Except that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (greek word would indicate God-breathed). That makes the author God which makes it a first-hand account. Moses was only the pen in God's hand to write it.
what good is Intelligent Design?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by UnchartedSpirit, Mar 6, 2006.
Page 3 of 5
-
Second, I feel the common grounds of reality and the Bible prove some of the basics of evolution theory but once an evolutionist counts God out of the equation then the theory is wrong. "Survival of the Fittest" is an "evolutional" reality that has nothing to do with a creation or creator it s a fact of life and death the weak is destroyed so the strong survive...from the lowest germ to the samrtest human. But to say that this is the basis of creation that a germ in a pool of germs survived and adapted and blossomed into the world as we know it today is idiotic at best and sad at worst. But we must understand that while cars don't reproduce my nerdiness and failure to fit into High School did in no way evolve into my kids at their births so that they have "learned" to survive in school better than I did through some heriditary process...no they will learn it form me through the "evolution process" that I want their life in school to be better than my dreadful experience.
Now using the old-tried-and-true response from a creationist, where is the fact that something should be evolving somewhere in the world...we should be seeing the next generation of man, ape, something by now...right?? -
You're scaring me here.
Secondly, we are not talking about God allowing someone to believe something that is false, we're talking about God intentionally tricking someone. We're not talking about Satan stepping in and messing up the evidence somehow, we're talking about God planting misleading evidence. -
-
Originally posted by MRCoon:
First, this discuss doesn't need this comment if we are to be civil to each other and respect each others arguments then this comment is contrary to the discuss of ID/Evolution/Creation. I'll discuss with you but snide disrespectful remarks just encite hostility and disrespect to both of us.Click to expand...
Now using the old-tried-and-true response from a creationist, where is the fact that something should be evolving somewhere in the world...we should be seeing the next generation of man, ape, something by now...right??Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Dave:
Moses was only the pen in God's hand to write it.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Dave:
The point of Job 38-39 is that Job has no basis to question what God does. Something we should all pay attention to. If you read the book, the prior discourses were all based on man's observations and understanding. I think there is some figurative language in here to fit what God actually did into man's language and understanding, but essentially the passage is a claim that God created the universe as it exists.Click to expand... -
My understanding of "kind" is that all dogs are one "kind". Not sure if that would include wolves, but we know that dogs have been bred with wolves and produced mixed-breed. Does that have anything to do with the basic arguement?
Also, I don't know what the majority of YEC's believe or don't believe in this regard. I am simply arguing for the truth of scripture. YEC's, Theistic Evolutionists and IDers should all be basing their interpretation of the observed evidence on the scripture with the scripture as paramount, not our interpretation of the evidence.
And what I mean about original sin is that the Bible is very clear that God created everything perfect and then sin entered the creation. Romans 5:12 says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This is a clear statement that yes, original sin is necessary to understand the curse by which sin entered into the whole race and we needed a saviour. If no original sin, then there is the possibility that some man could live a perfect life? Why did Christ have to be born of a virgin? Because the curse is through the man. That requires Adam. -
Originally posted by Dave:
My understanding of "kind" is that all dogs are one "kind". Not sure if that would include wolves, but we know that dogs have been bred with wolves and produced mixed-breed. Does that have anything to do with the basic arguement?Click to expand...
And what I mean about original sin is that the Bible is very clear that God created everything perfect and then sin entered the creation. Romans 5:12 says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Mercury:
The point of Genesis 1 is that God is the creator of all that exists, that nothing in creation can challenge God's power, and that humanity has been appointed by God to rule creation. These are things we should all pay attention to. I think there is some figurative language in here to fit what God actually did into man's language and understanding, but essentially the passage is a claim that God created the universe and (as passages like Psalm 104 reveal) continues to sustain its existence.Click to expand...
We all need to remember that God is infinitely smarter than we are. He could well have created by processes we don't know enough about to correctly interpret what we see.
Also, remember that the worldwide flood in Noah's day can certainly account for some supposed proofs, like the geologic column. There are explanations if you take the Bible as the basis. Which is what we are supposed to do as Christians. -
Originally posted by Mercury:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dave:
[qb]My understanding of "kind" is that all dogs are one "kind". Not sure if that would include wolves, but we know that dogs have been bred with wolves and produced mixed-breed. Does that have anything to do with the basic arguement?Click to expand...
The Bible is clear that God created everything "very good". And what did death pass to? Not plants. Not animals. Not cells. "Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This passage doesn't explain where natural death of plants, animals and cells came from.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Dave:
There are explanations if you take the Bible as the basis. Which is what we are supposed to do as Christians.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Dave:
We know truth through God's revelation.Click to expand...
Test all theories against the whole of the Bible, not individual parts.Click to expand...
I still would challenge anyone who subscribes to figurative understading to explain the way the 4th commandment is worded in Exodus 20. I think that is a big problem with a figurative understanding.Click to expand...
I interpret Exodus 20:11 much the same way as I interpret Luke 22:19. Here's the two verses:
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11)
"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.' " (Luke 22:19)
In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.
In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine (the symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).
In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they (and we) can remember God's act of creation and God's rest through our week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest (again, the symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).
