You have a tougher skin than I do, Chirs. I felt that he made a couple statements that were assumptive, not quite flaming. The fact that you did not pick up on it is encouraging to me, :)
Blessings ~ Sarah

Dovegiven :

Let’s not get hung up too much on the source of the data. Let’s concern ourselves with the data itself and get back on topic. But first :

I think it would be foolish for a scientist to enter a lab then begin mixing chemicals, wondering the outcome. No, he will choose ingredients based on a hunch he can make a medicine that treats a specific disease.

Somewhat like the way alchemists were convinced it must be possible to turn base metal into gold? Who knows, it may be possible but not ever economically practicable. It is the idea of setting out on research with the overriding assumption that a 'literal interpretation of Biblical texts' must always trump every and any other possible explanation of the evidence. That is closing one's mind to every truth except the one you want to believe. That is not 'science'.

Yes, mistaken you are about that. Meet ICR's new Director of Research, Jason Lisle, Ph.D. astrophysics (minor mathematics), a Christian graduated from Ohio Wesleyan U. summa cum laude, then U. of Colorado.

Regarding Jason Lisle PHd. It is not his qualifications in astrophysics that I would question, they are orthodox enough. My point is that, (judging by his Biblical exegesis), he could benefit from some theological qualifications or else stick to astrophysics. Somewhat like the way Richard Dawkins should stick to Zoology and Evolutionary Biology, the disciplines in which he is qualified.

Out of respect for Sarah I don’t wish to derail this thread further but for those who are interested in what I mean and don’t mind going on a bit of a ‘rabbit run’, I have provided a link which I think deals quite well with the topic of Jason Lisle’s unorthodox exegesis.

http://www.theologyweb.com/...s-go-bad-Jason-Lisle

Regards Chris.

Debate has a life of its own, most debates never settled. The main reason as I understand it is in order to have a debate there will exist at least two unsettled opinions, and those holding an opinion will have various perspectives of the environment of the issue. In other words, to one an issue might be totally academic, while to another the same issue is seen as threatening if left unchallenged.

A healthy debate ought to include some presumption, else all the debate would involve is stating facts known to both sides, drawing little attention from potential debaters, or spectators. I have taken possession of Creationist claims and Bible facts without shame, probably the height of being assumptive. Yet, all debates ought to be required to perform point made/counterpoint replied, and better to add at least one rebuttal of each counterpoint for each debater, fanned by assumptions/presumptions.

Presumptions/assumptions are vulnerable to answers of established fact, becoming liabilities against "winning" a debate, yet can stand as a "winning" fact if other debaters can't offer a reasonable rebuttal, the presumption itself then standing as a strong statement of logic, reason, or testimony whether confirmed or not. Logic ought to be employed by both sides, especially in the absence of readily verifiable facts. In other words, if a debater says he/she saw or heard something, that is a testimony that could be taken as an assumption of fact, which can be admitted to a trial jury in a legal case of law. In other words, a witness can declare "I didn't see a single person come around that house all that day." Although the witness saw nothing happen, that is not proof nobody came around the house, but is admissible as valid testimony to be considered.

If these debates are offensive, perceived as near flaming, then by all means close them. They require time and effort to remain involved when there really isn't time available for a day requiring at least 25 hours. I agree with Chris, that so far we've enjoyed some tasty debate with a touch of seasoning. Meanwhile, may I recommend some reading material concerning real-life apologetics wisdom, some favorites of mine written by Ravi Zacharias, "The End of Reason" and "Beyond Opinion".
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

It is the idea of setting out on research with the overriding assumption that a 'literal interpretation of Biblical texts' must always trump every and any other possible explanation of the evidence. That is closing one's mind to every truth except the one you want to believe. That is not 'science'.

Evolutionists have consistently closed their minds to concepts embraced by Creationists, so their "science" cannot be science until they gain open minds. If "science" as you apparently define it is at variance with "truth", as called the Word of God, the Bible, then science is corrupt untruth, and cannot possibly fulfill it's claims of correct explanations of nature. Whichever is truth at all times will trump the other. It is the science books that have been almost totally re-written because of formerly bad science. The Bible has not changed because it is the truth, guarded by God, and stands up to literal interpretation unless the text makes that abundantly clear otherwise.

Yes, mistaken you are about that. Meet ICR's new Director of Research, Jason Lisle, Ph.D. astrophysics (minor mathematics), a Christian graduated from Ohio Wesleyan U. summa cum laude, then U. of Colorado.

Regarding Jason Lisle PHd. It is not his qualifications in astrophysics that I would question, they are orthodox enough. My point is that, (judging by his Biblical exegesis), he could benefit from some theological qualifications or else stick to astrophysics. Somewhat like the way Richard Dawkins should stick to Zoology and Evolutionary Biology, the disciplines in which he is qualified.

His astrophysics expertise does in fact impact knowledge of the universe, including its age. Maybe we can discuss his contributions later. There are other imminent astrophysicists also speaking similarly.

Jason's theology. OK, since his contributions do and will contribute to this topic, it is now time for you to explain where his theology is wrong. The web poster you linked to has an opinion, but no substance, no reference to Jason's qualifications concerning theology. Jason has been very involved in his apologetics ministry on a large scale, a featured scientist speaker like Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. John Baumgardner, Dr. Ken Cumming, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Russ Humphreys, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Dr. Larry Vardiman, and others. He is also right now surrounded by qualified theologians, scientists, and researchers who work as a team.

So lets have it. Discredit his contributions to biblical apologetics with verifiable facts, or back off that point. I'm going to email him and ask for a bit more information to post here.

Out of respect for Sarah I don’t wish to derail this thread further but for those who are interested in what I mean and don’t mind going on a bit of a ‘rabbit run’, I have provided a link which I think deals quite well with the topic of Jason Lisle’s unorthodox exegesis.

http://www.theologyweb.com/...s-go-bad-Jason-Lisle

Be specific and reply in your own words, please. You are attempting to discredit a fine man of God who is at the front line of Bible apologetics (who appears to know the Bible quite well), apparently desperate to push him into his astro closet. What exegesis is wrong? Please show Bible references rather than pass it off to another discussion group.

Keep in mind this is a leading astrophysicist speaking out on the age of earth, the universe, etc.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

I totally agree with everything you say here, and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is someone saying something like "Obviously you haven't... or you can't..." Or "I can tell you have probably spent less than an hour exploring ICR, having not a clue..." etc, or any stated negativity ABOUT another poster.

I'm glad that Chris was not offended, and feel free to argue the POINTS ad nauseum. I am also happy that you are both enjoying the exchange.
Blessings ~ Sarah

Dovegiven :

Evolutionists have consistently closed their minds to concepts embraced by Creationists, so their "science" cannot be science until they gain open minds.

Bear in mind though that ‘Creationism’ is a very new phenomenon, started in the USA by ‘Biblical Literalists’. It was not originally started by ‘scientists’ wishing to challenge Evolutionary Theory, (they could have done that and still do, whenever an inexplicable anomaly in the fossil record crops up, without bringing ‘religion’ into the matter).

