Creation scientists

[4WD]

I see. It is a metaphorical door; but it is non-metaphorical light.  There are seven great "I AM"s in the Gospel of John, namely, (1) bread of life, (2) light of the world, (3) the door to the kingdom, (4) the good shepherd, (5) the resurrection and the life, (6) the way the truth and the life, and (7) the vine.  Which are metaphorical and which are not? How do you decide which are and which are not? 

Personally, I take them all to be metaphorical descriptions to Christ's relationship with us.

And for what it is worth, I believe eternal life will be spiritual and not physical in any sense that we experience here now. Just as I believe there will be neither physical time nor physical space in the world to come, I do not see the need for physical light in the world to come.

[Amo]

I don't say this very often about anyone.  But in this you are lying.  I have not chosen the latter as you accuse.  I am taking God's word for what He says when He said, "Let there be light," and there was light.. Even more, I take what He said there to be the literal light as understood today as electromagnetic energy. What's more, I can even explain, in a very rational and scientifically literal way, how that happened and what actually took place at His command to "Let there be light". 

I could have said that you were mistaken when you said I do not take God's word for what it says happened.  But I have explained several times here at the forum what I believe it actually means when God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.. That you apparently are not capable of understanding what I said is no excuse for your accusation.  You, apparently being rather ignorant of all things scientific, do not understand the explanation of what actually took place at God's command and therefore reject it out of hand and accuse me of not taking God's word for what it says happened. That is not just wrong, it is a lie.

Yes, I do believe that you actually do believe, that you know what God did and even how He did it. Which in and of itself says quite a bit about you. Nevertheless, what you think according to your own understanding, and what
God actually did or and does, are almost unquestionably two very different things. Just as your belief in the theory of deep time evolution, and the biblical account of creation are most obviously two very different things. Are you not the one who has questioned how there was light, and evening and morning before there was sun and moon? Why are you questioning and arguing with others who believe there was as God's word testifies, if you yourself believe the same thing? Is it simply to demand that we understand it as you would explain? As though your explanation is as it were, God's as well? You are certainly not anyones God are you? Fallen humanities puny sciences are certainly not God, are they? You may of course think that you can scientifically explain God and His ways if you wish, but this will never make such a reality for others.

Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The above scriptures apply to you 4WD, as well as all the rest of us. Whether you care to accept it or not, God's word alone has power beyond our scope, to bring about that which He declares.

Psa 33:6 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.

[4WD]

Yes, I do believe that you actually do believe, that you know what God did and even how He did it. Which in and of itself says quite a bit about you. Nevertheless, what you think according to your own understanding, and what
God actually did or and does, are almost unquestionably two very different things.

Yes, Amo, those are unquestionably two very different things.  And of course, what you, Amo, think according to your own understanding, and what
God actually did and does, are unquestionably two very different things.

Just as your belief in the theory of deep time evolution, and the biblical account of creation are most obviously two very different things.

But you see, that is what you don't understand at all.  What I believe about the creation are in one-to-one agreement with the biblical account of creation. The biblical account of creation is not in conflict with the account demonstrated by God Himself in His general revelation (Psa 19:1).

Are you not the one who has questioned how there was light, and evening and morning before there was sun and moon?

Again, you don't seem to understand.  I have not questioned how there was light, evening and morning before there were son, moon and stars.  I understand how that was.  Again, that comes from observation of the heavens which declare the glory of God and the sky above which proclaims His handiwork (Psa 19:1).  My question was directed at you and other Young Earth Creationists who have no rational explanation for the physical light described in Genesis 1:3. Kudos for you for finding and acknowledging the true meaning of evening and morning of each creation day and, I think, admitting it has nothing to do with the sun setting and the sun rising.

Why are you questioning and arguing with others who believe there was as God's word testifies, if you yourself believe the same thing? Is it simply to demand that we understand it as you would explain?

