# Creationism & Evolution



## goldielocs (Sep 14, 2009)

Hello all,

My husband and I recently began homeschooling for a combination of reasons and one of them had to do with religion. Our curriculum includes Bible reading and scripture memorization and learning the catechism. 

My daughter is working with material for the 3rd grade and we've started talking about dinosaurs and that is where my personal beliefs have been challenged...

Before now, I've never given much thought about whether or not I believe in evolution or creationism. This experience requires me to look at both views and make a decision. Prior to now, I just took the view that the creation days were not 24 hour days and actually took millions of years. This is based on a scripture about a day to God is like a thousand years to us.  Unfortunately, I read some material that threw a wrench in that theory.

If the fall of Adam and Eve introduced sin and death to the world, then how could millions of animals have lived and died before Adam and Eve were created? 

I'd love to hear your viewpoints on this.  I haven't decided on my views yet, but I'm praying on it.


----------



## moonglowdiva (Sep 15, 2009)

*This is very complicated but I will try. Evidence show us that dinosaurs really existed but it is not directly mentioned in the Bible. Now in Genesis 1:20-23 tells us that creature flying, in the sea, and land roamers were on the earth before man was established. Our time is quite different than God's time and 1 day for God is 1000 years for man. 2 Peter 3:8 tells us so. You may also want to read scriptures that are not apart of the Bible that will give much insight to creation for study purposes.*

*To add, I believe that if there were no sin then there would not have been any death. Death is a result of sin.*

*Evolution is a whole different thing. I don't practice evolution because I don't believe in it. The question that I raise is "Why did man get to this point and stopped evolving? Surely man can rise to a greater level on the evolution chart." Evolution is basically Theory that folk want to make fact. A theory is simply a conjecture.*

*In the KJV of the Bible, Genesis 1:28 the key word is replenish. And to me that says that something was here before Adam. I don't know what but the prefix "re" means to do again. Other version have completely omitted that from scriptures.*


----------



## Raspberry (Sep 15, 2009)

The bible indicates that there was an age or ages before current creation. For example, when/where did satan and his angels fall if he was already present in the garden?  What caused the earth to be without form and void "in the beginning"?  What was the "face of the deep"?  When was that created?

I don't have time to get into this now, but a lot of Christians shouldn't be afraid to look deeper into what the bible says about creation.  The 1st chapter of Genesis wasn't meant to be a scientific document IMO but rather a general sketch of what happened to form this current world.


----------



## moonglowdiva (Sep 15, 2009)

*I would even go as far as to say read the Book of Jubilees.*


----------



## momi (Sep 15, 2009)

Raspberry said:


> The bible indicates that there was an age or ages before current creation. For example, when/where did satan and his angels fall if he was already present in the garden? What caused the earth to be without form and void "in the beginning"? What was the "face of the deep"? When was that created?
> 
> I don't have time to get into this now, but a lot of Christians shouldn't be afraid to look deeper into what the bible says about creation. The 1st chapter of Genesis wasn't meant to be a scientific document IMO but rather a general sketch of what happened to form this current world.


 


The "gap theory" holds that Job (which is the oldest book of the bible and mentions like the "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34" which are thought to be the animals we call dinosaurs.  I dont subscribe to it personally, I just dont think there is enough evidence to support it, but I find it interesting in a conspiracy theory sort of way.

Evolutionists date the earth based on the theory of evolution.  They have to do this to allow for the time it would take for the "so called" evolution of animal to man to take place (even though there are no transitional forms found.
My personal view is that the dinosaurs were created when the rest of the animals were created, and only became extinct after the flood.


There is SOOO much information available for you to research.  I have a few books in my library that are written on a kids level so that I could explain it to my children.  They never attended public school so were not really exposed to the evolution theory on an academic level, however I felt that they needed to be armed with the truth about creation.

Congratulations on your decision to homeschool.  We are responsible for our childrens education and spiritual growth.  

_“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one![b] *5* You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. 
*6* “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. *7* You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up._

Here is a decent reference point:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible


----------



## Crown (Sep 15, 2009)

goldielocs said:


> Hello all,
> 
> ...
> Before now, I've never given much thought about whether or not I believe in evolution or creationism. This experience requires me to look at both views and make a decision. Prior to now, I just took the view that the creation days were not 24 hour days and actually took millions of years. This is based on a scripture about a day to God is like a thousand years to us.  Unfortunately, I read some material that threw a wrench in that theory.
> ...



I was like you before these verses in Genesis hit me :

 1.5 … And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1.3 … And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1.13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1.19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1.23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
[FONT=&quot]1.31[FONT=&quot] …And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.[/FONT]

If it is specified the evening and the morning, it was one day. So, it is 24 hours, one week, not millions of years. I don't know how, but God is God, He can.
There is no : _and the evening ... were the seven day_, because the creation was complete.
[/FONT]


----------



## Crown (Sep 15, 2009)

goldielocs said:


> Hello all,
> 
> If the fall of Adam and Eve introduced sin and death to the world, then how could millions of animals have lived and died before Adam and Eve were created?
> 
> I'd love to hear your viewpoints on this.  I haven't decided on my views yet, but I'm praying on it.



I suggest to you to study Job 40 and 41 about the behemoth and the leviathan :
 Job 40.15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 40.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 40.17 He moveth his *tail like a* *cedar*: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 40.18 His *bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron*. 40.19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

41.1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? 41.2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
41.10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
[FONT=&quot]41.11[FONT=&quot] Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. 41.12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. 41.13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? 41.14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. 41.15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. 41.16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. 41.17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. 41.18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 41.19 *Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out*. 41.20 *Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.* 41.21 *His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.* 41.22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. 41.23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. 41.24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. 41.25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. 41.26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. 41.27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. 41.28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. 41.29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. 41.30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. 41.31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. 41.32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. 41.33 *Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.* 41.34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## goldielocs (Sep 15, 2009)

Thanks to everyone for posting. My husband and I have decided to focus on dinosaurs being created with the other animals and destroyed during the flood.  This is still going to be a challenge for me because I was taught evolution so I'm reading up on some research. 

My friend gave me a book called "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel.  Have any of you read it?

I've also been looking at a the website www.answersingenesis.org. That site has a whole lot of information about dinosaurs and creation.

Our main concern is making sure our children have a strong Christian foundation.  We'll teach them about other theories later, but the truth comes first.

Let me go, I have to get her up now to start our school day. Be blessed.


----------



## Poohbear (Sep 15, 2009)

moonglowdiva said:


> *I would even go as far as to say read the Book of Jubilees.*


 What is the Book of Jubilees? What is it about? Who wrote it? Was it a book left out during the canonization of the Bible?


----------



## Poohbear (Sep 15, 2009)

goldielocs said:


> Thanks to everyone for posting. My husband and I have decided to focus on *dinosaurs being created with the other animals and destroyed during the flood.* This is still going to be a challenge for me because I was taught evolution so I'm reading up on some research.
> 
> My friend gave me a book called "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel. Have any of you read it?
> 
> ...


 I would agree. If you think about it, when God created animals, he did not list the specific animals he created:

*Genesis 1:24-25 *
*24* Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, _each_ according to its kind”; and it was so. *25* And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that _it was_ good. 

And God did not list the specific animals that he destroyed in the flood:

*Genesis 7:18-24*
*18* The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. *19* And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. *20* The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. *21* And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. *22* All in whose nostrils _was_ the breath of the spirit of life, all that _was_ on the dry _land,_ died. *23* So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who _were_ with him in the ark remained _alive._ *24* And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Hope that helps. And I also think it is very admirable that you are homeschooling your children.


----------



## Laela (Sep 15, 2009)

Goldielocs,

All the best with teaching your child the truth... I'm not too familiar with Lee but my husband and I used to watch Dr. Carl Baugh on TV on his show, _Creation Evidence_. He used picture charts and everything..breaks it down really nicely, the evidence of creation. And he's very respected in his field. 

Here's his Web site... http://www.creationevidence.org/

It also has a great section for Kids you may be interested in 
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=15

Blessings,



goldielocs said:


> Thanks to everyone for posting. My husband and I have decided to focus on dinosaurs being created with the other animals and destroyed during the flood.  This is still going to be a challenge for me because I was taught evolution so I'm reading up on some research.
> 
> My friend gave me a book called "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel.  Have any of you read it?
> 
> ...


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Sep 15, 2009)

Poohbear said:


> What is the Book of Jubilees? What is it about? Who wrote it? Was it a book left out during the canonization of the Bible?




http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/index.htm (actual book online)

(explanation)
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/index.htm
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm


----------



## Poohbear (Sep 15, 2009)

Thanks GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I... is it one of those books that the Catholics use? Part of the Septuagint?


----------



## moonglowdiva (Sep 15, 2009)

Poohbear said:


> What is the Book of Jubilees? What is it about? Who wrote it? Was it a book left out during the canonization of the Bible?


 http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm
*They, whomever, decided to choose the books of the Bible left it out for some reason or another. I believe that that was man doing.*
*There are also other scriptures that have been found. The Book of Enoch is reference in Jude but was left out. Enoch himsefl is mention in Genesis but his revelation was left out. I do not know why but I refuse to be ignorant to the fact.*


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Sep 15, 2009)

Poohbear said:


> Thanks GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I... is it one of those books that the Catholics use? Part of the Septuagint?



We have the hidden texts or the apocrypha.  I learned that Jubilees is "Little Genesis" and is Jewish apocryphya.  The original was written in Hebrew.  It's canonical for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church...concerns the division of time and about the law as revealed to Moses. I plan on reading it here soon.


----------



## Prudent1 (Sep 15, 2009)

I would like to give you a link to Bob Dutko's website. He has excellent resources for homeschooling parents. He is very informed about evolution vs creationism and explains things in great detail. http://toptenproofs.com/
He also can be heard on many radio stations across the country. He is not afraid to discuss science and to show exactly how science validates God's word.

*Top Ten Proofs...
Christianity is the Only True Religion 

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible 

for the Physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ 

for America’s Christian Heritage

for God's existence 

Dinosaurs Lived with Man (and yes, went on Noah’s Ark) 

Theistic Evolution is Not Biblical 

for a Young Earth (that can not be billions of years old) *


----------



## Prudent1 (Sep 15, 2009)

goldielocs said:


> Thanks to everyone for posting. My husband and I have decided to focus on dinosaurs being created with the other animals and destroyed during the flood. This is still going to be a challenge for me because I was taught evolution so I'm reading up on some research.
> 
> *My friend gave me a book called "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel. Have any of you read it?*
> 
> ...


 I have not had a chance to read Lee Strobel's book but  have heard nothing but good things about it. I hope to read it soon.


----------



## JinaRicci (Sep 15, 2009)

Thanks everyone for the links & book references-I would love to read some more. 

Goldielocs- I think it's so wonderful how you're starting so early to make sure your kids are taught the truth.  They are going to be so prepared! 

In general- I just want to say on the topic of evolution- I think it's important to distinguish macro- from microevolution when we're having these discussions.  Most times when ppl talk about this- only one is being referenced but for the sake of debating with evolutionists-it's important to distinguish the two.  

Macroevolution we know suggests changes over time that leads to new species (monkey to man) or theistic evolution as Prudent referenced suggests that God used this process in creation.  Microevolution though refers to the small changes over time within a species. 

As a Christian, I believe in the creation week (6 days followed by 1 day of rest) that God describes in sufficient detail in the Bible.  The Bible also provides evidence that because of sin- we are not the same today as we were in Bible times.  We don't live as long for one- we're lucky to make it to 100 yrs!  The effects of sin on our bodies are evident.  

We also see that today as we look at people who move from one country to another-e.g. from China to US and/or adopt different lifestyles. They develop tendencies toward certain diseases (e.g. diabetes) that as a population they didn't have before.  Those traits are passed on and become evident within a couple generations.  

So I think there is evidence for changes within people but not to the extent that they create new people or species.  God created all living things.  To me it's important to understand different aspects of evolution to be prepared to have these sorts of discussions with those who don't believe in creation and may use these types of data as arguments for evolution from amoeba to man.


----------



## goldielocs (Sep 15, 2009)

Hello LHCF family,

We just got in for the day, but I appreciate all the feedback.  I'll check back in tonight and respond once I finish with my homework. Continue to pray for us and thanks again.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Sep 15, 2009)

I think we can all agree that time for God isn't the same for us.  I think it is also important to recognize the tense in which things were spoken in the Word.  I have learned that some things are spoken in present tense, past tense, and future tense.  

Also there is the fact that although death affected man once sin entered, Death was not mentioned in relation to the creatures.  We were made eternal in God's image, not the creatures.  So there is nothing that says that the creatures were ever intended to live forever.  

