Posted on 03/20/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
You keep repeating statements that have nothing to do with Scripture, only physical laws.
Answer the question instead.
Did God lie when He said 6 DAYS?
Did God lie when He listed the days of creations and the events as they happened?
>>He also has the power to forgive or to hold fast sins.
And Candles have the power to ameliorate the suffering of loved ones in purgatory.
Despite what the Empire’s Eunuchs say - Roman Catholosyncretism is not Christianity.
There is no priest required for reconciliation between myself and my creator. It’s an individual thing; and I will not INDULGEnce the lies of those who claim otherwise.
>>Did God lie when He said 6 DAYS?
No.
Are you lying when you pretend to know the inertial frame from which HE made that declaraton?
You keep ignoring the facts...In the time period you are speaking about, your Catholic church turned to Constantine and Rome...It adopted as the bible, manuscripts that came out of Africa...
The earliest church believed the KJV source writings...The believed in 'call no man father' and they never saw any purgatory...
And that earliest church continued on thru-out History using the same manuscripts that separated it from the Cathoic church...
You claim all Christians in that time period were ALL Catholics...What a bunch of bunk...
The Roman Catholic Church decided which books to include and which to exclude.
Nonsense...God determined the Canon and it was known by the apostles and early disciples...And they passed it along in spite of your church...
God's chosen people, the Hebrews knew better than to include your extra books into their bible...Just as the apostles knew better than to include them in theirs...
Your sale job may work on gullible Catholics who don't bother to read the scriptures or believe the apostles did NOT write the NT as you claim you believe, or are too lazy to check out the other side of church history, but it doesn't work on us who know better...
NOT ONCE have you referred to God's word, you keep trying to use man's words to prove your version of God.
So, here's a little help
open up your Bible and answer these questions.
Evolutionists say that the SUN came before the EARTH.
But God says the sun was made on DAY ______ and the earth was made on DAY _____. Therefore the earth is _______ days older than the sun! Was there LIGHT even before the sun was made? _______ On what day was this LIGHT created? DAY _____
Evolutionists say that life must first begin in the sea (in the ocean). They teach that after millions of years some life forms eventually moved onto the land.
But God says life in the ocean appeared on DAY _______ and life on land first appeared on DAY ______ (plant life). Thus, life on land appeared _____ DAYS before life appeared in the oceans (marine life).
Evolutionists say that reptiles came before birds (because they believe that birds evolved from reptiles).
But God says that birds were made on DAY ______ and land animals (which would included land reptiles) were not made until DAY ______. Birds are _____ DAY older than reptiles! Could birds have evolved from reptiles? ______ Certainly reptiles did not evolve from birds! (Not even the evolutionists would say this!). The Bible says God made the birds and God made the reptiles. Reptiles did not precede birds by hundreds of thousands of years.
“Every thinking person knows that birds were created before reptiles, because that is what God has told us in His Word.”
Evolutionists say that land mammals came before whales (because they believe that whales evolved from land mammals).
But God says that whales and other great monsters of the sea were created on DAY _____ and land mammals were not made until DAY _____. Which came first, the whale or the pig? _________________ Do you think the whale has evolved from pig-like animals? ________ Therefore whales are ______ DAY older than land mammals! For a land mammal to become a whale he would need to return to the water, lose his hair and grow about 50 times as big! Do you think this really happened? ______ A large elephant (the largest land mammal) weighs about 7 tons! A blue whale (the largest kind of whale) weighs about 150 tons! The whale did not evolve by chance; it was created by God!
Evolutionists say that plant life is impossible without insects because the pollination process (the way plants reproduce) requires insects such as bees.
But God says that insects (creeping things) were not created until DAY _____ and plant life appeared on DAY ______. This means that plant life appeared _______ DAYS before insects. Do you think plants and flowers could survive for 3 ages without insects? ______ Do you think plants and flowers could survive for 3 days without insects? _____
“I was on time! The all-wise Creator created me at just the right time–on the sixth day of the creation week! That’s when I started making honey!!”
Evolutionists say that ape-like creatures came along thousands of years before man (because they believe that man evolved from ape-like creatures).
But God says that men and apes were both created on DAY _______.
