A Question for Creationists

February 5th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

What other parts of the Bible do you dismiss as not being true? I am curious, what other parts?

In light of Psalm 19, especially verses 4 thru 6, do you believe in a non-Heliocentric Solar System?

If so, fine. But if not, why not?

Psalm 19:

1   The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2   Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3   [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard.
4   Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5   Which [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6   His going forth [is] from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

[Sabertooth]

I appreciate your comments. Thanks for that last post.

[spoiler2]

"A world with plants for 1000 years with no sun"

Not that God couldn't do it, but, Wouldn't do it. No sun means no heat. Under those conditions, this world would be a solid, frozen chunk, without even a basic orbit (around the Sun), to help determine the concept of "year".

This aspect of the sequence of Creation is just a bit out of sequence, is all. Although guided by God, the writers of Genesis were not scientists, just men, and as usual, did the best that they could, providing us with a Literal documentation of the events.

The scientific Big Bang theory, with all it's later progressions is a more accurate, detailed account, and does not actually go against anything in the Bible, in fact reinforces the Creator's existence!

Evolution is God's way of Creating and maintaining life in this Universe of His, without having to directly interceed, except for Christ's first, and soon to be, second arrival, when man's use of free will has taken him too far astray.

[spoiler2]

Your post 151 is the latest, best reminder of why the Bible had to be constructed as a figurative document.

It takes nothing away from the Bible, as being truthful or not, it simply means that man has "evolved" enough (there's that word again), to be able to embrace a more detailed understanding of those initial, Divinely-driven events.

[CnsrvatvLdy]

Many things are hard to understand in the Bible. God wants us to draw near to Him; to grow in Grace; and ask Him to help us understand His Word with the help of the Holy Spirit. If it was easy to understand, we would not be so inclined to turn to Him. It's all about Faith. God loves all people, but he especially loves those who simply believe. Turn to God, my friend, and not to man for your answers.

[colorado tanker]

Re your 164. I think we are in agreement, although I hesitate to say the Bible is a "figurative" document. The Bible speaks the truth, but it's important to recognize what it doesn't say, such as containing no definite dates for the creation of the universe or the earth, and to interprete its meaning correctly. To me, Genesis is a pretty good explanation of the big bang theory in the context of trying to explain creation to people 4000+ years ago.

Too often people use the claim that the Bible is "figurative" as an excuse to justify what I call "pick and choose" religion - just taking the parts of the Bible we like and claiming the rest isn't real. The liberals throw out the parts addressing personal morality and conduct and some conservatives throw out the social gospel. Then we have the moronic specatacle of the Jesus Seminar where "scholors" take votes to decide what Jesus "really" said and what He "didn't."

Having survived the bloodiest century in human history, I reject the notion that the human race today is more highly "evolved." I would say we have gained more knowledge; whether we will learn how to use our knowledge for good remains an open question.

[Capitalist Eric]

LOL A quote from Stephen King, the "King" of sick thought.

LOLOL!!!Ah, congratulations. You were the only one who took the route of the most intellectually lazy, by trying to degrade the messenger, when the validity of the message was beyond contest.

Face it, you're not the brightest star in the sky, are you???

Heh heh heh...

[spoiler2]

Re: your 166. I'm glad you can see past those parts of my post that even to me later, seemed conflicted. I used the word "literal", then in the post right after, used the word "figurative". Whatever the correct term is, it must be closer to "allegorical".

I don't doubt the essence of what the bible is saying to us, but as mere men, we can easily get stuck on the details of our own interpretations, to the point that feuds break out.

And when I mentioned that we had "evolved" I meant our knowledge base had evolved. This greatly expanded base gives all those who will see, merely the smallest keyhole glimpse of the Creator's infinite accomplishment. I'll grant you completely, that at his core, man is no more evolved at this point than Adam was. No matter how hard we try as a civilization, we will not escape the future laid out for us all in Revelations.

Thanks for the critique. The FR forum forces me to higher personal levels of understanding all the time.

[colorado tanker]

Thanks for your 168. I agree that much of the Bible is allegory - interesting, isn't it when we can have trouble coming up with just the right word when we have the richest language in the world?? And I love the understatement of your point that sometimes "feuds break out" over the Bible's interpretation. Yep, they sure have!

Also interesting you would say the human race hasn't "evolved" since Adam. Again, I agree. The essence of all the major faiths is that man is fallen, broken, and can only find grace by subordinating his will to Gods'. A message of humility not very popular in an age that seems to despise humility. The opposite idea, that man is perfectable, undergirds the ideas of Hegel, Nietsche, Marx and the social Darwinists. The latter idea seems to be that in a social struggle for the "survival of the fittest," the human race will somehow perfect itself at some point in the future so that we'll evolve into Captain Picards, sitting around in polyester jumpsuits discussing philosophy and literature, having shed all the seven deadly sins.

But it never works out that way. Instead you get Stalins who think the perfect man can be made by force, at the point of a gun or in the gulag. Or Hitlers who think they can hurry "evolution" along by exterminating those they consider less evolved. The founders of our Republic understood the imperfect nature of man, which is why they crafted the Constitution to make it so difficult for one person to achieve absolute power.

That's why the theory of natural selection is a hot button for me. Darwin's original theory of gradualism that over time many mutations would be generated and the winner would be selected in the "survival of the fittest" is clearly wrong and has mainly been abandoned because the evidence Darwin postulated just wasn't there. So now we have "punctuated equilibrium," which is more a description of the phenomenon that when species change the change is rapid than a theory of precisely how new species come into being. Science has some hypotheses but has not proved if one species can change into or create a new species or if so how that happens. From the state of the science and the fossil record today, however, if the process is natural when change occurs it almost certainly has nothing to do with "selection" and much more to do with adaptation or genetic change.

But the notion that the human race is an evolving meritocracy by nature selecting the winners in the "survival of the fittest" has a powerful hold over our culture - particularly for the winners who use the theory to rationalize their positions of wealth and power.

Sorry to go one. But isn't that one of the marvelous things about Free Republic, you do get to have your say!

[Sabertooth]

Dunno if you saw this thread.

[RadioAstronomer]

Nope! Thanks! :)

[rvoitier]

If you think that is true, then find me another reference where a 1000 years = one day.

Psalms 90:4
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by or like a watch in the night."

[rvoitier]

Sorry Race, didn't see where you addressed this point before I posted #172.

[RaceBannon]

No Sweat! :-)