Genesis 1 is spoken in the present tense.  Genesis 2 is a recount of what has already occured.  Now to be technically fair, death did occur before Adam and Eve even experienced death.  And that death was by God's hand when he killed an animal to cover their naked bodies.


----------



## Child0fGod (Sep 15, 2009)

Poohbear said:


> What is *the Book of Jubilees*? What is it about? Who wrote it? Was it a book left out during the canonization of the Bible?



be careful when reading *GNOSTIC TEXTS*. they are *not* considered sound doctrine. (research "gnostic texts" before you actually begin/if you decide to read them).

also, be careful WHO you take advice from. (I John 4:1).

always be sure to do your own research and ask God to give you the revelation thereof. some people on here have their own agenda, not after Christs. sad:


----------



## Child0fGod (Sep 15, 2009)

goldielocs said:


> ...I'd love to hear your viewpoints on this.  I haven't decided on my views yet, but I'm praying on it.



didn't see anyone on here mention *Intelligent Design*. do some research on that term . God keep you and your search for clearer answers.


----------



## moonglowdiva (Sep 16, 2009)

Child0fGod said:


> be careful when reading *GNOSTIC TEXTS*. they are *not* considered sound doctrine. (research "gnostic texts" before you actually begin/if you decide to read them).
> 
> also, be careful WHO you take advice from. (I John 4:1).
> 
> always be sure to do your own research and ask God to give you the revelation thereof. some people on here have their own agenda, not after Christs. sad:


 
*Why isn't it of sound doctrine and who said so? Did man say so? Where is it written in scriptures?  The purpose for mentioning the Book of Jubilees was to research it. Man (mankind) does have an agenda. He will give you just what he wants you to know and tell you that it is gospel. He never wants you to read for yourself.erplexed*


----------



## Aviah (Sep 16, 2009)

Article: http://www.gotquestions.org/dinosaurs-Bible.html 

Question: "What does the Bible say about dinosaurs? Are there dinosaurs in the Bible?"

Answer: The topic of dinosaurs in the Bible is part of a larger ongoing debate within the Christian community over the age of the earth, the proper interpretation of Genesis, and how to interpret the physical evidences we find all around us. Those who believe in an older age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does not mention dinosaurs, because, according to their paradigm, dinosaurs died out millions of years before the first man ever walked the earth. The men who wrote the Bible could not have seen living dinosaurs.

Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dinosaurs, though it never actually uses the word “dinosaur.” Instead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn, which is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles. Sometimes it’s “sea monster,” and sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “dragon.” The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and were found both on land and in the water.

In addition to mentioning these giant reptiles, the Bible describes a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writers may have been describing dinosaurs. The behemoth is said to be the mightiest of all God’s creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15). Some scholars have tried to identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the brachiosaurus and the diplodocus, on the other hand, had huge tails which could easily be compared to a cedar tree.

Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts, and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict men riding diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of triceratops-like, pterodactyl-like, and tyrannosaurus rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls all testify to man’s trans-cultural, geographically unbounded fascination with these creatures. Sober accounts like those of Marco Polo’s Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts. In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man, there are physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia.

So, are there dinosaurs in the Bible? The matter is far from settled. It depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you. If the Bible is interpreted literally, a young earth interpretation will result, and the idea that dinosaurs and man coexisted can be accepted. If dinosaurs and human beings coexisted, what happened to the dinosaurs? While the Bible does not discuss the issue, dinosaurs likely died out sometime after the flood due to a combination of dramatic environmental shifts and the fact that they were relentlessly hunted to extinction by man.


----------



## Aviah (Sep 16, 2009)

Another two from the same website:
Question: "What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?"

Answer: The extinction of the dinosaurs is an enigma that has captivated scientists for well over a century. We find the fossilized remains of giant reptiles all over the Earth and yet we do not see any of these creatures alive today. What happened to them all?

The conventional paradigm says that they mysteriously disappeared around 65 million years ago. An assortment of explanations has been offered as to why. The two most popular hypotheses are the Impact Event Hypothesis and the Massive Volcanism Hypothesis. The first proposes that one or more asteroids struck the Earth causing a “nuclear winter” which wiped out the dinosaurs. The second blames intense volcanism for their demise. Both make note of the high concentration of Iridium (Ir) found buried in the sediments which separate the Cretaceous period from the Paleogene (known as the K-Pg boundary; formerly known as the K-T boundary), which, according to the conventional paradigm, was the period in Earth’s history during which the dinosaurs went extinct.

Both hypotheses take some of the evidence into account while ignoring some. For example, if either hypothesis is correct and there is a 60+ million year gap between man and dinosaur, how then do we explain petroglyphs and other forms of ancient art which depict humans interacting with such familiar dinosaurs as the triceratops, stegosaurus, tyrannosaurus and the sauropods (in some cases taming them and riding them around)? Moreover, fossilized dinosaur prints have been found in the same rock layers as hoof-prints and human footprints. How are we supposed to explain this within the framework of the conventional perspective? And why is that ancient cultures from every inhabited continent on the planet record interactions with giant reptiles? These creatures are commonly known to us today as “dragons” and have been collectively relegated to mythology.

But we must ask ourselves, how is it that so many isolated cultures from around the world came to share the same mythology so universally? Could there be a core historical truth to the legends? Could it be that the giant reptiles we find buried in the dirt have something to do with the giant reptiles our ancestors spoke of just centuries years ago? We believe that this is the case. The preponderance of evidence suggests to us that the conventional perspective is fundamentally flawed. Mankind appears to have collective amnesia regarding this matter, and we have effectively constituted a “scientific” paradigm to keep us in the dark.

How then do we account for the extinction of the dinosaurs? The same way we account for the extinction of the other estimated 20,000 to 2 million species which scientists believe may have gone extinct over the past century alone – a combination of climate change and the proliferation of the human species. Climatic change can be very destructive to ecosystems in general, and we tend to kill or drive out all of the major competition in particular. That is why you don't find too many other predators – lions, tigers and bears, etc – in our suburbs and cities, or even our rural communities. We are at the very top of the food chain for a reason.

