Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is this slam at Young Earth Creationists fair?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:Louis Pasteur by Pierre Lamy Petit.jpg Is this slam at Young Earth Creationists fair?

James McGrath says

Young earth creationists are notorious for two things (among others):

a handful of them have obtained a PhD in a relevant scientific domain, doing research the legitimacy of and basis for which they intend to repudiate as soon as they have the letters after their name, with the sole aim of adding legitimacy to the ideology that they adhered to before ever studying science; and they claim that the overwhelming consensus of those who have PhDs in biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and other relevant scientific domains is wrong, and that these experts are untrustworthy.

They cannot have it both ways.

No?

I’m definitely not a YEC myself, but Louis Pasteur was trained in a system that accepted, on the authority of countless experts, spontaneous generation. And then, in a famous experiment, in the same year that Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, he destroyed the idea:

This not only settled the philosophical problem of the origin of life at the time but also placed on solid ground the new science of bacteriology, which relied on proven techniques of sterilization and aseptic manipulation.

Guess he shouldn’t have been allowed to do that.

And why do I drink pasteurized milk, not Darwinized milk, to this day? What did Darwin ever do for humanity that was of any similar value?

By the way some think the YECs (and anyone who thinks the universe shows evidence of design) shouldn’t be allowed to get degrees.

(Translation: Welcome to the neighbourhood, O’Leary. Just because you bought the house legally and took possession peacefully doesn’t, of course, mean you can live here in peace … Me: No? Then we need another civil rights movement pronto. I’ll start it today. Another day, I will explain why I am not YEC. A different story. – Denyse O’Leary)

Comments
Andre @ 84
Pain, suffering and death for humans are awful, I agree with you, but it is through pain suffering and death that God gave you grace. Pain and suffering is very good!
You seem a bit confused. I think the dictionary will confirm that you were right the first time in what you said and wrong the second. True, it is through pain and suffering that God gave us grace, but what does that have to do with the state of God's original creation? That doesn't mean that pain and suffering are viewed as good things to God. I think the Bible teaches that pain and suffering was the result of our sin, not a part of God's original creation. You want to make God responsible for death, pain, and suffering but that is not necessary or right in my view. Claiming God created these things and pronounced them very good is totally different than saying they were part of the curse. Yes, they were part of God's original plan as punishment for sin because God knew Adam would sin and bring a curse on all mankind, but don't misunderstand! It is Adam who is responsible, not God Himself.
We are to suffer for Christ hold any meaning to you?
Sure, but again, that is a separate issue! Let me ask you a question. Does "very good" have any meaning to you? Just because we too are called on to suffer for our faith like Jesus did, does not make the death, pain, and suffering you claim existed in God's original creation by the hand of God "very good". It is true that suffering for doing right is a good thing. It is good in that it shows that we are willing to put God in front of ourselves and follow Jesus, but this type of suffering is totally different than the type of suffering you claim God allowed into His "very good" world. Suffering for doing good is only possible if there is wrong in the world! That was not the case in God's original "very good" creation.tjguy
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
I would just like to say that YEC does not depend on the theology of the Fall. It's something that YECs apparently throw out there in an effort to appeal to common ground, but it's not really the reason YECs take Genesis at face value. Really, I just stated the reason: We are taking Genesis at face value. The age of the earth comes not from Genesis 1 or any theological considerations but directly from the genealogies in Genesis which take us in an unbroken line from Adam's TOTAL lifespan all the way to ancient Egypt, the beginning of non-biblical recorded history. In response, in the last couple hundred years or so, some too clever by half Christians have decided to make ridiculous interpretations of Genesis 1 in order to come up with all this extra time before the creation of Adam and the beginning of the genealogical timeline. Unfortunately, the debate now focuses on Genesis 1 because of that, when the strength of the YEC argument is our straightforward interpretation of the genealogies in Genesis 5, 11 and the lifespans of the patriarchs in later chapters. Crazy interpretations of Genesis 1, such as the one currently being discussed here: (https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/credit-where-credits-due-p-z-myers-vs-daniel-friedmann-on-genesis/), have a long way to go before they make sense of these genealogies, which clearly show that at least the sixth day of creation and the creation of Man happened around six to seven thousand years ago.tragic mishap
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
TJGUY I don't understand what this means; "He threatens that death would occur once they ate the fruit, but He didn’t plan for or allow any of that until after the Fall." God did not have a plan if He's creation faltered? Are you really saying that? That means in your view Jesus is in fact plan B! This is false my friend, Jesus is plan A and everything else is secondary including you, we have been created to bear witness to the Glory of God, and again it is through pain suffering and death that we witnessed this glory. Everything is about Jesus EVERYTHING... Through Him and For Him all things were made!Andre
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
TJGUY I don't need billions of year to understand what this means! Romans 8:17 "Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." Philippians 1:29 "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him" 1 Peter 4:16 "However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name" 1 Peter 3:14-17 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Now please tell me TJGUY is suffering for the sake of good very good or not so good in God's eyes?Andre
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
God is responsible for natural evil God is not responsible for moral evil, but out of moral evil God can turn things for the good.Andre
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
TJGUY Pain, suffering and death for humans are awful, I agree with you, but it is through pain suffering and death that God gave you grace. Pain and suffering is very good! We are to suffer for Christ hold any meaning to you?Andre
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
I have shown in the verses I cited in my article that even before the fall, death, pain and suffering already existed, evil obviously too because the angels rebelled before the universe was even created.
