Our posts crossed in the mail, so to speak.
I note that you use the phrase Jesus is the ābeginning and the endā. I agree with this completely and therein lies the heart of the false doctrine of Sunday worship. Lets look at it simply from that perspective:
A God, who is infinite, allknowing, and allpowerful decides to create something using a set of rules he Himself made (ie science). All TEists as far as I am aware agree that science is eternal because it describes the very mechanisms God created into order to make the universe and obviously us.
Question: does science change its foundation principlesā¦ie the very basis of how everything is stitched together? Obviously notā¦it cannot because if it did, what is currently stitched together would fall apart.
So, how then does that same creator of the principles of science which are unchanging, decide to change his own moral laws [10 commandments] without also causing everything he built to fall apart from a moral perspective?
The Sabbath was made for man for good reason, it is not about God wearing himself out creating everything (that is a ridiculous claim that is not supported biblically)ā¦God spoke everything into existence with the exception of Adam and Eve. Are you Sunday worshipers honestly going to make the claim that God got tired after he manually formed Adam and Eve out of the dust of the earth and then got so breathless after breathing the breath of life into Adamās nostrils that he had to take a day off??
One distinctly obvious problem with the āGod needed a rest argumentā is the fact that it also say He [God] set it aside as a day of worshiping our Creator.
If God was tired, why the addition of the āset it apart as holy (Ex 20:11)ā clause? Why did His chosen people worship that day and no other for thousands of years? Why is the true Christian church as described in Revelation also known as āSpiritual Israelā. Why are the Saints of Revelation 14:12 described as those who ākeep the commandments of Godā?
Rev 14:12 does not make any mention of only some of the commandments
A google search of this passage shows that the accepted scholarly and also universal [majority] interpretation is that Rev 14:12 clearly refers to the 10 commandments of Exodus 20.
No problem Dale thanks for your insights to this point. . And rabbit trails are enticing LOL
1 Like
I guess he didnāt get the message (along with several other facts).
@adamjedgar: Start a new thread if you want to continue your rant.
1 Like
Thatās the point Iām trying to make, the bible doesnāt say that. We have imposed that into the text from gen 1vs 3.
Dale, if you wish to base your errant theology on the logic that those who present arguments to which you have no theological answer, because your theology is your own and not biblical, go ahead and throw insults.
The rabbit warren arguement highlights your own poor thinking on the topic of Chisentheismā¦I am not sure how you think that the 10 commandments and the importance of the doctrine of human morality is offtopic?
Clearly the issue here is that Chisentheism has to be only scientific and since it is not, you quickly loose interest when significant theological shortcomings in the idea are put forward that cast a large shadow over the ideaā¦which is just a new name for TEism i think.
Anyway, unless something that is important enough to be responded to, i will move on. Hopefully at least those who may stumble across this topic may find information within it that provides a sense of balance to what is fundamentally a very very flawed theological argument you are supporting.
Nor we you, or if. 
sighā¦ 
Genesis 2:7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.d
Is that the same as speaking him into existence? Not so much.
Ah, that was your point.
I agree you are absolutely correct hereā¦the problem is, spoke what into existence? I didnt claim that Adam and Eve were spoken into existence.
God spoke creation into existenceā¦but he personally made man.
I am making the assumption now that you have a problem with the following:
Genesis 1: 3And God said, āLet there be light,āa and there was light.
6And God said, āLet there be an expansec between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.ā
9And God said, āLet the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.ā
11Then God said, āLet the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.ā
14And God said, āLet there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. 15And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.ā
20And God said, āLet the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.ā
24And God said, āLet the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.ā
Now note the difference between the above and what follows (the significant difference shown below is why there is further description of the creation narrative in Genesis Ch 2):
26Then God said, āLet Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.ā
27So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.e
Itās funny though, that does not refute the reality of evolution and the fact that Genesis 1-11 is ANE literature, not to mention the antiquity of the earth and the universe.
1 Like
let me clarify The text does not say, In the beginning God said ālet there be the heavens and the Earthā. it says
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. (Genesis 1:1,2)
I believe this is extremely important omission, I myself for my whole life believed God spoke the heavens and earth into existence. But Iām now questioning that assumption
āI have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition, which oāerleaps itself and falls on the other.ā Shakespeare: Macbeth
this is the only Shakespeare I ever remember, but it is so profound. It keeps me humble especially when talking about God.
(@Troy: Is this adequately on topic? Your call.)
@adamjedgar had no reply in the other thread where he was tagged:
I agree it does not. I dont see that as being problematic however, we have a rather simple and obviously binary choice to make and I choose YECism because i have made that binary choice.
I know that Biologos disagree because they are convinced the Science must control our theology, however, i see problems with that approach because it simply does not agree with self evident biblical interpretations. Of course that means i am more than willing to follow the science as put forward by Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, The Seventh Day Adventist Church and any other organisations who follow YECism. I also accept that even within these groups, there are those who are not entirely convinced YEC are right.
I would urge anyone who is genuine about this to go into the bible and very deeply and carefully study the Sanctuaryā¦study it from the beginning of the Old Testament to the End of the book of Revelation. Once you do that and completely understand the importance of the Sanctuary, you will find the following:
-
Sunday worship is a doctrine that is heavily influenced by unsound theology and very likely indicative of the mark of the beast. If we allow Sunday worship, we take away the relevance and importance of Exodus 20:11
-
The sanctuary service proves that God is unchangingā¦he does not make a set of moral laws then change them on a whim simply because his son died on the cross. The salvation plan existed since BEFORE the foundation of the earthā¦he did not need to wait almost 4000 years to change the Sabbath (which appeared at the end of the creation week AFTER the foundation of the earth) at the Cross
You know what is really weird? I know Denis L. I attended a lecture 20 years ago at university and later a private meeting with him at the church I was attending. I was most disturbed by the theodicy/ theological problems old age of earth creates. The atonement didnāt make sense if death before sin. Its been a ping pong ball in my head for 20 plus years.
But then I realised, Satan or evil presence in the Garden does the same thing as old earth. According to Doc of original perfection the logic falls apart in the text. Thatās why Iām looking at the whole thing differently now maybe the doctrine of original perfection is the culprit not the text.
maybe I should reach out to Denis and run this all by him LOL!!
1 Like
Iām sorry, but that is your badly mistaken perception. Truth comes from reality, and the realities contained in scripture cannot conflict with the realities of the cosmos: they both are from God.
2 Likes
St Roymond I donāt think I linked my replyās to this post correctlyā¦ lol, they are above somewhere.
Anyway counteracted could be relaced with formed into? or overcame ? Iām my mind Iām trying to describe creation thru Christ. Iām seeing Christs dead body as the singularity of Gen 1vs 1 by which all things are formed through. God takes the dead and makes alive. Hence we have a resurrection account. Its as you describe the singularity ( Iām suggesting death of Christ) is the raw material for creation. there is some valid metaphysical reasoning behind this in my posts, if you can find those replyās!
oddly I found this fun factā¦
The Universe, at the earliest stages we can ascribe a āsizeā to it, could have been no smaller than roughly the size of a human being.
Hmm interestingā¦
Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,ā he said. āWhat I meant by āwe would know the mind of Godā is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isnāt. Iām an atheist.ā
You know who wrote the above quote? Stephen Hawking.
Now what were you saying?
Hawking clearly disagreed with your type of claim and therein lives the foolishness of TEism. Modern scientists scoff at God and yet you follow their hypothesis thinking God can be blended with it.
Both the bible and secular science intepretations disagree with TEism. Both say its wrong.
What??
Are you implying that parents show some parallel to the problem of evil? or that they are somehow a parallel to devils?