SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Litural Genesis

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 2359
Hemel Hempstead

 Re:

I wasn't trying to debate evolution more the fact that it is so frustrating when you have to debate issues like this.

When I debate this issue it is more a faith issue.

If someone cannot believe that creation was spoken into being in seven days, then how can they believe any of the other miracles , to me it shines light on people's faith more than anything else. If they are Christian I would question their faith.

God is not a god of the impossible he is not god!!


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2007/11/4 18:32Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

Jordan,

I am so sorry to hear that your faith in God has taken such a beating! If God cannot do the [apparent] impossible, how can you even believe [i]anything[/i] else written in the Bible? The understanding of the creation is woven throughout the entire scriptures. Check it out!

I can not debate evolution vs creationism because of ignorance on my part. However, I will have to tell you this: our son graduated from Mississippi University for Women with a BS degree in microbiology and he is a creationist! He said that when you get into the high levels in the study of origins, the flaws of evolution become apparent, rendering a belief in the Biblical [account of] creation logical.

Hope this helps..

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/11/5 11:49Profile
jordanamo
Member



Joined: 2006/11/23
Posts: 397


 Re: Litural Genesis

Hey Mike, thanks for your response.

Quote:
..then it should be statistically impossible to ever find the same snapshot twice.



Concerning the fossil record, how is it statistically impossible to find the same snapshot twice? Yes fossilization is very rare, but that in and of itself doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for against evolution.

Quote:
the odds of finding dozens of T-Rex's, Triceratops, or Apatosaurs in geographically diverse locations seems to me to be a statistically impossibility.



Except that the odds of finding a fossil increase the more stronger-boned an animal is.

Quote:
God does not need a poem to communicate truth about man and Himself.



Hello Ron.

Says who? ;)

The creation story deals with the becoming of all things, God's revelation, and as such I think it to be only proper for it to be written as a poem!

Quote:
Do you think Origen et al knew much about modern science?



Hello Jeanette.

No, they didn't, but if they did I'm sure if they did they'd hold an even more allegorical view of Genesis!

Quote:
For example, did you know that Earnst Haekel's famous drawings of a series of embryos of different creatures (found in every school textbook) were deliberately forged by him, in order to give the impression that they were almost identical (thus "evidence" for evolution)?


Yes, but that has long been debunked and is not a proper criticism of the evolutionary theory itself.

Quote:
Dear Jordan, it makes me so angry that honest, sincere believers such as yourself can have their faith shaken by such deception and downright lies masquerading as science! To such an extent, in your case (and you aren’t alone) that the pressure of “scientific” unbelief makes you reinterpret the Bible in order not to lose your faith


My faith hasn't been shaken, but strengthened. I have not reinterpreted the Bible, but read it as it is. It is an interpretation of the text, sure, but all readings of the Bible are. I have just emphasized a recognition of certain literary techniques (apocalyptic, narrative, historical). My faith has not been lost. God is still the triune God of Israel and Abraham, the God found in the crucified Christ.

Quote:
I am so sorry to hear that your faith in God has taken such a beating!



Hello ginnyrose.

I restate and reaffirm: my faith in God stands strong. I just have come to a view of Genesis (in particular the creation story) as allegory-- as narrative. This is just recognizing that there are MORE literary techniques than simply historical.

I do not really want to debate the theory of evolution by common descent as I only have a cursory understanding of the subject. But I just want to affirm that faith in God is not based upon a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis.

Jordan

 2007/11/5 16:03Profile
hulsey
Moderator



Joined: 2006/7/5
Posts: 653
Missouri

 Re:

Hello Jordan,

Quote:
The creation story deals with the becoming of all things, God's revelation, and as such I think it to be only proper for it to be written as a poem!



True, God could have given Moses a poem to describe creation but did he? The Hebrew language has specific grammatical guidelines for something written poetically. Genesis 1 however is not written in Hebrew poetry. It follows the grammatical rules of historical literature. It's written in elevated language to be sure, but not poetry.

[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp]Genesis Questions and Answers[/url]

Check out this web page. It might help you to see where I'm coming from. You will find the articles a very interesting read.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2007/11/5 16:24Profile
narrowpath
Member



Joined: 2005/1/9
Posts: 1522
Germany NRW

 Re:


Hebrews 11
By Faith
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.

3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Science changes ever so often, the word of God doesn't. I find it futile to try to use science to either prove or disprove biblical facts.

Can we scientifically prove Jesus resurrection or ascension?

If you take Genesis allegorical, you may as well take the other doctrines in the bible allegorical.

Philip

 2007/11/5 16:40Profile
narrowpath
Member



Joined: 2005/1/9
Posts: 1522
Germany NRW

 Re:

*unintended duplication deleted*

 2007/11/5 16:41Profile









 Re:

Quote:

deltadom wrote:

If someone cannot believe that creation was spoken into being in seven days, then how can they believe any of the other miracles , to me it shines light on people's faith more than anything else. If they are Christian I would question their faith.

I would have agreed with you 100%, but have learned that, sadly, many true, sincere, and committed Christians (such as Jordan, whose salvation I do not doubt in the slightest) have been "got at" regarding Evolution. Especially those who have no scientific background (but also some who do) and therefore may lack the tools to study the subject in enough depth to sort out the very biased [i]interpretation[/i] of the evidence from the evidence itself.

What many Christians also fail to realise is that there are demonic strongholds of [i]thought[/i] in human societies and cultures, or even in denominations. If we have been brought up in such a culture we often have difficulty discerning them.

The philosophy behind Evolution is one of these strongholds, and blinds many - even Christians. I shall never forget the difference when the Lord helped me to see that I'd been brainwashed! How could I, as a science student, have possibly believed, what was now so obviously an unscientific "theory"? The man Jesus had to touch a second time to heal his sight fully couldn't have been more thrilled! He saw men "as trees walking" Evolutionists see men "as apes walking"!

We don't have to be bound with the cords of our culture - the Lord sets us free, in every way: spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and often physically too (though complete physical healing has to wait till we get our new bodies in the resurrection!)

2Corinthians 10
[color=990000]3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not 1carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 [i][b]casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ[/b][/i][/color]

The word "arguments", (KJV "imaginations") has more the meaning of "reasonings":

Blessings

Jeannette

 2007/11/5 19:58









 Re:

Quote:

jordanamo wrote:
Quote:
Do you think Origen et al knew much about modern science?

Hello Jeanette.

No, they didn't, but if they did I'm sure if they did they'd hold an even more allegorical view of Genesis!

What a strange notion! Whatever makes you think that? The more scientific discoveries I read about ([b]including that written by evolutionists[/b]) the less I believe Evolution! So there's not the slightest need to allegorise historical accounts!

Quote:
Quote:
For example, did you know that Earnst Haekel's famous drawings of a series of embryos of different creatures (found in every school textbook) were deliberately forged by him, in order to give the impression that they were almost identical (thus "evidence" for evolution)?

Yes, but that has long been debunked and is not a proper criticism of the evolutionary theory itself.

But there are plenty of other things that are! You didn't answer my other examples, and there are many many more, except that it would take too much space.

I mentioned the complexities of Biochemistry, and new discoveries of even more complex and finely tuned systems are being made all the time. To imagine that they could have come about by chance is like saying that a factory producing a range of complex chemicals in a precise order, and able to produce other chemicals that need that order to be able to exist, could have built itself from a pile of bricks and other raw materials!

Quote:
I do not really want to debate the theory of evolution by common descent as I only have a cursory understanding of the subject. But I just want to affirm that faith in God is not based upon a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis.

Jordan

Maybe not, but but why did you change your interpretation of the historical account in Genesis merely as a result of an anti-God hypothesis, that can be shown [i]scientifically[/i] to be highly unlikely?

As has been said, where does it end? Do you doubt the resurrection because its scientifically unlikely? (Actually resurrection [i]is[/i] scientifically unlikely - for the same reason that Evolution is unlikely!)

Geological and other evidence in recent years increasingly support the Genesis account - even from the research of sceptics, although they would never admit it!

For example the Flood:

Most fossils, worldwide, show evidence of being quickly buried in massive amounts of sediment that was almost certaily deposited by water.

A boat of the dimensions of Noah's Ark would suit its purpose incredibly well. There would have been plenty of room for all the creatures (at least if only eggs or young individuals of a few kinds of larger dinosaurs were taken). Remember that animals wouldn't have had time to diversify all that much from the original created "kinds", (roughly corresponding to present day genera, or larger groupings?) so there would have been far fewer species than we have today.

The Ark must also have been an amazingly stable structure that would have been able to stand up to huge storm conditions. Again, recent tests on a scale model (the original dimensions were more like that of an ocean liner) of such a boat have shown that it would indeed have had the required stability, and proved uncapsizable under the most extreme test conditions.

These days, there is such a weight of real science, as opposed to conjecture, that fits the Genesis account extremely well. Evolution just can't compete.

Except that it is a stronghold, as I said. Otherwise you would be willing to consider the evidence more closely. Even as a layman you could get enough understanding of the subject to see some of the fallacies and virtual scientific [i]impossiblity[/i] of Evolution.

Doesn't your reluctance to do so tell you anything? That was what started me doubting Evolution - my own reaction when belief in it was challenged. Before that it had never occurred to me to doubt it, or that it might possibly be incompatible with my faith.

I'm glad it hasn't shaken your faith, but it's certainly distorted your understanding of the Bible. Genesis is a [b]historical[/b], not poetic, account, as others have also shown.


in Him, the Author and finished of our faith, who was there at the Beginning.

Jeannette

Jeannette

 2007/11/5 21:10
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Hi Jordan,

Quote:
...the odds of finding a fossil increase the more stronger-boned an animal is.



My skepticism wasn't againts tthe possibility of a dinosaur bone becoming a fossil. My skepticism is against the possibility of dozens of identical species being captured without any morphological differences. Again if all life is really in constant flux, and if the animals that exist in any given moment of time are constantly morphing forms rather then fixed species...then how often should we find two identical species of anything preserved in the random slot machine of the geological record? (Let alone dozens...)

Why do we continue to find that every triceratops uncovered is just like the other triceratops specimens that have already been uncovered for the past one hundred years? Shouldn't we find a triceratops that is morphing into something else at least once?

My point is that the persistent pattern of stasis in the fossil record has historically always been a major problem for Darwinists, ever since the theory was published in 1858. Now Darwin had the benifit that paleontology was, in his day, still a young enough science to afford him the hope that thousands of transitional fossils would eventually be found.

Well it is almost 2008 and they have not been found. In fact the fossil record is curiously a record of stasis and does not present morphological instability or fluidity...at least not without the help of museum curators telling us it does. For a resonable unbiased person, the fossil record should be an embarrasment for Darwininsim.

Now admittedly the evolutionists do point with pride to the archeopteryx and their textbook contrived sequence of horse fossils beginning with eohippus and ending with the modern breeds. Yet these two questionable examples only underscore the overwhelming lack of similar examples. According to Darwin, our museums should be filled with unique chimeras, each one slightly different then the other. Instead, we find only stasis. Over and over again, perfect unvarying stasis. Have you ever seen the Triceratops in the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburg? It's just like the one in the Natural History Museum in New York, the Smithsonian in DC and the Peabody Museum in New Haven CT. Imagine that...each museum has a find of the exact same random mutation!

Again, considering that genetic mutation is supposed to be in constant flux within evolutionary and geological history...and considering that a variance in dept of just a few feet in rock strata could represent the span of 50-100 millions years of history being captured...the odds of finding consistently identical fossilized species, captured infrequently and randomly from an endlessly mutating sequence across the span of millions of years, should be considered quite an unlikely possibility. It is an unlikely possibility that happens all the time in evolutionary paleontology.

Blessings brother,

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2007/11/5 22:30Profile









 Re:

Compton said

Quote:
Instead, we find only stasis. Over and over again, perfect unvarying stasis. Have you ever seen the Triceratops in the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburg? It's just like the one in the Natural History Museum in New York, the Smithsonian in DC and the Peabody Museum in New Haven CT. Imagine that...each museum has a find of the exact same random mutation!



The real bones are too heavy for display - the bones are die cast (I don't know if that's the proper terminology) and the skeletons on display are made of lighter materials.

The museums, no doubt, cast only the best fossils for their shows... thus, many museums exhibit reproductions of one skeleton in pristine condition.

As for this "flux" you're speaking of, type "triceratops" into wikipedia and examine the various phenotypes (size, weight, number of horns, some even had multiple spikes along the ridge of head armor) of this magnificent beast - they did change over time.

While you're at it, type in "rhinoceros" and compare the two creatures. One's a reptile, the other a mammel, but these "tanks on four legs" share many similarities in skeletal structure (called "evolutionary convergence").

 2007/11/6 2:32





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy