 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
dtgrant |
Quote The Bard:
| Quote: | | The written account as given in Genesis (and the whole of Scripture) lends itself also to another interpretation (old-earth creationism with its various theories- except of course, evolution) other than the one you espouse. |
The six day creation of Genesis is stated again in Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17.
What scripture references can you share with us that speak of just one of your various theories that the earth is ‘billions of years’ and are not ambiguous?
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/19/13 8:35 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| A possible way to understand the Genesis account... |
Aaron Scott |
If you were telling your young child about, say, the cancer that had sickened a cousin, you would almost certainly NOT speak of proteins and enzymes and cellular theory, etc. You would tell it in a way that was understandable.
Ancient man's understanding would not at all have grasped the depth of scientific knowledge that is now available.
Yes, God knew all these things, but it would have been gibberish to ancient man's understanding. So it was given in a simplified manner, but with the key element intact; namely, that God created the universe.
What we try to claim is a scientific statement about creation is perhaps really a STORY that could be grasped by ancient men, but a story that contained the essential truth God wanted understood.
The moment you claim that the Genesis account is precisely how it happened, you have permitted it to be examined by science, and must live with the results of such a search...except that we don't. We deride science that doesn't agree with us...but embrace that which does.
Yes, we should discriminate between solid science and conjecture, but at some point, we have to quit "cherry picking" the science we want to retain, while rejecting an ocean of science that is contrary to our position.
God is a God of TRUTH. He will never be destroyed by truth. But to play games with the truth, to come up with cheap, twisted, or stretched explanations does Him no glory. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/20/13 7:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| dtgrant wrote: | Quote Nature Boy Florida:
| Quote: | Dt
You are being anti bible by using scientific evidence in your witness. |
NBF, I’m sorry but not sure what you mean by this statement.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Ha.
I meant to say ... you are not being ANTI-Bible when using scientific evidence in your witness.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/20/13 8:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: A possible way to understand the Genesis account... |
Phillip Johnson |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | If you were telling your young child about, say, the cancer that had sickened a cousin, you would almost certainly NOT speak of proteins and enzymes and cellular theory, etc. You would tell it in a way that was understandable.
Ancient man's understanding would not at all have grasped the depth of scientific knowledge that is now available.
Yes, God knew all these things, but it would have been gibberish to ancient man's understanding. So it was given in a simplified manner, but with the key element intact; namely, that God created the universe.
What we try to claim is a scientific statement about creation is perhaps really a STORY that could be grasped by ancient men, but a story that contained the essential truth God wanted understood.
The moment you claim that the Genesis account is precisely how it happened, you have permitted it to be examined by science, and must live with the results of such a search...except that we don't. We deride science that doesn't agree with us...but embrace that which does.
Yes, we should discriminate between solid science and conjecture, but at some point, we have to quit "cherry picking" the science we want to retain, while rejecting an ocean of science that is contrary to our position.
God is a God of TRUTH. He will never be destroyed by truth. But to play games with the truth, to come up with cheap, twisted, or stretched explanations does Him no glory. |
Very nicely put! |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/20/13 9:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
peterz3fo |
Once again, most of you need to stay away from the Evolution-Creation debate and focus on the resurrection.
And, please use the term "Darwinian Evolution" or "Macro-Evolution" when attempting to deny abiogenesis or beneficial species mutations. Yikes! You must get definitional clarity if you're going to have any success in these conversations with skeptics. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/20/13 1:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Travis Johnson |
| peterz3fo wrote: | Once again, most of you need to stay away from the Evolution-Creation debate and focus on the resurrection.
And, please use the term "Darwinian Evolution" or "Macro-Evolution" when attempting to deny abiogenesis or beneficial species mutations. Yikes! You must get definitional clarity if you're going to have any success in these conversations with skeptics. |
Absolutely.
In fact, you can't even begin to use the Bible as the foundational truth (that doesn't make Scripture less authoritative) when dealing with a natural man. A spiritual man? Yes. Someone who has received revelation of Jesus is having these discussions from a different place.
But, a natural man, a skeptic has a different starting point. dtgrant's posture and others who hold a similar posture of communication with a skeptic would be rejected out of hand. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7821
8/20/13 1:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| peterz3fo wrote: | | Once again, most of you need to stay away from the Evolution-Creation debate and focus on the resurrection. |
The gospel of salvation is of first importance, agreed.
However, eventually creationism comes to bear on the validity and accomplishment of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. For "as in Adam we all die, even so in Christ shall we all be made alive", and again,"The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Corinthians 15).
Also, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2 Peter 3).
After all, Jesus IS the Creator, the author and finisher of our faith.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/20/13 4:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| peterz3fo wrote: | Once again, most of you need to stay away from the Evolution-Creation debate and focus on the resurrection.
And, please use the term "Darwinian Evolution" or "Macro-Evolution" when attempting to deny abiogenesis or beneficial species mutations. Yikes! You must get definitional clarity if you're going to have any success in these conversations with skeptics. |
Is there someone in this discussion that doesn't believe micro evolution is true within a species/population?
I have said that I have an open mind toward OEC creation.
However, here's one of the things that I keep pondering: at very least, God took 6 literal days to create earth even though He could have done it in an instant. (He took 6 days probably to give us a pattern.)
So why would God need millions or billions of years?
This is not necessarily a part of my argument, at present. Just thought I'd share some thoughts. It maybe a dumb question to some of you.
You know, years ago there were events, elements, people in the bible that had no material evidence and were subjected to ridicule - until someone discovered the evidence. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
8/20/13 5:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Problems with rigid literalism of creation account... |
Aaron Scott |
Someone asked why God would need billions of years to create. Well, for that matter, why did He even need six days?
You might think it was for the pattern of the Sabbath. Maybe so, but He gave us plenty of other things without doing them Himself (e.g., we have tithing, circumcision, etc.). He simply commanded those things to be done by humans.
Also, if you read the creation story literally, then here are a couple of things to consider (there are many more):
1) Did God have to REST? But that's what it says.
2) The first few days had no sun--by which we gauge a day's length. So when the Bible says "day" for the first few creation days, it is questionable whether a 24-hour day was really the intention.
3) "The evening and the morning." Well, if there were no sun, was God just using some divine hourglass to determine when one day ended, etc.?
Yes, I know these can be "explained." But the fact that they HAVE to be explained, and not taken at the most literal level, means one can have legitimate claims to the contrary. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/20/13 6:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
Quote Nature Boy Florida:
| Quote: | Ha.
I meant to say ... you are not being ANTI-Bible when using scientific evidence in your witness. |
We agree.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/20/13 7:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
Quote Aaron Scott:
| Quote: | | Ancient man's understanding would not at all have grasped the depth of scientific knowledge that is now available. |
First of all, IF God described His creation in complete scientific detail, neither I, nor you, nor any scientist today would have the understanding to grasp the depth of His creation. Perhaps a beginning point would be if 'we all' stopped thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought to think as if we are more ‘intelligent’ than Moses.
Quote Aaron Scott:
| Quote: | | Yes, we should discriminate between solid science and conjecture, … |
We agree 100%.
Also we need to understand the difference between ‘solid’ science and ‘conjecture’ science. Solid science would fall in the category of ‘operational’ science. Conjecture science would fall in the category of ‘historical/operational’ science.
What is the difference?
‘Operational’/solid science would include what is …observable, testable and repeatable. Examples would be: Satellites, electricity, engineering, medical sciences, technology sciences, etc.
Historical/origin/conjecture science IS NOT … observable, testable, repeatable.
One cannot observe the creation of the universe. One can only observe the present state of things. Yes, there are many conjectures as to what happened but there is only one written account given to us that is trustworthy ( the Bible).
Quote Aaron Scott:
| Quote: | | But to play games with the truth, to come up with cheap, twisted, or stretched explanations does Him no glory. |
Well Aaron, we agree, almost. Playing games with foolish ‘conjectures’ like the big bang/billions of years/evolution theories does Him no glory.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/20/13 7:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
Quote peterz3fo:
| Quote: | | Once again, most of you need to stay away from the Evolution-Creation debate and focus on the resurrection. |
Without God the Creator, there is no God the Saviour and no Resurrection.
We understand that everyone must witness according to their ability and circumstance.
Since ‘Creation’ is a part of the Bible, do you have scripture references where we are admonished not to use the creation story in our witness to skeptics?
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/20/13 7:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
John Jett |
| dtgrant wrote: |
Without God the Creator, there is no God the Saviour and no Resurrection.
We understand that everyone must witness according to their ability and circumstance.
Since ‘Creation’ is a part of the Bible, do you have scripture references where we are admonished not to use the creation story in our witness to skeptics?
(donnie & terri grant) |
Precisely, and more than that John felt it was important in the new covenant. Again, could be room for old-earth, but NEVER for (macro) evolution. No creation, no God.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
8/20/13 7:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | In fact, you can't even begin to use the Bible as the foundational truth (that doesn't make Scripture less authoritative) when dealing with a natural man. |
No one should use the Bible when witnessing to a ‘natural’ man (a sinner)?
Hopefully Brother Travis you will provide us with your scripture reference.
Here are some scriptural references for why we DO USE THE BIBLE & the Biblical CREATION as stated in Genesis when witnessing to ‘skeptics’.
1. Jesus not only used the Bible, He used creation when speaking to skeptics (we do believe the Pharisees would fall into the category of ‘skeptics’).
Mark 10:2 (KJV)
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Mark 10:6-8 (KJV)
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
In the above verses Jesus uses both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24.
Genesis 1:27 (KJV)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:24 (KJV)
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
2. We also have Apostle Paul as an example of using creation when witnessing to ‘skeptics’.
Acts 17:22-24 (KJV)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | dtgrant's posture and others who hold a similar posture of communication with a skeptic would be rejected out of hand. |
dtgrant’s posture?
Not sure who is doing the posturing, those of us who have a clear foundation in the Genesis creation account or those being tossed from one theory to the next big idea theory fancied by pop culture science. We hope to always be skeptics of fallible man and his numerous pop culture creation theories.
(donnie & terri grant)
P.S. As a side note, both my wife and I approve this post.  |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/20/13 7:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Problems with rigid literalism of creation account... |
Ventureforth |
[quote="Aaron Scott"] | Quote: | | You might think it was for the pattern of the Sabbath. Maybe so, but He gave us plenty of other things without doing them Himself (e.g., we have tithing, circumcision, etc.). He simply commanded those things to be done by humans. |
So how far are you going with this? Because it sounds like you're headed towards theistic evolution.
By the way, things like tithing and circumcision are things that can be done by humans.
| Quote: | Also, if you read the creation story literally, then here are a couple of things to consider (there are many more):
1) Did God have to REST? But that's what it says. |
But you see, Sabbath rest is plainly laid out in scripture. (Exodus 20:11, Hebrews 4:4, et. al.)So are the 6 days. So I feel a lot more comfortable saying God rested because He wanted us to. In any case, He stopped working. Where are the scriptures that suggest we are to take the 6 days as long periods?
| Quote: | 2) The first few days had no sun--by which we gauge a day's length. So when the Bible says "day" for the first few creation days, it is questionable whether a 24-hour day was really the intention.
3) "The evening and the morning." Well, if there were no sun, was God just using some divine hourglass to determine when one day ended, etc.?
Yes, I know these can be "explained." But the fact that they HAVE to be explained, and not taken at the most literal level, means one can have legitimate claims to the contrary. |
There was no sun or moon, but there was light. Anyway, I understand what you're trying to say.
Hey, if you can make a good argument with scriptures, I'll certainly read and consider it.
I'm not saying God couldn't have taken billions of years if that's what He wanted. But does it make sense in the broad biblical context? |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
8/20/13 8:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Travis Johnson |
| dtgrant wrote: | Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | In fact, you can't even begin to use the Bible as the foundational truth (that doesn't make Scripture less authoritative) when dealing with a natural man. |
No one should use the Bible when witnessing to a ‘natural’ man (a sinner)?
Hopefully Brother Travis you will provide us with your scripture reference. |
That's a misquote. It undermines the discussion and is not fair to either of us.
To my point, please see Paul's admonition to to Corinthians. It's very clear, not only in his words here. But, Paul's posture is consistent throughout his ministry whether standing on the Areopogus or whether he is telling us to adapt culturally to our audience by being all things to all people so that all means some might be saved.
See below:
| Quote: |
1 CORINTHIANS 2:13-16
13 When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths.[f] 14 But people who aren’t spiritual[g] can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. 15 Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. 16 For,
“Who can know the Lord’s thoughts?
Who knows enough to teach him?”[h]
But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ. |
You went on to say:
| Quote: | dtgrant’s posture?
Not sure who is doing the posturing, those of us who have a clear foundation in the Genesis creation account or those being tossed from one theory to the next big idea theory fancied by pop culture science. We hope to always be skeptics of fallible man and his numerous pop culture creation theories. |
I've not previously accused you of posturing. I may have to start though. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7821
8/20/13 8:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | That's a misquote. It undermines the discussion and is not fair to either of us. |
We did not ‘misquote’ you. We copied and pasted your exact words.
Our question was in context with the exact words quoted from you.
Now:
Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | To my point, please see Paul's admonition to to Corinthians. It's very clear, not only in his words here. But, Paul's posture is consistent throughout his ministry whether standing on the Areopogus or whether he is telling us to adapt culturally to our audience by being all things to all people so that all means some might be saved. |
Yes we agree. When witnessing we must adapt to our abilities and have an understanding of the culture we are witnessing to.
But, we are not to compromise the Word of God.
Paul also understood that man is without excuse in knowing that God is the Creator.
Romans 1:19-22 (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
If we are not using the Bible as our foundational truth then we are left to be tossed to and fro, arguing/debating with the philosophies of man while leaving the foundational truth on the sideline.
To our point on this thread. If you believe scripture supports billions of years, we ask that you inform us where you place those billions of years so we may all search the scriptures together.
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/21/13 7:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
peterz3fo |
| Poimen wrote: | | peterz3fo wrote: | | Once again, most of you need to stay away from the Evolution-Creation debate and focus on the resurrection. |
The gospel of salvation is of first importance, agreed.
However, eventually creationism comes to bear on the validity and accomplishment of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. For "as in Adam we all die, even so in Christ shall we all be made alive", and again,"The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Corinthians 15).
Also, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2 Peter 3).
After all, Jesus IS the Creator, the author and finisher of our faith. |
I don't think most people involved in this thread can be fluent in both areas. If you can demonstrate the undeniable truth of the resurrection of Christ the Creation issue become peripheral and takes care of itself. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/21/13 7:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
peterz3fo |
| dtgrant wrote: | Quote peterz3fo:
| Quote: | | Once again, most of you need to stay away from the Evolution-Creation debate and focus on the resurrection. |
Without God the Creator, there is no God the Saviour and no Resurrection.
We understand that everyone must witness according to their ability and circumstance.
Since ‘Creation’ is a part of the Bible, do you have scripture references where we are admonished not to use the creation story in our witness to skeptics?
(donnie & terri grant) |
You've missed my point. The issue of creation is too complex to quote some verses and say, "See, look how simple it is!" Most skeptics will laugh at you if you use the Bible as a starting point. Again, establish the credibility of the resurrection and creation takes care of itself! |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/21/13 7:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
peterz3fo |
| dtgrant wrote: | Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | In fact, you can't even begin to use the Bible as the foundational truth (that doesn't make Scripture less authoritative) when dealing with a natural man. |
No one should use the Bible when witnessing to a ‘natural’ man (a sinner)?
Hopefully Brother Travis you will provide us with your scripture reference.
Here are some scriptural references for why we DO USE THE BIBLE & the Biblical CREATION as stated in Genesis when witnessing to ‘skeptics’.
1. Jesus not only used the Bible, He used creation when speaking to skeptics (we do believe the Pharisees would fall into the category of ‘skeptics’).
Mark 10:2 (KJV)
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Mark 10:6-8 (KJV)
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
In the above verses Jesus uses both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24.
Genesis 1:27 (KJV)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:24 (KJV)
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
2. We also have Apostle Paul as an example of using creation when witnessing to ‘skeptics’.
Acts 17:22-24 (KJV)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | dtgrant's posture and others who hold a similar posture of communication with a skeptic would be rejected out of hand. |
dtgrant’s posture?
Not sure who is doing the posturing, those of us who have a clear foundation in the Genesis creation account or those being tossed from one theory to the next big idea theory fancied by pop culture science. We hope to always be skeptics of fallible man and his numerous pop culture creation theories.
(donnie & terri grant)
P.S. As a side note, both my wife and I approve this post. |
I'll give you an example! Paul!
Check out Acts 17. Paul didn't "use a Bible" to engage the philosophers in Athens. In fact, the only thing he quoted from was THEIR poets. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/21/13 7:19 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
