Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has broken through the steel ceiling around Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Colorado SpringsGazette (April 18, 2008) devoted nearly a page to the discussion of Intelligent Design (ID).One article by an agnostic actually supported ID being discussed in science classrooms; another article by an atheist disagreed, saying ID has no place in science classrooms, but could be discussed as a mental disorder in psychology classes. Insisting that ID is pseudoscience, not science, the atheist says, “Science produces testable guesses. If something isn’t testable, it’s not scientific.”
I’d like to address the question of whether or not Intelligent Design is science by first quoting a theoretical physicist claimed by all sides of the argument (theists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists)-- namely, Albert Einstein.Richard Dawkins, for one, claims Einstein as a fellow atheist, so he and his followers should pay special attention to what Einstein actually says: “I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written.The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human beings toward God.We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations” (Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 48).
Doesn’t Einstein’s quote mirror ID? Aren’t arrangement and order in the universe the topics that ID addresses? ID is a quest to discover why the universe “appears to be designed” (which Dawkins admits) and what language speaks to that appearance. The language of the universe appears more and more likely to be the language of mathematics.
Martin Rees, a CambridgeUniversity astronomer, wrote a book entitled Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces ThatShape the Universe. Rees argues persuasively that six numbers define and explain the whole universe, and if these six numbers vary to any significant degree, there would be no physical universe.
For example, the number 10 to the 36th power is the number that describes the strength of the electrical forces that holds atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. If that number were to vary ever so slightly, there would be no physical universe. The number 0.4 describes the actual density of matter in the universe to a critical density. Rees says if the number were 0.3 or 0.5, there would be no universe.
Rees also insists that these numbers are scientific! In fact, he says, “Astronomy is the oldest numerical science. . . . [It] is still the science of numbers, and this book is the story of six that are crucial for our universe, and our place in it” (from the preface).
If mathematics is indeed the underlying basis of the laws of the universe, why shouldn’t a discussion ensue in a science class that perhaps a brilliant mathematical Mind stands behind these numbers? Yes, a Mind that even thought up these very numbers as a portion of the logic of God (John 1:1-3). Certainly the notions of number, logic, law and causality are well within the scientific vocabulary!
In fact, 40 percent of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences sees no problem with this very discussion in science departments. For example, HarvardUniversity’s Owen Gingerich says that the universe was created “with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise.”
If it were scientifically determined that a Supreme Mind is behind the whole universe, atheism would suffer a crushing setback.Yet this is exactly what the psalmist insists: “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).
The British mathematician Alfred North Whitehead makes a point about science that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and all atheists might want to consider.Whitehead says, “In the first place, there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an Order of Things, and, in particular, of an Order of Nature.” All the early scientists believed in this order of nature. Its modern name is Intelligent Design!
Paul Amos Moody, a superb scientist, wrote Introduction ToEvolution published by Harper and Row.In it he admits to his students that the more he studies science, the more impressed he is with the thought that “this world and universe have a definite design—and a design suggests a designer.”He goes on to say, “It may be possible to have design without a designer, a picture without an artist, but my mind is unable to conceive of such a situation.”
Michael Ruse, editor of the Cambridge Series in the Philosophy of Biology and founding editor of the professional journal “Biology and Philosophy” is a hardcore Darwinist.Yet he considers both Dawkins and Dennett “dangerous.” Ruse is worried that if Dawkins and Dennett make evolution and atheism one (they do!) then Intelligent Design advocates will have a legal basis for its discussion in science classrooms. Why? Because teaching Darwinian evolution in the classroom as equal to atheism would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ruse has a valid point. Sooner or later Secular Humanism as a religion will be in the courts, and atheism will be a key element in the discussion.Already the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has declared atheism a religion.
But Ruse, who teaches at FloridaStateUniversity, is even more direct than Dawkins and Dennett, who equate atheism and evolution.In a telling article published in the Canadian National Post (May 13, 2000) he writes, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion.This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Secular Humanists generally deny their worldview is a religion.Their opponents, however, argue that Secular Humanism is as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, et al, and, therefore, should not be the religion of American public schools. Ruse gives the whole Secular Humanist case away when he says, “Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitution for Christianity.It stressed laws against miracles and, by analogy, it promoted progress against providence….One of the most popular books of the era was Religion Without Revelation, by the evolutionist Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley.”
Intelligent Design is not only a scientific concept along with number, causality and laws of nature, but also explains the appearance of design in nature (the starry heavens that intrigued Immanuel Kant along with the metamorphous of the monarch butterfly that intrigues me) better than any explanation involving chaos theory, multiverse theory or plain-old chance.There are intricate designs in nature from the smallest particle in the atom through every cell in our bodies to the vast expanses of the starry heavens because a Designer was involved.Isn’t that why the Psalmist proclaimed, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).
All in all, the Ben Steins, David Aikmans, Vox Days, Alvin Plantingas, Alister McGraths, John Lennoxs, Jonathan Wells, William Dembskis, Michael Behes, Phillip Johnsons, Duane Gishs, Andrew Snellings, Hugh Ross’, and David Berlinskis of the world are more than an equal match to any and all bricks and barbs thrown at a Creator and His created order dripping in orderly arrangement.But then this is indeed the precise meaning of Cosmos (Gk, orderly arrangement)!