Creationism was started by Religious Ultra Conservative Evangelicals who will accept no other interpretation of scripture apart from their own brand of ‘literalism’. That is their ‘Point of Departure’ on any speculative scientific endevor. No wonder then that, (atheistic or at least religiously non committed ‘scientists’), regard the whole Creationist movement, (perhaps a little unfairly), with deep suspicion and hostility.

I agree it is just as ‘closed minded’ to set out with an expressly ‘atheist’ mindset but at least a ‘non belief’ in something should have less influence on how they choose to interpret the data. After all, we should not assume that all atheists actually don’t want to believe in God. I doubt that to be the case. Most of them perhaps feel genuinely ‘unable’ to believe in God and might be quite excited if they found evidence for God’s existence which they could happily accept as ‘scientifically convincing’.

This is why I think that the Creationist Movement tends to shoot itself in the foot so often. If they were not so intent on proving everything except their interpretation of the Bible Account false, and concentrated instead on seeking and presenting ‘irrefutable scientific facts’ which would then have to be satisfactorily explained by the scientific establishment generally, they would then gain credibility and respect in the scientific community.

As it is, because of their avowed 'raison d'etre' they are perceived as being utterly partisan and inflexible. In short ‘unscientific’. I don’t doubt however that this is probably as much the fault of some deplorably anti-religious, ‘knee jerks’ from the other side like Prof Dawkins etc. who would accept no evidence of God even if it suddenly appeared on his breakfast plate. The concept of Deity, (in his mind), is impossible. Ironically I agree with him the concept in his mind is nothing like a God that could exist.

However we are not trying to convince the ‘unconvincible’, we should be trying to reveal The Truth.

The Creationists tactical error is in assuming, insisting and then publicizing that their interpretation of scripture is ‘THE’ TRUTH. This merely irritates the scientific establishment and convinces them that Creationists are nothing but ‘irrational religious nutters‘ who cannot tell the difference between ‘scientific standards of proof‘ and mere ‘superstitious belief’.

From an ‘atheists‘ point of view Creationists lack credibility and ‘credibility‘ is everything to an atheist. That is why I say Creationists shoot themselves in the foot by letting the cat out of the bag, i.e. revealing their reasons for marshaling the data into an attack on Evolution, (if you will excuse the mixed metaphors).

It is the science books that have been almost totally re-written because of formerly bad science. The Bible has not changed because it is the truth, guarded by God, and stands up to literal interpretation unless the text makes that abundantly clear otherwise.

Former ‘science’ was not ‘bad science’, it was merely ‘ill informed, ignorant’ science. It has been ‘science’ which has revealed misinformation and ignorance, exposed it and provided ever better explanations of natural phenomena. I say ‘natural‘ phenomena because ‘science‘ knows of nothing else other than ‘natural‘ phenomena. Science is blind, deaf, and insensitive to anything other than ‘natural‘ phenomena. That is it’s major draw back. It is incapable of making judgments on Spiritual Matters, that is why Dorkins lives up to his name. Nevertheless you can’t offer ‘spiritual’ TRUTH to the scientific community, as if it is synonymous with ‘scientific’ TRUTH.

Logically such arguments would seem to proceed as follows.

The Bible is the infallible authentic word of God.
God is the epitome of TRUTH. We know this because The Bible says so.
Everything we read in The Bible must therefore be TRUE because God wrote the Bible.
This then proves that the Bible is TRUE, therefore Evolution must be a lie.

Can you not see WHY ‘scientists’, even scientists who believe in God, but who are used to having and demanding ‘proof’ of every scientific statement before trusting it’s veracity, simply cannot accept that kind of irrationally circular pseudo reasoning when it comes to formulating explanations for what is actually found in the fossil record.

The web poster you linked to has an opinion, but no substance, no reference to Jason's qualifications concerning theology.

The web poster seemed to be making some very fundamental points regarding the way Jason treated the text. I’m surprised you do not agree that the text should be read according to it’s author's original intention which was clearly to communicate with his target audience who knew nothing of Cosmic Science, thought the Earth to be a flat disc and the sky to be held up literally by pillars. What would be the point of writing stuff that nobody could understand. Isaiah was writing about God and God’s Glory, not a treatise on a Geocentric Solar System, Gravitational Attraction or whether the Earth is Spherical. All that isegetical stuff is ‘read into the text’ by Jason. I am prepared to accept however that it is possible for US, with our present knowledge to ‘see’ things in scripture which are of profound relevance and 'true' to our 21st century understanding of the universe. That does not prove however that a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture in some way supersedes scientific discovery. It does not, and the reason is because a ‘fundamentalist’ interpretation, may be a ‘wrong’ interpretation of the text, (particularly one that relies on modern knowledge, presumably unknown to the ancients, producing novel interpretations, even if they seem to fit conveniently with 21st century world views).

Regards Chris.

Unfortunately this has gone too far off topic to reply properly, but will consider all of your post in a new thread unless Sarah will allow us to continue here. Concerning the overwhelming science consensus among evolutionists who couldn't have their concept without the popular geological ages concept, around the year 1940 scientists, whether Christian or not, decided to take sides in favor of "evolutionary humanism", otherwise called "religious naturalism" to soften the blow to the Church in avoidance of a direct confrontation with religion. Sir Julian Huxley started it with statements such as "There is no separate supernatural realm: all phenomena are part of one natural process of evolution. There is no basic cleavage between science and religion;... I believe that [a] drastic reorganization of our pattern of religious thought is now becoming necessary, from a god-centered to an evolutionary-centered pattern". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley

In 1959 Huxley spoke at the Darwinian Convocation in Chicago, where he proudly announced his widely accepted version of evolutionary humanism had triumphed, and out of that meeting schools were called upon to focus curriculum around the "fact" of evolution. Ever since then science students have been brainwashed into receiving virtually one opinion about life, evolutionary humanism.

God has in these last days raised up enough dedicated scientists who will reverse that direct "in the face of God" threat against Christianity without plunging the world into another Dark Age, as is feared by evolutionists.


·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

A literal belief in the Bible story of creation week began when the first person heard it, probably before Moses wrote it down. Early development of Evolutionary Theory came along apparently in 1801 by Lamarck. Creationism remained predominant until Darwin built a fire under evolution. the Church sleeping through the rise in popularity of evolution until fighting back in the 1960's until now.

When geologists and scientists of related fields having equal educational basis observe phenomena, conclude on their own that an established, accepted interpretation doesn't fit their observation, but their interpretation leads to a cataclysmic flood and rapid erosion degradation such as at the Grand Canyon, it might not inspire them to join a creationist society. The ones that do, no longer bound to reject any set of scientific explanations of phenomena, are castigated by the ones that remain loyal to the status quo group. At a growing rate more scientists are speaking up against old earth age and a multi-billion year old geologic column strata, now understanding how low mountains formed into high ranges after the flood, how oceanic trenches formed (flood and post-flood period).

