Issues with the slippery slope argument of literal 7-24 hour creationism

It is the height of arrogance to suggest you determine how an "inspired men" interpret things and "uninspired men" interpret things. I am certain many Pharisees believed Jesus not to be inspired because he didn't see things the way they did.

 

Is it? Isn't that exactly what interpretation is all about? Determining what inspired men are saying versus what they are not saying?

I suggest that you simply demonstrate where my interpretation is wrong as that is all I have really done in regard to your interpretation.

However, no one on this forum has even attempted to demonstrate my interpretation of inspired men is wrong. Wonder why? I will tell you why, it is obvious they believed creation was by the command of God just as Genesis one declares over and over again "And God said...." and not a evolutionary process stretching out over billions of years.

Don't worry, I probably will not be on the forum long and then you will not have to deal with me.

 

I have never seen a more unrelated and false comparison to make an invalid point. We know the men of scripture are inspired because the Word of God says so. Science is uninspired and full of anti-God agenda's. That is clear and indisputable.

 

Yes! I do not understand the great sin of simply pointing out the obvious. Biblical writers were directed by the Holy Spirit in what they wrote. These inspired men clearly believed creation came into existence by God speaking it into existence just as Genesis one repeatedly over and over says "And God said. let......"

It does not matter how GREAT a man of God some UNINSPIRED person may be as GREAT men make GREAT mistakes. If they contradict the plain obvious statements of Biblical writers then you are forced to choose between inspired men and uninspired men's views.

No one on this forum has even attempted to dispute the evidence I presented by INSPIRED MEN in regard to Genesis one presenting a literal view of God SPEAKING INTO EXISTENCE creation rather than figuratively describing a billion year process between the "beginning" and the appearance of man on earth.

Jesus plainly states that man existed "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years after the beginning. There is no hermeneutical grounds to dispute what Jesus clearly and explicitly states. There is no rationale that can make his words mean the opposite of what he said. There is no basis of interpretation to reinterpret the words of David, the writer of Hebrews, Peter and others who repeat the very SAME UNITED THINGS - God spoke creation into existence rather than using a BILLION YEAR PROCESS.

These are the facts, whether GREAT men receive or deny them does not change the hard facts. Neither does their acceptance or rejection have anything to do with their personal salvation.

 

Dr. Walter's point wasn't that the men of Scripture were inspired but that those men who interpret the bible under his specificity are inspired. Your argument is a red herring.

 

I already showed this line of thinking to be a red herring.

Jesus didn't say creation was 10,000 years ago either. creation happened. Adam and Eve existed. I have no argument there. I do argue that the earth has only been around for 10,000 years based on evidence that has been gathered and observed. By natural order we can see that God created we can also see the earth has been around a lot longer than 10,000 years. And as we get more information and grow in greater understanding people will see that and consider churches to be false and will leave in great numbers.

 

I already have a full explination of how your interpretation of the genesis 1 and genesis 2 accounts are wrong in other threads. You just ignore it. You can't hold to any other point of view because if you are wrong on this count Dr. Walter, you believe your entire faith is wrong. You are an either or person rather than not. It must be your way. I've shown you ancient text. How the jews themselves interpret creation how the language structure is all wrong. How Genesis 2 doesn't match up with Genesis 1. I've even displayed how the early person using genesis viewed the earth. They believed much like the greeks that the river ocean surounded their singular landmass and so on and so forth and that they don't match up with reality of how the universe actually is. They believe water is above the firmament with would be to us outer space but for them the 2nd or 3rd heaven. and so on and so forth.

 

You are supplying the red herring. Evolution denies the existence of man at "the beginning" of creation but rather places his origin billions of years AFTER the beginning. This is flatly denied by Christ. Christ places the existence of man "at the beginning" of creation not AFTER the beginning of creation.

There is no reasonable or rational way you can interpret Christ's words "from the beginning" to mean billions of years AFTER the beginning of creation when Christ is directly referring to Genesis 1:27 and the specific words "male and female."