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
Are we covered with the blood of Jesus. Do people covered with the blood still die a physical death. The blood covers our sin so we can be reconciled with Jesus. Our spirits are then made perfect and we are saved in the spirit. But our souls are not yet saved but are being saved by the fellowship of His sufferings. But the corruptible can not inherit the kingdom of God can it. So our bodies are beyond salvation and will never be saved. Our flesh is beyond salvation. The coming of Jesus into our spirit saves our spirit but the coming of Jesus to reveal Himself to the world will save us from our flesh. We will get new bodies not of flesh. Adam had a body of flesh and could not enter into eternal life with his flesh. The final victory is not won yet but it is defeated by the return of Jesus and we are given new bodies. Jesus learned obedience by suffering and do we think we will learn obedience without suffering. It is the fellowship of His sufferings that brings me to know Him more and more. True disciples of The Lord Jesus were never told they would not suffer. Peter was constantly saying he would die for Jesus and when Jesus saw Peter in John 21 He told Peter that he would be able to do what he always desired to do; which was to die for Jesus. 1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Was this true then. Is it true now. Was it true for all time. The Word of God is eternal and true forever into the future and into the past. Adam had a body of flesh and blood and could not inherit eternal life in the flesh. When Enoch was taken up he was given a new body to be able to enter heaven. If Adam had eternal life why did God put the tree of life in the garden. May the mercy and grace of the Lord be with you. Lou Click here to reply to this post
IN THE 1ST DAY THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND DID NOT ROTATE
Posted On: 05/03/08 06:42:48 PM
Age 64, OH
Mark, you say,"The reason none of your church leaders could answer your questions is because they had likely abandoned God's word as the framework for both knowledge and truth". Ist of all I would not want to talk like this about men I have not even met. Many of these men loved Jesus Christ and studied the scriptures their whole life. Most of these men are now gone to be with the Lord Jesus. 2nd the Holy Scriptures are NOT the foundation or the framework of knowledge and truth. The Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation, the framework, and is Himself the Truth. The Bible is THE Book and no other book compares to it. But The Author of the Book is far above the Book itself. It is written in the Book itself that Jesus Christ is THE WORD OF GOD. Mark, you say the scriptures are your foundation but then say when the word "yom" is used with a number it means an earth day without giving any support from scripture for this. Was this account of the creation true in all the solar system or just on the earth. All the other planets have a different time of rotation than earth does, including Mercury on which a day is two years long( mercury years). On Mercury it takes 88 days for mercury to orbit the sun and it takes 59 earth days for mercury to rotate once on its axis. But a solar day on Mercury (the time from sunup to sunup) is two Mercury years or 176 earth days. Let us look at the scriptures and see if they can shed light by the mercy of the Lord Jesus. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the EARTH was FORMLESS and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, - 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. -- 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. -- We can see the scriptures say the EARTH was FORMLESS so it had no form or shape yet. Also there was no light from the sun yet. The earth was just a mass of matter and had no rotation and the day could not be timed by the light of the sun. The scriptures DO NOT imply in any way this day was one rotation of the earth but seem to say different in very plain language to me. Also notice that the day was not a morning and a evening but a evening and then a morning. There was no light in the solar system but there was darkness and then God said let there be light. And God called the LIGHT the DAY. The day could not be timed by the coming up and going down of the light of the sun because there was NO LIGHT from the sun until the END. The 1st day is simply the coming of the light as God has said. Even if one would insist that tradition was still correct instead of what God says; there is the problem that from the evening to the morning on this earth today is 12 hours not 24. From evening to morning is but one half of a calender day. As I have stated before, look at the 7th day and you will see that is has no end. The 6th day has a morning which is the end of the 6th day and the start of the 7th day. But there is other evening or morning given to the 7th day. We can not ASSUME that the 7th day had an end just because it is convenient to support our doctrine. The scriptures DO NOT give the 7th day an end. God entered His rest in this 7th day. Does not God say that He would not allow the disobedient to enter His rest in the desert. God is still in His rest is He not. The scriptures support that the 7th day has not ended for God's rest has not ended and we are still in this 7th day. The earth has made countless rotations during this 7th day of God's rest. Please read my other posts on this same subject and my replies in this article. Grace and peace to you dear brother. Lou Click here to reply to this post
responce to "Problems with long-day theory"
Posted On: 05/02/08 03:08:00 PM
Age 21, OH
Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
notice God said, when YOU eat of it, YOU will die. did all animals eat of the tree? no. are animals still mortal? yes. perhaps then we might consider the difference between spiritual death and physical death. Jesus's death on the cross sanctified the death cause by adam and eve eating the fruit, but then why do Christians still die physicals deaths like everyone else? if sin is the cause of physical death, then why are we mortal even after we are covered by the blood of Christ? ~~your brother isaac~~ Click here to reply to this post
Because we live in a fallen world
Posted On: 05/03/08 09:31:02 PM
Age 42, NM
Isaac, thanks for your response. Romans 8 18-20 speaks of the whole earth groaning under the weight of the curse. The curse of sin came upon the whole world, not just Adam's line. That is probably because the whole world was uniquely designed for man to thrive in.
When Adam and Eve sinned, they began the death process and were refused access to the Tree of Life. Furthermore God killed an animal in their place and made skins to cover them. The death of this animal would have been very profound and meaningful to them, showing them the price of their sin. They had named this animal and now it died "in their place" providing a termporary covering for their sin until the true Lamb of God would provide an eternal cleansing. Adam still lived several hundred years, but they too offered sacrifices for sin thereafter. We know this because Able offered an acceptable sacrifice while Cain offered an unacceptable sacrifice. How did they know what was proper? Because God showed them by killing an animal. Adam and Eve passed that truth to their offspring. Able received it and Cain did not.
Death will cease when we put on immortality and not before then. Heaven will be absent sin and therefore absent death, sickness, pain and suffering. But for now we are still in this world which is under the curse. Click here to reply to this post
Adam's sin brought Spiritual death only
Posted On: 05/04/08 08:16:44 AM
Age 47, MO
If Adam's sin brought physical death upon the whole earth, explain to me how Enoch went from life to life. Was he without sin? Email me at jchristco@aol.com and I will give my explanation, as well as if Eve had kids prior to Cain. Bless God, John Click here to reply to this post
About Enoch
Posted On: 05/04/08 04:31:02 PM
Age 42, NM
I wonder how many people have ever lived in our world. You mention Enoch never having died. I would add Elijah to your list, but you'd be hard pressed to find a third. So out of all these billions of people its been pretty conclusive - Physical death comes to all people.
Revelation tells us that in the Last Days there will be two witnesses who will die and be raised to life. Could Elijah and Enoch be the two witnesses? Perhaps. But even if not, we also know that Paul says that "we who are alive and remain will be caught with Him in the clouds, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." And these who will be caught up with the Lord, are sinners, yet escape death.
Your argument doesn't work anyway, for if sin brings only spiritual death to all men, the same question can be asked about Enoch and Elijah. Were they perfect? Did they not sin? Of course they did. So how can they not be "spiritually" dead? Either way its still the substitutionary atonement of Christ that restores, and both have problems because Elijah and Enoch both lived and left the world prior to the cross. But problem is not on one view more than another. Kevin.
PS - I did already email you as noted in another post. My email is assemblyofgod@plateuatel.net Click here to reply to this post
THE BLOOD IS THE REMEDY FOR SIN
Posted On: 05/06/08 10:50:24 AM
Age 64, OH
It is very simple. What brought about death; there is no argument there, for sin brought about death. What is the remedy for this death that sin brought about. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. We agree there also. So sin brought about death and the blood brought about life. The blood conquered death. But when we humble ourselves before God and are covered with the blood and His Holy Spirit comes to live in us then we have life. We agree on that. We do not die a spiritual death again for we are promised eternal life. But the remedy of the blood does not stop physical death does it. So the problem of sin did NOT bring about physical death or the blood would have stopped physical death. For the blood was the remedy for sin. The blood of Jesus cancels sin and we are pardoned as though we had never sinned. But even the blood does not stop physical death, but we still die. But the blood is the remedy for sin and it does gives us eternal spiritual life. It is the fact that the blood does not remedy physical death is PROOF that sin did not bring physical death for the blood is the remedy for sin and all the consequences of sin. What kind of doctor would give you a remedy for the flu and you would still die. You would say he was not a good doctor. But Jesus is the Great Physician and His remedies work. His remedy for sin stops all the penalties of sin. So the blood is the remedy for spiritual death only and this tells us that the penalty of sin was spiritual death only. Physical death was the consequence of being born a man and we do not have eternal life without the Holy Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ. When man sinned he was separated from the Spirit of God and so died and lost eternal life. But he still lived 930 years in the physical only. The only way for Adam to have life was to be reconciled with the Holy Spirit of The Lord Jesus Christ. Lou Click here to reply to this post
The Blood does give victory over physical death
Posted On: 05/06/08 05:16:24 PM
Age 42, NM
Where O' death is thy sting? Where O' grave is thy victory? Praise be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. What is the victory over? Death! Is it victory over physical death or spiritual death? Obviously physical because the context speaks of the grave. So yes the blood of Jesus Christ gives us victory over physical death. Without it the grave would hold, but those not covered by the blood will face both the first death and the second.
Physical death would never have taken place apart from sin. The restoration is in relation to Christ. Once our days are finished we will put off the immortality that we gained because of the fall, and put on immortality that we gained through Christ.
I see your point, but disagree. As I'm sure you see my point, but disagree. So why does it matter, since eternity for either of us is not in question? Well, why it matters for me is because we are called to give answers to those who ask us for why we have hope. If we present a God who created us to endure pain, suffering, sickness and death, that's not conducive to drawing people to Christ who are angry and/or hurt by all the suffering in the world. If I were in their shoes I'd wonder why i should trust a God who created me to suffer. You'd have a hard time bringing me to Christ with that message, and I've heard those, enslaved to sin, say that very thing.
But to present a God who truly created all things good, we being the ones who brought sickness, pain and death into the world through our sin (both in the bloodline of Adam and by personal rebellious choice). And then presenting a God who rectified that through the cross. To me its truly Good News, that we can repent of sin, turn to God by faith in Jesus Christ, and everything that was lost at the fall is restored. We have hope. Yes we live in a fallen world. And yes we will still die a physical death, because we live in a fallen world. But when we get to heaven we will be in a place free of all sin and therefore free of all pain.
Again - we praise God together for his goodness and for saving our slimey little souls, for our works of righteousness could not save, but the blood of Jesus is sufficient. We give God glory, both of us, even though we disagree.
God Bless you brother. Kevin. Click here to reply to this post
CAN FLESH AND BLOOD INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
Posted On: 05/09/08 06:29:56 AM
Age 64, OH
Kevin,please see my reply at top of page titled FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Suffering IS essential!!
Posted On: 05/07/08 09:27:00 AM
Age 47, MO
Kevin: The sting in death is not physical, the sting is Spiritual. Physical death is just a part of life that springs us from the temperal to the eternal. The sting is eternal damnation apart from Christ. Physical life is only a vapor of existence meant to bring glory to God. Suffering is very important to a Christian life because only thru suffering can we know the depth of our depravity and the height of Christ's love. Kevin; suffering is essential and sorely missing in American Christian theology. The suffering is why the early church grew, the Iraqi church, the Afghan church, the Chinese church, etc. The American Church hasn't experienced any growth in decades. John Click here to reply to this post
Kevin
Posted On: 05/06/08 08:31:10 AM
Age 47, MO
My article I will send to you will argue that sin is the choice to be like God knowing what IS good and what IS evil. (Gen 3:22...lest he PUT out his hand and TAKE from the tree of life.) Said another way, it is to DECIDE. We humans can't decide what is good or what is evil because we are NOT God. Yet, we attempt this by our reasoning daily. So, Enoch walked with God (Gen 5:24), then he was not, for God took him. If Enoch walked with God, as Adam walked with God, he was not Spiritually dead. As always, to walk in the flesh is death, to walk in the Spirit is life. The Christian life has NOTHING to do with a "relationship", the Christian life is DEATH to the old man and rebirth to the SPIRIT. Amen? John Click here to reply to this post
Problems with long-day theory
Posted On: 05/01/08 08:28:48 AM
Age 42, NM
Lou, I enjoy reading your posts and can usually recognize them before reading your name at the end. The same was true as I read this one.
But there are problems with the long-day theory of Genesis 1. The scriptures clearly declare that sin's entrance into the world brought the curse of death into the world. The long-day theory supposes that death existed for millions of years, before Adam existed or sinned. The problem here is that once we accept the long-day theory and death before sin, we now present a tainted God who created a world filled with death and called it good.
The only way (in my mind) to avoid this problem is to hold to a normal 24 hour day in Genesis. It fits the context and it fits the doctrine of salvation in that Jesus' death on the cross satisfied the wrath of God against sin and thereby is the only remedy for death. But if death existed before sin, then Jesus' crucifixion does nothing to conquer death.