A Creationist Scientist is a scientist that can examine nature, conclude from the observations that evidence exists for a young earth or that flood of Genesis, without necessarily promoting the Bible testimony. They will present their findings, then conclude their opinion matches the Bible record if the evidence points that way. It is grave error to say Creation Scientists meet on the field, read Genesis together, then observe phenomena in light of what they read there. "OK, fellas, let's dig and look for evidence to back that up." doesn't happen. They explore, honestly recording what they find like any good scientist, without setting out to prove the Bible or disprove evolution, then should be free to point out what they learned might support Genesis if that's appropriate. Many Doubtless most Christian authors present strictly scientific papers without ever mentioning a religious theme.

Religious leaders are usually not scientists, their observations and opinions not likely to be accepted by humanistic scientists. But a Christian scientist is more likely to detect inspiration from God in a religious leader, perhaps gaining ideas for further study.

We both know possibly most science studies of nature have been tainted by presumptions, like evolutionists setting out to prove the theory is impermeable, while in fact the proper attitude is to challenge it's right to exist. Look up what a good theory should be judged by. Evolutionists of course adhere to all the established knowledge such as "index Fossils" and their old age, so when they find a fossil they report the matching age for that rock strata. They follow a standard that doesn't allow thinking out of their box. They have no witness of ancient events, only conclusions formed by people before them, which often change.

The Creation Scientist has available all that the evolutionist uses. But, the main difference is an added perspective helpful in determining conclusions that can and did result in a different hypothesis. They have the testimony of God.

In my last post I spoke of the conclusion of a major "hero" of Evolution Theory, Huxley, that the Creation challenge had been destroyed, that the time had come to destroy all God-centered thinking, replacing it with Humanism. That was perhaps the big spark that alarmed godly people as to an obvious attack on humanity by the outpouring of Hell upon us. Even today those old words fire up people to realize there is a great spiritual battle underway, inspired to join the fight for truth, resisting godless humanism. I believe Christians are winning, to the alarm of godless evolutionary humanists.

This is why I think that the Creationist Movement tends to shoot itself in the foot so often. If they were not so intent on proving everything except their interpretation of the Bible Account false, and concentrated instead on seeking and presenting ‘irrefutable scientific facts’ which would then have to be satisfactorily explained by the scientific establishment generally, they would then gain credibility and respect in the scientific community.

There are "mountains" of science evidence delivered by "Creation Scientists", which isn't an accurate name for them. We need a term that captures "Scientists that believe the Bible literally". Maybe "Fundamentalist Scientists", but that word was castigated by enemies of the Bible already. Subscribe to and read the journals and books. Attend the meetings. The problem is when one of ours does that, the godless humanistic academia refuse to consider any of it if the scientist is known to believe the Bible literally. Instead of giving ear to them, they immediately castigate their qualifications, their age, their brief attendance at some creation society institution, or distract their presentation with nonsense, among many other diversions. So it is that the general science establishment won't likely examine fairly anything that already disputes their presumptions.


The Creationists tactical error is in assuming, insisting and then publicizing that their interpretation of scripture is ‘THE’ TRUTH. This merely irritates the scientific establishment and convinces them that Creationists are nothing but ‘irrational religious nutters‘ who cannot tell the difference between ‘scientific standards of proof‘ and mere ‘superstitious belief’.

What evolutionist leader has proposed that if Christians would give up some literal interpretations of the Bible, then evolutionists would respect Creationists? I don't know of one. Instead, there would be less respect, a well deserved auto destruction of Creationism. Where do you find that the scientific establishment is so concerned over how the Bible is interpreted? That's similar to the absurdity of a true atheist persisting in joining a Christian talk forum to debate about how God does or doesn't do things. I highly doubt any Creationist could remain one if discarding a literal reading of scripture then adopting a host of metaphors that have doubtful impact on the eternal life of men.

The sudden creation by God, the woeful demise of the first two humans, the flood that killed all but 8 humans, go together to trouble people opposed to God, so they seek to diminish literal reading of the Bible to ease their conscience. They then resort to "interpretations" instead of literal belief. At Mt Sinai do you suppose what God told Moses was mostly to be taken by interpretations of metaphors? Not hardly. Unless a passage demands an interpretation, such as some in Revelation, it is ignorant behavior to readily assume the Flood is but a metaphor, even though it is described in detail sufficiently to script a movie about it. In so doing many have assigned the life, the death, the resurrection of Jesus as all metaphoric of something else, and for that matter didn't happen, being merely a literary tool of teaching some principles not mentioned in the Bible alongside those accounts or elsewhere in the Bible. When a person falls for diluting one part of the Bible, refusing to consider it literally, then it is inevitable the gospel itself becomes more of a fairy tale to them. Early signs are a refusal to recite text concerning the blood, the death, and certainly the resurrection of Christ. That person is probably better off for the sake of hearers to join the godless humanistic societies, reducing the severity of their judgment by God.

Former ‘science’ was not ‘bad science’, it was merely ‘ill informed, ignorant’ science. It has been ‘science’ which has revealed misinformation and ignorance, exposed it and provided ever better explanations of natural phenomena. I say ‘natural‘ phenomena because ‘science‘ knows of nothing else other than ‘natural‘ phenomena. Science is blind, deaf, and insensitive to anything other than ‘natural‘ phenomena. That is it’s major draw back. It is incapable of making judgments on Spiritual Matters, that is why Dorkins lives up to his name. Nevertheless you can’t offer ‘spiritual’ TRUTH to the scientific community, as if it is synonymous with ‘scientific’ TRUTH.

Let's say a nuclear engineer is hired at a nuclear power plant that had experience only at a coal fired plant, but learned a lot about nuclear in college, not aware his knowledge was outdated. He is just a little off base, one day making a big decision that results in a meltdown. Would you call his science "ill informed" or "ignorant" still, or "bad". In my estimation whatever he knows should be considered bad science, never allowed to work nuclear again, too contaminated with error.

Let me point out that for many years science promoted Piltdown Man based on a tooth from a hog. That was interesting enough, though BAD science, and of course not at all the TRUTH. Paralleling that LIE was, all along, the TRUTH of the scriptures. No matter how you interpreted the Bible in those days, literal creation of man or evolution, those two interpretations would have been of equal truth compared to the lie of Piltdown. We could go on for weeks listing the egregious lies and really bad science promoted by evolutionists. What led to those atrocities? Leading out on research determined to find evidence supporting evolution.

The Bible is the infallible authentic word of God.
God is the epitome of TRUTH. We know this because The Bible says so.
Everything we read in The Bible must therefore be TRUE because God wrote the Bible.
This then proves that the Bible is TRUE, therefore Evolution must be a lie.

People often believe all the first three axioms without ever hearing of evolution. Even some evolutionists might believe those. I had a long comment to this but a slip of the finger erased it. In short, I will simply amend the fourth straw man point to be an accurate statement. This then proves that the Bible is TRUE, therefore Humanism must be a lie.

Humanism then covers all philosophies contrary to the first three axioms. The first three axioms don't directly challenge either Humanism or Evolution, do they? Therefore the fourth is an unrelated point, a presumption not to come as a natural progression of those points. The truth is Humanists don't believe any of the points. Belief of those first three points is, however, essential for Bible faith and salvation.

