The Days of Creation

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:10 pm

Si wrote:Since I started posting here, this is one topic that I have avoided. For whatever reason, it seems to draw out a lot of unfair generalizations, and an overall refusal by some to even attempt to understand alternative viewpoints.

Dwight speaking: I think most young earther's, as I am, not only attempt to understand, but do understand evolution enough to know that it is not taught or even hinted at in scripture. What really is unfair is when you label those of us who disagree with you as unfair and falsely accuse us of not even attempting to understand evolution.

For the record, I believe Genesis is God-Breathed scripture. I also think evolution and big bang cosmology are fine scientific theories and I see no reason to reject them.

Dwight speaking: You're welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, there is no evidence for either of those theories and especially none in the Bible.

Human evolution has interested me especially. About 10 years ago I got my DNA tested and traced the branches back tens of thousands of years,

Dwight speaking: Please explain how it is possible to trace your "branches" back tens of thousands of years. If that really happened, then it would invalidate all of the genealogies in the Bible. I'm not buying it. I would rather trust God's word than some wacko scientist who claims he can trace anything back that far.

and I have watched with awe as the human genome has been decoded (led by an evangelical Christian Francis Collins). Astronomy has also been a fascination and passion of mine. Just recently I watched a documentary about how matter formed in the very early stages after the Big Bang, and it seems to me to be a pure act of creation.

Dwight speaking: Sorry, but the Bible says that God spoke everything into existence. There is no Big Bang or evolution mentioned in scripture.

I got goosebumps watching it. By the way, the theory was first proposed by a priest, Georges Lemaître.

Dwight speaking: Does that make it more valid?

The thing is, all of these things led me TO God, not away from him. Yes, I think God can work through evolutionary science and big bang cosmology to show that he is creator and that "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork."

Evolutionary science and big bang cosmology are not needed to show us that God is the creator or that the heavens declare His glory or that the firmament displays His handiwork. The Bible already does that. The word of God does that.

I am not the only one that thinks this, more and more people every day, who grew up being taught evolution, are led to God through the fingerprints of the Creator that they see in his creation.

Dwight speaking: I would venture to say that more people are led away from God, because of the teaching of evolution. I would further guess that most evolutionists are either atheists or agnostics.

Young Earth Creationists like to compare the universe to a watch and proclaim the need for a watchmaker. It seems to me that Evolutionary Creationists in a sense believe God planted a seed and tended his creation as a caring gardener would his favorite tree, as it grew into galaxies and stars and planets and earth and eventually us.

Dwight speaking: Wrong. The galaxies, stars, planets, earth and humans were not the result of some primordial soup growing and evolving. All of those were created by God in 6 days, according to Genesis.

If you are going to allow for considerations of genre, literary style and history to render Revelation 20 as symbolic, to apply a consistent standard, you have to allow for the same to apply to Genesis 1. It is as simple as that.

Dwight speaking: Really? Where does it say that? Just because one chapter of the Bible is obviously filled with symbolism, you feel obligated to label another chapter symbolic, when the context doesn't indicate that?


We live in a very sick world and people need The Lord. And quite honestly, I feel that if Young Earth Creationism is made a litmus test of orthodoxy, people are going to be driven away, and that is tragic.
Dwight speaking: Society at large has made evolution a litmus test of whether someone is considered intelligent and trustworthy. You are hopping on to that bandwagon of political correctness, rather than "going out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach". Hebrews 13:3 A sick world does not need lies and theories, it needs the truth of the word of God. You are not doing the world any favors by propagating evolution and the big bang. You are simply reinforcing their unbelief in God and the Bible.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by Si » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:29 am

dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: I think most young earther's, as I am, not only attempt to understand, but do understand evolution enough to know that it is not taught or even hinted at in scripture. What really is unfair is when you label those of us who disagree with you as unfair and falsely accuse us of not even attempting to understand evolution.
Your response to my post demonstrates my point quite strongly. You refer to scientists as wacko. You say I get my opinions from political correctness. You say I am reinforcing unbelief. Your assessment of people's character is on it's face unfair, and sadly quite a standard evangelical reaction.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: You're welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, there is no evidence for either of those theories and especially none in the Bible.


There's no evidence for virtually all of modern science in the Bible, because it is not a science textbook. It was written many centuries before modern science was even conceived of. The inspiration of any Biblical author to include modern scientific viewpoints would be anachronistic and without precedent to how God has revealed his word to his people. Scriptures were written for us, but not to us. They were written to, and intended to be fully understood, by their original audiences, who were many centuries away from inventing the scientific method.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Please explain how it is possible to trace your "branches" back tens of thousands of years. If that really happened, then it would invalidate all of the genealogies in the Bible. I'm not buying it. I would rather trust God's word than some wacko scientist who claims he can trace anything back that far.
It has to do with studying mutation rates, testing the remains of ancient burial sites, and comparing that to modern populations. The Haplogroup my paternal line belongs to is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a

I have no problem trusting scientists or their methods because they don't threaten my faith one iota. Rather, science is edifying to my faith.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Sorry, but the Bible says that God spoke everything into existence. There is no Big Bang or evolution mentioned in scripture.
Big bang cosmology was fought tooth and nail by many scientists because they were threatened by it's fundamental assertion, namely that the universe has a beginning.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Does that make it more valid?
No, but it invalidates your assertion that big bang cosmology is rooted in atheism.
dwight92070 wrote:Evolutionary science and big bang cosmology are not needed to show us that God is the creator or that the heavens declare His glory or that the firmament displays His handiwork. The Bible already does that. The word of God does that.
The Bible is not an exhaustive repository of human learning and knowledge. It is sufficient and infallible for the purpose for which it is intended, namely God's revelation of himself to man, and God's redemptive plan by which man can reconcile himself to God. By studying the physical universe, one can see His design and intelligence at work, and glorify God because of the profundity and complexity of it. It is edifying.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: I would venture to say that more people are led away from God, because of the teaching of evolution. I would further guess that most evolutionists are either atheists or agnostics.
I'm not so sure. If one surveys the global situation of the Church, it tends to be only American evangelical Protestantism that has a problem with evolution and the big bang. Many hundreds of millions of believing Catholics, Orthodox, historic Protestants, and Anglicans have no problem whatsoever with these views.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Wrong. The galaxies, stars, planets, earth and humans were not the result of some primordial soup growing and evolving. All of those were created by God in 6 days, according to Genesis.
And the millennial reign is 1,000 years, according to Revelation 20. If literal, chronological, plain reading is the standard, we might as well be dispensationalists. The point of Genesis is THAT God created, not how.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Really? Where does it say that? Just because one chapter of the Bible is obviously filled with symbolism, you feel obligated to label another chapter symbolic, when the context doesn't indicate that?
Many believing scholars take it to be symbolic. For one example, read this and follow the links: http://drmsh.com/genesis-1-2-as-polemic/
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Society at large has made evolution a litmus test of whether someone is considered intelligent and trustworthy. You are hopping on to that bandwagon of political correctness, rather than "going out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach". Hebrews 13:3 A sick world does not need lies and theories, it needs the truth of the word of God. You are not doing the world any favors by propagating evolution and the big bang. You are simply reinforcing their unbelief in God and the Bible.
I will bear the reproach of the world for proclaiming the Gospel, which this discussion is not about. I am reinforcing no unbelief. Like I said, I avoid this topic among Christians, mainly because it provokes accusatory and uncharitable reactions. I have seen Christians go into a rage and scream and yell because of this issue. If someone was new in the faith and I perceived it as a stumbling block, I would keep it to myself. If I were to meet someone who was unsure about Jesus, and had an interest in science, it would be a wonderful witnessing opportunity. The early chapters of Genesis are inspired and true, and my (and millions of other Christians) interpretations of them do not change the truths they convey. The theological truths are the same either way.

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:42 am

Si wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: I think most young earther's, as I am, not only attempt to understand, but do understand evolution enough to know that it is not taught or even hinted at in scripture. What really is unfair is when you label those of us who disagree with you as unfair and falsely accuse us of not even attempting to understand evolution.
Your response to my post demonstrates my point quite strongly. You refer to scientists as wacko.

Dwight speaking: You imply that I believe all scientists are wacko. I never said that. But if a particular scientist thinks he can trace your "branches" back tens of thousands of years, then yes, that scientist is deceiving himself. What about you? Do you not believe there are some scientists who are wacko? If you don't, then you are living in a dream world.

You say I get my opinions from political correctness. You say I am reinforcing unbelief. Your assessment of people's character is on it's face unfair, and sadly quite a standard evangelical reaction.

Dwight speaking: And you were not making an assessment of my character (and all YE's) when you stated that we were not even willing to understand evolution?
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: You're welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, there is no evidence for either of those theories and especially none in the Bible.


There's no evidence for virtually all of modern science in the Bible, because it is not a science textbook.

Dwight speaking: I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook, but if something is true science, it will not contradict what the Bible teaches, which evolution does. Evolution says that the earth is billions of years old. That contradicts the Bible, specifically the genealogies in Genesis, which make it clear the earth is around 6000 years old. Evolution says that man evolved over billions of years. The Bible says that man was created out of the dust of the ground on the 6th day of the creation week. Evolution says that we are all animals, since we evolved from them. The Bible says we alone, out of all of God's creation, were created in His image, according to His likeness. Many, if not most evolutionists deny that God even exists, but somehow they have the "faith" to believe that matter and/or energy always existed. The Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Please explain how it is possible to trace your "branches" back tens of thousands of years. If that really happened, then it would invalidate all of the genealogies in the Bible. I'm not buying it. I would rather trust God's word than some wacko scientist who claims he can trace anything back that far.
I have no problem trusting scientists or their methods because they don't threaten my faith one iota.

Dwight speaking: Even the thousands of scientists who reject evolution? What do you do with them?

Rather, science is edifying to my faith.

Dwight speaking: Mine too, if it is true science. For example, many "scientists" believe in man-made global warming, which is also a hoax. There's no true science that supports that belief. If you disagree with this also, then what do you do with the thousands of scientists who reject man-made global warming?
dwight92070 wrote:Evolutionary science and big bang cosmology are not needed to show us that God is the creator or that the heavens declare His glory or that the firmament displays His handiwork. The Bible already does that. The word of God does that.
The Bible is not an exhaustive repository of human learning and knowledge.

Dwight speaking: I understand that but again, when any so-called human learning or knowledge contradicts the truth of the Bible, then that is not true knowledge.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: I would venture to say that more people are led away from God, because of the teaching of evolution. I would further guess that most evolutionists are either atheists or agnostics.
I'm not so sure. If one surveys the global situation of the Church, it tends to be only American evangelical Protestantism that has a problem with evolution and the big bang.

Dwight speaking: Then I assume that you are not evangelical or Protestant. By the way, most evangelical Protestants believe that God's word is the supreme authority over mankind. So if many of them have a problem with evolution and the big bang, it would behoove us to listen to them.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: Wrong. The galaxies, stars, planets, earth and humans were not the result of some primordial soup growing and evolving. All of those were created by God in 6 days, according to Genesis.
And the millennial reign is 1,000 years, according to Revelation 20. If literal, chronological, plain reading is the standard

Dwight speaking: No one said that is the standard. The true standard is grasping the meaning of scripture from it's context, history, and comparison with other scripture. Sometimes that reveals a literal reading, sometimes a symbolic reading. Don't we do the same with any book?

Many believing scholars take it to be symbolic. For one example, read this and follow the links: http://drmsh.com/genesis-1-2-as-polemic/

Dwight speaking: And many believing scholars take it literally. I assume we are referring to Genesis.

I will bear the reproach of the world for proclaiming the Gospel, which this discussion is not about. I am reinforcing no unbelief. Like I said, I avoid this topic among Christians, mainly because it provokes accusatory and uncharitable reactions.

Dwight speaking: From both sides! I will acknowledge that. Do you? By the way, I don't believe I have been accusatory or uncharitable, unless you want to label my description of certain scientists as wacko as being that. I guess a more charitable way of saying that is that I believe their findings are not based on true science, but on politically correct peer pressure, sometimes even money is a factor. Most science journals will not accept any articles from scientists who deny evolution. So non-evolutionary scientists have been seriously persecuted for some time now.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by Si » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:33 am

dwight92070 wrote: I never said that. But if a particular scientist thinks he can trace your "branches" back tens of thousands of years, then yes, that scientist is deceiving himself. What about you? Do you not believe there are some scientists who are wacko? If you don't, then you are living in a dream world.
This is a major branch of science with millions of people working over decades, not some singular scientist who is deceiving himself. There are even TV shows where scientists use these and other DNA testing techniques to trace people's origins. It has been used by adoptees to learn where their ancestors come from.
dwight92070 wrote:And you were not making an assessment of my character (and all YE's) when you stated that we were not even willing to understand evolution?
What I in fact said was, I said some YEC's are unwilling to understand alternate viewpoints, meaning alternate creation views held by other Christians. You did reduce my statements about genetic genealogy to some wacko scientist who is deceiving himself, rather than accurately representing it as a major branch of science involving millions of participants over several decades.
dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook, but if something is true science, it will not contradict what the Bible teaches, which evolution does. Evolution says that the earth is billions of years old. That contradicts the Bible, specifically the genealogies in Genesis, which make it clear the earth is around 6000 years old. Evolution says that man evolved over billions of years. The Bible says that man was created out of the dust of the ground on the 6th day of the creation week. Evolution says that we are all animals, since we evolved from them. The Bible says we alone, out of all of God's creation, were created in His image, according to His likeness. Many, if not most evolutionists deny that God even exists, but somehow they have the "faith" to believe that matter and/or energy always existed. The Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Down below, you say, "The true standard is grasping the meaning of scripture from it's context, history, and comparison with other scripture. Sometimes that reveals a literal reading, sometimes a symbolic reading". I agree. There you have defined how you and I differ in regard to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. I use those methods and come to a symbolic reading. I think Genesis 1-11 has hints of historical truth, but there are so many layers of theological messaging, polemics against their pagan neighbors, forced literary symmetry, and thematic elements relating to the exile that I think the historical pieces are merely a framework around which a much more elaborate, but not literally historical narrative is constructed.

Evolutionists don't believe matter and energy always existed. Like I said, the inescapable conclusion that many scientists fought was that big bang cosmology states that the universe and all matter in it has a beginning.
dwight92070 wrote:Mine too, if it is true science. For example, many "scientists" believe in man-made global warming, which is also a hoax. There's no true science that supports that belief. If you disagree with this also, then what do you do with the thousands of scientists who reject man-made global warming?
I think a true scientist is one who is honest and attempts to find truth. I think both evolutionists and YEC's can be honest, true scientists, but come to different conclusions because they have different presuppositional starting points. I also think both are capable of being dishonest, and selectively cherry pick data to line up with their presuppositions. Science is merely a method of understanding the physical universe, it is not a religion. Many atheists treat it like a religion because they are grasping for something solid without faith in God. You need to untangle science from politics and from people who weaponize it for ideological purposes. True science allows for a diversity of viewpoints, even if many atheistic scientists do not.
dwight92070 wrote:I understand that but again, when any so-called human learning or knowledge contradicts the truth of the Bible, then that is not true knowledge.
I think a more balanced view is, if human knowledge contradicts the Bible, to closely examine the Bible to see if we have been interpreting it incorrectly. We are culturally so far removed from the ancient context in which the Bible was written that cultural memories, crucial to interpretation, are forgotten. New discoveries can aid in interpretation. Just as the discovery of an entire genre of apocalyptic literature aids in a more contextual understanding of Revelation, new discoveries of creation and flood accounts from the ancient near east, which predate the Bible, can aid in a contextual understanding of Genesis, which to my understanding, takes the early chapters of Genesis out of the realm of historical narrative, and renders them much more symbolic.
dwight92070 wrote:Then I assume that you are not evangelical or Protestant. By the way, most evangelical Protestants believe that God's word is the supreme authority over mankind. So if many of them have a problem with evolution and the big bang, it would behoove us to listen to them.
I am. I just think this is one area where evangelical Protestants are wrong. I am not beholden to listen to the traditions of Ken Ham any more than I am The Pope. I want to understand the Bible and what it means, and if that means uncomfortably throwing out traditions for a more contextual and tenable interpretation, I will do it, because truth is more important than man's traditions.
dwight92070 wrote:From both sides! I will acknowledge that. Do you? By the way, I don't believe I have been accusatory or uncharitable, unless you want to label my description of certain scientists as wacko as being that. I guess a more charitable way of saying that is that I believe their findings are not based on true science, but on politically correct peer pressure, sometimes even money is a factor. Most science journals will not accept any articles from scientists who deny evolution. So non-evolutionary scientists have been seriously persecuted for some time now.
You also said I get my views from political correctness (I despise political correctness), and that theistic evolution reinforces unbelief (many people come to believe by seeing the design inherent in it). You are flatly dismissing the experiences of millions of our brethren. This goes back to the whole denomination thread and the difference between essential and peripheral issues. How one interprets Genesis has nothing to do with Jesus Christ dying on a cross for our sins and being raised from the dead. It has nothing to do with how one lives their life and walks a Christian walk. Nothing at all.

And quite honestly, the YEC is a kind of political correctness in evangelical churches. We can't even bring it up without the fundamentals of our faith, our integrity, or our intelligence being brought into question. If atheists weaponize evolution to attack the church, that is their problem. Believing, faithful Christians outside of the YEC bubble have made major contributions to evolutionary and physical science, and they are told that they undermine faith. That is inaccurate and needs to stop.

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:01 pm

Si wrote:
dwight92070 wrote: I never said that. But if a particular scientist thinks he can trace your "branches" back tens of thousands of years, then yes, that scientist is deceiving himself. What about you? Do you not believe there are some scientists who are wacko? If you don't, then you are living in a dream world.
This is a major branch of science with millions of people working over decades, not some singular scientist who is deceiving himself.

Dwight speaking: So is the so-called Climate Change "science". There are millions of people in this deception. Numbers does not make it science.

There are even TV shows where scientists use these and other DNA testing techniques to trace people's origins. It has been used by adoptees to learn where their ancestors come from.

Dwight speaking: It is now being used by those in the evolution bubble to discredit any suggestion that the earth might be only 6000 years old. After all, your "branch" was tens of thousands of years old. There is a word that comes to mind to describe this so-called science - poppycock. If the Bible is accurate, there were no humans in existence tens of thousands of years ago. Genetic genealogy has about as much true science in it as climate change - little to none.

Down below, you say, "The true standard is grasping the meaning of scripture from it's context, history, and comparison with other scripture. Sometimes that reveals a literal reading, sometimes a symbolic reading". I agree. There you have defined how you and I differ in regard to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. I use those methods and come to a symbolic reading.

Dwight speaking: Fine, I and millions of others come to a literal reading.
dwight92070 wrote:I understand that but again, when any so-called human learning or knowledge contradicts the truth of the Bible, then that is not true knowledge.
I think a more balanced view is, if human knowledge contradicts the Bible, to closely examine the Bible to see if we have been interpreting it incorrectly.

Dwight speaking: How about reexamining our scientific research to see if it really is science vs. wishful thinking or guesswork.
dwight92070 wrote:Then I assume that you are not evangelical or Protestant. By the way, most evangelical Protestants believe that God's word is the supreme authority over mankind. So if many of them have a problem with evolution and the big bang, it would behoove us to listen to them.
I am. I just think this is one area where evangelical Protestants are wrong. I am not beholden to listen to the traditions of Ken Ham any more than I am The Pope.

Dwight speaking: Ken Ham has scripture to back up his "traditions", your word to downplay any conclusion he comes to that doesn't agree with yours. Your conclusions are truth. His conclusions are traditions. How convenient. Ken Ham is not my "pope", just because I agree with him. Is Darwin your pope? Let's stop this silliness.

And quite honestly, the YEC is a kind of political correctness in evangelical churches. We can't even bring it up without the fundamentals of our faith, our integrity, or our intelligence being brought into question. If atheists weaponize evolution to attack the church, that is their problem. Believing, faithful Christians outside of the YEC bubble have made major contributions to evolutionary and physical science, and they are told that they undermine faith.

You are of the OEE bubble, i.e. the old earth evolutionist kind. That bubble is not innocent when it comes to undermining faith nor do I claim that the YEC has always been innocent either.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by Si » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:44 pm

Dwight, I didn't say Ken Ham was your Pope. I was responding to your incorrect assertion that I was neither protestant nor evangelical. My point was that as a protestant, I am not beholden to the tradition of the pope, and took that stance further, to state I am not beholden to Ken Ham either. My point being, Ken Ham defends a traditional interpretation. If the Pope's traditions are able to be questioned or challenged, so are Ken Ham's.

If you want to respond to some of the points I made by interacting with what I said, i would be glad to have a discussion. Calling the science I support deception and poppycock is not constructive. These are unfair generalizations, and you aren't even attempting to understand what I am saying. I provided links to information about genetic genealogy and how I interpret the early chapters of Genesis. I provided some of my own positions. If you want to interact with some of those ideas and explain why you disagree, I would be happy to have this talk. If you just restate your positions without interaction, and if you use terms like deception and poppycock, then there is not much for me to respond to.

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:16 am

If Genesis 1 and 2 are symbolic in your eyes, then what about Genesis 3? Is that symbolic too? Is the story of the fall of man symbolism? How about chapter 4, the story of Cain and Abel? Is that just symbolism? If 3 and 4 are symbolic, what do they symbolize? What about chapter 5, the genealogy from Adam to Noah? Is that symbolism? Or do you take things literally after chapter 2? In your opinion, when does the symbolism of Genesis stop? Or do you take all of Genesis as symbolic? If there is a single writer, why would the writer switch from symbolic to literal writing?

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:48 am

I am interested in your answers to my previous post. But regarding my calling genetic genealogy poppycock, I am simply stating that I don't believe it is possible to trace your ancestors back tens of thousands of years. Should I lie to you and tell you that I respect GG, when I don't? I believe evolution is poppycock too. Am I not being constructive, because I am telling you what I really think?

Please tell me, in layman's terms, how GG can trace anyone's ancestry back tens of thousands of years.

Also, do you realize that if you take Genesis 2 as symbolic, that you have just destroyed the foundation of the institution of marriage? Genesis 2:18-25

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:13 am

In 1978, hundreds of evangelicals got together in Chicago and created The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Approximately 268 Christian leaders signed it, including J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, R. C Sproul, John MacArthur, and Henry Morris. A complete list can easily be seen on line. In Article 12, speaking of Creation and the Flood, they say: "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on Creation and the Flood." Henry Morris had proposed the language for Article 12, and he meant it to exclude long ages and theistic evolution.

To be fair, some of the signers have since rejected Morris' meaning to reinterpret his lines with their own beliefs. Other than that, not much has changed. There are thousands, possibly millions of Christians who even today agree with Morris. I know, numbers do not mean they are right, but having that many Christian leaders sign such a statement is significant.

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:18 pm

Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve who were created from the beginning. In fact, He asked them, "Have you not read ...(this)?
Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6

Paul believed the same. He also believed that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and that that was the point when death entered the world, as a result of his sin. There was no death prior to that. He believed that the woman was created for the man's sake, not vice-versa. Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, Paul tells us again "... by a man came death". In verse 45 of the same chapter, he says that Adam was the first man. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 Here Paul tells us that the woman was deceived and fell into transgression. In 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul tells us that the serpent deceived Eve.

Jesus and Paul took Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history, not symbolism. Shouldn't we?

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”