Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
Guest theophilus

Bible Science Guy

Recommended Posts

CDF47
16 minutes ago, Erik said:

1. You can't change the Scripture or its meaning to fit your narrative. The Scriptures say 6 days - in the same time frame that we think of 6 days. Of course during creation God specifically pointed out what a day was (day/night)
and in Gen 31 God repeated it:  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD.. for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested


2. Find the explanation that does fit the Scripture (day-age interpretation is not it) and what science is telling you (hint: there is one)

I think the Lord spent 6 days creating the universe.  I think while he was creating the universe during this 6 days, eons were passing by inside the universe He was creating.  

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

I believe Adam and Eve were adults upon creation.  The universe and the earth have been studied tremendously and they appear old.  I do not know why God would create a world that looked old that wasn't actually old.  He does not seem like that type of Designer to me. 

You contradict yourself here. He doesn't seem the type of designer that would create a world that looked old, yet he creates humans that look old? Do you see the problem with this statement? You are not consistent.

 

2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I do not believe that the Bible and science contradict each other here.

"Science" also says we evolved. Do you believe that? Or do you believe God actually created Adam and Eve as written in the text?  You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
6 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

The problem is that you think science appears to contradict the Bible so you try to morph the Bible into science's point of view.

No, I don't.  See post above regarding what I believe about the 6 literal days of creation.  I believe the Lord spent 6 literal days creating the universe while eons were passing by inside the universe.  He transcends time, space, and matter.

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I think the Lord spent 6 days creating the universe.  I think while he was creating the universe during this 6 days, eons were passing by inside the universe He was creating.  

Based on what? What evidence is there of this?

 

1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

No, I don't.  See post above regarding what I believe about the 6 literal days of creation.  I believe the Lord spent 6 literal days creating the universe while eons were passing by inside the universe.  He transcends time, space, and matter.

Yet you have no evidence of this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
2 minutes ago, Erik said:

Why do you believe that? if so do you think they were young adults or elderly adults?

I believe that based on the Scriptures.  I presume they were young adults but not sure of their age.  

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I think the Lord spent 6 days creating the universe.  I think while he was creating the universe during this 6 days, eons were passing by inside the universe He was creating.  

Based on what? What evidence is there of this?

 

1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

No, I don't.  See post above regarding what I believe about the 6 literal days of creation.  I believe the Lord spent 6 literal days creating the universe while eons were passing by inside the universe.  He transcends time, space, and matter.

Yet you have no evidence of this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
3 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

You contradict yourself here. He doesn't seem the type of designer that would create a world that looked old, yet he creates humans that look old? Do you see the problem with this statement? You are not consistent.

 

"Science" also says we evolved. Do you believe that? Or do you believe God actually created Adam and Eve as written in the text?  You can't have it both ways.

It does not contradict.  They are two separate points all together.  I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God.  I believe they were probably young adults when created.  I believe the universe is old and I explained why.  I don't see a contradiction here.

 

I do not believe in macro-evolution.  I think science has this wrong.  I believe Intelligent Design is the correct science to follow regarding this.  Many Intelligent Design scientists are Bible Christians that believe OEC is correct as well.  

5 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Based on what? What evidence is there of this?

 

Yet you have no evidence of this at all.

Special relativity helps here.  The Creator transcends His creation (time, space, and matter).  The Lord exists here but also in the third heaven outside this realm.  

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
8 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

It does not contradict.  They are two separate points all together.  I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God.  I believe they were probably young adults when created.  I believe the universe is old and I explained why.  I don't see a contradiction here.

It absolutely contradicts. Why would God be the kind of designer that creates Adam and Eve with age but not the world they live in? You didn't explain why the universe must be old, you explained that it could be old, or it could be created with the appearance of age. You don't know which for sure and to say you are sure would be dishonest.

 

9 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I do not believe in macro-evolution.  I think science has this wrong.  I believe Intelligent Design is the correct science to follow regarding this.  Many Intelligent Design scientists are Bible Christians that believe OEC is correct as well.  

So how do you determine which science is correct and which science is not correct?

 

10 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Special relativity helps here. 