I'm still reading up on Jason Lisle's writings as I can find them. I want to be very factual when discussing his qualifications as a scientist in several fields, his anointing for apologetics, contributions to mankind, and ability as an orator. It appears so far he was taken out of context, the poster on a warpath against men like Jason Lisle who are and will be extremely influential in the emerging young science community. I'll probably start a thread on him outside of a debate setting, not subjecting the man to rants from humanists.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

I have re-read that article several times trying to figure out why ya'll can't get the idea of Jason's message concerning cosmology. The only thing I can come up with is upon starting to read it, it can't be finished because of the presumption it is ridiculous, full of error, because of what FreezBee says about it. That's characteristic of Bible scoffers as well as entrenched evolutionists. It should not be typical of a person having Christ in them to approach things like that, so I will assume you have studied that article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../radio/astronomy.pdf
and simply got side tracked by the critic.

I have gone on one cruise across the ocean, will not do that again. I didn't like the trip at all, even though I was a sailor in the US Navy, but spent all my waking hours in an electronics shop below deck. Every day on that cruise, everywhere I looked past the boat, there was nothing but horizon. I still remember a feeling coming over me that ancient mariners must have felt, that I might be looking at the edge of the world. Of course I knew better intellectually, but that one little pocket in my brain objected, soon overcome by knowledge of facts. Isaiah and other men penning the Bible shared such thoughts to some degree, and were comforted by God. If the earth is hanging on nothing, is a sphere, then where would one fall off to? Jason simply mentioned that was addressed in Isa 40:22 likening the universe as one big tent. Nobody falls off the inside of a tent. Anyone in the times of Isaiah would comprehend that. Few today would have a clear understanding of that since most have probably never been in a tent. There really is no other reasonable "interpretation" of that other than a literal concept painted in words people could relate to back then.

In the event a reader of the Bible is caught up suspecting mostly metaphors in the Bible, it bearing few direct truths, I can see how there would be much skepticism. In my opinion Jason spoke of the subject in the most ancient and simple of understanding to demonstrate that what modern science is revealing now was revealed by God thousands of years ago in other terms of understanding.

Please read the article again with an open mind, apart from the harsh critique on that website. I find absolutely no reason for having to take some interpretation of those scriptures that the Bible doesn't agree with, or support somewhere in it, in a manner that you can link logically back to those verses in question.

You and I have read many books and articles on evolution, else we would have been left behind discussions over the past decades, dismissed as ignorant. But what I've discovered many times over is most evolutionists have never, nor would, read the iconic books by Dr. John Morris, Andrew Snelling, Whitcomb, and others? Or have most critics of creation science relied on the book reports written by Bible skeptics and outright atheists, some not trained in science at all? I've read most of those, given all away mostly to local libraries and schools, friends, churches. I'd gladly purchase and study them again if someone like you, Chris, would be willing to delve into title, page number, and quote. But not one person believing in evolution has ever done that for me, and I've been at this topic since 1985. All I get is internet excerpts out of context, or what Dawkins, et.al. said about it. All in various ways escape challenges saying they "know" the authors are deceived or ignorant, ill-educated pretenders, "out of their professional element", etc., so they "won't waste money or time on their junk science". Then why do they continue to attack such authors decades on end without knowing what the authors actually said?
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

OK, Chris. I've read enough to go quite a way with you on this. You opened up criticism of Jason's statements in a booklet designed for age 11 up, very easy to understand for us adults concerning age of the earth and how he shows science actually is affirmed in some scriptures, surely seen in that article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../radio/astronomy.pdf that FreezBee attacked at the link you cited against Jason Lisle (at http://www.theologyweb.com/...s-go-bad-Jason-Lisle) in your post # 27, the fact of the moon's recession rate from orbit around Earth would have put the moon within earth's atmosphere 1.4 billion years ago, discounting the long age claimed by secularists. He's the math expert, got it figured out. Let's go through it line by line from the top, shall we, you and me for sure, and any other member here that wants to discuss this? Let's leave out comments from outside Praize.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven :

in your post # 27, the fact of the moon's recession rate from orbit around Earth would have put the moon within earth's atmosphere 1.4 billion years ago, discounting the long age claimed by secularists.

First off, secularists ? What makes you think that no one but 'secularists' believe it is possible the earth is very old? I am not a 'secularist' but am fairly convinced by the arguments put up by science for an earth that is Billions of years old rather than mere thousands. Although I don't find the so called 'Biblical evidence' for a young earth, convincing, it is not because I am an atheist that I find the 'evidence' unconvincing. It is because, in my opinion, the interpretive method which claims that the Bible contains 'evidence' of that kind is misguided and in error, leading to false conclusions which are the fault of the interpreters not the text.

I have tried to find reference in my post #27 to the moons recession rate but can’t find it. Do you mean another thread?

How were the calculations derived from what data? Is it reliable?

We know that orbital frequency has decreased steadily over a long time. This is measurable by examining daily and yearly growth rings in fossilized coral many millions of years old. The moon used to orbit the earth very much more frequently and at a much closer distance than it is now. It is still slowing down orbitally and receding by about a centimeter a year I think. If the theory of it’s origin is to be believed it actually was in contact with the earth to start with by collision, not just within earth’s atmosphere. (Or actually a planetoid hit the earth, produced the debris which later became the moon and gave the earth it’s spin and tilt. Earth probably had no atmosphere at that time or at least it probably didn’t after the collision for quite some ages. By the time earth got it’s atmosphere the moon would have been about a third of it’s present distance from the earth. Tidal effects would have been catastrophic at that time but would have had the effect of slowing the moon and shifting it’s orbit further and further out until it is now where it is, always facing us, its spin in sync with it’s orbital frequency.

It took a long time to get that stable.

Regards Chris.

First off, secularists ? What makes you think that no one but 'secularists' believe it is possible the earth is very old?

Bible scholars didn't initiate ideas like the earth being billions of years old. It was "secularists" that started that. Look it up, "secularism". For a century many people who know what the Bible says about things compromised those beliefs, accepting ideas popular with secularists.

I am not a 'secularist' but am fairly convinced by the arguments put up by science for an earth that is Billions of years old rather than mere thousands.

We'll certainly deal with that, and no, I certainly don't believe you are a "secularist" considering your religion and its relationship to State there.

Although I don't find the so called 'Biblical evidence' for a young earth, convincing, it is not because I am an atheist that I find the 'evidence' unconvincing. It is because, in my opinion, the interpretive method which claims that the Bible contains 'evidence' of that kind is misguided and in error, leading to false conclusions which are the fault of the interpreters not the text.

I am convinced many Church leaders are guilty of being influenced by promoters of an old age, fearful of losing entire generations of youth being brainwashed to reject such pivotal doctrines as a literal global flood and its implication of future judgment on that scale. We have that event as described in Genesis endorsed by Jesus and disciples as a literal event positioned by genealogies, which fact is highly disputed by the old agers, old age necessary to support evolution, with no room for a global flood based on how old agers interpret the "Geologic Column", which is not displayed anywhere on Earth the way it is drawn up in textbooks.

