Does It Matter

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Shortandy, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    For years I have listened to fellow pastors discuss and debate the topic of creation. Every believer I have met seems to play for one of two teams; 6, 24 hour days Creation or Theistic Evolution. In my observation most, for the sake of unity or because they just don't want to debate, have said that it doesn't really matter what side of the fence you are one because it doesn't really effect anything.

    In a recent sermon series I have been preaching through the miracles of Jesus from John. For a guy like me (Literal 6 Day Creationist) these make sense.... that Jesus would open His mouth and speak and things would immediately happen. But what about those who are on the other team? How does this fit into your theological system? If you have no problem believing that Christ could speak and things immediately happen (water to wine; paralyzed man at Bethesda, Roman officials son, feeding of 5000, raising of Lazarus, etc) then why is it difficult to think that Jesus would open His mouth and create the world?

    Not trying to pick a fight and I am certainly not trying to open up a debate that has happened a lot of times on this forum. I simply want to hear from the other side.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    I am, like you, not trying to pick a fight.

    I believe God could have created the universe anyway he wanted to, with a snap of the finger, with a spoken word, or any given period of time from a second to seven days to millions of years. God is outside of time and thus time has no meaning to God.
    I do not believe God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour days. He could have. But I do not believe he did. I do believe he created over, what to us, is a long period of time. To me that is what the scientific evidence shows ... and God did create science, some of which we have discovered. To me science and the Bible do not conflict. The Bible should not be used for science and science should not be used for spiritual explanations. That is to say, the Bible tells us why God created while science gives us evidence of how God create. The explanations in Genesis, and there are two creations stories, are good explanations for a pre-scientific population. If God had given a full scientific explanation no one would have understood and thus no one would have considered the explanation plausible. It would have been considered nonsense and discarded … IMHO

    I have no problem believing that Christ spoke and things happened immediately. For healing it would not make sense to me that he spoke and the healing took place at some later day, say three years later.

    I do believe that Genesis speaks the truth in the first five words, "In the beginning God created". That I believe firmly, that God did it. That God did it is important. How he did it is not particularly important to me.
     
  3. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1 Yes, it matters very much. Long ages undermine the theology of the Bible. How do you explain the cataclysmic flood described by scripture? Death before sin?

    #2 As someone who has studied the science, there is no scientific fact, which demands an old earth. Only evolutionary, atheistic cosmology demands long ages. Too many Christians have bought the presuppositions of the atheists, right along with their old age theories, in attempt to sound "relevant" and "scientific."

    #3 The scriptures don't support long ages. Every day in Genesis 1 is emphasized, via Hebrew parallelism; it is normal, 24 hour days (at least on the earth: there are some scientific principles relating to the theory of relativity, which would allow for an old universe, with a young earth; A Euclidean zone where the clocks on the earth would be moving at a vastly slower rate than that of the rest of the universe. This, however, is theoretical.)

    #4 I believe this is an important battleground; not something to be pushed to the sidelines. When did Paul say "Oh well, believe what you want. Let's just get along." That sentiment is not biblical, especially on a foundational issue such as this.

    I feel very strongly about this issue. Let's not compromise God's word people. Use discernment!! http://www.icr.org/article/5300/
     
  4. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good answer. It is important.

    :thumbs:
     
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    #5 kyredneck, Apr 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2010
  6. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your response is saturated with grace and kindness so please don't be offended at my response. Doesn't the miracles that Christ performed at His spoken word make much more sense if a literal 6 day creation were true?
     
  7. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no biblical support for this. The gap theory was indeed created expressly to account for old earth secular "science."

    Tell me, why do you not believe the earth was made in 6 literal days, less that 20k years ago? Explain please.
     
  8. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Does it matter??

    Well, guess it depends on whether you want to trust whether God spoke in "riddles" (for lack of a better term) about the flood, origin of sin, salvation, virgin birth, etc, etc, ad infinitum!

    Personally, if I did not believe God meant exactly what He said to start the BOOK, then what makes His words "TRUE" for the remainder of the BOOK???

    Why should I believe Him when He said "I am come that you might have life more abundantly" (Jn 10:10b) or "I will keep you in perfect peace if you trust in me" (Is 26:3a) ---paraphrased!!

    If God had given some reason to take the creation time-table other than literal, then fine! But there is nothing to indicate any thing other than a straightforward relating of the event(s) and the time of execution.

    Again, if the simple phraseology as used by Him to start His book is not legitimate, why should we accept any of the rest as anything other than "symbolism"; again for lack of a better term?????
     
  9. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    HD, you evidently didn't take the time to read through the first 4-5 paragraphs of the link I provided. This 'gap' theory has zilch to do with 'secular "science" '. If you know anything about Pink you'd know he would be the last to question God's word.

    Because, as I said, I agree with Pink that it's actually an account of restoration; and once again, it has zilch to do with science or evolution, and in no way minimizes the authority of God's word or diminishes His power. It has to do with the translation of the word 'was' in the 2nd verse from the Hebrew.

    And, I agree totally with the marvelous type that Pink sees in this 'restoration'.
     
    #9 kyredneck, Apr 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2010
  10. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    Thanks for your kind words. I am very slow to take offense. Anger, offense, bitterness are negatives and for the most part accomplish nothing. I do like a calm, rational discussion.

    No, to me I see Christ's words as addressing issues that needed an immediate answer. Whereas I see creation as an ongoing process that continues to this day. I believe we can see this creation taking place on earth and in the universe with the birth and death of stars. I believe God is still in the business of creation. This, of course, brings up the question of what is meant "and on the 7th day he [God] rested". I do not believe I can fully describe what this mean and does not mean. I do not believe that God simply stopped doing anything ... like sitting in a rocking chair and and watching the universe nor do I believe he that God wound the universe up like a clock or machine and then sat back and is watching it run. This might be an interesting question to discuss in another thread.

    As I said in my earlier post I believe the Genesis accounts were explanations for a pre-scientific age. This is not to belittle those who lived at that time. I believe they knew many things we do not, things we could benefit from knowing. I wish could give you an example.




     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Page 1

    This post can be found on this page:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=61687&page=6

     
    #11 kyredneck, Apr 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2010
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Page 2.................

     
  13. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong, wrong and wrong. Pink cites Chalmers. Chalmers cites secular geologists.

    I have read Pink. I like some of Pink's works. I can say the same of Wayne Grudem. But on the issue of Creationism, they are both wrong. At least Grudem is intellectually honest enough to admit that the Young Earth Creationists are the most biblically consistent (while disagreeing with them!?).


    First, it undermines the gospel, the flood account, and God's own words.

    Second, as nearly any Hebrew scholar will tell you (except, of course, those who are trying to prove the gap theory), the word "was" in Genesis (hâyâh), means "was," not "became." In order for the word to mean "became" it needs a preposition...which it does not have in this instance. "Became" is not even a possible translation for this word (without the preposition), much less the correct one.

    The entire reason Pink considered the theory in the first place, was Chalmers. And Chalmers sought out the theory, because of secular, atheistic science. This is undeniable. (And is admitted by some of the more honest of the Gap theory proponents).
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    How?

    How?

    How?

    HD, I'm no scholar and I've respect for your skills. So, are you saying that there's absolutely no way under heaven, no doubt whatsoever, that the word 'was' could be rendered 'became'?
     
  15. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with your post on this subject. However, if you used the same standard to only one view of end time events, I would strongly disagree, as Scripture is not nearly as clear.
     
  16. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a six day young earth creationist, and it matters to me. The problem in my opinion of understanding these six days as being ages, is that it makes you question every miracle in the scriptures.

    I once heard the story that a scholar claimed that the Red Sea was really the "Reed Sea" and only ankle deep, and so it was no miracle at all for Moses and the Jews to cross safely, to which a preacher proclaimed, "Glory be! The Lord drowned Pharaoh and all his army in ankle deep water!"

    I like that story. :tongue3:

    But that is the problem, if the six day creation account is not literal, then what other passages in scripture are not literal?
     
    #16 Winman, Apr 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2010
  17. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    it does matter, it matters whether or not we believe God. if we do not beleive what God wrote in scripture then we do not beleive God, we call Him a liar.
     
  18. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    My apologies, I don't think I answered your question correctly. I defer to Pink:

    "......Genesis 1:1 speaks of the original creation; Genesis 1:2 describes the then condition of the earth six days before Adam was called into existence.......In "six days," that is, literal days of twenty-four hours duration, the Lord completed the work of restoring and re-fashioning that which some terrible catastrophe had blasted and plunged into chaos.' - Pink
     
  19. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Still the problem I am having with your view is that I don't believe it is consistent with all of scripture. There seems to be a great emphasis in scripture on the spoken word of God. For example, as to the universe and creation, Hebrews 1:3. We see here that things are being sustained by his word.

    With that being said, I must ask you and others who hold your view....what is the motive? A plain reading of the text leans way further on my side than yours. So what motivates you to stand on the other side of the fence?
     
  20. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    O.K. Why do you believe the Earth is millions of years old? There is certainly no scientific evidence for it. Why does the Bible speak of dinosaur-like creatures, if these were from some Pre-Adamic earth? If the flood was as described in the Bible, then it was a worldwide, cataclysmic affair, that would have uprooted all of the fossils, and sedimentary layers. Do you deny the catastrophic flood?

    Why is this "gap" not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures? Why is the pre-Adamic earth not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures? Why does Jesus say that Adam was "at the beginning" and "the first man"?

    If Satan fell before the garden of Eden, why did God wait until after he brought down the human race to curse him? How could Satan, who had already fallen, be a part of a garden and a world which was declared "Very Good" by a Holy and Righteous God (whose standards are moral perfection)?

    I will try to get back to your earlier questions later today.
     

Share This Page

Loading...