Interpretation & Meaning in Genesis + Sabbath


(Chris) #22

What? Flat Earth? Where did that come from?


#23

No what is amazing is if they have lived in Egypt for hundreds of years and didn’t pick up anything from the Egyptians. Like what was Moses’s Egyptian name? He had to have had one didn’t he? No Egyptian loan words. There is actually nothing to show they actually did live there for hundreds of years.

We are told the seventh day of rest was to commemorate God leading the Hebrews out of Egypt. So which is correct?


#24

@Relates

[quote=“Relates, post:6, topic:40226”]

Hello Roger,

Thank you for the complete explanation of the sabbath that represents the seventh day of the Creation week and I thank the other posters for their input.
.
The reason I brought the sabbath issue up is to express it as a reminder that God created six days as indicated in the scriptures, and to express its connection to the six day creation week where God rested the seventh. What reminder do we have that we evolved over millions of years even if seen as God’s action?

Moreover, today is in the year 2019. This year is the number (circa) after the Savior promised in Genesis 3:15 was born and died for your and my redemption. The BC / AD division of time is thus another reminder of Genesis account and the fall that occurred during the account. But the supposed evolution account has no explanation even of the fact that man fell let alone any mention of hope from the consequences of the fall we experience daily.

Finally, may I ask out of curiosity why does it appear so terribly important that we must believe the supposed evolutionary account? Evolution is usually spoken of as a theory and the Bible states the creation account point blank.

ELD


(Phil) #25

First, there is no evolutionary account. The way most who are EC types interpret the Genesis creation account is that it does not support nor deny evolution, but its purpose is theologic, not scientific (or even historic, though there is more variation of belief there).
Now, why is it important to accept evolution? From my standpoint, it is important because it is a truthful expression of the data at hand, and thus we must deal with it if we are to better understand creation, and ultimately the Creator. I’ll leave it there, but will get back when I have time,


(Mervin Bitikofer) #26

You’re right - there is nothing in evolutionary theory remotely about this. Or about calligraphy. Or about how to fix my car. The theory does explain a lot [about the hereditary development of life from much simpler (but already existing) life to now], but no theory is a tool to explain everything, despite the best efforts of some to present it that way.

Certainly nothing about that in evolutionary theory either. Right again!

I wouldn’t say that believers around here are calling that important. I think the main drum that gets lots of pounding around here is that it is important not to make other people’s access to the gospel of Christ contingent on them believing correct or accepted things about evolution or science generally. We’re about removing stumbling stones around here - not creating more of them. The cross of Christ is a bitter offense enough for all of us to come to terms with - there is no other foundational cornerstone (including your’s or anybody else’s particular understanding of Genesis or anything else) that the Christian should be obliged to align with. Christ is sufficient. And when we are finally found in that sufficiency (or crushed by it), that is not an end, but just the beginning. We grow together and many of us find it unthinkable that the gospel should be packaged with injustice or falsehood. Yes, we can still be and are wrong about a good many things as believers, but when we discover that we should flee such chaff and pursue the truth doggedly, because our God is worthy of nothing less. That’s why so many believers find encouragement and support here.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #27

Jesus said that God did not rest on the 7th day. Don’t you think that He was telling the truth?

Why do we need a reminder that we are evolved over millions of years?

The promise of God to Abraham has nothing to do with evolution.

The BC/AD break has nothing to do with evolution or creation. Original sin is a theological concept, not a scientific one.

The earth shows for the true glory, power, wisdom, and love of God. Limiting God’s Creation of only 6 days limits God. The true story shows how God is able to carry out God’s salvation history over billions of years.

God wants us to think and to grow in truth and knowledge. God called to subdue, to bring into knowledge God Creation as cre4ated in God’s Image to be God’s Stewards. AMEN


#28

Hello Merwin,

Your post:

[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:26, topic:40226, full:true”]

I wouldn’t say that believers around here are calling that important. I think the main drum that gets lots of pounding around here is that it is important not to make other people’s access to the gospel of Christ contingent on them believing correct or accepted things about evolution or science generally. We’re about removing stumbling stones around here - not creating more of them. The cross of Christ is a bitter offense enough for all of us to come to terms with - there is no other foundational cornerstone (including your’s or anybody else’s particular understanding of Genesis or anything else) that the Christian should be obliged to align with. Christ is sufficient. And when we are finally found in that sufficiency (or crushed by it), that is not an end, but just the beginning. We grow together and many of us find it unthinkable that the gospel should be packaged with injustice or falsehood. Yes, we can still be and are wrong about a good many things as believers, but when we discover that we should flee such chaff and pursue the truth doggedly, because our God is worthy of nothing less. That’s why so many believers find encouragement and support here.
[/quote]

I only hope to help us guard against error that could cause drifting away from the sufficiency of Christ. An error in calculation of a formula renders it useless and possibly devastating. Such was the case of a failed Mars probe. Neither do we want error in the use of the “math book” for our ultimate destination. Life is a one-way street.