As for what the Bible says about origins, we have Bible genealogies that wouldn't make a bit of sense, would be of no value by starting with Adam originating in the creation week billions of years ago, skipping hundreds of millions of generations. The gaps in cognizance on the part of God having influence on His message to man would be staggering, discounting the whole message of the Bible, making the whole of it a single metaphor without anyone able to decipher it, especially concerning eternal issues. I am one of many refusing to consider God missed it by several billions of years, and will not accept that He didn't inspire the writing of those scriptures. I choose the Bible over all science, putting science below the revelations of those scriptures.

I have tried to find reference in my post #27 to the moons recession rate but can’t find it. Do you mean another thread?

I was making reference to the need for you to read the article referenced by FreezBee, whose critique you advised to read by giving the link to that. It discusses that. I assumed you actually read it.

How were the calculations derived from what data? Is it reliable?

Actually, that knowledge has been around quite a while, not unique to Lisle. He simply told his young audience of the fact the moon is moving an inch a year away from Earth. There have been many similar results by math experts confirming that. I think the majority of cosmologists are in agreement over that. You are welcome to try finding one that disagrees. As to how they do it, I will never understand it, not well suited to high-end math.

We know that orbital frequency has decreased steadily over a long time. This is measurable by examining daily and yearly growth rings in fossilized coral many millions of years old. The moon used to orbit the earth very much more frequently and at a much closer distance than it is now. It is still slowing down orbitally and receding by about a centimeter a year I think.

One inch a year. AND it is taking longer for the moon to circle Earth due to following its longer orbit. A wider circle has a longer perimeter. So it is the moon is taking longer to orbit. That's why it takes longer. It's apparently much easier to measure length of time to orbit than determining distance from Earth, but they all claim to have figured it all out.

There's another fact Lisle listed in the booklet and in other articles by him and other scientists like him, that of the tendency of planets to gradually lose their magnetic field as cores cool down, and rotation of their axis slows too, generating less electric field. Some hope or just believe some outside force comes along when needed to rejuvenate the magnetic field before it flips, though they apparently do flip sometimes.

If the theory of it’s origin is to be believed it actually was in contact with the earth to start with by collision, not just within earth’s atmosphere. (Or actually a planetoid hit the earth, produced the debris which later became the moon and gave the earth it’s spin and tilt. Earth probably had no atmosphere at that time or at least it probably didn’t after the collision for quite some ages. By the time earth got it’s atmosphere the moon would have been about a third of it’s present distance from the earth. Tidal effects would have been catastrophic at that time but would have had the effect of slowing the moon and shifting it’s orbit further and further out until it is now where it is, always facing us, its spin in sync with it’s orbital frequency.

You do realize there is no physical evidence whatsoever for that scenario? OK, assume a planetoid large enough to hit Earth to form the spherical moon in such a stable orbit for so long. Any atmosphere existing before then would have been lost, as well as any surface water, both the former Earth certainly made molten, its crust splattered into space, what later becoming the Moon being a molten body spinning into its present form. That would have predated any evidence of age left on Earth today, leaving nothing at all on Earth to base a moment of time for that event. Lisle is simply pointing to some facts that make all that impossible considering the moon facts he told about. Considering a theoretically super powerful magnetic field on Earth in that situation, the moon would not have remained in orbit, probably not even achieve an orbit before falling back to Earth, certainly wouldn't be receding at a steady rate.

It took a long time to get that stable.

I think it takes far more faith to believe any of the above, lacking any evidence, finding the way the Bible describes it far more convincing, also unprovable physically. I'm trying to find an article that covered the scenario of the Moon, considering its size/mass, and the gravitational pull of Earth, discussing the required escape velocity to leave Earth. If I remember any of it I do think it would have been impossible for the Moon to stop at present orbital distance, knowing the rate of recession, but would have spun out into independent orbit around the sun instead, or joined the asteroid belt. An escape velocity sufficient to allow present orbit, at the present mass, would have allowed the Moon to crash back onto Earth within a few days of launching.

We have choices here. Believe what sounds like science fiction from Edgar Rice Burroughs, or what God reported through His prophets. What lengths can man go to to discount the possible sovereignty of God over mankind? Yes, just the fact of the synchronized orbit of the Moon to always face Earth is a testimony to the creative power of God, not some absurdly statistically impossible accident in space. And to think the Moon is taking a wider orbit annually, and it's spin on its axis matches that widening orbit! He hung an indisputable evidence in the sky for us, but of course I can't prove that. I don't need proof of such a marvelous fact. It is....... It was made as God told it, for specific reasons, according to Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

I'd say that's a pretty convincing sign confirming the creation week. But hey, you are free to believe the way you do.



·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven : Hi

I'm not going to be able to answer all of your last long post in one go.

Bible scholars didn't initiate ideas like the earth being billions of years old. It was "secularists" that started that. Look it up, "secularism". For a century many people who know what the Bible says about things compromised those beliefs, accepting ideas popular with secularists.

Actually most scientists previously thought according to the ‘traditional religious’ interpretations of earth origins and cosmology. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and other church suppressed 'thinkers’ found those explanations, unconvincing, (unsurprisingly to us today). Biblical literalists, (the majority of religious people at that time), still believed plagues, earthquakes and other natural disasters to be entirely caused by the wrath of God, to punish the wicked, and they could cite many Biblical texts to support their case. (This notion of course gave a certain 'flavour' to their Theology and concept of the character of God, torture and brutality being generally accepted even within the church if in a 'righteous and Godly' cause).

In the favor of ‘Christian / Jewish / Moslem’, thinkers at least they could understand the scriptures sufficiently to discern that the moon, sun, stars etc. were not ‘Gods’ themselves but were merely set there by God. Many ‘religions’ did though and some of the more primitive ones with ignorant followers, doubtless still do.

For a century many people who know what the Bible says about things compromised those beliefs, accepting ideas popular with secularists.

I would say it was more a case of people abandoning outmoded, disproved, unscientific explanations of natural phenomena in favor of a world view that accorded with and was confirmed by their new found scientific knowledge. In short the new ideas worked better than the old ones did at explaining what could be observed as objective truth. The ones in short who refused to 'head bury' at behest of the church authorities.

There are still those around who stubbornly insist that the earth is a flat disk and in Hitlers Germany there were still large numbers of people who believed that the earth was a hollow sphere, we are on it’s inside surface and are revolving round the sun at it's centre, (though how they explained day and night I fail to comprehend). Human beings are capable of ‘believing’ the most preposterous nonsense if it becomes important enough to them to carry on doing so or if better, more plausible explanations cannot be found.

We have that event as described in Genesis endorsed by Jesus and disciples as a literal event positioned by genealogies.

This is where the ‘fundamentalist literal’ interpretation of scripture gets you, with it’s underlying assumption that every word and sentence must literally mean only and exclusively exactly what it says at face value and allowing for no other possible explanation or interpretation other than the one which is deduced by the ‘literalist’ reader.