Please correct me, if there is another way to reconcile this. Click here to reply to this post
THE ANIMALS ARE NEVER MENTIONED IN THE CURSE
Posted On: 05/03/08 10:53:07 AM
Age 64, OH
We have seen how the plants showed us that Jesus had to die from the beginning. Not only that, but the plants sacrificed themselves by giving their fruit to man so that man could have life. There was death from the beginning so that life could take place. The plants gave up their life for animals to have life. Animals ate plants from the beginning as God said. But this happened so that the plants could have life. Animals breath out CO2 and the plants breath CO2 in. Animals leave manure which the plants need to live. Earthworms leave more manure in a healthy field than the farmer can ever put on himself. The animals did not eat of the tree and so did not come under the curse. Read the curse it is to the Devil, the Woman, and to the Man. The plants and animals are NOT included. Animals have always died from the beginning. Death MUST take place for life to take place. This is true now, and was true then. It is also a illustration that physical life is not eternal but spiritual life is eternal. The animals died but their offspring lived on. Jesus died and His offspring can live forever. Abraham had both physical children and spiritual children. Only the spiritual children have eternal life. The physical children of Abraham still die but his spiritual children can live forever. God has left us billions of fossils of these dead animals to show us the Truth. The fossil record that was written by The Lord Jesus is the same as the record in Genesis 1. Ist there was plants, 2nd sea creatures, 3rd birds, 4th land animals, 5th man. This is the same as the fossil record. The fossil record which there can be no doubt who wrote; proves who wrote genesis which the Author can be doubted by men. The chance of getting these five forms of life in the correct order is 5! or 1x2x3x4x5= 120. That is one chance in 120. But there are 12 events in Genesis that are the same as the creation shows. 12! = 479,001,600. The Creator proves His Holy Scriptures to those who will humble themselves and study His creation. The Lord Jesus has shown us in the fossil record that He wrote that it took the earth a long time to bring forth the animals as God has said in Genesis; "Let the land produce living creatures". This is a illustration that only the Lord Jesus Christ can bring forth spiritual life in an instant when He gives us His Holy Spirit. We need not fear the first death, or physical death, but fear only the second death which is forever. The Plants die but live on in their seeds. The animals die but live on in their offspring. There comes a time when EVERY MAN MUST DIE. But we need not fear for if we die in Christ then He gives His Holy Spirit to live in our hearts and we then live forever. Grace, mercy and peace to all that are His. Lou Click here to reply to this post
FROM THE BEGINNING THE PLANTS DECLARED THAT JESUS WOULD DIE FOR US
Posted On: 05/03/08 10:09:17 AM
Age 64, OH
Thank you so much for your very kind and humble reply. My youngest son qualified for the National Cross Country Championships in Albuquerue, NM in 2004 but he would not go because he said it would cost too much money for me. I really wanted him to go but he is so careful with my money. I made reservations and he made me cancel them. I have been through NM on a road trip and it is beautiful. You are correct that sin brought death to man, but what kind of death. We must read the Holy Scriptures with great care and especially with the help of the Holy Spirit. God said, "when you eat of it you will surely die." We know Eve and then Adam both ate of the tree but Adam did not die a physical death when he ate of the tree but lived another 930 years. But Jesus had been leaving Jerusalem(Salem, The city of The great King) and had been walking down to the garden to walk with Adam every day. Adam had spiritual communion with God and that is necessary for eternal life for Jesus is The Life. Eating fruit brought physical life but communion with Jesus brought spiritual life, the same as it does now. But the day Adam ate of the tree he hid from Jesus and so was spiritually dead. Adam and Eve died a spiritual death the same day they ate of the tree. But the animals did not eat of the tree and so God would not punish the innocent alone with the guilty. The plants could not eat of the tree. The creation declared the glory of God; and the plants were an illustration that Jesus would die for us and that we must die with Him to have eternal life. The earth brought forth the plants and they brought forth seed after their kind. So what "kind" of plants do we have now; the same "kind" there was then. Plants brought forth seed and then the seed had to die or be put in the earth for it to bring forth life. Jesus said, John 12:24 " unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." The words of Jesus are true now, in the future and during the creation. There was no time that this was NOT true. It was His plan from the beginning to die for us to show us that He loves us and save us from our sins. Jesus did not change His plans after Eve sinned but this was His plan from the beginning as Paul says in Eph 1. So the plants were to declare His glory from the beginning, which was the fact that He would die and be cast into the ground to bring forth many brothers. By the way, we have the same "kind" of plants now as then. Have you ever seen a sunflower look to the sun in the morning and follow it across the sky and look to the sun in the evening. What do plants need to have life, the sun of course. Have you ever watched seed being put into the ground and then it is several weeks until it comes up. But it is months before the seed of that plant is ready to plant or eat. This does not happen in a earth day. I will post another reply on the animals. Lou Click here to reply to this post
The whole earth has been subjected to the curse of God
Posted On: 05/03/08 08:32:52 PM
Age 42, NM
Hello Lou. Thanks for both of your replies. This is insightful and interesting to me. It seems to me that you are saying that the curse of God came upon man who sinned in the garden, but not upon the plants and animals. First, I would submit that plant death is not in the same category as animal or human death. There is a difference in regard to pain and suffering, knowledge, mental awareness, etc. That is why there is no significant difference in the plants that were then and are now. Regarding animals however, you said in your post that the animals were plant eaters, which agrees with Genesis 1. But the fossil record shows that animals such as some dinosaurs were carnivorous, prior to the arrival of man. Today we see that many are carnivorous. What precipitated that change?
I believe the change came because the curse of sin and death came upon all of creation. Romans 8:19-20 says, "For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, everything on earth was subjected to God's curse." (This is the NLT, and I have not studied out its accuracy in this text.) But it seems to suggest that the curse was not limited to man, but extended to the whole of creation.
If this is true, then we have a possible answer as to why some animals are now carnivorous. The Bible does not mention death of any kind prior to the sin of A&E. They saw death immediately when God killed an animal and made skins from the it for their clothing. This wasn't necessary just to cover their nakedness, since they already covered themselves with leaves. Rather it was to "cover" their sin. Adam and Eve witnessed the first death, due to their sin, and realized that the animal (perhaps a lamb) died in their place and pointed to the future Lamb of God who would be slain as a substitutionary atonement for all sin. Their sin brought death immediately, but in God's mercy, an animal took their place. This is the same picture that is present in the sacrificial lamb in the law of Moses. The sin was ascribed to the lamb and "covered" although not "removed" until the true Lamb of God.
As far as the fossil record goes and the order: Creation scientist (YEC's) would expect the same order in the case of the worldwide flood of Noah. When the Tsunami hit Indonesia and Sri Lanka you see the same order of death, with the mammals and man (the ones who had time) heading for the high ground when they saw the water rising. I don't see the fossil record alluding to millions of years of death and disease before man. Rather its a testimony to the truth of the Biblical flood.
