Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In The Beginning God, Not Darwin, Created
Post Scripts ^ | 10/11/09 | One Vike

Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last
To: OneVike

I usually try to stay away from religious threads because I do not want to be a stumbling block to anyone. That being said, I like to say I was a Baptist back when Baptists still believed in dinosaurs and that the Bible was inspired but not every word of it was literally true.

For some people, they have to believe the Noah’s Ark story or they can not believe in Jesus. So while I disagree, I would rather someone believe in Jesus AND Noah’s Ark, then not believe in Jesus at all. Those whose faith is strong enough to separate the two are usually going to find their way out to different denominations and groups of believers.

That being said, I think God created us and evolution was one of his tools. I don’t think “life” is an accident, even at the amoeba level. IMHO science only confirms the non-accidental basis of life, but by and large it ain’t worth risking another person’s faith over by arguing it.

parsy.


101 posted on 10/11/2009 11:28:00 AM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Furthermore, to deny God created everything through Christ in a normal 6-day period is to question the very character and nature of God. It attributes to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless, death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation", that would make Him (God) the very Author and Sustainer of all that the theory of evolution demands.

To believe in the 6-day creation and the devolution of man attributes a failure in design by God. God is perfect. Why would he create the evil in the world.

102 posted on 10/11/2009 11:39:56 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
I wish more had delved into the debate

It's hard to wish to debate rationally when the stated premise
is that if one believes in evolution, one is an athiest.

Right off the bat, the broad-brush name calling leads to acrimony.

The piece was well written though. Thanks for posting it.

103 posted on 10/11/2009 11:44:39 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; OneVike

No. There is no failure in design. The design allowed for infinite variety within the creation. It works as it’s supposed to.

The design was perfect, but no design, no matter how perfect initially nor how perfect the designer, can remain perfect once corruption enters into the mix.

Evil entered the world with sin. God did not create it. With the capacity for choosing good, comes the capacity to reject it and choose *not good*. That is what evil is.


104 posted on 10/11/2009 12:12:42 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; OneVike

Corruption also entered the world with sin. That was man’s doing, not God’s.

He told man how to choose and what the consequences would be. Man could have learned the knowledge of good and evil by obeying God instead of disobeying Him.


105 posted on 10/11/2009 12:15:02 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The design was perfect, but no design, no matter how perfect initially nor how perfect the designer, can remain perfect once corruption enters into the mix.

A perfect design cannot be corrupted.

BTW, who created the corruption?

106 posted on 10/11/2009 12:15:49 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
You, my friend have become what you wish to be... a god.

Really? I never knew. Suffice it to say, I am a mortal human being and am quite comfortable with that.

Of course, you once again miss the point. Why not discuss your particular creationism vs. others' particular creationism. THAT'S what this thread is about. Are you an OEC or a YEC? Are you a geocentrist? Stake you claim and make your point.

And stop worrying about me.
107 posted on 10/11/2009 12:16:33 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Man could have learned the knowledge of good and evil by obeying God instead of disobeying Him.

You have that backwards. They learned the knowledge of good and evil by disobeying God. Read your Bible!

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

17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

108 posted on 10/11/2009 12:19:18 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: metmom

1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Serpents can talk and think! Who would have thunk it!


109 posted on 10/11/2009 12:23:23 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
you wish to be

Reading the mind of another Freeper - or attributing motives to him - are forms of "making it personal."

Discuss the issus all you want, but do not make it personal.

110 posted on 10/11/2009 12:31:36 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
. That being said, I like to say I was a Baptist back when Baptists still believed in dinosaurs and that the Bible was inspired but not every word of it was literally true.

They still believe in dinosaurs, they just put saddles on them now.


111 posted on 10/11/2009 12:34:50 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I’m afraid if I must die for the cause, I must.

I fall on my sword, milady...


112 posted on 10/11/2009 1:06:14 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Don’t take it personal... I’m not the least bit worried about you.


113 posted on 10/11/2009 1:06:50 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

I will do my best.

Thanks.

GG


114 posted on 10/11/2009 1:07:10 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
No problem with the ping.

To consider just one one point, #5, I'll return to others later, in the comment about the Greek word “Aion” which at Matt. 28:20 is used for the Hebrew ‘olahm’.

“Aion”, according to the examples given in Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon, indicates an indefinite time period marked by something peculiar to it, as in the “age of steam”, or as Matt. 28:20 uses the “aion” as the end of a system marked as Paul said at 2 Cor. 4:4, the influence and sway of Satan. Often “aion” is translated as “world” which carries a wrong idea.