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Pet.2:5

One might ‘deduce’ from what Peter wrote that Peter ‘believed’ in ‘a global flood’. You would be wrong. Peter never believed the world was a ‘globe’. Peter therefore referred to a ‘flood’ which did not spare ‘the ungodly’. The exact extent of which need only have been the portion of ‘the world’ then known to those that survived. Peter's point is not made in order to establish the extent of a ‘global flood’. His subject is judgment of the wicked. He refers to ‘the old world’, the world of ancient legend. It is quite possible that the end of the ice age and the catastrophic flooding of Mesopotamia and filling of the Black Sea and submergence of the thousands of square miles of inhabited land form the basis for all ‘flood stories’. Flood stories were not written in order to establish the fact that there had been a catastrophic flood. They were all written to make a Theological point or provide a moral explanation for a widely accepted and generally assumed prehistoric event. A prehistorical event which may be actually preserved in the geology of the area and can perhaps be dated to about 5,600 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ea_deluge_hypothesis

As with most scientific theories however there is debate over the interpretation of the data and even the data itself. IF it actually happened where and when suggested, it might provide good reason for ‘flood legends’ proliferating in the whole region and beyond, later to be used by the author(s) of the Pentateuch to comment on the reasons why God might do such a thing, with warning against the perils of lawless and selfish behavior.

when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Pet.3:20

Peter in referring to ‘the days of Noah’ was not necessarily trying to establish the fact that the flood had happened, that was already legendary. Neither can it be inferred that he had knowledge that it had definitely occurred or held opinions as to it’s date in history. Peter was referring to the scriptural account, which is all the evidence he had. He chose to refer to this particular scripture in a purely metaphorical manner. (‘Like a figure whereunto even baptism . . . . . .’). Saying in effect that believing in the resurrection of Jesus is LIKE being saved in the ark. There is no absolute necessity for a ‘flood of global extent, by our modern estimation’ to have actually occurred in order for Peter’s metaphor or simile to have it’s full force and meaning in reference to ‘the resurrection of Jesus Christ’. To make this reference by Peter establish proof of 'a global flood' is a violation of the meaning and purpose for which it was written.

They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. Luke 17:27. Matt. 24:38

Here also Jesus is not concerned to try to establish the FACT that a 'global flood' had actually taken place. Even if it had been generally regarded as ‘legendary’ by the time of Christ and even if Christ himself regarded it as ‘legendary’, he could still legitimately cite it, (in company with Sodom and Gomorrah), as an example of people being unaware of and unprepared for disaster and judgment. This statement is not irrefutable proof that Jesus ‘believed’ the same as you do regarding a flood of ‘global proportions’, there being no evidence that Jesus even believed the world to be a ‘globe’ during his sojourn on Earth.

we have Bible genealogies that wouldn't make a bit of sense,

The genealogies in the Bible are not necessarily accurate. There was no register of births marriages and deaths until the Pentateuch was written and they were written by inspiration for inspiration from aural tradition, not to establish chronological data for historical events. Compare and count carefully the Genealogies in Luke and Matthew for the lineage of Jesus. You may discover something odd. No wonder we are told ‘not to give heed to them and fables’ by scripture itself.

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 1 Tim 1:4.

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. Tit. 3:9

I am one of many refusing to consider God missed it by several billions of years, and will not accept that He didn't inspire the writing of those scriptures. I choose the Bible over all science, putting science below the revelations of those scriptures.

Surely you actually mean you choose ‘your interpretation of scripture to the truth revealed by science whenever the two appear to be in conflict’.

Our interpretation of the ‘inspired word of God’ is inclined to be limited by our understanding and intelligence. Likewise with science.

I think it is a mistake to think we have an unshakably tenacious grip on the TRUTH from whatever quarter it may come. Too many fools misinterpret science and scripture to their own detriment by assuming they already FULLY understand TRUTH.

Regards Chris.

Actually most scientists previously thought according to the ‘traditional religious’ interpretations of earth origins and cosmology. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and other church suppressed 'thinkers’ found those explanations, unconvincing,

An rightly so concerning some issues, but which of those (or of some other list of names associated with Church leadership) spawned the idea of the earth being billions of years old? Please don't dodge around my point. I don't see how beliefs about suffering of humans had any direct part in the age of the universe. Why note those beliefs here? In fact, in departing from the topic yet again, is it not curious that modernists persist in denying such Bible facts as the Flood in sync with such comparisons to medieval societal theories explaining plagues, earthquakes, etc.? Were those notions totally foreign to God and judgment of the world more than once?

I'll get back to the rest of your post, like you are trying to do mine.






·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven :

I'll get back to the rest of your post, like you are trying to do mine.

Yes, dealing with so many points at once is very time consuming. Can we restrict it to a couple of points per post please?

Regarding the moon and how it came to be where it is. What is the accepted theory among Creationists, of how the moon came to be? I mean given the scientific facts we now know about it, orbital velocity, orientation, recession rate, (distance regularly being measured by laser from earth being reflected from the moon from a reflector placed there on one of the moon missons), having some samples etc.

Are Creationists just not interested in how God made it?

Regards Chris.

A scientist that is also an adherent of biblical creation account, it logically following as well to easily believe all other accounts of the Bible, has two responsibilities, one to God, the other to neighbors, in keeping with the greatest commandments. Of course any scientist would be interested in HOW God did things. It happens that the advent of a newly emerging moon has not been witnessed, remaining highly speculative as to manner of being. Some scientists have ventured to imagine how that happens without physical evidence, akin to how a science fiction writer uses the imagination based often in part on science facts.

It would be absurd for someone, Christian or not, to claim to be "creationist", then agree to a moon-making process that defies how the Bible report is recorded. How did it happen? A "creationist", who likely also adheres to the global flood account and other events in the Bible, like great earthquakes being verified by scientists thousands of years later, accepts Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

I have no problem accepting that that whatever God orders, happens. If He wants it to happen right then, it will happen right then. I've read some interesting articles on quarks and forces acting on them, and other elated subjects that seem to verify the existence of powers like that. Jesus taught to speak to objects to make them obey, and that happens among people witnessing faith where unbelief is far removed. It happened back then, it happened with Elijah and others, and these days too. We lack because we don't ask, or ask amiss for instance. I do know people who have already rejected the idea of God having power to make a moon instantly just by speaking it into existence, so it is no wonder they reject all other Bible teachings about the power of the tongue.

Let me say I doubt most people believing in the biblical account of the creation
week could link that to those Bible facts. I doubt many scientists labelled "Creationist" have a good hold on all that yet, not having time to master theology and related Bible subjects. They have demanding jobs that fill their time. So maybe for now, intellectually they can let their imagination fill in the gaps like I did, taught the "fact" of how moons happen back in high school in the early 60's. Nobody knew back then either, but were willing to offer a "best guess", which is all we have today. We can "thank" skilled artists who painted the whole of that out in our textbooks, as though astronauts hovered watching it happen somewhere "out there".