In any case, Lou, we may not see eye to eye on this, but I appreciate reading many of your posts. I hope I've been as respectful as I should be. May God be praised as we seek him. Kevin. Click here to reply to this post
THE FRUSTRATION THE CREATION WAS SUBJECTED TO WAS BY THE WILL OF GOD
Posted On: 05/03/08 11:49:42 PM
Age 64, OH
Kevin; I think this is a more accurate translation of Romans 8:18-20 NIV 18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.-- It does not say that the creation is under a curse but it is subjected to frustration of decay. But man is not even mentioned as the cause of this frustration but it is by the will of God. IT WAS NOT GOD'S WILL THAT MAN SIN. So it was not man's sin that put the creation under this frustration.This is not talking about the curse that man put himself under by his sin but the decay that is upon the whole universe by the will of God. The stars are born and then die. Some of the stars have been around since the beginning and some of the larger stars only last a much shorter time and then explode in a supernova. The whole creation has this decay from the beginning. We can read the curse Adam and Eve brought upon man. It is written down in the scriptures in Genesis 3:14-19 and we know it does not say anything about the animals or the plants or stars. The curse is to those who were disobedient which was Satan, Eve, and Adam. Your other point that an animal was sacrificed for Adam: if this was for his physical life then it did not work for Adam still died did he not. The law does not save us and this law did not save Adam. The law of sacrifice was for the same purpose of all laws of God. It was to protect us and keep us from more sin. It was Adams babysitter since he was now dead in the spirit and had no spiritual communion with God. It was to show Adam that something innocent had to die for his sin and make him sorrowful for his sin. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Yes - that's a better translation
Posted On: 05/04/08 04:15:43 PM
Age 42, NM
Lou, I agree that you quoted from a better translation (not that my agreement means anything as I'm certainly not a scholar), but the question still arises: When did this frustration begin? I know that it is God's will, but does that mean God created it that way before the fall? ("God is not willing that any should perish" but many will anyway). Are you saying that the decay was always there upon the earth even before sin? What is the basis for this belief? Romans 8:20 says that creation was subjected to futility (frustration), not willingly, but because God subjected it. V21 says that "The creation itself will "ALSO" be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children." In other words both creation and man suffer and glorious freedom will come to both.
Your argument seems to contradict itself. On the one hand it is argued that God created the earth, plants and animals already in a state of decay, yet that is a good thing because the death of plants and animals brings life to each other. And yet here it tells us that the creations "suffers", which to me seems like a negative and bad thing. But it must not be a bad thing for creation to suffer because God looked upon all creation in Genesis 1 and said it is good. And after the sixth he said "It is very good."
Is God's view of good different than mine and Pauls? If God created the earth in a state of decay and it "suffers" then God created it in suffering, and yet called it good. I don't get that argument, maybe I'm too simple. But it seems to be a stretch of the passage to try to get OE time frames to fit the Bible.
It's much more natural to see that God created everything in perfect order, capable of lasting forever. But that when sin entered the world the curse came upon all creation. In that sense God can call his creation good; indeed very good. And still the creation can now, because of sin, be suffering due to decay that started at the fall of man (2nd Law of Thermodynamics / Entropy). All of which will be restored when the "sons of God" are revealed and return with Christ to reign with him.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this, and I'm okay with that. We can be brothers in Christ without coming to agreement on every issue. Based on many posts I've read of yours, I'm convinced that you are indeed in Christ, set free from bondage to sin, and seeking to live a holy life that brings glory to God. Grace and peace you through our Lord Jesus Christ. Kevin. Click here to reply to this post
JESUS IS THE ONE AND ONLY ETERNAL ONE
Posted On: 05/06/08 08:46:29 AM
Age 64, OH
Kevin; This is a very good discussion. You say, "But it seems to be a stretch of the passage to try to get OE time frames to fit the Bible. It's much more natural to see that God created everything in perfect order, capable of lasting forever".- 1st; Can anything that changes last forever. God never changes and that may make Him eternal in itself. Man used to look at the universe with his naked eye and many thought it was eternal. But when Isaac Newton invented the reflecting telescope men could see much more and soon learned that the universe was in a state of constant change. This led to the discovery of the "Big bang" which atheists ridiculed at first because they were aware that if the universe had a beginning then it had to have a beginner. My point here is that change shows that something is NOT eternal. We know that from the very beginning the universe had a beginning and so could not be eternal. Also anything that has a beginning it not eternal and therefore has a end. The Book says it had a beginning form the very start BEFORE the fall of man. So from the very beginning it had to have an end. Of course here I am talking only of the physical and NOT the spiritual. 2nd - God has never failed or ever been surprised. I have heard many preachers preach as though Adam sinned and so God went to plan B and then decided to come and die for us. But we are told in the scriptures that this was His UNCHANGING plan to become a Man and shed His blood to save us. And he did it this way just because he wanted to do it that way. Jesus wanted us to know that He loved us and in His infinite wisdom he could see this was the very best way. Therefore; Jesus could see from the very beginning that Adam and Eve would sin and the creation was created to declare the glory of God and to reveal His glory to man and to make a place for man. 3rd - God did not create a universe that obeyed certain laws and then when man fell the laws were all changed to cause the universe to change and decay. The laws of God never change. We can look out into the universe and see galaxies that are 14 billion light years away. We can see that they obey the same laws in that far away part of the universe that we do here. We are not only looking far away in distance but far away in time and it is as we can look back into time and see that the universe obeyed the same laws of God then as it does now. But these laws are not spiritual laws but physical laws. The physical laws are but a sign of the spiritual laws. God Himself has told us that the physical is NOT eternal for he says it has a beginning. But the spiritual is not the physical and when God breathed the breath of life or the spirit into us we then were eternal. But we can have eternal life or eternal death. We have eternal life if we humble ourselves before God and confess our sin and He then decides to have His Holy Spirit come and live in us forever. His Spirit IS LIFE. If we decide to go our own way then we will have eternal death. There is One and Only One Eternal Life and that is The Lord Jesus Christ Almighty. No one or nothing else is eternal but Him. We can only have eternal life by His Spirit living in us. The creation is NOT the Creator. The Creator is eternal but the creation is not. - lounewton1347@yahoo.com - May the Mercy and Grace of the Lord be with you. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Tree of Life?
Posted On: 05/06/08 05:24:57 PM
Age 42, NM
Adam would not have had to die physically, for he had the tree of life to partake of. Once he rebelled against God, he was forced to leave the garden and could not eat of the tree of life an longer.
