Progressive's view on creation?

[TrustAndObey]

I won't debate, I won't even look at ya funny....:) I'm just curious what the Progressive Adventist stand on creation is?

God bless!
~Lainie

[HoneyDew]

Well, since you asked ... :)
I can't talk for anyone else, but here is what I believe:
I believe in an Old Earth Creation. That is, the Earth might be millions of years old, along with the rest of the universe. That, in NO way, means I believe in evolution. I believe this universe has a Divine and Personal Creator-God.
The reason why I changed my beliefs stem from reading Genesis chapter 1 and 2 and realizing that sections of the related tales do not make sense to me in this century. I cannot ignore scientific evidence. It would appear that the view is that of a geocentric universe, that is, the Earth is central and the other heavenly bodies were created to complement and enhance life on Earth, such as bringing light, etc.
(Rushing tonight, but I can give a full answer tomorrow when I return.)

[moicherie]

Since i take issue with this division but i'll answer anyway- i go with Genesis 1 life on this earth created perhaps 6000 years but the planet itself and the water on it perhaps millions after all the waters was here before anything else as per Genesis 1

[jabechler]

Sorry, but need to interject. Gen 1:2 the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.Gen 1:6 ...let there be firmament... Even science agrees without a sun and without an atmosphere water could not have existed and of course no life. Please be caustious in what parts of evolutionary theory we attribute to fact in faith. I love science and understand science that shows the power of our Creator. But faith will always superseed science when science raises questions which it cannot answer.

[moicherie]

Sorry, but need to interject. Gen 1:2 the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.Gen 1:6 ...let there be firmament... Even science agrees without a sun and without an atmosphere water could not have existed and of course no life. Please be caustious in what parts of evolutionary theory we attribute to fact in faith. I love science and understand science that shows the power of our Creator. But faith will always superseed science when science raises questions which it cannot answer.

How would you explain the Spirit moving on the face of the deep before God said Let there be light etc, how would you explain the existence of a planet there is no record of the actual planets creation only a record of what was created on the planet which suggests to me the empty rock could have been around for ages.

[jabechler]

How would you explain the Spirit moving on the face of the deep before God said Let there be light etc, how would you explain the existence of a planet there is no record of the actual planets creation only a record of what was created on the planet which suggests to me the empty rock could have been around for ages.
In Genesis God said let there be light....... the sun and the moon. how does science account for planatery position and alligment with no sun and no moon.

[jabechler]

Well, since you asked ... :)
I can't talk for anyone else, but here is what I believe:
I believe in an Old Earth Creation. That is, the Earth might be millions of years old, along with the rest of the universe. That, in NO way, means I believe in evolution. I believe this universe has a Divine and Personal Creator-God.
The reason why I changed my beliefs stem from reading Genesis chapter 1 and 2 and realizing that sections of the related tales do not make sense to me in this century. I cannot ignore scientific evidence. It would appear that the view is that of a geocentric universe, that is, the Earth is central and the other heavenly bodies were created to complement and enhance life on Earth, such as bringing light, etc.
(Rushing tonight, but I can give a full answer tomorrow when I return.)
Just a thought. How do you reconcile the 7 Day Sabbath if God took thousands of years to create instead of 6 literal days.

[SnowBird77]

I just love people who think that what you cannot explain has to be more factual than what you can explain. Just call it faith.

[SnowBird77]

Who said that the 7th day Sabbath needs to be reconciled with anything? When the truth of what actually happened depends on the practices one wants to follow we are in dangerous waters. You cannot start with the Sabbath and work backwards.

[SnowBird77]

Why is it not sufficient to know that the world was created?

[jabechler]

When the literal word of God is questioned, such how long did creation take or is Sabbath the 7 day of the week etc... we cast doubt on the integrity of God and cast a dark shadow on Gods character. Like any rumor the farther you get from when it started the more exagerated the rumor becomes. If we deny or alter the beginning of the story ( Gen 1 ) all that follows will be changed.

I would suggest a new book out " Here We Stand", it outlines the effect of truth when creation takes on progrressive ideas.

[moicherie]

When the literal word of God is questioned, such how long did creation take or is Sabbath the 7 day of the week etc... we cast doubt on the integrity of God and cast a dark shadow on Gods character. Like any rumor the farther you get from when it started the more exagerated the rumor becomes. If we deny or alter the beginning of the story ( Gen 1 ) all that follows will be changed.

I would suggest a new book out " Here We Stand", it outlines the effect of truth when creation takes on progrressive ideas.

One should never fear questions, as for the literal word of God that is Jesus not the writings of Moses, inspiration does not equate to dictation.

[ChristianCandy]

I believe that either Earth IS billions of years old,
OR
that God created the Earth to look billions of years old.
God can do that.
He can make an old planet instead of a new one.

But in NO WAY do I believe in evolution.
Too many problems that theory can't answer.

Another popular theory is that God created the earth in the beginning and then a disaster happened.
God started all over again with His Spirit moving over the face of the deep of the destroyed plant, void and lifeless & God re-created the life on earth. And God told Adam to "re-plenish" the earth & fill it.

Replenish? Re? To do it over again.

So many things could have happened on this earth that God did not give us an account of.
We will probably never know the answer, but the good thing is, we can always ask Him when we get to heaven.

[capnator]

It's the Theory of evolution! not the Fact of evolution.

Everyone has the right to believe what they do and that's cool. Personally I find it hard to comprehend how people want to take a 50/50 stance on the creation/evolution idea because of either a bit of science which is "Theory" with many things that need a lot of explaining/faith to accept or because of Genesis being tales.

Once you decide to ignore one part of the bible how do you decide which bits to believe??? It's make your own religion from there.

If you struggle to believe in the power of God to create the world by speaking in 6 days like it says in Genesis what about... Jesus being born of a virgin, casting out demons, healing, raising people from the dead, rebuking the wheather and saving you from your sins.
What about God being 3 persons in one, or a New Jerusalem coming down to this world after Jesus returns to this earth, destroys the wicked and changes you in a twinkling of an eye.

I dunno, maybe the bible just isnt the book for you?????? There is a lot of crazy stuff in there.

[drgibson]

If we claim that the world is "Old" we give validity to the science of evolution.

Has any one here ever heard of Dr. Carl Baugh founder of the Creation Evidence Museum? Google his site.

[StormyOne]

If we claim that the world is "Old" we give validity to the science of evolution.

Has any one here ever heard of Dr. Carl Baugh founder of the Creation Evidence Museum? Google his site.the earth is old.... no claiming about it... reread Gen 1... the earth and water were present (from some other time) when God decided to create life on this planet....

[drgibson]

Genesis 1


1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I don't know how you can claim the formless earth was present before God started the Creation process. No where is there an inference of a time lapse between the creation events.

In the beginning can only mean the Beginning of the Earth, there is no other beginning to reference. Time has no beginning and God has no beginning. Why would God create an object before he needed it? Did the earth need time to cure? Or age? No the earth in total is the age it is. Ok so maybe God created the earth in an “Older” state. Why would God need to create dirt and rocks that appear to be millions of years old knowing full well that man in his desire for knowledge would make a discovery that contradicts the very framework of his creation?

The issue here is can we trust the man made science that claims that the earth is x number of years old. This is the same science that claims that all living things are derived from pond scum.

Carbon dating is a theory that estimates something’s age by how much Carbon-14 is present.

Here is an excerpt about how carbon Dating works and the flaws with this theory.
(This was copied from the Creation Evidence Museum’s web site.)

A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.

The earth is only around 6,000 years old to claim otherwise discounts the Creation process. There is no valid reason to claim that the earth is millions of years old except to align God’s word with an inaccurate scientific process.

For more facts based on Scripture and a more accurate scientific process please check out the Creation Evidence Museum web site.

[HoneyDew]

It's the Theory of evolution! not the Fact of evolution.

Everyone has the right to believe what they do and that's cool. Personally I find it hard to comprehend how people want to take a 50/50 stance on the creation/evolution idea because of either a bit of science which is "Theory" with many things that need a lot of explaining/faith to accept or because of Genesis being tales.

Once you decide to ignore one part of the bible how do you decide which bits to believe??? It's make your own religion from there.

If you struggle to believe in the power of God to create the world by speaking in 6 days like it says in Genesis what about... Jesus being born of a virgin, casting out demons, healing, raising people from the dead, rebuking the wheather and saving you from your sins.
What about God being 3 persons in one, or a New Jerusalem coming down to this world after Jesus returns to this earth, destroys the wicked and changes you in a twinkling of an eye.

I dunno, maybe the bible just isnt the book for you?????? There is a lot of crazy stuff in there.

Just to clarify: when scientist use the word "theory" they do not use the same way that laypersons such as yourself do.

Don't get so hung up on "religion." That is the root of some of our problems.

[HoneyDew]

Genesis 1


1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I don't know how you can claim the formless earth was present before God started the Creation process. No where is there an inference of a time lapse between the creation events.

In the beginning can only mean the Beginning of the Earth, there is no other beginning to reference. Time has no beginning and God has no beginning. Why would God create an object before he needed it? Did the earth need time to cure? Or age? No the earth in total is the age it is. Ok so maybe God created the earth in an “Older” state. Why would God need to create dirt and rocks that appear to be millions of years old knowing full well that man in his desire for knowledge would make a discovery that contradicts the very framework of his creation?

The earth is only around 6,000 years old to claim otherwise discounts the Creation process. There is no valid reason to claim that the earth is millions of years old except to align God’s word with an inaccurate scientific process.



The earth is NOT only around 6,000. To claim this in NO way discounts the creation process as it is entirely evident that there WAS a creation of this entire universe. Explain then written documentation of the Chinese which dates over 10,000 years, for example.
Don't be so fearful of science and research, it is what allows us to understand mental illness does not mean being possessed by devils. It is what allows us to be immunized against many pathogens that claimed (and still claims) the lives of so many humans.

Let's go along with what you say, namely "In the beginning can only mean the Beginning of the Earth, there is no other beginning to reference."

Are you asserting that the planet Earth, part of the Solar System, part of the entire Universe, was created all special and at a different time than say, Jupiter or other planets in other solar systems?

The age of the Earth and the universe matters not. After all, we have in the Bible where it is said that the Creator is eternal. That covers eons. Millions and millions of years, eh?

[drgibson]

First off sorry for the length but it is needed.

The earth is NOT only around 6,000. To claim this in NO way discounts the creation process as it is entirely evident that there WAS a creation of this entire universe. Explain then written documentation of the Chinese which dates over 10,000 years, for example.

Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezek.4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.
From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.
From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.
From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen. 12:10/ Exod. 12:40/ Gal. 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.
Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen. 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.
From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen. 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].
The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.
Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years.

Don't be so fearful of science and research, it is what allows us to understand mental illness does not mean being possessed by devils. It is what allows us to be immunized against many pathogens that claimed (and still claims) the lives of so many humans.

I embrace science and technloogy when it doesn't contradict the Scriptures. Or when the basis of it's purpose is to discount Scriptures. The the "Old Earth" theory and the "Gap" theory is nothing more than a desperate attempt to harmonize the first chapter of Genesis with the time scale of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology by pigeon-holing the geologic ages in an imaginary time-gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This time-gap is forced upon the text and context of Genesis 1 by an unwarranted manipulation of the Hebrew grammar of its second verse in order to accommodate the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils within the rock record.