:classic_blink:

 

10 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

The Creator transcends His creation (time, space, and matter).  The Lord exists here but also in the third heaven outside this realm.  

What does this have to do with the topic?

 

Lastly, you still have not rebutted my argument that the only way from Scripture you get Day-Age is by literary gymnastics. The article you posted has these gymnastics as I have already pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
23 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

It absolutely contradicts. Why would God be the kind of designer that creates Adam and Eve with age but not the world they live in? You didn't explain why the universe must be old, you explained that it could be old, or it could be created with the appearance of age. You don't know which for sure and to say you are sure would be dishonest.

 

So how do you determine which science is correct and which science is not correct?

 

:classic_blink:

 

What does this have to do with the topic?

 

Lastly, you still have not rebutted my argument that the only way from Scripture you get Day-Age is by literary gymnastics. The article you posted has these gymnastics as I have already pointed out.

Because the evidence shows that He didn't create it that way.  I don't know for sure, I agree, but there is strong evidence supporting OEC.

 

It is tough determining the correct science with the politics involved, however, I have done much of my own research and what I state is based on my own judgement from that research.

 

The Lord transcending time, space, and matter was in response to your previous question.

 

Regarding the literary gymnastics, I explained that I do not believe that article does that.  It soundly fits Genesis creation account into OEC.

 

Ultimately, I do not believe this is a key matter of salvation but I do like to study and discuss this topic.

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
15 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Because the evidence shows that He didn't create it that way.  I don't know for sure, I agree, but there is strong evidence supporting OEC.

What evidence?

 

15 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Regarding the literary gymnastics, I explained that I do not believe that article does that.  It soundly fits Genesis creation account into OEC.

And I showed you how just in the first sections it does not, to which you have yet to respond.

 

16 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Ultimately, I do not believe this is a key matter of salvation but I do like to study and discuss this topic.

Agreed on Salvation, but it is also important to find truth.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
1 minute ago, davidtaylorjr said:

What evidence?

 

And I showed you how just in the first sections it does not, to which you have yet to respond.

 

Agreed on Salvation, but it is also important to find truth.

The scientific evidence which strongly supports an old universe and old earth.

 

I thought the first sections were fine in what is stated in the article.

 

Agreed, the truth is important and science can help us with that.  

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
9 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

The scientific evidence which strongly supports an old universe and old earth.

What about biblical evidence?

 

9 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I thought the first sections were fine in what is stated in the article.

Did you read my rebuttal? You have yet to interact with my response. You can read it at: 

 

11 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Agreed, the truth is important and science can help us with that.  

Only as much as it agrees with Scripture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
7 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

What about biblical evidence?

 

Did you read my rebuttal? You have yet to interact with my response. You can read it at: 

 

Only as much as it agrees with Scripture.

 

Of course, Biblical evidence first.

 

I read the entire rebuttal and I think I responded to it above.  If not, maybe something went wrong with the post.  Those are his beliefs.  Some of it may not be clear cut but I don't think he is playing word games.

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
4 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Of course, Biblical evidence first.

 

I read the entire rebuttal and I think I responded to it above.  If not, maybe something went wrong with the post.  Those are his beliefs.  Some of it may not be clear cut but I don't think he is playing word games.

 

Agreed.

I don't see your response to the rebuttal, can you quote or link it? He may not be intentionally playing word games but his exegetical work is not sound. He has to twist things to make them fit taking them out of their context.

4 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Of course, Biblical evidence first.

 

I read the entire rebuttal and I think I responded to it above.  If not, maybe something went wrong with the post.  Those are his beliefs.  Some of it may not be clear cut but I don't think he is playing word games.

 

Agreed.

I don't see your response to the rebuttal, can you quote or link it? He may not be intentionally playing word games but his exegetical work is not sound. He has to twist things to make them fit taking them out of their context.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
3 hours ago, CDF47 said:

I disagree.  I believe God allows us to make scientific discoveries which prove His case, like DNA, fine-tuning of the universe,...  The age of the universe and of the earth is pretty well established.  Science shows us that the universe and the earth are old (13.8 billion year old universe and 4.54 billion year old earth).  I think this fits with Scripture when explained through the day-age interpretation.  

 

Here is my original response.

3 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I don't see your response to the rebuttal, can you quote or link it? He may not be intentionally playing word games but his exegetical work is not sound. He has to twist things to make them fit taking them out of their context.

I don't see your response to the rebuttal, can you quote or link it? He may not be intentionally playing word games but his exegetical work is not sound. He has to twist things to make them fit taking them out of their context.

I posted original response above.  I don't agree that he does much twisting.

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

 

Here is my original response.

I posted original response above.  I don't agree that he does much twisting.

Yes, I saw that post but it doesn't even address my points. In fact, it ignores them altogether and appeals to the science.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
3 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

There are gymnastics from the very beginning:

 

1. "I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence" This is an assumption, not a fact.

2. On day 1, it is clear in the text that the heaven/earth/light/dark were all part of day one. You have to separate the literary unit to make the heaven and earth there prior to day one.

1. Yes, he is making an assumption.  This is a theory of creation and assumptions are made.  

 

2. I think the flow of time is being separated here as shown in the chart.  Not sure exactly what you mean.

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
Just now, CDF47 said:

Yes, he is making an assumption.  This is a theory of creation and assumptions are made.  

Yes, assumptions being made outside of what the text actually says. That is eisegesis and has no place in biblical interpretation.

 

1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

2. I think the flow of time is being separated here as shown in the chart.  Not sure exactly what you mean.

Day one has no division from the Heaven's and Earth as his article states. All of that was part of day one. There is no textual reason to believe otherwise.

Just now, CDF47 said:

Yes, he is making an assumption.  This is a theory of creation and assumptions are made.  

Yes, assumptions being made outside of what the text actually says. That is eisegesis and has no place in biblical interpretation.

 

1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

2. I think the flow of time is being separated here as shown in the chart.  Not sure exactly what you mean.

Day one has no division from the Heaven's and Earth as his article states. All of that was part of day one. There is no textual reason to believe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
1 minute ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Yes, assumptions being made outside of what the text actually says. That is eisegesis and has no place in biblical interpretation.

 

Day one has no division from the Heaven's and Earth as his article states. All of that was part of day one. There is no textual reason to believe otherwise.

Yes, assumptions being made outside of what the text actually says. That is eisegesis and has no place in biblical interpretation.

 

Day one has no division from the Heaven's and Earth as his article states. All of that was part of day one. There is no textual reason to believe otherwise.

I think it is just an assumption which is even needed in the article.  Really the chart is the main focus of the article.  It breaks down creation well in my opinion.  

 

He made an assumption there as well.  The text does not give every detail of creation.

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
8 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I think it is just an assumption which is even needed in the article.  Really the chart is the main focus of the article.  It breaks down creation well in my opinion.  

 

He made an assumption there as well.  The text does not give every detail of creation.

In other words, he is reading into the passage to get the desired outcome. That's not good exegesis.  Therefore, his findings are highly suspect at best and flat wrong at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
1 minute ago, davidtaylorjr said:

In other words, he is reading into the passage to get the desired outcome. That's not good exegesis.  Therefore, his findings are highly suspect at best and flat wrong at worst.

His findings make sense to me.  I think his explanations are well put throughout the article.

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
32 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

His findings make sense to me.  I think his explanations are well put throughout the article.

It really doesn't matter whether or not they make sense to you. That is not the measuring stick of good biblical interpretation.  His methods are wrong and necessarily his conclusions are wrong as well.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
21 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

It really doesn't matter whether or not they make sense to you. That is not the measuring stick of good biblical interpretation.  His methods are wrong and necessarily his conclusions are wrong as well.

I don't think his methods are wrong though or his conclusions.  I don't understand the issues with OEC.  It is able to fit the Biblical texts.

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I don't think his methods are wrong though or his conclusions.  I don't understand the issues with OEC.  It is able to fit the Biblical texts.

Based on what? Curious, do you have any hermeneutical training?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
3 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Based on what? Curious, do you have any hermeneutical training?

517815024_DontbelieveIknowhim.jpg.55c5b034c00342e4a38385f53f3f2868.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...
Articles - News