Creation or Evolution, Which?

[jasd]

>>...believe that God actually means what He says.<<

Ahh, indeed. But it is important that we apprehend what He actually says, yes?—for instance, “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never ever (emphatic double negative) die. Believest thou this?”

If we first/

do not know what He says,

then, second/

how do we know what He means?

Or,

“day one, [a] second day, [a] third day, [a] fourth day, [a] fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day”. [/extemporizing]

Most of those reading the above did not know that that is how the Creation Epic actually reads – as Gd gave it to Moses to write. Given that,

and now that we know what Gd really said, what did He mean? Why did He give us those particular linguistic markers in that particular order?—unless, He desired that, upon encountering such a seeming anomaly, the expositor(s) of Writ might, at the very least, take pause...

It may be that Gd did, in fact, mean that there was little contiguity to the days whereupon He spake.

Incidentally, the above temporal sequence might explain the corings taken from the Mediterranean Seabed of alternating strata of salt and sediment. The implication being,

that the Mediterranean Sea evaporated multiple times over given periods, which, on the face of it, were extensive... (Notwithstanding earth movements), that also suggests a possible correlation to ‘ice ages’.

Then again, it may speak to a prior Creation; one, which comprised vast ages and was subsequently destroyed – leaving only darkness, an earth without form, and covered with the deep – so that, according to the Syriac, we find the Spirit of Gd brooding upon the face of that same deep...

>>...go find a nice liberal church that suits them. No hard feelings <<

Hmm, the recurring inimical susurration...

Is there a more liberal .org than the one represented here these boards?—I mean, the wholesale embrace of extraBiblical writings certainly suggests theological liberalism, does it not?—as does the willful disregard for Gd’s injunction re the sealing of the book of Daniel. Mais non! good people – the foregoing examples do not reflect conservatism.

So, for the liberal-minded,

this is home!

[jasd]

>>...one has to wonder why they are choosing to fellowship with us.<<

Why does one have to wonder?—can “one” not simply thank Gd and accept the blessing of those He sends “one’s” way?—to fellowship...?

Sheesh! an evil, perverse, and thankless generation?

Seems, there is a certain sectual insularity implicit in the quote I’ve extracted. Where’s the ‘unity’ Jesus Christ, Redeemer, desired of those who are called the sons and daughters of Gd?

Ne’er the minds may meet – but ever the heart receives, yes?

[karl]

Ephesians 4 is the unity chapter.

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro , and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness , whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Make sure when you're pushing unity that you are emphasizing the unity of the faith. One of the aspects of that faith is our understanding of the way God created ex nihilo.

Hebrews 11:3

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear .

[doug yowell]

I hear what you are saying' date=' Gerry. Some view this as wanting to run undesirables out of the church. (Those embracing evolution being the undesirables) I certainly don't want people to leave the church BUT,,, if they don't believe as we believe and are not interested in ever believing as we do, one has to wonder why they are choosing to fellowship with us.

quote']Who better to share the love with?? Try to imagine Eve all alone with her forbidden fruit.----So lonely.

[Dr. Rich]

karl, what you provided for faith was from Paul's words. Can you do the same for the words of God/Jesus? Seems that Jesus also prayed for unity in John 17, but I did not read anything about 'faith'.

[karl]

karl, what you provided for faith was from Paul's words. Can you do the same for the words of God/Jesus? Seems that Jesus also prayed for unity in John 17, but I did not read anything about 'faith'.

Are you suggesting that our Creator wants us to be one with Him and the Father (John 17) outside of a belief in God as our Creator?

How would that be possible?

Christ said: Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”

In John 5:45–47 Jesus attests to the writings of Moses (creation's historian,) “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32–33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25–27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40– 41).

Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened just as the Old Testament describes.

[Dr. Rich]

That's better. I have no problem tying the words of Jesus to creation itself. Nowhere in the words of Jesus do you see anything about evolution. So I completely agree that anyone who puts their complete trust in Jesus must also trust in creation. However, the creation as most believe may not be the same as provided for in the Septuagint. The 6 day creation, sure, but perhaps this was not the same event as making Adam and placing him in the garden.

[jasd]

>>Ephesians 4 is the unity chapter.

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro , and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness , whereby they lie in wait to deceive;<<

So, how many degrees of separation lie between craftiness and guile?—or, is there, in fact, synonymy between them? Sometimes, it seems that

St Paul wrote so much that – he became discombobulated, yes? :-(

2 Cor 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

Does that mean that St Paul deceived his listeners?

Anyway, I don’t recall implying that y’alls were “deceivers” :-( Sorry. Then again, surely!—you do not imply that it is I – attempting to deceive? Shame on top you!

>>Make sure when you're pushing unity that you are emphasizing the unity of the faith.<<

Ummm, I believe it was Jesus Christ who “pushed” unity.

