Jesus Christ was a YEC

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Mark Osgatharp, Oct 24, 2003.

  1. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

    What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder." Jesus Christ

    Observations:

    a. This statement leaves no room for asexual reproduction evolving into sexual reproduction (however that little trick might be dreamed to have happened in the evolutionary scheme) and ultimately to man over a period of millions of years. It places our original parents at "the beginning of the creation.

    b. This statement leaves no room for a "gap" of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It places the creation of Adam and Eve at the very "beginning of the creation."

    c. It demonsrates that Jesus Christ interpreted the book of Genesis historically.

    d. Whereas Jesus cited the creation record as the basis for marriage and as a preventative against divorce, is it any wonder that as Genesis has come to be more and more rejected, family decay has risen to staggering proportions?

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  2. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    This passage reminds me of an incident that happened to me. When I worked at the BioWhitaker plant in Walkersville, Maryland, they hired some temporary help, one of which was a smart aleck little infidel.

    He and I were working together and we debated the subject of evolution for several hours. Finally I decided to put an end to his drivel and did so like this: I held up a male and female luer (if you don't know what a luer is CLICK HERE) and said,

    "This is called a male luer and this is called a female luer and they are made to fit one inside the other. When you admit to me that male and female luers evolved I will admit that men and women evolved."

    My infidel friend's eyes got as big as saucers and he just stood dumbfounded for several seconds and then said very indignantly,

    "If I decide to believe I will believe on my own. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME BELIEVE!"

    I don't know if he ever became a believer but I do know he didn't argue anymore with me about evolution.

    Mark Osgathrp
     
  3. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good posts, Mark. Your infidel friend, however, also presents the truth about belief -- it is a choice, and a very personal one. This is one reason Romans 2 mentions that the kindness of God is what leads people to repentance. It is not facts, it is Christ's character within us. The facts help bolster believers, but unless someone actually wants to believe, the facts don't mean a thing to him or her.
     
  4. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    Amen! Infidelity is not an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual problem. When a man's heart is right with God he has no problem accepting God's word. When a man's heart is bent on rebellion, no amount of light can pentrate the darkness.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Good thoughts. YEC (for those unaware of the acronym) is YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS (thousands of years) as contrasted to evolutionists and gap theory advocates who believe in an OLD earth (billions of years).
     
  6. Brett

    Brett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, you sure showed him! If this guy was dumbfounded by such a silly thing, then he wasn't too bright.

    (1) These two steal gizmos are called male and female and they fit together.
    (2) If we evolved then they did too.
    (3) They didn't evolve.
    (4) Thus, we didn't either.

    Presenting arguments in syllogism form really lets you see how silly they really are.

    Mark, if you think I'm so bent on rebellion and not on truth, why do you think I remain a Christian? If I wanted to be rebellious, wouldn't it be more logical for me to stop having faith if I wanted to rebel?
     
  7. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your syllogism is not accurate because I made no such premise as "if we evolved then they did too." The premise of my irrefutable argument is "if they didn't evolve, then we didn't either." Here is a correct syllogism:

    a. Male and female luers, though they are separate and distinct entities, are unquestionably intended to function together.

    b. Male and female humans, though separate and distinct entities, function together similarly to male and female luers - and in fact in a far more intricate and specific way than male and female luers.

    c. Therefore, if it is reasonable to assume that male and female humans evolved then it is reasonable to assume that male and female luers evolved.

    d. But It is not reasonable to assume, yeah, it is absolutely unthinkable to assume that male and female luers evolved.

    e. Ergo, it is unreasonable and absolutely unthinkable to assume that male and female humans evolved.

    Instead of trying to portray me as some sort of ignoramus, why don't you lecture me on the theoretics of the evolution of life from asexual to sexual reproduction? Come on, I'd really like to hear that one! [​IMG] :D [​IMG]

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  8. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brett,

    I just noticed that you are from Canada. Considering the recent moves of your government toward legitimizing sodomitical behavior, maybe you folks up there need to learn something about the distinction between the reproductive system and the digestive system. :(

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  9. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, you are both wrong. A syllogism is made up of two propositions called premises and one proposition called a conclusion. Both or you have more than those three propositions.

    Let us also look at the quote of Christ's - namely, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." If we read Genesis completely literally, then we see that Jesus must be in error. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, but he did not make males and females until the sixth day. You must, therefore, allow that Jesus isn't speaking of the VERY beginning of creation, as humanity wasn't created until five days later, according to 1:27-28.

    We must allow and understand that Jesus was talking about the beginning of the creation of humans for the two passages to harmonize. Thus, we cannot use the quote of Christ to prove or disprove either theory.

    So to answer each point:

    1. It is clear that asexual reproduction of animals occurred before the sexual reproduction of humans because of what happened on the fifth day at least, with the waters filling up with the creatures, which we must conclude also had plankton, which are asexual. Your first point falls.

    2. As to your second point, the Bible clearly says that humans were created at the end of creation. The earth, water, light, sea animals, land animals, the stars, the moon, and so on were all created BEFORE humans. Point two falls.

    3. It demonstrates that Jesus believed that humans were created male and female at the beginning of their creation. This doesn't prove one way or another. In fact, if we read carefully, we see in the next chapter (and see referenced in I Timothy) that man was made first, and after that the female. So a literal reading would show Jesus to be in error, as they weren't created male and female at the VERY beginning, but at the general beginning. Would you agree?

    4. I don't think you can prove a causal link, but I'd be intrigued to see you try. I would propose that many, many other things are to "blame" for the disintegration of the family. Taking Genesis less historically has nothing to do with it. Baptists, on average, divorce just as much as the non-believing world, and many of them take Genesis to be literal.
     
  10. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    Your arguments have no validity because Jesus said that "from the beginning of THE creation" they were made male and female. Jesus interpreted all the events of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 to be "the beginning."

    So my points remain that Jesus' statement absolutley precludes man evolving from asexual creatures, there are no eons of time between "the beginning" and the creation of man - these events are so close together as to be viewed as occuring at the same time, and Jesus interpreted Genesis historically.

    That a diregard for Genesis fosters divorce cannot be denied, because Jesus said it did. When people ignore the fact that God created man as head over the woman, it creates chaos in the family. Furthermore, when men ignore the fact that Genesis said a man should cleave to his wife and that they are one flesh, it becomes a whole lot easier to discard your wife like so much trash.

    And when a man believes in evolution it, in reality, reduces man to the level of an animal and therefore frees his mind to behave in animalistic ways without feelings of guilt or restraint.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  11. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;That a diregard for Genesis fosters divorce cannot be denied, because Jesus said it did. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    So let me guess. You will not provide any hard data to back up your claim, will you?
     
  12. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;That a disregard for Genesis fosters divorce cannot be denied, because Jesus said it did. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    But he didn't quite say that, did he? In fact, he didn't say anything even close to that.
     
  13. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article doesn't exist in the Greek, so the word "THE" to specify the creation is inexact at best.

    But you're changing from your original statement. Man wasn't created at the literal beginning, but after the literal beginning. Five days after the literal beginning.

    But you agree that the word "beginning" has a little bit of leeway, correct? Either we must take "beginning" to mean something other than the specific point in time in which the universe began or understand that the beginning that is mentioned is the specific beginning of the specific creation of humans. I would lean toward the latter reading, and I am, indeed, an advocate of the young-earth, although I am willing to listen and dialogue to the other side.

    I agree that a disregard in God's plan for mankind is a big cause of divorce, but I disagree with the rhetorical question, "Whereas Jesus cited the creation record as the basis for marriage and as a preventative against divorce, is it any wonder that as Genesis has come to be more and more rejected, family decay has risen to staggering proportions?" Christians who believe in evolution would, I believe, agree with Jesus that a misunderstanding of the purpose of male and female would also lead to divorce. However, to intimate that family decay is directly related to the literality of Genesis cannot be proven by Christ's words.

    Not necessarily. No matter what a man without Christ believes as far as how the earth was created, he still frees his mind to behave in animalistic ways. Scripture indicates that this is all that he knows. I cannot see this same mindset in Christians who believe in evolution.
     
  14. David Mark

    David Mark
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting stuff!

    Dave
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    It doesn't matter. "male and female" is what matters. Jesus (the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity-The Creator) defines human creation as sexual (not asexual). In addition Genesis itself REJECTS evolution with the words ...

    Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    There is a divine genetic barrier between a monkey and a man, a dog and a cat, an alligator and a canary, etc...

    However, if folk wish to believe they came from baboons that is their perogative.

    HankD
     
  16. Brett

    Brett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    But we know luers did not evolve. We know that we make them. How does this imply that we did not evolve? Indeed, if you're pointing out the argument of a designer, then, well I agree with you - we show clear evidence of design, just as the luers do. We simply differ on how that design was accomplished.
     
  17. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    If there is a time lapse of millions, perhaps billions of years between original creation and the differentiation of male and female humans, there is just no way this verse can be interpreted as referring to the same time. Either Jesus is wrong or these are indeed referring to the same time (not the same instant but, the same time frame).
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    These words make perfect sense regardless of the time frame before there was an Adam because they evidently refer to the creation of mankind.
     
  19. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    the definite article 'the' in front of beginning, indicates ONE beginning, not one of the beginnings of various parts of earth history.

    Adam and Eve were created on day 6 -- the sixth normal day after creation on day 1.
     
  20. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    These words make perfect sense regardless of the time frame before there was an Adam because they evidently refer to the creation of mankind. </font>[/QUOTE]They only make sense if you are talking about the BEGINNING of creation, not the beginning of the creation of mankind. They do not "evidently" refer to just mankind, there is NO indication that it refers to anything except THE beginning of creation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...