Acceptance of the Gap Theory or any other compromise position between the divinely-inspired creation account of Genesis and the fallible evolutionary assumptions of man is really a question of ultimate authority--God's Word or man's word (see Rom. 3:4).

Let's go along with what you say, namely "In the beginning can only mean the Beginning of the Earth, there is no other beginning to reference."

Are you asserting that the planet Earth, part of the Solar System, part of the entire Universe, was created all special and at a different time than say, Jupiter or other planets in other solar systems?

Show me in scripture where the creation of this solar system or universe is covered then we can discuss it. Right now I know of no scientific theory that takes into account the Creation Model in Genesis.

The age of the Earth and the universe matters not. After all, we have in the Bible where it is said that the Creator is eternal. That covers eons. Millions and millions of years, eh?

We are to seek out the Truth lest we are swayed by the winds of doctrine. Anything that is contradictory to the Scriptures is contrary to God. So when we are seeking the Truth we must prove it out through God’s Holy Word. So yes knowing the true age of the earth is important so we do not put science above the Word of God. Science should line up with Scripture not Scripture with science.

[capnator]

pfft Chinese document 10000 yrs old... science reckons some stuff is millions of years old, but just because some scientists think these things are that old doesnt mean they are, dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate in the past, so saying something is 10000yrs old doesnt mean it is.

[Jimlarmore]

I have never had a problem with the earth being here in some lifeless form for billions of years. However, I fully accept the creation account of Genesis 1. When we look out into the universe we can see that the universe is so large that it defies imagination. There are an estimated 10 billion galaxies in the universe but they keep finding more and more of them as they explore deeper into the cosmos. When we look into space we are looking back into the past. The big dipper constalation's light has taken an estimated 75 years to reach us. That means that when you look at this constalation tonite the light you are seeing began it's journey to your eyes 75 years ago. That means it started it's journey way before I was born. Things like black holes and dark matter are subjects of incredible curiosity and wonder. IOW, God has obviously been about creating and maintaining His universe for a long long time. The further we see into the outer reaches of the universe we just see more and more galaxies and stars. There doesn't appear to be an end to it. Maybe the universe is as infinite as it's creator.

On another topic under discussion here of radio dating. Carbon 14 is used to date organic material. Radio isotopes are used to date rocks. Rocks are either igneous or sedimentary. The problem with dating them is that there has to be a lot of assumptions made to accept a certain date as valid. There are too many things that can effect the radiation decay rate in any particular sample. IOW, the only way a sample can be acceptable to make an accurate age determination is to essentially be in a hermetically sealed environment for the eons it was waiting to be dug up and tested. Other radio active elements can defuse within water into and around a rock and change the rate. There are many other things to change it as well.

[RC_NewProtestants]

You can check out my blog at
http://cafesda.blogspot.com

I have been going over the lesson study guide for this quarter. I found it very interesting that the authors do not understand the seqence of day 4 and assert that we will have to wait till heaven to ask God about it (yet in the same week they said how easily comprehendable the story is). One would assume that when they find that the story does not work as a literal historical events that instead of saying we don't understand it they would say maybe it is not meant as literal historical events. But not yet. The facade is clearly breaking though.

[theophile]

PLEASE,please, go to Kent hovind's website, and look at his videos.
He also has debated several evolutionists, and won!!!! Please, they are free.
As Kent SDA--no!!! Creationist, yes!!!!!
If we decide,it took 1000's of years, we deny the 6 day creation, and we can lose the Sabbath meaning.HE IS CREATOR One of the pillars of the faith is that God created in six days, and on the 7th day, He rested.
Evolution makes no sense, (why isn't it occurring now--nothing changes from one KIND to another, although things can vary.)

I would take it to the bank that hovind will turn the heads of many evolutionists out there.

[RC_NewProtestants]

If we decide,it took 1000's of years, we deny the 6 day creation, and we can lose the Sabbath meaning.HE IS CREATOR One of the pillars of the faith is that God created in six days, and on the 7th day, He rested. Why would we lose the Sabbath, in the version of the 10 commandments that is recorded to have been written on stone it says nothing about creation. The concept in both Ex. 20 and the following text from Deut is that of rest.

12 `Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 `Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 `You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day. Deut. 5:12-15 NASB

[theophile]

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.



What are you saying?/ It's right there in verse 11.

[DrStupid_Ben]

Check out the website of the Geoscience Research Institute which is supported by the SDA General Conference. (A simple google search would find it, sorry I don't have enough posts to provide a link)
It is my understanding that they do not support the young earth creation, but rather an old universe (billions of years) and young life (6000 to 10000 years) on earth, still maintaining 6 literal days of the creation week. This is also supported by a growing number of theologians particularly from the seminary at Andrews University. You will find this view is different to the Creation Science organisations views of a young earth and universe.

I personally lean towards a view of the Genesis accounts of both chapters 1 and 2 from a Poem-Polemic view. This does not dicredit the Sabbath or God's authority as some have said. Genesis was in fact authored for the specific purpose of maintaining a base for such things as the Sabbath and God's authority, only in a way that spoke to the original audience - using a cosmology that is increadibly simillar to those of the Mesopotamian and other near east cultures, only with God stamping his ordered authority on the whole creation.

However, I do not claim to tell other people on this forum what to believe, only what I at this time choose to. This, like many other theological problems would take much more than a forum post to give a full argument.

[Sophia7]

Check out the website of the Geoscience Research Institute which is supported by the SDA General Conference. (A simple google search would find it, sorry I don't have enough posts to provide a link)
It is my understanding that they do not support the young earth creation, but rather an old universe (billions of years) and young life (6000 to 10000 years) on earth, still maintaining 6 literal days of the creation week. This is also supported by a growing number of theologians particularly from the seminary at Andrews University. You will find this view is different to the Creation Science organisations views of a young earth and universe.

I personally lean towards a view of the Genesis accounts of both chapters 1 and 2 from a Poem-Polemic view. This does not dicredit the Sabbath or God's authority as some have said. Genesis was in fact authored for the specific purpose of maintaining a base for such things as the Sabbath and God's authority, only in a way that spoke to the original audience - using a cosmology that is increadibly simillar to those of the Mesopotamian and other near east cultures, only with God stamping his ordered authority on the whole creation.

However, I do not claim to tell other people on this forum what to believe, only what I at this time choose to. This, like many other theological problems would take much more than a forum post to give a full argument.

Geoscience Research Institute:
http://www.grisda.org/

[RC_NewProtestants]

Theophile wrote:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.



What are you saying?/ It's right there in verse 11.Yes it is right there in a story written after Israel's Exodus from slavery and after all the laws and instructions were given at Sinai.

So it is not really surprising that the views of the Israelites would be reflected in the story of origins that was written down specifically for them.

Now you may point to the verse you did and say that it is literal history but that really gets you into trouble when you have to describe the other parts of the six days as literal history. For instance what is the "light" on the first day. You can speculate but no answer is really available. The lesson study guide noted that they don't understand why the mention of the creation of the sun moon and stars is relegated to the 4th day. They speculate we will have to wait till heaven to understand why it is there. Why, because if those were not created the very first thing then there would be no such thing as a literal 24 hour day.

The whole thing unravels when it is looked at as literal history. But the concept of taking a day off and resting works no matter what reason you use for it. It is not dependent upon a literal 6 days of creation any more then it is dependent upon us literally being slaves in Egypt, which was actually the case for only one generation of Israelites. The rest had to not take it literally but symbolically because it was their fathers that were slaves not themselves. So they saw the application over the literal.

[skurfur]

Kent Hovind has been convicted for tax evasion. He violated construction zoning laws by not paying a $50 fee and spent $40,000 litigating the fee. His masters and doctorate are questionable.

I don't want to be doing a ad hominem fallacy, so listen to his arguments, for sure, but test his arguments thorougly and use basic social physchology when considering his reputation.

[icedragon101]

Here is a creationist orginization "Answers in Genesis"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

they have good article to answers questions.

[icedragon101]

Kent Hovind has been convicted for tax evasion. He violated construction zoning laws by not paying a $50 fee and spent $40,000 litigating the fee. His masters and doctorate are questionable.

I don't want to be doing a ad hominem fallacy, so listen to his arguments, for sure, but test his arguments thorougly and use basic social physchology when considering his reputation.


I have talked to kent hovind personally. I sent him an article just last month and talked to him on the phone. i have been to his siminars and watched at least 75 hours of dvd debats. he reason very well and has much to say. He is very open about his credintals and his troubles. Statment are usually made by his critics and usually exggarated.

Here is his link

www.drdino.com (http://www.dr.dino.com) very useful very effective

[Sophia7]

The link didn't work. I think it's supposed to be www.drdino.com.

[happywiththelord]

I really enjoy listening to Kent Hovind. To bad on his personal issues, but his creation insite to me is right on! There are others as well. I used to watch a television show on television, it was on satellite, from the Creation Network. Good stuff! There were several creationists on there talking. They made it so clear. Another one is David Hamm? Let me look up the name. I think it was that though.

[happywiththelord]

Just looked it up, his name is Ken Hamm. He has good stuff to on creation vs. evolution.

[Jimlarmore]

I'm not a progressive Adventist the way I see it but I believe that there could have been something here floating around before the Lord created life on it. The word abysmos used in the hebrew could be interpreted that way. Then again, it could be interpeted as nothing as well.

Examining the evidence as it is presented to us makes us wonder about the entire universe being created in 6 days or all of the galaxies etc on one day. By the reckoning we have today the light that many of these celestrial bodies emit has been traveling thru space for billions of years. So it appears God has been about creating for a long long time and I don't really see Him stopping after this sin problem is resolved. The universe is by all measures infinite as is it's creator. Why would He stop creating new life now especially after the sin problem is resolved?

I have a lot of questions lined up to be answered once we are united with our Creator.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[keyarch]

I am non-denominational, but most of my family are SDA and I went there as a kid, so consider this a fellowship post.
It is very refreshing to see several in this thread that are not afraid to interpret scriptures for what they say.
I've tried to do extensive study on this foundational issue, and I have come to the following conclusion of what scripture is saying:

1. Genesis 1:1-2 is talking about THE heaven (universe) and THE earth (planet covered in water). These things are of an unknowable age.
2. The "Creation Week" starts with God's light in Gen. 1:3 and proceeds for a total of six 24 hour days. During this time, the earth is molded to provide land masses above the water, the atmosphere was established, the sun and moon "set" into place and all the biology was created. By genealogy, we can establish this event to about 6,120 years ago.
3. The YEC group will point to Gen. 1:16 as when the stars were created, but most English translations have added words here. God made the lesser light (moon) to rule the night, with stars.
4. The YEC group will quote Exodus 20:11 as saying everything in the whole universe was created 6,000 years ago. Words have been added here too. It actually says "For six days the LORD made (fashioned, worked on)" the things in Genesis 1. All in reference to a work week and not in any way to add another narrative to the creation event. The text does NOT say "For in six days".

This creation model could have other names, but I call it 'YBC' for Young Biological Creation. A full narrative is at:
http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm

[ChristianCandy]

One thing that points to an old earth is the different species of humans buried in the earth which are not Homo Sapiens, like Adam & Eve.

There are the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Florens, & others to mention a few. Most of these species of humans are millions/billions old (older than Adam & Eve by far).

I think God has been creating humans on the earth for a long time, long before Adam & Eve were created. Because God cast Satan out of the heavens, Satan has been ruining this earth & possibly solar system & universe time & time again since God first originally created it.

Gen. 1:1 tells us of the first time God created the earth.
Gen. 1:2 tells us of God re-creating the earth & stars & solar system.

There is a story God didn't tell us about between Gen 1:1 & Gen 1:2. God is a Perfect Being. He would not have created a void & lifeless planet like we see in Gen. 1:2. Only Satan is capable of destruction. However, the earth is in a destructive state in Gen. 1:2.

Something happened between Gen 1:1 & Gen 1:2 that is not relative to our beginnings with Adam & Eve, so God does not include those other accounts to our beginning.

But those other species of human bones unearthed from our planet does tell us we are not the only humans God created on this planet.

Does anybody have any thoughts on those other species of humans which are not Homo Sapiens like we are but came from our same planet & are millions/billions years old?

[Jimlarmore]

Many of the so called hominids your are talking about here are actually juvenile apes not primitive ancestors to us homo sapiens. In nearly all the cases they only have small parts of skulls or leg bones and from that they build an entire skeleton. It's like trying to build a corvette by finding a tail light and a right fender. The sacrum of many of these ( very rare to find these ) indicate a quadrapedal not bipedal way of locomotion. There has to be many many assumptions made on these so-called primitive man models. A tooth found in Nebraska caused a whole primitive man to be built with pictures and everything. They called him the "Nebraska Man". This was even used at the Scopesfield trial that got evolution taught in our public schools. Later they found the source of this tooth and it turned out to be pecary or a pig.

The problem is that in science the accomplishments have been so great we take everything they say as gospel and true. However, in the case of anthopology they make too many assumptions and assign to fossilized finds things that may not be. Not too many years ago they found a Neanderthal skeleton in a cave in Europe with a coat of chain male armour on. Neanderthals were supposed to exist long before chain male amour was around. There's good evidence that this may have been a genetic condition that existed in ancient times that got passed on until it died out.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[icedragon101]

I have yet to see some one offer this explanation.

the universe is billions of years old and this planet and planetary system are young.

As far as the earth being created to look old I have to disagree. evolutionist claim the earth is billions of years old and the granites are proof of that. granites they claim took billions of years to cool off. ,but dr Robert Gentry has conducted a survey of the granites. he has found that polonium radio halo are present in the granites. a certain type of radio halo found , can only last a short period then disappears. these halos are found frozen in the granites. This would be like alkaseltzer bubbles being found frozen in a glass of water. the only way that could happen is if it was an rapid freeze. the same way it is with the Granites. The existence of the radio halos is evidence that the granites are not billions of years old

[DrStupid_Ben]

I am non-denominational, but most of my family are SDA and I went there as a kid, so consider this a fellowship post.
It is very refreshing to see several in this thread that are not afraid to interpret scriptures for what they say.
I've tried to do extensive study on this foundational issue, and I have come to the following conclusion of what scripture is saying:

1. Genesis 1:1-2 is talking about THE heaven (universe) and THE earth (planet covered in water). These things are of an unknowable age.
2. The "Creation Week" starts with God's light in Gen. 1:3 and proceeds for a total of six 24 hour days. During this time, the earth is molded to provide land masses above the water, the atmosphere was established, the sun and moon "set" into place and all the biology was created. By genealogy, we can establish this event to about 6,120 years ago.
3. The YEC group will point to Gen. 1:16 as when the stars were created, but most English translations have added words here. God made the lesser light (moon) to rule the night, with stars.
4. The YEC group will quote Exodus 20:11 as saying everything in the whole universe was created 6,000 years ago. Words have been added here too. It actually says "For six days the LORD made (fashioned, worked on)" the things in Genesis 1. All in reference to a work week and not in any way to add another narrative to the creation event. The text does NOT say "For in six days".

This creation model could have other names, but I call it 'YBC' for Young Biological Creation. A full narrative is at:
http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm
This idea is used by a growing number of Adventists, and is sometimes known as a "two creation model". (a somewhat unknowable cosmological age with a barren earth, and God fasioning life on Earth near 6000 years ago)

I have a number of disputes with it myself, however I do respect many who believe it.

[keyarch]

This idea is used by a growing number of Adventists, and is sometimes known as a "two creation model". (a somewhat unknowable cosmological age with a barren earth, and God fasioning life on Earth near 6000 years ago)

I have a number of disputes with it myself, however I do respect many who believe it.Since I would not be allowed to debate here, I would welcome any PM on the subject. Thanks for the name of the model. I hadn't heard it that way before, but the definition you gave fits with what I've been calling "Young Biological Creation".

It seems like many would confuse the term "two creation" as meaning Genesis 1 as one event and Genesis 2 as another. For that reason, I would probably not want to use it.

[DrStupid_Ben]

Since I would not be allowed to debate here, I would welcome any PM on the subject. Thanks for the name of the model. I hadn't heard it that way before, but the definition you gave fits with what I've been calling "Young Biological Creation".

It seems like many would confuse the term "two creation" as meaning Genesis 1 as one event and Genesis 2 as another. For that reason, I would probably not want to use it.
Yeah I agree that it is confusing. The first creation would be the universe (including the earth?) and the second would be the creation of life and formation of the land and water etc.

[keyarch]

Yeah I agree that it is confusing. The first creation would be the universe (including the earth?) and the second would be the creation of life and formation of the land and water etc.Just to make sure you understand, I was saying that the terminology was confusing, not the model. I would be very interested in reading more information on this "two creation model" and who supports it (especially any SDA sources). I did a quick internet search, and all I could pull up were arguments regarding Gen.1 & 2 like I was saying it sounded like.

[DrStupid_Ben]

Just to make sure you understand, I was saying that the terminology was confusing, not the model. I would be very interested in reading more information on this "two creation model" and who supports it (especially any SDA sources). I did a quick internet search, and all I could pull up were arguments regarding Gen.1 & 2 like I was saying it sounded like.

Ok, I'm with you.

I have just realised that the "two creation model" is also called the "two-stage creation model"
They are the same, just with different name.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I did not know it had a specific model name but I think you are referring to the idea that the earth as a mass was created sometime before the creation of Genesis. The reason they do this is because of the age of rocks and because then they can say that the stars and the rest of the universe are as old as they appear to be scientifically.

This is why I think the writer and editor of the lesson study recently on Genesis says of creation day 4 that they don't understand what it is referring to and they will have to ask God when they get to heaven. Which is quite a huge statement against the literal view of Genesis 6 days of creation in my opinion. But rather then give up on the 6 days they assign the creation of the universe and stars and mass of the earth to something that occurred in Genesis first verse. As you say a two creation model.

It does not really help them out since it does not help them see the literalness of the creation of light or the creation of stars. But it helps explain how we can see light from stars which would not possible arrive here yet if a young earth creation is accepted.

The two creation model also fits the traditionalist tendency of inserting additional information into the Genesis stories. Having gotten away with doing that for years it is not that hard to do it again just insert material into a different verse. Interestingly it is the same verse that the Gap theorist also use with their 2 creation model, the first being the creation of Satan's earth which had those nasty dinosaurs and then God created the earth of Genesis.

Literalism in Genesis really leads to a lot of speculation.

[DrStupid_Ben]

As I said, I have my problems with it.

[icedragon101]

two statged creation summry is what.

[DrStupid_Ben]

two statged creation summry is what.
God created everything (the entire universe, including the earth) as described in Gen 1:1. Then at some time God specifically created and shaped life on earth in the 6 days of Gen 1:2f (most who hold this view will agree on close to 6000 years ago). It allows for a universe dated at roughly 13 billion years, and observing stars many millions of light years away. It also helps to clarify an old geological time frame. It is not that different from a YEC interpretation, the only differences are really with day 1 and day 4.

hence the name (two creation, or two-stage creation)
an original creation of the universe, then a further creation of life, seperated by a period of time

[keyarch]

God created everything (the entire universe, including the earth) as described in Gen 1:1. Then at some time God specifically created and shaped life on earth in the 6 days of Gen 1:2f (most who hold this view will agree on close to 6000 years ago). It allows for a universe dated at roughly 13 billion years, and observing stars many millions of light years away. It also helps to clarify an old geological time frame. It is not that different from a YEC interpretation, the only differences are really with day 1 and day 4.

hence the name (two creation, or two-stage creation)
an original creation of the universe, then a further creation of life, seperated by a period of timeThis is a quote from a paper I found done by Jim Gibson of the Geoscience Research Institute (The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church):

"4. How can creationists explain radiometric dates of many millions of years?
Creationists do not have an adequate explanation. Some possibilities have been proposed, but they are not compelling because they do not explain why the lower layers generally give older dates than the upper layers. The first possibility is that the rocks of the earth are very old because the planet was created long before life was placed on it. This theory proposes that Genesis refers only to the creation of life on the planet, and not to the creation of the planet itself. This can be called the two-stage creation hypothesis."

You mentioned you have some problems with the "two-stage" creation interpretation, and I still don't know what they are. I have been arguing for this model (under the name of Young Biological Creation - YBC) for some years now, and still have not come across any Scripture that would nullify it, but rather many that support it. I am REALLY interested to hear any legitimate problem, as I am only interested in TRUTH.

Also, someone please let me know if my posting here is inappropriate.

[RC_NewProtestants]

You mentioned you have some problems with the "two-stage" creation interpretation, and I still don't know what they are. I have been arguing for this model (under the name of Young Biological Creation - YBC) for some years now, and still have not come across any Scripture that would nullify it, but rather many that support it.

It seems to me that it is the very first chapter of Genesis if taken literally that goes against the 2 stage creation. As the lesson study guide last quarter said they did not know what the meaning of the 4th day of creation was, they would have to wait and ask once they were in heaven. You may have another answer for that problem though that they or I have never thought of.

The 2 stage creation model as I think the Lesson quarterly alluded to holds that the creation of the universe with all it stars and planets occurred before the creation of life on earth in the 6 days of creation. So they have to say that if that is the case they don't understand the meaning of the 4th day of creation. It seems to be the biggest problem with the 2 stage concept.

[keyarch]

It seems to me that it is the very first chapter of Genesis if taken literally that goes against the 2 stage creation. As the lesson study guide last quarter said they did not know what the meaning of the 4th day of creation was, they would have to wait and ask once they were in heaven. You may have another answer for that problem though that they or I have never thought of.

The 2 stage creation model as I think the Lesson quarterly alluded to holds that the creation of the universe with all it stars and planets occurred before the creation of life on earth in the 6 days of creation. So they have to say that if that is the case they don't understand the meaning of the 4th day of creation. It seems to be the biggest problem with the 2 stage concept.The meaning of the fourth day is to make (fashion) TWO lights (the sun and the moon) for the very purposes that are underlined by me in the passages (all of which are attributes of the sun and moon):
KJV - Genesis 1:14-19 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Notice that the "he made" is in italics? The stars were already there and visible as subordinate light to the moon which ruled the night. There is no wording in the Hebrew in these passages that says anything to the effect that stars (or the upper heaven for that matter) were created on this day.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well it seems your view is based upon the assumption that the "He made" is relating to something before the "Let" which begins the whole day in most of the creation days. That really goes against a literal view of the creation story. But it would certainly allow you to say that everything preexisted the creation story and the let is just an organization or reorganization. Human beings animals stars plants anything. But again it would not be a literal interpretation which would be in the form of this was created then this was created etc.

The meaning of the fourth day is to make (fashion) TWO lights (the sun and the moon) for the very purposes that are underlined by me in the passages (all of which are attributes of the sun and moon):

To "make", in the story is to create that is what the whole chapter is about. you have merely assumed a creation before the actual mention of the creation in the verse. All those things you underlined are of no use until man exists. Time is something that has meaning to man as do seasons. Days on the other hand were actually determined by the light in the first day of creation. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.
Though of course no one has any idea what that light was. All those things you underlined are elements man has placed in the moon and stars they did not take any additional acts of God to make them marks for seasons etc. this is one of the reasons the literal view does not work well as the days serve to point out the condition of the world rather then how it was made. We learned to use those things for seasons and signs, the reader sees all the plants, sees all the animals. It does not say that the plants are used for food for the animals because that is something we can see also. It takes study to determine the signs and seasons derived from the stars or the phases of the moon. Of course the moon is far more important for the earth then for lighting up the night sky but they did not know the tremendous functions of the moon or how it position and distance are essential for earth. The story is written to tell us that all that we see is the product of God though the why and the how it was created are not discussed.

There is no wording in the Hebrew in these passages that says anything to the effect that stars (or the upper heaven for that matter) were created on this day.

I just put this quote in to show that you are not at all being literal in your view anymore. You probably want to think that the other days had the literal things created on those days, yet here using the same formula as the other days you assert that it does not say they were made on the day that they said they were made.

[keyarch]

Well it seems your view is based upon the assumption that the "He made" is relating to something before the "Let" which begins the whole day in most of the creation days.

I just put this quote in to show that you are not at all being literal in your view anymore. You probably want to think that the other days had the literal things created on those days, yet here using the same formula as the other days you assert that it does not say they were made on the day that they said they were made.I want to make it clear, that I take all of the creation account literal. I'm not sure you understand my comments (as I'm having a hard time with yours).
So that it's clear what I'm saying, I'll state it again.
1. The referenced lights being "made" and "set" are the sun and the moon - the TWO lights.
2. The KJV added the words "he made" to the end of Genesis 1:16. The Hebrew says (also or with) stars. In other words, man looks up in the night to the moon ruling the night, with stars. So there is nothing that says "He made the stars also" (except a translation).
3. Except for Genesis 1:1, the whole creation account is describing conditions, new biology and the work that God did during the six days relating to our world and immediate solar system.

The YEC model would have us believe that God did not create any "matter" in the whole universe (including the space itself) for an unfathomable amount of time, and then all of the sudden (6,000 years ago) started all creation with this blob of water and energy; then out of that made the land masses etc.; then plants - all taking three days. Then in ONE DAY He goes and creates the dimensions of space and ALL of the stars and galaxies of the whole universe; then comes back and finishes the fish, birds and land animals for another two days; then stops creating.

So all the beautiful created plants and animals were an expression of three days work, nothing before or after in all of eternity (except the homes He's making for us in heaven). I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense, and I don't see that in scripture.
I rather think that God has been creating things in the universe all along, and that earth and it's life was a crowning glory.

[RC_NewProtestants]

2. The KJV added the words "he made" to the end of Genesis 1:16. The Hebrew says (also or with) stars. In other words, man looks up in the night to the moon ruling the night, with stars. So there is nothing that says "He made the stars also" (except a translation).I understood your point, It just does not have any justification. The assumption that the KJV inserts the meaning of "He made" does not mean that the meaning is not there in the Hebrew. In fact the majority of English Translation have very similar words. So you really can't say that your knowledge of Hebrew is so much better then the 1000's of Bible translators. Even if you were an expert in Hebrew yours would simply be a minority view. I am sure you realize that you can't simply convey from one language to another a word for word meaning as word order etc. does not necessarily work between different languages.

Here is a list of numerous translation of Gen 1:16 to show how the meaning is overwhelming there as "He made". Though even if you did not take the meaning as "He made" as such Bibles as the Douay-Rheims does "And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars." It would not support a contention that the Stars were made sometime in the past before the creation of Chapter 1 it would either be that the greater and lesser lights were brighter then the stars. You could say that they were already created but you would have nothing to say that they were already created. And you could argue just as easily that they were created at the same time as the lights that ruled over them were. A literal interpretation would not be arguing for something to have happened that is no where recorded to have happened. To be literal you have to have the words expressing what happened rather then speculating what happened.

the texts:
(NKJV) Genesis 1:16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. [He made] the stars also. (
NASB) Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
(KJV) Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. {to rule the day...: Heb. for the rule of the day, etc.}
(CEV) Genesis 1:16 God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. He also made the stars.
(TEV) Genesis 1:16 So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars.
(RSV) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
(BBE) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.
(GodsWord) Genesis 1:16 God made the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made the stars.
(ASV) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
(Darby) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, --and the stars.
(Young) Genesis 1:16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary--and the stars--for the rule of the night; (MKJV (Green)) Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also.
(LITV (Green)) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary and the stars to rule the night. (
Douay-Rheims) Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars.

[RC_NewProtestants]

started all creation with this blob of water

I think the first verses of Genesis about water are pretty good evidence for the non literal view of the creation story. Of course even if the story is inspired by God to whomever wrote it down and there was no sun, assuming it was not present until as you say fashioned on the 4th day. The surface would not appear to be water at all. It would not appear to anyone as "the deep" because it would be as solid an ice as we could comprehend being the temperature of space which is as I recall is a little above absolute zero -273 celsius. But the story knows nothing of huge expanses of frozen water, They had not traveled to glaciers or the arctic or antarctic they wrote from their knowledge base. However our knowledge base is much larger. So our methods of interpretation also must be larger.

[keyarch]

I think the first verses of Genesis about water are pretty good evidence for the non literal view of the creation story. Of course even if the story is inspired by God to whomever wrote it down and there was no sun, assuming it was not present until as you say fashioned on the 4th day. The surface would not appear to be water at all. It would not appear to anyone as "the deep" because it would be as solid an ice as we could comprehend being the temperature of space which is as I recall is a little above absolute zero -273 celsius. But the story knows nothing of huge expanses of frozen water, They had not traveled to glaciers or the arctic or antarctic they wrote from their knowledge base. However our knowledge base is much larger. So our methods of interpretation also must be larger.
1. Actually, scripture tells us that there was a thick clould layer covering the deep.
Job 38:9 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, That cloud layer could have had the right chemical makeup and been just the right insulation.
2. The earth produces heat from within.
3. Large bodies of water can be very cold before freezing. "Water can remain a liquid even below its freezing point, up to -25°C"
4. The "deep" can still be the "deep" even if a top layer is frozen. The Spirit was moving upon the face of the waters before the creation week. Maybe He was warming things up a little.

All this to say that the earth could have existed as a planet covered with water and cloud covering (no atmosphere as we know it) for a long amount of time before the creation week, without just being a frozen mass.

[DrStupid_Ben]

The YEC model would have us believe that God did not create any "matter" in the whole universe (including the space itself) for an unfathomable amount of time, and then all of the sudden (6,000 years ago) started all creation with this blob of water and energy; then out of that made the land masses etc.; then plants - all taking three days. Then in ONE DAY He goes and creates the dimensions of space and ALL of the stars and galaxies of the whole universe; then comes back and finishes the fish, birds and land animals for another two days; then stops creating.



This is problematic. Space itself is related to time. Matter cannot exist outside of time. The idea that God was sitting around for an "unfathomable amount of time" before creating the first matter, is illogical. Taking this further, there cannot be a universe without matter, as there is no such thing as empty space. Space itself is a property, it is not nothing.
God must be understood as being independant from time-space, otherwise, how could he pre-exist a universe.


Sorry if this sounds like I am attacking your ideas, (it probably does) but I am not. Just raising a point on the view of YEC you described.

[RC_NewProtestants]

All this to say that the earth could have existed as a planet covered with water and cloud covering (no atmosphere as we know it) for a long amount of time before the creation week, without just being a frozen mass.

Seems to me your whole theory is blown by your last line. Clouds by definition require an atmosphere.

[keyarch]

Seems to me your whole theory is blown by your last line. Clouds by definition require an atmosphere.I mentioned "atmosphere as we know it". I'm saying that the "cloud" layer was some kind of "waters" that were not liquid like the "deep" and that it was until:
Genesis 1:6-7 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
I'm not a scientist, so I don't know all the possibilities of chemical compositions that could remain in a cloud form with water directly under it.

[RC_NewProtestants]

It would seem the way that verses Genesis 1:6-7 would be the way a primitive society would explain clouds. They would no that rain came from clouds so they would explain that separation from the water that is on the surface.

Of course you can always say that there was an atmosphere before creation, or you can say that God established the earth as a water form and miraculously kept it in a liquid state. But it seems to me you lose the literal nature of the story. And if you do all these speculations for the purpose of saying the story is literal, it does not seem to serve that purpose.

However it is pretty typical of the way many Christians add so many details to the stories in Genesis and then pretend that with the additions the stories make literal history. It is one of the problems that traditions have caused and distorted our understanding of the stories.

[keyarch]

However it is pretty typical of the way many Christians add so many details to the stories in Genesis and then pretend that with the additions the stories make literal history. It is one of the problems that traditions have caused and distorted our understanding of the stories.
Since this IS a SDA sub-forum and I would be crossing the line here to go beyond fellowship posts to debate with you, I will have to end my participation in this thread.
I apologize if I have gone beyond what is allowed in previous posts.

[DrStupid_Ben]

Since this IS a SDA sub-forum and I would be crossing the line here to go beyond fellowship posts to debate with you, I will have to end my participation in this thread.
I apologize if I have gone beyond what is allowed in previous posts.

don't worry, it's so easy to get into debate on forums like these. Here is a thread in the main SDA section that deals with literal vs non-literal, which has more debate.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4650583-is-genesis-literal-or-a-myth.html

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yea well who really understands those no debate rules. I don't, what is debate vs. conversation? In summary it seems to me if a person is going to claim the creation story is literal then they have to live within the confines of a literal view. I think that most people can't do that so they speculate and then their speculation becomes incorporated into the so called literal view. It in fact is no longer a literal view however.

[keyarch]

Yea well who really understands those no debate rules. I don't, what is debate vs. conversation? In summary it seems to me if a person is going to claim the creation story is literal then they have to live within the confines of a literal view. I think that most people can't do that so they speculate and then their speculation becomes incorporated into the so called literal view. It in fact is no longer a literal view however.Nice last word after I said I wouldn't debate here. If you're applying it to me, then I have to strongly disagree with how you have categorized my comments.

[juicyfroot]

one of my best friends is a creationist turned evolutionist/geologist. I've learned over time that there are some things that we won't understand until God Himself explains them to us. the bible says to "avoid useless contention"...so...
God made everything. Period. No need for arguing because if you don't believe that God made everything, you should quit posting on Christian message boards.

Science can't prove their theories, and Religion can't prove its theories... that's why they say that "IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE EITHER ONE"