Christian Forums

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/jwst-star-formationan-observational-vs-historical-science/

JWST and Star Formation—An Example of Observational vs. Historical Science
The Serpens Nebula: aligned jets are visible as a series of red streaks in the top left corner (credit: NASA)
Answers in Genesis
 
Answers
 
Science
 
Astronomy
 
JWST and Star Formation—An Example of Observational vs. Historical Science
JWST and Star Formation—An Example of Observational vs. Historical Science
 on July 1, 2024
Featured in Ken Ham Blog


The James Webb Space Telescope continues to make the news as new findings surprise, and even confound, the secular astronomers interpreting the data (remember, facts don't exist by themselves. All facts are interpreted based on one's presuppositions). But what do we make of recent headlines such as, "Stunning JWST image proves we were right about how young stars form"? (Actually, this is nothing new . . . it's just the latest chapter in the same rehashed star-formation story from evolutionists!)

Well, this is where understanding the difference between observational and historical science is so crucial. Just reading the headline gives the impression that the evolutionary view of star formation has been confirmed or "proven," but let's dig into the details.

What did the JWST actually observe? This telescope observed 12 stars with jets of material all pointing in "roughly the same direction." This implies that the stars are spinning in the same direction. That's the observational science, and the article details, it's a "phenomenon that has long been assumed, but never observed before."

Since we weren't there in the past to directly test or observe it and since we can't repeat the past, historical science relies on interpreting the evidence in the present through a specific worldview lens.

Now the astronomers interpreting the data will apply their evolutionary worldview—that's historical science. Historical science is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable because it deals with questions about what happened in the past to produce the evidence we observe in the present. Since we weren't there in the past to directly test or observe it and since we can't repeat the past, historical science relies on interpreting the evidence in the present through a specific worldview lens.

So the evolutionary interpretation of these jets of material is this:

As a colossal cloud of gas begins to collapse in on itself to form a star, its rotation increases. . . . This spinning causes a disc of dust and gas to form around the young star at the centre of the cloud, feeding material into the cloud itself.

The powerful magnetic fields in the disc then create jets of material that blast away from the star along its spin axis, so we can use these jets to measure the direction of a young star's spin.

This interpretation assumes the big bang and evolutionary ideas based on naturalism, regarding the formation of stars. Our astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, explains the evolutionary perspective this way:

Astronomers who are committed to naturalistic origins must hypothesize the birth of stars in the universe today. That is because the lifetimes of many stars are less than the supposed 13.8-billion-year age of a big bang universe, and so these stars cannot date from the beginning of the universe. Where do secular astronomers think stars can form? There are many clouds of gas within the galaxy that have a composition that matches that of stars well, so most astronomers think that the gravity of these clouds causes the clouds to collapse, fragmenting into many protostars. If the stars come from the same cloud of gas, then the stars ought to share common characteristics, such as composition.

Another similarity that stars forming from a cloud ought to share is a common spin orientation (yes, stars, including the sun, spin). This similar orientation has long been a theory, but a new study provides what many astronomers think is the first evidence of the same orientation of forming stars. The theory of star formation suggests that forming stars have jets of material emanating in opposite directions along their poles of rotation. A new JWST image of a region of the constellation Serpens thought to be the location of star formation shows the alignment of several jets from stars thought to be forming. If confirmed, this could be evidence of the recent, common origin of these stars. However, keep in mind that evidence could be interpreted in other ways too.

So, with all that in mind, consider this: did the scientists actually witness this supposed formation process? No! You need to realize that no one (other than God) saw these stars form. In fact, contrary to the "clickbait" headlines we usually see in the news, scientists have never seen a star form in space. Again, it's the interpretation of the data based on their worldview, believing that stars are forming in gas and dust clouds and believing these clouds surrounding the star had a role in the star's formation. Also note that these images are static, meaning they don't show any change over time. Rather, the images are being interpreted in terms of their naturalistic beliefs about star formation.

But could there be another explanation for why these 12 stars appear to be spinning in the same direction? Well, when we apply the biblical worldview, we understand that stars didn't evolve or form gradually from collapsing gas clouds over millions of years. They were created by God when he spoke on day four of creation week. So, yes, God could've created these stars all spinning in the same direction, or perhaps, there's more to understand about these stars as astronomers continue digging into the data the JWST is returning to us.

When we see claims in the news about evolutionary ideas being confirmed (or so-called "proved"), it's important that we separate the actual data from the interpretation—in other words, the observational science from the historical science.
Nonetheless, stars that are aligned in terms of their rotation are not a problem for an all-powerful God. Also, it's important to note that just because dense gas is observed around a star, this does not automatically mean that the gas has anything to do with the formation of the star. From a biblical-creation perspective, it's possible that God simply created the clouds of gas and dust at the same time the stars were created, thousands of years ago.

When we see claims in the news about evolutionary ideas being confirmed (or so-called "proved"), it's important that we separate the actual data from the interpretation—in other words, the observational science from the historical science.

Serpens North nebula
The Serpens Nebula: aligned jets are visible as a series of red streaks in the top left corner (credit: NASA)

Here's what our rocket scientist, Rob Webb, shared with me about the big "takeaway" from this study:

Overall, as a Christian, the main takeaway from these spectacular images of the heavens should be to praise the almighty Creator that we serve. If you think about it, it's actually quite sad that unbelievers when studying the heavens completely miss all that beauty! As an analogy, it's like someone analyzing the reasons for specific colors of a painting, like trying to figure out why green is green, why blue is blue, and so on—rather than taking a step back and simply admiring the beauty of the painting and giving honor to the painter who painted it. So when I look at images of the Serpens Nebula that show jets of material blasting away from stars, I see order, design, and beauty—and ultimately the glory of our powerful God and his handiwork. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

It is fairly obvious what Ken Ham is trying to say in that article.  He says he is discussing observational science versus historical science.  He is actually discussing neither. He condemns the astronomers for interpreting the JWST data with their evolutionary world view. So what is he doing?  He is not interpreting the data with any worldview.  He is not interpreting the data at all. He is simply asserting that his interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" is correct. That is the sum-total of his discussion.  And there is absolutely nothing in the JWST data which supports his conclusion. Nothing he said there as anything whatsoever to do with observational science versus historical science.  Nothing he said there as anything to do with any JWST data. 

He said, "When we see claims in the news about evolutionary ideas being confirmed (or so-called "proved"), it's important that we separate the actual data from the interpretation—in other words, the observational science from the historical science."

What a joke!  There is absolutely NOTHING in the data that says that God created this universe in six 24-hour days - NOTHING.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 05:28:29It is fairly obvious what Ken Ham is trying to say in that article.  He says he is discussing observational science versus historical science.  He is actually discussing neither. He condemns the astronomers for interpreting the JWST data with their evolutionary world view. So what is he doing?  He is not interpreting the data with any worldview.  He is not interpreting the data at all. He is simply asserting that his interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" is correct. That is the sum-total of his discussion.  And there is absolutely nothing in the JWST data which supports his conclusion. Nothing he said there as anything whatsoever to do with observational science versus historical science.  Nothing he said there as anything to do with any JWST data. 

He said, "When we see claims in the news about evolutionary ideas being confirmed (or so-called "proved"), it's important that we separate the actual data from the interpretation—in other words, the observational science from the historical science."

What a joke!  There is absolutely NOTHING in the data that says that God created this universe in six 24-hour days - NOTHING.

 

What would the insertion of the evening and morning statements at the end of each "day" of creation mean to the context? Ignorance by Moses the author of what was really meant in the inspired text? Or a diversion from what was actually meant?

Quote from: Jaime on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 10:00:37What would the insertion of the evening and morning statements at the end of each "day" of creation mean to the context?

The repetitive statement serves to separate each stanza of the poem.  In musical terms, you might call it a refrain.

Everyone wants to assign deeper meaning to it, but it's probably that simple.

Or it simply means in the context, day consists of evening and morning. It may be just THAT simple if God foresaw the wranglings of man in this regard and included a clear sign post?

The age of the earth and the formation of the cosmos are portions of science that are in their infancy. 

Ham is correct that many things are this point cannot be adequately verified. 

Technology, increased knowledge, etc may change how to test some of the current understanding.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 14:17:10The age of the earth and the formation of the cosmos are portions of science that are in their infancy. 

Ham is correct that many things are this point cannot be adequately verified. 

Technology, increased knowledge, etc may change how to test some of the current understanding.

Good.

This would seem to prove that the age of the earth came at some point prior to life.

But is the age of the earth about 6,000 to 8,000 or 13,000+ years old
and is that provable if it falls within those parameters?

Quote from: Rella on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 14:24:43Good.

This would seem to prove that the age of the earth came at some point prior to life.

But is the age of the earth about 6,000 to 8,000 or 13,000+ years old
and is that provable if it falls within those parameters?

It's clearly older than that.  We keep digging up things older than that.

Quote from: Jaime on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 10:00:37What would the insertion of the evening and morning statements at the end of each "day" of creation mean to the context? Ignorance by Moses the author of what was really meant in the inspired text? Or a diversion from what was actually meant?

I have read from a couple of Hebrew Scholars that relate "ereb" and "boker" not so much as evening and morning as "disorder" and "order".  At each step in His creating He moved each of the aspects from a disordered state to an ordered state.

I really don't know if that is the case or appropriate, but it sounds at least consistent with what was happening, regardless of how you choose to interpret the whole Genesis account of creation.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 16:09:29It's clearly older than that.  We keep digging up things older than that.

Then knowing the facts that we can track the genealogy back to Adam, and that is , give or take, 6,000 or 7,000 years from now to Adam....

Is it a safe assumption that Genesis 1:1-9 occurred a lot earlier then the reading of Genesis 1 would suggest?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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, one day.

6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

So it took 3 days or creation periods out of 6 to get something that
man and animals could walk on.. but these thing and the dry land called earth were much older then the life that came after. Correct?

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 14:17:10The age of the earth and the formation of the cosmos are portions of science that are in their infancy. 

Ham is correct that many things are this point cannot be adequately verified. 

Technology, increased knowledge, etc may change how to test some of the current understanding.

Yes, but none of that can be deduced by Ham from the JWST data.  And not being adequately verified does not mean they are necessarily wrong.  After Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, it took many years before it could be adequately verified; nevertheless, it wasn't wrong.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 16:58:24I have read from a couple of Hebrew Scholars that relate "ereb" and "boker" not so much as evening and morning as "disorder" and "order".  At each step in His creating He moved each of the aspects from a disordered state to an ordered state.

I really don't know if that is the case or appropriate, but it sounds at least consistent with what was happening, regardless of how you choose to interpret the whole Genesis account of creation.

Except Hebrew has perfectly good words for chaos, formless, void, and order and peace. The entire story of the Bible oscillates from Shaloam (order and peace) to Tohuvavohu (chaos and disorder).

Quote from: Jaime on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 21:40:25Except Hebrew has perfectly good words for chaos, formless, void, and order and peace. The entire story of the Bible oscillates from Shaloam (order and peace) to Tohuvavohu (chaos and disorder).

I don't disagree.  But that doesn't necessarily change what I said.  Hebrew has a perfectly good word for "Satan" also, so what is with the snake in Genesis 3?

The Bible is replete with words that are used metaphorically.
In Genesis 1:2 why do we say that "ruach" is the Spirit and not just the wind of God like it is in Genesis 8:1 in the account of the flood of Noah?

I have had no training whatsoever in the Hebrew language, but I do find it to be very interesting in how picturesque it is.

What little I know about Hebrew is that it is definitely a language of pictures and cyclical concepts as is the eastern mindset as opposed to our western or Greek mindset which is more linear in nature. The cycle of chaos to order and back again to chaos is big in the bible.

https://davidboris.wordpress.com/2020/02/13/the-pictorial-nature-of-hebrew-words-and-roots/

I know nothing much about Hebrew (Other then Hebrew National Franks)

And the little I do know is too little to draw any conclusions so
unfortunately I have to rely on what I find and can read.

Truth is, what was originally written in Hebrew about Genesis
we do not even know, or can have no way of knowing, how accurate
things were said about creation back then.

Could be that all translations were done from a language that was not exactly 100% accurate, because the written things came from
word of mouth handed down and we all know how that can go.

The pictoral aspect of the ancient Hebrew alohabet andlanguage is fascinating

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/~hebrewfo/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html

I am a big fan of the Blue Letter Bible App in your ohone's app store, especially for OT study. You can search a particular scripture like in Bible Gateway, then click on the verse and irbfives you a Hebrew/English interlinear reading, you can click on the Hebrew words and get a Strongs number, definition and pronunciation, and other places where the same word is used. Same tools are available in Greek for the NT. There are also various commentaries available to check with if that is of interest.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 17:02:24Then knowing the facts that we can track the genealogy back to Adam, and that is , give or take, 6,000 or 7,000 years from now to Adam....

I don't understand why Christians insist on the Old Testament genealogies being literal and accurate.  Do people not understand that Jesus taught that genealogies were worthless?  John 8-10, it's right there... if you want to know who someone's ancestors are, look at their behavior, not their genealogy.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Jul 09, 2024 - 17:02:24Is it a safe assumption that Genesis 1:1-9 occurred a lot earlier then the reading of Genesis 1 would suggest?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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, one day.

6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

So it took 3 days or creation periods out of 6 to get something that
man and animals could walk on.. but these thing and the dry land called earth were much older then the life that came after. Correct?[/size]

It shouldn't be read as a scientific accounting of creation.  It isn't necessary that these things happened in this order or in a certain period of time.  The theological points here are that (a) God created everything, and (b) God brought order to chaos, and (c) God rested the 7th day and so should we.

If you're reading more into it than that, that's more your imagination than anything the author intended.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Jul 10, 2024 - 12:11:56I don't understand why Christians insist on the Old Testament genealogies being literal and accurate.  Do people not understand that Jesus taught that genealogies were worthless?  John 8-10, it's right there... if you want to know who someone's ancestors are, look at their behavior, not their genealogy.
It shouldn't be read as a scientific accounting of creation.  It isn't necessary that these things happened in this order or in a certain period of time.  The theological points here are that (a) God created everything, and (b) God brought order to chaos, and (c) God rested the 7th day and so should we.

If you're reading more into it than that, that's more your imagination than anything the author intended.

Part 2 answered first:

I am certain they did not happen in that order... BUT I do find it to be a stretch to think that vegetation grew before there was ground to have it grow from.

My point is that there is something wrong with the way Gen 1 and 2 are written. And that being the suggestion.. at least in 1 that in 144 consecutive hours everything came to be.

You agree that the earth part of things is older then would be suggested.

I will disagree with a 13 billion year age as the earth itself is the youngest that we know of... Lets not get into that...now... ok

So if lets say the earth is 100,000 years old... man could not be from that time if you look at how all the begets came together in the bible up to Jesus... cause his blood line had to go back to David and david went back to Noah.

Am I wrong?

If this be the case... then it was more then 144 hours of creation to get to first man.

Where am I wrong

I cringe any time I see something form AiG, I doubt Ken Ham will become any less cultish in this lifetime. He's definitely leading people astray, not necessarily Koresh astray, but his teachings are nefarrious, nonetheless.  

God says this -

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,.............
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

There is no end to humanities speculations, vain imaginings, and cults of "science so called". Why would anyone keep a commandment commemorating events that never happened as described? Why would anyone worship a God that commanded people to observe a day of commemoration, concerning said events which never transpired as testified, and even punished people for not commemorating that which never happened? Why would people who believe in deep time evolution worship the God of scripture who has declared and demanded such? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Eccl 12:9 And furthermore, because the Preacher was wise, he [Solomon] still taught the people knowledge; and he pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. 10 The Preacher sought acceptable words, even to write down rightly words of truth or correct sentiment. 11 The words of the wise are like prodding goads, and firmly fixed [in the mind] like nails are the collected sayings which are given [as proceeding] from one Shepherd. 12 But about going further [than the words given by one Shepherd], my son, be warned. Of making many books there is no end [so do not believe everything you read], and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 All has been heard; the end of the matter is: Fear God [revere and worship Him, knowing that He is] and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man [the full, original purpose of his creation, the object of God's providence, the root of character, the foundation of all happiness, the adjustment to all inharmonious circumstances and conditions under the sun] and the whole [duty] for every man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good or evil. (AMPC)

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jul 19, 2024 - 08:26:32Doesn't make any sense to me.

That does certainly kill it right there.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jul 19, 2024 - 12:05:05That does certainly kill it right there.

Yes it does. The world at large which has, does, and will continue to reject this one commandment and the truth it stands for, simply do not worship the God of holy scripture. In rejecting this one commandment, they reject exactly who God declares Himself to be, and why all are completely dependent upon Him. Those looking to and seeking out other foundations of supposed truth built upon the speculations of fallen humanity to stand upon, will be found to have had no foundation at all.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Psa 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,.............
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 07:52:02Those looking to and seeking out other foundations of supposed truth built upon the speculations of fallen humanity to stand upon, will be found to have had no foundation at all.

Do you not understand that is you?  All of your interpretation of any passage of scripture is speculation from your "fallen humanity".

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 07:52:0211 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Is the seventh day of the LORD's rest one 24-hour period of time?

Any answer you give for that question is speculation from fallen humanity.

And therein you have all of the false religions of this world. No objective truth but that which each of us makes for ourselves. So be it to each, as each determines. Nevertheless - 

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 07:52:02Yes it does. The world at large which has, does, and will continue to reject this one commandment and the truth it stands for, simply do not worship the God of holy scripture. In rejecting this one commandment, they reject exactly who God declares Himself to be, and why all are completely dependent upon Him. Those looking to and seeking out other foundations of supposed truth built upon the speculations of fallen humanity to stand upon, will be found to have had no foundation at all.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Psa 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,.............
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Very true, we have the truth in Gods Word, yet many reject it...

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 08:44:07And therein you have all of the false religions of this world. No objective truth but that which each of us makes for ourselves. So be it to each, as each determines. Nevertheless - 

It is not only the basis for all of the false religions of the world, but also the basis for all the false doctrines within Christendom - yours and mine.  It is where you get your notion of "fallen humanity", something never so stated in the Scriptures; but apparently at the very foundation of your understanding of Scripture.

Quote from: Hobie on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 08:52:17Very true, we have the truth in Gods Word, yet many reject it...

Hobie, yes there is the truth in God's Word.  And many do reject it.  However, setting aside the atheists and such, most do not reject the truth in God's Word so much as they reject another's assessment and determination of what is that truth which is in God's Word.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 09:27:58It is not only the basis for all of the false religions of the world, but also the basis for all the false doctrines within Christendom - yours and mine.  It is where you get your notion of "fallen humanity", something never so stated in the Scriptures; but apparently at the very foundation of your understanding of Scripture.

Yers, I understand that as an evolutionist, you would not like the term. Since it basically denotes devolution not evolution. Nevertheless, the term is applicable to the change of the state of humanity and the entire world in fact, after they disobeyed God. All of humanity and the world changed for the worse, thus the term fall, makes good sense.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

I consider going from life immortal, to death for all, a fall. Of course the fall goes much deeper than that on the spiritual level. Will the saved not all be raised up from the grave unto eternal life? Who needs to be raised, but those who have fallen? And what is death, but falling from life. Nevertheless, you are of course free to make holy scripture mean whatever you wish it to mean. Though there will come a day, for each of us. 

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 10:17:20Yers, I understand that as an evolutionist, you would not like the term.

It has nothing to do with evolution.  It simply is not in the Bible.  It is right straight out of your head.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 10:17:20Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If you had even the slightest inkling of the meaning of that passage, I might spend some time discussing it with you.  However I will note that what it really says is that your idea and belief in Original Sin is that it doesn't exist.  It might have had Jesus not come to give His life for all humanity, but He did.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 10:17:20I consider going from life immortal, to death for all, a fall.

One more of your beliefs that does not appear in Scripture. You seem to want to spread of lot of your beliefs in opposition to what God has actually said.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 11:49:45It has nothing to do with evolution.  It simply is not in the Bible.  It is right straight out of your head.
If you had even the slightest inkling of the meaning of that passage, I might spend some time discussing it with you.  However I will note that what it really says is that your idea and belief in Original Sin is that it doesn't exist.  It might have had Jesus not come to give His life for all humanity, but He did.
One more of your beliefs that does not appear in Scripture. You seem to want to spread of lot of your beliefs in opposition to what God has actually said.

Yes, someone like you surely should not waste time trying to explain the obvious to such ignorant deplorables who have no inkling, such as myself.
Nevertheless -

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Apart from the grace of God, all the world would be children of the fallen one, and therefore fallen themselves. Only by salvation in Christ, are any raised above the fallen condition to which humanity was plunged when they disobeyed God in believing the testimony of the evil one.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jul 20, 2024 - 14:37:43Apart from the grace of God, all the world would be children of the fallen one, and therefore fallen themselves. Only by salvation in Christ, are any raised above the fallen condition to which humanity was plunged when they disobeyed God in believing the testimony of the evil one.

But Romans 5:5-19 is not about salvation in Christ.  It is about our condition as we come into this world.  Paul is presenting the comparison between the effects of Adam's disobedience and the effects of Jesus' obedience on all people.  Clearly, the text says the people affected are the exact same people in both cases.  There is no legitimate reason to think otherwise. Verse 15 tells us that if the many died because of Adam. much more did the free gift abound for the many.  Verse 18 tells us just as Adam's trespass brought condemnation for all men so also Jesus' righteousness brought justification and life for all men.  Similarly for verse 19.  Now since Adam's sin effected the condition of the just born, or the preborn, then so also does Jesus' righteousness effect the condition of the just born, or the preborn.

The net effect then is that contrary to all those adhering to the doctrine of Original Sin, Paul says that Jesus' obedience and righteousness cancelled any possibility of original sin and instead produced Original Grace.  We come into this world not as fallen humanity.  Rather the fall of any person occurs just as it did for Adam, that is, when that person sins.

The discussion of salvation in Christ is discussed immediately following in Romans 5:20 and continues on through Romans 8:39.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Jul 10, 2024 - 14:21:38My point is that there is something wrong with the way Gen 1 and 2 are written.

Yes, but it's more the editing than the writing. 

When they added chapter and verse numbers, they split the two chapters in the wrong place.  The first 4 verses of chapter 2 should have belonged to chapter 1.

Also, the two don't really belong next to each other.  Chapter 1 doesn't flow into chapter 2.  Chapter 2 looks to be part of the Edomite tradition that Moses received from Jethro.  Chapter 1 looks to be a poem that's been affixed to the front of the book, of uncertain derivation.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Jul 10, 2024 - 14:21:38You agree that the earth part of things is older then would be suggested.

Yes

Quote from: Rella on Wed Jul 10, 2024 - 14:21:38I will disagree with a 13 billion year age as the earth itself is the youngest that we know of... Lets not get into that...now... ok

So if lets say the earth is 100,000 years old... man could not be from that time if you look at how all the begets came together in the bible up to Jesus... cause his blood line had to go back to David and david went back to Noah.

Am I wrong?

I don't know the age of the earth, but I know it's older than 100,000 years.

And all the "begets" in the Bible don't matter one whit to me.  The teaching OF JESUS is that genealogies don't matter.  We know Jesus paternity... not because of genealogies, but because of behavior... He healed the sick, raised the dead, returned the scattered remnant of Israel, and judged Judah... what Father has done those things..? that's God.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Jul 10, 2024 - 14:21:38If this be the case... then it was more then 144 hours of creation to get to first man.

Yeah, that's a poem.  Not a scientific accounting of creation.