And I have shown from Scripture that death, pain, evil, and suffering" can in no sense of the words be understood to be "very good". You refused to interact with any of my points which is quite telling. I however did respond to your points and showed you why they don't hold water. As to the question of evil existing already, I don’t agree. Angels must have been created on or before the first day of creation, because Job 38:1-7 makes it clear that “the sons of God shouted for joy” when God laid the foundations of the Earth (vss. 6-7). This certainly indicates that the angels were present as eyewitnesses to the creation of the Universe and we know from other passages that God created everything in 6 days so they had to have been created at the beginning of Day 1. You seem to imply that Satan’s rebellion also took place during the creation week, but that does not make sense of God’s proclamation that His creation is “very good” does it? Last I checked my dictionary, evil is the opposite of good! So, why couldn’t Satan have rebelled after creation was finished? Do you have a biblical reason for claiming it happened before or is it just your assumption to justify your position? If God says it is very good, then I’m sorry, but I am going to believe that it is very good. And “evil” does not/can not ever equal “very good” by the very definition of the word.
It is through pain, suffering and death that the creator of the universe, showed us HIS glory. He had to go through all of that before His resurrection.
I agree, but this all happened after the Fall. Do you think that God did not know that man would sin? That's silly. He had His plan made before He even created. Does that mean He thinks that death, pain, suffering and sin are "very good"? Of course not. Death is the unavoidable result of sin. This means that in order for Jesus to redeem mankind, death was necessary. But it is an ENEMY! How can an enemy be good?! Why would God create a world filled with such an enemy? Now, if God planned for death, pain, suffering, etc to happen before the fall, then you would have a point, but that is not what we see. He threatens that death would occur once they ate the fruit, but He didn't plan for or allow any of that until after the Fall. God is able to bring good out of evil, but surely you don't mean to insinuate that simply because He is able to use evil to accomplish His purposes that He is responsible for that evil do you? Andre, it is obvious the only reason you have the guts to actually try and claim that death, pain, suffering, evil, and disease are "very good" is that you need billions of years for your old earth views to coincide with what science tells us. The Church never saw things the way you do. And certainly, any child can see that you are way off in labelling these things as very good.tjguy
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
Tjguy I have shown in the verses I cited in my article that even before the fall, death, pain and suffering already existed, evil obviously too because the angels rebelled before the universe was even created. It is through pain, suffering and death that the creator of the universe, showed us HIS glory. He had to go through all of that before His resurrection. We agree then, Jesus is plan A (pain suffering, death, resurrection) and we have been created to bear witness to that. We then also agree that creation was very good but not perfect. That settles it then.Andre
June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Andre, actually, I think you are almost there. I think it is quite telling that you never interact with my arguments. Jesus was plan A - we agree on that. We agree that the orignial creation was not "perfect", but it was very good. Now please tell me why you think that God's very good creation was filled with death, evil, bloodshed, pain, and suffering. I have been waiting for your answer and you just keep harping on the "perfect" thing. I granted you that point. Now please respond to my point.tjguy
June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
Tjguy You are almost there, it was a perfect plan not a perfect creation. Jesus is plan A, try and reconcile plan A with perfect creation. They are incompatible..... Plan A and a very good creation, that works. But you see when something is very good it is still not perfect.... Perfect is your Favorite sports team winning every weekend, and that is everybody's team always winning all the time.... How is that gonna work?Andre
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Andre@ 73
I will close off with this, God is the unchanging standard in His word he tells us this, When people make up stories that makes God change his mind more often than a baby changes his nappies then I am rightfully allowed to reject that doctrine as false. God makes it clear test everything and hold onto the good. . Colossians 2:8 8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after zthe tradition of men, after the * rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” . The creator of the universe created a perfect plan and not a perfect creation. Perfect creation implies God is a poor designer, Jesus is plan B and God had to become vindictive to get back at us, only to after that feel sorry for us and send in his plan B to rescue us. The perfect plan shows us the glory of the creator because it was through pain suffering and death that He revealed His glory to us.