Meanwhile, consider a geologist who believes the Bible account literally. Unless employed by a like-minded employer, the geologist knows to keep those beliefs under hat. All geologists have been trained using pretty much the same textbooks and curriculum governed by standards set up by academicians in agreement against the literal Bible account of origins, but accepting unproved concepts of origins. Whether a creationist or not, practically all accredited geology degrees come that way, an evolution mind-set required at least on paper. Geologist digs and observe, dutiful to report findings interpreted according to how the educational system demands it to be explained.

If a "Creationist" and free to think out of the evolutionist box, making a direct link of data to the Bible still might not happen often unless there's a remarkable association, like Jason Lisle and others like to do. It's simply giving God the glory for things that line up the way the Bible describes. The science comes first, then the biblical association follows. Few if any "Creationists" are found going out with a scripture on a clipboard with the objective of proving the scripture. They go forth doing their jobs knowing the truth as spoken in the Bible. But increasing numbers of them also know much of the "standards" they have used to interpret the rocks has been highly speculative. The Geologic Column exists in the textbooks, not in reality. The favorite places showing a lot of strata have anomalies that defy the standard, strata out of place, "topsy turvey" maybe a good term. All sorts of speculation must be added to explain away the anomalies. The one explanation that works every time is the global flood that laid all the depths of sedimentary layers during and after the Genesis flood. It's a "Can't see the forest for the trees" thing. A "Creationist" is able to see the big picture, that it didn't take a million uears for each rock layer to form, that like at Mt. St. Helens the mud flows from the melted glacier have already solidified into rock strata with the same characteristics as strata elsewhere claimed to be billions of years old. A couple of centuries from now scientists ignorant of the history might dig it up to find the strata "are" very old based on radioactive decay rates, because the materials that formed them originated from material that had the same decaying elements. But then, some future "Creationist" will upset them all, digging up an already fossilized pine tree cutting through dozens of rock strata, saying all the strata was laid down in days, not over millions of years. That's happened already. Huge masses of trees were buried like that in those sudden flood sediments, trees in all positions.

The methods of dating rock were set up to agree with evolutionist interpretations of the data. Creationist scientists are finding data pointing to huge errors in that thinking, and I can't believe many evolutionists aren't finding such truths, but not willing to destroy their careers over it. Such discoveries just won't make it farther than it takes to lose a job, such as with probably most "whistle blowers".
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven :

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

This is hardly a 'scientific' statement though, is it! As a bold statement of fact as part of a poetic narrative I don't disagree with it. So long as it is realised that God did not literally lean across space and shout so loud, (in a soundless vacuum) that the moon just had to suddenly pop into existence very near it's present orbit, which for some inexplicable reason, has been and continues widening by 1 inch a year, or thereabouts, for the last 6000 years.

Science tries to 'explain' phenomenon. Creationists seem to try not to notice phenomenon and prefer to simply explain it by pretending quotes such as the one you have cited are acceptable 'scientific' theoretical explanations for what can be actually observed today.

This 'explanation' involving a moon 'popping' into existence like a quantum photon then staying there for 6000 years is even more difficult to contemplate than the 'Big Bang' singularity, (that Creationists so denigrate), being spoken into existence. At least that would have involved 'light', (electromagnetic radiation), having been spoken into existence in time and space by God, a good poetic analogy.

It strikes me that Creationist arguments sometimes run similarly to 'The Bellman's Rule of Three', from Lewis Carroll's 'Hunting of the Snark'. : - Anything I tell you three times is true -.

There is actually considerable evidence which verifies the theory that the moon is the result of an ancient collision between Earth and another planet of approximately 1/3 the size of Earth. Computer models of such an event have reproduced the situation we see today when run forward at high speed. Earth's tilt and rotation are also neatly accounted for by such an event. Moon rock is exactly the same stuff as Earth rock. Furthermore since the Genesis narratives are both ancient forms of poetry and need not be taken so literally that speculation about moon origins, planetary collisions etc. are unnecessary or held to be heretical and therefore suppressed, I feel free to observe with interest that Gen. 1:14-16 indicates that a whole lot of things, including Earth, predated the moon, (as if the chronological sequence of events in Gen. ch 1 is actually that important; the author being more concerned to establish the fact that all the creation is attributable to God's creative ability and has no 'divine' existence of it's own. A very different proposition than that put forward by any other contemporary documents and providing a firm foundation for the development of the first 'God Ordained', monotheistic faith, "The Gospel".

The foundational proposition that the one 'GOD made everything' still holds good since how ever far back 'atheistic scientists' try to trace origins and provide convincing explanations which dispense with 'the God of the gaps in our knowledge', (not actually the real God, I hasten to add), they are still unable to explain how and whence everything came to be or more importantly, exactly why it actually should be as it is.

Regards Chris

Let me simplify my last statement. God doesn't have to shout across space. He has but to utter His words calmly. Matthew 9:[2] And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
[3] And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. [4] And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? [5] For whether is easier, to SAY, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to SAY, Arise, and walk? [6] But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. [7] And he arose, and departed to his house.
[8] But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

That's HOW God likes to do it. Say it. His words also don't have to compress air molecules and land on ears, able to be delivered through the vacuum of space.

I believe it is absurd to relegate God's word into mere poetry for the soothing of men's minds, then search among men for the real truth.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Continued reply to post #38...

We have that event as described in Genesis endorsed by Jesus and disciples as a literal event positioned by genealogies.

This is where the ‘fundamentalist literal’ interpretation of scripture gets you, with it’s underlying assumption that every word and sentence must literally mean only and exclusively exactly what it says at face value and allowing for no other possible explanation or interpretation other than the one which is deduced by the ‘literalist’ reader.

I think the target audience for the scriptures was those believing God by faith, for our training. It wasn't written with unbelievers in mind who would be allowed by God to make other explanations to stand as equal to a literal reading of them. I will agree with most Christians, including the top theologians, that the "word of God" is in fact the words of the Bible. They are not open to interpretations that fit modern philosophies. If having to fit "science", then there would be a daily need for re-interpretation of the Bible and even the doctrine of salvation. It happens that a literal reading of the Bible, not "more modern" interpretations, is the foundation of eternal salvation doctrine.

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Pet.2:5

One might ‘deduce’ from what Peter wrote that Peter ‘believed’ in ‘a global flood’. You would be wrong. Peter never believed the world was a ‘globe’. Peter therefore referred to a ‘flood’ which did not spare ‘the ungodly’. The exact extent of which need only have been the portion of ‘the world’ then known to those that survived. Peter's point is not made in order to establish the extent of a ‘global flood’. His subject is judgment of the wicked. He refers to ‘the old world’, the world of ancient legend. It is quite possible that the end of the ice age and the catastrophic flooding of Mesopotamia and filling of the Black Sea and submergence of the thousands of square miles of inhabited land form the basis for all ‘flood stories’. Flood stories were not written in order to establish the fact that there had been a catastrophic flood. They were all written to make a Theological point or provide a moral explanation for a widely accepted and generally assumed prehistoric event. A prehistorical event which may be actually preserved in the geology of the area and can perhaps be dated to about 5,600 BC.

Ok, Chris, I have to do this.