And why do I think the seventh day may be symbolic? It is first detailed in Genesis 2:1-3 and made even more explicit in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17: "on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed". Yet, we know that God cannot suffer a lack of refreshment. Further, Hebrews 4 says that this rest is something we can still enter today -- it's not limited to a single day thousands of years ago! As justification for working miracles on the Sabbath, Jesus declared that God the Father also works during his Sabbath (John 5:17). So, both the duration and the activity of the seventh day of creation appear to be figurative: God's rest is not about natural refreshment or ceasing to work, but it is still something real; it did not last 24 hours, but instead continues to this day. The reality of the seventh day is much, much more (not less) than a literal interpretation points to. -
Originally posted by Dave:
Oh, and what do you think the Bible says about "kind". Two dogs of the same breed are limited gene pool. I tend to think the Bible is talking about dogs as a kind, not the individual breeds.Click to expand...
Look at Romans 8:18-22 “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (KJV). This is as a result of man's sin if you look at the context.Click to expand...
The first recorded death in the bible of ANYTHING is after original sin.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Mercury:
[qb] I don't know your background, but from the arguments you have posted, I suspect that I have studied what the Bible says about creation more than you. I'm not saying this to brag or to say that this proves me right, but rather to caution you from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must not have read the Bible.Click to expand...
For the rest of the message, I don't have the time right now to go through it and respond, but thanks for putting it out there for me to look over. -
Originally posted by Mercury:
And the first recorded eating in the Bible of ANYTHING is the disobedient eating that brought sin into the world. This doesn't show that eating itself is sinful any more than what you mentioned shows that animal, plant or cellular death is morally problematic.Click to expand... -
Thanks Dave. No hard feelings.
-
Originally posted by Dave:
Interestingly though, God did not give the animals for food until after the fall.Click to expand...
There's an easy explanation for this, and it's based on an assumption behind common views of Genesis 1:29-30 that may or may not be true. It's easy to reveal that assumption by looking at a passage one chapter later:
Genesis 2:16-17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' "
The question is, does "You may surely eat" mean "You may only eat"? Chances are, in this case we'd both agree it doesn't mean that. The reason is twofold: (1) there are other passages that indicate humans could eat more than just fruit from trees, and (2) it is obvious why only trees are mentioned in this second passage: because this statement is in the context of prohibiting eating from a certain tree. Other non-tree food sources are not the point.
Going back to Genesis 1:29-30, does "I have given every green plant for food" mean "I have only given every green plant for food"? I would suggest that it doesn't. First, there are other passages that indicate humans and animals could eat other things besides vegetation. Some passages show that animals were also created as food (Psalm 104:21-28, 1 Timothy 4:1-6). It is quite a stretch to claim those passages are merely accommodation to a sinful, post-Fall environment. (And to do so implies that what God now calls "good" he would have considered evil before sin entered the world.)
Second, there is a good reason why only vegetation is mentioned in these verses. Everything mentioned in the Genesis 1 creation account is given a function. Light and the luminaries are to divide and rule over day and night, among other things; the firmament divides the waters and provides an environment for birds and, indirectly, fish; dry ground divides the seas and provides a habitat for land animals and humans; all the animals are created to fill their respective environments and be governed by humans; humans reflect God by sharing his image and ruling over the rest of creation. Everything is created for a reason that is clearly mentioned except for the vegetation... until we get to verses 29-30. These verses mention that the purpose of the vegetation is to provide food to every human, beast, bird and creeping thing. The text is as silent on whether or not animals were also created to be eaten as it is on whether vegetation was also created under the sea. It does not intend to tell us such things.
Later, after the flood, God says to Noah, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything" (Genesis 9:3). This verse fits well with either interpretation. We know from earlier parts of the flood account that Noah already knew which animals were clean, and the point of clean/unclean restrictions were to know which animals could be eaten or sacrificed. Assuming a literal interpretation, God must have revealed this to people at a time that isn't recorded in Scripture. But, after the flood, God tells Noah that he's no longer limited to just eating some animals. Just as Noah could eat the green plants without restriction, he could now eat anything without restriction (except for the blood). The clean/unclean distinctions wouldn't reappear until the time of Moses. -
Originally posted by Mercury:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dave:
[qb]We know truth through God's revelation.Click to expand...
Originally posted by Mercury:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dave:
[qb]I still would challenge anyone who subscribes to figurative understading to explain the way the 4th commandment is worded in Exodus 20. I think that is a big problem with a figurative understanding.Click to expand...
Originally posted by Mercury:
[QB]I interpret Exodus 20:11 much the same way as I interpret Luke 22:19. Here's the two verses:
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11)
"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.' " (Luke 22:19)
In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.
In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine (the symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).
In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they (and we) can remember God's act of creation and God's rest through our week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest (again, the symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).Click to expand...
Originally posted by Mercury:
[QB]And why do I think the seventh day may be symbolic? It is first detailed in Genesis 2:1-3 and made even more explicit in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17: "on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed". Yet, we know that God cannot suffer a lack of refreshment. Further, Hebrews 4 says that this rest is something we can still enter today -- it's not limited to a single day thousands of years ago! As justification for working miracles on the Sabbath, Jesus declared that God the Father also works during his Sabbath (John 5:17). So, both the duration and the activity of the seventh day of creation appear to be figurative: God's rest is not about natural refreshment or ceasing to work, but it is still something real; it did not last 24 hours, but instead continues to this day. The reality of the seventh day is much, much more (not less) than a literal interpretation points to.Click to expand...
I appreciate the explanation of the view, though. It is good to compare scriptures and think it through.
Page 3 of 5