Lou Hamby said:

There are some on this web site that treat Christians with a different view with disdain...

Jim has very particular things in mind as to his topics. You should realize that by now. You may not know what those things are. But I'm hoping that you at least will grant that at least some of his sense of bother at you is not unjustified. Surely, you do not presume to be faultessly cognizant in relation to everyone here?

Lou Hamby said:

there is some real issues with the cosmos and your interpretation of Sky and Universe.

I am very poor at keeping in mind most of the things that anyone here has ever said about anything. So I do not know what your evidence is for claiming such a thing.

Moreover, unless you and I each conduct our respective side of the argument here with essentially equal quantity of evidential detail, than I may soon lose most of my interest in responding to mere assertions like this.

Lou Hamby said:

The earth existed void and without form, this also implies something before the actual creation of the biopshere, 

Yes, the Creation account, in v. 2, specifies that there was a pre-biosphere condition of the Earth. The first issue is not that it specifies any such condition. The first issue is as to what that specified condition has to do with the following account's address to us humans. The sole central point of the account is to communicate to us something of that biosphere. It is not an account thrown together of disparate parts that are related ONLY by chronology.

Lou Hamby said:

  the fact the light and dark shows up later is also an inclination that heavenly bodies existed.  Since we are a "privileged planet", then the argument from design/Designer can only infer that God purposed the earths actual position "before" the creation of the earths biopshere.

Presumably most YEC's (represented by ICR, AIG, and CMI) do not agree.

Fortunately for you, I do agree with you on this exact detail. But unlike you, I do not see that detail in any Carl Sagan-esque way. This I have explained in great detail in recent months. In short, is God the sort of fellow who, despite aiming mainly at creating life and humans, creates billions of years of a lifeless cosmos?

Or, instead, would you prefer that those billions of years were occupied by other, perhaps more glorious, creaturely life than that of humans?

Lou Hamby said:

Are you one of the YEC's I have observed on Facebook Science and Christianity and other Facebook pages that infer that unless you believe this position your salvation is in jeopardy?  There have been several removed from these sites as explicitly inferring non YEC views of the flood and Creation puts you outside of the preview of salvation?  Just asking?

No. I am not one of those Christians. An individual's salvation is not dependent on their believing any particular thing about Earth's physical history.

But let me put the issue to you in a different way:

Exactly how integral to the Gospel (and therefore to the culture of a nation) is the truth of Earth's physical history?

It seems to me that you espouse that all views as to that history have utterly no effect on the integrity of the Gospel. is that what you espouse? Do you think there is no particular cultural-intellectual consequence from a nation's believing a given thing about Earth's history? Does Noah's Flood mean nothing thereto? Does a community's view as to the origin of the cosmos, relative to that of Earth, have no particular effect on how that community sees both the Gospel and the human scientific endeavor?

Views: 19

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Daniel I have been a member of this site for at least 5 years. I was an ardent YEC and followed most of the views of Yec's.  Over time as I got more familiar with the basis for biblical interpretation I started asking questions.  I am a YEC even now in the sense that I believe the creation event, and the speaking life into the biopshere is of young origin. Being a member of many scientific sites on Facebook, I have run onto more and more YECS that are making their view of creation a basis for separation of fellowship with others with a different view. I am not OE as the evidences I am aware of all point to a younger earth event and not millions or billions of years. 

Sorry but Carl Sagan is not one of my people I have ever followed.  So no that is not me?

I inferred questions that is all.  I did not insinuate that you are anything? THe integrity of the Gospel is wrapped up in the First paragraph of John in that all things exist and consist in Christ (the Logos). Integrity of certain dogma adopted by different groups is one thing, but the Gospel and the Word rest on its own.  Men have well taken the Word and changed it, and its no accident that the basic doctrines of Christianity are set in 2,000 years of HIstory and expertise.  Its why we have the doctrines we do. 

Noah's flood is real and it happened, and its part of the history of the biblical narrative of mankind.  

The scientific and observable evidences of GOd's work in nature lay before us. I asked pertinent questions about Mathematics, and Time.  It lays hard against those who deny its reality.  That is the only point I tried to make that somehow insulted Jim and apparently you?  I asked you not to debate but to academically discuss the evidences and what those evidences leave us with?  thats it...  If you can't allow yourself to rationally discuss this or if you have went over the line, then I apologize.

Common sense questions seem like something that any Christians can discuss... but then maybe not here. 

You said this:
 "despite aiming mainly at creating life and humans, creates billions of years of a lifeless cosmos?"

Was it necessary for the earth proper to be set "in place" before the creation event of life on earth? When it was void and without purpose, was it no less part of GODs creative act of design?

 



Lou Hamby said:


Was it necessary for the earth proper to be set "in place" before the creation event of life on earth? When it was void and without purpose, was it no less part of GODs creative act of design?

It was not without purpose or power. The word 'was' in the phrase 'was formless and void' is the Hebrew word ha-ye-tah (hay-y-tayh). Only when most loosely translated does it mean something approximating our English 'possess', 'become', 'was', etc.

That's where persons like yourself stop in seeking to determine, from readily available sources, for the exact Hebrew meaning of that word. Instead you fixate on 'become', and this only in the most narrowly self-serving way: you draw a hard conclusion right then, and this in favor of some mythical glorious age of the Earth between v. 2 and v. 1.

In still other words, you see that 'become' in terms of an equally utterly ignorant interpretation of 'formless and void'. Even John Walton, who thinks the account is mere metaphor, recognizes that the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians understood that 'formless and void' as something along the lines of 'pre-functional', not 'in a state of destruction'.

Each of the other 111 Biblical instances of that same form of that Hebrew word that is rendered 'was' in v. 2, each instance clearly, in immediate context, means along the lines of the active taking/having possession of something formative, usually constructive. (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/hayetah_1961.htm)

The word 'was' in v. 2 is not---I repeat, not---about a result of some former action, but rather about the particular nature of the substance of the 'formless and void': formative water. This is how Peter, in 2nd Peter 3:5-6, knew what he was talking about. He understood the Hebrew. And so do the translators of virtually all English translations, when they render the  Hebrew word 'was' instead of 'become'. This is the possessive 'was', not the passive 'was'.

For example, I am me. That 'am' is possessive. And that 'me' is analogous to water. If I said, 'this paper is useless', then that 'is' is fairly neutral. But if I say, 'This fire is hot', that 'is' is possessive and formative. The same is readily understood when 'formless and void' is a powerful formative substance. That is what v. 2 says.

So v. 2 does not say two different things: one about a state of destruction, and another about water. Rather, v. 2 is ENTIRELY about one PRESENT thing: water.

So please stop being foolish in your ignorance.

Her is what I see in your resposne:  was it really necessary to categorize this discussion in this manner?

So please stop being foolish in your ignorance.

Apparently you completley missed my view and also imparted your view which is fine, but with some sort of arrogance.  Your welcome to your view as I am.  However the questions I asked were not only pertinent, the greek Universe and its spoken into existence has to do with time?  

The fact that I suggest that the Universe of which the "planet earth" is part of, was set in place by design, should not be an issue with you? The scirptures were not written to fool its reader was it?  Your exegesis is fine...however the Narrative says the earth was void and the waters covered over the earth, the Spirit hovered over it.  At that point we have the Universe existing in time and our planet set in place.  It was spoken into existence by almighty God, was it not?
Nothing about the narrative or the language can be construed to mean any thing but the first step in God implementing his design. Life my friend had not been spoken into existence.

The earths creation event where life was spoken into the planet after it was prepared is not this moment in time. It is obvious that time existed ... the sciurpture is not trying to fool anyone,  including yourself?

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.

aión: a space of time, an age (Universe)

Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time
Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.

The Psalms
104

The LORD's Care for His Creation
1  Bless the LORD, O my soul.
        
O LORD my God, thou art very great;
thou art clothed with honor and majesty:
2  who coverest thyself with light as with a garment:
        
who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3  who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters:
        
who maketh the clouds his chariot:
who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
4  who maketh his angels spirits;
        
his ministers a flaming fire: Heb. 1.7
5  who laid the foundations of the earth,
        
that it should not be removed for ever.
6  Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment:
        
the waters stood above the mountains.
7  At thy rebuke they fled;
        
at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8  They go up by the mountains;
        
they go down by the valleys

unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

God's preparation to receive life on earth required eco-sytems, valleys, mountains, deserts, etc.  

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service