never said anything about cars exploding. But it does take faith to ride in a car. If you are the passenger, you put your faith in the driver to not wreck. You put faith in the mechanic who last rotated the tires to have correctly secured them to the car. You put your faith in things it is useful to have faith in. It is useful to put faith in evolution for things like fighting viral infections or breeding domestic pets. As for seeing evolution happening… have you ever seen a newborn baby? THAT’S evolution happening.

oh yes, yes, on a piece of paper, called "theory".

Definition of theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Not to be confused with..

Hypothesis - A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it is continually proven… NOT a hypothesis which has not been proven.

#29  Posted by Lynda Ochsner  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 8:18 AM

#14 Joey writes: Are you suggesting that since God created in six days he simply was not powerful enough to do it faster? I hope that’s not what you are trying to say.

There is a big distinction between "can God" and "did God". The point is that we trust God's word, what He told us concerning creation. If He had said that He created the world slowly over many years, fine -- but He didn't. If He had told us that He created the world instantly (Augustine's unbiblical notion), again fine, if that were so, but again He clearly told us the time-frame of His creative work. He was the only one there, and it comes down to whether we believe His word or our own imaginations.

"This is a non sequitur. Medicine and engineering are utterly unrelated to the history of the world as presented by evolutionary philosophy."

It’s not non sequitur because Orlando was suggesting that faith in evolution is based on what man has put into imagination. I was simply showing that man puts lots of things into our imagination which we all place some degree of faith in. That’s all."

Medicine and engineering are among the operational sciences, the true realm of science that we interact with every day -- observable, repeatable things. Creation by its very definition is not operational science -- it's history, something that happened at a point in the past and cannot be observed or repeated. Creation can only be observed in its after-effects, much like archeology -- dig stuff up and learn what we can about it, but it cannot tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

You also seem to be confusing observed, operational science, including speciation, sometimes called "microevolution," the variations available within the genetic pool (such as the breeds of dogs) -- with evolution, which makes far greater claims. Evolution (or "macroevolution") claims the ability to go beyond the available genetic pool given to a species, and that by random chance a life form can somehow create new information and new genetic traits, even to transitional life forms and then to other types of creatures. Yet for all their blustering, evolutionists cannot find any transitional forms or any proof that such has ever happened. Scientists have even tried to do so, such as in experiments with fruit flies, yet as in that case they finally concluded that the fruit fly had "evolved" to its final capacity -- because of course the fruit fly is incapable of creating new genetic material to "evolve" into something else.

#30  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 8:23 AM

Just to stir the pot a bit, this is hot off the presses:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/orthodox-darwinism-atheism

#31  Posted by Scott Christensen  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 8:53 AM

Here is a poignant portion of the aforementioned article:

"Greg Graffin completed a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Cornell University under Professor William Provine. His thesis was on the religious beliefs of leading evolutionary biologists. The sample he polled consisted of 271 scientists, and close to 56% completed the entire questionnaire (151 persons). Graffin found that as a result of accepting the Darwinian worldview almost 98.7% of his respondents rejected a traditional theistic worldview and, instead, became functional atheists. He defined theism as a belief in a personal creative God as taught by the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions..."

"Over 84% of the scientists that returned the questionnaire rejected all theistic religions and most concluded that evolution serves as a replacement for theism. Almost none of the scientists in this pool of world-famous scientists even tried to marry Darwinism and theism..."

#32  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 10:31 AM

#29 Linda writes:

There is a big distinction between "can God" and "did God".

Lynda, please refer back to post #5 by Millard Lightfoot, “Thus thou believe God cannot create the heavens and earth in six days?” That’s the context of our discussion.

Medicine and engineering are among the operational sciences, the true realm of science that we interact with every day -- observable, repeatable things.

So is evolution.

Creation by its very definition is not operational science -- it's history, something that happened at a point in the past and cannot be observed or repeated.

This is simply incorrect. IF creation were really only a few thousand years ago, then it would be clearly observed from earth today as we would see stars pop into existence throughout our galaxy all the time as the initial light from said event reached earth. We would not even see the center of our Milky Way galaxy for another 20000 years.

You also seem to be confusing observed, operational science, including speciation, sometimes called "microevolution," the variations available within the genetic pool (such as the breeds of dogs) -- with evolution, which makes far greater claims. Evolution (or "macroevolution") claims the ability to go beyond the available genetic pool given to a species, and that by random chance a life form can somehow create new information and new genetic traits, even to transitional life forms and then to other types of creatures.

My point is that there is no distinction between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution.” As far as real science goes, evolution is evolution… change over time. That’s all there is to it. If you accept change over time, you accept evolution. Each mutation is new information. It’s simply a matter of how much new information and how much time. Sure there are barriers in the processes of the past that are nowhere near being explained, especially if one assumes naturalism. But for those of us who do not, it’s not a problem. Remember Acts 17:28? There is no such thing as “random” chance in anything… especially evolution.

Yet for all their blustering, evolutionists cannot find any transitional forms

To the contrary, no one has found any 'non-transitional' forms yet. Everything in biology is a transitional form. That's kind of included in the definition of what "biological" means.

#33  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 10:33 AM

# 22 - Joey. You are right, a lot of people have a lot of reasons for having a low view of themselves, some even Christians.

But to comment on your "data" question. Look around you. Look at what people do to themselves and to people around them. Ask them their view of life, of God, whether they think we are created on God's image. I am not being prejudicial, neither I have done a formal research about it so I could provide you with "data". You asked me for "data" and gave me your "personal" testimony. =)

Hitler I guess would be a good example of someone with a very low view of human life.

#34  Posted by Tim Helble  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 10:45 AM

#30 Fred,

I believe this is because evangelicals and fundamentalists largely ceded the research universities to the secular world. There are exceptions to this here and there - the large evangelical church I used to be a member of in Tucson AZ had an elder who was chairman of the Chemistry Dept. at the University of AZ. But how many Nobel Prize winners can we name who are/were evangelical Christians? We have a great seminary system for training pastors, but it's almost totally separated from the schools where the real science goes on. Mark Noll deals with this a bit in his book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind."

#35  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 10:46 AM

Alex,

Sorry, I didn’t mean to skip over your comments. Please allow me to respond…

However, as you said, we need to find a trusted Pastor or a Bible teacher on this matter of evolution, well you may read this: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html

Yes and I didn’t mean to imply the book as a source for sound Biblical interpretation. It was meant as interesting showing how secular scientists are driven to embrace clearly theistic ideologies to explain obvious anthropomorphic observations in nature. I should have made that more clear.

Ask for me, I would be contented memorizing Colossians 1:16.

Amen! That is a great verse to stand on. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?

Let me also recommend a book: “The End for which God Created the World” by Jonathan Edwards

Thanks. I’ll try to look at it. I may have read that one before. I know I’ve studied Jonathan Edwards before.

By the way, anyone can give me a verse in the bible which supports the theory of evolution? Please explain it to me base on authorial intent. I’v been reading the bible for 15 years – maybe I’d missed that one.

Please beware of anyone who attempts to show things such as evolution, germs, black holes, Eskimos, spaceships, etc in the actual text of Scripture. Such a person is prooftexting.

#36  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 11:05 AM

Linda wrote,

"Medicine and engineering are among the operational sciences, the true realm of science that we interact with every day -- observable, repeatable things."

Joey responds, So is evolution.

No it's not. Not it the fashion you need to make Darwinianism true. Even Darwinians will acknowledge this.

Joey writes,

Each mutation is new information. It’s simply a matter of how much new information and how much time.

No they are not. Mutation either shuffle present information around or is lost. Sometimes lost information may allow the now deformed organism to survive in a changed climate, for example wingless beetles that lost the ability to fly will survive better on a windy island than those with wings. Darwinianism needs to have increases in genetic information that accounts for improvements and advantages for complex physical systems in complex biological systems. For instance things as simple as the chemical system which acts upon cilia moving an egg down an fallopian tubes to be impregnated by a sperm at exactly the right time. Or the necessary chemistry in the blood to keep a person alive. Or the ability to puke. The complexity of information necessary for all those thousands of bodily system to work in harmony are mathematically astronomical to be achieved by the processes evolutionists say they are achieved.

Under #27, Joey stated,

Romans 1:20 because God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in the process of evolution.

The problem with this assertion is that Paul in Romans 1:20 places the display of God's eternal power "at the beginning of creation." Which creation would he be talking about here? The only biblical option would be Genesis, which presents a history of creation contradictory to the history evolutionists present. Thus one has to appeal to some hermeneutical alchemy to re-read the Genesis history or ignore it altogether in order to save the evolutionary view of history.

#37  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 11:33 AM

#33 Elaine writes:

Look around you. Look at what people do to themselves and to people around them. Ask them their view of life, of God, whether they think we are created on God's image.

You’re 100% correct. Failure to acknowledge that we are created in the image of God is at the heart of most self-destructive behavior.

I am not being prejudicial, neither I have done a formal research about it so I could provide you with "data". It sounds interesting. I would like to see some of it if you have opportunity.

You asked me for "data" and gave me your "personal" testimony. =)

That’s the nerd in me talking. I just consider testimony as data, because that essentially what it is.”

Hitler I guess would be a good example of someone with a very low view of human life.

True, but I suspect he did not have a very low view of himself.

#38  Posted by Roberta Jackson  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 11:44 AM

For quite a while I have struggled with some aspects of this topic. I suppose most have. But what I have struggled with most is a Christian's reluctance to believe we are the only ones that have ever been. Believing in an almighty God who has always existed is to believe in a God who is incomprehensible. I find it extremely pious to think that this type of God has been in existence throughout an undetermined amount of time, and did nothing other than twiddle his thumbs and wait for a time when he decided to create US. I think that may be why evolution is a problem for some. There are physical indications that something was before us. I do NOT believe in evolution in the common definition, but I lean toward the belief that there has been a world or worlds prior to us.

We seem to have no problem believing that God will destroy this earth and create a new one and populate it as he said he would do in Revelation, but yet we refuse to even consider he might have done so prior to Genesis 1. II Peter 3:5-7 talks about the "...heavens were of old..." and the "...heavens...which are now..." God did not destroy the heavens in Noah's flood, so this is apparently talking about something in the distant past, since nothing like this happened again after the Noah flood.

Scripture doesn't deal much with it, and I believe that's because scripture is for our time, our world. I don't think we can definitively say for sure one way or the other what did/did not exist prior to us, because we aren't told. It is only hinted at.

This is another reason why I take exception to JM's stance on no death prior to the fall of Adam and Eve. They lived in an absolutely perfect environment. It would take only a few very short days for this perfect world to breed flies and mosquitoes, rats, and other vermin that would soon make life miserable (unless you believe in evolution and these critters came along later). God put the Tree of Life in the garden for Adam and Eve to eat. Sin resulted in the separation from that tree and that caused the death of Adam and Eve. That IS in scripture. Adam and Eve and all other creatures apparently were vegetarian. Did the plants not die when harvested or were eaten? What did Adam and Eve do when they "tended" the garden?

In our limited view, we see death as horrible and tragic. It could be that it WASN'T horrible and tragic until sin entered the world. Then it became tragic for all.

Something else that troubles me...eating the forbidden fruit was not the first sin Eve committed...she lied to the serpent, yet nothing happened. Was it because that was not a sin against God...disobeying the only command that we know for sure that he gave Adam and Eve?

#39  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 11:55 AM

#28 Post

Joey,

I will have to agree with you that “Evolution is a scientific theory” but it is stretching the term by suggesting that “it is continually proven” in an attempt to prove the Evolutional Theory of Darwin regarding the development of life over billions of years. In correct terms Darwin’s ‘theory’ is a hypothesis yet to be proved because it is still being investigated as is the theory of gravity which is also fact and theory. Now if you have a clear precise definition of gravity I’m sure we all would like to hear it.

To help you out with a definition of ‘Theory’ here’s what Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has to say:

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

synonyms see HYPOTHESIS

The question is this Joey do you believe God created the heavens and earth in 6 days as stated in the Bible or over billions of years according to the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory? Its one way or the other but not both.