As we know that Exodus 20:11 tells us that God made heaven and earth in six days and not 5 trillion, 37 billion days, the links below should give insight to the answer to the question I ask by pointing to a man that thought the millions of years earth origin scenario was extremely important. He was among those that promoted it to be inculcated so that we all may be “encouraged” to be “open-minded” to accept it. He was a lawyer and not a scientist.

God of the Bible has the power of the spoken word to bring things to past quickly. Here are the links:

https://creation.com/

charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses

Let’s therefore please beware of serpentine science.

Earl


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #29

Why should science be subject to the Bible, anymore than the Bible be subject to science?

Science can not tell us how to be saved, nor faith tell us how to build an airplane or a computer.


(Mitchell W McKain) #30

Some people want science to be dictated by the Bible, because those without faith in the Bible (but who simply use the Bible for their agenda) don’t want the Bible tested. They don’t want questions. Questions might get people to actually read the Bible and that could be really dangerous, since people might find out that the Bible doesn’t say what they claim after all.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #31

Nearly everything in this entire article ironically is a lie. The field of geology is not based upon an invention to ‘free science from Moses,’ but a remarkably precise study of the features of the Earth. The global flood as a hypothesis to explain the earth’s geological features was rejected, not because of anti-Moses bias, but because a global flood had no explanatory power to account for the earth’s geology.


#32

Hello Relates,

@Relates
Why should science be subject to the Bible, anymore than the Bible be subject to science?

Science can not tell us how to be saved, nor faith tell us how to build an airplane or a computer.

But truth lines up with truth does it not? It better! Science is our servant for truth in the natural and the Bible is our servant for truth in the natural and supernatural realms.

You say that faith (the bible?) cannot tell us how to build an airplane or a computer? Has the Bible any part in governing these affairs? To build an airplane or computer, measurements are required and the measurements are based on standards (they better be)! There is an institution called the NIST that operates on a $1.2 billion budget per year whose operation in maintaining standards is based on scriptures in the Bible of which it better not deviate! May I please ask any of you what those scriptures are? Please?

Moreover, conformance to Biblical truth is necessary and very helpful in the use of our gadgets given us by science. Is it not? It better be! Or would you prefer that someone murder you with a fancy high tech scientifically developed device? Even though we do not depend on the sciences for our salvation, it verifies much Biblical truth. Today’s science has proven the Jewish diet superior.

 
For you, Matt

@pevaquark,
The field of geology is not based upon an invention to ‘free science from Moses,’ but a remarkably precise study of the features of the Earth.

I like that! Thank you!

@pevaquark
The global flood as a hypothesis to explain the earth’s geological features was rejected, not because of anti-Moses bias, but because a global flood had no explanatory power to account for the earth’s geology.

But here, you carried out Lyell’s exact mandate! How do you know that the global flood had no explanatory power to account for the earth’s geology? If you find info that proves contrary to your claim, would you believe it?

Earl


#33

The early geologists were looking for proof of Noah’s flood. They were Christians and believed the Flood to be real. The problem they faced was they could find no evidence and kept finding evidence that the world was much older than 6,000 years. This is also pre-Darwin so they weren’t trying to support evolution.

Scientists actually have no problem accepting real evidence that goes against their claim. It is how science has worked for a very long time.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #34

Which is what?

Because I’m familiar with things like plate tectonics and their rates of motion (present and historical), things like paleomagnetic strips, or geological strata or the fossil record, etc.

There is no evidence of a worldwide global flood just 4 kya, I’m sorry.


(Marshall Janzen) #35

Thanks to @jammycakes I think everyone who’s been here a while knows those verses. :smiley:


#36

I love how the YEC folk love to quote mine. The article you linked started with a partial quote from J.E O’Rourke which sounds like it supports the article. That is until you take the time to go to the source of the quote to see what was really said. In this case the full quote should have been:

The article goes on to show how circular reasoning is NOT used.

@Ecerotops care to comment?


(James McKay) #37

Absolutely! But to determine the ages of rock strata, measurements are also required, and those measurements too are based on the exact same standards. Accordingly, evidence for a young earth must meet those standards as well.

Unfortunately, I am yet to see a single young earth argument that comes anywhere close.


(Quinn) #38

The two main reason why I don’t believe in a worldwide flood is if that was so then why don’t we find a certain layer of soil and rock which shows a great violent event with a large majority of human bones all over the place? We don’t and YEC fails to give an answer to my knowledge. Its also the same reason why I refuse to belive that dinosaurs lived along with humans cause if that was so then we should find dinosaur bones at a equal level of soil with human and animal bones but we don’t.


(Mitchell W McKain) #39

But Seakkin, you only find out that sort of thing when you employ that pesky scientific method of testing your hypotheses against the observable evidence. It is so liberating when you stick to the methods of rhetoric like lawyers, politicians, and preachers of simply looking for evidence to support your claims. Then you can march off with your beliefs paying no mind to any evidence to the contrary. Though I do not understand why it should be so difficult to accept that when an ancient text speaks of the world there no reason whatsoever to equate this with a planet the way we do in modern times since when this story was told and then written they had no conception of any such thing.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #40

What I said was theology must not dictate to science and science must not dictate to theology. Each has a place and both are needed. The Bible or theology tells us to tell the truth ant truth telling or accuracy is necessary for science, However one need not be a Christian to tell the truth or to be a scientist.

