Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Hi David

Thanks for the reply, which I would like to comment on. You said the bible has “
no data” to “work out” a biblical date. I mentioned the genealogies are ‘data’. You reply,

>>Being human estimations, they can’t be Biblical ages.<<

So it depends on who you trust - records that can be checked from God’s Word or the alternative. The theory from evolutionists and their billions of years, ‘human’ guess work. In 1940 the earth was 2 billion years old. In 1954 3.2 billion, in 1964 3.6b, in 1989 4.6b In 2003 a Progressive creationist said was 13.5b. The Encarta 04 says 4.48b. So what is it? It changes continually.

Hugh Ross has been ‘absolutely certain’ a number of times but with different dates. As they discover life is more complex than ever thought, they add more time so life can evolve.

Some of the greatest minds, the fathers of modern science - Newton, for example - looked at the same Earth we do and didn’t ‘see’ millions of years. You said, “
Christ encourages sound reasoning from observation”. But scripture says, “lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him” (Pro.3.5) Jesus didn’t see millions of years. He would expect you to have the same attitude to Genesis 1-3 that He did.

You suggest the ‘law of decay’ was -

>>built-in at creation.<<

True but the net effect of the 2nd law was sustained by God before the fall. God’s sustaining power kept creation in pristine perfection and kept everything from falling apart. The Bible implies that a God of order would sustain His creation in a regular consistent manner. Scientific laws are merely our descriptions of this sustaining activity. After the fall and curse things changed, now the 2nd law is running rampant.

So I believe God didn’t make a groaning creation of suffering, pain and death, storms, disease, deserts and earthquakes. All these are signs something is wrong on earth, not signs of what God is like. All “his work is perfect” (Duet.31:4). “His way is perfect” (2 Sam.22.31 Psa.18.30). When God creates something, it’s “perfect” (Ez.28.15). He couldn’t expect men to 'be perfect' before Him otherwise (Gen.17:1 Duet.18.13 1 Kg.8:61).

If death and suffering didn’t come with Adam’s sin and the curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (eg 1 Cor.15:22) (‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive’)? You see Adam’s sin brought death and decay and that’s the basis of the gospel. Your problem with Genesis means you don’t understand what’s wrong on earth. In the end, God becomes an evil monster & can't make anything without faults. And Humphrey’s book?

>>Because Gentry’s haloes were debunked by Brown (R Numbers: “Evolution of creationism”) and because he cites himself and his supporters, selects his evidence, and uses terms wrongly to create bias. Numbers is endorsed by H Morris for impartiality and accuracy; Humphreys has not that credibility. I can’t reject it, but would first need to weigh it against all the evidence for an old earth.<<

Humphreys has heaps of credibility. A PhD in physics from Louisiana State Uns. Works at Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. He holds 2 U.S. patents and 2 awards for Excellence. Who is "R.Numbers"? Where does Morris 'endorse' him? Anyone can read about radio-halo studies. (Reader: Gentry’s haloes has never been refuted).

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_poloniumradiohalos.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_radiohalofind.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

If you read these web-pages you will understand why I’m satisfied the issue is still valid. What about the other points Humphrey uses? And regarding Rom.5:12 you say,

>>Context always limits meaning, and later parts of a sentence always qualify the first part. If this isn’t true, than any interpretation is possible for anything.<<

Isn’t it a contradiction to DEMAND a particular interpretation in Rom.5:12 yet insist the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1-2 isn’t a ‘day’?

Rom.5:12 says “sin entered the world”, and the word ‘kosmos’ doesn’t ‘
limit’ the meaning to Adam. So say the bible scholars, commentaries and experts of Bible languages. They say the word ‘worldkosmos is not restricted. When sin came into the world there wasn’t a world of men but only Adam & Eve. Even if it referred only to Adam, he was the head of creation appointed by God. If the second part qualifies the first part then that means “all men” die, because “sin entered the world through one man Adam”. You seem to be saying, “sin entered Adam through one man Adam”. Which means sin is not a very serious issue with God because the world was murderous place anyway. Besides you haven't explained why God often includes the animals with judgments on man (Zeph.1:2-4 Ez.32:12-13 Ex.9:3-4).

>>“Doesn’t preclude” is not proof but just pleads a certainty from no basis. You need to prove animals are there & if animals, why not plants?<<

But it 'pleads a certainty' from the 'basis' that death is a universal experience of the whole world, not just man. This is a factual basis. If ‘sin entered the world’ followed by death, and if ‘the world’ is now subject to ‘decay’ and death, then that’s a good argument animals and plants were included. The reason you deny it, is because you believe a theory which blinds you to scripture. The Holy Spirit interprets scripture, if you have not asked the Lord to open your eyes to the truth of His Word, how can you expect to know what it says? Jesus indicates how we are to understand scripture. You read the word ‘day’ in Genesis and reject its meaning (even with 'morning and evening' mentioned). Yet read the word ‘kosmos’ in Romans and insist it's 'limited'. You know more about Bible words than bible scholars. Or is it your long age belief that tells you how to interpret scripture?

>>This is your people’s foundational error, serious and blatant. I don’t blame you for wanting to stick with it, otherwise all your ideas would have to change. But you must see it has no basis. My opposition began when Ham tried to make it a fundamental doctrine.<<

No it’s just reading and understanding the Bible as written - words with their plain, simple meaning. I "stick with it" because it is ‘a fundamental doctrine.’ Your belief corrupts the gospel. If Adams sin didn’t bring death and decay into the world, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give eternal life? The basis of the gospel is that Adam’s sin brought death and decay, and so in Christ all shall be made alive (1 Cor.15:22).

Your
foundational error is ignorance of many excellent Christians and professional scientists who have studied these issues (long ages, big bang and evolution) and are not convinced by them. Because the ideas are simply not plausible scripturally or scientifically.

>>A similar error in English and logic is used by Jehovah’s witnesses in Eccl 9.6a (‘the dead know not anything’) and was used by an insurance co. with me last year. You can’t just take a clause as definitive stand-alone doctrine. It needs context support.<<

Context support is seen throughout Rom.5 in the consequence of Adam’s disobedience – the mention of death. Adam was the head of the old creation. If death was in the world already, then Paul avoided a very important matter as if it didn’t exist. The Romans would reject Paul’s message as unimportant. They would say “Paul death is everywhere, even babies die, its part of God’s creation.” They would say “the fact Adam and men die is irrelevant, its part of the normal plan of God on earth”.

So what Paul is trying to say is that there was neither death nor sin on earth before the fall. Both came because of Adam. If there was either sin or death, then Christ’s death and payment for sin isn’t relevant to the reality of life.

Interesting the JW’s, Mormons, Christadelphians, Adventists and humanists, materialists, evolutionists and atheists all devalue man in God's image. They deny man has a soul or spirit, so death is non-existence. And it’s interesting that these cults originate from the time of Darwin. Their rejection of traditional Christianity is founded in the popularity of Darwinism, as if it had the most advanced scientific analysis of man. If you study Cults and Progressive Creationism, you find both struggle over certain verses and their interpretation. Both are hostile to Bible believing Christians. And both deny scriptural authority, instead, the ideas (theories) of men govern their understanding. You say,

>>It does mean it; for if you include animals in death by Adam’s sin, you must live with the consequence. Just as in Adam all died, so all will be raised. No exceptions. You baulk at this, correctly judging the conclusion is haywire somewhere. It’s in the premise: if you exclude animals in 1 Cor 15, you should do the same in Rom 5.<<

No when it says ‘all will be raised’ it doesn’t mean 'animals & plants' will be raised. The heavens and earth also will NOT be raised, but restored, or re-created. Because man has body, soul and spirit he can be raised. If only a body, he would not be raised, but need to be re-created. I suggest you do a study on the biblical concepts of death, life, creation and resurrection.

Rom.5 refers to sin and death entering the world. 1 Cor.15 refers to a restoration. “All things” (1 Cor.15:27-8) will be restored (Isa.65:25) to their original condition before sin & curse which was “very good” (Gen.1:31). There is nothing haywire, words have their simple meaning.

I also find overwhelming New Testament support for a literal Genesis. Yet count 20 major contradictions in Genesis 1-2 with Progressive Creationism. You must decide to accept the authority of God’s Word or man’s opinions. All other issues relate to this one.

The term ‘no death before Adam’, means death was not an issue or a problem. You replied,

>>It isn’t so simple. Now you are redefining the word death to avoid the problem. It sounds like you agree that there was a death before the Fall.<<

But it is that simple. Start with Bible dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew and do a study on the word “death” in the bible and see. There was no violent death involving bloodshed, no fighting and killing as today. There was nothing wrong with creation, it was very good. So why don’t you have a picture of a lion killing baby gazelles in your living room?

>>Because what you describe of nature is not the whole truth. It is only a small part of the truth.<<

Maybe a ‘small part of the truth’ but the death of animals or man is still a brutality, in comparison. If you practice what you believe, you would love pictures of dead animals. But you don’t because you know what I’m saying is true. Any misunderstanding of Genesis 1-3 gives us a problem with beauty and ugliness and truth and error. Your doctrine has many ugly pictures of life, death, God, man and the earth. When it comes to origins, ‘Father God plus Mother Nature’ equals an illegitimate child – progressive creationism.

>>Your view of nature is exactly like athiests’ as B Russell, a caricature of reality, distorted, unbalanced. Life is greater and longer than death. Psa 104 is an undistorted picture, including sin, death, catastrophe; the writer rejoices in it and so do I.<<

No my view of nature is not like the atheist, but yours is. An atheist views nature as existing over millions of years of suffering, pain and death. They, like you, believe that’s normal. My view has a different world at the start and now in bondage to decay.

But be careful about your interpretations, you seem say you '
rejoice in evil and catastrophe'. Is that true? Why not read Psa 104 as poetic, not a scientific text book. Treat history books like history, poetry as poetry.

>>I am no stranger to death. I lost a lovely wife 20 years ago, and death is now again a shadow over our house. I think of the good years, and even the dying year and death proved to be a sacred and sanctifying thing for us all. We have photos of her in her life, not in her dying. Mark, you unwittingly stab me on a most sacred matter, and I hope as a Christian you will in time see why the caricature is detestable and untrue.<<

I’m sorry to hear of your loss and deaths return. This is why Christians should build all their thinking (about death life etc) in every area on the Bible. Start with God’s Word, not the word of finite & fallible men. Judge what people say on the basis of what God’s Word says—not the other way around.

If you always take scripture literally you will appreciate God’s goodness and power better. Progressive Creationism destroys the very basis of the message of love. The process is supposed to be one of death, struggle, cruelty, brutality and ruthlessness - a ghastly fight for survival, elimination of the weak and deformed. The millions of years question if God is a God of love.

A true evolutionist would rejoice in death for "without it there is no life" (Geoff). It’s essential for evolution and ensures the development of the tribe. It’s the creator of life and there’s no way you can past this axiom of the doctrine of evolution. That’s what underlies it all — death, bloodshed and struggle bringing man into existence. It’s an onward, upward "progression" leading to man.

Yet, what does the Bible say in Rom5:12? Man’s actions led to sin, which led to death. The Bible says “that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin” (Heb9:22). If God instituted death and bloodshed its so man could be redeemed. If death and bloodshed existed before Adam sinned, the basis for the atonement is destroyed.

So the fact remains pictures of dead animals are ‘
detestable’ compared to pictures of ‘golden brown leaves of a late autumn’. And plant decomposition is not the same as the death of animals or man.

So Morris doesn’t misquote Gen 3.17 in Scientific Creationism. You say it’s in “
Studies in the Bible & Science” p 115”. So what did he say?

>>he, like you, applies it not only to the earth but to the Universe. The Bible just says “ground”. In Genesis Flood p 215 he quotes it by enlarging it to “the earth itself”. Then he escalates further to include the Universe. Once he starts escalating, it is hard to stop<<

Yes “the ground” is mentioned (Gen.3) and “the earth” (Gen.8:21). But you haven’t answered the question. If the Universe wasn’t cursed why would God make a new one? And you haven’t addressed the problem that scholars of the Hebrew relate ‘ground with earth’ (just as we do). In the OT “Often 'earth' simply means the ground in which we plant crops” (p240 Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Richards). So the Bible does the escalating with the need for a new earth and heavens. Morris is correct, the curse was on the creation relating to man. The 2nd law operates throughout the universe. And Gen.8:21-22 and Gen.4:10-12?

>>He doesn’t say he cursed the earth….It is a curse on Cain, not on the earth, but from it.<<

But Gen.8.21 does say ‘he cursed the earth’! “And He said.... ‘Never again will I put the earth under a curse because of what man does”. The point of Gen.4:10-12 shows God uses the words “earth” and “ground” (in relation to the curse) over and over. The VERY THING you accused Morris of doing. “..crieth unto me from the GROUND….thou art cursed from the EARTH…… When thou tillest the GROUND… shalt thou be in the EARTH.” To say ‘the earth is not cursed’ defies bible and evidence. The natural disasters, storms and earth quakes say it is. You reply,

>>No they don’t. Adam was in a garden. The rest of the earth is not described. Could not God have made wild spots? Deserts even? Variety of species means God must have made varieties of ecosystems for them too. As for storms, Morris says there was no rain before the Flood. So rainstorms didn’t automatically come from the Fall either.<<

Yes God planted a garden Adam was in it, but the rest of the earth was ‘very good’. All through all the creation account God says repeatedly, “it was good” (1.4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). And the finished earth - “It was very good” (1.31). No flaws, omissions, but complete in every sense and God was pleased. The bible nowhere mentions that under the earth were piles of bones from millions of years of failed creations.

Noah’s flood explains the earth as we see it today. This is why deserts were once lush with vegetation and forests and the ecosystems, where only some creatures survive. And explains where the huge coal and oil deposits came from. We never read of snow, earthquakes,'
rainstorms,' 'deserts', or ‘wild spots’ until after Noah’s flood. So the original creation was "very good", in perfect harmony and with a mild climate without storms. That’s not our world today because Adam and Eve placed human opinion above God’s word and death and struggle entered the world. You say,

>>Vine’s book is of Greek, not Hebrew. Translators will know better than any. They don’t use ‘earth’ for ‘ground’.<<

Translators don’t “know better” they make mistakes and depend on the original languages and dictionaries like Vines. Allow me to quote from “Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words” (That’s a Greek and Hebrew dictionary). Regarding “Earth” - it refers to ‘the earth’ as ‘the dry land’ ‘mountains’ ‘ground’ ‘soil’. And regarding “Ground” - it refers to the ‘ground’ as ‘the earth, land’. Does any scholar support your position?

God said to the serpent, “You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field”. Indicating ‘
animals’ were included under the ‘curse’. You reply,

>>Most translations have “above”, not “more”. But LB, CEV, GNB don’t, and don’t imply what you say. The serpent’s curse wasn’t to be a carnivore, or to die, or be eaten; it was to crawl on belly, in dust, at enmity with humans. No other animals share those 3.<<

It doesn’t matter which translation. If the serpent was cursed ‘more than’ or ‘above’ the animals then obviously the animals were cursed. This scholar reflects on your interpretation ‘“above”, not “more"’ -

The effects of the Fall reached well beyond the man and woman. Man was appointed to rule over God’s creation; and thus, the animals suffered along with man through the Edenic Curse (Jer 12:4; Rom 8:20). But the serpent was cursed above or distinct from all cattle and every beast of the field. The Hebrew mikōl can be taken as a partitive—“any of the beasts of the field”—or as a comparative—“than the beasts of the field.” Here it must be comparative; the context favors this view also, thus indicating “more than.” (KJV Bible Commentary. 94. Thomas Nelson). Can you name one decent bible Commentary that says the animals were not cursed? God can use observations of nature but they are subject to human interpretation. You replied,


>>In this, the Bible is no different to nature; we debate interpretation.<<

It is different, it’s subject to the rules of grammar and context and open to objective hermeneutic study. It’s eternal, inspired by God’s Spirit to reveal God’s thoughts, nature isn’t. Nature is limited in what it reveals. It groans and travails in pain because of sin (Rom.8:22). Just as cults belittle God’s Word so your exaltation of nature attacks the authority of God’s Word and undermines God’s revelation. It's the reason you misread scripture.

Nature seems to be a purposeless and meaningless machine. We can ask ‘what is the purpose of it all? All the last great questions are unanswered by nature. There is no answer from nature only that life has no meaning at all. So don’t trumpet nature by pointing me to the bible. It’s the bible alone that declares God, man, life, and nature. Nature can’t show us how to be saved, you replied,


>>Can’t? You cannot limit God.<<

Let the Bible say what God can and cannot do. Is there another way to be saved without coming to God through Christ? No Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me” (Jn.14:6. Acts 4.12). Man has a spiritual problem (sin), God’s Word is a spiritual revelation (Jn.3:6,8 4:24 6:63). Jesus said, You must be born again (Jn.3.3) ‘Nature’ doesn’t reveal the spiritual birth. All men must 'call on the name of the Lord to be saved' (Rom.10:18) not call on nature. If the Bible didn’t tell us what sin was, how would we know? So Genesis 3 is totally necessary for a true and accurate world-view. Every world-view that lacks this foundation is utterly and hopelessly wrong.

>>Psa 107.25-31 – this was the converting experience of John Newton, the Wesley’s and the heathen of Jonah’s boat.<<

With each of those conversions, it was the message and turning to God’s Word that saved them (see Jon.1.14). The Word of the Lord “is perfect, converting the soul” (Psa.19:7 107.28). Also see Wesley’s Journals Sat,7 Sat.4. Vol.1. And for Newton, see “Revival Sermons” B.Carradine Ch.6 - The Uttermost Saviour. So Christ is to be our desire and to be like Him (Eph.4.15). You reply,

>>But I gave you two Job quotes where it does encourage us to observe nature…They do. See Job 38+*** All things show purpose, and nature’s author was pure mathematician, a Mind, said J Jeans.<<

Yes God gave Job “natural observation about ostriches, wild donkeys...” but Job did not have the Bible, we do.The Book of Job apparently comes from the period before any word of Scripture was written.” (JV McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary. Vol. 2, p.652). We have the complete revelation of God from Moses, Judges, Kings, Prophets, Christ and to the Apostles (Rom.15:4). We don’t need any more revelation.

It was said, Darwin was happy with the biblical explanation of origins until be stumbled across the idea of evolution by observing the facts of nature. Are you hoping that will happen to me?

We can study the functions and efficiency of a machine. Most things about its ORIGINS CAN'T be answered by studying the machine itself (but the country where it was made, the builder, the construction concepts).

Paul suggests fleshly minded have eyes for physical things. They who walk after the Spirit mind heavenly things. He suggests “we look not at the things that ARE seen but at the things that are NOT seen’ (2 Cor.4.18). If you want to know more about God you must go through scripture to His Son. I don’t look for the truth about God else where.

>>Yes, Christ is the only way to God, but the Bible isn’t the only revelation. Even the Bible lists revelations of God outside of itself:- Voice Nature Christ Prophets People Health Dreams even Heathens! (Isa 28.11) History Conscience Memory Reason… What sort of truth do you mean? God’s laws? Science? I actually love to find Nature agreeing with the Bible; don’t you?<<

Half your problem is an understanding based on a ‘revelation’ from ‘heathen’ (ie their theories). But yes one can find things that are true in nature. But “sin entered the world” (Rom.5:12) now mankind does not always understand or recognize what truth is. Man has created that which he calls truth but which is not. Man has perverted, blunted, diluted and corrupted that which was originally true and came from God. Today the only infallible cannon for determining true truth is God’s Word. So while men can ‘know’ about God by ‘nature’ (dreams, conscience, reason, etc) these are limited and tainted information. Truth is better 'revealed' in the Bible which is ‘the word of truth’ (2 Cor.6:7).

Biblically speaking - “Revelation means that God has spoken. “Thus saith the Lord,” and its equivalent, occurs over 2,500 times. The Lord didn’t want you to misunderstand that He had spoken. Heb1:1–2” (J.McGee Thru the Bible Commentary). At times nature proves the Bible but the Bible proves its own accuracy far better. Scientific pronouncements of humans can frequently be wrong, often tainted with bias. The assumption starlight proves ‘an old universe’ is based on evolutionary theory. You reply,

>>No it isn’t. It is based on observation. And frankly I think you know this.<<

Whether observations and assumptions its the same. The distance between two stars might be millions of light years travel but that's a measure of their distance not a measure of their age. So objects billions of light years apart don't means they are billions of years old. Such observations present a light-travel-time problem for the big-bang theory. The galaxies in Great Chains and Walls which curl around the vast Voids in space mean - good-bye big-bang (New Scientist Aug.21 1999 p.23-26 Science Ap.16 1999 p445-5 see also www.cosmologystatement.org). Since you interpret scripture by the millions of year’s theory, there's a few verses you must consider.

(1) Isa.34:4 & Rev.6:13-14 – refer to a future time of cataclysmic changes – stars falling, heavens rolling up, but it doesn’t sound like a slow processes needing millions of years. If it took 15 billion years for the light from stars to reach us why won’t it take 15 billion years for the heavens to ‘roll together as a scroll’?

(2) Acts 3:21 – refers to a future time when everything will be restored. Logically according to you, this means a restoration back to billions of years of death and suffering. Yet the bible disagrees, all things will be restored to a situation where death (the ‘last enemy’ 1Cor.15:26) is no more. Why? Because there will be ‘no more curse’ (Rev.6:13-14).

(3) 1 Cor.15:51-52 – if God needed millions of years to create our human bodies – already ravaged by disease and death, how will He be able to give us new, incorruptible bodies ‘in the twinkling of an eye’? When Christ returns.

(4) 1 Pe.3:6-12 – the waters of the flood increased for 150 days (Gen.7:24) - literal days of 24 hours. So how long will be the future destruction of the heavens by fire last? Millions of years? Will the universe slowly (according to the theory) contract under its own gravity till a new ‘big bang’ occurs? Vs.10 says ‘the heavens shall pass away with a great noise’ – sounds rather sudden don’t you think?

(5) 2 Pe.3:13 – if God need billions of years to create the first heavens and earth, now long will it take to make new ones? What will believers who have been saved (& with new bodies) be doing all that time?

If God used evolution in the past, will He still use it in the future? When He re-creates the bodies of the redeemed through evolutionary processes, will we look like those almond-eyed, spindly-legged creatures in the movies? If God created everything in the past in six days He’ll have no problem re-creating it all quickly in the future (as a true reading of Genesis implies).

Progressive Creationism is inconsistent with God’s omnipotence. He has all power and able to create the universe in an instant.

>>Yes, he has. But he didn’t. He took 6 days. How is 6 days any more consistent than 6 years? 6 days itself proves that time is immaterial.<<

But do you believe the six days were six days? You wrote before, “I feel the days of Genesis 1 are literal, but I leave open the length of those days because the Bible doesn't tell us their length.” And also, “Context always limits meaning.” So what about the context in Genesis 1? When the Hebrew word yom is modified by a number, ie "first day", "third day" or "six days", it always means a literal day. And the words "evening and morning", which always mean a true daily evening and morning, define yom 38 times in the OT. There are other words in Hebrew which mean "time" (indefinite period) which could have been used, but yom was chosen. The only Hebrew word which can mean a solar day. So, the use of the language implies a literal meaning for yom. Why would Gen 1:1-31 be the exception?

So God defined the word "day" the very first time the word was used, as the "light" period in the cyclical succession of light and darkness (Gen 1:3-5) that has continued regularly ever since that first day.

Is the ‘
time immaterial? No. The truth of a literal six-day creation week was written into the Ten Commandments Ex 20:11 31:16-7. The 4th commandment, says God created everything in 6 days and rested for 1 day, that was a pattern for man to copy. This is where the 7 day week comes from. The whole point is destroyed if the days can be turned into times periods of indefinite duration.

God didn’t work for 6 million years and rest for 1 million years. How could He then tell us we should do the same? He worked for 6 days and rested for one, the pattern which we copy today. But if each day of lasted for 6 years all language has lost its meaning.

Progressive Creationism is inconsistent with God’s personality. If man is made in His image was His goal, why wait till the end of geological time before creating personalities?

>>Is 5 days inconsistent with personality? Time is immaterial. For a start, God never made anything without having the place prepared for it, and therein lies the answer. As in (1) above, you are really denying the freedom of God to do it as he pleases.<<

The creation week is not inconsistent with His personality. Every creation day is carefully set out in order and purpose. But taking zillions of years to create the sun, earth, and creatures before creating man (his primary goal) is inconsistent. Particularly, since this notion is contrary to what He clearly states He did. Are you impressed by a God who needs zillions of years to get the job done?

I don’t deny ‘the freedom of God to do it as he pleases’. But God never acts inconsistent with His word, character or holiness. He never lies. Progressive Creationism is inconsistent with God’s omniscience. The record of extinctions misfits etc., all very poor planning. And time wasting. You reply,

>>You sound exactly like Bertrand Russell in Why I am not a Christian, a consequence of his looking at nature with his jaundiced eye. Waste” is a loaded word, and illusion; it is the unbeliever’s view of God’s bounty. Prolific seed production is nature’s way of filling the earth with life.<<

The word ‘waste’ is not an ‘illusion’. You say “God’s bounty” You believe millions of years WERE wasted for no apparent reason, doing nothing much at all. Millions of innocent creatures with no connection whatever to man or sin, die wasted, in their trillions for millions of years. Another “observation” from nature you overlook?

It makes God “
sound” cold and unmerciful to the weak. He designed the animals into prolific killing machines. Death, suffering and horror are His specialty. Bertrand Russell would say that God is sadistic and cares nothing for the life he creates. Nature doesn’t tell us the gospel truth.

It’s shocking you defend this as the process that Jesus Christ set up and ruled over till man’s creation. What a horrible thing to accuse Jesus Christ of doing! I could tell Russell, man’s sin is the reason for all the suffering, pain and death and it’s not what God intended it to become.

>>Did Christ “waste” his weeping/preaching on Jerusalem? No. Are the eternally doomed a “waste”? No. It is the wrong word. “Wisdom” is consistent with everything in Psa 104.<<

This is exactly what I was saying. In God’s ‘wisdom’ it’s inconsistent with His character to ‘waste’ billions of years of aimless evolutionary meandering. There is no purpose in those deaths and extinctions. But if you think pointless death and suffering is the ‘wisdom’ of God and ‘consistent’ with ‘Psa 104’ then, I call that a “pathetic explanation”. Wisdom of Solomon 1:13 “God did not make death nor is he pleased with the destruction of the living”. Progressive Creationism is inconsistent with God’s forethought. You reply,

>>The atheist says if God has forethought, why did he allow sin? Answer: Rom 9.20 Mark, what do I think? I think that you follow the atheist’s and evolutionist’s jaundice to justify what I call the creationist errors, and I instinctively resist. I think you are braver than most to attempt to justify a hopeless interpretation of Romans 5 12a. Kind regards to you, from David<<

I wouldn't stress the idea “God allowed sin” (as if He is to blame) but that “man chose to sin”. 'Rom 9:20' applies to those who “rebel against God” and complain of His judgment on them, so its not really a good 'answer' for 'the atheist'.

What do I think? I think you didn’t answer my last point. Progressive Creationism is incompatible with God’s foresight because it suggests God was unprepared for the entire evolutionary process at the start. He frequently interfered in the process setting it back in the right direction. God does not change (Jas.1.17 Heb.13.8) which is incompatible with the theory of evolution. To think God used evolution distorts His nature into something contrary to itself.

As for who “
follows the atheist’s and evolutionists jaundice”, that's obvious (1) Evolution says, by death and struggle - came man. (2) Bible says, by man's sin - came death and struggle. Which do you follow, the atheist/evolutionist or the Bible?

Instead of “
instinctively” resisting what you call “creationist errors” why not allow God’s Word to control your thinking in every area? Pray about these matters.

>>If you would like it, I could post you a 2 page paper on Job 38-41 which I prepared for sermons……<<

Yes thanks.
Mark

PS You say, “
The Bible just says it was “in the beginning”. Well, when dealing with the doctrine of marriage, Jesus says ‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female’ (Mk10:6). Paul says people can see God’s power by looking at the ‘things that are made’ and people have been able to see this ‘from the creation of the world’. (Rom1:20). That is NOT billions of years AFTER creation.


Index
Home
Reply