God Bless

#40  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 12:19 PM

#36 Fred writes:

No it's not. Not it the fashion you need to make Darwinianism true. Even Darwinians will acknowledge this.

You are using the term “Darwinianism” or rather “Darwinism” essentially as the same as you might use naturalism, which is only partially true. “Darwinian evolution” or even “natural selection” describes an idea with a certain degree of explanatory power. It’s only true to the extent that it is useful. This is much like “Newtonian physics’ which is very useful on a normal scale, but becomes meaningless at the quantum level. Likewise Darwinism is useful in its explanation of modern science and in earth’s history, but the further into the past, the less explanatory power it has. Thus Darwinian evolution is simply less pragmatic than modern understandings of evolution.

Mutation either shuffle present information around or is lost.

This is rather ambiguous. You need to define specifically what you are meaning by “information.” As far as I can tell, new mutations represent new information. Your examples only refer to genetic traits which result from the new information. Surely you don’t mean to imply that the traits themselves are the genetic information.

The complexity of information necessary for all those thousands of bodily system to work in harmony are mathematically astronomical to be achieved by the processes evolutionists say they are achieved.

I couldn’t have said it better myself… I say again, evolution itself is a testimony of God’s glory.

The problem with this assertion is that Paul in Romans 1:20 places the display of God's eternal power "at the beginning of creation."

Nope. The word used is “apo” meaning, ‘away from,’ or ‘ever since’ not ‘at the moment of.’

The only biblical option would be Genesis, which presents a history of creation contradictory to the history evolutionists present. Thus one has to appeal to some hermeneutical alchemy to re-read the Genesis history or ignore it altogether in order to save the evolutionary view of history.

First, evolution in no way contradicts the Genesis account. Second, since when is sound hermeneutics considered alchemy? Lastly, let’s turn the tables on your last statement. The creation account has God creating birds on day 5 (Genesis 1:21) and land animals on day 6 (Genesis 1:25) before He made man, also on day 6(Genesis 1:27,) right? Now have you read the order in Genesis 2? Here God makes man (Genesis 2:7) before He makes land animals and birds (Genesis 2:19.) Keep in mind that although your English Bible might use a past perfect tense “had formed” in verse 19, it was not in the original text. “Vaiyitzer Yahweh elohim…” “Formed the Lord God”… man, then; “Formed the Lord God”… land animals and birds. If one takes a plain reading of Genesis 2, the order is clearly different than when one takes a plain reading of Genesis 1.

Now let’s see you appeal to some hermeneutical alchemy to re-read the Genesis history or ignore it altogether in order to save the ‘young earth’ view of history. Ladies and gentlemen, let the tap dancing begin!

#41  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 12:35 PM

re # 27 Joey wrote:

"God did indeed create everything out of nothing. The Bible just doesn’t’ say when."

Answer: about 6,000 years ago, by genealogy dating, and other references.

"He did indeed do it just by speaking it into existence. The Bible just doesn’t say what that looked like."

Answer: Everything between Gen 1:2 and Gen 2:1

"He did indeed do it in six days. The Bible just does not say temporal or chronological days."

Answer: I take "Yom" means 24hr days.

"There was indeed a flood that wiped out the whole earth. The Bible just does not say the entire planet."

Answer: Gen 6:13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

I'm sorry , Joey, but you inserted evolution in your biblical references, and I don't thing they fit. That tells me you have a poor interpretation of scripture.

I'm more sorry that this has turned into "beat up on Joey" blog. I will stop now.

#42  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 1:10 PM

R.C. Sproul wrote about a very serious problem that exists within modern evangelicalism...the view of Limited Inerrancy in terms of Sola Scriptura. He says, as one can read below, that this view allows an individual the freedom to cast doubt on earthly things and cosmology while still affirming matters of faith and heavenly things. Sproul asserts that this view does fatal harm to the entirety of the Gospel ("do we not inevitably lose the Gospel?")...and I agree as I have stated numerous times here on the GTY blogs.

Theistic evolution, Evolution, Naturalism, Liberalism, et al have arisen, in my opinion, because men have taken this view of Limited Inerrancy. Here is a portion of what Dr Sproul wrote...the entire article can be found in the link below the article:

Sola Scriptura And Limited Inerrancy

Is Sola Scriptura compatible with a view of Scripture that limits inerrancy to matters of faith and practice? Theoretically it would seem to be possible if "faith and practice" could be separated from any part of Scripture. So long as biblical teaching regarding faith and practice were held to be normative for the Christian. community, there would appear to be no threat to the essence of Christianity. However, certain problems exist with such a view of Scripture that do seriously threaten the essence of Christianity.

The first major problem we encounter with limited inerrancy is the problem of canon reduction. The canon or "norm" of Scripture is reduced de facto to that content relating to faith and practice. This immediately raises the hermeneutical question concerning what parts of Scripture deal with faith. As evangelicals wrestle among themselves in intramural debates, they must keep one eye focused on the liberal world of biblical scholarship, for the principle of the reduction of canon to matters of "faith" is precisely the chief operative in Bultmann's hermeneutic. Bultmann thinks we must clear away the prescientific and faulty historical "husk" of Scripture to get to the viable kernel of "faith." Thus, although Bultmann has no inerrant kernel or kerygma to fall back on, his problem of canon reduction remains substantially the same as that of those who limit inerrancy to faith and practice.

Before someone cries foul or cites the informal fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (abusive) or the "guilt by association" fallacy, let this concern he clarified. I am not saying that advocates of limited inerrancy are cryptic or even incipient Bultmannians, but that there is one very significant point of similarity between the two schools: canon reductionism. Evangelical advocates of limited inerrancy are not expected to embrace Bultmann's mythical view of New Testament supernaturalism. But their method has no inherent safeguard from an arbitrary delimitation of the scope of the biblical canon.

The second serious problem, closely related to the first, is the problem of the relationship of faith and history, perhaps the most serious question of contemporary New Testament scholarship. If we limit the notion of inerrancy to matters of faith and practice, what becomes of biblical history? Is the historical substratum of

[p.116]

the gospel negotiable? Are only those portions of the biblical narrative that have a clear bearing on faith inerrant? How do we escape dehistoricizing the gospel and relegating it to a level of supratemporal existential "decision"? We know that the Bible is not an ordinary history book but a book of redemptive history. But is it not also a book of redemptive history? If we exclude the realm of history from the category of inspiration or inerrancy either in whole or in part, do we not inevitably lose the gospel?

The third problem we face with limiting inerrancy to matters of faith and practice is an apologetic one. To those critics outside the fellowship of evangelicals, the notion of "limited inerrancy" appears artificial and contrived. Limited inerrancy gets us off the apologetical hook by making us immune to religious-historical criticism. We can eat our cake and have it too. The gospel is preserved; and our faith and practice remains intact while we admit errors in matters of history and cosmology. We cannot believe the Bible concerning earthly things, but we stake our lives on what it says concerning heavenly things. That approach was totally abrogated by our Lord John 3:12).

How do we explain and defend the idea that the Bible is divinely superintended in part of its content but not all of it? Which part is inspired? Why only the faith and practice parts? Again, which are the faith and practice parts? Can we not justly be accused of "weaseling" if we adopt such a view? We remove our faith from the arena of historical verification or falsification. This is a fatal blow for apologetics as the reasoned defense of Christianity.25

Finally, we face the problem of the domino theory. Frequently this concern is dismissed out of hand as being so much alarmism. But our doctrine of Scripture is not a child's game of dominoes. We know instances in which men have abandoned belief in full inerrancy but have remained substantially orthodox in the rest of their theology. We are also aware of the sad instances in which full inerrancy is affirmed yet the substance of theology is corrupt. Inerrancy is no guarantee of biblical orthodoxy. Yet even a cursory view of church history has shown some pattern of correlation between a weakening of biblical authority and serious defection regarding the Wesen of Christianity. The Wesen of nineteenth-century liberalism is hardly the gospel evangelicals embrace.

We have already seen, within evangelical circles, a move from limited inerrancy to challenges of matters of faith and practice.

[p.117]

When the apostle Paul is depicted as espousing two mutually contradictory views of the role of women in the church, we see a critique of apostolic teaching that does touch directly on the practice of the church.26 In the hotly disputed issue of homosexuality we see denominational commissions not only supplementing biblical authority with corroborative evidence drawn from modern sources of medical psychological study but also "correcting" the biblical view by such secular authority.27 The direction of these movements of thought is a matter of grave concern for advocates of full inerrancy.

We face a crisis of authority in the church. It is precisely our faith and our practice that is in question. It is for faith and practice that we defend a fully infallible rule - a total view of Sola Scriptura.

We know some confusion has existed (much unnecessarily) about the meaning of full inerrancy. But with all the problems of definition that plague the concept, we do not think it has died the death of a thousand qualifications.

We are concerned about Sola Scriptura for many reasons. But we affirm it in the final analysis not because it was the view of the Reformers, not because we slavishly revere Hodge and Warfield, not even because we are afraid of dominoes or a difficult apologetic. We defend it and express our deep concern about it because we believe it is the truth. It is a truth we do not want to negotiate. We earnestly desire dialogue with our evangelical brothers and colaborers who differ from us. We want to heal the wounds that controversy so frequently brings. We know our own views are by no means inerrant. But we believe inerrancy is true and is of vital importance to our common cause of the gospel.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_sola_sproul.html

#44  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 4:21 PM

re # 38, Ms. Jackson wrote:

"..but I lean toward the belief that there has been a world or worlds prior to us."

That's fine, as long as you realize that scripture does not back up what you believe, as such, any one"s "belief" would be equally valid.

re:

"2Pe 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

2Pe 3:6 and that by means of these the WORLD THAT THEN EXISTED was deluged with water and perished.

2Pe 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that NOW EXIST are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. "

I don't think this means that there was a world before this one. It only means that everything (and everyone)on the earth at the time was wiped out by flood. Please notice it says both the heavens and the earth that now exists will be recreated.

re:

"In our limited view, we see death as horrible and tragic. It could be that it WASN'T horrible and tragic until sin entered the world. Then it became tragic for all. "

I think it's clear that death entered the world because of Adam's disobedience. Rom 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--". There's really no biblical understanding of death before the fall.

re:

"Something else that troubles me...eating the forbidden fruit was not the first sin Eve committed...she lied to the serpent, yet nothing happened. Was it because that was not a sin against God...disobeying the only command that we know for sure that he gave Adam and Eve? "

Well, I think you mean:

Gen 3:3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'". These are Eve's words.

Remember, the bible doesn't say God told Eve not to eat of the fruit. He told Adam (Gen 2:17). Later, God made woman. Maybe Adam told Eve in a different way (I know it's dangerous to speculate). I don't really see a problem there.

#45  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 4:24 PM

#41 Jorge writes:

I'm more sorry that this has turned into "beat up on Joey" blog. I will stop now.

Please don’t stop. I appreciate the exchange of ideas. And don’t worry about beating me up. I’m certainly asking for it.

Now onto my responses:

about 6,000 years ago, by genealogy dating, and other references The first problem is that genealogies themselves only go back to Adam, not the original creation from nothing. Next, there are a lot of assumptions built into Ussher-like chronologies. Some assumptions perhaps with a great deal of probability, but the assumptions are not themselves Biblical. It assumes a universal length for years. It assumes there are no gaps in the genealogies.

Answer: Everything between Gen 1:2 and Gen 2:1 But it doesn’t give a description of the process. For example in Genesis 1:11 it says that God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants, etc… and it was so.” Note that he didn’t simply say, “Let there be” but rather, “Let the earth sprout” which implies that they didn’t just pop into existence but rather grew up from the earth. Did they grow at ultra-high speed? Perhaps they did, but my point is, you can’t assume that from the text alone, because that’s not what it says.

Answer: I take "Yom" means 24hr days.

Well you can do that, but again, the Bible does not say 24 hr days. That’s merely an assumption. I’ve seen the same character used throughout the Hebrew Bible but rarely does it stand alone in transliterations, and it is often interpreted as something other than “day.” One of these days I intend to really learn Hebrew in depth. But even if you interpret it as a 24 hour day, that does not make the verses in Genesis 1 temporal statement and it certainly does not make them chronological days, as I clearly explained in my previous post. That would create a major contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2 if you tried to interpret it that way.