Yes, He created a perfect plan of salvation, BUT He also created a “very good” world - which means that it could not have been filled with death, disease, suffering, pain, and evil. . A perfect creation would not at all imply God was a poor designer! Rather I think that a world full of death, disease, pain, suffering, and evil implies that! That is a common argument launched against ID so I'm not the only one who feels that way. . God certainly has the right to curse the earth as judgment for sin if He thinks that is right! He is God, not us. He revealed His glory to us through the pain, suffering, and death of His creation? I’m sorry, but I fail to see how these things reveal God’s glory. Sure, Jesus endured pain, suffering and death in order to redeem us, but that could have been done regardless of whether God’s original creation was filled with death or free from death so it is irrelevant to the point. . In what way to you think that Jesus' death relates to the issue of what the original creation was like? I myself, don't see the relationship. . Andre, I do want to at least thank you for interacting with me. More often than not, when it comes to YEC arguments, they are just ignored on this website, so thanks for taking the time to write! God bless!tjguy
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Andre @ 71
If this perfect creation God created perfect Angels who then rebelled, and he created perfect humans who also rebelled what does it say about his creative power?
Andre, if God chose to create the world so that humans and angels have free will, doesn't He have that right? . Why do you have trouble trusting such a God who thinks creating morally responsible creatures with free will is better than robots? .
Can we even trust a God whose perfect creations keeps breaking?
. Can we even trust a God whose "very good" creation includes death, disease, suffering, pain, evil, etc? Which presents a bigger problem?tjguy
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Andre@ 68
TJGUY@62 If meat was not allowed then God would have said. “Don’t eat meat!” Tell me did Jesus also eat of the fish when he fed the 5000? Did Jesus dip his bread in the meat bowl as well at the last supper? Do you think He did not eat it? I’m confident that that if the Creator of the universe dipped his bread in the meat dish he ate the meat!
.
TJGUY@63 See here is where perfect creation people get it wrong….. You say “I see so you are saying that God does not have the right to make new rules for specific purposes as He works out His plan of salvation. I disagree, because I don’t think we can tell God what He can and cannot do.” Do you know what you are saying here? As we messed up the omniscient all knowing God that is the creator and sustain er of the universe is changing the rules as things develop…. Much like this…. “I am God and those pesky humans just messed up my creation! How shall I remedy this and save face? O Yes I’ll change my own rules! That will show them!” Yeah I’ll zap em with weeds and pain and mmmmm… let me see they can eat meat and get cancer!” “Then when all is done I’ll kill myself on the cross to show them!” “I think my plan is brilliant!” This is not a consistent god… This is a fool I don’t worship a fool I worship the unchanging standard! It is through pain and suffering and death that God showed us HIS glory…. Had Adam never ate the fruit Jesus would never have been and this is the Gospel truth.
Andre, as you know, I have no problem with Jesus eating meat. After all, God Himself told mankind they could eat meat in Gen. 9:3 so there is now no problem with that. However when He gave the Law to the Israelites, He again restricted what they could eat. They could not eat certain kinds of meat or certain kinds of fish. But in the NT, God tells Peter that now he can eat all of the things that He prohibited them from eating in the Mosaic Law. I think you have a problem with this because you think meat-eating is a moral issue. It is not. It was only wrong because God said it was wrong. There is nothing inherently immoral about eating meat. It is like making a rule that your child to go to bed at 9 pm. There is nothing inherently wrong with staying up past 9pm, but that is the rule you have made for whatever reason so it is wrong for them to disobey. If you change the time to 10pm when they get a little older, then they can stay up until 10 without committing a moral offense. Are you being inconsistent? No, you are showing wisdom in your dealing with your kids. When the need for the rule disappears, it is fine to take the rule away or change it. Or when the need for a new rule appears, He is certainly allowed to make a new rule - ie Old Covenant & the Law of Moses and then the New Covenant . God never changes His mind on murder or on moral inherently moral issues, but on this type of thing, He has the right to change the rules because He is God just like you are the parent. As I just demonstrated, God changed these types of laws when He made various covenants with men and this did not violate the fact that God Himself never changes. It does not make him inconsistent or impugn His moral character.
“I am God and those pesky humans just messed up my creation! How shall I remedy this and save face? O Yes I’ll change my own rules! That will show them!” Yeah I’ll zap em with weeds and pain and mmmmm… let me see they can eat meat and get cancer!” “Then when all is done I’ll kill myself on the cross to show them!” “I think my plan is brilliant!” This is not a consistent god… This is a fool I don’t worship a fool I worship the unchanging standard! It is through pain and suffering and death that God showed us HIS glory…. Had Adam never ate the fruit Jesus would never have been and this is the Gospel truth.
. Andre, I take real issue with your caricature of God here! He doesn’t look at us as pesky humans and to insinuate He does, is just plain wrong! Yes, He changed the rules and allowed man to eat meat and then in Moses day restricted their diet, and then in Peter’s day changed it once again! If that causes you to reject him because He is being inconsistent, then so be it, but that sounds petty to me! What does eating meat have to do with getting cancer? . Why would getting cancer be bad if God put disease into His original “very good” creation?! See, you show that even you think cancer is not something that is “very good”. I seriously doubt God does either! Andre, you seem to have a real misunderstanding of God's plan of salvation. It had been made before He even created humans so He is simply acting out His perfect plan of salvation here. Jesus was not Plan B, but part of Plan A! The curse on the earth was part of it! He prophesies the coming of a Savior in Gen. 3:15, but it was not a last minute plan to save His world. He was not taken by surprise by their sin as you seem to indicate. . “killing Himself on the cross to show them!” Andre, are getting angry here? You are not making sense! He didn’t die for us because he loved us to redeem us from sin, but He committed suicide to show us something as if in spite? You are making a mockery of the cross and your Savior and calling God a fool! So you worship the unchanging standard? I see. - The unchanging standard that told Peter he could eat anything? - The Unchanging Standard who told the Gentiles they need not be circumcised? - The unchanging Standard who told the Jews they had to restrict what they eat after He had already told Noah that they could eat every moving thing that lives? . You worship that unchanging standard? I see. When you say that there would have been no Jesus, I assume you mean that Jesus would never have become man and come to the earth. The Bible teaches that He is eternally God, not that He came into existence when He came to earth.tjguy
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
Andre @ 67
TJGUY @61 This is important, in the verse I highlighted God made a distinction between Herbivore’s and carnivores this is important. A Clear distinction. You see God says what he must Her does not confuse or deceive. He makes a clear distinction between the two and this is before the fall.
Andre, what do you think?
Is it possible for animals that are carnivorous in our world today to have survived in a pre-sin world without eating meat?
I think it is not only possible, but I think that is what happened. After all, we have the Creator’s instruction to these “carnivores” that God gave them plants to eat. The straightforward and obvious meaning of Genesis 1:30 is that before the Fall, every green plant was edible, and every animal ate green plants. . Please tell me why God gave them this instruction if they are carnivores. - Why does He only give them plants for food? - Why didn’t He also tell them they could eat meat? - Why tell the herbivores they should eat plants if they were herbivores? - Why tell mankind and every living thing to eat plants? AND - In Gen. 9, why does God say this to them if they were already eating meat? . “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” Can you please explain this verse for me Andre? Why does He say “as I gave you the green plants?” Why does He say “I give you everything.” If they were already permitted to eat everything? . Andre, doesn’t this verse teach that immediately after the Flood, God said to man that He was giving animals to him for food, just as He had given vegetation previously (at the time of creation)? The clear and logical implication is that man and all animals were herbivorous at the time of creation, is it not? . As I said in my original post – and again you seem to have simply ignored – Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 indicate very specifically that carnivorous activity is an evil – that is, a physical rather than a moral evil.!
“Actually, these passages indicate very specifically that carnivorous activity is an evil—that is, a physical rather than a moral evil. The Hebrew word translated ‘hurt’ in the KJV of Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 is raa. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the most frequent translation of this word is ‘do evil’. Other translations include ‘afflict’ and ‘do wickedly’. It is related to ra, the usual word for ‘evil’ in the Old Testament—and that includes both moral and physical evil.” . Isaiah 11:6–9 ends with the words, ‘They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.’ . Summarizing this passage, Nigel Cameron writes:
‘Essentially it has two thrusts of teaching—it implies that there is, in fact, something fundamentally awry in the animal kingdom; that the predation and animosity which characterise it are not as they should be. And, secondly, it asserts that it is man’s religious condition that is responsible for this state of things; the absence from the earth of the ‘knowledge of the Lord’.>/b> Human sin and evil in nature are interconnected in a relation of cause and effect.’—Nigel Cameron on Isaiah 11:6–9.
For a loving God, who created a world which He declared to be ‘very good’, evolution seems to be an amazingly cruel and wasteful method of creation. It was also totally unnecessary, as He is omnipotent and could easily have done it in six literal days without any kind of suffering and destruction—precisely as the book of Genesis appears to say He did do it.tjguy
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Andre @ 66
TJGUY @ No 60 God is just. God will punish and discipline but god is NOT spiteful. Changing everything and dropping weed where there was none is spiteful, also it would mean God extended the creation event because he made new stuff that is just false!
. I disagree, but you certainly have the right to view God’s judgment as “spiteful” if you wish. That is a matter of opinion. . Personally, I fail to see how "dropping weed where there was none before" is “spiteful”. . I explained my reasoning in post number 60 and again you failed to interact with my answer, so I will not repeat myself here as I doubt it would mean anything. . You bring up a second issue here. It seems that you don’t understand how God could have brought about the curse if He had completed His work of creation on Day 6. . God rested from His work of creation at the end of Day 6, right? OK, my question is this: Could He have cursed the earth without creating something new? . Perhaps He just switched on some genes that already existed. . Perhaps He just tweaked the genome of various creatures to allow for self-defense and offense. . The Bible does not tell us HOW He did it. It only says that He did it. So,I don't know if this is a question that we can ever answer definitively. We can come up with some ideas, but to get a firm answer, we will just have to ask God how He did it when we reach heaven. . But I fear you prove too much here. If you want to say that God rested from creation after Day 6 was over, can I ask you a question? When did Day 6 end? . Have there been any new species that evolved since that time? . How does that fit in with God resting from His work of creation? This seems to be a problem for ID in my opinion. Dr. Hugh Ross thinks that God created every individual species that exists, but that causes him a great problem. How can he explain the new species that have been documented to have arisen in the past 20-30 years if God is resting from His creative work? That view falls flat on it’s face. . Creationists believe God created the original creatures with a very rich genome filled with information to allow many different types of sub species to evolve within the original created “kind” as creatures adapted to new and different environments. But we don’t believe that God is involved in this process of micro-evolution in a pro-active way. Creation ended on Day 6. . But ID seems to require intervention by the Creator all along the way unless you go with everything being front loaded. . If I'm wrong here, please correct me. . Front loading the original cell with the ability to evolve into all the individual life forms we see today just does not seem to fit with what God tells us about how He created the world in Genesis 1 & 2. How could anyone prove the idea of "front loading"? How would that bring the Creator glory if no one could ever really be sure if front loading is true or not?tjguy
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
Andre@65
Very good is still not perfect. If od wanted us to know that His creation was perfect He would have told the author of genesis that it was perfect. God does not mislead or say what He does not mean, God is consistent!
. Andre, I guess you missed what I wrote in response to this the first time. You didn’t interact with hardly anything I wrote, preferring instead to just repeat your argument, so maybe we’ve come as far as we can here. That's too bad. Either that means you have no answer or, you are just not interested in answering. . Yes, I know the difference between “very good” and “perfect”. I need to ask you if you really know what the two words "very good" mean. The only imperfect thing I can see that possibly exists in God’s original creation is what you brought up about man having been created with the potential to choose evil. As you know, God thought having a free will is better than being a robot, so I guess this makes God’s world imperfect for you. . So, since this issue of a “perfect creation” seems to have you side-tracked, I’ll give in and say the original creation was not “perfect” in the strictest sense of the word. BUT as I’m sure you can understand, that does not mean that God’s original “very good” creation was filled with death, sickness, suffering, pain, evil, and bloodshed, does it? . Do you really think these things are "very good"? . Do you really think God does too? . According to your dictionary link, “very” means “in a high degree; extremely, exceedingly, even “truly” & “absolutely”. .
Like I mentioned in the earlier post, when tov (good) is accompanied by me’od(very), it is an absolute superlative implying much more than a beautiful creation. . And, “in their commentary on Genesis, the respected nineteenth century Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch, experts on biblical Hebrew, commented on Genesis 1:31: By the application of the term “good” to everything God made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis “very” at the close of the whole creation, the existence of anything evil is absolutely denied . . . (Keil and Delitzsch 1886, p. 67)”
Creating potential for evil/good, love/hate, etc. is very different from creating evil, death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering at least in my eyes. If you honestly think those things were part of God’s original creation and that they were all “very good” in His eyes, then fine. You need to make your own decisions. I just don’t think that normally those things would be defined by any person, let alone God, as "very good"! Remember that God hates sin and evil. To me, that means that sin and evil could not have been a part of God's "very good" creation. . He sent Jesus to destroy death which He calls “the last enemy.” Usually you would not consider an enemy to be something that is "very good". . He who heals sickness to relieve suffering. I see no evidence anywhere in Scripture that these things are even neutral, let alone good or “very good”. Do you have other Scriptural evidence to back this up? . I’m not responsible for your interpretation of God’s Word. We will all answer to Him for ourselves. “And God saw EVERYTHING THAT HE HAD MADE , and behold, IT WAS VERY GOOD. “ . Hallelujah! That's the kind of Creator I want to worship! No wonder He tells us that the creation displays His glory and is a witness to His existence, power, and wisdom!tjguy
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
I will close off with this, God is the unchanging standard in His word he tells us this, When people make up stories that makes God change his mind more often than a baby changes his nappies then I am rightfully allowed to reject that doctrine as false. God makes it clear test everything and hold onto the good. Colossians 2:8 8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after zthe tradition of men, after the * rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." The creator of the universe created a perfect plan and not a perfect creation. Perfect creation implies God is a poor designer, Jesus is plan B and God had to become vindictive to get back at us, only to after that feel sorry for us and send in his plan B to rescue us. The perfect plan shows us the glory of the creator because it was through pain suffering and death that He revealed His glory to us.Andre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
The unchanging Standard.... I hope this helps to put what it means in perspective and dare I say, Thank God for His unchanging Standards! http://www.wordsoftruth.net/wotvol12/wotbulletin09022012.htmlAndre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Bevets If I am wrong I am the fool. The Perfect creation God that is being sold is not the creator of the universe, The perfect creation God makes Jesus plan B. Is Jesus plan B? If this perfect creation God created perfect Angels who then rebelled, and he created perfect humans who also rebelled what does it say about his creative power? Can we even trust a God whose perfect creations keeps breaking? I trust the God that says to me, What you have here is good, very good but no so good, I however make this promise to you; When you have used your free will and have chosen freely I will honor your will with things much better than you can ever imagine. I promise that!Andre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Andre @69 Do you suppose it might be presumptuous to say that '[If I am wrong] God is a fool'? or 'You would rather not worship Him' (56)? I assume there is a parenthetical 'If I am wrong (and I could be)', and I suppose I have been guilty of writing similar statements, but (I have to say) I am uncomfortable with the tone of these statements.bevets
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
TJGUY @63 See here is where perfect creation people get it wrong..... You say "I see so you are saying that God does not have the right to make new rules for specific purposes as He works out His plan of salvation. I disagree, because I don’t think we can tell God what He can and cannot do." Do you know what you are saying here? As we messed up the omniscient all knowing God that is the creator and sustain er of the universe is changing the rules as things develop.... Much like this.... "I am God and those pesky humans just messed up my creation! How shall I remedy this and save face? O Yes I'll change my own rules! That will show them!" Yeah I'll zap em with weeds and pain and mmmmm... let me see they can eat meat and get cancer!" "Then when all is done I'll kill myself on the cross to show them!" "I think my plan is brilliant!" This is not a consistent god... This is a fool I don't worship a fool I worship the unchanging standard! It is through pain and suffering and death that God showed us HIS glory.... Had Adam never ate the fruit Jesus would never have been and this is the Gospel truth John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."Andre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
TJGUY @62 If meat was not allowed then God would have said. "Don't eat meat!" Tell me did Jesus also eat of the fish when he fed the 5000? Did Jesus dip his bread in the meat bowl as well at the last supper? Do you think He did not eat it? I'm confident that that if the Creator of the universe dipped his bread in the meat dish he ate the meat!Andre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
TJGUY @61 This is important, in the verse I highlighted God made a distinction between Herbivore's and carnivores this is important. A Clear distinction. You see God says what he must Her does not confuse or deceive. He makes a clear distinction between the two and this is before the fall.Andre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
TJGUY At No 60 God is just. God will punish and discipline but god is NOT spiteful. Changing everything and dropping weed where there was none is spiteful, also it would mean God extended the creation event because he made new stuff that is just false!Andre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
TJGUY Very good is still not perfect. If od wanted us to know that His creation was perfect He would have told the author of genesis that it was perfect. Very Good http://www.thefreedictionary.com/very+good Perfect http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perfect God does not mislead or say what He does not mean, God is consistent!Andre
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Andre@56
One last thing on meat, Genesis 8:21 “And the LORD was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice and said to himself, “I will never again curse the ground because of the human race, even though everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil from childhood. I will never again destroy all living things.” . I don’t think a God that says; NO MEAT! is going to let us know how the aroma of burnt flesh (braaivleis where I come from) pleased Him. That God is inconsistent and I’d rather not worship him because I have to ask Hey God what’s it gonna be? He might change the rules again tomorrow who knows? Maybe next week he wants everyone to be vegetarian again (I’m married to one). I don’t trust that God! Do you?
. I see so you are saying that God does not have the right to make new rules for specific purposes as He works out His plan of salvation. I disagree, because I don’t think we can tell God what He can and cannot do. . Yes, I certainly do trust that God. What He says goes. He has the right to make changes like this and as I showed in my last post, He has done this on many occasions. . So I guess you will have to decide whether or not you can trust Him or not. . He has told us that Jesus is the final sacrifice for sin so I have no worries about Him changing His mind. If God makes a change, He will let us know and until that time, we have no need to worry about anything. Besides, now we have His Word as His final revelation and He cannot violate His Word so certain things cannot now be changed. . Andre, I guess I don’t take Gen. 8:28 literally. I find it hard to imagine that the actual smell of burnt flesh has any meaning to God. . But really, do you think He actually smells the burnt flesh and gets happy?! . In fact, God is a Spirit and I’m not sure if He can really smell or not. This is clearly a metaphor, written in language that we can understand. In the NT, our prayers rising to heaven are said to be sweet smelling incense. It is a similar idea here. . Also, are you aware of all the verses that say that God does NOT delight in burnt offerings, etc? . For instance, here is one in Is. 1:11-13. What is it that makes an offering either a delight or a turn off to God?
Is. 1:11-13 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations — I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.”
. So is this a mistake in the Bible? Is God finicky? One day He delights in sacrifices and the next He does not? . True, it would be hard to follow a God like that! But I think you need to think about why God does or does not delight in sacrifices to understand this. Look at Is. 1:13. Isn’t it that their offerings are given in vain? They are simply going through the motions without approaching God with a repentant spirit? They offer sacrifices but their hearts are far from God. It is like what Jesus criticized the Pharisees for in Mt. 15. “So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;”
David said this in Ps .51 16-17: “For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. 18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.”
. So here we have the answer. He wants us to bring sacrifices as a means of repentance. Without a broken and contrite heart, the sacrifices mean nothing to God. So really, it is not the actual blood of the bulls and goats themselves that God desires, but the repentant spirit of the one who offers them as a sacrifice for their sins.
In fact, rather than sacrifices, God desires obedience! Listen to what Samuel says in I Sam. 15:22 “And Samuel said, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.
. There are many more references that back this up, but I think you get the point. In the beginning there was no need for death. But when sin came, death became a necessary evil because the principle is that “the soul that sinneth shall die.” And “the wages of sin is death.” Death became necessary to save us from our sin, so God cannot be implicated in death that pays for our sins. This is seen right from the third chapter of Genesis where God killed an animal to provide a covering for Adam & Eve. This symbolizes the temporary covering that the blood of bulls and goats provided for us humans until the perfect sacrifice came and completely took away all our sins. So now sacrifices are no longer needed. . Are you willing to follow a God who once required a sacrifice for sin, but now doesn’t? What if He gets finicky and changes His mind again? tjguy
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
Andre@ 55
TJGUY Last thing for the day; God is the unchanging standard, the unmoved mover, You have to explain to me how such a being can curse the world with death and then brag about how he uses death to feed the animals that he never intended in feeding meat in the first place! That god is of double standards if you ask me and certainly not worth following! God says No meat! and then he says hey check me feeding them animals meat, I rock! That’s not the God of the Bible! He is the unchanging standard!
. God is holy and He never changes, but that does not mean that He always deals with man in the same way. God fully intended for the animals to eventually become meat eaters. Why? Because He knew that Adam would sin and that He would curse the earth as part of the judgment. After the fall, killing animals would certainly have been permissible – not for eating purposes in the beginning, but certainly to protect oneself. . God’s “bragging” about feeding the animals is to show His care for His creation. If you think God is not worth following, that is up to you, but personally, I would have more trouble with a God who before the Fall creates a world full of disease, suffering, death, pain, and evil and calls it “very good”, than I would with a God who takes care of the creatures He created by providing meat for food in a fallen world that has been invaded by sin and death due to man’s sin. But maybe that is just me??? . About unchanging standards. Do you offer sacrifices for your sin? Why not? The Bible says you should! How is it that Abraham could marry his half sister, Isaac, his relative, and Cain, his sister back then, but was later prohibited in the law of Moses? Why don’t you go to church on Saturday, the Sabbath? (maybe you do, I don’t know.) Why is it OK to eat shell fish now, but in the OT it was wrong? . The problem is here that the actual eating of meat is not evil in and of itself. In a “perfect” world, it would have violated the peace and harmony and created order so it was wrong, but once that order had been lost, then, the problem prohibiting it disappeared and so eating meat was permitted. At least that is my guess. Maybe that is a question you will have to ask God when you get to heaven, I don’t know. All I know is what God tells us in His Word. . God prohibited the Jews from doing certain things that were not wrong in an intrinsic sense, but were only wrong in the sense that they violated God’s authority. He had reasons for these ceremonial and special laws – they were to set His people apart from the nations so that people would clearly see they were God’s chosen people. But Jesus fulfilled the Law so many of these commands no longer apply to us. In fact, Jesus further elucidated the meaning of some of the OT laws that He reiterated in the NT. Not only is adultery wrong, but so is lust in the heart. And yet, Jesus says that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. . God Himself has not changed. His covenant with man has changed numerous times over the past. We now live under the New Covenant and that is different than the Jews who lived under the Old Covenant in the OT. . So, unless you are going to accuse God of changing because of these things, new rules in new covenants(the permission for eating meat was given in the Noahic Covenant), would seem to invalidate God’s Word. Your position would then mean that God actually does change which is antibiblical. But you aren't really willing to go that far, are you?tjguy
June 20, 2013
June
06
Jun
20
20
2013
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
Andre@54
TJGUY Genesis 1:29 “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you;” . It is true that God says to us he gives us all the greens as food, but lets be clear there is no prohibition on eating flesh anywhere. If it was then it would be said. God does not deceive. Also remember “the life is in the blood” means we may not drink blood again no prohibition on eating flesh.