I think that the sons and daughters of Gd are, self-evidently, of the faith; that is, believing, ”Christ and Him crucified”...

I suppose that this might be the place to reprise, more explicitly, Dr Rich’s mention of John 17...

Jn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

I suppose verse 23 provides the reason why the .Org is so consumed with the dogma of “perfectionism”, yes?

>>One of the aspects of that faith is our understanding of the way God created ex nihilo.

Hebrews 11:3

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear .<<

I’ve often wondered if it was not more ‘transdimensional’ than ex nihilo. I mean, why doesn’t Hebrews 11:3 state, “made of that which does not exist” – rather, than what it actually states, that is, “not made of things which do appear (that is, non-apparent)”? [parenthesized italics mine]

My mind’s eye fancies – the triune Gd-head speaking (principally, The Word speaking...) and that which already existed, for the most part, in a conjoining ‘dimension’ – being made manifest within the ‘frequencies’ constituting our reality...; that is, slipping through a riven curtain, as it were, to furnish this particular and current ‘Creation’. Then again,

let’s not forget my hypothesis of a later and vast oceanic Mar-to-Earth transfer...

[John317]

Quote:

jasd: >>Ephesians 4 is the unity chapter.

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro , and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness , whereby they lie in wait to deceive;<<

So, how many degrees of separation lie between craftiness and guile?&#151;or, is there, in fact, synonymy between them? Sometimes, it seems that

St Paul wrote so much that &#150; he became discombobulated, yes? :-(

2 Cor 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

Does that mean that St Paul deceived his listeners?

On 1 Cor. 12: 16, may I suggest reading from chapter 10: 1 to 12: 19 in several good modern translations. It then become quite clear what Paul was saying. No, Paul was not trying to deceive his listerners. He was trying to persuade them. They had come under the influence of people who were false teachers and opposed Paul. They were taking advantage of the new Christians in Corinth, and they seemed to like being taken advantage of. Paul is trying to get them to see what is happening.

[Dr. Rich]

jasd wrote "2 Cor 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

Does that mean that St Paul deceived his listeners?

Yes! Isn't that the same thing that Jesus did? (just kidding)

[jasd]

>>On 1 Cor. 12: 16, may I suggest reading from chapter 10: 1 to 12: 19 in several good modern translations. It then become quite clear what Paul was saying.<<

Yes, the Corinthians were, well – Corinthians...

>>No, Paul was not trying to deceive his listerners.<<

However, his rhetoric and my hyperbole aside, that is indeed what he said he did – in so many words – by his account. Craftiness, guile, and deceit are synonyms.

>>He was trying to persuade them.<<

As I recall, he was overly preoccupied with establishing his ‘creds’. Perhaps, he was a bit too preoccupied...

>>They had come under the influence of people who were false teachers and opposed Paul. They were taking advantage of the new Christians in Corinth, and they seemed to like being taken advantage of. Paul is trying to get them to see what is happening.<<

That is probably as good an assessment of the events as any; however, “nevertheless” is still nevertheless.

The above stated, I am not anti-Pauline...

[karl]

I’ve often wondered if it was not more ‘transdimensional’ than ex nihilo.

Yes, I've thought the same thing. But to an observer in our dimensions, it would still be ex nihilo.

[BobRyan]

Those who believe that evolution is a viable explanation of origins ought to just leave the small-minded people who are gullible enough to believe that God actually means what He says. There are plenty of liberal churches out there that will welcome such amelioration of interest.

Well said.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

>>...believe that God actually means what He says.<<

Ahh, indeed. But it is important that we apprehend what He actually says, yes?—for instance, “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never ever (emphatic double negative) die. Believest thou this?”

If we first/

do not know what He says,

then, second/

how do we know what He means?

Or,

“day one, [a] second day, [a] third day, [a] fourth day, [a] fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day”. [/extemporizing]

Most of those reading the above did not know that that is how the Creation Epic actually reads – as Gd gave it to Moses to write. Given that,

and now that we know what Gd really said, what did He mean? Why did He give us those particular linguistic markers in that particular order?—unless, He desired that, upon encountering such a seeming anomaly, the expositor(s) of Writ might, at the very least, take pause...

It may be that Gd did, in fact, mean that there was little contiguity to the days whereupon He spake.

Incidentally, the above temporal sequence might explain the corings taken from the Mediterranean Seabed of alternating strata of salt and sediment. The implication being,

that the Mediterranean Sea evaporated multiple times over given periods, which, on the face of it, were extensive... (Notwithstanding earth movements), that also suggests a possible correlation to ‘ice ages’.

Then again, it may speak to a prior Creation;

Or it may speak to the ignorance of those make non-stop guesswork of it.

Notice how the recent claim to discovery of Noah's ark - threatens the local-flood guesswork of modern "guessers"?

The Bible is taken from the stand point of "One who DID" and "One who SAW" - but today's "guesswork" is brought to us by those who "DID NOT" and who "SAW NOT" - and more amazingly - those who "SEE NOT" (see John 9).

As for Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the 7 actual days of Gen 1:2-2:3 - well it is pretty obvious from the text.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Incidentally, the above temporal sequence might explain the corings taken from the Mediterranean Seabed of alternating strata of salt and sediment. The implication being,

that the Mediterranean Sea evaporated multiple times over given periods, which, on the face of it, were extensive... (Notwithstanding earth movements), that also suggests a possible correlation to ‘ice ages’.

Then again, it may speak to a prior Creation;

>>Or it may speak to the ignorance of those make non-stop guesswork of it.<<

Good grief.

Corings bear witness to certain sequential events. It is called prima facie evidence.

Refusal to consider what the senses behold can only be chalked-up to extreme myopia. Tandem that with the incessancy of the jejune response – is, somehow, very sad. :-(

>>Notice how the recent claim to discovery of Noah's ark - threatens the local-flood guesswork of modern "guessers"?<<

Gen 11:And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar;

A whole bunch of interpolatives must obtain to place the “plain in the land of Shinar” westward of Mt Ararat

>>The Bible is taken from the stand point of "One who DID" and "One who SAW" - but today's "guesswork" is brought to us by those who "DID NOT" and who "SAW NOT" - and more amazingly - those who "SEE NOT" (see John 9).<<

Okaayyy, so why did the “One” inspire Moses to record the events of the Creation Epic in the manner I’ve outlined?—to wit:

“day one, [a] second day, [a] third day, [a] fourth day, [a] fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day”.

It appears to be significant, as Gd is nothing if not purposeful; and, we must assume that He did not intersperse the cardinal with the ordinal and the latent indefinite article with the definite – that it might be glossed over to satisfy the menial or the parochial.

>>As for Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the 7 actual days of Gen 1:2-2:3 - well it is pretty obvious from the text.<<

You said it yourself, Exodus 20 ‘summarizes’. Summarization implies measureless glossing; moreover, “actual days” does not translate to ‘contiguous days’.

Anyway, don’t you think we’re just beating a dead horse here on in? You have your ideas and I am Biblical.

[Guest]

You are Biblical?

[BobRyan]

[

>>As for Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the 7 actual days of Gen 1:2-2:3 - well it is pretty obvious from the text.<<

You said it yourself, Exodus 20 ‘summarizes’. Summarization implies measureless glossing;

jasd - Actually reading the text and dealing substantively with the language as it connects the literal week of Sinai to Genesis 1-2:3 would have been helpful to any argument that hoped to survive the point made about Ex 20:8-11. Your speculation that details in the text offer no evolution-denying and creation-sustaining specifics did not help your argument as much as you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

Okay; however, the terms synecdoche, summarization, and gloss seem to pretty much address the Exodus 20 proffer as proof..., of this or that.

The language of Exodus 20 can best be summarized as utilizing the term 'week' as synecdoche for the ages implicit in Genesis 1.

Anyway, it is apparent that neither of us will abandon our exegetical position re the language of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

It may be that SDAs tend to reject linguistics that may present a challenge to their understanding of a [currently] obligatory 'keeping' of a Seventh-day Sabbath.

Actually, I am more piqued with the possiblity of a probable original Creation (...as suggested by the language of Genesis 1:1,2 - and the fact that the earth was already a fact, as well the waters) that predated Genesis 1 by a supposed - immeasureable time.

[Ted Oplinger]

Good grief.

Corings bear witness to certain sequential events. It is called prima facie evidence.

Refusal to consider what the senses behold can only be chalked-up to extreme myopia. Tandem that with the incessancy of the jejune response – is, somehow, very sad.

Actually, the prima facie evidence is the contents of the corings themselves - the rocks and sediments contained in the strata of the cores.

What many scientists then do is to make the assumption that only certain processes/events can make strata of this kind. However, this is an interpretation placed upon the core evidence, not the evidence itself.

When the offered "interpretation" is offered up along with the strata as "evidence", a red herring fallacy is created. Once the bait is taken, the next step is to automatically assume the interpretation is as much evidence as the rocks/sediments themselves.

However, the rocks and sediments often tell a markedly different story than what today's scientists want the rocks and sediments to tell...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Corings bear witness to certain sequential events. It is called prima facie evidence.

Refusal to consider what the senses behold can only be chalked-up to extreme myopia. Tandem that with the incessancy of the jejune response – is, somehow, very sad.

>>Actually, the prima facie evidence is the contents of the corings themselves - the rocks and sediments contained in the strata of the cores.<<

I may have misspoken; however, would not prima facie indicate the first sight of the corings?—the same, which on the face of it – proves evidential, itself? And, per “the rocks and sediments” –

I believe that the corings I referenced contained alternate strata of salt and sediment – bespeaking evidence upon first sight, as it were; that is, similarly, a sort of prima facie evidence of a Gd attested-to by His work.

>>What many scientists then do is to make the assumption that only certain processes/events can make strata of this kind. However, this is an interpretation placed upon the core evidence, not the evidence itself.<<

Well said; however, there are such as requires no interpretation – its evidentiary value being that such is intrinsically or obviously self-evident. Scientists have little need for ‘testing’ that already defined and catalogued – such as sea salt.

>>When the offered "interpretation" is offered up along with the strata as "evidence", a red herring fallacy is created. Once the bait is taken, the next step is to automatically assume the interpretation is as much evidence as the rocks/sediments themselves.<<

As I’ve proffered, interpretations – however conducive they may be – are not always required, as in the first sight evidence of the corings brought up from beneath the Mediterranean Seabed.

>>However, the rocks and sediments often tell a markedly different story than what today's scientists want the rocks and sediments to tell...<< [ed.jasd]

Indeed, “rocks and sediment often tell a markedly different story”; however, per sea salt...?

>>...than what today's scientists want the rocks and sediments to tell...<< [ed.jasd]

Umm, what today’s scientists “want”?—that portrays today’s scientists as rather non-objective, yes? That does no one credence...

Good on top you, Ted Oplinger, great post.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: jasd

Good grief.

Corings bear witness to certain sequential events. It is called prima facie evidence.

Refusal to consider what the senses behold can only be chalked-up to extreme myopia. Tandem that with the incessancy of the jejune response &#150; is, somehow, very sad.

Actually, the prima facie evidence is the contents of the corings themselves - the rocks and sediments contained in the strata of the cores.

What many scientists then do is to make the assumption that only certain processes/events can make strata of this kind. However, this is an interpretation placed upon the core evidence, not the evidence itself.

When the offered "interpretation" is offered up along with the strata as "evidence", a red herring fallacy is created. Once the bait is taken, the next step is to automatically assume the interpretation is as much evidence as the rocks/sediments themselves.

However, the rocks and sediments often tell a markedly different story than what today's scientists want the rocks and sediments to tell...

Amen!

[Guest]

Many people have been longing and longing for a clean heart. They say, "I believe in the forgiveness of sin and all that and I would take it all, if I was sure that I could hold out, but there is so much evil in my heart and so many things to overcome that I do not have any confidence." But there stands the word, "Create in me a clean heart." A clean heart comes by creation and by no other means; and that creation is wrought by the word of God. For He says, "A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you." Are you a creationist now or are you an evolutionist? Will you go out of this house with an evil heart or with a new heart created by the word of God, which has in it creative energy to produce a new heart? It speaks to you a new heart. To every one it speaks just that way, and if you allow a moment to pass between the speaking of the word and the new heart, you are an evolutionist. When you allow any time to pass between the word spoken and the fulfillment of that thing in your experience, then you are an evolutionist.

There are those in this house who have said, Yes, I want it. I am going to have it. I believe the word will accomplish it, but they have lengthened out the time until the next meeting and on and on, passing over years, and so they are just this much evolutionists. "While so many are hovering about the mystery of faith and godliness, they could have solved the matter by proclaiming [speaking abroad, telling it out], "I know that Jesus Christ is my portion forever." The power to produce this is in the word of God, and when this is accepted, the creative energy is there producing the thing that is spoken. So you can settle the whole matter of the mystery of faith and godliness by proclaiming that you know that Christ is your portion forever.......

....Another thing. The word says, "Be ye clean." He said, back yonder, "Let there be light, and there was light." He said to the leper, "Be thou clean," and "immediately" he was clean. He says now to you, "Be ye clean," and what now? Every one of you--what do you say? [Voice: "It is so."] Then for your soul's sake put yourself upon that creative word. Recognize the creative energy in the word of God which comes to you in the Bible, for this word of God in the Bible is the same here to you today that it was when it spoke into space the worlds on high and brought light out of darkness and cleansing to the leper. That word spoken to you today, if received, creates you new in Christ Jesus. That word, spoken in the dark waste and voice space of your heart, if received, produces there the light of God; that word spoken today to you afflicted with the leprosy of sin, if received, immediately cleanses you. Let it. Let it.

How shall I be clean? By the creative energy of that word, "Be ye clean." Therefore it is written, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." John 15:3. Are you? Will you from this moment be a creationist? Or will you go on being an evolutionist?

A.T. Jones

[olger]

Excellent !

[karl]

"There are those in this house who have said, Yes, I want it. I am going to have it. I believe the word will accomplish it, but they have lengthened out the time until the next meeting and on and on, passing over years, and so they are just this much evolutionists."

Today is the day of salvation.

[Guest]

Amen

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.