Answer: Gen 6:13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth."Again, there is nothing that states or implies a planetary or global event. This is obvious because the planet was not destroyed. It’s still here. God didn’t destroy the planet. He destroyed the land (ha’aretz) just like the Bible says.

you inserted evolution in your biblical references, and I don't thing they fit.

I can respect your opinion, but unless you can present a good argument for why they don’t fit, I must disagree with you.

That tells me you have a poor interpretation of scripture.

Well all I can say is that I try very hard to have a good interpretation of scripture. It’s people like you that keep me trying to get better at it.

Thanks!

#46  Posted by Donavan Dear  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 5:37 PM

This is not an issue of inerrancy it is an issue of interpretation. Literalists tout the idea that if you don't believe like I do you don't believe the Bible. I believe that logic trumps interpretation, in that I mean God is perfectly logical so if we can find a logical problem in a particular part of scripture then we should reassess the way we're interpreting it. It's clear that blogs like this show our prejudice.

Joey is arguing his viewpoint and is mainly getting bigotry in return (literal Christian bigotry), argue with his points not your idea of scripture.

Ultimately the point of Genesis my be how we wrestle with the truth of it.

#47  Posted by Chad Smith  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 6:05 PM

Joey....Genesis 2:1-3 says it all for me and it and it should any believer because it's God's Word man He cant not lie or change his mind (Numbers 23). When scripture says ...the heaves and the earth were FINISHED....Then God blessed the seventh day and SANCTIFIED it , because in it He rested from all his work which God had CREATED and MADE. He Finished it, not "finishing" He Sanctified it not "sanctifying" , He Created it not "creating". Evolution is a process but scripture clearly state's that it is a finished work not and on going process that never ends. Hey I would just encourage you to Trust God alone , no disrespect but I think you might need a bigger view of God because He can do all things. Don't under mind scripture my Friend ,Paul says in 1 Cor 4:6 ....that we may learn in us not to think beyond what is written .When you make those statements as you did about Evolution in the begining of this post remember you better make sure you have some really really strong biblically and logical arguments because If your wrong then your under minding scripture and that is a very serious offensive . I will pray for you my friend and I appceriate your patient.

IN CHRIST ALONE.....I like this quote from Charles Spurgeon ..."Whats done in one life will soon pass but only whats done for CHRIST will last"

#48  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 7:54 PM

Donavan writes,

This is not an issue of inerrancy it is an issue of interpretation.

Of course it is a matter of inerrancy. It always is. It's which authority you wish to invest inerrancy upon. You still haven't dealt with the problem long ages have with the chronological markers in scripture. I have asked Ken W. that, you as well. Never received any sort of an answer.

continuing.

Literalists tout the idea that if you don't believe like I do you don't believe the Bible.

And theistic evolutionists don't? Give me a break.

Continuing,

I believe that logic trumps interpretation, in that I mean God is perfectly logical so if we can find a logical problem in a particular part of scripture then we should reassess the way we're interpreting it.

Or perhaps reassess your own "logic" in the matter. We've sort of covered this ground in the past as well.

continuing,

It's clear that blogs like this show our prejudice.

Really? And I guess you are free of all prejudices? Usually the one crying about prejudice is utterly blinded to his own.

continuing,

Joey is arguing his viewpoint and is mainly getting bigotry in return (literal Christian bigotry), argue with his points not your idea of scripture.

And I am arguing my viewpoints and I am mainly receiving bigotry in return (allegorical Christian bigotry). Joey needs to argue my points as well, not his idea of scripture.

#49  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Wednesday, July 28, 2010at 9:12 PM

re # 45, Joey wrote:

Hi, Joey, here goes:

re:

"The first problem is that genealogies themselves only go back to Adam, not the original creation from nothing."

OK, so let's add seven days to that. We then would have about 6,000 years, plus 7 days. Then let's add some time for the "gaps", would you add billions of years to that?, or how many?

re:

"Note that he didn’t simply say, “Let there be” but rather, “Let the earth sprout” which implies that they didn’t just pop into existence but rather grew up from the earth."

Again, the bible records right after that happened: Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Are you inferring that this a longer "day" than the others?. You wrote: "..you can’t assume that from the text alone, because that’s not what it says." I think it can be assumed it's a "day" just like the others.

re:

"..the Bible does not say 24 hr days."

Do you utterly disagree with John MacArthur when he said: "People say, "Well what about the word 'day,' can't it mean something else?" It's the plain old Hebrew word yom, it means day. It's used in the Bible to indicate a 24-hour normal solar day or sometimes to refer to the daylight portion of a day." (I believe there has to be consistency here).

re:

"That would create a major contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2 if you tried to interpret it that way."

Sorry, you lost me there. I don't think Genesis 2 has to be taken in chronological order necessarily. After all, it begins: Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

I think after Gen 2:4 God just gives us a little more insight and detail left out from Gen 1 (i.e: -for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.; and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground. etc.)

re:

"Again, there is nothing that states or implies a planetary or global event. This is obvious because the planet was not destroyed. It’s still here. God didn’t destroy the planet. He destroyed the land (ha’aretz) just like the Bible says."

Gen 7:18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.

Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

That sounds like the whole earth was covered in water. It was not destroyed, because God didn't mean it to be destroyed. He was just going to "re-arrange" it.

Re:

"I can respect your opinion, but unless you can present a good argument for why they don’t fit, I must disagree with you."

To keep it short, let me just say :

Rom 1:20 is dealing with people who suppress the truth and do not give God glory.

Heb 1:11 is dealing with how the heavens and the earth will be done away and re-created .

Col 1:16 says that Jesus was involved in creation with God.

I still don't see how evolution fits in any of those.

#51  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:49 AM

#24 Alex writes:

I don’t know about you but for me being lived in the 3rd world where people are devastated by extreme poverty and hunger, when you go the people and present Christ as Lord and Savior, evolution theory won’t work at all. It’s not relevant at all.

You’re absolutely right! It’s not relevant there. Why should it be?

For that matter, consider these words from YEC scientists “if the moon was closer to the earth, tides would be greatly increased. Ocean waves could sweep across the continents. The seas themselves might heat to the boiling point from the resulting friction. On the other hand, a more distant moon would reduce the tides.” (From Astronomy And the Bible. Donald B. DeYoung. p.s. don’t buy it!)

That’s not relevant there either is it? But it is relevant to some people, and it is a reason to give God glory, isn’t it? So how does your statement weigh in on either side of the argument?

We need to simply preach the God of the Bible and the gospel of Christ to the lost in a way that is relevant to them, the exact same way the Apostle Paul did it. When science isn’t relevant, leave it out. Believe it or not, you can preach the entirety of God’s Word, including Genesis without using science.

#52  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:50 AM

#38 Roberta writes:

Just for clarification, this is not how traditional theology understands God or time. God is timeless which means He is not contingent upon time to exist. In other words, He can exist without needing ‘time’ to exist in. When God created the universe, He created time, and thus time literally began at creation. It is interesting to note that this has been the Christian view of time for a while. Only recently has secular science affirmed that indeed, prior to the universe, there was no such thing as time.

#53  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:57 AM

#39 Millard says:

I will have to agree with you that “Evolution is a scientific theory” but it is stretching the term by suggesting that “it is continually proven”

Well you are free to make up your own definition of terms if you want. I was just giving you the universally accepted definition.

To help you out with a definition of ‘Theory’ here’s what Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has to say:

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

This is the one that addresses scientific theory which is what we are talking about. The other ones are more general uses for the term, which are not applicable to this discussion.

The question is this Joey do you believe God created the heavens and earth in 6 days as stated in the Bible or over billions of years according to the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory? Its one way or the other but not both.

False dichotomy. It IS both.

#54  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 5:31 AM

#47 Chad says:

He Finished it, not "finishing" He Sanctified it not "sanctifying" , He Created it not "creating".

Agreed. Creation was complete with the creation of man. Evolution is not a creative act of God, but a sustaining act (Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17)

Paul says in 1 Cor 4:6 ....that we may learn in us not to think beyond what is written

Many YEC’s would do well to heed Paul’s advice.

When you make those statements as you did about Evolution in the begining of this post remember you better make sure you have some really really strong biblically and logical arguments because If your wrong then your under minding scripture and that is a very serious offensive .

Even if we set aside that I think I have really strong Biblical and logical arguments for my position, never-the-less, I glorify God in my ignorance. Let me be a fool and God be glorified. The flip side is that those who scoff at evolution, or those who mock at or intend to insult those who believe in it had better beware of blaspheming God, if it was indeed His idea and His work, in the process… exactly how John Calvin did when he called God “demon-possessed” in his zeal for geocentrism.

#55  Posted by Mary Kidwell  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 6:17 AM

Joey (#45)

Here is an article that explains the apparent (but not actual) contradiction between Genesis 1 chronology and Genesis 2.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/15/contradictions-two-creation-accounts

In Genesis 2 the focus is on man’s creation and not on order of events. In Genesis 2:19 the word for “formed” is better translated (as in the ESV and NIV) “had formed.” The tense of the word is such that it can accurately translated this way.

To say the flood was not global would make God a liar. God said in Genesis 9:11 that He would never flood the earth again. He uses the same word for earth (erets) that is used in Genesis 7:17 and 19 when it tells of the waters covering the earth. If He was speaking of a local flood than He would have lied as obviously numerous local and regional floods occur. But we know that God does not lie (Titus 1:2).

To try to impose billions of years of evolution into Genesis ignores Exodus where God told Moses in Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 that He created the heavens and earth and all that is in them in six days, and this is the pattern for the week of six days of work and one of rest. You accuse YECs of making assumptions. It is not making an assumption to take the clear reading of a text particularly when other scripture confirms it.

#56  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 6:19 AM

Joey writes,

You are using the term “Darwinianism” or rather “Darwinism” essentially as the same as you might use naturalism

I am using it in the sense that all evolutionists use the word, evolutionary theory as explained through Darwin's particular philosophy of life on earth. An explanatory system that goes beyond just observing natural selection among living things, but a philosophical worldview that attempts to recreate earth's history apart from the recognition of a creator. If you had actually read took the time to read that link I posted early yesterday, it goes into some detail.

continuing,

You need to define specifically what you are meaning by “information.” As far as I can tell, new mutations represent new information.

Mutations are mutations of present information. You need an addition of information in order to get the kind of viable changes evolution needs. For example, dinosaurs don't have the information to become bird and such cannot be achieved with the types of mutations we encounter. See this brief interview with geneticist John Sanford to get an idea of what I am talking about, http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

I had written,

The problem with this assertion is that Paul in Romans 1:20 places the display of God's eternal power "at the beginning of creation."

Joey responds, Nope. The word used is “apo” meaning, ‘away from,’ or ‘ever since’ not ‘at the moment of.’

I am not really sure how this nuance helps you case. To quote from a personal Greek expert I happen to know, Without looking at it closely, the phrase “apo ktiseos kosmou” in Romans 1:20 would suggest to my Greek-oriented mind “From the beginning of creation going forward until now.” That is especially true when 1:18 says that the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. The display of his eternal power from the beginning of creation going forward until now would support the condemnation. A past act, no longer visibly displaying his eternal power, would not be grounds for guilt. If the beginning of creation is some distance, deep time past, to what ungodliness and unrighteousness was God's wrath against? There were no men. The creation Paul is speaking of is the world, as recorded in Genesis.

First, evolution in no way contradicts the Genesis account.

You would do well to read that article I linked, here it is again, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/orthodox-darwinism-atheism

Second, since when is sound hermeneutics considered alchemy?

When the "sound" hermeneutics ignores the fundamental rules of exegesis. Such as your position does.

Keep in mind that although your English Bible might use a past perfect tense “had formed” in verse 19, it was not in the original text. “Vaiyitzer Yahweh elohim…” “Formed the Lord God”… man, then; “Formed the Lord God”… land animals and birds. If one takes a plain reading of Genesis 2, the order is clearly different than when one takes a plain reading of Genesis 1.

