| Author | Message | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 242 Registered: 9-2006 |
Chris, excellent points about the fine tuning of life on earth, mixed with death, that only omnipotence could achieve. Truly the earth is still the Lord's, and everything in it. Colleen, I just saw your great post, thanks for your clarity on God's sovereignty over nature and over life and death. Deb, I will respond to a couple of points you made. First off, I'm not suggesting that those who believe in a young earth are possessed with the spirit of EGW. What we can affirm is our dependence on others in the body of Christ to help us learn. None of us on this forum have not needed the God-given wisdom of someone to open the scriptures for us. Teaching and pastoring are gifts from above. I would not have come to understand the Gospel without help of the Christian community, such as Proclamation. Nevertheless, I still hold to sola scriptura. So, when someone says, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me," I don't feel particularly helped by that slogan. To avoid depending on the wisdom of men, should I never ask a better informed person what a difficult text means? Perhaps it reveals a lack on my part, but I find many texts in Genesis hard to understand, so I study what others have found. The story is very sparse and explains little, which is part of God's wisdom for us. However, that doesn't forbid us from sharing scholarship. Dembski, Ross, and Collins speculate about the unknowns in Genesis. YEC scholars also like to fill in those gaps with their speculations. Yes, they do speculate, and I will name just two. "Canopy Theory": The idea that a great canopy of water surrounded the earth before the Flood, then came down to flood the surface. It was proposed first by Isaac Vail in 1874, but is based on two texts, and a misunderstanding of the Hebrew words. Such a canopy would have made the stars invisible. The "Omphalos Argument," is the philosophy that God created things in a mature state, so Adam had a navel, giving a false history of his origin. Likewise, the whole cosmos was created with the appearance of age, including space. Light from very distant galaxies was created across the entire distance to make the objects visible to us. However, a detailed study of such light would give a very false history of the stars, and deception is foreign to God's nature. As for death before the Fall making God a monster and a liar, consider: God plainly tells us that He is in charge of all death, the He decreed futility and corruption (Rom. 8), and that He creates both well-being and calamity (Is. 45:7). The Bible does not allow a dualism of God only responsible for the pleasant things, and Satan and chance have power over all the disturbing things. That is a philosophy of sentimental chaos. It amazes me now how much authority many Christians are willing to strip away from God so that they can't be tempted to blame Him for anything. The keys of death are His, and yet He is without sin. That is what it means to be the Creator. Martin C | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 572 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thanks for those insights, Chris, Martin, & Colleen. I just started Dembski's book. It is absolutely riveting so far. Deb, I also want to clarify that I'm not saying that all folks who believe in YEC are like EGW. I'm arguing that the concern is with the rhetoric coming from certain YEC circles that is causing deep division among believers and driving folks to agnosticism. Additionally, Ramone pointed out rightly that this issue goes way beyond EGW. However, it is interesting how YEC creationism is tied historically to her and was propagated and popularized using unethical tactics and cover-ups (see posts earlier in this thread). Granted, these things aren't the deciding factor in determining the truth of a doctrine, but they are noteworthy nonetheless. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 629 Registered: 7-2005 |
It was implied that those who are not subscribing to YEC are compromising the truth of the Bible in the face of the challenged present by the evolutionary science. But there is a problem that is theological in nature and doesn't depend at all if evolution is true or not. For the sake of discussion let's assume it's not, and let's also assume the other points made by YEC proponents, that there was no death in the animal world prior to Adam's sin, that the world is approximately until 10 000 years old. The problem is that in the face of the fact that in a fallen world there are predators the YEC proponents can't remain faithful to their own assumptions. The question is how we have today predators? Two options are logically possible : either God created them from the beginning, or they had become predators after the fall. YEC rejects the first answer because it considers that God would create evil if He would create predators. The second answer leads to another question: how animals which were vegetarians (vegans) became carnivorous? One very important notice: we are not talking about omnivorous animals, eating both meat and vegetables, being able to survive even if they don't find meat for eating. We are talking about those animals that are carnivorous, animals having their digestive systems working exclusively with flesh food, making impossible a survival with vegetarian food. The problem is that these carnivorous animals could not survive before the fall, according to YEC assumptions, except if their digestive apparatus was different than what they possess today. This means that the fall introduced a radical change in their internal organism that transformed them from vegetarian animals into carnivorous animals. The next question is the question of what produced this change. There are two answers: 1. it was a natural change, a natural process by which animals changed their structure of the organism 2. it was a supernatural change, God, in a second act of creation provided these animals with the necessary tools to be predators. Option no. 1 assumes evolution: massive genetic modification has to take place in order for a vegetarian animal to transform into a carnivorous animal. But even if YEC concedes to some kind of evolutionary process, there is simply no sufficient time, on evolutionary premises, for such a radical transformation. The genetic clock is too slow in order to allow for such massive mutations. Option no. 2 contradicts the basic premise for which a YEC rejects animal death before fall. YEC assumes that if God created predators, He created evil animals. But if after fall, God take good animals, vegetarian animals, and transforms them into carnivorous animals, this means that He's directly responsible for their killings, for the evil that they spread in the animal world. He practically made impossible for those animals not to kill, not to do evil in this fallen world. They were vegetarian animals, now God made them exclusively carnivorous animals. They simply have no other option: kill in order to survive. God made them, who were innocent, killing machines without hope of recovery. This contradicts the first premise, that if God made predators before the fall, He made evil, bad, animals. Some may argue that the entering of death changes the picture, and now God had to regulate the population of animals by using carnivorous animals to keep some kind of balance. But there is simply no justification for God making evil animals from good animals on these utilitarian purposes: God could regulate the animal world by modifying the reproduction habits of the animals. You don't need evil animals to limit the spread of good animals, just reduce the birth rate through natural processes and have the job done. I hope those who embrace YEC will keep in mind that these problems are not at all related with the challenge coming from evolution. It's a challenge posted by the data we all have access today and by things with which we all agree: the existence of predators and God's holiness in all that He's doing. Gabriel | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3800 Registered: 10-2004  |
Colleen, What I am trying to point out is that if you just look at Scripture alone (and discard the SDA influence of the Great Controversy worldview where Satan and his angels fell "eons" before Creation--a self-contradiction since angels and time are creations!), then you get a very different picture. From the Biblical account alone, the only time it gives us for Satan's fall/sinning is in the Garden of Eden, when he tempted Eve telling her she could become like God. And that is the exact time that God cursed Satan. Why would God curse Adam and Eve immediately, but wait to curse Satan until thousands/millions/billions of years (or whatever length of time) after he fell? I think that from just reading the text of Scripture, it would seem that Satan fell when Adam and Eve did. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3801 Registered: 10-2004 |
Were there predators before the Fall? Were there carnivorous animals who ate only meat and could not survive without meat, before the Fall? Let's see what God's Word says was the diet of animals before the Fall:
Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on September 09, 2011) | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 243 Registered: 9-2006 |
Fascinating line of reasoning, Gabriel. Good animals vs. bad animals...I couldn't help smiling at that, it made me think of our misbehaving cats. But seriously, we so often want to protect God from attributing any evil attribute to Him, that we rob Him of His glory. Interesting idea there Jeremy, worthy of thought and study. It seems many Christians, not only SDA's, also believe that Satan and his angels fell long before Adam and Eve, and were running amok about the cosmos. Where do you think this comes from? I also keep wondering about the amazing legacy of Milton's Paradise Lost, which I was reading this week. So much of that epic is found in Ellen's writings and has been embedded in our world view. That comparison would be worth a real study too. Martin C | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3802 Registered: 10-2004 |
On the discussion about Adventism/EGW and YEC, I would like to point out that YEC was around for centuries before EGW/Adventism existed, and is in fact the historic teaching of the Church, until the last few centuries. Here are a couple of quotes from the early Church fathers: From the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100 AD):
From St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book V (c. 180 AD):
Additionally, Adventism itself does not even teach YEC or a literal reading of Genesis. For one thing, Adventism teaches that time and space and matter are eternal ("temporally/historically eternal"--an oxymoron necessitated by their denial of timelessness) and are uncreated. They also teach that the angels (who are physical beings in the materialist SDA worldview) were created (and a third of them fell) eons ago. Also, Adventism teaches that "heaven" is a physical planet within this universe (behind Orion) where the physical angels (and physical "eternal" gods) live. Thus, physical creations, including the universe/heaven, are either "eternal" or were created eons ago, according to Adventism. Additionally, many Adventists believe that even planet earth was created billions of years ago, before God started creating life on it. In fact, The Clear Word explicitly says in Genesis 1:16 "together with thousands of twinkling stars which He had previously made." (By the way, "thousands"???) This is not YEC. There are many important differences between Biblical YEC and the SDA teaching of "creation." Not the least of which, of course, is that Adventism teaches three "co-creators" instead of one Creator! Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on September 09, 2011) | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 982 Registered: 7-2008  |
Good animals vs. bad animals... What determines a good animal or a bad animal?? Just a bit curious as to which category I fall into...lol lol ...Animal | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 143 Registered: 2-2011 |
~THANK-YOU~Jeremy for "Standing" & presenting evidence for your "Stand"~ I appreciate it very much~ ~*~mj~*~ | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12940 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jeremy, interesting about Satan, Adam, and Eve and the timing of the curse. Of course, I could imagine that the curse in Genesis was directly related to Adam's sin, that God decreed that a Human would defeat the serpent...but again, it's all speculation. I woke up thinking about this issue, and it's been in and out of my mind this morning. I have no conclusions, but I have to say that for myself, I cannot go beyond Scripture. The minute I start speculating, I end up creating frameworks for my view of reality that may or may not be accurate. I am open to the idea of an old earth, and I am also open to the possibility of a young earth. My faith is not shaken either way. I may have personal leanings toward one or the other (which I do), but I can't become dogmatic about it without absolute proof, because God has not revealed absolute proof. I have to stand unequivocally on the fact that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing was created that has been created" (John 1:1-5). I just can't be dogmatic about what is not revealed in Scripture—and I must be open to the connections within Scripture that confirm reality and truth. For some reason the story of Satan was not considered a story that is actually part of our story, so at best we speculate about what happened to him and when in prehistory. I'm surprisingly relieved that I can live with these mysteries...there was no place for mystery in my SDA past! Of course, I'm still open to good discussion framed by thoughtful people who respect and honor Scripture. But I can't "put my weight down" on what isn't actually known. I think of our pastor and his wife, both of whom consider Scripture absolutely and totally reliable and authoritative. He leans toward an old earth, she favors a young earth. Gary calls Elizabeth his "favorite young-earth creationist". I trust their teaching of Scripture equally, but they see the verbal and scientific evidence somewhat differently regarding the creation story. I'm OK with not being sure! But I can't be OK if there is ANY doubt about creation, redemption, my nature, the nature of sin, and salvation. Praise God for the incarnation and the cross...which, stunningly, were programmed into the signs in the heavens from the creation of the world! Who knew?! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3803 Registered: 10-2004 |
I do believe that we can say with certainty that the creation of the angels and Satan's fall could not have been before the universe and time were created (Day 1). Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" of time. Time was created "simultaneously" with the universe (space and matter). The early church also agreed with that understanding. For example, here is a quote from Justin Martyr:
By the way, here is a fairly extensive listing of quotations from the early church fathers showing that they believed in YEC: http://www.creationism.org/articles/EarlyChurchLit6Days.htm Here are a couple of explicit quotes from St. Augustine:
Jeremy | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 573 Registered: 3-2009 |
Yes, Jeremy. I think it would be more precise to state that the topic the interpretation of Gen. 1 was openly debated among the early church fathers. However, it was not used as a test of orthodoxy as it is today. Here are some quotes from church fathers (including some of the same ones Jeremy posted), who were speaking of Gen. 1 in less literal terms: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm So, what's new is the more-recent political/judgmental nature of the debate, which (some would argue) SDA played a role in. Ronald Numbers, in his book, indicates that around 1880 and 1890, fundamentalist Christians became alarmed b/c of the scientific research being publicized, and they latched on to George McCready Price's (an SDA) teachings. There were believers who did not subscribe to YEC, who were faithful to the Bible at the time who argued against a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. However, by the time the 1970's rolled around, the issue became politically charged again. So, you have these very powerful YEC voices, (not going to name names here), who are insisting that one cannot be a true Christian and not be YEC. I think this is a separate issue from the actual content of the YEC/OEC debate. (Although I believe that YEC sometimes stretches the evidence--Michael gave some examples earlier in this thread). But this is technically a separate issue from the way Christians are treating one another in this debate. Numbers gives a great historical timeline of the evolution of the ideas and the ramifications of the teachings of EGW and George McCready Price. If any of you been studying this longer and have more info on the history, let me know if I'm missing a piece to this. | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 384 Registered: 7-2010  |
I knew the 6 literal days equals 6000 literal years with the seventh day being the millennial reign interpretation became in favor in the 1600s through 1800s, but I was not aware that it had roots all the way back to the 100s AD. This interpretation is based on assumptions and was just as wrong then as it is now. The age of the argument does not serve to validate it. Michael | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3804 Registered: 10-2004 |
Seekinglight, Thanks for posting that link. I had come across it yesterday, and thought someone might post it.  Unfortunately, when you look at it closely, the author's research is very shoddy and he misinterprets/twists almost all of the quotes on his page (except for, perhaps, Origen, who was not always orthodox, but as the link I posted above points out, "he definitely believed in a rapid creation and a young earth."). This misinterpretation/twisting of the quotes can be shown very easily, and I will debunk the author's claims below. Let's take a look at his quotes:
Here, Justin Martyr is not talking about the days of creation or the age of the earth at all. This is simply a reference to a common theory in the early church that when God told Adam he would die in the "day" he ate of the tree, he was referring to him dying before a thousand years. There is nothing disputing YEC here at all. In fact, modern YEC proponents do not dispute the fact that the word "day" (Heb. yom) does not, by itself, always refer to a literal day, even within the first few chapters of Genesis (for example, Genesis 2:4). Thus, this quote is completely irrelevant to the author's claims. Next quote:
Same as above. This quote from Irenaeus is irrelevant as well. Next quote:
Even the full context of this quote does not tell us exactly what St. Cyprian is referring to above, but it most likely is referring to the theory of the seven literal days in Genesis also prophesying seven thousand years of history. Thus the quote does nothing for the OEC argument, and most likely is advancing the same YEC argument as other early church fathers. Next quote:
From looking at the context (including the other quote from earlier in Clement's book that is linked to at the bottom of the page, which states: "And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.") I don't think we can assume that Clement is talking about dating the creation, but rather is saying that time and the world were both created together. And now the final quote, which is from St. Augustine:
In looking at the context of this quote (which the link I posted in my previous post gives), it is clear that Augustine is not at all deviating from YEC or literal days. Some people, even including YEC proponents, interpret him (I believe wrongly) as saying that God created everything in an instant, but even that would not contradict his statements that I quoted above showing that he was a YEC, and it would not help the OEC position at all. In conclusion, the author's claims are no different from when Adventism tries to pull quotes from the early church fathers out of context to try to "prove" that they agreed with them on Sabbath, or soul sleep, etc. In reality, the early church was united on the topics of Sabbath, soul sleep, and yes, even YEC. So no, there was no debate about it in the Church until modern times. In fact, the Westminster Confession of Faith even includes the teaching of YEC. Jeremy P.S. I have never seen anyone (within evangelical Christianity) claim that you can't be a true Christian if you are not a YEC. Please show me where they've claimed that. (Message edited by Jeremy on September 10, 2011) | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 574 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jeremy, thanks for clearing things up. There is definitely sloppiness on both sides. It's important to double-check. As to your last question, the first name that comes to mind is Ken Ham, who claims that you're not a true believer if you aren't in the YEC camp. I think others who've commented in this thread could probably come up with additional examples... | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3805 Registered: 10-2004 |
Seekinglight, I am not a fan of some of Ken Ham's dealings, but I've never heard of him saying that. I know I have heard him, and others in his organization, say the opposite--that men like James Dobson and Hugh Ross are true Christians. Jeremy | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 575 Registered: 3-2009 |
That is good news, Jeremy. Perhaps I've misunderstood what he's about. Here's one of his harsher articles and underneath, Ross's response: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n4/oldearth http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/old-earth-creationism-heretical-belief#note_1 | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1312 Registered: 5-2007 |
Here is one of those places where we ask where is our foundation firmly planted. Do we trust the Bible literally and apparently go against what appears to be contradictory fossil records, or do we override all evidence, our eyes and senses and simply lock onto what the Bible says. Do we need to know or explain what the Bible does not make clear regarding creation, evolution or time lines in the literal sense. Or is it safer to say, the Bible is true even if it does not answer all the questions? Where is the safe foundation here? What can I trust in the Bible? This then goes back to that undercurrent, do we believe the Bible completely as the true word of God or not. Or is it subject to an array of errors, and traditional sayings. Can I say, I trust Christ, but not the Bible? Is that ok, can we do that? Are we still Christians if we do not take the Bible literally? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12958 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, since the Bible is God's word to us, we can trust it. Trusting it does not mean it contains all the details about any given subject, but it does mean that it does not contradict what we know to be true in science, history, etc. The times and subjects about which people have thought the Bible disagreed with science, etc., those disagreements often evaporate as new discoveries are made. The Bible is true even if it does not answer all the questions. God has not revealed all details to us; He asks us to trust Him with what we can't know for sure. But His word will not lead us astray from reality. It will only confirm and expand it. Colleen | ||
| Handmaiden Registered user Username: Handmaiden Post Number: 227 Registered: 7-2008 |