So “aion” would not be an appropriate translation for a time period of definite duration however long.

115 posted on 10/11/2009 1:10:07 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Thanks for the ping!


116 posted on 10/11/2009 1:13:43 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

What does the word “knowledge” as used there mean?


117 posted on 10/11/2009 1:27:52 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
What does the word “knowledge” as used there mean?

Which? Metmom's, mine or the Biblical?

118 posted on 10/11/2009 1:35:55 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

[[Understood and accepted. I promise to never point out your typing skills if you promise to never - for the millionth time - make some lame joke about my screename reflecting upon my intellect. Truce?]]

Why would I start soemthign I’ve Never done in the past? I’ve never made fun of your screenname- you’re confusing me with others I’m afraid


119 posted on 10/11/2009 1:47:54 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Take your pick.


120 posted on 10/11/2009 3:59:08 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom; OneVike

Why does it bother you that some people don’t think it’s an appropriate subject for political activism?


No, the more appropriate question is why does this continue being ignored?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2347175/posts?q=1&;page=301#323


121 posted on 10/11/2009 4:04:01 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OneVike; metmom

It’s an old tactic. Just amounts to alot of projection about attacks and so forth, you’re better served ignoring it and saving your time.


122 posted on 10/11/2009 4:05:05 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; CottShop

And yet again, cottshop says more in one paragraph than you’ve contributed.


123 posted on 10/11/2009 4:37:45 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Do not trust your spell checker. This advice is not just for witches and warlocks, but for everyone. The spell checker will insert words that are not your words. Beware ...


124 posted on 10/11/2009 4:41:25 PM PDT by ChessExpert (The unemployment rate was 4.5% when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #125 Removed by Moderator

To: CottShop
soemthign

Another new word!

126 posted on 10/11/2009 4:52:26 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Furthermore, to deny God created everything through Christ in a normal 6-day period is to question the very character and nature of God. It attributes to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless, death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation", that would make Him (God) the very Author and Sustainer of all that the theory of evolution demands.

You've walked onto thin ice here.

I have pointed out on previous threads that Young Earth Creationism implies that Yahweh acts like Loki the Trickster. That is, the overwhelming evidence of the earth's old age is either real, or God is misleading us.


Secondly, if God "doesn't do wasteful," then life can't begin at conception--since many millions of zygotes are created but discarded from the womb before the mother even knows a conception has occurred.

127 posted on 10/11/2009 5:13:22 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Here are just a few of the problems with the gap theory you believe in: The idea that the geological ages took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is refuted in God's Ten Commandments, in which God said, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11). God was telling people that the pattern He set at creation, of six days work followed by a day of rest, was to be the pattern for mankind's working week. Note that this verse in Exodus covers both Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In six days God made “heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1), and “the sea, and all that in them is” (Genesis 1:2 onward). There is no room for a gap, because this statement in Exodus covers both Genesis 1:1 and the verses after it … all in the six days! The Bible says there was no sin or death until humans caused them to come into the world. But the gap theory would have billions of years of suffering and death, represented by the fossils and rock layers in the earth's crust, which are supposed to identify the geological ages. The gap theory proposes that at the end of the geological ages Satan sinned, was cast down to earth, and there was a great cataclysm. So the geological ages with countless deaths recorded in them would have occurred before either Satan or humans sinned, which is the opposite of what the Bible says. The whole concept of the geological ages is based on the evolutionary assumption that things have continued the same in the past as in the present. Therefore there is no room in the geological ages system for the cataclysm interrupting the processes that gap theorists need. This is why no geologist would accept the gap theory. The gap theory is an unfortunate compromise position taken by those who either don't understand the implications of the theory or don't love Scripture enough to take the Bible on what it clearly says. The gap theory is unscientific, unscriptural, and absolutely unnecessary.

Moses is the one who penned Genesis and was as well the one God elected to teach these unlearned newly free slaves out of Egypt. And IF Moses was going to be teaching them about how long Methuselah 'lived' and how that by Genesis 6 the Heavenly Father said I will shorten the time span of flesh living upon this earth. Then that would be by necessity mean the difference in what a day with the LORD means versus what a day means to flesh beings.

And that would also mean that Moses who penned Genesis 1:1 and 2 would have had to explain to these unlearned in the WORD that there had been two different floods for two totally different reasons.

The Bible does NOT say sin first took place with 'flesh' it say that 'the' Adam was the first flesh to sin.