What English translation are you talking about. All the English translations I am reading has it translated as you note here. As to whether it contradicts chapter 1, here's an article that can provide a more detailed response. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_1/j11_1_106-110.pdf

#57  Posted by Roberta Jackson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 6:33 AM

Re #44:

I do understand (and think I noted that)the Bible says nothing definitive about any worlds prior. As a creative person myself, however, I just can't imagine the Perfect Creator sitting around for millennia not doing anything with His time. I don't just paint one painting. I don't just plant one plant. I don't just make one quilt. Admittedly that is a human point of view. But He does admit to wanting relationship

As far as the II Peter reference, you are using a different Bible version which states it a bit differently, but it still differentiates between heavens of old and heavens that are now. May simply be semantics, but words do mean things :-D

As far as Adam and Eve, it seems that there was a lie in there somewhere, either between Adam and Eve, or Eve and the serpent. Again, however, we don't know for certain.

Also, your Romans reference says that death passed to all MEN. There is another reference that says that death entered the "world" which could mean literal world, or as in some Biblical references, world = man. Since scripture tends to prove scripture, we probably need to read this as man, not the world in general. But I'm no theologian and I admit I'm in way over my head.

#58  Posted by Roberta Jackson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 6:55 AM

Re Post #52:

I totally agree. But God did exist and I don't think he would have allowed himself to exist with no other purpose than this world alone, considering all that he is and all that he can do. Again, human thinking and perspective gets in the way...

#59  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 7:05 AM

Jorge writes:

OK, so let's add seven days to that. We then would have about 6,000 years, plus 7 days. Then let's add some time for the "gaps", would you add billions of years to that?, or how many?

First, I’ll address the genealogies. We don’t know that there were gaps, but if there were, it could have been several thousand years… but not “billions.” Adam may very well have shown up exactly 6013 years ago (to use Ussher’s precise calculation and accounting for the fact that there was no year zero,) but if you assume that, then you run into problems with the flood in 2348BC, especially if you assume a global flood because cultures were thriving in China, Egypt, and America around that time with no indication of a flood. The Bible doesn’t tell us exactly when the flood occurred, but best guesses put it anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 years ago. Likewise, Adam probably lived somewhere between 15,000 to 80,000 years ago. I’m more inclined to accept the lower numbers.

Now, as far as the “plus 7 days” argument, we know that can’t be the correct interpretation because of what happened on the first day and the fourth day. God created lights and the sources of light. This is the nail in the coffin for the YEC position. It’s been brought up several times on this blog and each and every time, it is followed by the sound of crickets chirping. No one will attempt to answer it because they simply can’t. Maybe you’ll be brave enough to try. The problem is that when God created light, He created history, because that is exactly what light is. It’s not a static object, it is a dynamic, detailed record of past events. We see events unfold, like the rotation of stars around our galaxy center over 20,000 years ago. We observe the same thing happen in our neighboring Andromeda galaxy as it happened over 2 million years ago, and we watch galaxies and super novas in action several billion years ago. One might suppose that light traveled at different speeds in the past, or that time slowed in the universe as God stretched out the heavens, or that light was created in progress from the event to the observer, or that simply God wasn’t in a hurry. Whichever way you look at it, the bottom line is God created history and lots of it… about 14 billion years of it.

Are you inferring that this a longer "day" than the others? I’m not “inferring” that because I don’t interpret it as a temporal statement to begin with, however, could it by “implying” that? I suppose that is possible. That’s what is implied in day 7 isn’t it?

I think it can be assumed it's a "day" just like the others.

It may be, but we can’t know for sure.

Do you utterly disagree with John MacArthur when he said: "People say, "Well what about the word 'day,' can't it mean something else?" It's the plain old Hebrew word yom, it means day. It's used in the Bible to indicate a 24-hour normal solar day or sometimes to refer to the daylight portion of a day." (I believe there has to be consistency here).

Yes, I would disagree with Mr. MacArthur here. He does an awesome job of teaching the plain truth of the Bible, but a lot of things that require any theological depth, especially word studies, he really drops the ball on them. This is a perfect example. Just a little bit of study would have revealed that this Hebrew word is used to mean all sorts of things in the Bible. See this from Strong’s Concordance:

“yom or yovm - age, always, continually, daily, birth, each, today,

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) -- age, + always, + chronicals, 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.”

I don't think Genesis 2 has to be taken in chronological order necessarily. After all, it begins: Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Then why must Genesis 1 be taken chronologically if you are free to take liberty with the order in Genesis 2? Also, the break from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 actually happens at verse 4. Vs 1-3 are technically part of the same body as Genesis 1.

Gen 7:18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. Again, earth = ha’aretz (land) NOT planet. There is never an indication in the text that earth is understood as a planet. The context of this entire passage has a very limited geographical scope by our modern understanding, even if it might have been universal at the time of the event.

Rom 1:20 is dealing with people who suppress the truth and do not give God glory. Yes it does. And ignoring “His eternal power and divine nature” which “have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” falls into that category.

Heb 1:11 is dealing with how the heavens and the earth will be done away and re-created . Sorry, I meant to reference Hebrews 11:3 there, not 1:11. Hopefully that makes more sense of my comment.

Col 1:16 says that Jesus was involved in creation with God.

It not only says that He was involved, but that the entire purpose for creation was “for” Him. In other words it was perfectly designed for Him to do His work in redeeming His bride. The point is that evolution, time and time again, shows a perfectly designed creation for just that purpose.

#60  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 7:44 AM

#53 Post

Joey,

What do mean by “It IS both”?

#61  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 9:00 AM

Just as Dr Sproul argued decades ago in the article above that when a Limited Inerrancy view is taken all sorts of deviancy can and WILL ensue. The proof of that assertion is now being demonstrated by such mockery of scripture as is seen in post #27 and post #59. One cannot sensibly debate with illogical additions and misrenderings of scripture. The conversation has dropped into the absurd when one alters verses and meanings as has been done in the cited posts. What an utter disregard for reverence...

On a separate note...here is a wonderful video; one which I own and will be teaching from in an upcoming two-part series for the youth at my home church:

http://www.themysteriousislands.com/

.

#62  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 9:12 AM

Comment deleted by user.
#63  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 10:01 AM

re # 57, Ms. Jackson wrote:

"I just can't imagine the Perfect Creator sitting around for millennia not doing anything with His time", and "Admittedly that is a human point of view."

If we were to use our imagination, we could come up with a lot of things God could have done with his time while "sitting around". Sadly, they would be just that, our ideas. The bible just says God is the same today, as He was yesterday, and how He'll be forever. How can we possible understand that?

re:

" (your translation) talks about the "...heavens were of old..." and the "...heavens...which are now..." God did not destroy the heavens in Noah's flood, so this is apparently talking about something in the distant past, since nothing like this happened again after the Noah flood.

I'm still not clear what translation you use, but,from the above reference, I still don't see where "..heavens were of old.." and "..heavens.. which are now.." would suggest two different creations. I think they mean two different time periods (as in many years ago, and now).

re:

"As far as Adam and Eve, it seems that there was a lie in there somewhere, either between Adam and Eve, or Eve and the serpent. Again, however, we don't know for certain. "

Well, maybe not a "lie". A different way of saying something does not necessarily make it a lie. What we know for sure is this:

1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Eve's sin was not "lying", but, ultimately, the eating of the fruit.

re:

"There is another reference that says that death entered the "world" which could mean literal world, or as in some Biblical references, world = man. Since scripture tends to prove scripture, we probably need to read this as man, not the world in general."

What I meant, is that there are no other references that suggest death BEFORE the original sin.

re:

"But I'm no theologian and I admit I'm in way over my head."

You and me both, ma'am. I realize my ignorance really shines through my "answers", but I'm just learning. Being over our heads here should NOT keep us from asking questions. How else will we learn to rightly divide the word of truth?. Believe me, iron sharpens iron here.

#64  Posted by John Linak  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 11:25 AM

Joey (#59):

The correct interpretation of Scripture is Scripture. How would you explain 2 Peter 3:5-7 in relation to v. 10 in the same context? This in regards to your comment denying a world-wide, global flood that happened the year Methuselah died? Is the Holy Spirit using this comparison between the flood and future judgment by fire to describe a localized event only happening at the Mt. of Olives on the day of the Lord....or, rather, a future global judgment?

If the flood was localized as you claim, why did birds need to board the ark? They could have simply flown away from the flood. Why did non-Mesopotamian animals need to board the ark? Etc...Etc... Why was there a commission in Gen 9:1 matching Gen 1:28?

Here are a few more passages to add to the stew:

Matt 24:39, Luke 17:27 (all men taken away; destroyed)

2 Peter 2:5 (ancient world not spared), 1 Peter 3:20 (8 saved only), Heb 11:7 (world condemned)

Back to Genesis 6...specifically vs 5-7....When God said He would "wipe/blot out/destroy mankind whom I created from the face of the earth/land"....what did He really intend to say if the flood was not a global judgment? Did God misspeak His intentions? Did all of the earth's population live in the same neighborhood or general vicinity?

No more opinions -- let Scripture interpret Scripture. We must reconcile our opinions with the entire Word of God. I fear our opinions often rob God of the glory due His name. Give Him glory!

#65  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 12:25 PM

#59 Joey Hodge

Forgot to add one more.

Notice before God said day one. He said there was evening and morning.

Seems like he made the things shorter than 1 whole day of each 6 days.

I wonder what Adam did at night. Sleep or watched the stars with a lion

next to him. We will never know but the point of creation is God never

sleeps. I meant when He created the heaven and earth.

Yes, Jesus slept on the boat. When the disciples were afraid and called

to Jesus. Jesus wakes up and command the winds to die down. It is a powerful statement that Jesus is indeed the Creator. When the people

ask Jesus about Abraham. Jesus told them before Abraham, I was there.

The people did'nt know the Jesus was the Living God.

When Jesus was brought before the council and they were questioning Him. The leader said Are you the Messiah, Son of God. Jesus told him I am He. The council did'nt believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Jesus was nailed to the cross. Two robbers that were on the cross

and one ask Jesus to remember me. Yes, Jesus told him today you will

be with me in hereafter. When Jesus raise from the dead, proves death

can't hold Him. Jesus is Alive!!!

Point of Creation is how God does His work in 6 days so we will work 6 days and rest the 7th day., and His promises of the Messiah and the new heaven and earth.

God bless.

#66  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 1:07 PM

#60 Millard writes:

What do mean by “It IS both”?

Exactly what I said. It is a false dichotomy to assume that a six-day creation cannot coincide with billions of years of evolution.

#67  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 1:11 PM

#62 Dan writes:

Umm, When I read God's Word. I see 6 days. Earth rotates as God creates it. That's what I look for in God's word. That what gives me a clue of why 7 days. Smiles.

I am praying for you. God bless and do you read Ken Ham's book. It's an impact to learn new things. I am glad you are reading JM sermons.

Have a great day.

Thanks Dan. All I can say is try not to read things into Scripture that are not there.

I’m still not sold on Ken Ham’s book. Is there anything particular in its content above and beyond what one can read on AiG?

#68  Posted by Mary Kidwell  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 1:18 PM

Joey,

What possible justification is there for not taking Genesis 1 chronologically? The text states first day, second day, third day...

You are trying to twist scripture or deny what it clearly says all the while claiming that you have a reverence for God and His Word. If you revere God and His Word, then believe what it says.

#69  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 1:35 PM

#64 John writes:

How would you explain 2 Peter 3:5-7 in relation to v. 10 in the same context? This in regards to your comment denying a world-wide, global flood that happened the year Methuselah died?

I would say it accurately reflects what is said in Genesis. What exactly are you getting at?

why did birds need to board the ark? They could have simply flown away from the flood.

For one, Noah needed birds with him. See Genesis 8:6-8 and Genesis 8:20.

Why did non-Mesopotamian animals need to board the ark?

Which non-Mesopotamian animals are you referring to?

Matt 24:39, Luke 17:27 (all men taken away; destroyed)

Yes the flood completely eradicated all of mankind.

2 Peter 2:5 (ancient world not spared), 1 Peter 3:20 (8 saved only), Heb 11:7 (world condemned)

All exactly right.