Did Jesus believe in millions of years???? Did HE SAY that He created in six literal days?? Jesus made some very interesting and revealing statements that relate to this issue. But from the BEGINING OF CREATION, God made them male and female. Mark 10:6 Jesus clearly taught that the creation was YOUNG, for Adam and Eve existed from the BEGINING of CREATION, not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the BEGINING of CREATION. The parallel phrases of from the foundation of the world and from the blood of Abel in Luke 11:50–51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the BEGINING of CREATION, not billions of years after the beginning. His Jewish listeners would have assumed this meaning in Jesus’ words, as the first-century Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam’s creation were about 5,000 years before Christ. In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one MUST BELIEVE what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the 7th day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. OK SIDE BAR Question How many birthdays have you had ?? 20? 30? 40? No, you have had only ONE BIRTHDAY the rest are anniversaries. Question How many 7th day Sabbaths did the Lord bless and make holy?? Only the first, the one and only original 7th day (which God is still resting from His work of creation on, as there was no evening and morning on the 7th day. It is an eternal day) the rest are weekly anniversaries. END SIDE BAR This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest. In fact, in Luke 13:14, in his response to Jesus healing a person on the Sabbath, the ruler of the synagogue, who knew the law of Moses, obviously referred to this passage when he said, There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day. The sabbath day here was considered an ordinary day, and the six days of work were considered ordinary days. This teaching is based on the Law of Moses as recorded in Exodus 20, where we find the Ten Commandments—the six-day Creation Week being the basis for the 4th Commandment. As you are all too well aware  We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include: Adam and Eve as the first married couple. Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9 Abel as the first prophet who was killed. Luke 11:50–51 Noah and the Flood. Matthew 24:38–39 Moses and the serpent in the wilderness. John 3:14 Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness. John 6:32–33, 49 the experiences of Lot and his wife. Luke 17:28–32 the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Matthew 10:15 the miracles of Elijah. Luke 4:25–27 Jonah and the big fish. Matthew 12:40– 41 As New Testament scholar John Wenham has compellingly argued, Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened, just as the Old Testament describes them. Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise certainly happen in time-space reality. These passages taken together strongly imply that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal history describing creation in six 24-hour days. But are there any more compelling passages? First, Colossians makes it clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the one who created all things: For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:16–17 We are also told how Jesus created: By the WORD of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. Psalm 33:6, 9 The meaning of this is clear when we look at the miracles of Jesus during His earthly ministry. All the miracles occurred INSTANTLY—at His WORD He INSTANTLY turned water into wine in His very first miracle, which revealed His glory as the Creator. John 2:1–11; John 1:1–3, 14, 18 It was the INSTANT calming of the wind and the waves that convinced His disciples that He was no mere man. So it was with all His miracles. Mark 4:35–41 He did not speak and wait for days, weeks, months, or years for things to happen. He spoke and it was done. So, when He said, Let there be . . . in Genesis 1, it did not take long ages for things to come into existence. We also know that Jesus is in fact called the WORD: In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. He was in the BEGINING with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1–3 Jesus, who is the WORD, created everything by simply speaking things into existence. Now, consider Exodus 20:1: And God SPOKE all these WORDS, saying . . . . Because Jesus is the WORD, this must be a reference to the preincarnate Christ speaking to Moses. There are a number of appearances of Christ (theophanies) in the Old Testament. John 1:18 states: No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him There is no doubt, with rare exception, that the preincarnate Christ did the speaking to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses, etc. Now, when the Creator God spoke as recorded in Exodus 20:1, what did HE (Jesus) SAY? For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day Exodus 20:11 Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words six days also wrote them down for Moses: Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. Deuteronomy 9:10 Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. i know as sda are fond of pointing out. The Word says if the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?? If the very first verses of the Bible are to be suspect/questioned ....so is everything following them. God is not a man that He should lie. He is the One and only Person, who can give eye witness testimony of what really happened. Are we going to believe Him or "science"??? i do not consider the theory of millions of years or theistic evolution true science. Let me add one final thought....God is God. He is not bound by time or space or the laws of science....that is why these things that He does are called MIRACLES!!!! OK, really one last thought science says the virgin birth is impossible...so do we take God's word for that or well established scientific fact??? With God nothing is impossile. i believe in the God of the impossible and the God of miracles. The God, who became one of us, took on human flesh, was born to a virgin and died on a cross 2000 years ago to pay for sins i had not even been born to commit yet. I believe God did just what He said He did. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. i pray we are all seeking Him with all of our hearts and minds and strength and believe by faith the truth of ALLLL of His words. love handmaiden |