In Hollywood movies like Jurassic Park we see creatures like the Tyrannosaurus Rex and Velociraptors hunting us down and eating us alive. And no doubt, if humans and dinosaurs coexisted some of that certainly happened. But for the most part the opposite was true. We hunted them down and cooked them for dinner. In many of the legends and much of the ancient artwork that is exactly what we find—humans hunting down the giant reptiles and killing them. Lions and tigers and bears did not have it quite as bad as the dinosaurs (hence why they are still around). That is because our ancestors seemed particularly fixated on “slaying the dragon!”

So what happened to the dinosaurs? Apparently the ones that survived global climatic change got eaten by us. Some may still survive in remote areas of the world which have not yet come under our complete dominion, and there are hundreds of such sightings every year to this effect – especially from indigenous, primitive people groups in remote areas who speak to incredulous Western scientists (who naturally do not believe the natives because of their entrenched so-called “scientific” presuppositions. In our view, this is wrong. Science should be the impartial investigation of evidence without prejudice, not an arbitrary human effort to prop up flawed theoretical histories of the Earth).


Question: "What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution?"

Answer: It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. For scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the creation vs. evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

A key factor in the debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”

If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.


----------



## Crown (Sep 16, 2009)

Please, be careful about your readings!

How can we be sure that these other books are God’s Will?

They said that they found the body of Jesus and his family. We know it is not true!

The book of Enoch, is it from the Enoch mentioned in Genesis or not?…

Salomon received wisdom from God. But the Bible said that the same Salomon also took many strange women and went after their gods.

Neh. 13.26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.

1K. 11.1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:…
11.5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
11.7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
11.14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom.

*[FONT=&quot]Be careful![/FONT]*


----------



## Crown (Sep 16, 2009)

Aviah said:


> Article: http://www.gotquestions.org/dinosaurs-Bible.html
> 
> Those who believe in a younger age for the earth...



Not necessarily younger age!

The Bible begins by saying :
Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 We don't know about this _beginning_: 1000 years? One million?... We just don't know!

The designing of the earth is young (creation), but not the age.

Another example : when God created Adam, He did not create a baby, He created a man.

So, our earth can be very old, but not the creation.


----------



## Poohbear (Sep 16, 2009)

Child0fGod said:


> be careful when reading *GNOSTIC TEXTS*. they are *not* considered sound doctrine. (research "gnostic texts" before you actually begin/if you decide to read them).
> 
> also, be careful WHO you take advice from. (I John 4:1).
> 
> always be sure to do your own research and ask God to give you the revelation thereof. some people on here have their own agenda, not after Christs. sad:


I completely understand that, and I am very aware of texts not in the Bible not being considered sound doctrine (key word: "considered"). That's why I asked what was the Book of Jubilees, and I even mentioned whether it was a book left out during the Biblical canonization. 

See, the books in the Holy Bible are a list or set of Biblical books *considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community, generally in Judaism or Christianity. These canonical books have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of their respective faiths.* Believers consider these canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people. Books excluded from a particular canon are considered non-canonical — however, many disputed books considered non-canonical or even apocryphal by some are considered Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical or fully canonical, by others. 

These religious authorities are men. Not God. They were the ones who even decided what books go into the Holy Bible. They "considered" these books in the Bible as sound doctrine. They didn't say these books in the Bible "are" sound doctrine. Therefore, I feel like there's nothing wrong with reading a book that is not in the Holy Bible. Doesn't mean I have to believe in or adhere to a book that's not in the Bible.  I have *faith* in the Holy Bible, and that possibly God righteously divided these opinions of these religious authorities back then when putting the Bible together, but I'm not about to be naive, ignorant, or unaware of other texts that have been debated and disputed.  Even the Bible itself can be questioned, especially with all these different versions we have out now.


----------



## JinaRicci (Sep 16, 2009)

Poohbear- with all due respect to you and others interested in the extra books, I have to say that God is the authority on the Bible.  

*All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16*

We know that there is no way that 40 authors of 66 books could be in complete agreement unless they were really written by God.  I don't know why these books aren't in the Bible and I think it's fair to try to determine those reasons.  My personal belief though is that if God wanted these books to be part of the Bible- they would be- He is God after all.

Now I agree it is good for you (generally speaking) to be educated on other topics but the _who_, _how_, _what_ and _why_ matters.  Everyone is not equipped to handle the same information.  Sometimes, it's not necessary to comprehensively study _every_ topic in order to understand what it's about.  There's also a big difference in looking for truth vs knowledge.     

There should be some guidelines as anyone attempts to do research on the extra books.  Put them through the tests of a prophet. 

1) Are they consistent with the Word? Isaiah 8:20
2) Who are the authors & what are their fruits? Matthew 7:20
3) Did their words come to pass? Jeremiah 28:9
4) Do they confess Jesus as God made flesh? 1 John 4:2

That being said, I think everyone who is providing caution is doing so out of love.


----------



## Poohbear (Sep 16, 2009)

JinaRicci said:


> Poohbear- with all due respect to you and others interested in the extra books, I have to say that God is the authority on the Bible.
> 
> *All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16*
> 
> ...


JinaRicci, I knew someone was going to throw out 2 Tim 3:16 eventually. I already know the Bible expresses this! Didn't you see where I said I had faith in the Bible? 

But when you think about it further, those religious authorities are the ones that considered the book of Timothy as God-breathed Scripture. 

Those books (such as the Gnostic Gospels and other texts) that were excluded from the Bible were deemed heretical or non-canonical or not authoritative as scripture by these religious authorities and groups long time ago.

Those guidelines you mentioned (the 1 through 4 questions) are still based on scriptures from the Bible. And if the Bible was so clear cut and dry, we wouldn't have all these denominations and bible versions, and disagreements on fundamentals, doctrines, and interpretation.


----------



## JinaRicci (Sep 16, 2009)

Poohbear said:


> JinaRicci, I knew someone was going to throw out 2 Tim 3:16 eventually. I already know the Bible expresses this! Didn't you see where I said I had faith in the Bible?
> 
> But when you think about it further, those religious authorities are the ones that considered the book of Timothy as God-breathed Scripture.
> 
> ...


 
My question is why were they excluded? What were the specifics? Since we have faith in the Bible, why is it not applicable here? When do we use its guidelines?


----------



## Poohbear (Sep 16, 2009)

JinaRicci said:


> My question is why were they excluded? What were the specifics? Since we have faith in the Bible, why is it not applicable here? When do we use its guidelines?


 These are questions I would like to know the answers too.  

I know God wants us to have faith in His Holy Word, but I just wonder why these religious authorities and groups were the ones who decided what books were put into the Bible. What were their credentials? What was their reputation? What was their relationship with God like? Were they in unity when making the Biblical canon? Why is there such a division about God's word today?

While continuing in the Christian faith, I also like to keep an open mind. 

But in all honesty, I took a theology class during college a few years back, and we discussed the Gnostic gospels in particular. I read a few excerpts from the Gnostic gospels, and they seemed very off based, but that's just my discernment/opinion/or whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

And I just skimmed through the Book of Jubilees, and it mentioned some things that are already in the Bible (For instance, Moses with the commandments). Maybe it was left out because of redundancy? But there are things in the Bible that are redundant (such as some stories of Jesus in the Four Gospels in the New Testaments). And other things in the Book of Jubilees were difficult for me to follow. However, there are some things in the Bible that are difficult for me to follow as well.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Sep 16, 2009)

To understand why, when and who decided to exclude certain text from the current Canon of the Bible requires a historical study.  I know from one of my classes that many of the books that were popular at the time of the writings were exluded because according to the religious authorities of that time, the books or writings were not in line with the rest of the commonly accepted writings.

There are the books of the Apocrypha and then there are the books known as the pseudepigrapha.  I believe the Book of Enoch falls into the category of the latter.  What kept them out of the canon was that they had contained information in them that may not have been confirmed by another religious authority.  I have read the Book of Enoch but I wouldn't recommend a babe in Christ reading it because one can begin to lean on that book alone as THE authority.  I read it alongside my Bible and used it just to verify for myself whether or not it was quoted in the Bible like I heard it had been.


Now, with that being said,  I don't think there is anything wrong with studying and learning things from historical writers who had an opinion or what they believed to be revelation from God.  However, I do believe that the current Bible is as it is because God wanted it that way.

Think of it like this, there are many writers nowadays who write on their testimonies according to the Word and their interpretation and application according to the Word of God and we don't discount them as being heretics(well some of them are but the majority don't get classified as such)

The Bible speaks about Enoch being taken up.  He didn't die a natural death.  His whole being was taken up with God because God found favor in him.  This is suppose to be the same Enoch who is the writer of the Book of Enoch. . . . .my question when I finished my study is this: If he was taken up with God, then when did he write the book?  How did the book get back here?  If someone else wrote it based upon Enoch's story, then was the storyteller the real Enoch?  

Jesus didn't write anything, so his experiences are recorded by other people who were with him.  Enoch is written in the first person.  Sooooooo, I personally think it's a good read, very interesting, but I don't believe it belongs in the Bible.  Just my honest opinion.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Sep 16, 2009)

HeChangedMyName said:


> What kept them out of the canon was that they had contained information in them that may not have been confirmed by another religious authority.



I read that the Book of Jubilees author didn't believe in the resurrection, a necessary Jewish tenet that would have carried through to christianity.  

I had to admit that it is a little unsettling to read things that aren't the norm.  It makes the mind wonder and you sometimes worry about whether G-d is truly in control or not.  It's a real temptation at times because the info read does not fall into line with what you were taught as the absolute truth.  That's the biggest danger I see...losing faith while exposing oneself to things.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Sep 16, 2009)

GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I said:


> I read that the Book of Jubilees author didn't believe in the resurrection, a necessary Jewish tenet that would have carried through to christianity.
> 
> I had to admit that it is a little unsettling to read things that aren't the norm. It makes the mind wonder and you sometimes worry about whether G-d is truly in control or not. It's a real temptation at times because the info read does not fall into line with what you were taught as the absolute truth. *That's the biggest danger I see...losing faith while exposing oneself to things.*


 



Yessssss!!!!!!  That is what happened to Eve when she slipped up and sinned.  She entertained a possibility outside of God's absolute truth.  I'm sure life would be different if she had recognized what was really going on and stopped the enemy in his tracks.


----------



## Poohbear (Sep 17, 2009)

GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I said:


> I read that the Book of Jubilees author didn't believe in the resurrection, a necessary Jewish tenet that would have carried through to christianity.
> 
> I had to admit that *it is a little unsettling to read things that aren't the norm. It makes the mind wonder and you sometimes worry about whether G-d is truly in control or not. It's a real temptation at times because the info read does not fall into line with what you were taught as the absolute truth.* That's the biggest danger I see...losing faith while exposing oneself to things.


 This is somewhat how I felt when reading parts of the Book of Jubilees and the Gnostic gospels.


----------



## moonglowdiva (Sep 17, 2009)

*I find that this is quite interesting how the OP started off with something entirely different and now the discussion has gone off on a tangent. You know that's how rumors get started. I do believe that OP has said what she was going to do.*


----------



## Prudent1 (Sep 17, 2009)

Poohbear said:


> This is somewhat how I felt when reading parts of the Book of Jubilees and the Gnostic gospels.


 I do believe that my have been the still small voice of your souls....


----------



## goldielocs (Sep 17, 2009)

moonglowdiva said:


> *I find that this is quite interesting how the OP started off with something entirely different and now the discussion has gone off on a tangent. You know that's how rumors get started. I do believe that OP has said what she was going to do.*


 

All I could do was laugh at this.  You're right, we have decided what we're going to do, but I love the discussion. I've been very busy with homeschooling and my own school work so I haven't gotten a chance to post.

We (my DH and I) read some of the gnostic texts about 2 years ago and it was unsettling for him so we backed off.  I am fine with them because the basics are the same. Christ is my savior and I'm waiting for Him to come back. Gnostic texts aren't for everyone.  I'm not saying they aren't legit, but I agree one should be careful.

Take care.


----------



## discobiscuits (Sep 17, 2009)

who said that any animals died before sin entered the earth realm? i have not read every word in the bible so i'd like to see that because i was never taught that and have yet to read that.

the 1st possible animal death was when God clothed them after they sinned.


> Gen 3:21  	   	 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.



man and animals were vegetarians (or so it reads that way to me in the word and i've not heard any religious teacher teach otherwise).

i have always felt creationism and evolutionism could go side by side (to an extent and my explanation is WAY too long for this post). i was educated at christian schools most of my life beginning in kindergarten and i was taught both. evolution never caused me to doubt God's creation, it actually made me see how evolution theory in the hands of a believer could give scientific credence to creation which is still something one chooses to believe or not w/ no natural evidence.


----------



## blazingthru (Sep 18, 2009)

GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I said:


> I read that the Book of Jubilees author didn't believe in the resurrection, a necessary Jewish tenet that would have carried through to christianity.
> 
> *I had to admit that it is a little unsettling to read things that aren't the norm. It makes the mind wonder and you sometimes worry about whether G-d is truly in control or not.* It's a real temptation at times because the info read does not fall into line with what you were taught as the absolute truth. *That's the biggest danger I see...losing faith while exposing oneself to things*.


 

I agree,  I tried to read some of those books and for me it was just to much it didn't even feel right to me.  I think it causes doubt.  the bible was put together with much prayer and reverently asking God to help make the decisions of what books were necessary for our salvation and so we have the holy bible and for me it leaves nothing out that I can't get the answer to when I see Jesus.


----------



## blazingthru (Sep 18, 2009)

1star said:


> who said that any animals died before sin entered the earth realm? i have not read every word in the bible so i'd like to see that because i was never taught that and have yet to read that.
> 
> *the 1st possible animal death was when God clothed them after they sinned.*


 

yes the very first sacrifice of a innocent animal the sacrifice for Adams and Eve's sin. the wages of sin is death and so death begin, starting with the animal and the plants and the trees and all things begin to die. I can't imagine how they must have felt to kill an animal that they loved for what they did.  
My daughter is studying Evolution its actually funny to me.  Has anyone see anything grow from an explotion? I have only seen a mess.


----------



## SND411 (Sep 18, 2009)

Crown said:


> Not necessarily younger age!
> 
> The Bible begins by saying :
> Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> ...



That's what I always thought. Couldn't God like create a tree that is "thousands of years old" in a day?


----------



## SND411 (Sep 18, 2009)

blazingthru said:


> I agree,  I tried to read some of those books and for me it was just to much it didn't even feel right to me.  I think it causes doubt.  the bible was put together with much prayer and reverently asking God to help make the decisions of what books were necessary for our salvation and so we have the holy bible and for me it leaves nothing out that I can't get the answer to when I see Jesus.



I believe other books can provided historical information about events long ago. But I do not believe that they provide the essential messages for Salvation


----------



## jerseygurl (Sep 18, 2009)

moonglowdiva said:


> *I find that this is quite interesting how the OP started off with something entirely different and now the discussion has gone off on a tangent. You know that's how rumors get started. I do believe that OP has said what she was going to do.*


When have you known any LHCF discussion to be completely on topic.


----------



## dicapr (Sep 18, 2009)

AfriPrincess411 said:


> That's what I always thought. Couldn't God like create a tree that is "thousands of years old" in a day?


 
I don't see why God would creat something old-what would be the purpose.  However, I do believe that the earth may be older than creationist believe.  Nowhere in the bible did it say that Eve was created on Friday and ate from the tree on Sunday.  Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands of years before sinning.


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 19, 2009)

Crown said:


> Not necessarily younger age!
> 
> The Bible begins by saying :
> Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> ...


 
If the Bible says "God created the heaven and the earth", then the earth is part of the creation and by definition not old, right?



1star said:


> who said that any animals died before sin entered the earth realm? i have not read every word in the bible so i'd like to see that because i was never taught that and have yet to read that.
> 
> the 1st possible animal death was when God clothed them after they sinned.
> 
> ...


 
I too was educated with curriculum meant for Christian schools (though I was homeschooled) and was also taught evolution in AP Biology. I believe I'm familiar with the explanation to which you are alluding. But I'd like to point out that science cannot prove anything, something I've learned as a science major. If you go back and look at the process of doing an experiement, you can only confirm a suspicion/hypothesis, but not prove it. You can do the experiment over a million times, but you have not proved anything. You've only really confirmed it. Science does not yield facts. So the theory of evolution (which is only a theory, not a fact and can neither be proven nor confirmed, as you said) does not really give credence to creation, not does it need to. The Bible is not a science book, but whenever it talks about science (or anything, for that matter) it is 100% correct. It's nice to have scientific "backup", and having can edify our faith and help us defend it to others, but if you believe in the accuracy of the Bible, it's definitely not necessary.



dicapr said:


> I don't see why God would create something old-what would be the purpose. However, I do believe that the earth may be older than creationist believe. Nowhere in the bible did it say that Eve was created on Friday and ate from the tree on Sunday. Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands of years before sinning.


 
It doesn't give a specific timeline, but nonetheless, I don't think this is a logical line of reasoning because of Genesis 5:5 which says, "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." From this I'd say it's safe to conclude that there weren't 1000s of years because Adam and Eve's creation and the fall.

HTH everyone!


----------



## DarlingNikki (Sep 20, 2009)

goldielocs said:


> If the fall of Adam and Eve introduced sin and death to the world, then how could millions of animals have lived and died before Adam and Eve were created?



I haven't read through the entire thread, so this may have already been mentioned....before The Fall death was not intended for _man_.  I don't believe animals were included in that deal.

Also, I would like to point out that the Bible does somewhat support the claim of evolution:



> And God said, *Let the earth bring forth grass*, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. Genesis 1:24
> 
> And God said, *Let the earth bring forth the living creature* after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the  earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:24



As it would appear, God did not create everything directly but instructed "the earth to bring forth".

I agree with the one poster who pointed out that the Bible was not meant to be a science book.


----------



## dicapr (Sep 20, 2009)

rafikichick92 said:


> If the Bible says "God created the heaven and the earth", then the earth is part of the creation and by definition not old, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

My understanding is that time didn't start until after the fall.  Also there is an idea that there is no one who lived to 1000 because we die in that same day-1 day being 1000 years.  I think it is quite possible that plenty of time passed befor the fall.  There is no need to record Adam and Eve lived in bliss for 1000000000 years.


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 20, 2009)

Dicapr--may I ask why you think time didn't start until after the fall? I've never heard of that before ...

Since everyone is going around quoting this "1000 years is 1 days" verse, I thought I'd look it up and see what it had to say in context.

It's 2 Peter 3:8 and it says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is *with the Lord* as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This cross-references to Psalm 90:4 which says "For a thousand years *in thy sight* are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

What this says to me is that it's saying 1000 years is like a day *to the Lord*. And since the Bible is written to us, the people, God would want to talk to us in people years, or in our context of time, not His. And our context of time would definitely be years, not days, since we seem to think the earth has existed for x amount of years not days. 

This, combined with Genesis 5:5 which says that Adam lived 930 years (and he did begin living *before* the fall) makes me hold to my original position that the earth is not millions of years old.


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 20, 2009)

DarlingNikki said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread, so this may have already been mentioned....before The Fall death was not intended for _man_. I don't believe animals were included in that deal.
> 
> Also, I would like to point out that the Bible does somewhat support the claim of evolution:
> 
> ...


 
How do the earth "bringing forth" support evolution directly or indirectly?

If you look at the rest of the surrounding verses, this "bringing forth" happened within that day of creation. If you're assuming literal days here (and I think it's logical, because how else are you going to explain "the evening and the morning [making] the third day?) that doesn't leave much of a window for evolution as it's normaly defined to occur.


----------



## DarlingNikki (Sep 21, 2009)

rafikichick92 said:


> How do the earth "bringing forth" support evolution directly or indirectly?
> 
> If you look at the rest of the surrounding verses, this "bringing forth" happened within that day of creation. If you're assuming literal days here (and I think it's logical, because how else are you going to explain "the evening and the morning [making] the third day?) that doesn't leave much of a window for evolution as it's normaly defined to occur.


 
I stated that it "_*somewhat*_" supports the idea of evolution.  I never said it supported evolution as it's normally defined.  Unfortunately the Bible does not go in depth about the amount of time it took for the earth to "bring forth", so it really is hard to say one way or the other.


----------



## discobiscuits (Sep 21, 2009)

no comment


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 21, 2009)

Alrighty then ...


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 21, 2009)

DarlingNikki said:


> I stated that it "_*somewhat*_" supports the idea of evolution.  I never said it supported evolution as it's normally defined.  Unfortunately the Bible does not go in depth about the amount of time it took for the earth to "bring forth", so it really is hard to say one way or the other.



Fair enough. I apologize for misrepresenting your statement. I believe a case can be made for the earth doing the "bringing forth" fruit, grass, and what have you in 24 hours. After all, Genesis 1:11-13 tell us this happened on the third day, which means in 24 hours like I said before.


----------



## DarlingNikki (Sep 21, 2009)

rafikichick92 said:


> Fair enough. I apologize for misrepresenting your statement. I believe a case can be made for the earth doing the "bringing forth" fruit, grass, and what have you in 24 hours. After all, Genesis 1:11-13 tell us this happened on the third day, *which means in 24 hours like I said before*.


 
Where in the Bible does it state that one day equated to "24 hours" back then?


----------



## discobiscuits (Sep 21, 2009)

DarlingNikki said:


> Where in the Bible does it state that one day equated to "24 hours" back then?



Nikki. I've restrained myself from commenting on one of her above posts where it appears she misunderstood and misquoted me.  

In this post I'm going to attempt to get some understanding. I think (hope) that when she says "day" she means that which is considered a 24-hour period. 

Scripture states: "And the evening and the morning were the _____ day."  However, to a Hebrew mind sundown to sundown is a "day"/24-hour period. Scripture says the evening and the morning. Amplified version reads: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." That does not seem like 24-hours to me. 

Like I said, for the sake of discussion and understanding let's stipulate that the evening/morning reference equates to 24hours. Cool? 

ETA: God didn't separate day/night until v14 which was day 4. Maybe v14 is where the 24-hour day was effective: "v14And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,"....v19 "9And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 21, 2009)

I am trying not to misrepresent anybody. If I have done so, show me where and I will apologize as demonstrated above. It's as simple as that. There is no need for people to feel they have to "restrain themselves".


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 21, 2009)

1star said:


> Nikki. I've restrained myself from commenting on one of her above posts where it appears she misunderstood and misquoted me.
> 
> *In this post I'm going to attempt to get some understanding. I think (hope) that when she says "day" she means that which is considered a 24-hour period.*
> 
> ...


 
Yes, that is exactly what "she" is saying.


----------



## Crown (Sep 21, 2009)

rafikichick92 said:


> If the Bible says "God created the heaven and the earth", then the earth is part of the creation and by definition not old, right?



Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.    1.2 And 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. 

Can we really put a time on this _beginning_? I don't think so because it's not a part of the six days of creation.

You said : _God created the heaven and the earth, then the earth is part of the creation and by definition not old, right?_

Can I say : God created the human, then the human is part of the creation and by definition not old, and by definition a baby, right?

Wrong : God created the human, a man, not a baby. Even if you think that the earth, as a planet, is a part of the creation (that is not specified in the Bible), you can not say that God created a _young_ earth.


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 21, 2009)

Crown said:


> Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1.2 And 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.
> 
> Can we really put a time on this _beginning_? I don't think so because it's not a part of the six days of creation.
> 
> ...


 
God created everything fully formed. He created Adam a grown man. He created Eve a grown woman. He created the earth a "grown earth". That doesn't have anything to do with their age in terms of years. Apply it to Adam. Because he was created grown, are you going to say God created an old Adam? And it so, how is that logical?

God created the physical earth in 1 day, according to Genesis 1:1-5.


----------



## Crown (Sep 21, 2009)

rafikichick92 said:


> God created the physical earth in 1 day, according to Genesis 1:1-5.



If you understand that the earth, as a planet, has been created in day 1; fine, it is your understanding!

But the Bible says : in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. 
We have no clue about this beginning.

In *day 1* :
Gen. 1.3 And God said, *Let there be light*: and there was light.    1.4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.    1.5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were *the first day*.

It is just to clarify.

Blessing!


----------



## Crown (Sep 21, 2009)

rafikichick92 said:


> God created everything fully formed. He created Adam a grown man. He created Eve a grown woman. He created the earth a "*grown earth*". That doesn't have anything to do with their age in terms of years. Apply it to Adam. Because he was created grown, are you going to say God created an old Adam? And it so, how is that logical?
> 
> God created the physical earth in 1 day, according to Genesis 1:1-5.



I know what it is a grown man.

How old must be a planet like the earth to be considered a _grown earth_???
Sincerely, I don't know and we don't know. And that's the point!


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 21, 2009)

Meaning it was fully functional and did not have to grow or evolve. That the trees where fully grown. The grass was already there and didn't have to grow from seed. Basically, the earth was created ready to live in like it is now. 

Again, how old are you considering Adam to be in light of the fact that he was created a grown man in one day? It's the same principle.


----------



## rafikichick92 (Sep 21, 2009)

Crown said:


> If you understand that the earth, as a planet, has been created in day 1; fine, it is your understanding!
> 
> But the Bible says : in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
> We have no clue about this beginning.
> ...