. Of course God does not deceive. That is why I would rather stick with what He does say than put words in His mouth. Andre, you seem to think that since God didn’t clearly prohibit eating meat that it was OK. But you forget what He did give permission to eat – the plants. And you forget that He declared His creation to be “very good”. And you forget that for humans at least, even though He never clearly prohibited the eating of meat, this was taken as a prohibition for eating meat! . It wasn’t until after the flood that they were finally given permission to eat meat. If they had already been eating meat, obviously there would have been no need for such permission. . Yes, I understand that eating blood was/is prohibited and I didn’t bring up that verse to make that point. I agree with you there. It has nothing to do with a prohibition on eating flesh. At that time, God had already given them permission to eat meat, so there was no prohibition on eating meat anyway.tjguy
June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Andre@53
TJGUY Chayyah http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/2421b.htm It’s literal translation is beast. Genesis makes a clear distinction between Chayyah (Beasts) and Beh?ma (Herbivores), God does not mislead, God is truth.
. Yes, that is the meaning of the word, but did you notice that He also clearly gives these same “beasts” the plants for food in the beginning? . Now which do you think better fits the character of God? - Creating a peaceful environment where there is no killing, suffering, or bloodshed? - Or - creating animals who hunt, kill, and eat each other? . Plants were given to EVERY living thing as food. Although it does not say specifically that they could not eat meat, I think the onus is on you to show why they were created to eat meat from the beginning. . I mean, if they also ate meat, then why wouldn’t God have also said that He gives them meat for food as well? This whole statement would lose it’s meaning and become unnecessary if meat was also intended for food. . There would have been no need to say anything about their food. Rather, I think this shows God’s desire for His creation. Again, we have the Isaiah passages that refer to the wickedness of meat eating and to the absence of death, suffering, and pain in heaven which also shows God’s ultimate desire. . God knew they would soon become meat eaters but this was not a part of His original creation. To implicate God for this is, even though He clearly says that He gave them plants to eat, is a serious problem in my view.tjguy
June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Andre@51
TJGUY Your second point about the ground being cursed, I talk about it in my article, this makes God nothing more than a vindictive and angry knob spiting the people for ruining His “perfect creation” Is this even consistent with God of the bible? I beg to differ, God is not vindictive, spiteful or petty. God is just and its perfectly explainable that his seperation from his creation would increase the growth rate of weeds, BTW weeds do serve a purpose. From an agricultural publication http://farmprogress.com/blogs-.....rpose-5043
. Andre, I already answered this in my first post. But let me add to it. What do you think, Andre? Is it right to be angry at evil and punish sin or not? Did Jesus sin when he angrily reprimanded the Pharisees for their sinful hypocrisy? As you know, the Bible says “Be angry and do not sin.” Eph. 4: 26. Is God telling us to sin here? No. Obviously there is a righteous anger that is actually a good thing. In fact, if God hates sin, I think it is safe to say that we should too. So there are times when it is actually a sin not to hate or when hate is moral – not hate of people, but hate of evil. . God is a righteous Judge. He is exalted when He judges the world with righteousness. Unless you are going to claim that God’s judgment is unfair or unrighteous in Genesis 3, then I don’t see a problem here. It feels like to me that you are impugning the character of God here in order to save your scientific views. That is how it comes across, but I know that is not your intention. Speaking of God’s judgment in Isaiah 2:11, we read this: “The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.” . Why do you assume that God’s judgment is petty? That is never how it is presented in the Bible. . Why do you assume Adam & Eve’s sin was some silly little thing? Do you think they were punished for eating a piece of fruit that they were told not to eat? For far more than that, although one sin is enough to make us guilty of the whole law(James 2:10) They were punished for their lack of trust and belief in God. They chose to rely on themselves, to be their own bosses, to doubt God, and to rebel against Him in order to try and gain wisdom. It was this direct rebellion against God that brought about the judgment. God fairly warned them ahead of time too, so they can’t claim they didn’t know. . So you think God’s judgment was nothing more than an increase in weeds? I would have no problem with that IF that is what the text says, but it doesn’t say that. It says that “thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;” This is in the future tense. . I have no problem with the fact that weeds can also serve a purpose, but the implication here is that they serve a negative purpose. They were given specifically to increase the sweat of man’s brow when he works and tries to grow crops. It is a negative thing in view here. . Besides, rather than look at God’s judgment here as petty, vindictive, and angry, I think we should look at it as merciful and even loving. . After all, God could have killed them both right on the spot and He would have been completely just. No one could argue with Him. The penalty of sin is death, like He warned them. Rather than see pettiness and vindictiveness, I think we should be thankful for His mercy and grace. He allows us to live and even had a prior plan to pay the penalty for our sins with the suffering and death of His own Son! . Sometimes God’s judgments in the OT seem harsh, but often they came only after hundreds of years of longsuffering and amazing patience that neither you nor I would be able to demonstrate. In Adam’s case, the judgment was immediate, but it was more lenient that it could have been, so I prefer to look at His judgment here as a plus rather than a minus, something to give thanks for rather than something to criticize Him for.tjguy
June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply