Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Hi Robin

>>It always puzzles me this, how supposedly intelligent believers can’t get it into their minds that to dispel some verses, chapters or even whole books of the Bible, does not mean that God’s seal is not on other parts of the Bible. I believe it is their own fear of stepping into the great unknown, walking on uncharted territory that they take swallow the whole lot … hook, line and sinker as being the ‘Infallible Word of God’….……. Unfortunately most Christians are just Word people. I would encourage you Mark to journey into spiritual truth, rather than burying your head in dogma, and be led by God’s Spirit, rather than being dictated to be written Law.<<

So the bible is not your authority in all matters. There is no "
journey into spiritual truth" without properly applying the authority of the bible. God's seal is on the whole not the parts you decide. By the authority of the Bible I mean that the Bible, as the expression of God’s will to us, possesses the right supremely to define what we believe and how we conduct ourselves. It has the right to command belief and action. It is, and can be, the Only source of authority that the believer can have. It declares itself God-given and that God has the final authority.

God, the Creator is the final authority and has made known His wishes which are binding on His creation. 2 Tim.3:15-17 is clear that the Word is to be an integrated part of Christian living. Only an authority can reprove or correct. If you don’t believe me, allow your children to run your house awhile, and then tell them to do something. If you have lost your authority, you will have serious problems.

>>Like most Christians you seem to have a lack of understanding of what evolution theory really is, if you accuse me of swallowing evolution. I am a firm believer in Creation, but I am not a young-Earth creationist. You also don’t understand the science of punctuation. Believing in millions of years does not necessarily make one an evolutionist.<<

A fully committed Darwinist is atheistic, those who hold a literal Genesis are theistic. But, those holding to (theistic evolution, etc) are true to either camp. Their foundation of Christianity has been replaced by Darwin while still retaining an illusion of a prayer-hearing God. Theistic or progressive evolution is clearly only a stepping stone to ease the theist into a new faith whose foundation is evolution, and to destroy faith in the bible as God's Word.

Darwin’s theory is the framework of Progressive Creationism with most of the assumptions - death and suffering for millions of years, no flood, Genesis considered incorrect, nature teaches us, etc. They are not from the Bible, but human ideas resulting from Darwinism. So for you, all the stuff of evolution is the same, you just add God to solve its problems.
And "evidence" for a young planet?

(1) The continents are eroding too quickly.

>>Regarding continents eroding too quickly, the East coast of NI is eroding and falling into sea, but West Coast is growing, as NZ heads eastward. Some of Hawaiian and Phillipine Islands have actually emerged out of sea in last 20 years.<<

The fact is, mountain uplift, volcanoes and other ‘recycling’ processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for erosion. Each year water and winds erode about 25m tones of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the oceans. The rate can be estimated at a river mouth and sedimentologists give the figures. This accumulates as loose sediment on the rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all this in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters ('Hay, W. W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and tile global rate of subduction,' 'Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 Dec 1988) 14.933-14,940).

Yet according to long age assumptions erosion has been occurring since the oceans existed (3b years plus). If so, they would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago. And you say,

>>Rangitoto Island, which didn’t exist 200 years ago<<

Consider this -"And yet those Potassium Argon dates for the Basalts range from 140 to 450 million years, while Carbon 14 dates for timber under the Basalts or shells in the volcanic ash date from 225 to over 1000 years. Associated with this there are fossil human footprints that are distinctly Maori, and therefore less than 900 years old, along with trees on the island which are all less than 200 years old. The end result - the trees, the living witnesses, win. The volcano erupted around 2 centuries ago. Such a range of results is what you get when you apply different radioactive methods to any one area. This exposes the falsehoods of scientists who knew the earth was old before they knew how old". (John Mackay)

(2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.

>>Not enough for what? Our planet cannot be likened to the larger helium based planets in our Solar System. Unlike what Carl Sagan suggested, planets like Earth appear to be rather scarce, in fact there is no evidence to suggest that there are any others.<<

Helium, (light gas) is formed during radioactive alpha-decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth’s gravity. Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around 2m years to accumulate. This is far less than the assumed 3,000m year age of the atmosphere.

(3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly.

>>I understood the nature of most fossils is that they are formed relatively quickly to escape biological degradation. This is not an issue for me.<<

This should be an issue. They haven't formed over millions of years or were slowly buried. There's billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world and incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks. A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form.

Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometers. Creation Magazine often features some which are particularly spectacular, like the mother ichthyosaur apparently ‘freeze-framed’ in the process of giving birth. Then there are fossil fish found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs.

(4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.

>>What processes?<<

(a) Coal formation, coal can be man-made in a sort time, and diamonds. (b) Stalactites and stalagmites. Given the right conditions cave decorations can form quickly and have done. The Creation Magazine has shown many examples. (c) Opals. They don't take millions of years to form opal, researchers can grow them. (d) Rock and fossil formation. Scientists have long known that petrifaction can happen quickly. Petrified wood can also form quickly under the right conditions. (e) Fossilization, as above. Better explained by Noah's Flood than evolution's millions of years.

(5) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

>>Too fast for what? Our place in the milky way galaxy has certainly not been recorded as having moved or changed in the last couple of hundred years. If galactic spirals were moving fast to fit into 6,000 year old universes, we should be gallivanting around our own galaxy which will be spiraling at a huge speed. This is not the case<<

"
Too fast" to what? Too fast to be billions of years old. The stars in "the milky way galaxy" rotate around the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. (Scheffler, H. and H. Hlsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, p.352-353, 401-413).

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10b years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for 50 years. They have devised many theories to try, to explain it each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

(8) Not enough sodium in the sea.

>>Sea seems pretty much loaded in sodium to me. Besides here in the land-locked Waikato plains, we actually average about 60 kg/ha of sodium deposited in rain, and even in the Taupo Ash soils of the Central Plateau, soil tests can show sodium levels disproportionately high compared to other major cations which comes from the rainfall, so much sodium is coming back onto land.<<

Every year, rivers etc., dump over 450m tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% manages to leave the sea each year. (Sayles. F. L. & P.C. Mangelsdorf, "Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater”. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) p.767).

As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in far less time at today's input and output rates than the evolutionary long ages. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean as well.

(14) Not enough stone-age skeletons.

>>Modern man is a very recent phenomenon. Even secular scientists say no more than 30-40,000 years. Like you, I see modern man as being less than 10,000 years.<<

You misuse the word "
scientists". Don't shame all scientists with evolution stories. Big differences between "science" and the assumptions of evolution (not science at all).

Evolutionary anthropologists say the Stone Age lasted at least 100,000 years, during which the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant between 1 and 10m. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts (Deevey. E. S. “The human population.” Scientific, American 203 (Sept.1960) 194-204)

By this scenario they would have buried at least 4b bodies (Marahak, A. "Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, Nat. Geog. 147 (Jan.1975) 64-89). If the long age time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4b Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. So any 'Stone Age' was far shorter, a few hundred years.

[I interject on myself. My apologies, I am wrong here. Apparently "many modern scholars" assign for the 'stone age' "from one to four million years and even more". This then should reveal even far more buried bones. Thank you Dr Wilson]

(15) Agriculture is too recent and history is too short,

>>As for agriculture, this is obviously very recent. Prior to 10,000 years ago, most secular scientists would argue that humans were principally hunter-gatherers<<

Yes the usual evolutionary picture has men existing as "
hunters and gatherers" for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than "10,000 years ago". Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were intelligent. It's unlikely none of the 4b people mentioned above should discover plants grow from seeds. It's more likely men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all. So you are correct agriculture "is obviously very recent".

According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a 1,000 centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.

>>You still haven’t answered my question. Are snake species today, descendents of Satan? I take it from your above comment, that yes they are.<<

But your 'snake' question comes from your weird interpretations, not mine. Surely you know how to read and understand literature? I can't believe you are silly. This is not a burning issue keeping you from believing the bible. My reply was, "Satan possessed the body of a snake" that doesn't mean snakes are his '
descendents'. Perhaps hard to understand, but look how Satan questioned Eve, 'Hath God said? He got Eve to doubt what God said, the result was terrible. And you want me to doubt what God said.

>>Ah, so you are being selective. If you allow symbolism and allegory, why not the Creation story being symbolic?<<

I didn't say "Satan possessing the body of a snake" was '
symbolism'. The Creation story is an historical narrative not an 'allegory' or 'symbol'. The way author wants it understood. So the 'historical-grammatical' is the best method of interpretation, accepting all the grammatical rules and historical usage. This reads the bible as we read any book and allows type, allegory and symbol but doesn't make them the basis for interpretation. The same method that results in one becoming a born-again Christian, if you treat the gospel as 'allegory' you will misunderstand it.

>>Unfortunately AiG lectures I have attended (about 4 in total), all have the same pictures and message, that to believe in anything but a literal Genesis 1 and a young Earth/Universe is to deny God’s existence. People discover for themselves the evidence of a much older Earth and universe, and therefore dismiss the Bible as AiG type have told them they must either believe in a young Earth or reject all of scripture, and hence backslide because of AiG type theology.<<

'AiG lecture' people to trust the bible, you want people to reject parts of it. They build and strengthen Christian faith No one 'backslides' by believing the bible. AiG has NEVER said a non-literal approach means one is not a Christian. But what I say, is that often liberals are NOT born again Christians.

You focus on "
contradictions", "errors" and an untrustworthy bible, just like atheists. Backsliding Christians often have fallen for the evolution & millions of years and 'dismiss the bible'. They didn't "discover" the millions in the bible, but from media, education and false science. So backsliding, evolution and unbelief go together. Your 'type' of theology is why you encourage others to reject scripture and God's authority. To you the 'millions of years' is surer than the bible.

>>If the person below had met someone like me, they would have been enlightened and seen no conflict in believing in the Creator and the Christian faith.<<

On the contrary you offer nothing but unbelief of the creation record and rejection of bible believers. If we deny the bible is literal, nothing in it is certain. What joy and peace is there for the Christian knowing the bible is untrustworthy? What assurance is there, knowing God's Word is uncertain? For a Christian in times of trouble, you have a rotten message. And The Answers book?

>>I’ve got it, plus Ken Ham’s The Lie: Evolution, Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, Behe’s Darwins Black Box, Denton’s Evolution a Theory in Crisis, Lubenows Bones of Contention, and a few others including the recently written Privileged Planet by Jay Richards and Lee Strobel’s The Case For the Creator. I must admit though that I haven’t read most of these and they have sat on my bookshelf gathering dust, although I am reading currently reading Strobels book at the moment cover to cover.<<

You fooled me, your questions are answered in those books already. Take them off the shelf and read them. If you have further questions get 'Creation and Time" (by P.S.Taylor ) or 'Refuting Compromise' (J. Sartati).

>>Strobel, Behe, Richards, and Johnson are Intelligent Design proponents who like me do not believe in a young Earth/Universe, but share the Christian faith. I believe it is the IDT movement that will eventually destroy Evolution theory, not AiG dogma.<<

Anyone can be a '
proponent' of Intelligent Design – Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, non-Christian, etc. With only half the story they remain silent on the rest. They don't tell you who the design intelligence is. He could be anyone, or anything. At least AiG turn people to the bible, the Creator, the Saviour. You don't, that's why you can't stand AiG.

>>The Mairoa Ash and Tirau Ash soils are found adjacent to and underneath the Taupo Ash soil. Same location, climate, rainfall etc. This is soil chemistry and pedology, not geology, which your quotes below relate to. As to the age of rocks, who knows? All I know is I can find granite which is so weathered I can crush it in my hands, yet as we know, granite is one of the hardest rocks around. Highly weathered granite like this would suggest millions of years. However as a soil scientist, I can only present evidence of volcanic ash soils in the Waikato/BOP/King Country region that I work with, which are many times more weathered than the 2000 year old Taupo Ash. To date such soils as 20,000-50,000 years is based on sound science. To dismiss this science is to display ignorance.<<

To "
date such soils as 20,000-50,000 years is based on" guess work, not "sound science" that can be tested and retested and proven. The guess work of "20-50,000 years" proves nothing. Why not 25,273 years? Throw in some extra time for luck? Why not 34,897? Dates out of a hat?

The theory of evolution determines the TIME and what dates you can place on events. And that is something designed to stop you thinking. Those assumptions and guesses are not proven facts. There's no fool-proof method for testing millions of years. Crushing a rock in your "
hands" is not proof either. Real science that put men on the moon is different than trying to calculate the age of rock or soil samples. Soil doesn't tell you how old soil is, that comes from your guess - soiled by evolutionary assumptions.

>>Radio-carbon dating techniques I understand along with most laboratory techniques have improved immensely in the past 25 years, becoming a lot more accurate. For instance, in the realm of soil chemistry that I work with, the modern ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma) instrumentation is far superior to the old atomic absorption and spectrometer methods of analysis used for the previous 50 years for analysing soils<<

You need to get "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by J Woodmorappe. It exposes problems in dating methods. In the 'past 25 years' nothing has changed, the assumptions remain. The "E" theory still rules over men.

Carbon dating in many cases embarrasses old age advocates with dates younger than those expected from the evolution model. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have no 14C to measure. Laboratories measuring 14C prefer a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank, to check their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn’t. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

And all dating methods should work reliably on things of known age. They should work in situations where we know the age. They don't. Different techniques should be consistent and agree with one another. They don't.

If a chemist measures sugar blood levels, all valid methods give basically the same answer. But, with old age dating methods, different techniques give different results. So its evolutionary reckoning that determines the end result. If results don't support the theory they are discarded, ignored or excused.

And '
science has proven… punctuations"?

>>What I mean’t was that Punctuated Equilibrium showed Darwin was wrong in his assumptions that things changed slowly over eons of time. When PE was initially mooted, the evolutionists of the day were ardently opposed to the idea, but now paleontologists the world over acknowledge it is there in the fossils record and it is an accepted undisputed scientific fact observable in the geological strata.<<

There is no "
accepted undisputed scientific" data "in the geological strata" that PE has, or could occur. There is no proof of sudden changes of one species to another, in present or past. The fossil record is characterized by abrupt appearance of species but it doesn't mean there was a sudden transition from lizard to bird. Yes there is a lack of substantial transitions throughout a species range in the fossil record. But it doesn't mean there were big transitions suddenly (in the millions of years). Genesis chapter one still has the best explanation.

PE is only another form of ‘hopeful monster’ evolution. How can you believe in evolution, or change, when the fossils testify to lack of change? The recognition of abrupt appearance and indicates what creationists have been saying since Darwin—that the evidence fits special creation combined with the results of a worldwide Flood.

Since species remain remarkably stable throughout their ‘history’, showing little change from when they appear in the fossil record to when they disappear, where is your "
scientific" proof for PE?

>>I would imagine AiG scientists reject the Big Bang because of ideology, but in doing so they reject the obvious. The only secular cosmologist I know of who rejects it is Fred Hoyle, and he was a solitary lonely voice for the once popular steady state theory, which has no gone to the grave when he died of old age last year. From my own discussions with secular cosmologists/astronomers, the Big Bang is universally accepted. Who are these ‘many scientists’ you refer to?<<

Charles D. Orth,.......... Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (USA)
R. David Pace.,........ Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel,....... Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker,........ College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt,........ Los Alamos National Lab. (USA)
Bill Peter,....... BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe,......... Sheffield Univ. (UK)
Malabika Roy,.......... George Mason Univ. (USA)
Sisir Roy,...... George Mason Univ. (USA)
Ari Brynjolfsson,........ Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi,........ Churchill College, Univ. of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman,......... Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo,....... Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold,........ Cornell Univ. (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh,....... Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila,........ Univ. of Texas at Dallas (USA)


Sorry TOO many to list here. Go to www.cosmologystatement.org (over 200 names). A few articles - “Big Bang Under Fire” (in Time 1991). “Challenge to the Big Bang” (New Scientist 1993). “Down with the Big Bang” (Nature 1989). “Why Only One Big Bang?” (Scientific America 1992). “Big Bang not Dead but in Decline” (John Manix 1993). “Not with a Big Bang” (The Sciences 1990).

The big bang and Darwinism are two halves, physical and biological, of an atheistic origins myth. Christians who support the big bang theory should realize they are unwittingly denying their God and compromising with a godless worldview. The order seen in stars is nothing like an explosion (Gen.1:14 Job 9:7-10 38:31-33).

All explosions are destructive and result in disorder. In the universe distances are so huge even at light speed, matter could not travel the distances required. Many professional scientists are not convinced by Big Bang theory. If Christians accept it there's huge problems accepting the clear record in Genesis, everything runs contrary. Many who reject Christianity (ie. Templeton & R.L Numbers) did so because they believed the millions of years and Big Bang theory.

The earth has plenty of evidence of a catastrophic event - millions of dead things in rocks.

>>What nonsense. If this be the case, after every local flood there would be fossils made of drowned animals. On the contrary, their carcases are rapidly decayed.<<

Was what you wrote above 'nonsense'? You wrote
"most fossils --- are formed relatively quickly to escape biological degradation". Yes Noah's Flood explains a lot. IF dead things are not "rapidly" buried they DO "rapidly" decay. The only way to make fossils is by fast burial. And after local floods there can be "fossils made of drowned animals". But not many as a world-wide flood - large animals, trees, fish, shells, insects, leaves, etc. All buried fast. The 'millions of years' advocates argue one layer per year. A creature that dies is slowly covered over in time as dust settles and slowly becomes a fossil. That's "nonsense". If they are not "rapidly" buried, they will "rapidly" decay.

>>Neither is there oil produced from pressurized dead micro-organisms.<<

I didn't say that. What I said was flood geology proves the 'millions of years' don't exist. Noah's Flood better fits the evidence witnessed by Polystrate tree trunks, fossils, missing columns, coal, oil deposits, fossil-grave-yards, bent rock formations, ancient records of a flood, all these depict a huge flood.

>>As for inland sea-shells, such observations are very evident in the King Country around Waitomo which is 50 km from the West Coast. This is consistent with the slow moving tectonic plates causing the west coast to be rising above the sea.<<

But there are not enough places with reclaimed land "
rising above the sea" to account for the huge number of sea fossils. And explain the huge fossil grave yards, of millions of all kinds of bones twisted and mixed up. This is better explained by Noah's Flood than a slow continental drift.

>>Such fossils in the limestone is consistent with an old-Earth, not a young earth theory. Besides, geologists say the North Island has been under water several times, whereas South Island hasn’t, hence completely different geological make-ups.<<

Far from it, '
such' discoveries of fossils in limestone is what Flood geology would expect. They are 'consistent' and have been found in the Bangor Limestone of Tennessee, and Tassel ferns have been found in the Marine Upper Mississippian Bangor limestone's.

Rocks that are supposed to be over 300 million year old yet they are marine mud's. Two points (a) since the time the rock was laid down Tassel Ferns have not evolved and (b) since we have now found several million of these land dwelling Tassel Ferns mixed in with marine snails - they are flood deposits.

>>Look inside your own country for these signs, and don’t get sucked in by AiG dogma. Also look where most NZ oil deposits are. Deep in the ocean off the Taranaki coast. If these are the deposits of a recent global flood as AiG propose, what are they doing out there? And how were they deposited there under the ocean? Much more consistent with an earth that is millions of years old.<<

Not at all, Noah's Flood was a world-wide catastrophic event that would have reshaped the face of the earth. The raging waters buried huge numbers of creatures and forests included. And it would have washed away whole forests and burying them under sediment. In some places water never receded they remain buried under oceans. They turned into oil, that's how they got '
out there'. The long-age explanation is that oil and coal forms slowing over millions of years in swamps. Plants and trees just sink down and become buried and after millions of years slowly turn into oil. That doesn't happen. Trees falling into swamps are eaten and decay within a few years and disappear. For coal vegetation must be buried fast and under a massive sediment layer for pressure and heat to change it into coal. One only needs pressure and a sealed container to make coal.

Why should a person who thinks the bible is full of mistakes become a Christian? And if we are only to believe parts, who decides which parts?

>>The Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27). <<

How can you take "
1 John 2:27" literally? It could be an error or 'contradiction' according to your interpretation. Does the Holy Spirit reveal bible mistakes and tell you it can't be trusted? And reveal parts you can't believe? No, He does the opposite. He reveals the truth and encourages trust in what God says.

One becomes a Christian by hearing the 'good news' and accepting Jesus as Saviour. The Holy Spirit help us believe the bible is true.

>>They are taught by men that the whole of the Bible is true. The acceptance of Christ is a faith experience in the gospel records of what Jesus did, not believing in a young Earth/universe.<<

No,
men tell us the bible is NOT true and the Holy Spirit tells us it "is true". Without Him one is unregenerate and spiritually discerned, unable to understand 'the deep things of God'. And not even a child of God. So you must decide who will be the final authority – evolutionary philosophies or God.

I base what I believe on what I know. The bible is genuine. It's been closely, carefully and critically examined for thousands years and survived with greater dependability. Its accuracy is not still waiting to be verified. You reply -

>>I can’t believe a PhD scholar can so ignorantly make such statements as these. Which versions and which texts are the genuine? The King James only boys make such dogmatic claims, yet avoid modern biblical scholarship. What exactly is you PhD in? and from what university ? Denver State, like that Canadian conman Maori Television employed? A $30 PhD off the internet?<<

Yes you don't
believe the bible is sound. I've examined the evidence proving its genuineness. And history has plenty of evidence, impressive scholars have studied and found it authentic and accurate. And the Holy Spirit reveals its trustworthiness. But in the end, it's something ONLY God can reveal to you. He unusually does this ONLY for God's children. God speaks in His Word, reveals it's truth.

But a "
Christian" who doesn't recognize God's authority via the bible is stubborn. And the fact remains all the book of Genesis is God's revelation.

>>This is dogmatic presumption. I can accept the story of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the sons of Israel, as they may have lived only a few hundred years prior to the authorship of Genesis. However, if as you claim, the events in Gen 1 did actually occur as written, there is a 2,000 year period between these events and Genesis being written.<<

"...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pe.2:21). That's how God gave scripture. There is no magic line in Genesis separating it in two. Its language and history give no reason to reject the early chapters. The themes, customs, history, events, all fit together as a whole.

It was not until the 19th century liberals, such as Hartmann that taught Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because writing had not yet been invented! Now we know that Moses could have written in any one of several ancient scripts, being learned in all the lore of Egypt. Moses no doubt used accounts left by Joseph, and the tablets, parchments, and oral translations brought from ancient Mesopotamia by Abraham and his descendants. These would include the genealogies, the major sections, known a “the generations of Adam,” etc.

More Bible writers quoted (or referred to) Genesis than any other book, Jesus and Paul quoted it. Christianity is built on its foundation. All biblical doctrines are based directly or indirectly on Genesis. If the foundation (Genesis) is damaged, the structure (Christianity) is in peril.

>>Again you fail understand, it is valid to accept much of the Bible as being record of actual events that occurred, but not every claim the Bible makes.<<

The Bible repeatedly claims to be God's Word, if you are correct, that's deceptive. For thousands of years, a literal, straightforward, common-sense reading of Genesis and the rest of Scripture has led millions of intelligent people astray. But if we can't trust Genesis to be literally true, we can't trust the rest of the Bible. This is why Genesis is the focus of Satan's attack, more than any other book.

I could say because you are not a child of God, the bible is not the Word of God to you. I say this because no real Christian rejects the bible. Also your reasons in rejecting it are weak.

>>God has given us His Word. Jesus is the Word of God. God also speaks to us through scripture. For me to disagree with some scriptures does not mean I disagree with God. Again, look at what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery. His refusal to stone the woman was out of line with the scriptures. Your argument is the same as AiG, that if you don’t believe in the literal Gen 1, then you are not a true Christian. Therefore all of us IDT proponents are unsaved. Hah. What arrogance!!<<

There's a difference between Jesus correcting the Pharisees and you rejecting God's authority in scripture. It's not strictly true that Moses ordered adultery in general to be punished by stoning. Go have a look.

And "
arrogance!!"? I hit a raw nerve. Don't worry about AiG, Jesus said, 'by their fruits you shall know them'. Many claim to be Christians. I have every right to question your claims. "All scripture" is given by God, not some of it (2 Tim.3:16).

You insist it "
is full of errors……contradictions….not my authority….all of the Bible cannot be Gods Word". And claim to have discarded it long ago - and its not "infallible and inerrant" or "absolute truth". You boast of no "faith" in it. Not the words of a true Christian.

>>there are some contradictions…… For instance in chapter 2… read the Greek Interlinear, the word ‘before’ is not found in vs 4, and the explanation for there being no plants is that there was no rain, and there was no man to till the ground. God then sends a mist and forms man. God then plants Eden, and places Adam in there<<

For '
contradictions' you must take Genesis 1 & 2 literally. I believe they complement each another. The first outlines the broad process of creation, how all things came from God's power, while the second pays greater attention to man's creation in a specific geographical location. So the second account is complementary to the first, dealing more fully with man's creation, while the first gives a description of the world created for man. They are complimentary not contrary. Genesis 1 mentions man's creation without details, and Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and specific details are given about him and his setting.

>>But Gen 2 has Jehovah making man out of the dust of the Earth for the first time, and all the events of Gen 2 are surely mean’t to be an expansion of Gen 1:27 in a lot more detail. Same event, but different name, therefore it is logical that it has different authorship.<<

It's more to do with your 'anything but' interpretations. The record is explained by a proper understanding of the purpose of the narratives. The context determines the proper usage of the name of God. In the first, a mere external act of man's creation is given, it's proper to designate God as the all-powerful being, the God of gods, or Elohim. In the next section, an internal change takes place in the heart of man by the entrance of sin into the world. Sin now replaces innocence and misery replaces happiness. So it's desirable to introduce God by a name which implies holiness, so Yahweh-Elohim is used.

This is proven by the fact in the conversation with the serpent, Elohim is used not Yahweh-Elohim (Gen.3:1-5). It would have been profane to put the divine name into the mouth of the tempter. So with the identity of Elohim and Yahweh having once been impressed, it was not necessary to repeat this later, except on specific occasions.

>>I am only human, therefore I need God. The Holy Spirit is my mentor as John said we need to have (1 John 2:27). <<

The Holy Spirit never
mentors contrary to the bible. Like your words here -

>>The author of Gen 1 claimed ‘God said’. I doubt the credibility of this authorship…. The Bible is full of errors…… all of the Bible cannot be Gods Word<<

The Holy Spirit doesn't cause you to say that. You have attempted to be biblical and critical in the way you write, but fail. Because you lost the source, the content and the critique of all theology – the Word of God. Without that you have no principle to organize your theology. In the bible God is speaking, not man as the religious quester. Your message is empty preaching, nothing more than the spirit of man, there is no real proclamation of the Word of God. You are just religious talking about religious topics, and lost in rank individualism.

Because you reject the Holy Scriptures as the controlling normative source of Christian dogma, you cannot progress or advance beyond your ideas. The foundation of biblical studies is the command of God. The right God makes the right commands and the authoritative God has the right to make moral commands or He would be less than God. You use scripture and give it special status, but cannot give it binding authority in theological dogma.

You come from the school of modern liberalism. That came from those who doubted the bible. They had no creed, no confession, no substance, all they had was an empty religious shell which tries to please fellow doubters.

The fact is, (1) modern professional scholarship, (2) excellent Christian scientists, (3) accredited theologians, and (4) those in various fields of study, (ie original languages, culture and history) do NOT support your views. Today, more than ever before, we know the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words. Their proper use and meaning support the traditional meaning regarding Genesis held by the church.

When a person becomes a Christian, it starts with a new birth (Jn.3:3). Not a slow process but a spiritual birth. The bible says "all have sinned" and God requires sin to be dealt with. So Christ died. I acknowledged my need before God recognizing Christ died for me on the cross. I asked Christ into my heart, He washed me clean. That's how I became a Child of God (a Christian). That's when the Holy Spirit entered my heart and He began to His work within.

The Holy Spirit uses the whole bible to guide, build, teach, so we know how to live and believe. If you are not a born again Christian, you do not have the Holy Spirit (Jn.1:12 3:7 Rom.8:9) and He can't open God's Word to you as He desires. This is the reason you reject the bible, and won't believe it. And claim it's full of error, mistakes, contradictions etc.

>>Ah yes. The final lynch-pin. If you don’t believe in the literal events of Gen 1, you are not born-again. Such arrogance. Typical AiG condescension to all who are not young-Earthers. Second –class Christian am I? Fact is that I’ve been Spirit-filled for 32 years and was born-again in 1972.<<

No, the very book you reject is the book that exposes you. The bible tells me what a real Christian is, how they behave, what they say, and believe. You insist you were "
once like" me but "found major flaws" so gave it up. I believe that's true. So I have every right to QUESTION any claim of "faith" you make. The bible is all about people coming to know the Saviour.

You said the bible "
is full of errors……contradictions….not my authority…. all of the Bible cannot be Gods Word". You claim no "faith" in it. So I have every right to DOUBT your claim of "faith", that's not 'arrogance' because real Christians don't say what you do.

Those who reject the ultimate standard of right and wrong 'God's authority' (as revealed in scripture) have no standard of right and wrong but their own. Their ideas of honesty are not the bibles or God's. So I don't believe everything you say. Don't blame
AiG, it's based on what you write.

If you really are what you claim. Look how the millions of years theory has poisoned you and caused you to doubt what God has declared in His Word.

Thanks for writing, it's been great.

Regards,
Mark


Index
Home