Zany
Prince
First off, those of who've I debated over the past week or so, it turns out I wasn't gone for 2 days but 3. I forgot what day of the month Thanksgiving was, but I'm here now.
This thread is about debating the theological aspects of Creationism. So while comments from non-Christian evolutionists are allowed, this is aimed mostly at Christians of any scientific belief. It will likely to turn into another Creationism debate, and I have nothing against that. But if so, the only debate with a purpose would be one amongst Christians. No atheist minds will be changed and they will not change any religious minds.
Now Christian evolutionists, what is your response to this:
“But if ye believe not (Mose’s) writings, how shall ye believe my words?” John 5:47
The Bible makes it clear when something has an obvious meaning (learning a lesson, for example, open to interpretation or application is not at all heretical, but when something has a very clear message) it cannot be interpreted differently. Jesus said every word was of the Bible was divinely inspired (Matthew 5:18) and warned harshly against adding your own words to it (Revelation 22:18). Therefore, the Bible does not leave vital doctrine up to human speculation and interpretation. There is nothing wrong with, for example, applying a parable to a situation maybe not that closely related to the original meaning, but that’s because a parable is a lesson in life, not a historical and factual account. Vital doctrine is not left open to interpretation; it has a clear and undeniable meaning.
The Hebrew word yam, or yôm, is used in Genesis and translated as English day. The English translation (for this one word) is basically perfect, because it (the Hebrew word) has a very similar meaning: both have the dual-meaning of a 24-hour cycle and the light period of that 24-hour cycle. Which one it means is clarified when Genesis says it was divided into “morning and evening”. So that clarifies it is a 24-hour cycle total and not just the day part, but also it is not an age. Let alone the fact the word would almost never be used meaning an age, but an age would not have a morning and an evening. God clarifies it again in Exodus 20:11 “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the (seventh) day and hallowed it.” Jesus referred to a Creation week again in Mark 2:27 “The Sabbath was made for man.”
Furthermore, the Genesis account gives specific orders of what was created when, not merely saying in 6 days (which I already clarified cannot mean ages) everything was created. For example, birds are created before reptiles in Genesis, but in the theory of evolution it is the opposite. Do you also remember when Genesis says all creatures will only take after “their kind”? That means no macroevolution; it means modern varieties of dogs can come from one original dog, because that is all within their kind. The Bible clearly says macro-evolution never occurred.
Jesus points out again that everything in the universe was created within a very short timeframe. Remember that Jesus was there at the Creation (John 1:1-3). “from the beginning God…made them male and female” Mark 10:6. This is obviously a reference to Adam and Eve, but even if you were to ignore that and dissect it, it still means life existed at the very beginning of time (not 12.5 billion years after the big bang) and there were two genders from that point on, no evolution of it. So no matter how you look at it, Jesus believed in Genesis literally.
Jesus again certifies man existed from very near the beginning of time. “the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world” Luke 11:50-51. Abel is the first prophet, and the first martyr. Jesus also said that because Satan used Cain to kill Abel (remember, Satan is the source of all evil, without him there would be no sin) “was a murderer from the beginning” John 8:44. John the Baptist said that God’s holy prophets had been predicting a coming savior “since the world began”. Paul later preached that the second coming of Christ and the final destruction of sin’s curse had been events that “God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” Acts 3:12. Paul also wrote that evidence of God as the creator should have been “clearly seen” since “the creation of the world”. So mankind is just a few days younger than the rest of the universe, and just a few years (most people assume Cain and Abel were around 25, but they easily could have had baby grandchildren by the time of the murder) after that there was martyrdom and hatred for the truth.
As for Genesis not be “valid” and therefore analogous, please give me some examples of it supposedly contradicting itself. The most common “mystery” of Genesis (setting aside the miracle of Creation) is probably where Cain got his wife. First off, look at genealogies. Seth is born MUCH later after Abel. So why would there be such a gap? And usually we see Cain and Abel as being roughly 25, apparently getting this idea in our heads that this was their first offering or something. It is entirely likely that they already had children, for they were already married (Cain at least), they might’ve even had grandchildren. Second, if Adam and Eve’s lifetimes were so long and they were basically “fruitful”, in health and reproductive biological clocks, then why would they not have many children? I have seen the number of children given from 5 to 50, just to me (this is NOT based on the Bible, so do not consider this at all factual) around 15-20 seems reasonable. Genesis 4:16-17 (also New International Version, all other quotes when not noted are from another translation that to be honest I have forgotten which) “So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.” As for the city quote, some people try to reason that means there were many people around in Nod. Not so, the original Hebrew word that was translated as city meant a walled settlement, and every practical settler walls their cities.
Next, the most commonly cited “contradiction” is probably when the animals were made. First let’s look into why there are two accounts of Creation. The first is an overview, basically like a trailer for a long movie. It familiarizes you with the plot, and then when you get to see the whole thing it goes more in detail. In the first account the “plot” is rather linear, but in the second account it is out of order. However, it clarifies the chronology mentioned earlier by reminding you that some things were already created and others were not yet created. Most people like to say “First it says animals were made before man, but then it says animals were made after Adam but before Eve.” In the New International Version of the Bible (as well the original Hebrew text, though not transliterated here, the NIV is used) Genesis 2:19 “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air”. Reading it in Hebrew, roughly transliterated (the wording is my own, but the usage of verbs and clearer meaning are the same) it says “The Lord God had already formed out of the earth all the beasts of the field and birds of the air.” Obviously the language a text is initially written in will be the clearest, so for example if you were to translate this into Greek the grammar might seem redundant, or maybe contradictory, I don’t know much about Greek except for some root words. That is why Biblical grammar sometimes seems odd, such as “And the Lord God did it, and it was done, and it was done by the Lord.” That is not in reference to anything, it is a random example. In Hebrew it would make perfect sense, well, maybe not that exact sentence, but you know what I mean in this irrelevant tangent about translations.
It is obvious then that Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist, so why do some Christians not believe Genesis? Because they don’t want to, they feel like they don’t have to, or they’ve been told otherwise (on the subjection of a young earth) by atheists. Yet to call yourself a Christian you must believe Jesus died for the sins of mankind, was the Son of God, and was resurrected. Also he must have never sinned, thereby never told a lie or intentionally misled people. Yet the overwhelming evidence of and proof of Jesus as a YEC would mean, if Young Earth Creationism is not true, that Jesus lied and willingly misled people. He could not have thought he was right but been wrong, because he was there at the Creation of the universe (remember John 1:1-3 still?). So Young Earth Creationism is true, or Jesus had sinned, was likely not the Son of God then, his crucifixion was useless and meaningless, and so Christianity is flawed and mankind still has to account for its own sins. So, which is it? Is Jesus the perfect man and Messiah and the earth is really young, or is the earth old and Jesus is not the Messiah having failed to pay for mankind’s sins?
But religion comes before science, Jesus before Young Earth Creationism. Will this turn into a Creationist debate? Very likely, but what would be the point? Because you Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists should be open to the idea of a young earth. I’m not saying you are all, I’m saying you all should. What is wrong with believing in a young earth? What will it change? All it will serve to do is make the Bible inerrant and make Jesus’s words completely truthful. Will a debate change the mind of an avowed atheist evolutionist? Almost certainly no. But a Christian who believes in Jesus as their own personal savior should be open to the idea that his words are completely truthful.
EDIT: Info from post #52 was added, included below:
This thread is about debating the theological aspects of Creationism. So while comments from non-Christian evolutionists are allowed, this is aimed mostly at Christians of any scientific belief. It will likely to turn into another Creationism debate, and I have nothing against that. But if so, the only debate with a purpose would be one amongst Christians. No atheist minds will be changed and they will not change any religious minds.
Now Christian evolutionists, what is your response to this:
“But if ye believe not (Mose’s) writings, how shall ye believe my words?” John 5:47
The Bible makes it clear when something has an obvious meaning (learning a lesson, for example, open to interpretation or application is not at all heretical, but when something has a very clear message) it cannot be interpreted differently. Jesus said every word was of the Bible was divinely inspired (Matthew 5:18) and warned harshly against adding your own words to it (Revelation 22:18). Therefore, the Bible does not leave vital doctrine up to human speculation and interpretation. There is nothing wrong with, for example, applying a parable to a situation maybe not that closely related to the original meaning, but that’s because a parable is a lesson in life, not a historical and factual account. Vital doctrine is not left open to interpretation; it has a clear and undeniable meaning.
The Hebrew word yam, or yôm, is used in Genesis and translated as English day. The English translation (for this one word) is basically perfect, because it (the Hebrew word) has a very similar meaning: both have the dual-meaning of a 24-hour cycle and the light period of that 24-hour cycle. Which one it means is clarified when Genesis says it was divided into “morning and evening”. So that clarifies it is a 24-hour cycle total and not just the day part, but also it is not an age. Let alone the fact the word would almost never be used meaning an age, but an age would not have a morning and an evening. God clarifies it again in Exodus 20:11 “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the (seventh) day and hallowed it.” Jesus referred to a Creation week again in Mark 2:27 “The Sabbath was made for man.”
Furthermore, the Genesis account gives specific orders of what was created when, not merely saying in 6 days (which I already clarified cannot mean ages) everything was created. For example, birds are created before reptiles in Genesis, but in the theory of evolution it is the opposite. Do you also remember when Genesis says all creatures will only take after “their kind”? That means no macroevolution; it means modern varieties of dogs can come from one original dog, because that is all within their kind. The Bible clearly says macro-evolution never occurred.
Jesus points out again that everything in the universe was created within a very short timeframe. Remember that Jesus was there at the Creation (John 1:1-3). “from the beginning God…made them male and female” Mark 10:6. This is obviously a reference to Adam and Eve, but even if you were to ignore that and dissect it, it still means life existed at the very beginning of time (not 12.5 billion years after the big bang) and there were two genders from that point on, no evolution of it. So no matter how you look at it, Jesus believed in Genesis literally.