We in these flesh bodies were NOT in flesh bodies when Satan rebelled. At Christ tells Nicodemus in John 3 that just to 'see' the kingdom of God one must be born from above. Christ did not say that all that are born in flesh would enter the kingdom of God but they would see it. As we are told in Revelation about those 7,000 that would be instantly killed at the return of Christ. Those are the ones who polluted the 'daughters' of 'the' Adam in Genesis 6 and those who the book of Jude among other places describe.

Those dinos left the evidence that this earth is millions upon millions of years old, else Noah would have been required to have built a bigger ship to house them when the polluted bloodline to Christ was removed from this earth.

128 posted on 10/11/2009 5:29:32 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom; OneVike
That people believe in theistic evolution is evidence that those are not mutually exclusive.

Hardly evidence. Some people believe global warming and alot of the charade that is evolution are science, but that's not "evidence" that they're not mutually exclusive.

For all the liberal demands of "evidence" it makes me wonder why people should bother accomodating them.

In the least.

129 posted on 10/11/2009 7:30:58 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; OneVike; metmom
Thank you for the ping. But since your senseless rantings are on the religion formum I will allow you to post in peace.

Only because you know it will have to be that way on the religion forum anyway.

130 posted on 10/11/2009 7:33:48 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“While I am a Bible believer, I see nothing in scripture that proves there was not a gap between Gen. 1:2 and Gen. 1:3...Plus, there is scripture that does bolster that idea...”

Nor is there any indication of the amount of time between “In the beginning...” and the earth as described in verse two, which simply says the earth was existing in a water covered state.

Nonetheless, what Scriptures would, as you say, bolster that idea?


131 posted on 10/11/2009 7:41:22 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


132 posted on 10/11/2009 7:43:35 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Only because you know it will have to be that way on the religion forum anyway.

Really. How do you discuss religion when only one side is allowed to discuss it.

OTOH, it was your buddies that crossed the line with the personal attacks on this RELIGION thread.

133 posted on 10/11/2009 7:51:54 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Hi OneVike,
I just moved to TX from CA this Sat so missed this thread until now. I’m also responding via iPhone so this is a short response.

I almost became an Astronomy major before I came to my senses and swiched to CompSci LOL. So I am (currently) an OEC. There is just too much evidence that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old. I’ve also really enjoyed Dr. Hugh Ross’ work of squaring Gen with scientific data.

But let me clear: I do not believe in evolution, and neither do any of the OEC folks that I know. Neither does Dr. Ross or any other OEC person I know personally. I do not appreciate being lumped in with the evo crowd.


134 posted on 10/11/2009 8:48:22 PM PDT by rom (Israel got Saul before they got David. Where's our David?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Thanks for the ping.

I am pretty much in full agreement with your position. The Bible is a wonderful document, and explains many mysteries of life and this world for those who are open to its truth. However, the Bible doesn’t explain every detail of creation, and there are many matters the Lord has left for us to ponder ourselves. On some points though, I feel that the Bible is exceedingly clear, and to ignore the plain statements therein, in favor of the “wisdom” of the world is to turn one’s heart away from the truth the Lord has graced us with.

Once one starts down the path of attempting to ignore or explain away the historical narratives of the Bible in favor of man’s imperfect accounts, you will soon arrive at a quandary. If some of these passages, which are written in the particular style of Biblical history, may be rendered as parables or non-historical traditions, then how does one determine which, or indeed if any, of the other historical passages are to be taken as literal fact or not? If Genesis is not to be taken literally, then who can say that Exodus is historical? Likewise, if Exodus is not historical, then perhaps the stories of Judges are simply parables as well.

Even for Biblical events where we have extra-Biblical writings, or archaelogical evidence for corroboration, it seems universal that the Bible explains these events in much greater detail than any other source. To toss out the validity of the Bible as a historical document therefore effectively leaves us in the dark about nearly all of the events recorded therein, including, most significantly, the life and work of the Saviour. The enemies of truth know this well, and they have used it to their advantage, especially in recent history, as they have attempted to gradually undermine faith in the accuracy of the Word even amongst believers.

The prominence of these beliefs on evolution amongst the faithful, I believe, are only one example of the fruit their work has borne. Amongst other claims, you will now find it fairly commonplace for those claiming to be Christian to believe that the Bible was simply an oral tradition for centuries or millenia before being written down. Knowing our modern civilization’s inherent distrust of “myths” and “legends”, what better way to cast the shadow of doubt on the Lord’s Word, than to convince people that instead of the most ancient example of literature, the Bible is just a collection of tribal stories, collated and edited at a much later date?

Likewise, how many Christians have been seduced by those who, under the guise of science, attempt to pick apart the Bible with subjective “literary analysis”? Their claims to be able to divine a diverse body of human authors, not only contradict the Bible’s own attributions, but by inference cast doubts on the very notion of divine inspiration itself.

Surely, we should all agree that matters of faith in our Lord Jesus and his redemptive accomplishment are the most important facts for Christians to agree on. There are many other points of contention amongst believers that we should not let overshadow that principle which unites us. Notwithtanding, I believe that in light of my observations above, every Christian should consider that the work of the enemy is not divided, but unified in their attempt to destroy the fundamental faith in the Word. Their work is doomed to failure of course, but that does not excuse us from being vigilant to speak out against the erroneous doctrines that they teach.


135 posted on 10/11/2009 8:54:28 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“To believe in the 6-day creation and the devolution of man attributes a failure in design by God. God is perfect. Why would he create the evil in the world.”

I can’t really agree with this statement. First of all, what man can know fully the purposes of God when he set about to make His creation? Unless one is sure that the Lord has revealed all of his plans and purposes, then how can one attribute a failing to God based on any observation of the creation, without knowing His intent? Perhaps evil itself serves a purpose of which God is aware, but of which you are simply ignorant?

Second, regarding the creation of evil, I believe it’s altogether too simplistic to say that God created evil. I believe the best definition of evil is disobedience to the will of God. God cannot disobey His own will, therefore, God cannot, by that definition, commit evil. Only a creation of God, with the ability to choose obedience or disobedience, could originate evil. If you wish to ascribe to God responsibility for creating the ability to choose evil, then I think you would be able to make a more sensible argument.


136 posted on 10/11/2009 9:17:06 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Thanks for the ping.


137 posted on 10/11/2009 9:17:21 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Only a creation of God, with the ability to choose obedience or disobedience, could originate evil.

Are you referring to the serpent that talked?

138 posted on 10/11/2009 9:31:21 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: rom
But let me clear: I do not believe in evolution, and neither do any of the OEC folks that I know. Neither does Dr. Ross or any other OEC person I know personally. I do not appreciate being lumped in with the evo crowd.When do you believe that man was created? Millions of years ago or 6000?
139 posted on 10/11/2009 9:35:36 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Permit me to make a simplistic argument (that avoids a lot of complicated discussion): You either believe in God, or not.


140 posted on 10/11/2009 9:41:44 PM PDT by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Personally, though I tend to fall in with the YEC crowd, I believe there is room for debate on some of the points you are bringing up. The well-known 6,000 year chronology of the Bible only takes us back to Adam, the first man. Beyond that, we have a few paragraphs of Genesis, and some other assorted verses with which to try to patch together what occured before the era of man.

It seems obvious to me that the angels were created before man, yet I do not know exactly when this occurred. Yet, as Satan appears in the Garden, seemingly fulfilling the role of “the Accuser” in the earliest days of man, it seems sensible to believe his fall occured before the 6 days of creation, which I believe are literal days and not eras.

If there seems to be some history regarding God’s angelic creation that is not yet fully revealed to us, and if we can make a reasonable assumption from Scripture that some important events involved in that creation occured before the era of man, then I don’t see grounds to condemn anyone simply for speculating about the possibilities of previous creations or cataclysms.

However, I think, even if one theorizs some life may have existed before the Genesis creation event, that life must surely (excluding the angels) have been extinguished before the current creation. So, I believe those who attempt to use “gap theory” to give a more ancient lineage to man or beasts currently living, must be mistaken in that regard.


141 posted on 10/11/2009 9:47:07 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I wasn’t being specific, just observing that, in order for something to disobey God, I think he would logically have to first create something with the ability to choose to obey or disobey Him.


142 posted on 10/11/2009 9:52:21 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Second, regarding the creation of evil, I believe it’s altogether too simplistic to say that God created evil. I believe the best definition of evil is disobedience to the will of God. ..... I wasn’t being specific, just observing that, in order for something to disobey God, I think he would logically have to first create something with the ability to choose to obey or disobey Him.

God created evil.

143 posted on 10/11/2009 10:11:14 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

You’re misconstruing the argument. Creating something with the capacity for choice is not equivalent to the creation of the consequence of that choice. Had nothing chosen to disobey God, then evil would not exist.


144 posted on 10/11/2009 10:29:09 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

James 1:14,15 explains the steps that lead to sin and death. And It doesn’t involve blaming God.


145 posted on 10/12/2009 1:16:38 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

It meaning is rather simple: to have an understanding of a thing by experience or involvement or to experience it in a different way. An example is the phrase, “Adam knew Eve, his wife.”, and the promise that their ‘eyes would be opened and they would KNOW good and bad like God’.


146 posted on 10/12/2009 1:49:35 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I believe < 100,000 years ago. I believe there are gaps in the geneology given in Genesis.


147 posted on 10/12/2009 5:45:30 AM PDT by rom (Israel got Saul before they got David. Where's our David?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
his trend I speak of, is the compromising of the Word with the idea of evolution known as theistic evolution or Old Earth Creationism.

Compromise? Obviously the universe came into being somehow. Only one position (at most) can be true. If God did use a long-term evolutionary process, then that would not be a "compromise" position, it would be the correct one, and all other positions (godless chance, YEC, etc.) would be false.

Now back to my reasons for disagreeing with theistic evolutionists. I find it sad that any Christian who would claim to hold to the truths of the Scriptures, could then turn around and say that they question the most basic and foundational truths revealed in the Scriptures such as: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.

Lame. Neither Darwinism nor theistic evolution have anything to do with creation of the universe.

Furthermore, to deny God created everything through Christ in a normal 6-day period is to question the very character and nature of God. It attributes to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless, death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation", that would make Him (God) the very Author and Sustainer of all that the theory of evolution demands.

Ridiculous. If God were directing it, it would not be random or purposeless, and to call the acts of God "evil" is blasphemous. This is pretty much where I quit reading.

148 posted on 10/12/2009 6:09:14 AM PDT by Sloth (For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of the International Olympic Committee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Oh, I’m in agreement with you. Perhaps you could explain it to ColdWater though, as he seems to think “God created evil”.


149 posted on 10/12/2009 6:21:34 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Personally, though I tend to fall in with the YEC crowd, I believe there is room for debate on some of the points you are bringing up. The well-known 6,000 year chronology of the Bible only takes us back to Adam, the first man. Beyond that, we have a few paragraphs of Genesis, and some other assorted verses with which to try to patch together what occured before the era of man.

I agree the closest 'date' we can affix with what information we are given is how long ago 'the' Adam was formed. But remember what we are told about 'the' Adam's forming, he was not alive until the 'breath of life' which means soul, was breathed into his nostrils. We are not told when 'the' Adam's soul/spirit was formed/created. And given what other writers penned, and Christ Himself said regarding the existence of the soul/spirit before it gets place at conception in the 'flesh', comes from 'above' and when the flesh dies the soul/spirit returns to the Maker that sent it.

It seems obvious to me that the angels were created before man, yet I do not know exactly when this occurred. Yet, as Satan appears in the Garden, seemingly fulfilling the role of “the Accuser” in the earliest days of man, it seems sensible to believe his fall occured before the 6 days of creation, which I believe are literal days and not eras.

No one can state with a certainty when 'Lucifer' was created, but as Ezekiel 28:-12- describes him to have been created in the full pattern of beauty. And Revelation 12:4 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven,......" is history that took place that led up to what we are told in Genesis 1:2. Paul references this time period in Ephesians 1:4 According as He hath chosen (election) us in Him *before* the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. 5)Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

So *before* the foundation of the world, which is actually a verb meaning 'casting down' - 'overthrow' some were chosen/elected as the word predestinated means foreordained.

Paul describes this 'predestination' in Romans 9:11-13, as Paul is not describing the flesh of Jacob and Esau but their soul/spirit before then were born in flesh.

If there seems to be some history regarding God’s angelic creation that is not yet fully revealed to us, and if we can make a reasonable assumption from Scripture that some important events involved in that creation occured before the era of man, then I don’t see grounds to condemn anyone simply for speculating about the possibilities of previous creations or cataclysms.

I am reminded of the children fresh out of Egypt were afraid to see the face of the Heavenly Father because that to them meant they had died. And yet when the situation required the Heavenly Father sent 'messengers' to get His WORD to the flesh. One more example of the Heavenly Father telling us about what we cannot physically see unless He intends for us to see is found in IIKings 6:11-19 in particular verse 17 And Elisha prayed, and said, "LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see." And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

However, I think, even if one theorizs some life may have existed before the Genesis creation event, that life must surely (excluding the angels) have been extinguished before the current creation. So, I believe those who attempt to use “gap theory” to give a more ancient lineage to man or beasts currently living, must be mistaken in that regard.

Personally the phrase 'gap theory', is not a term/phrase that comes to my mind in referencing 'time' before or even after Genesis 1:3. Over the years in my studying what the WORD instructs, I cannot find the Heavenly Father had any gaps. What I have found is that He planted the seeds of His truth through out the WORD, and none of it is a contradiction.

150 posted on 10/12/2009 6:32:22 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson