1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

six day literal creation?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by One of His sheep, Sep 16, 2005.

  1. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Six days? My God is big enough and powerful enough to do anything. Not a problem.
     
  2. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    The creation of the planet earth surrounded in water could be what God is talking about in Job 38 and not the flood of Noah. Neither of us knows for certain. But what we do know is that the earth's core was surrounded in water, the Holy Spirit hovered, and that it was dark on the surface of the earth.

    Job 38 indicates that the morning stars sang at the foundation of the earth's core. Zech. 12:1 and many other verses indicate that the heavens (universe) was stretched out. This obviously includes the earth's sun.

    Genesis 1:16 informs us that God then appointed the already created sun to govern the day, the the moon to govern the night.

    Pretty simple stuff when we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

    And I've already addressed Ex. 31:14-17 in other threads. Scripture interpreting Scripture requires that we give shamayim, eres, and yam the same meaning God gave them in Genesis 1:3ff.

    God called shamayim, sky; eres, land; and yam seas. So yes, in six days God formed the sky, land, and seas, and all that is in them. This is a clear reference to the fashioning of the earth's biosphere in six literal days, and not necessarily a reference to the creation of the universe in Genesis 1:1.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point I was trying to make - you have made it for me. You take the literal and re-interpret to suit yourself! The difference between us is, I realize I am doing that, and you do not.
     
  4. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Scott J wrote,

    Are you familiar with Helen's theological position on original sin? I am! Are you familiar with my theological position of original sin? Apparently NOT!

    Helen denies that all of mankind sinned in Adam. She also denies that Adam’s sin is imputed to all of mankind.

    I very strongly believe and teach that all of mankind sinned in Adam. I also very strongly believe and teach that Adam’s sin is imputed to all of mankind. Helen has posted on this message board that it is ridiculous to believe that Adam’s sin is imputed to us!

    Man did not just “fall” through Adam! Man sinned in Adam and that sin is imputed to all of mankind. Paul expressly teaches this in Romans 12. I fully believe and teach it, Helen publicly denies it.

    Rom. 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
    13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
    14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
    15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
    16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
    17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
    18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
    19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. (NASB, 1995)

    Scott J, let me ask you—do you believe that Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind making salvation through faith in Christ necessary for all of mankind to escape from the fires of hell? Or do you believe that we simply inherited a sin nature and that men go to hell exclusively for their own personal sins after birth?

    And while we are on this subject, what is your belief at to where your soul came from? This is a very important question, because the answer to it is very much a determining factor in one’s interpretation of Rom. 5:12-19. The five basic and historical theories as to where your soul came from are as follows:

    1. Traducianism
    2. Generationism
    3. Creationism
    4. Emanationism
    5. Evolutionism

    As for #’s 3 and 5, please bear in mind that we are speaking here, not of the evolution of physical body, but of the soul, and these subjects have nothing at all to do with the creation vs. evolution debate. They are very important, however, in the interpretation of Rom. 5:12-19.

    For those who have not studied Genesis or Romans and the theology that they teach, it is very easy to come to a VERY naïve and false interpretation of both of them.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The mindset that the Bible is true and science is of the devil has, in the minds of tens of millions, relegated Christianity to the realm of stupid, ignorant nonsense. These well-educated individuals can see for themselves, from their perspective, that science points exclusively to a VERY old earth and that those who deny it are delusional. And if those people having this mindset are delusional about science, they are VERY likely delusional about God, the Bible and absolute morality. Therefore, Christianity and the Bible are not seen as a viable option for either faith or practice.

    Christianity is flourishing in 3rd world countries where the masses have very little knowledge of science, but in the rest of the world, Christianity is dying. The scientists are not at fault, the Christians who mutilate science to make it conform to their profoundly ignorant interpretation of the Bible are at fault, and the blood of very many souls in hell is on their hands.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott

    I find it more and more intresting that people choose to believe one faith system over another, but that they refuse to allow others ability to choose a faith system.

    And 'we' are supposed to call that scientific. I call it unfairly biased.

    At least I am honest that my bias is for a God that can create in 6 literal days (or in 3 or in 500 billion years). But, my bias is for a literal God.
     
  8. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    I have chosen a literal God, because I have found it difficult to justify the one premise that most evolutionists refuse to examine:

    "If we evolved, then why did faith in God evolve? What survival feature does faith in a literal God fulfill?"
     
  9. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course since none of us has made such an assertion here your comment's only value is to demonstrate that you perhaps make the unsupported assertion that evolution = science.

    Physics is science. It is not of the Devil. It is of God.

    Chemistry is science. It likewise obeys the rules set down by God.

    In no way do legitimate, testable areas of science contradict scripture. However, scripture establishes that the rules governing these bodies of science are God's to sovereignly suspend any time He chooses.

    Evolution does contradict scripture and denies God's sovereign ability to supercede naturalism.
    Note that these people are humble and not so wise that their hearts have become hardened to God.
    Most certainly anyone whose pride and vanity based on their own intelligence prevents them from believing what God has said is very much accountable and responsible for their own soul.

    The only way their blood would be on our hands is if we compromised the scriptures so that they could come to God on their own terms. The NT teaches that men must humble themselves and come to God on His terms.
     
  10. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Craig, Yes I believe that Romans 5 says that Adam's sin is imputed to all. He is also representative- meaning that I believe that any and all of us would have done the same thing he did. I believe that we are guilty by choice as well as our depraved nature inherited from Adam.

    I am familiar with Helen's opposition to calvinism. I differ with her on that point.

    If you will give me a brief definition of what you mean by each of those 5 terms, I will gladly answer... but perhaps you should start and point me to a new thread.
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Let’s go back to Adam for a moment.

    The number of years that have elapsed since Adam sinned have absolutely no bearing of any kind upon our need for a savior, whether than number be 6,000 or more than a million. The fact that Adam’s sin is imputed to all of mankind, however, has absolutely the greatest possible bearing upon our need for a savior.

    If we merely inherited a sin nature from Adam, it is at least remotely possible that a man could resist the inclination to sin, and therefore not sin and have no need for Jesus to have died on the cross for him. However, if everyone is born into this world having Adam’s sin imputed to him, whether he personally sins or not after he is born has no bearing on his need for Jesus to have died on the cross for him—he sinned in Adam and without a personal faith Christ, he is damned for eternity.

    This is the point that Paul is making in Romans 5:12-19, and he proves the point by bringing to our attention that between Adam’s sin and the giving of the Law, people died even though “when there is no law,” “sin is not imputed.” And we all know that death is the wages of sin.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Scott J wrote,

    The imputation of Adam's sin does not come from Calvin; it has been taught by the Church throughout Her history (howbeit with much opposition). And I am MOST CERTAINLY NOT a Calvinist!

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    The creation of the planet earth surrounded in water could be what God is talking about in Job 38 and not the flood of Noah. Neither of us knows for certain.

    That could not be creation, for no waters burst out of anywhere at that time. The point at which the BIBLE says they burst was in Genesis 7:11, at the initiation of Noah's Flood.

    There WERE waters in the beginning, and the Hebrew wording in Genesis 1:2 indicates they may have been surging. But there is no indication of them bursting forth from any 'womb'. This is what happened in the Flood when the waters under the crust reached a critical point of pressure/heat and tore through weak spots in the earth's crust in a massive, catastrophic episode.

    Thus the 'thick clouds' are associated with the Flood, not with creation.
     
  15. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know what the process was for the earth's core to form and for water to surround the earth's core? You don't.

    No one was alive to observe the stretching out of the heavens and the founding of the earth's core. But the earth's core was surrounded by water. Where did this water come from? Did it burst forth from the process of stretching out the heavens and the foundation of the planets and the earth's solar system?

    We don't know. But again, the earth was surrounded in water. Job 38 could be describing how the earth came into existence and was wrapped in thick clouds.

    The stretching out of the heavens, however, most certainly included the earth's solar system, and therefore the earth's sun, moon, and stars. They all existed prior to God saying, "Let there be light."

    You simply cannot stretch out the heavens and then claim that there was no light in the universe prior to Genesis 1:3.
     
  16. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or for that matter none of us was around here 600 years age or 6 billion years ago.There is not one witness to prove evolutiom is true.Evolution at best is a theory.For one to believe things to have happened the way evolutionist theorize takes a great deal of faith.
     
  17. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith in God's revelation in the rocks, trees, and skies.
     
  18. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    POB

    I would rather place my faith in the unmoveable God and His Creation than to place my faith upon the constantly moving 'facts' that 'evolutionists' claim.
     
  19. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    So true.

    What's interesting is that evolutionists disregard the Bible, but so do YEC.

    What? Sounds like heresy.

    But really, YECs believe a certain interpretatin of the Bible and then attempt to use science to explain and prove their interpretation.

    Therefore, we get pre-incoded light; or the speed of light is variable, etc.

    They are so sure of their interpretation, that when another simpler more feasible interpretation comes along, they reject it out of hand.

    Unbelievable.

    I know this for a fact from reading the Bible:

    1. God stretched out the heavens and founded the earth (earth's solar system existed).

    2. The earth was barren (unformed) and empty (unfilled), wrapped in water and thick clouds.

    3. An unspecified time elapsed before God called for light to reach the earth's surface.

    4. God fashioned and filled the earth's biosphere in six literal 24 hour days.

    IMO, these facts from the Bible are undisputable and fit the context of the Bible and the grammar and form of the Hebrew language without wierd or unprovable theories and speculations.
     
Loading...