Jesus again certifies man existed from very near the beginning of time. “the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world” Luke 11:50-51. Abel is the first prophet, and the first martyr. Jesus also said that because Satan used Cain to kill Abel (remember, Satan is the source of all evil, without him there would be no sin) “was a murderer from the beginning” John 8:44. John the Baptist said that God’s holy prophets had been predicting a coming savior “since the world began”. Paul later preached that the second coming of Christ and the final destruction of sin’s curse had been events that “God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” Acts 3:12. Paul also wrote that evidence of God as the creator should have been “clearly seen” since “the creation of the world”. So mankind is just a few days younger than the rest of the universe, and just a few years (most people assume Cain and Abel were around 25, but they easily could have had baby grandchildren by the time of the murder) after that there was martyrdom and hatred for the truth.
As for Genesis not be “valid” and therefore analogous, please give me some examples of it supposedly contradicting itself. The most common “mystery” of Genesis (setting aside the miracle of Creation) is probably where Cain got his wife. First off, look at genealogies. Seth is born MUCH later after Abel. So why would there be such a gap? And usually we see Cain and Abel as being roughly 25, apparently getting this idea in our heads that this was their first offering or something. It is entirely likely that they already had children, for they were already married (Cain at least), they might’ve even had grandchildren. Second, if Adam and Eve’s lifetimes were so long and they were basically “fruitful”, in health and reproductive biological clocks, then why would they not have many children? I have seen the number of children given from 5 to 50, just to me (this is NOT based on the Bible, so do not consider this at all factual) around 15-20 seems reasonable. Genesis 4:16-17 (also New International Version, all other quotes when not noted are from another translation that to be honest I have forgotten which) “So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.” As for the city quote, some people try to reason that means there were many people around in Nod. Not so, the original Hebrew word that was translated as city meant a walled settlement, and every practical settler walls their cities.
Next, the most commonly cited “contradiction” is probably when the animals were made. First let’s look into why there are two accounts of Creation. The first is an overview, basically like a trailer for a long movie. It familiarizes you with the plot, and then when you get to see the whole thing it goes more in detail. In the first account the “plot” is rather linear, but in the second account it is out of order. However, it clarifies the chronology mentioned earlier by reminding you that some things were already created and others were not yet created. Most people like to say “First it says animals were made before man, but then it says animals were made after Adam but before Eve.” In the New International Version of the Bible (as well the original Hebrew text, though not transliterated here, the NIV is used) Genesis 2:19 “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air”. Reading it in Hebrew, roughly transliterated (the wording is my own, but the usage of verbs and clearer meaning are the same) it says “The Lord God had already formed out of the earth all the beasts of the field and birds of the air.” Obviously the language a text is initially written in will be the clearest, so for example if you were to translate this into Greek the grammar might seem redundant, or maybe contradictory, I don’t know much about Greek except for some root words. That is why Biblical grammar sometimes seems odd, such as “And the Lord God did it, and it was done, and it was done by the Lord.” That is not in reference to anything, it is a random example. In Hebrew it would make perfect sense, well, maybe not that exact sentence, but you know what I mean in this irrelevant tangent about translations.
It is obvious then that Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist, so why do some Christians not believe Genesis? Because they don’t want to, they feel like they don’t have to, or they’ve been told otherwise (on the subjection of a young earth) by atheists. Yet to call yourself a Christian you must believe Jesus died for the sins of mankind, was the Son of God, and was resurrected. Also he must have never sinned, thereby never told a lie or intentionally misled people. Yet the overwhelming evidence of and proof of Jesus as a YEC would mean, if Young Earth Creationism is not true, that Jesus lied and willingly misled people. He could not have thought he was right but been wrong, because he was there at the Creation of the universe (remember John 1:1-3 still?). So Young Earth Creationism is true, or Jesus had sinned, was likely not the Son of God then, his crucifixion was useless and meaningless, and so Christianity is flawed and mankind still has to account for its own sins. So, which is it? Is Jesus the perfect man and Messiah and the earth is really young, or is the earth old and Jesus is not the Messiah having failed to pay for mankind’s sins?
But religion comes before science, Jesus before Young Earth Creationism. Will this turn into a Creationist debate? Very likely, but what would be the point? Because you Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists should be open to the idea of a young earth. I’m not saying you are all, I’m saying you all should. What is wrong with believing in a young earth? What will it change? All it will serve to do is make the Bible inerrant and make Jesus’s words completely truthful. Will a debate change the mind of an avowed atheist evolutionist? Almost certainly no. But a Christian who believes in Jesus as their own personal savior should be open to the idea that his words are completely truthful.
EDIT: Info from post #52 was added, included below:
Jesus was lying!
You look ignorant to me. Young Earth Creationism is growing, while this fad of "intelligent design" is dying off (it is merely a political tool, as it makes almost no statements on any issues including the age of the earth and the identity of this designer). Evolution will probably die off in a few decades, as the trend is obviously Creationism keeps become more obvious and evolution more and more rediculous.
and youll see how much I care XD 