You need to learn the difference between truth and falsehood so you don’t spread lies on the internet.


#41

Hi guys,

Thank you for your posts that answer my post #31. I will answer the last first and move upward. Even though I was told by @Marshall that everyone that have been here awhile know the scriptures I ask for, no one yet gave them to me per request. At least I know my point came across. OK. I’ll give it as a reminder to what you already know. It’s Leviticus 19:36 and Proverbs 20:23. This is only one of countless examples by which we know that God rules in the affairs of men–for our safety. What would we think if someone tries to convince us that today’s science somehow obsoleted these scriptures?

@Relates
What I said was theology must not dictate to science and science must not dictate to theology. Each has a place and both are needed. The Bible or theology tells us to tell the truth and truth telling or accuracy is necessary for science, However one need not be a Christian to tell the truth or to be a scientist.

You need to learn the difference between truth and falsehood so you don’t spread lies on the internet.

Of course one need not be a Christian to tell the truth. Of course the field of science and Biblical theology need not rudely dictate to each other!. The conscience is voluntarily guided by truth from both working in harmony. Don’t we have discernment to know truth from falsehoods that we not be taken by falsehoods? Aren’t we aware of the correct standard for the truth we abide by?

A person is a Christian only because he obeyed the Christian gospel. But the word of God is for all individuals regardless who or what he calls himself. He that obeys benefits and he that does not obey is at his own disadvantage.

@Sealkin
The two main reason why I don’t believe in a worldwide flood is if that was so then why don’t we find a certain layer of soil and rock which shows a great violent event with a large majority of human bones all over the place? We don’t and YEC fails to give an answer to my knowledge. Its also the same reason why I refuse to belive that dinosaurs lived along with humans cause if that was so then we should find dinosaur bones at a equal level of soil with human and animal bones but we don’t.

Fossil graveyards are massive and are found almost every where. Why are millions of clams found with their shells shut even though their shells open when they die naturally? How was it possible for an Ichthyosaur to be found fossilized in the act of giving birth to its young? How did fish end up fossilized in the act of engulfing another for their meals? Why do fossils including archaeopteryx tend to be found in positions as if they came to rest after they were violently tossed? Don’t these give the impression of a massive, sudden catastrophe? Raging water is powerful! Why are there flood legends found in cultures around the world? I’m speaking what I was told by scientists.

As for dinosaurs living with humans, where did American Indians get the idea of a Thunderbird? Why did Indians as well as people of ancient cultures around the world leave drawings of creatures that resemble dinosaurs beside other familiar animals? Why do dragons have basically the same reptilian appearance regardless the part of the world where they are spoken of?

As for people mingled with dinosaurs in their graves, these links should be helpful.

@Jammycakes

Absolutely! But to determine the ages of rock strata, measurements are also required, and those measurements too are based on the exact same standards. Accordingly, evidence for a young earth must meet those standards as well.

Unfortunately, I am yet to see a single young earth argument that comes anywhere close.

But is forensic determination of past events easy even with properly calibrated instruments? Does proper calibration eliminate countless possible unknown conditions that may have affected the reliability of readings of the samples through the ages? Can it eliminate limitations of the instruments and possible variables characteristic of the measurements themselves? What about possible human error?

@Bill_II

Answer to: @Ecerotops If you find info that proves contrary to your claim, would you believe it?

The early geologists were looking for proof of Noah’s flood. They were Christians and believed the Flood to be real. The problem they faced was they could find no evidence and kept finding evidence that the world was much older than 6,000 years. This is also pre-Darwin so they weren’t trying to support evolution.

Let’s not forget that God has the power of the spoken word by which things may come to past quickly. Accordingly, was even the six days needed? Have the early geologists been in the past to observe? Please go back to my answer to @Sealkin.

@Bill_II
Scientists actually have no problem accepting real evidence that goes against their claim. It is how science has worked for a very long time.

But I ask if you would personally.

@Bill_II
I love how the YEC folk love to quote mine. The article you linked started with a partial quote from J.E O’Rourke which sounds like it supports the article. That is until you take the time to go to the source of the quote to see what was really said. In this case the full quote should have been: …

What was quoted that’s yours?

@Bill_ll Ecerotops care to comment?

Whether circular reasoning was used or not and regardless how well the stratigraphy may have been carried out, what gave Lyell the authority to add to scriptures? Doesn’t scripture warn us against such? What do we do with Isaiah 28:9-10? Is it not scripture that interprets scripture?

For you, @Pevaquark:

To answer my question, “How do you know that the global flood had no explanatory power to account for the earth’s geology?”, you said,
@Pevaquark
Because I’m familiar with things like plate tectonics and their rates of motion (present and historical), things like paleomagnetic strips, or geological strata or the fossil record, etc.

But were you or anyone there to observe for yourself whether or not there was really a flood? Are you making any assumptions?

Finally, I ask all of you again:

If you find scientifically derived info that to your satisfaction proves contrary to your claim, would you believe it?

But this time I want a decisive point blank yes or no answer. No explanations please. just the answer.

Earl