Skip to comments.In The Beginning God, Not Darwin, Created
Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike
click here to read article
The Bible nowhere tells us how old the heavens and earth literally are. Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages. And Peter also says that one day with the LORD is as a thousand years. And no flesh being has lived one day with the LORD. Methuselah is recorded as having lived 969 years, not quite that ‘day’ with the LORD.
Genesis 1:2 said there was a flood long before Noah was born in a flesh body. And Jeremiah and Peter both write about a flood before Noah’s time.
So your ‘term’ Old Earth Creationism is NOT against the WORD, it actually comes from the WORD.
Moses does not say that ‘Lucifer’ was created in Genesis, but he was there in the midst of the Garden with knowledge of good and evil. Now if everything made in the days of creation was good, where and when did this knowledge of good and evil the serpent whispered into the woman’s ear take place?
Now both Isaiah and Ezekiel tell of ‘Lucifer’ and even Ezekiel says that the king of Tyrus another name of the serpent, (among other names and roles) was in the Garden of Eden. So when was ‘Lucifer’ created? When did he rebel? and When was he sentenced to ‘death’ Hebrews 2:14. And when were the ‘souls/spirit’ created that partook of flesh and blood? As Paul describes in this same verse 2:14 of Hebrews. Genesis 1:2 is describing the ‘overthrow’ that Paul tells us about in Ephesians 1:4.
And NO I have no belief in ‘evolution’.
Do you mean things in the bible like the fact that God said there was no sin and spirit death BEFORE the fall of man? IF evolution were true, there would HAVE to be spirit death BEFORE the fall of man- The whoel word of God, and reason for Christs birth and death, was to redeam man from the sin ghe brought upon all mankind because he sinned against God when told not to- So no, there isnt anythign in Gods word that supports theistic evolution
CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?
In accepting evolution, liberal theologians reject a number of key Christian beliefs. They reject the traditional date and authorship of many books in the Bible, which in itself represents a drastic undercutting of confidence in Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it makes simple claims about when and by whom it was written, can we trust it when it makes much more important spiritual claims?
In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a true picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.
Take Genesis, for example. Liberalism rejects the Bibles own claim that God told Moses what to write (Exodus 24:4; Numbers 33:2; etc.). Instead, it assumes that Genesis is a collection of writings by authors living much later. These hypothetical authors (dubbed J, E, D, and P) were writing merely out of their own experience and convictions. An example can be found in Conrad Hyers book, The Meaning of Creation. He attributes the content of Genesis 1 and 2 not to Gods revelation, but to the life experiences and religious purposes of its hypothetical authors, presumably writing hundreds of years after Moses.1
WHERE DID EVIL COME FROM?
A contemporary of Darwin described the theological impact of evolution in these words:
The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic ... If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?2
The Bible clearly tells us that evil, suffering, and death are real, so we are not escapist. However, evil is not intrinsic to the world. God created a good world. Evil entered by the free choice of individual human beings when Adam and Eve first sinned. So it is not contradictory to say that some day God will wipe out evil and sorrow.
This teaching is both our hope for the future and our basis for fighting evil today. The theistic evolutionist loses all this. By denying the Fall, he loses the Biblical answer to the question, where did evil and suffering come from?
Theistic evolution assumes that evil and death are intrinsic to Gods creation and have been there since the beginning. In other words, that God created them. God Himself is then the source of evil. But then God must be an evil God. To avoid this conclusion theistic evolutionists usually trivialize evil. This imperfect world is just a stepping stone to a better world which will evolve from it. Which brings us to the next point.
REDEEMED FROM WHAT?
If there was no Fall, why do we need redemption? If the problem is not our sin but our animal nature, then we only need to wait for evolution to raise us to the next stage.
I was talking to a young woman recently who summed it up well. The answer is so simple, she said, that we often overlook it. Jesus treated Genesis as though it actually happened, so that settles it. We may not be able to master a lot of complex arguments against theistic evolution, but even a child can grasp this one. Among those who claim to be Christians, Jesus own treatment of Genesis closes the question.
While the bible may be twisted and stretched to view long ages- doing so, one has to outright deny the whole context of Gods word, and compelte passages in order to do so- and even bring into question the whole message of Gods word of redemption
Science is not a religion.
But evolution is not science and evolution is a 'religion'!
I wasn’t complaining, but I did understand metmom’s point and agree. However, I ask again, “Why do you care?”
This was to be a discussion about the belief of creationism vs evolution inside the Christian realm.
I say again, if you want to discuss the point of the thread then do so. I am finished discussing any other matter with you here. Save it for another thread, then if I am involve3d I may then take up the debate, but not here and not now!
I will say that ColdWater is correct about the idea that we Christians are expected to sit off to the side and shut up lest we get in the way of your secular right to run the world. Well I’ll tell you what, the secularists have not done a very good job with out GOD!
Wrong! Nowhere can you justify those verses to say what you want them to say. Also, by believing in the OEC you must accept evolution. Evolution involves a lot more then just animals birds and humans, it also involves the planet. To say you believe in the OEC theory and Gap Theory but not evolution is absurd.
LOL. Not sure whether that's a typo or a deliberate pun, but I like it.
Evolution and Earth Age are two different questions. There is no mention of evolution in the USGS publication.
I’ll run where I please.
It seems you enjoy mocking disabilities. Cottshop, to me, appears to have at least some degree of dyslexia. It’s a tough read at times, but he does make valuable contributions.
Are there any other disabilities that you’d like to mock, on the Religion Forum of all places? And, just what is the point of doing so? Personal ridicule?
I’m telling you that it didn’t. That is not what the issue was.
Are YOU presuming to read my mind now? Are you going to accuse me of lying?
[[Ill run where I please.]]
you do that spanky- We’ll just ignore your childish insults if you wish to continue
You said it yourself. It's tough to read.
If what is being said isn't worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn't worth reading either.
And have you noticed the handy spell check button to the left of the preview button?
The scientific method is not religious.
Modern day science as it's practiced and promoted, has become religious.
[[It’s what the science says. If it’s your contention that’s a religion, then we’ve got a theological disagreement.]]
Lol- arguing ‘theological differences’ to determien what is and is not science- precious! Sorry- but assumptions are NOT science- they are theological ideology- now, if we had dating methods that were scientifically verified beyond a shadow of a doubt beyond 5000 or so years, then and only then could you argue that it is science- since however we can only assume the past, it becomes a rteligious belief, not sciecne- but whatever- you’vew got your religious belief about past events- we’ve got ours- whatever
OK. There's more to the OEC/YEC debate than just biology, but if that's the only aspect of you want to talk about, I can live with that. I think questions about aspects of those doctrines beyond evolution are "inside the Christian realm".
You’re certainly free not to read it, humblegunner.
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.
[[If what is being said isn’t worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn’t worth reading either.]]
Yep- for the shallow who can’t get past clutter- nothign is ever worth the effort— content isn’t important apparently- delivery is more important than content- that’s what Ovbama banked on, and won on, and that’s why he’s able to single handedly dismantle our consitution right beneath our eyes- because shallow people are more star-struck by delivery than they are the actual content of his smooth presentation- Whatever-