Back to Genesis 6...specifically vs 5-7....When God said He would "wipe/blot out/destroy mankind whom I created from the face of the earth/land"....what did He really intend to say if the flood was not a global judgment? Did God misspeak His intentions? Did all of the earth's population live in the same neighborhood or general vicinity?

He meant what He said. All of mankind would be destroyed. He did not misspeak. Yes, all of the earth’s population lived in the same region, as they continued to do even after the flood. See Genesis 11:1.

No more opinions -- let Scripture interpret Scripture. We must reconcile our opinions with the entire Word of God. I fear our opinions often rob God of the glory due His name. Give Him glory!

Amen!

#70  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 1:52 PM

#55 Mary writes,

Here is an article that explains the apparent (but not actual) contradiction between Genesis 1 chronology and Genesis 2.

Yes, I’ve read that article as well as everything else at AiG lots of times. You demonstrate my point exactly as you very correctly said, the “apparent” but not “actual” contradiction. I don’t believe there to be a contradiction. I was pointing out the double standard applied to interpreting Genesis 1 as opposed to interpreting Genesis 2. When it is convenient to take a less woodenly literal interpretation, many YEC folks will immediately waffle, rather than apply a consistent hermeneutic to both chapters.

In Genesis 2:19 the word for “formed” is better translated (as in the ESV and NIV) “had formed.”

Not disagreeing with you here, but my point was it’s the exact same word used in the exact same context in both verses. To say it is “better” translated is more opinion than it is a reflection of the actual text.

If He was speaking of a local flood than He would have lied as obviously numerous local and regional floods occur.

You can relax. God has not broken His covenant. Floods still occur, but none have completely wiped out all of mankind again.

It is not making an assumption to take the clear reading of a text particularly when other scripture confirms it.

I thought that’s what I was saying.

#71  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 2:20 PM

#56 Fred writes,

I am using it in the sense that all evolutionists use the word, evolutionary theory as explained through Darwin's particular philosophy of life on earth. An explanatory system that goes beyond just observing natural selection among living things, but a philosophical worldview that attempts to recreate earth's history apart from the recognition of a creator. If you had actually read took the time to read that link I posted early yesterday, it goes into some detail

Fred, you have a very unrealistic understanding of what evolution actually is. Regrettably, I did read your posting yesterday. This was obviously a biased study to begin with, but even so, if it had been a credible study, all it would show is a shallow appeal to popularity which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Mutations are mutations of present information. You need an addition of information in order to get the kind of viable changes evolution needs.

You still didn’t define “information” apart from mutation.

If the beginning of creation is some distance, deep time past, to what ungodliness and unrighteousness was God's wrath against? There were no men.

If you are going to make this bed, you are going to have to lie in it. To what ungodliness and unrighteousness was God’s wrath against in day two? How about day five?

You would do well to read that article I linked, here it is again,

For the record, you don’t have to post anything from AiG on my account. I’ve read it all. Creation.com too.

When the "sound" hermeneutics ignores the fundamental rules of exegesis. Such as your position does.

Please show me how my position does this.

#72  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 3:51 PM

re # 59, Joey wrote:

"..we know that can’t be the correct interpretation because of what happened on the first day and the fourth day. God created lights and the sources of light. This is the nail in the coffin for the YEC position. It’s been brought up several times on this blog and each and every time, it is followed by the sound of crickets chirping. No one will attempt to answer it because they simply can’t. Maybe you’ll be brave enough to try."

Not brave enough, but simple enough (or foolish?).

God said "let there be light", and there was, in day one. I think this was just do differentiate day from night for the days that would follow (too obvious?).

Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

Gen 1:15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

Gen 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

I think this refers to the creation of heavenly bodies and everything in the universe that "gives off light". Notice He said their light(s) would shine all the way "down" upon the earth.

Again, Joey, this is referring to Day one through day four, and then all the way to day six, when He made man. I still think these are 24 hr. days. Six of them, and then He rested a seventh. In no way do I see this as the "nail in the coffin" of the YEC position.

#73  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:08 PM

#38 Roberta Jackson

'Adam and Eve and all other creatures apparently were vegetarian. Did the plants not die when harvested or were eaten? What did Adam and Eve do when they "tended" the garden?'

These are good questions. Plants have a different death and it was

safe to eat. We are not sure what they did in the garden but I think

they enjoy walking with God.

'In our limited view, we see death as horrible and tragic. It could be that it WASN'T horrible and tragic until sin entered the world. Then it became tragic for all.'

Yes, sin brought it but Jesus came to die for our sins and rose again.

'Something else that troubles me...eating the forbidden fruit was not the first sin Eve committed...she lied to the serpent, yet nothing happened. Was it because that was not a sin against God...disobeying the only command that we know for sure that he gave Adam and Eve?'

In the New Testament, Eve was decieved and Adam sinned. It was

Adam responsibility to care for Eve and help her out. Yes, Adam stood

next to her.

Very good questions. Smiles.

#74  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:15 PM

#67 Joey Hodge

About a John MacArthur study bible? I use it and it helps me

know deep things about God.

God bless.

#75  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:34 PM

#15 Elaine Cavalheiro

I am moved by the story you mention. Thanks for sharing it. God

moves the hearts of the lost. Amen!

God bless.

#76  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:46 PM

#72 Jorge writes:

I think this refers to the creation of heavenly bodies and everything in the universe that "gives off light". Notice He said their light(s) would shine all the way "down" upon the earth.

Again, Joey, this is referring to Day one through day four, and then all the way to day six, when He made man. I still think these are 24 hr. days. Six of them, and then He rested a seventh. In no way do I see this as the "nail in the coffin" of the YEC position.

I think you missed the point. Even if you take them to be 24 hour days, as it says in Genesis 1:15, the light was visible from earth. If they were visible on day 4, then even the closest star would have had four full years of history included in the light. You would have been able to see everything that star had been doing for the past four years. Now whether you assume four years had actually passed or God made it appear as if they had actually passed, you are still left with an observable history of four years of history on day 4, as real of history as the time from 2006 to today. Now that’s just one star. If you consider all the stars in our galaxy we have tens of thousands of years of history. Add to that nearby galaxies and you have millions of years of history. Add to that distant galaxies and cosmic background radiation, you have billions of years of history. There’s your nail in the coffin.

And before all you guys run to AiG or creation.com to find ‘articles’ to hide behind, let me point out that in what I said above, it is NOT assumed that the speed of light ‘must’ be a constant and it is NOT assumed that there was not a miraculous expansion of the universe that stretched out the distance between stars and galaxies. All those suggestions do is make the numbers I mentioned smaller. They don’t bring them down anywhere close to a single day and certainly not to zero.

#77  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:51 PM

#12 Posted by Alex Soriano

'By the way, anyone can give me a verse in the bible which supports the theory of evolution? Please explain it to me base on authorial intent. I’v been reading the bible for 15 years – maybe I’d missed that one.'

I can give you a bible verse but I don't seem to see anything in the bible refers to evolution. I am glad you are hungry for the truth.

So, am I. Smiles.

Ok, Paul mention in Colossians 2;8- Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of

men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according

to Christ.

Paul was saying we need God's wisdom cause it produce good fruit.

Hope it helps? and I encourage you to pray too. God bless.

#78  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 4:58 PM

#68 Mary writes:

What possible justification is there for not taking Genesis 1 chronologically?

Genesis 2

You are trying to twist scripture or deny what it clearly says all the while claiming that you have a reverence for God and His Word. If you revere God and His Word, then believe what it says.

I take believing exactly what the Bible says very seriously. If I have twisted or denied God’s Word in any way, please show me how, so I can stop.

#79  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 5:08 PM

I read a post by someone above. Said that a local flood was real.

IF such one, Noah's Ark would fall over the water fall plumbing

to the ground. Explosion. No it did not happen to be a local flood.

In Gen 6-7. It said 8 people, 2 pairs of each unclean animals, 7 pairs of each clean animals, and 7 pairs of each bird went in the ark to be kept alive. All that breathe air outside of the ark died in the Global flood, both evil humans and animals, including birds too. Not a soul of humans and animals, birds that escaped the flood. Does that help?

God bless.

#80  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 5:29 PM

I know Fred posted a link to this article earlier... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/orthodox-darwinism-atheism ...but for some who may not have the durability to actually read the entire article hear is a very funny selection:

Cornell Professor William Provine wrote that the

"implications of modern science produce much squirming among scientists, who claim a high degree of rationality. Some, along with many liberal theologians, suggest that God set up the universe in the beginning and/or works through the laws of nature. This silly way of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too amounts to deism. It is equivalent to the claim that science and religion are compatible if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. Show me a person who says that science and religion are compatible, and I will show you a person who (1) is an effective atheist, or (2) believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists (Provine 1988, p. 10)."

Kinda what we have been trying to tell certain ones here for some time...funny that the same sentiment is shown coming from the ones they pay homage to with near deification status...

#81  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 5:48 PM

It's easy to forget to say God says.

Oh, That's right, God says Day one is 24 hr period. Over 200x in the Bible it's mentions that one week the God created heaven and earth.

That would be using God's authority. Amen!

I can't say what the bible says, I did'nt write the bible. God did.

Does that help?

#82  Posted by Mary Kidwell  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 6:21 PM

Joey,

Genesis 1 speaks in terms of first day, second day, third day, ...

Genesis 2 does not. To say Genesis 1 is not chronological is denying what scripture plainly says. You can keep pretending innocence but you are denying God's word.

#83  Posted by Roberta Jackson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 6:22 PM

RE Post 76 in response to Post 72: One thing that appears to be missing in the discussion is that God created age when He created. Adam and Eve were not babies. They were fully matured. We don't know, but we could pretty well assume that most if not all of the other creation was mature as well. Trees were full grown. Edible plants HAD to be grown and bearing fruit or Adam and Eve would have starved. This is God we are talking about...think outside the box...is there some reason why the light visible from the stars could not be part of the creation of the heavenly bodies...fully mature and functioning in their normal, scientific manner? Just a thought...

#84  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 6:25 PM

re # 76, Joey wrote:

"I think you missed the point."

I knew I would ;-)

re:

"If they were visible on day 4, then even the closest star would have had four full years of history included in the light."

I can't believe that. I believe that star, along with another one a billion light years away (that's my sorry attempt at sounding scientific) would both have been ONE day old, with NO history "behind" them, on day five.

That is as I understand scripture meaning 24hr days. Your knowledge and explanations leave my head spinning. So, since I believe God is powerful enough to have been able to create everything in those six 24hr days, with no history behind them, I must leave you with that. May God grant us all wisdom and understanding. On to the next blog!!

#85  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 4:02 AM

#80 Keith says:

From Mr. Provine:

Show me a person who says that science and religion are compatible, and I will show you a person who (1) is an effective atheist, or (2) believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists

How about Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson - “Operation science, whether done by an evolutionist or a creationist, has benefited mankind in many ways, particularly through technology. Creationists have contributed greatly in this area of science, including nineteenth-century physicists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, and more recently Dr. Raymond Damadian, who invented the MRI imaging used by medical doctors” From “Science or the Bible?” AiG 6/14/07

Or John MacArthur - “True science has no argument with Scripture.” From the sermon, “Biblical Inspiration Validated By Science, Part 1” 90-326

Some, along with many liberal theologians, suggest that God set up the universe in the beginning and/or works through the laws of nature. This silly way of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too amounts to deism.

Is Mr. Provine calling the apostle Paul a deist? Colossians 1:16-17

#86  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 4:33 AM

#66 Post

Joey,

What do you call this dichotomy where “a six-day creation” can “coincide with billions of years of evolution” and where did you get your information?

#87  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 6:17 AM

Provine, as I understand his statements, is talking about evolutionary science...not "true" science (as Dr MacArthur calls it) that has as its foundational assumptions in the bible as opposed to evolutionary science whose foundations are on "chance", atheism, and naturalism.

Ken Ham is, as I understand his position, defending a six-day literal creation and a creation-scientific theory...not evolutionary science.

Paul is talking about "creation" in the cited passage not evolution.

#88  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 8:00 AM

#84 Jorge writes:

I can't believe that. I believe that star, along with another one a billion light years away (that's my sorry attempt at sounding scientific) would both have been ONE day old, with NO history "behind" them, on day five.