Jesus said in Luke 17:[26] And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. [27] They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Jesus has established the manner in which He will return. It will be like in the days of Noah, referring literally to the Genesis flood account. A group of people will be spared like in Noah's day, then comes the judgment on the wicked, which inhabit all the planet Earth.

You propose that flood of Genesis, that Jesus spoke of, was a local one. If so, then Jesus' coming must involve only that area of the world. As in that area in Noah's day the group to be saved spent 100 years building the ark, using it to escape the flood that could have been avoided directly by moving. If the flood was only a local event, why not simply move your family out of the area, taking but weeks to accomplish, like Abram did? Instead, God instructed them to build the elaborate ark of amazing dimensions, collecting two of every air breathing animal. All those animals could have been drawn to simply relocate, though doubtless all of those species were already represented outside that finite local flood area.

Now it appears to me this modern "interpretation" you have passed on to us would make a fool of Noah, his entire family, Moses, Jesus, Peter and God. I can assure you without flinching an eye none of that is true.

Once again, a non-literal interpretation of a literal truth makes a fool of disbelievers of God who spawned that idea. I recommend discarding that metaphoric interpretation. Besides, there are in fact many geologic records of catastrophic local floods.

As for how Peter intellectually perceived the world, bear in mind he wrote by inspiration of the Spirit. Did all those writing under that condition comprehend everything God delivered to them? I do believe they were faithful to write it all down regardless of their own knowledge limitations, as did the prophets of old who are said to have wondered concerning the promise of God.

By the way, it was ignorant Bible scoffers who assumed the Bible taught the Earth is flat, not comprehending the "four corners" to mean the four cardinal directions. Literal Bible readers learned of the "circleness" of Earth that hangs in the heavens upon "nothing". I sit here trying to imagine a flat earth that is a mere circle like drawn on a paper, lifted off that paper and dangling in space, with God sitting on that circle. A literal reading of the scriptures corrects stinkin' thinkin". Peter had no reason to conceive of the planet that way, but to assume it is like the moon, also hanging on nothing, round, not a line circle painting on the curtain of the sky.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven :

mere poetry !!!

Do you not realize poetry is the highest form of literature known to man. Only a cultural Philistine would use the term 'mere' of it.

When I say Genesis 1-5 is mostly 'poetry' I intend to convey the impression that it was the result of highly inspired artists and authors whose work deserves more understanding than would a 'mere' list of ancient prose 'pseudo scientific facts' that must be accepted as literal objective 'truth', (as if it's complete acceptance as scientific fact is a prerequisite 'shibboleth' test of orthodoxy).

When forced to become a 'scientific statement' Genesis ch.1-5 is stripped of all it's deeper meaning and is made to be mere fodder for the gullible.

Regards Chris.

If Genesis 1-5 qualifies as some standard form of poetry, then all narratives, effectively all forms of literature, are poetry. None of that text bears recognizable elements of poetry.

The Word of God is the highest form of literature known to man. It stands in its own class, not lumped into some man-made genre of poem.

I think in order to support evolution it is obviously necessary to drag the holy word of God through some primordial mud in an effort to dilute God's message to mankind. It is probably best to end this discussion.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

In the beginning GOD, it should be obvious this is not poetry but the purest of scientific statements in no wasted language; yes there was a cause!!!!!!!!!!!

Dovegiven : and canadabear : Hi !

If Genesis 1-5 qualifies as some standard form of poetry, then all narratives, . . . . . . None of that text bears recognizable elements of poetry.

To you no; obviously; not standard poetry, by your standards; but to those who know a lot about Hebrew it is and was always, ‘poetry’

Perhaps you and canadabear should read and study this link to find out just how much you are missing when you read the good ol' KJV English (non poetic, prose, literal), 'translation', wrongly assuming the passages you think you understand to be mere 'straightforward scientific statements of fact'.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

All others who are interested in discovering what the Hebrew of Genesis ch.1 actually reveals might gain some insight by reading this article.

I think in order to support evolution it is obviously necessary to drag the holy word of God through some primordial mud in an effort to dilute God's message to mankind. It is probably best to end this discussion.

The message is not diluted by the honest recognition that it is indeed poetry and therefore should be read as such, not forced into a pseudo-scientific genre for which it was never intended. The force of the poem is enhanced rather than diminished by recognizing it's original form and thus it's original message which is very simply to state that God Creates order out of chaos. Nothing creates itself. Without God there is chaos. What God has created is good. We are the climax of God's beneficent creativity.

The terms the poem uses and the images and metaphors it employs were not originally and are still not scientific, they are poetic even when originally written.

Artificially attempting to superimpose upon the original text a chronologically, scientific interpretation of Cosmic or even Earth origins is violating the general purpose of the text's original authorship. It is not a science book, neither should it be used as a science critique, it is foolishness to try.

There is some stuff in there which to the modern mind might seem to fit 'scientifically' but it was not put there to infallibly inform us of the actual physical formation of planet earth. God seems to have left the quest for that particular knowledge to 'science', since it is knowledge superfluous to the requirements for 'salvation', even though the search for scientific TRUTH reveals ever more of God's Glory.

canadabear : Hi - welcome to praize!

In the beginning GOD, it should be obvious this is not poetry

'Obvious' only to those who do not know the structure of Hebrew Poetry, think they can fully understand scripture by just reading, 'word for word', translations into English, and think that poetry must rhyme in order to be poetry.

yes there was a cause!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course there was. There is a cause for everything except God. Nothing 'caused' God. But chapters 1-5 of Genesis should not be read as if it were a scientific textbook. It is not. It is ancient Hebrew Poetry and those who continue to dispute that fact fly in the face of the truth.

Regards Chris.

Welcome to Praize, canadabear.

Good comment. At this point I will invite you to read a perspective on Hebrew block logic as explained by a Hebrew at http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/heb_grk.pdf Home page http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/

To prepare folks to discuss further, on page 9 is discussed the true meaning of Hebrew block logic. A very nice lesson in Bible hermeneutics, a course I have not forgotten, by the way, and still study on my own.

With the understanding of that, join me to try finding some mystery or apparent contradictions in Genesis 1-5. The hilarious thing about this discussion so far is mostly Western-minded scientists are the ones that see only contradictions and mysteries concerning creation week, even to the disputing of accuracy of Hebrew genealogies, assuming they have tremendous gaps not covering two million years of human history. The Hebrews take the text as is, that is through block logic, the way God intended of course. Those of us already familiar with believing God by faith easily fall into that ancient capability of block logic. Those that can't accept God's message remain locked into modern interpretations, analyzing the word of God through science and Western ideals that the unfaithful of the world can accept.

A simple example of Hebrew "block logic" is readily accepting what Westerners initially see as a Bible contradiction, sch as "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" then a few verses later reading that "Pharaoh hardened his heart". The Westerner insists on one or the other to be true, while the Hebrew thinks each is a separate instance of the same incident. Indeed, God hardened it, and indeed Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Both happened, and in that manner the conclusion is quite logical.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

I love you guys! lol I just thought I would throw that in. :)
I know, Chris, I'm off topic!
Blessings ~ Sarah