Evolutionists say that the sun must have been here before life could begin (because they believe life began as the sun’s rays beat down upon the primitive oceans).
But God says that life (vegetation) appeared on DAY _____ and the sun was not made until DAY ______. It is possible for life to begin without the sun but can life begin without the CREATOR? ______ Who is the source of life, the sun or the CREATOR (see Acts 17:28)? _______ Life owes its existence not to the SUN but to the SON OF GOD (see John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16).
Please indicate on which DAY of creation the following were made:
_______ Whales
_______ God rested on this day
_______ Fish
_______ The earth
_______ The stars
_______ Insects (bees)
_______ Land Reptiles
_______ Trees
_______ Flowers
_______ Monkeys
_______ The Sun
_______ Birds
_______ Elephants
_______ Man
_______ Sharks
_______ Light
_______ Dry Land
_______ Turtles
_______ Firmament
(an expanse of space)
_______ Eagles
You cannot listen to both God and the evolutionists! They do not teach the same thing! If Genesis chapter 1 is true (and it is!), then evolution is false. If evolution is true, then Genesis chapter 1 is false, and the Bible is filled with errors. But the Lord Jesus said that the Word of God is ___________ (John 17:17) and we know that God’s Word is __________ from the ___________________ (Psalm 119:160). Who should you believe — the CREATOR or the evolutionists? Will you put your faith in the false god of the evolutionists who needs billions of years to do his work, or will you put your faith in an Almighty Creator who can create all things in 6 DAYS?
As you observe and study the world around you, you will discover that all the true facts of science and all the true laws of science agree perfectly with the Bible and with the book of Genesis! Do you think it is possible for BOOK 1 (God’s revelation in nature) to contradict BOOK 2 (God’s revelation in His Word)? _______ (see pages 14-21). Who wrote Book 1? __________ Who wrote Book 2? _____________ God is the Author of both! This is why both books say the same thing. And both books point to the greatness of the C________________, who is blessed forever, Amen (see Romans 1:25). Sad to say, the books that the evolutionists write often do not agree with the true facts of science and they certainly do not agree with God’s Word the Bible! CHOOSE you this day! (See Joshua 24:15.) Choose the true God of creation or the false God of the evolutionists (the God of chance)!
and in case you dont know, the answers to that are found in Genesis
Where do you come up with this nonsense from??? Just because they claim it and you believe it doesn't make it true...
>>You cannot listen to both God and the evolutionists!
And yet I do. Yet another instance in which you’ve failed to reconcile your ego with reality.
Now answer the question:
Are YOU lying when you claim to know the inertial frame from which God declared He made His creation “in 6 days”?
I believe He made it in 6 days - but in 6 days in HIS inertial frame - not yours.
>>Evolutionists say that plant life is impossible
>>without insects because the pollination process
>>(the way plants reproduce)
Wrong. Not all plants require pollination to reproduce.
Amen to that, and your post...
That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.
Then answer my post about Exodus 20 where God plainly said He did it in 6 literal days
[[I believe He made it in 6 days - but in 6 days in HIS inertial frame - not yours.]]
Are we lying? No- Are we using COMMON SENSE investigatory examinations of His word? You betcha!
In every instance where someone has not accepted the “days” of creation to be ordinary days, they have not allowed the words of Scripture to speak to them in context, as the language requires for communication. They have been influenced by ideas from outside of Scripture. Thus, they have set a precedent that could allow any word to be reinterpreted by the preconceived ideas of the person reading the words. Ultimately, this will lead to a communication breakdown, as the same words in the same context could mean different things to different people.
To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:
A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.
A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”
A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning”11 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12
In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13
The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.”14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.
Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that
So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16
Exodus 31:12 says that God commanded Moses to say to the children of Israel:
Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed (Exodus 31:15–17).
The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture. In this Old Testament passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and rest for one—thus giving us a reason why He deliberately took as long as six days to create everything. He set the example for man. Our week is patterned after this principle. Now if He created everything in six thousand (or six million) years, followed by a rest of one thousand or one million years, then we would have a very interesting week indeed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days
bump...