You just denied that the stars were ‘visible’ from earth on day four, or five, or even on day one hundred. Actually you just denied that the vast majority of stars and 100% of galaxies are visible from earth today. I don’t think you meant to do that.

#89  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 8:01 AM

#86 Millard writes:

What do you call this dichotomy where “a six-day creation” can “coincide with billions of years of evolution”

That’s the point. There is no dichotomy. Why do you assume there is one?

where did you get your information?

The Bible

#90  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 8:30 AM

Mary #82 writes:

To say Genesis 1 is not chronological is denying what scripture plainly says.

First, go back through this entire series of post and find one time where I said Genesis 1 is not chronological. My point has always been that is doesn’t have to be taken chronologically. I challenge you to find one other single reference at all in the Bible that even references the chronology of the six days of creation in Genesis 1. What you will find is continual references to the quantity of a six-day creation. In fact, that’s the only qualifier ever used I believe.

You, and others, keep wanting to apply the use of “plain reading” to the texts. While I agree with what many theologians throughout history have taught about taking a “plain reading” of Scripture, basically meaning not to look for a meaning beyond what is stated in its most simple form, it is a huge mistake to take that to mean we should apply a colloquial meaning to any text sans exegesis. That’s what’s wrong with insisting on interpreting Genesis to be making temporal or chronological statements.

As another example, take a look at Matthew 16:27-28. A “plain reading” of this text gives fuel to the scoffers that Mr. MacArthur is talking about in his more recent topic, “A Word of Warning to Uniformitarian Scoffers.” How would you handle this scripture to one of these scoffers?

#91  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 9:04 AM

Joey,

If you will not answer my question in post # 86 then will you please explain your statement -“Exactly what I said. It is a false dichotomy to assume that a six-day creation cannot coincide with billions of years of evolution” a little better so it is easier for us to understand. If you put your statement above with your # 89 post “That’s the point. There is no dichotomy. Why do you assume there is one?” then one would understand you to say that there is no “billions of years of evolution” because there was only “a six-day creation”. Is this what you are trying to state?

#92  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 9:44 AM

Joey,

God told me exact the what His Word said. I cried every night and

screamed. It did'nt work but God, in time told me. I opened my

ears of my heart to listen. Just honest.

Does that help and you need to pray. I am encouraging you.

#93  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 10:30 AM

#87 Kieth says:

Provine, as I understand his statements, is talking about evolutionary science...not "true" science (as Dr MacArthur calls it) that has as its foundational assumptions in the bible as opposed to evolutionary science whose foundations are on "chance", atheism, and naturalism.

But those qualifiers were not in his statement and that’s my point. I’m not intentionally trying to misread his comments (I understood what he was saying) but rather to point out that the statements need qualification, i.e. “true science” and “creation-scientific theory” as you say. That’s been my point from the beginning. If we were just using terms like atheistic or naturalistic philosophy, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But just throwing the term “evolution” out irresponsibly instead of these more appropriate terms which really mean what you are talking about is reckless. It gives people the wrong idea and makes them into bad disciples, teachers, and ministers.

#94  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 10:57 AM

#91 Millard writes:

will you please explain your statement -“Exactly what I said. It is a false dichotomy to assume that a six-day creation cannot coincide with billions of years of evolution” a little better so it is easier for us to understand.

What I am saying is that a six-day creation does not conflict with billions of years of evolution because they are two entirely different things. To think that the latter conflicts with the former assumes a lot of things that are simply not in the text of Genesis. First, It assumes that the days must be 24 hour days because they are not defined as such in the text. I don’t personally think they represent a different length of day though. Next, it assumes that the days are chronological, which is called into question by chapter two which uses a different order. Again, I don’t think the order of days in Genesis 1 should be understood as being in a different order. Next, it assumed that the days must be sequential. In other words, that day three was the immediate next day after day two. There could have been any amount of time passed between the two. It is a little more plausible I think, but I still doubt it. Lastly, it is assumes that the statements in Genesis 1 are temporal in nature. I doubt they were. You could make all of these assumptions and still be in line with everything else in the Bible. On the other hand, when you remove all of these assumptions, the text still fits perfectly. When you perform an exegesis, you are left with a stalemate. It can’t be conclusively determined which interpretation is correct.

#95  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 11:20 AM

"While I agree with what many theologians throughout history have taught about taking a “plain reading” of Scripture, basically meaning not to look for a meaning beyond what is stated in its most simple form, it is a huge mistake to take that to mean we should apply a colloquial meaning to any text sans exegesis."

Theology is the study of God. Evolution has no theology since evolution has no God...evolutionists know that, as demonstrated by the statements I quoted in post #80

Exegesis is proper...adding anything...especially atheistic-Satanic twists (evolution) to scripture is prohibited. Evolution was developed by the minds of those who were atheistic in their beliefs regarding the existence of a God...any god. To add evolution to biblical texts is to cross a line that God has said shall not be crossed.

.

#96  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 11:39 AM

Comment deleted by user.
#97  Posted by John Linak  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 11:41 AM

Post #90 re: Matthew 16:27-28, same context, next chapter: Peter, James and John at the transfiguration. Remember, John also witnessed and recorded Revelation...specifically, Revelation 19:11 et al.

Post #90 re: chronology and order of creation - can plants exist in complete darkness? Can land animals exist without dry land? Can birds fly in a non-existent sky? The design and order/chronology of creation was perfected in the mind of God.

--------------

I suggest everyone reads 2 Timothy 2:23 and moves on. This blog is becoming divisive: full of supposed "knowledge", flawed opinions and seriously lacking love. I'm going to go back and read Job 38 and praise God for His marvelous work at creation...a literal 6-day, 24-hour creation. (Exodus 20:11)

Final thought, what would be the significance of the Sabbath (Day 7) if the first 6 days were ages? Why would Jesus declare himself the Lord of the Sabbath? Read Hebrews 4:1-11 with Matthew 11:28-30.

#98  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 11:48 AM

John, just for the record, pretty much everyone here agree with you. I think your comment is aimed at just a couple of individuals.

#99  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 12:30 PM

#95 Kieth writes:

To add evolution to biblical texts is to cross a line that God has said shall not be crossed.

Exactly as I stated… repeatedly, in posts #9, #13 and #35.

#100  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 12:31 PM

# 37 - Joey.

Coming back late to the discussion, sorry, been busy. Haven't been able to catch up yet.

I said in my comment that you quote in your comment #37 that I have NOT done any formal research to be able to give you any data. But I see that you consider "testimony" to mean "data". Well, I don't.

Hitler. yes, he did not have a low view of himself. As you surely know, Hitler was very fond of Darwin. Hitler viewed himself (and his race) as the "fittest". The killing of all those people (not only Jews, as you know) didn't bother him a bit, in his mind he was doing the world a service.

As for my comment on #18 - I laughed when I read your comment because that's exactly what evolution is, an attack by the enemy on Scripture. =)

I have read all that you have written up to this comment (#37). What strikes me is that you agree with everyone and disagree with everyone at the same time. You should've gone into politics. =)

#101  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 12:37 PM

#96 Dan writes:

When God spoke and stars appear quick as a blink of an eye. Smiles. How hard is to understand that. Stars need no time to reach to it's place in the sky.

But did they “appear” or did they “come into existence?” You can’t have it both ways. Either they appeared, which means they had already been in existence… or they came into existence which means they have not yet appeared. Which is it?

In the beginning, the earth was like a drop of water in the nothing.

This sounds like ANE myth… not the Bible. In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

#102  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 12:54 PM

#97 John writes:

next chapter: Peter, James and John at the transfiguration. Remember, John also witnessed and recorded Revelation...specifically, Revelation 19:11 et al.

Very good! You applied an exegesis rather than depend on the “plain reading” of the text alone. Well done!

can plants exist in complete darkness? Can land animals exist without dry land? Can birds fly in a non-existent sky?

Can evening and morning happen with no sun? For the record, I think they can… I’m just following your reasoning. Also consider, can man exist without birds? Can Fish exist with no moon? We could keep this up all day.

I suggest everyone reads 2 Timothy 2:23 and moves on. This blog is becoming divisive: full of supposed "knowledge", flawed opinions and seriously lacking love.

Well said and actually accurately stated.

Final thought…

Well, at least you tried to move on…

what would be the significance of the Sabbath (Day 7) if the first 6 days were ages?

Let’s start with Mark 2:27.

Why would Jesus declare himself the Lord of the Sabbath?

Because He is Lord over everything… including the Sabbath.

#103  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 3:05 PM

# 94 Post

Joey,

Its my opinion that most of the post on this blog site are trying to convince you that you have a choice to believe its either one way or the other but not both. The ‘Law of Non-Contradiction’ prevents it from logically being a six day creation week and billions of years of evolution at the same time. In simple terms two plus two always equals four. The summation of those numbers cannot equal another number. It is a false statement to say it does. Choosing correctly is your challenge and it appears that most of the opinions on this blog tend to agree that the six day creation week over billions of years of evolution is the truthful choice of how scripture reads and how it should be interpreted. I think John’s suggestion in Post # 97 should be taken and I do so by closing my comments here on this blog.

God Bless,

#104  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 4:28 PM

Roberta Jackson

'One thing that appears to be missing in the discussion is that God created age when He created. Adam and Eve were not babies. They were fully matured. We don't know'

Right, Adam and Eve were fully grown with no belly buttons. No one gave birth to them. Good point.

'but we could pretty well assume that most if not all of the other creation was mature as well. Trees were full grown. Edible plants HAD to be grown and bearing fruit or Adam and Eve would have starved. '

Adam and Eve would'nt have a problem starving. Their bodies were well

function with no sin, no sickness, no death

This is God we are talking about...think outside the box...is there some reason why the light visible from the stars could not be part of the creation of the heavenly bodies...fully mature and functioning in their normal, scientific manner? Just a thought...

What box? The box is a human standard of wisdom. Stars were created on

day 3 along with sun and moon. God is not science. He is the real living Spirit. Amen.

Is it helpful?

God bless.

#105  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 6:53 PM

Joey,

'Of course He can do it in six days if He wants. Do you believe God could not create the heavens and earth in four days? How about 45 minutes? How long does He need? What is the limit of His power? You see, this is in no way an issue of potency as you imply.'

Also God says in His Word, He said His arm is not short. He can create

in a split second. But His way is different than our way. His thoughts

are higher than our thoughts.

Does that help?

God's love endures forever.

#106  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 7:05 PM

Re # 97, John wrote:

"I suggest everyone reads 2 Timothy 2:23 and moves on."

You shouldn't have stopped there:

2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, ABLE TO TEACH, PATIENTLY ENDURING EVIL,

2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I guess I am one of the "divisive" ones you spoke of. Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Believe me I'm trying my best to rightly divide the word of truth here. God Bless.

#107  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 7:14 AM

Joey,

Look at the bible in perspective. In the beginning, God created the

heavens and the earth. Then what the next line said. That earth looked like a what? A ball of water, with darkness and emptiness and void.

Then God hover over the water to plan His work. No myth there.

#108  Posted by Roberta Jackson  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 7:40 AM

Re: Post 104 by Dan

Thanks for the help. Didn't realize I needed it, though. I was trying to give a possible expanation as to how the stars could have been created in a blink of an eye while not being contradictory to the light-years conflict that's been going on.

But by the way, if you read one of my earlier posts, you will see that I totally disagree about there not being death prior to Adam's fall. The Tree of Life was there for them to eat. God sent them from the garden and posted an angel to keep them from getting to it. That tree shows up again in Revelation, and there is a group that must eat of it regularly (I think once a year) to stay alive. I don't want to get this discussion thread off base by deliberating this point. I know JM doesn't believe what I just said and his followers on this board will also disagree. That's OK. It doesn't affect our salvation or us being brothers and sisters in Christ.

#109  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 9:40 AM

#100 Elaine writes:

you quote in your comment #37 that I have NOT done any formal research to be able to give you any data.

I’m pretty sure I didn’t accuse you of not having data. I just wanted to clarify what you were basing your comment on.

I see that you consider "testimony" to mean "data". Well, I don't.