Yes I know that God's plan of salvation was not plan B, and would never suggest such a thing. He plan was to redeem us from before the foundations of the earth.
Check out www.answersingenesis.com for a scientific response to why we see distant starlight. Click here to reply to this post
AFTER THE FALL THE TREE OF LIFE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT DEATH
Posted On: 05/08/08 02:12:33 AM
Age 64, OH
Ken Ham argues for the very things he argues against in order to try and shore up the YEC. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and the methods that the YEC use are not valid to all but themselves. The Creation museum actually tells that men and dinosaurs walked together. This is against all evidence and all scientist (except the ones in this little group) agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Dinosaurs were not on earth with man. Whatever the time frame the Dinos were long before man. Many of these scientists are Christians who disagree with Ham.- I did not think you did believe in plan B but just wanted to remind you of that fact.- If Adam had eternal life why put the tree of life in the garden. There would be no need for it if Adam did not sin, if he had eternal life already; and if Adam did sin then the tree of life would cause Adam to be lost from God forever (which is death is it not). The tree of life was put in the garden for Adam to choose. He could choose to decide right from wrong (the tree of knowledge of good and evil); or he could choose life by eating of the tree of life. If Adam had chosen the tree of life he would have had eternal life with God. But Adam chose the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam already knew good because he knew God. But when he ate of the tree he came to know evil for he did evil to eat of the tree. So now God had to remove Adam from the tree of life because if he ate of it he would be lost forever. When Adam ate of the tree of knowledge he still could not tell good from evil but just came to know both good and evil. Can we tell good from evil yet today. No we can not, not even with the Bible. We need the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth and tell us good from evil. The tree of life would only bring eternal life to Adam if he had communion with God in the spirit, because eternal life is impossible without God. So the tree would not bring spiritual life (for Adam already had that with the spirit God had breathed into him); but the tree would bring eternal physical life or a new body. Once Adam sinned and lost the Holy Spirit then he could not have eternal life but would be lost forever if he ate of the tree of life. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Seperation from God is the sting
Posted On: 05/07/08 09:43:33 AM
Age 47, MO
Kevin: You said in an earlier post that sin brought physical death and without sin, Adam would have lived forever. If this is the case, then what was the purpose of the tree of eternal life? No friend, sin brought Spiritual death, which is seperation from God. The physical, natural, the creation, WAS and always is meant to be temperal. The creation is winding down and was created to do so. Jesus never sinned and still died, so sin did not cause death. Sin seperates us from God- seperation is the STING of death. Amen? John Click here to reply to this post
Many ID Proponents Are Long Day Christians Also
Posted On: 04/30/08 07:33:47 PM
Age 40, NH
Many of those in the ID movement are long day (non-24 literal hour day) creationists let us not forget. Although thoroughly and completely compatible with Scripture in the original languages we presently know (the OT may have been and probably was originally written in language(s) other than Hebrew), this is a position that still puts most ID proponents outside of some theologians and scientists who are creationists.
ID is a varied and scientific theory from the scientific evidence, not Genesis which makes no claim as a scientific handbook. Either 6 literal days or not, God created each after its kind.
Grace and Peace,
Jim Click here to reply to this post
ID vs Biblical Creation
Posted On: 04/30/08 06:13:09 PM
Age 55, IL
Don't get too enamored with the ID movement per se. Most of the notables in the ID movement do NOT affirm Genesis. Michael Behe, for example, is a theist (and a Roman Catholic), but has succumbed to the 'billions of years' fantasies of the evolutionary geologists and astronomers. I love Behe's books . . . up to a point.
Remember that this battle is spiritual. Only with God's grace will light shine and sinners be converted. Those that are merely 'theists' are also deniers of the Lord Jesus Christ AND HIS WORDS. Jesus affirmed the Genesis account (Mark 10:6-9) and condemns those who deny His words (Mark 8:38).
I love much of the work done by the ID camp. But they fall woefully short. AnswersInGenesis.org and icr.org represent two organizations who do better. Click here to reply to this post
WAHT IS A DAY
Posted On: 04/30/08 06:39:35 PM
Age 64, OH
Jesus said not one jot or tittle will pass away of the Scriptures. The universe was created in six literal days. But what is a literal "day" according to God Almighty and NOT men. Gen 3:8 - the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the DAY,- Here we can see that God uses the word DAY not to mean 24 hours but the cool time of the light and not the darkness of night. God came to them walking in the cool time of the DAYLIGHT and not at night. Genesis 6:3 Then the LORD said,... ; his DAYS will be a hundred and twenty years." - Here we can see that God uses the word DAY not talking about a 24 hour day but saying mans DAYS ( TIME) will be 120 years. Genesis 7:12 And rain fell on the earth forty DAYS and forty NIGHTS. - Here God uses the word DAY to mean 12 hours or the light part of the 24 hour period. Genesis 7:24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty DAYS. - Here God uses the word DAY to mean a 24 hour period. Genesis 8:22 "As long as the earth endures, .. DAY and night will never cease." - Here God uses the word DAY to mean the LIGHT of day. God is saying the light will always come in the morning. Genesis 32:32 Therefore to this DAY the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, - here God uses the word DAY the same as the word TIME. The word does not refer to 24 hours but it refers to a the present TIME period. If one will read the whole book of Genesis they will find God uses the word DAY many different ways just as we do TODAY. Not meaning this 24 hour period but the period of TIME in which we now live. HOW DOES GOD USE THE WORD DAY IN GENESIS: 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the LIGHT "DAY," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.- God called the LIGHT day. God is telling us that the light is called DAY. The 1st DAY is the 1st coming of LIGHT. God then goes on to tell us that there was evening (darkness) and morning (the coming of light) the 1st DAY. From evening to morning is not 24 hours but 12. I do not think God is even talking about time at all. He simply says that it was DARK and He made LIGHT for us. This coming of light was the 1st DAY. According to the tradition laid down by the pope, the Sun was created on the 4th day. Then if that is true, how could there be any 24 hour days at all before the 4th day, for the sun is used in this keeping of time, is it not. The question is; is God even speaking of time in Genesis 1. Does not the whole Bible tell us to take an eternal view of things and not look at the temporal or time. 2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.- If this is the advise of God to man then why would God start off his Scriptures with a account centered on the temporal or time. I would try to get you to think of this: God is not speaking of time at all. He is simply saying it was DARK and He made LIGHT for you. There was no air to breath and He made air for you. There was no dry land and He made land for you. You could not see the Sun and the Moon in the sky so God made them appear in your sight to be signs to you. There were no plants and God made plants for all other life to consume. There were no animals and God made the animals for us. There was no man and God made us to be with Him. Lou Click here to reply to this post
On Semantics
Posted On: 05/01/08 12:21:11 AM
Age 19, TX
Dear Sir,
I hope you won't be offended by what I have to say. I say all this in Christian love as a fellow sister in Christ. I would like to recommend this article. It is on the semantics of the word "yom" and I found it extremely helpful. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/semantic.asp
I understand what you're saying about "yom". In fact, I don't know of any YEC or OEC who would disagree that "yom" has many meanings. The key to knowing which meaning is meant then lies in the context of the passage and knowledge of the Hebrew language and usage. There are a couple words in Hebrew that mean "an indefinite period of time" or "a long time" etc... However, if God wanted to convey a "solar day" (i.e. 24 hr. day), "yom" is the only word to use in the Hebrew. Whenever "yom" is used with either a number, night, morning, or evening it always means a literal 24 hr. day. I've heard it said that if God wanted to say that the days of creation were literal 24 hour days He could not have said it better or more clearly than He did for He uses not just a number, but evening and morning as well to modify the noun "yom". The article above goes into great detail on this.