Some say that Exodus 20:11 is only an analogy in the sense that man is to work and rest—not that it was to mean six literal ordinary days followed by one literal ordinary day. However, Bible scholars have shown that this commandment “does not use analogy or archetypal thinking but that its emphasis is ‘stated in terms of the imitation of God or a divine precedent that is to be followed.’”20 In other words, it was to be six literal days of work, followed by one literal day of rest, just as God worked for six literal days and rested for one.
I believe an important point to remember about the “order of Creation” in Genesis is, that Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 themselves do not agree in order.
c.f. Gen 1:20-32 and Gen 2:4b-25, paying close attention to Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, and Gen 2:18-19 and comparing them to Gen 1:20, 1:23-24, and Gen 1:27.
What are we to conclude from this? I do not believe it’s reasonable to conclude, even from the most literal of hermeneutical approaches, that Genesis was ever intended to be an accurate record of the order of Creation, much less how Creation occurred.
I'm well aware of beneficial gut flora, LomanBill.
As far as your weird, flying backflip of antilogic about homosexuals not being "contained," and my being responsible for it by taking a literal reading of the Bible ... what? You're out of your mind. Sin is sin, it's been with us all since the original sin, and some sinners' sins are of more consequence here on Earth than others. We're all fallen sinners before God, though, and must repent of our sins. Homosexuals, by and large, and due to the urging of "science," have taken the tack that their aberrant, sinful behavior is no sin at all, and repentance is not forthcoming. So, they will perish.
Outside of assisting moral degeneracy and unrepentant attitudes toward sexuality, the other only "incompatibility" between science and Christian faith is macroevolution, and that is, oddly enough, by design. Macroevolution attempts to explain creation without a Creator, and you know that. You attempt to inject a Creator back into deliberate Godlessness, in a pitiful search for acceptance, acceptance of those who want nothing to do with God.
So, it's you who is accomodating worldly concerns at the expense of God's Word, not me, and not any other who takes God at his Word as written in the Bible.
[[That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.]]
Actually yeah it is- The word of God is just that- it is NOT the word of man- God worked His word through man via His Holy Spirit- Most bibles today are as close to the original as possible concidering translation problems that quite frankly are so MINOR as to be insignificant- these few mistakes are NOT intentional lies! (I find it quite amusing that peopel argue the bible can’t be trusted because quote unquote “There are ‘so many’ different translations, one can not know which to ‘believe’”- YES you CAN know which ones to beleive, most are VERY CLOSE to the original and were translated with EXTREME CARE and in all seriousness- those hwo preserved God’s word down through the ages were NOT dolts- they were extremely educated and careful scholars who took their job of preservation and translation VERY SERIOUSLY, and took God’s warning VERY SERIOUSLY when God said man shall not add to nor subtract)
But whatever- if you wish to buy into the nonsense that God’s word is nothign more than man’s word- then whatever- You’ll find out one day you were wrong
Sigh. You've had your fill of coffee this morning, I see.
Go back and read your Bible. The world was changed; corruption, decay and death entered into Creation; animal life was changed; plant matter was changed. Do you need chapter and verse? Apparently so.
Beginning with Genesis 3:14, read through to 3:24. Read with an unjaundiced eye, and try to wrap your mind around what would be necessary, in order for this to have occurred. I understand that you need to believe it's mere allegory, in order to find acceptance in the world. But, just try.
[[Outside of assisting moral degeneracy and unrepentant attitudes toward sexuality, the other only “incompatibility” between science and Christian faith is macroevolution, and that is, oddly enough, by design. Macroevolution attempts to explain creation without a Creator, and you know that. ]]
Not only that, but oddly enough, Naturalistic ‘explanations’ for Irreducible complexity, are as irreducibly complex, and intelligently designed as well, any designer could design. Just take a look at Ken Miller’s ‘explanation’ for how Irreducibly complex higher blood clotting ‘could have naturally evolved’- His ‘explanation’ is an excersize in INTELLIGENT DESIGN- He defeats his whgole argument and doesn’t even realize it when he is FORCED to intelligently design a process whereby nature ‘could have evolved’ blood clotting- Even the ‘explanations’ for how the eye ‘could have evolved’ are so rife with intelligently designed scenarios as to show just how much a designer is really needed to design irredubily complex systems.
The lengths people go to dismiss intelligent design and irreducible complexity just go to show how desperat4e they are to kick the obvious Designer out of hte whole process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.