That’s okay. Again, you’ll have to forgive my nerdness, but I consider “data” to be anything you can see, hear, touch, taste or smell. Not to be confused with “knowledge” which encompasses much more than that.

that's exactly what evolution is, an attack by the enemy on Scripture.

Well, at one time many reputable, well-educated, Godly people considered heliocentrism to be an attack by the enemy on Scripture. They were wrong too.

What strikes me is that you agree with everyone and disagree with everyone at the same time.

You’re right and you’re wrong :-p

Seriously, a lot of people quote things from the Bible, which I must agree with because the Word is the final authority. I will disagree though when they bring an unreasonable interpretation to it or try to do an eisegesis (bring one’s own meaning to the text.)

#110  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 9:55 AM

#103 Millard writes:

The ‘Law of Non-Contradiction’ prevents it from logically being a six day creation week and billions of years of evolution at the same time.

I can see that you appreciate the laws of logic, so allow me to put it in logical terms. The question becomes, “Is it possible for a six-day creation and billions of years of evolution to both be true?” In post #94 I spelled out not just one, but four separate conditions whereby both could be true without contradiction. I didn’t say you had to accept one over the other, but it does prove the dichotomy to be false since there are other possibilities… logically speaking of course.

it appears that most of the opinions on this blog tend to agree that the six day creation week over billions of years of evolution is the truthful choice of how scripture reads and how it should be interpreted.

This demonstrates the logical fallacy of, “appeal to popularity.”

#111  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 10:06 AM

#106 Jorge writes:

(your response to #97 John)

I guess I am one of the "divisive" ones you spoke of. Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Believe me I'm trying my best to rightly divide the word of truth here. God Bless.

Thank you, Jorge for your continued discussion in the spirit of Proverbs 27:17. It’s obvious you have not come here to mock, but to teach and to learn. I appreciate your attitude and the sincerity with which you approach Scripture and healthy debate. I look forward to the possibility of many more discussions with you on these and other topics.

#112  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 10:40 AM

#104 & #105 Dan writes:

He can create in a split second.

and

is there some reason why the light visible from the stars could not be part of the creation of the heavenly bodies...fully mature and functioning in their normal, scientific manner?

Absolutely not. If you go back and read my post #76 you’ll see that I fully allowed that as a possibility. But that does not help with the YEC problem. Let me try to explain it simpler terms.

First, I was talking about the star Proxima Centauri which is the closest star to our solar system. It is four light years away, which means, when you look up in the sky tonight in 2010, you see what the star was doing in 2006. With different equipment, you can even track its motion in the galaxy, watch it rotate on its axis as it was doing in that year. You don’t see anything it is doing right now. It could explode today and we wouldn’t know it until we observed it in 2014.

Likewise, if we take Ussher’s date of creation in 4004BC, and we assume that God created the star instantly in that year and the light between here and there, then the light would have shown what the star was doing in 4008BC, four years before it was created, therefore when you say that God created the light in-progress, you are saying that God created the history that goes with that light. Again, that’s just our closest neighboring star. If you consider just our Milky Way Galaxy, then we are still witnessing this (pre-creation) history unfold, just as real as if it were yesterday.

I don't have a problem with the logic or the theology of this position, but taking it turns a YEC instantly into an OEC, which is why the big YEC sites (AiG and the like) discourage taking it.

Does that make sense?

#113  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 3:08 PM

So Joey,

Your explanation of the horizon problem with the use of logic is what exactly? Do you appeal to dark matter or energy? Both of which are at this point in astrophysics, utterly imagined.

#114  Posted by Roberta Jackson  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 3:23 PM

Re: Post 12 citing posts 104 and 105.

Joey,

Dan did not write that. I did. I'm one of those dastardly gap-theory people who believe this whole evolution brou-ha-ha is a result of leftovers from a world that was destroyed by water prior to this one. That's why I believe there was death before Adam and Eve. However, I also have no problem believing that an almighty God could create a history of something he has yet to create. We have no idea the power of the God we serve.

Sometimes I think God's sense of humor shows at times like these, as he watches and listens to us come up with these brainiac theories that probably aren't even close to what actually happened... :-D

I also wonder sometimes if Darwin's theory would have even gotten off the ground if the current technology was available to him. I doubt it.

#115  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 3:47 PM

Joey,

Why are you mad at me. I am explaining the truth from the Living God

who speaks through me.

I know stars are (b)millions of light yrs but God holds the whole universe in the palm of His hands. If there's millions or billions

of yrs then we have a god who does'nt care about us. I did not say

anyhing to hurt you. It's the truth that hurts, because it's a

powerful statement. ok, I don't stand with humans, I stand alone with

God. I trust God alone and there are more godly humans would do the

same.

Sorry I upset you but I am not sorry about the truth of God's Word and even not sorry for believing what God said too.

#116  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 5:15 PM

Hi, Joey, first of all, thank you for your kind words in # 111.

Re # 88, you wrote:

"You just denied that the stars were ‘visible’ from earth on day four, or five, or even on day one hundred. Actually you just denied that the vast majority of stars and 100% of galaxies are visible from earth today. I don’t think you meant to do that."

Well, I was just trying to stick to biblical history: the earth WAS created in day one, the heavenly bodies WERE created in day four. I believe when they were created in day four, they WERE visible from earth. God set them in space not only to give light onto the earth (therefore creating their light right then and there), but for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.

For those "signs and seasons" to be observable today (or for Adam to observe), they must have been seen in day five. So you can't possibly assert that they could not have been "seen" (from a biblical point of view). If you are, you are contradicting what the bible says, and I don't think YOU meant to do that :-)

Here's a thought, since the creation of earth preceded that of the stars, could it be possible that it's not a good idea to look at them for historic reference?, but rather to look at what's happened on earth to discern it's history? (obviously). In other words, since we can't be sure how old the universe is (and you must admit your presuppositions are not without problems); we would be better off if we look at space as just that; "space" that glorifies God.

#117  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 5:46 PM

Re # 108, Ms. Jackson wrote:

"...you will see that I totally disagree about there not being death prior to Adam's fall. The Tree of Life was there for them to eat."

True, but that in no way infers there was death BEFORE that. After eating from the tree of life, then they would not die: that's all the tree was there for. It would really help if you could reference bible verses to back up what you believe.

and "I don't want to get this discussion thread off base by deliberating this point."

You won't be the first, you won't be the last.:-)

Re:

"That's OK. It doesn't affect our salvation or us being brothers and sisters in Christ."

Amen to that, but it makes for great discussion and learning.

#118  Posted by Mary Kidwell  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 4:44 AM

Roberta,

You stated, “Sometimes I think God's sense of humor shows at times like these, as he watches and listens to us come up with these brainiac theories that probably aren't even close to what actually happened.”

I believe this is why we need to heed 1 Cor. 4:6 and not think beyond what is written. If we stick with what God wrote in Genesis, and the rest of His Word, and not try to imagine all the possibilities man can come up with in regards to how the world began, then we will be believing what God wrote for us to believe and not leaning on our own understanding.

#119  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 4:56 AM

#113 Fred writes:

Your explanation of the horizon problem with the use of logic is what exactly? Do you appeal to dark matter or energy? Both of which are at this point in astrophysics, utterly imagined.

First, I think that bringing up the horizon problem, rather than responding to the much, much, much bigger light-travel problem we have been discussing, surmounts to a red herring.

Nevertheless, the horizon problem is a legitimate problem, so I will address it.

The horizon problem is kind of a two-fold problem. At least it is perceived that way, but it really boils down to one essential problem, the uniformity of cosmic background radiation. Simply put, this is explained exactly the same way uniformity and precision is explained the countless times it is observed in nature… God’s design. I’ll repeat what I said in post #32 (Remember Acts 17:28? There is no such thing as “random” chance in anything.)If one is an atheist, then they have a real problem here to deal with. But since I am not an atheist, the “problem” is solved, but the mystery remains.

So what else can we say about the mystery? Well, the other ‘fold’ of the horizon problem is the apparent distance from one ‘horizon’ to the other ‘horizon’ as observed from earth. Supposedly, not only has light not had enough time to travel from one to the other, it certainly has not had time to transfer energy to maintain a consistent temperature throughout. Let’s set aside that we are talking in terms of Newtonian physics, while discussing something that is more akin to quantum physics where particles moving away from each other at high speeds, near the speed of light, have been observed to have a cause-effect relationship.

This fold of the horizon problem is nothing more than a perception problem. The important thing to remember is that the universe is aging and expanding at the same time. The further away we see, the further back in time we see. But it is important to remember that because the universe is expanding, objects further and further away from us are actually observed to be further away “when” we see them. In other words, (I’m just using round numbers for reference – these aren’t actually values) an object may be 5 billion light years away today, but “when” we see it, it was only 4 billion light years away. But since the universe expanded as the light was traveling, we “see” it as about 4.5 billion light years away. We see it as it was 4 billion years ago, but it appears to be further away that that. Objects further away, expand faster and the variance gets larger. When you get to the cosmic background radiation, you are seeing what appears to be billions of light years away, but “when” we see it, it was vastly closer, essentially right on top of us. Another way of looking at it, if we were to be standing at the point in space where we observe the cosmic background radiation to be now, it would not be there. We might be in a galaxy that has developed much like our own. On the other had if we were to look back in our direction, toward the Milky Way, we would not see the galaxy at all, but we would see the cosmic background radiation appear to be where we are standing today instead.

As for dark matter and energy as a proposed source as the driving force of the expansion of the universe, everyone knows that’s just an idea at this point and is in no way proven. Dark matter and energy are real however and there is strong data to support that. It may be that the those turn out to be poor terms for whatever the ‘stuff’ is, but we can measure the mass of galaxies and see that they have considerably much more mass than can be seen from just the stars in them. It’s like seeing a box of matches get placed on a bathroom scale and seeing it go from zero to 100lbs. You know there’s more to it than just the simple box of matches.

Now, are you going to offer any ideas about the light travel problem that go beyond what we’ve already discussed? Have you got anything? And by “you” I don’t mean yet another link to AiG that fails to offer any plausible explanations.

#120  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 10:51 AM

Joey in #119 writes,

First, I think that bringing up the horizon problem, rather than responding to the much, much, much bigger light-travel problem we have been discussing, surmounts to a red herring.

And your expertise in astrophysics is...? Or are you citing from secondary sources off Hugh Ross's site?

Honestly, you exaggerate the significance of the problem and to dismiss the equally, if not greater, problem modern big bang cosmology has with the horizon problem as a red herring shows me you that with your strident cockiness you aren't familiar with the literature on the matter.

Continuing,

Now, are you going to offer any ideas about the light travel problem that go beyond what we’ve already discussed? Have you got anything? And by “you” I don’t mean yet another link to AiG that fails to offer any plausible explanations.

Speaking past your arrogance, I would say the same thing you did: The light travel problem is just a matter of perception. There have actually been some excellent work in this area by a number of biblical creationists who are qualified astronomers, but I reckon it would be pointless to provide any citation seeing you have such visceral hatred toward your detractors and probably don't have the expertise to offer a serious evaluation of their studies, anyways.

#121  Posted by Roberta Jackson  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 11:27 AM

In Post 117 Jorge writes:

"True, but that in no way infers there was death BEFORE that. After eating from the tree of life, then they would not die: that's all the tree was there for. It would really help if you could reference bible verses to back up what you believe."

We do not have the mind of God, we don't (usually) understand the ways of God. He did, however, bless us with logic and I'm sure he expects us to use it. Within the bounds of my own mind and logic, I can find no other reason for the tree of life to be in the garden other than they needed to eat from it. Using your own reasoning (and mine as well), they ate so that they would not die. They were prevented from eating of the tree AFTER the fall so it must have been necessary BEFORE the fall. God does nothing unintentionally. It was there for a reason, and He made sure we knew it was there.

As to Dan's comment in Post 104, he made the point that Adam and Eve wouldn't starve if the plants weren't mature and bearing fruit. Why did God tell them to eat? I don't believe in the type of evolution that would dictate that once we could live WITHOUT eating but now we must...