 
Yes, this is how I understand it. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. And I believe that Genesis 1:1-5 are a whole unit and thus the physical earth, the planet, was created in one day. I think our fundamental premises are different and for this reason, I am willing to agree to disagree with you.

Blessings to you as well.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Sep 21, 2009)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html


Professor Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes that:

    The Torah's story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin's theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its* sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah's entire religious worldview and value system*. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but *rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. *And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated. 

Rabbi David J. Fine, who has authorized official responsa for the Conservative movement's 

Rabbi Michael Schwab writes:

    ...the Jewish view on the first set of questions is much closer to the picture painted by adherents to intelligent design than to those who are strict Darwinians. Judaism, as a religion, and certainly Conservative Judaism, sees creation as a purposeful process directed by God, however each individual defines the Divine. This is clearly in consonance with the theory of Intelligent Design. What Darwin sees as random, we see as the miraculous and natural unfolding of God’s subtle and beautiful plan. 
    ...However, as unlikely as it may seem, this does not mean for one moment that Judaism’s view rejects wholesale the veracity of Darwin’s theory. In fact, I believe that it is easy to incorporate Darwin and Intelligent design into a meaningful conception of how we humans came into being... 
    We have frameworks built into our system to integrate the findings of science into our religious and theological beliefs. That is because we believe that the natural world, and the way it works, was created by God and therefore its workings must be consistent with our religious beliefs. 
    ...One of the most well known ways our tradition has been able to hold onto both the scientific theory of evolution as well as the concept of a purposeful creation was by reading the creation story in Genesis in a more allegorical sense. One famous medieval commentary proclaims that the days of creation, as outlined in the book of Beres hit , could be seen as representative of the stages of creation and not literal 24 hour periods. _Thus each Biblical day could have accounted for thousands or even millions of years. In that way the progression according to both evolution and the Torah remains essentially the same: first the elements were created, then the waters, the plants, the animals, and finally us. Therefore, Genesis and Darwin can both be right in a factual analysis even while we acknowledge that our attitudes towards these shared facts are shaped much more strongly by the Torah – we agree how the process unfolded but disagree that it was random. _
    Parshat Noah -- November 4, 2005, How Did We Get Here? Michael Schwab


----------



## DarlingNikki (Sep 21, 2009)

rafikichick92 said:


> Meaning it was fully functional and did not have to grow or evolve. That the trees where fully grown. *The grass was already there and didn't have to grow from seed.* Basically, the earth was created ready to live in like it is now.
> 
> Again, how old are you considering Adam to be in light of the fact that he was created a grown man in one day? It's the same principle.




What you just said is totally contradictory to the verse I pointed out earlier:



> And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. Genesis 1:24


----------



## Child0fGod (Sep 21, 2009)

moonglowdiva said:


> *Why isn't it of sound doctrine and who said so? Did man say so? Where is it written in scriptures? The purpose for mentioning the Book of Jubilees was to research it. Man (mankind) does have an agenda. He will give you just what he wants you to know and tell you that it is gospel. He never wants you to read for yourself.erplexed*



i post mainly in response to *the text* that is written, _not _the people who write them. i had no idea you were the one who mentioned jubilees.

and again i say:



Child0fGod said:


> be careful when reading *GNOSTIC TEXTS*. they are *not* considered sound doctrine. (research "gnostic texts" before you actually begin/if you decide to read them).
> 
> also, be careful WHO you take advice from. (I John 4:1).
> 
> always be sure to do your own research and ask God to give you the revelation thereof. some people on here have their own agenda, not after Christs. sad:


----------



## discobiscuits (Sep 21, 2009)

i think she, rafikichick92, means "mature" when she, rafikichick92, says "grown"....





> Meaning it was fully functional and did not have to grow or evolve.



also, the following does not appear grown or mature to me, reading it literally, not interpreting....





> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 *The earth was without form, and void*


as i read further, i see that he separates the water from land, heavens from earth, creates flora (that grows from the ground) and fauna and man. that seems like a grown, mature earth to me (not a formless void). i'm just saying.


----------



## discobiscuits (Sep 22, 2009)

moonglowdiva said:


> *Why isn't it of sound doctrine and who said so? Did man say so? Where is it written in scriptures?  The purpose for mentioning the Book of Jubilees was to research it. Man (mankind) does have an agenda. He will give you just what he wants you to know and tell you that it is gospel. He never wants you to read for yourself.erplexed*




i like to read all kinds of things. of course that does not mean i believe it. 

man did decide what would be included in the bible and what would be left out. 

i believe the editing process was done with a heart toward God and the intent to compile as much truth or word in one place as possible.

the general base line measuring stick is that NT must confirm OT.

we must let God's Holy Spirit lead guide and direct us to all truth.

that said, i plan on reading texts that were not cannonized for information. but i choose to only believe/follow what is in the bible & nothing outside of that. 

i just learned this year that oddly, some people actually dispute Paul as an apostle. of course, i like other christians, was taught he is an apostle. paul himself says he is. but the bible lays out the "rules" for being an apostle and one was he had to have walked with jesus (pre-crucifixion). since paul does not fit that, some scholars say he is not a "real" apostle. 

for your reading pleasure (regarding "authorized" books of the bible/the cannon):
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon


----------



## Celestial (Sep 23, 2009)

goldielocs said:


> Hello all,
> 
> My husband and I recently began homeschooling for a combination of reasons and one of them had to do with religion. Our curriculum includes Bible reading and scripture memorization and learning the catechism.
> 
> ...


 
The bolded above is because God is longsuffering and patient. I believe in creationism.


----------



## GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I (Sep 23, 2009)

Maybe Genesis is the narrative, not the actual manual.


----------



## divya (Sep 24, 2009)

Goldie,

I just want to commend you and your husband for making the decision to homeschool your daughter, to bring her up knowing the Holy Scriptures.

Regarding the question at hand, I specifically share the perspective the days were actually 24 hour periods.  I also agree that there is Scriptural evidence of dinosaurs as pointed out in Job. 

May God bless you and your family.


----------



## goldielocs (Sep 24, 2009)

^^^^^ 
Divya!!! Is that roti in your signature! I haven't had any *good* roti since college... if you have a recipe, please share. 

Thanks for the encouragement. She had such a hard time in public school and she has blossomed since we started homeschooling.  It's just as much of an education for me as it is for her. Bless you.


----------