The sun being created on the 4th day is a very interesting point and one that I just recently heard about. I'm not sure what the pope has to do with it but yes, the Bible does clearly say that the sun was created on the 4th day. The thing is that the sun is not necessary for there to be a day. There just has to be light to measure the rotation by. If you read part 4, number 4 it talks about this issue. I can't talk much on this because I just recently learned about it. I'm not sure I can quote because of copyright issues so I'd recommend reading it and seeing what they have to say.
Concerning 2 Corinthians 4:18 - God is not saying that the temporal or time does not exist, but rather that there's more than just the temporal. He is not saying that we should totally disregard it but that we should focus more on the spiritual than the temporal. Genesis is written as a historical narrative, whether or not people believe it as such - that is the literary style of the book. If you claim that Genesis 1 is not meant to be taken literally, even though it is written as a historical narrative, do you do the same with the whole book, and indeed, with every historical narrative in the Bible? Click here to reply to this post
IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
Posted On: 05/01/08 10:26:44 AM
Age 64, OH
You say,"the Bible does clearly say the sun was created on the 4th day". 1st Gen 1 only uses the word CREATE three times and it is NOT used in the 4th day at all. 2nd - 14 And God said, "LET THERE BE lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.-- 3RD - IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.- Is this scripture true. God said he created the heavens and the earth before the 1st day. Look up in the heavens and what do you see. The sun and the moon? Does it not seem here that God is saying he created the sun and the moon before the 1st day. 4th- Jesus says THE HEAVENS DECLARE HIS GLORY. So the 1st revelation of Jesus Christ is His creation, is it not. He even said it was good. I do not mean to say the creation was Jesus of course, but that the creation revealed His glory or His nature. God is light and we can not have life without God. So Jesus would not tell a lie in His creation and say there could be life without light. The earth produced the plants and that was the 3rd day, the coming of life to the earth. God says Let the earth produce plants. How could the earth produce plants without the light of the sun. We have the same kind of plants now, because God said let them bear seed after their kind. This can not happen without the sun as it is an example that we can mot have life without God who is light. 5th- The 1st day was the coming of light when Jesus said LET THERE BE LIGHT. Look at the perspective of the account. It is a God eye view taken from the earth. Where did the light come from. The same place physical light comes from now; the sun for God does not change.-- So that still leaves a question of what does God means on the 4th day. - Some translations say LET THEM APPEAR IN THE SKY instead of let them be. There was much dust in between the sun and the earth. When God said let there be light; the sun came on or nuclear fission started. This started the solar wind and it blew all the dust from the solar system and by the 4th day you could see the sun and the moon from the earth. The light had been coming through the dust as it does a cloud and the light allowed the earth to produce the plants as God said. The rest of the account of the 4th day was just a summary of what God had already done in the beginning when he created the heavens and the earth. For the stars are in the heavens are they not. -- The sun is the source of light in our solar system and there can not be life on this earth without the light of the sun. The sun is the center not the earth as the pope thought, just as God is the center of it all. The sun is almost all of the mass of the solar system just as God is ALL. The sun is our only source of light, just as God is our only source of light. There can not be life on any solar system that has more than one star, this is an illustration to us that there is only one God. Almost all stars in our galaxy are double, triple, or quad stars and very few are single stars. Click here to reply to this post
Day One and Day Four
Posted On: 05/01/08 12:56:11 PM
Age 19, TX
"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH" - Yes indeed that Scripture is true. All Scripture is true. First of all, the Hebrew word for "heavens" is "shamayim". The word is translated as "heaven/s" but it's essential meaning is similar to our modern word "space". It doesn't mean the stars of heaven, the stars of heaven are the "host" of heaven and not heaven itself. It's refering to the space part of the space-mass-time universe. Also, "earth" refers to the matter part of the universe. As the second verse of Genesis explains - "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the earth. The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." God initially created space (the heavens) and the matter (the waters) which He later formed. Notice what you said "Look up in the heavens and what do you see. The sun and the moon?" The sun and moon are indeed IN the heavens, but they are not the heavens themselves. Let me quote Genesis 1:14-19 again "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." You see that it says that God placed the stars IN the heavens, the stars (as well as the sun and moon) are not the heavens themselves.
You said "How could the earth produce plants without the light of the sun." Plants need light to grow and God made light on the first day. So there was light - thus the plants could grow.
You also said "The 1st day was the coming of light when Jesus said LET THERE BE LIGHT. Look at the perspective of the account. It is a God eye view taken from the earth. Where did the light come from. The same place physical light comes from now; the sun for God does not change." God didn't say He created the sun on the first day of creation, merely that He created light. If He made the sun on day one He wouldn't have had to on day four. "Intrinsic light first, then generators of light later, is both the logical and Biblical order." God made light similar to the sun, but not the sun itself, to serve as the light source for the first 3 days. Click here to reply to this post
LET THERE BE LIGHT
Posted On: 05/01/08 06:07:25 PM
Age 64, OH
You say, God said let there be light, but it was not the sun, but this light was the source of light for the plants. WHAT WAS THAT SOURCE OF LIGHT AND WHERE IS IT NOW. Lou Click here to reply to this post
THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH IS THE UNIVERSE
Posted On: 05/01/08 06:04:28 PM
Age 64, OH
We not only have the scriptures but we have the creation itself and we also have been given a brain. We can look out into the heavens and see stars forming as we speak, we can also see stars dying. God had Isaac Newton invent the reflecting telescope so God could show us how He forms solar systems. We can see them form as we look at them. IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. Tell me what of the physical is there besides the heavens and the earth. Is that not all there is of the physical universe. The universe is not a stable unchanging place but it is changing constantly. Professing Christians who have not even studied the creation state that they know how God created the universe and they know almost nothing. The reason science has lost all respect for the church goes back to Galileo. He spent his whole life seeking God and studying His universe only to have a bunch of close minded and arrogant men who knew nothing tell Galileo how God did it. The church was wrong and they were so arrogant they even burnt men at the stake and put men in prison for disagreeing with the wrong position of the church. I will only remind you that I have sought The Lord Jesus Christ on this issue much longer than you have been alive. Your statement that The Earth refers to the matter part of the universe is quite ridiculous. Are you saying that the word earth refers to the sun and the moon and the stars and man. They and we are all made of matter. God created a universe that has three parts the physical, the soul, and the spirit. If you read with care you will see that God uses the word create three times and no more. The 1st act of creation is when God created the physical. This was the big bang and God created all matter and energy. This is the heavens and earth, or simply all that there is in this physical universe. The second act of creation was when God created animals with a soul or the sea creatures. God plainly says let the earth bring forth the animals on the earth. The 3rd act of creation was when God breathed the spirit into man. Man stand and tell God how he created the universe instead of having humility and bothering to ask Him how he did it. The apostles turned the world upside down and the whole earth respected Christianity. All of Europe was not all true Christians but almost all respected the religion. Why is the church now dying. Any thing not growing is dying. Men stand and tell God what is true and what is not. Then when someone seeks God and he shows that man some truth, the church stands back and ridicules the truth. Jesus has spoken to me and said, men are not ridiculing you , Lou, but they ridicule Me. I only have this question for you, did the Lord speak this to you, or is this interpretation from you or other men. Lou Click here to reply to this post
THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE
Posted On: 05/01/08 09:43:21 AM
Age 64, OH
Thank you for your kind reply. I would 1st ask you if you have sold everything you had and went and bought the whole field and then dug up that whole field to find the Pearl of Great Price, which is The Truth. I had questions about Genesis 1 when I was very young and asked many preachers who could not answer my questions. So after i gave my life to the Lord Jesus I asked Him about these questions instead of asking men. This quest has lasted for 33 years so far and Jesus has never repented of one thing he has ever spoken or shown me. I have read Genesis 1 thousands of times in every English translation, have you. I have prayed and asked Jesus what He means, have you. I then waited for the answer and did not decide for myself when i tired of waiting. Do you think the promises of the Lord Jesus are true for me also. I think His promises are true for everyone, don't you. I was fearful at 1st for what the Lord Told me was not tradition. But when I follow the Holy Spirit I find life and even miracles happen in my life. The only important thing is not how a person interprets Gen 1 but do they have Christ, don't you agree. The person who has The Lord Jesus Christ has everything there is to possess and lacks not one thing. Grace and mercy and peace to you. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Pearl of Great Price
Posted On: 05/01/08 08:37:06 PM
Age 48, NC
Lou, Please don't think me to be judgemental here. I do not doubt that your are a well reasoned christian.
Your approach here seems to me to be eerily similar to that of Joseph Smith's. It's a highly subjective way of determining truth. It is possible to understand God's word plainly. The reason none of your church leaders could answer your questions is because they had likely abandoned God's word as the framework for both knowledge and truth. I find this to b true in most churches I've been in no matter how conservative.
The problem we have is one of which history better compliments a pure gospel. The materialists history can only be billions of years of process. The Biblical history is one of supernatural creation wherein God speaks things into existence. God's word speaks to us plainly using not only yom but with specific numeric value. In doing so it sure seems to me to imply ordinary earth rotations which are essentially 24hrs. The gospel fits nicely into that history because it has no problem with the physical death of an animal (skin for clothing) to be death's entrance into the world. This was done, not to cover nakedness because they already had fig leaves, but rather as a symbol of atonement that sin requires death as payment.
Animal death could only cover sin whereas Jesus' death washed it away. The death of an animal would have meant nothing where atonement is concerned if animals had been dying for millions of years. Every ancient culture on earth had some form of blood sacrifice. Why do you think that is? It was because God used it to demonstrate the penalty for sin way back in the beginning and that knowledge was passed down to all generations becoming corrupt in some cultures. How does millions of years of death prior to sin reconcile with death as God's penalty for sin. Only the biblical history makes sense and that is only about six thousand years. It's not a matter of how many meanings there are to yom. What matters is the context and if we can't be sure from the context then God spoke to us in a form that we could only know after materialists gave us billions of years of process as an explanation of the universe. That, sir, is man interpreting the universe through his own vain presuppositions. Biblical history or naturalistic history, which do we choose?
Science based on evolutionary assumptions or science based on a Biblical framework? God's word must determine how we view the world around us. Sola Scriptura! Mark Click here to reply to this post
TIME DOES NOT DILUTE THE POWER OF THE BLOOD
Posted On: 05/06/08 10:18:37 AM
Age 64, OH
You say, whenever "yom" is used with a number it means a calender day. The problem here is that this is your rule and not supported by scripture. The blood of an animal has no power to cover sin. The fact that animals died form the beginning does not stop the lesson when a man watches something innocent shedding its blood for his sin and than changing his heart. The power is NOT in the blood of an animal but the power is in God's forgiveness when the man humbles himself before God and confesses his sin and repents. It is never the ritual that God is after but a changed heart. Jesus shed His blood 2000 years ago as far as time on this earth goes. But His blood has not lost any power to change the hearts of men who will humble themselves before God. Lou Click here to reply to this post
JOSEPH SMITH WAS A ANTICHRIST
Posted On: 05/03/08 11:52:53 AM
Age 64, OH
Mark, I will have to answer you in several parts. Ist Joesph Smith was not a truthful or sincere man but a liar and con man. He claimed to find gold plates from God but there were no gold plates. Why would God reveal gold plates to one man to translate and make him the only way to this truth. That is the same as Muhammad has do