#122  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 11:39 AM

Re # 118, Ms. Kidwell wrote:

"If we stick with what God wrote in Genesis, and the rest of His Word, and not try to imagine all the possibilities man can come up with in regards to how the world began, then we will be believing what God wrote for us to believe and not leaning on our own understanding."

If all I had to deal with were saved, bible believing christians, your comment would make all the sense in the world. As it is, when I hear or read (like is the case here) someone asking a question or asserting something I disagree with, I feel compelled to try to "help out" (and at the same time confirm that what I believe is true). Not with arrogance, or puffed up; but in the spirit of :

2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, ABLE TO TEACH, PATIENTLY ENDURING EVIL,

2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Even though those bible references speak of fighting erroneous doctrine about biblical ideas, I believe they can be applied to erroneous views of God's workings.

Should anyone, if they hear something that contradicts what they believe to be true,just keep silent?.

#123  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 12:13 PM

#115 Dan writes:

Why are you mad at me.

Dan, I’m not mad at you, and I’m really not sure what I might have said to give you that impression. I’m sorry if you were troubled by anything I said. It was never meant as a personal attack, but as you say, “it’s the truth that hurts.” It always takes thick skin to engage in debate about these matters because everybody is not always going to agree with you. And remember Proverbs 12:1.

#124  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 12:59 PM

#120 Fred writes:

And your expertise in astrophysics is...?

We are talking high school level physics here Fred. This isn’t cutting-edge science. And no, I didn’t cite Hugh Ross. As I stated earlier in this thread, I don’t see eye to eye with his approach.

you exaggerate the significance of the problem

I don’t see how you can say that. It’s a dilemma which makes the YEC position irreconcilable with Genesis 1. No one has yet stated any ‘possible’ scenarios that will make it fit, let alone a ‘plausible’ one.

and to dismiss the equally, if not greater, problem modern big bang cosmology has with the horizon problem as a red herring shows me you that with your strident cockiness you aren't familiar with the literature on the matter.

Did I dismiss it? No, I addressed it. I’ll say again, the problem is resolved by simply acknowledging intelligent design, which is what the argument is intended to elicit to begin with. I agree with that, so why must it still be a problem? Furthermore, there’s no way you can say this problem even holds a candle to the light-travel problem because it isn’t a problem of logical or Biblical inconsistency, which the light-travel problem is. At best it shows a deficiency in current big bang models, which most modern scientists would expect to be proven wrong anyway at some point by better models.

The light travel problem is just a matter of perception. There have actually been some excellent work in this area by a number of biblical creationists who are qualified astronomers,

You don’t get to say it “is just a matter of perception” like I did, unless you can back that up like I did. If you go back and read my post #76, you’ll see that I acknowledged the studies of these astronomers you are talking about concerning this problem. My point was that even ‘if’ the ideas they are attempting to prove turn out to be 100% accurate as they suggest, (which are obviously reaching to begin with) it does not solve the problem. It only minimizes the values of the variables involved. That’s it.

Speaking past your arrogance…

but I reckon it would be pointless to provide any citation seeing you have such visceral hatred toward your detractors and probably don't have the expertise to offer a serious evaluation of their studies, anyways.

Please look past my “arrogance,” “visceral hatred,” “cockiness,” and lack of “expertise” and provide a summation of one of these citations, that addresses the stated problem and how it might possibly ‘not’ be a problem.

A while back you did post one resource I had not read before from Dr. John Hartnett which I did find rather interesting, and I think spent the most of that day reading. His ideas about “cosmic relativity” were intriguing but, while they would be consistent technically with a “young earth,” they acknowledge an “old universe.” He basically proposes that the universe and the earth could have been created in the same week, but that as the heavens were stretched out, time was stretched out with it, yielding a universe that is much more ‘aged’ than the earth. What do you think about that?

#125  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 2:54 PM

Sorry I push Joey too far. I understand it's mind blowing about the

stars and how awesome his created works in the sky. I agree how great

the stars look. God placed them in the sky for us to enjoy. right, Joey?

My favorite is meteors and comets. Smiles.

And roberta jackson, thanks for your kindness. I agree the bible is

full of mysteries. It takes time to learn it. Smiles.

#126  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 4:38 PM

#120 Post

Fred,

I think you are aware that some on this blog have failed to point out that their intentions are only to continue contradictory conversations hoping to pose doubt to the ears of those less knowledgeable in a particular area for obvious reasons.

John MacArthur put it very well in his ‘Final Word’ blog:

“To many, having been indoctrinated in schools where the line between hypothesis and fact is systematically and deliberately being blurred, that may sound naive or unsophisticated, but it is nonetheless a fact. Again, science has never disproved one word of Scripture, and it never will.”

What was been left out of the horizon and light travel problem conversation is to hopefully contorting the issue by those wishing to offer confusion is the extremely rapid exponential expansion if the big bang did in fact occur and that light travels at various speeds through different medium. The light travel issue alone eliminates the potential of time calculations based on its varying speed so why merit it as a valid tool for that purpose. Now I’m not advocating that there was a big bang as some scientist claim but what I am suggesting is that some of the theory is omitted purposely to gain acceptance by the unknowing of the evolutionary theory because the entire picture poses very strong uncertainly or the possibility of killing the it all together. Common sense alone logically leads to the premise that if light is trying to catch up to us here on earth from the big bang - well then just how did earth get here ahead of it in the first place if light is traveling as fast as it is. Looking back into time is physically impossible but reading a history book is a good second choice and far more productive than the imagination of ‘what if’s’ or ‘yea but’s’ which only leads to total confusion of oneself and stumbling a brethren if you broadcast false statements to the wind.

Now some have suggested closing this blog and I agree with them. I have only returned hopefully to shed some truth on the subject of the horizon/light problem and convince others to withdraw from the conversation avoiding the spread of incongruous statements. In closing this post I want to point out that I only used your post to convey a message to those that wish to sustain the debate only to confuse others. Fred - please forgive me for using your post for this purpose.

God Bless,

#127  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Monday, August 02, 2010at 5:13 AM

Millard writes:

John MacArthur put it very well in his ‘Final Word’ blog:

“To many, having been indoctrinated in schools where the line between hypothesis and fact is systematically and deliberately being blurred, that may sound naive or unsophisticated, but it is nonetheless a fact. Again, science has never disproved one word of Scripture, and it never will.”

Exactly right. Perhaps not the intended target of this comment, but those who zealously hold to the YEC position should take a moment to examine themselves in light of what Mr. MacArthur says. He should too.

What was been left out of the horizon and light travel problem conversation is to hopefully contorting the issue by those wishing to offer confusion is the extremely rapid exponential expansion if the big bang did in fact occur and that light travels at various speeds through different medium.

I’m having trouble following the grammatical structure of this statement, but it sounds like you are saying that rapid of expansion of the early universe and the fact that light travels at different speeds through different mediums has not been factored into the models we are talking about. This could not be further from the truth. They are indeed factored in.

The light travel issue alone eliminates the potential of time calculations based on its varying speed so why merit it as a valid tool for that purpose.

If by “varying speed” you mean speed through different mediums, then that is irrelevant because we are only talking about light traveling through one medium. If you are suggesting that light will travel at different speeds through a vacuum, then that is mere pseudoscience without a shred of evidence to back it up. Even so, it has been factored into the discussion as a possibility.

Common sense alone logically leads to the premise that if light is trying to catch up to us here on earth from the big bang - well then just how did earth get here ahead of it in the first place if light is traveling as fast as it is.

Sorry Millard, I’m not following your point. What do you mean by “trying to catch up to us?” What do you mean by “how did earth get here?” Where is “here” in your reasoning? You are describing relative positioning but somehow treating it as static.

Looking back into time is physically impossible

This is simply wrong. We can and do see back in time every day.

#128  Posted by Joey Hodge  |  Monday, August 02, 2010at 5:37 AM

Jorge writes:

Well, I was just trying to stick to biblical history: the earth WAS created in day one, the heavenly bodies WERE created in day four. I believe when they were created in day four, they WERE visible from earth….

For those "signs and seasons" to be observable today (or for Adam to observe), they must have been seen in day five.

Thank you Jorge. I was hoping you would agree that the stars must have been visible on day four. That’s what I believe as well. If you read my post in #112 you see how I explained how acknowledging visibility on day four means acknowledging the history of those stars as well. There’s no escaping that logical conclusion. But consider this… we know that God created time, because God is not contingent upon time. I don’t see a problem with suggesting that God created a history of past events. Is that beyond God’s ability to do? I don’t think so. Now, let me be clear. I DO NOT hold to this position since I do not interpret Genesis 1 to be making temporal statements to begin with, but even so, I’m just suggesting it to throw out a bone to those who wish to hold to a temporal, 24-hour, six day creation position without ignoring this logical contradiction.

Here's a thought, since the creation of earth preceded that of the stars, could it be possible that it's not a good idea to look at them for historic reference?, but rather to look at what's happened on earth to discern it's history? (obviously). In other words, since we can't be sure how old the universe is (and you must admit your presuppositions are not without problems); we would be better off if we look at space as just that; "space" that glorifies God.

I think you’re point is well made. The entire purpose of the heavens is to glorify God, Psalms 19:1. I would only disagree that study of the universe, and thus its history, might not be a “good idea.” Why would God put distant galaxies so far out that only advanced telescopes could ever be able to see them without scientific research? God made the heavens and let us behold all of His creation!

I’m not sure what “presuppositions” you are referring to, or which “problems” they might entail, so I can’t respond to that. If you have a little more insight into what you are talking about, maybe I can comment on it.

Thanks Jorge!

#129  Posted by Mary Kidwell  |  Monday, August 02, 2010at 7:04 AM

Jorge (#122),

I think perhaps you misunderstood my intention. I was not advocating keeping silent but keeping to what scripture states. As you know, many of the ideas of origins that have been put forth here are completely man's ideas, unsupported by scripture. Your reference to 2 Timothy is most appropriate. Thanks for standing on scripture.

#130  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Monday, August 02, 2010at 9:09 AM

I know that the OEC’rs will not believe this but in 1999 light was slowed 20 million-fold to an incredible 38 miles an hour by passing it through a small gasious cloud cooled to almost absolute zero. Here’s the web site: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

Knowing that light now travels at various speeds through different mediums much of modern physics is being rewritten since the current system now depends on a constant value for the speed of light. OEC’rs don’t want you to know this because this takes another of their tools supporting their theory and placing it in the drawer amongst other tools they have used in the past but now collecting dust.

Their claims regarding the varying speed of light generally hinge on the pivotal point that space is a total vacuum, however, between any light source in the heavens and earth there may be quite a few pockets of gases at various temperatures that the light may pass through and thus the speed would then vary greatly as mentioned above. OEC’rs are now close to the point of abandoning the use of the Big Bang theory as a tool to support their case since science investigation continues to move it closer to supporting the literal interpretation of the Bible of a young universe and earth.

Isn’t God amazing! No matter how hard some try to distort His word it is eventually proved to be truthful and He only ask to believe by faith alone.

“---science has never disproved one word of Scripture, and it never will.” John Macarthur ‘The Final Word’ blog 8/1/10.

God Bless,

#131  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Monday, August 02, 2010at 6:47 PM

Re: # 128, Joey wrote:

"I’m not sure what “presuppositions” you are referring to, or which “problems” they might entail, so I can’t respond to that. If you have a little more insight into what you are talking about, maybe I can comment on it. "

I think I can tackle this by referring to your own words:

In your response to # 53, Millard,

(theory is..)

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

This is the one that addresses scientific theory which is what we are talking about. The other ones are more general uses for the term, which are not applicable to this discussion.

I meant that that there is danger in taking anything "plausible" as absolute proof. (I assume what you believe about speed of light and time measuring (among other things) seems plausible to you). Also, for anything to be "scientifically acceptable" entails your agreeing with whatever findings your circle of fellow scientists accept as fact, without allowing for differing views to distort what you believe.

All that just to say that I see,from scripture, no need for the universe to be billions of years old. God is just that powerful.

I see evolution "needs" billions of years to explain things, and most everything about it relies on appearances to explain itself.

The problems that you have with YEC have answers. We just have to wait for "true science" to catch up and prove them right.