I have no issue with what you believe.  I do take issue with your derogatory insinuations of any who refuse to believe as you do.

As though your explanation is as it were, God's as well?

But you see I believe that my explanation is from God's general revelation which provides some detail not revealed in His special revelation, His written word.  Just as His general revelation gives us the explanation of such things as the physics, chemistry, biology, etc. of His physical creation, I believe His general revelation gives us the explanation of the beginnings of His physical creation.  It is you who reject His general revelation.

You are certainly not anyones God are you? Fallen humanities puny sciences are certainly not God, are they?

And that is where you get it wrong. They are not fallen humanity's puny sciences; They are God's sciences.  Fallen humanity doesn't invent the sciences; fallen humanity discovers God's sciences.

I can turn that whole thing around on you.  You are certainly not anyones God are you?  Fallen humanities puny interpretations are certainly not God, are they?  That should be obvious from all the various interpretations of the entire Bible by fallen humanity.  You may of course think that you only have the correct interpretation of God's written word and His ways if you wish, but that will never make such a reality for others.

Psa 33:6 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.

Nothing that I believe about creation contradicts anything God says in that passage.

[Amo]

Same old same old 4WD. People who believe what scripture simply states, according to your view, are adding their own interpretation to it. While your application of "scientific" theories found nowhere in scripture at all, to those simple statements, constitutes accepting God's word for just exactly what it states.

4WD -emphasis is mine -

But you see I believe that my explanation is from God's general revelation which provides some detail not revealed in His special revelation, His written word.  Just as His general revelation gives us the explanation of such things as the physics, chemistry, biology, etc. of His physical creation, I believe His general revelation gives us the explanation of the beginnings of His physical creation.  It is you who reject His general revelation...............................

And that is where you get it wrong. They are not fallen humanity's puny sciences; They are God's sciences.  Fallen humanity doesn't invent the sciences; fallen humanity discovers God's sciences.

The observations of fallen humanity, regarding God's creation, are not God's sciences. As is obvious in that they have so very often been wrong, and do continually need correction and adjusting concerning countless mistakes due to our lack of knowledge. God is of course never wrong. They are also not God's sciences because countless people involved in them, do not even accept or acknowledge that there is a God, let alone the God of holy scripture. This is not to address that which we are constantly debating, which is their testimony which contradicts the plain and simple testimony of a, thus saith the Lord. Quoting God's word does not amount to an "I think" as you have clearly stated in your above quotes. When one puts an "I think" before they explain scripture according to the same, all that follows is what they think, not what God's word plainly states. We certainly have the right to state what we think, but no right at all to declare it incontestable, as God's word is.

Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The above is incontestable truth. Any speculations added to it, this side of heaven, are just that, speculation. Denying such as creation, is simply to deny creation and the Genesis creation account altogether. As the testimony of scripture is that God spoke and the thing was done. This fact is not speculation, just the literal word of God. All "I think" explanations of just how it was done, are nothing more than just such.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men.

[Alan]

Same old same old 4WD. People who believe what scripture simply states, according to your view, are adding their own interpretation to it. While your application of "scientific" theories found nowhere in scripture at all, to those simple statements, constitutes accepting God's word for just exactly what it states.

Also, no where in scripture does it state that someday it would be translated into 20th century English to give people a clear and precise meaning of it's context.

[4WD]

The observations of fallen humanity, regarding God's creation, are not God's sciences. As is obvious in that they have so very often been wrong,....

And the interpretations of fallen humanity, regarding God's description of creation and not God's interpretations as is obvious in that they have so very often been wrong.  That is except, of course, Amo's interpretation, which can't be wrong.  Same old dame old Amo; evening means sunset and morning means sunrise and day means 24 hours -- except it doesn't always.

The observations of fallen humanity, regarding God's creation, are not God's sciences.

You rant on and on about science, something about which you quite obviously know very, very little. Observations, by anyone, are not science. But you wouldn't understand that.

[Amo]

And the interpretations of fallen humanity, regarding God's description of creation and not God's interpretations as is obvious in that they have so very often been wrong.  That is except, of course, Amo's interpretation, which can't be wrong.  Same old dame old Amo; evening means sunset and morning means sunrise and day means 24 hours -- except it doesn't always.
You rant on and on about science, something about which you quite obviously know very, very little. Observations, by anyone, are not science. But you wouldn't understand that.

Yes of course, you and the rest of the lefty elitists as it were "scientists", will determine for everyone else what science actually is. Not, but in your own minds. You can run, hide, or deflect as you wish, but there is no escaping that you are the one or one's adding explanations of how God did what He did to His word. Not creationists. We accept what He did as stated in scripture, but do not claim to know or try to explain how He did it. We understand it is beyond us at this time and therefore do not go beyond scripture, but rather seek evidence supporting what has been revealed to humanity by it. It is one thing to observe, test, experiment, or what have you in scientific persuit of knowledge. It is another altogether to apply speculative theories non existent in scripture, to God's methods of creation or anything else concerning God, not clarified in scripture itself.

[4WD]

Yes of course, you and the rest of the lefty elitists as it were "scientists",

That will be quite enough of your derogatory blather.  I am not a lefty elitist.  In fact, I suspect that I lean to the right of you in most things even including the theological, given your theological orientation.

You can run, hide, or deflect as you wish, but there is no escaping that you are the one or one's adding explanations of how God did what He did to His word. Not creationists.

First, I am every bit the creationist as you.  I just am not a YEC ignoring what God has presented us with in His general revelation as you seem want to do.

We accept what He did as stated in scripture, but do not claim to know or try to explain how He did it.

But you do explain it if only in the negative sense.

It is one thing to observe, test, experiment, or what have you in scientific persuit of knowledge.

You certainly can't be accused of any pursuit of knowledge.

It is another altogether to apply speculative theories non existent in scripture, to God's methods of creation or anything else concerning God, not clarified in scripture itself.

There is the entire extent of the major natural sciences including astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics which are nearly completely non-existent in scripture; and all created by God and all, it seems, rejected by you as speculative theories.

[Rella]

. We accept what He did as stated in scripture, but do not claim to know or try to explain how He did it.

Neither do I but scripture reads more to the story then what is commonly taught.

[4WD]

More than commonly taught by whom? Scientists?  Theologians?

[Rella]

More than commonly taught by whom? Scientists?  Theologians?

Theologians, primarily. Et al.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Neither do I but scripture reads more to the story then what is commonly taught.

You read Genesis 1 in Hebrew yet?

It isn't quite the story you heard in Sunday school.

[DaveW]

Also, no where in scripture does it state that someday it would be translated into 20th century English to give people a clear and precise meaning of it's context.

Amen.

[Jaime]

Which is why a good understanding of the Hebraic culture, language, mindset etc is so useful. A simple word for word translation sometimes or a lot of times is not adequate.

[DaveW]

Which is why a food understanding of the Hebraic culture, language, etc is so useful. A simple word for word translation sometimes is not adequate.

A FOOD understanding??

Today - being TWOsday (2/2/'22) - a local chain is offering 2 cent burgers.  But is that kosher?

[Jaime]

  Typo corrected.

[DaveW]

Typo corrected.

      

I can now agree with your statement.  I would further state that any pastor/teacher of the Word who is not teaching and preaching from that perspective is falling down on his/her job.

[Amo]

Also, no where in scripture does it state that someday it would be translated into 20th century English to give people a clear and precise meaning of it's context.

This is a given. To the contrary, God Himself was directly involved in the translation of His written testimonies, into the language of His people. To think it would be otherwise, is to not understand a crucial part of God's nature. This world warred against His word being translated into the vernacular by destroying these writings and the people who defied Satan's agents of the time. God's purposes however, cannot be defeated. God has preserved His word in this world for all.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Heaven help all those throughout history who fought against the propagation of God's word unto humanity. God's word above all others, was, is, and will always continue be heard by all. To this end is it spoken and recorded. Let all those who would bring this truth into doubt, seriously consider why, and where such will ultimately lead.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 

[Alan]

This is a given. To the contrary, God Himself was directly involved in the translation of His written testimonies, into the language of His people. To think it would be otherwise, is to not understand a crucial part of God's nature. This world warred against His word being translated into the vernacular by destroying these writings and the people who defied Satan's agents of the time. God's purposes however, cannot be defeated. God has preserved His word in this world for all.

And what language is that? Was it God that decided upon chapters and vs numbers? Those things did not exist in early translations, and today we often find that verses detract from the overall context of a given chapter. To go a step further, some people create an entire doctrine from a single verse in the Bible. I guess the point I'm attempting to relay is that we can't possibly believe that our KJ translation is in the purest form in the literal sense.

[Texas Conservative]

A child asked his father, "How were people born?"

So his father said, "Adam and Eve made babies, then their babies became adults and made babies, and so on."

The child then went to his mother, asked her the same question and she told him, "We were monkeys then we evolved to become like we are now."

The child ran back to his father and said, "You lied to me!"

His father replied, "No, your mom was talking about her side of the family."

[Jaime]

Quick thinking!

[Alan]

 

[DaveW]

And what language is that?

Hebrew / Aramaic of course.  And to a lesser extent - Greek.

No other languages qualify.

[DaveW]

Was it God that decided upon chapters and vs numbers? Those things did not exist in early translations, and today we often find that verses detract from the overall context of a given chapter.

Chapter and verse divisions should be looked at as what they are: commentary.

To go a step further, some people create an entire doctrine from a single verse in the Bible. I guess the point I'm attempting to relay is that we can't possibly believe that our KJ translation is in the purest form in the literal sense.

Especially since the KJ translators could not even get the name right of our Lord's brother: Jacob.  (There is no "James" anywhere in scripture)

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Today - being TWOsday (2/2/'22) - a local chain is offering 2 cent burgers.  But is that kosher?

There's nothing more kosher than a good deal.

[Jaime]

Oy Vey!

[Amo]

Such a shame, people actually believe God is limited by the different languages of humanity. As though such was some kind of major problem for God Himself to solve. Therefore leaving poor humanity with such inability to ever really understand what God would have us know. 

[Alan]

Such a shame, people actually believe God is limited by the different languages of humanity. As though such was some kind of major problem for God Himself to solve. Therefore leaving poor humanity with such inability to ever really understand what God would have us know. 

No one is limiting God in any way, but the Bible was never penned in English, with chapters and numbered verses, and poorly translated names like James, as well as punctuation and conjunctions that can alter the entire meaning of a sentence.

[DaveW]

There's nothing more kosher than a good deal.

LOL!!!  Too true!

[DaveW]

Such a shame, people actually believe God is limited by the different languages of humanity.

God is not limited by that, but we humans are.

[Amo]

No, God certainly does not have communication issues, and we most certainly do. Good thing for us, He has and does preserve His written word in this world for us. Praise His pure, holy, righteous, and undefiled name.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[4WD]

God is not limited by that, but we humans are.

The problem is not a limitation of language.

[Amo]

No, it is more akin to such as, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word is, is.

[DaveW]

No, it is more akin to such as, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word is, is.

Sounds extremely dumb to a non-lawyer, but I understand that the word "is" can be defined several different ways; depending on which Law School's legal dictionary you are using.   So Clinton's argument made perfect sense to a lawyer.

[Amo]

Sounds extremely dumb to a non-lawyer, but I understand that the word "is" can be defined several different ways; depending on which Law School's legal dictionary you are using.   So Clinton's argument made perfect sense to a lawyer.

Well, that about says it all.