Every single day of the six literal days there was the beginning of something NEW not previously existing the day before and in direction connection with the words "And God said, let......" Hence, the whole period of six days can be regarded as "the beginning of creation" in direct connection with the words "And God said.." but that is neither the language of evolution or can it be harmonized with any kind of gap theory forced on Genesis one.

Your arguments have to divorce the words "And God said, let...." from every single day in Genesis one FROM the clear and explicit statements of Christ, Paul,, Peter, David, writer of Hebrews who INTERPRET those words to mean that God CREATED the heavens and earth BY THE WORD OF HIS MOUTH rather than by a PROCESS of evolution.

Your arguments have to REVERSE Christ's words that man existed "from the beginning of Creation" to billions of years AFTER the beginning of creation.

What you have to ignore is that Christ's words "at the beginning" and "from the beginning" are in direct reference to the words found in Genesis 1:27 and that all six days represent "the beginning of creation" as something new is brought into existence each and every day by God SPEAKING IT INTO EXISTENCE rather than some billion year DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESSES.

 

See the red herring. Where in any of my statements did I say man came from evolution? Did I not say there was a creation and that there was an Adam and Eve? Of course I did! My contention is that the earth is not 7,000-10,000 years old as we have evidence of it being much older. WE even have evidence of men writing as far back as 12,000 years ago. Jesus still never said the earth was only created 7,000 years ago. And also creation is not completed until Man come onto the scene because man is the focus of creation. Creation is for us. But as we seen in the Genesis account man was not made in the first section. Nor did God rest until after man was created.

Because that wasn't his point you're reading into his word and trying to assess between the lines. I mean really!

 

So you are denying that billions of years occurred from the beginning of creation until the advent of man?? If not, then you still have the same problem with Christ's words regardless if you acknowledge evolution or not. If not, you still have the same problem with the words "And God said, let..." in connection with those inspired writers that interpreted those words.

Christ's words simply deny thousands, millions or billions of years occurred between the advent of man and the beginning of creation.

The words of inspired writers deny Genesis one and the repeated words "And God said, Let...." are symbolic of any kind of DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS but rather expressive of God speaking into existence those things recorded in every day of creation.

 

Actually, I don't. And I've explained a hundred times (exageration) about the organizational method of explaining creation and the establishment of certain theologies. The creation account in genesis 1 typically of that region uses musical refrains for each catagory of creation listed as days but not literally so. The days are an outline of threes. Day one general, day three specific. and so on and so forth each outined day catagory ends with a musical refrain or liturgical one if you like. These aren't given so as to provide a specific time frame but a catagorization of creation. something like in segment one God created light later in segment 3 we see God turn those lights into the heavenly bodies or the luminaries. Ending each segment for rememberance "And there was evening, and there was morning the first" - segment. or Day

 

If you don't, then your problem remains. Your theory is pure nonsense and repudiated by Christ and other Biblical writers. Christ quoted a portion of Genesis 1:27 and stated clearly that the event in Genesis 1:26-27 occured "at the beginning" of creation not hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of year AFTER creation.

Other Biblical writers demanded the repeated "And God said, let" is the LITERAL means by which creation came into existence and those words introduce every single day with something NEW rather than something IN DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS over billions of years.

If Christ can instanteous create wine out of water so that it tastes AGED, and create Adam and Eve with the appearance of full adult maturity and all other living things with full adult appearance then why not the heavens and earth? Is that too hard for God or inconsistent with these other things??

 

Christ nor other biblical writers haven't repudiated my claims. Jesus mentions man at creation. So do other writers. They mention the theology of the sabbath. But don't confuse that as repudiating a suggestion of the orginizational theory for creation. They haven't done any such thing.

this is your eisegesis and no other biblical writers have not said this.

Jesus changed one thing into another. Jesus changed the element of water into another element of wine yet you can't believe that Jesus could change wine into blood every time its offered in a mass. Therefore how is your refusal to believe this any different from mine to believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years?

 

Jesus demands that man originated "at the beginning" of creation not merely "at creation" or AFTER "the beginning" of creation. The Biblical writers demand the repeated phrase that characterized every single day in Genesis One means that every aspect of creation every single day was a direct product of God speaking it into existence not a slow developmental process over billions of years.

If Christ can create water into wine that has the appearance of AGE and if he created every other living thing in Genesis One with the appearance of full maturity than it is consistent that the earth, sun, stars and the entire universe be created with the same appearance.

The only way you can defend your position from a Biblical pespective is to handle the scriptures loosely and ignore, deny what they actually and technically state. Any theory that demands Genesis 1:26-27 occurred hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of years AFTER "the beginning of creation" instead of "AT the beginning of creation" is false and unbiblical and is a direct contradiction to the language used by Christ and other Biblical writers.

 

You're funny. Jesus doesn't demand any such thing. He refers to the Genesis text surely. There is no demanding in that passage.

There is no where in scriptures indicating any such demand. Its a literary device for memorization. The Ancient summerians used it as you can see from the Ennuma Elish.

Again you can't show me the difference.

Not at all. I suggest you re-read my debate with you about what genesis one literally says. That Water was created above and below the firmament which firmament means a harden surface which is not what the atmospher is. Genesis indicates that this harden surface has flood gates letting in the water to cause the flood. The actual literary word of placing the stars in the firmament in ingraving them. And none of this matches actual observation of the Atmosphere or the stars and how they operate. You ignore the literal interpretation so that you may have your literal days but suggest euphamism when it comes to the other aspects. That is disingeneous. Genesis does not give an accurate discription if taken from your perspective how the world even works. Note. You fail to mention how genesis 1 does not match genesis 2

It is clear the land produced vegitation and food and fruit and every plant after its own kind on day three. God made mand on day six yet in genesis two we find

Yet in genesis 2 no shrub no plant is even in existance until after man is made from the mud which he gets his name Adamah or Adam. You try some lame excuse like there were no weeds. but every plant is suggested and weeds are only plants growing where you don't want them. Genesis two gives the account as if there is only mud from which man is made. The literal translation makes no sense. But you quickly overlook these and suggest day can not be a catagorization. At least I'm consistent.

 

The only "funny" thing is your inability to admit what he explicitly states. He uses TIME terms when he refers to Genesis 1:27 and places it "AT the beginning" of Creation. He did not say AFTER the beginning or BEFORE the beginning but "AT the beginning" of creation. Hence, if the creation of man was "AT" the beginning then man has been on planet earth "FROM the beginning of creation." It is simply a matter of honesly acknowledging the words he chose rather than the words you must jerk out of his mouth in order to allow for your interpretational error.

Pure imagination on your part. Why didn't you respond to Dr. Morris's article on the Biblical use of "firmament" then???? I suggest that you go back and read it.

 

That is not the same thing as demanding something. Demand is your term. You demand not Jesus.

Because I saw right off he begins with a supposition which indicates the writers means specifically spread. Yet that does not coincide with engraving stars into a surface (which must be hard to do so) as the account calls for. So he starts with a wrong basis. However, you wouldn't listen to me though I recieved the information from several academic sources to include the Archor Yale commentaries, Jewish Academics review of how they interpreted the text for cohesion and how the use of the language is. Correlations between this writing and the sumer scripts found. etc...

 

The literal understanding of the language Christ uses DEMANDS that man did not come into existence hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of years AFTER "the beginning of creation."

His suppositon is backed by the example he gives in Ezekiel. I never read any response to that Biblical example!

 

It does not! What it does require is that the listen knows what story Jesus is referring to which is the creation account.

I'm referring to the literal language of Genesis written centuries before Exekiel! Why do you insist on referring to some other text than the one under discussion? The literal Hebrew words give a different view of how the world is than we understand in our observation. However, in their day it would have been how they observed it.

 

When you consider your sources do you not consider this Scripture (as well as others) in light of your sources?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)