Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:
I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

But the glaring question he's avoided is, WHY does Neo believe in the death and Ressurrection of Jesus and why does he believe salvation is even necessary (and I want to emphasize I'm not questioning his faith in Christ) - as to even know this is a crucial thing, one must believe what the Bible says Jesus did and said? Espescially as he's said there are large amounts of Scripture he thinks are factually untrue. And so why doubt huge parts of Scripture but then selectively choose to believe the Gospel? And so what is Neo's criteria in deciding what parts of Scripture are true and which are false? Yet, Jesus confirmed the OT is God's Word and true, yet this He doesn't accept? I don't understand how he decides anything is true or not true about Jesus or the Bible, because from what I can see, he CAN'T! He only appears to find validation in what he thinks ican be physically proven.

And all of the evolution arguments used to refute Scripture seem ironic when one realizes that Jesus rising physically after a physical death Was instantaneous and inexplicable scientifically! A universe began via the things God spoke into existence - did He need vast amounts of time to do this - as there is a moment when nothing we know of existed, and then suddenly, it DID! No scientific process can explain nothingness becoming SOMETHING. And this shows that God stands above all processes and can do whatever He wants, however He so desires. He doesn't need a PHYSICAL process as He has the ability to miraculously supersede the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's just not logically consistent to not understand God didn't necessarily create or otherwise do things as we THINK He couldn't have. Can a man dead three days suddenly appear robust and talking, ETC???

K, I think you might have overthought my post a little bit. I wasn't actually trying to point out a flaw in your belief system. I was only challenging the idea that neo's position is somehow comparable to deism. I could have offered a similar argument through Thomistic principles or through Cartesian principles or something else. I just used Molinism because it's the position you've claimed. And on that, I do not think that God is a bystander in either of your approaches (nor, obviously, in my own).

Anyway, it seems to me you think you've found a distinction by claiming that God would be a bystander on Molinism except for the fact that God actively intervenes at various points. But I don't think that justifies your claim that neo's position makes God a bystander. The way you've conceived it now would make a God a bystander sometimes and actively involved at other times--a bystander when He is not intervening. But how often does God really intervene? Even in your own theology, God rarely steps in and performs miracles. So Anti-K could just accuse you of having a God who is deistic most of the time. So the only point of disagreement you really have is whether or not God is a bystander through the process of evolution, and I just don't think that's a fair assessment of his position since you allow God to be a bystander on so many other things. I mean, do you really think God intervenes in the world series (prayers of fans notwithstanding)? Are we to say that God is a bystander?

All of this is rooted in the incorrect assumption that if God is not intervening He is inactive or passive or being a bystander. And that, to me, is just a false dichotomy. It is easy to justify the claim, biblically speaking, that God raises up empires and nations and brings them down. I, for one, would reject the claim that God was constantly intervening in, say, Babylonian history to bring them to the place where they could invade Israel; I would also reject the claim that He was a bystander in their history. And in the same way, I reject your claim that neo makes God a bystander because He is not "stepping in" to (re)direct the evolutionary process. That's just now how sovereignty works.

fakeedit: The DS book is coming along. I am working on several major projects all at the same time. I would love do them sequentially, but time limits and priorities forbid it. I am compiling a synopsis of the Synoptic Gospels (the words of Christ only) in parallel columns for a class I'm teaching, writing a series of papers on the nature of Christ for my ordination, and, of course, working on the DS book. It'll all get done and sooner rather than later!

Philip wrote:

1over137 wrote:
I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

But the glaring question he's avoided is, WHY does Neo believe in the death and Ressurrection of Jesus and why does he believe salvation is even necessary (and I want to emphasize I'm not questioning his faith in Christ) - as to even know this is a crucial thing, one must believe what the Bible says Jesus did and said? Espescially as he's said there are large amounts of Scripture he thinks are factually untrue. And so why doubt huge parts of Scripture but then selectively choose to believe the Gospel? And so what is Neo's criteria in deciding what parts of Scripture are true and which are false? Yet, Jesus confirmed the OT is God's Word and true, yet this He doesn't accept? I don't understand how he decides anything is true or not true about Jesus or the Bible, because from what I can see, he CAN'T! He only appears to find validation in what he thinks ican be physically proven.

And all of the evolution arguments used to refute Scripture seem ironic when one realizes that Jesus rising physically after a physical death Was instantaneous and inexplicable scientifically! A universe began via the things God spoke into existence - did He need vast amounts of time to do this - as there is a moment when nothing we know of existed, and then suddenly, it DID! No scientific process can explain nothingness becoming SOMETHING. And this shows that God stands above all processes and can do whatever He wants, however He so desires. He doesn't need a PHYSICAL process as He has the ability to miraculously supersede the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's just not logically consistent to not understand God didn't necessarily create or otherwise do things as we THINK He couldn't have. Can a man dead three days suddenly appear robust and talking, ETC???

I think this is a good point. Questioning someone's salvation is wrong. But questioning the method of interpreting scripture, and asking why one believes the gospel to be true, is a good discussion.

Just thought I'd make it clear (if it already isn't), that seeking further clarification on something, doesn't equal questioning Neo's salvation.

Philip wrote:

1over137 wrote:
I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

But the glaring question he's avoided is, WHY does Neo believe in the death and Ressurrection of Jesus and why does he believe salvation is even necessary (and I want to emphasize I'm not questioning his faith in Christ) - as to even know this is a crucial thing, one must believe what the Bible says Jesus did and said? Espescially as he's said there are large amounts of Scripture he thinks are factually untrue. And so why doubt huge parts of Scripture but then selectively choose to believe the Gospel? And so what is Neo's criteria in deciding what parts of Scripture are true and which are false? Yet, Jesus confirmed the OT is God's Word and true, yet this He doesn't accept? I don't understand how he decides anything is true or not true about Jesus or the Bible, because from what I can see, he CAN'T! He only appears to find validation in what he thinks ican be physically proven.

And all of the evolution arguments used to refute Scripture seem ironic when one realizes that Jesus rising physically after a physical death Was instantaneous and inexplicable scientifically! A universe began via the things God spoke into existence - did He need vast amounts of time to do this - as there is a moment when nothing we know of existed, and then suddenly, it DID! No scientific process can explain nothingness becoming SOMETHING. And this shows that God stands above all processes and can do whatever He wants, however He so desires. He doesn't need a PHYSICAL process as He has the ability to miraculously supersede the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's just not logically consistent to not understand God didn't necessarily create or otherwise do things as we THINK He couldn't have. Can a man dead three days suddenly appear robust and talking, ETC???

Phillip...I wrote five responses up till now and deleted all five. One was too long and addressed your questions but I pondered over the thing for a while realizing I have answered the same idiotic questions so many times, and so I deleted it. Because I now know that some guys can't just get it.

Next reply was quite filled with vulgar language pointed at you for being thickheaded. I regretted what I wrote and deleted it too.

My third response was a single line saying "Phillip...don't ever ask this again" but deleted it because I thought it didn't express enough my anger, sorry, rage, at people who can't seem to let go of these questions.

My fourth response was again only one line"why is it any of your business? If I refuse to answer you, can you live with that?" but I thought it made me look as if I was chickening out of the argument.

My fifth response was nothing but just hurling off my screen at the wall, breaking it in the process and not being able to reply you at all.

But then I thought it was better if I honestly tell you how these questions make me feel.

neo-x wrote:

Philip wrote:

1over137 wrote:
I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

But the glaring question he's avoided is, WHY does Neo believe in the death and Ressurrection of Jesus and why does he believe salvation is even necessary (and I want to emphasize I'm not questioning his faith in Christ) - as to even know this is a crucial thing, one must believe what the Bible says Jesus did and said? Espescially as he's said there are large amounts of Scripture he thinks are factually untrue. And so why doubt huge parts of Scripture but then selectively choose to believe the Gospel? And so what is Neo's criteria in deciding what parts of Scripture are true and which are false? Yet, Jesus confirmed the OT is God's Word and true, yet this He doesn't accept? I don't understand how he decides anything is true or not true about Jesus or the Bible, because from what I can see, he CAN'T! He only appears to find validation in what he thinks ican be physically proven.

And all of the evolution arguments used to refute Scripture seem ironic when one realizes that Jesus rising physically after a physical death Was instantaneous and inexplicable scientifically! A universe began via the things God spoke into existence - did He need vast amounts of time to do this - as there is a moment when nothing we know of existed, and then suddenly, it DID! No scientific process can explain nothingness becoming SOMETHING. And this shows that God stands above all processes and can do whatever He wants, however He so desires. He doesn't need a PHYSICAL process as He has the ability to miraculously supersede the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's just not logically consistent to not understand God didn't necessarily create or otherwise do things as we THINK He couldn't have. Can a man dead three days suddenly appear robust and talking, ETC???

Phillip...I wrote five responses up till now and deleted all five. One was too long and addressed your questions but I pondered over the thing for a while realizing I have answered the same idiotic questions so many times, and so I deleted it. Because I now know that some guys can't just get it.

Next reply was quite filled with vulgar language pointed at you for being thickheaded. I regretted what I wrote and deleted it too.

My third response was a single line saying "Phillip...don't ever ask this again" but deleted it because I thought it didn't express enough my anger, sorry, rage, at people who can't seem to let go of these questions.

My fourth response was again only one line"why is it any of your business? If I refuse to answer you, can you live with that?" but I thought it made me look as if I was chickening out of the argument.

My fifth response was nothing but just hurling off my screen at the wall, breaking it in the process and not being able to reply you at all.

But then I thought it was better if I honestly tell you how these questions make me feel.

Neo,

please forgive me. I Lol'd while reading this.

I know this is a difficult subject for you, and I'm glad you can keep your sense of humor about it!

And I think Philip's points are good questions. I don't understand some of the things you say sometimes. I've never heard a Christian say that he believes part of scripture is fiction. I'm sure if you clarify, it'll go a long way for some to understand how and why you think differently. Sometimes I think that I just gravitate towards other believers who think the same as I do. Understanding why other believers think differently than I do helps me grow. I can't learn something new if I'm only reading things that I already agree with.

I know your salvation has been attacked before. But neither I nor Philip are doing that. We are simply trying to understand.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Philip wrote:

1over137 wrote:
I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

But the glaring question he's avoided is, WHY does Neo believe in the death and Ressurrection of Jesus and why does he believe salvation is even necessary (and I want to emphasize I'm not questioning his faith in Christ) - as to even know this is a crucial thing, one must believe what the Bible says Jesus did and said? Espescially as he's said there are large amounts of Scripture he thinks are factually untrue. And so why doubt huge parts of Scripture but then selectively choose to believe the Gospel? And so what is Neo's criteria in deciding what parts of Scripture are true and which are false? Yet, Jesus confirmed the OT is God's Word and true, yet this He doesn't accept? I don't understand how he decides anything is true or not true about Jesus or the Bible, because from what I can see, he CAN'T! He only appears to find validation in what he thinks ican be physically proven.

And all of the evolution arguments used to refute Scripture seem ironic when one realizes that Jesus rising physically after a physical death Was instantaneous and inexplicable scientifically! A universe began via the things God spoke into existence - did He need vast amounts of time to do this - as there is a moment when nothing we know of existed, and then suddenly, it DID! No scientific process can explain nothingness becoming SOMETHING. And this shows that God stands above all processes and can do whatever He wants, however He so desires. He doesn't need a PHYSICAL process as He has the ability to miraculously supersede the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's just not logically consistent to not understand God didn't necessarily create or otherwise do things as we THINK He couldn't have. Can a man dead three days suddenly appear robust and talking, ETC???

Phillip...I wrote five responses up till now and deleted all five. One was too long and addressed your questions but I pondered over the thing for a while realizing I have answered the same idiotic questions so many times, and so I deleted it. Because I now know that some guys can't just get it.

Next reply was quite filled with vulgar language pointed at you for being thickheaded. I regretted what I wrote and deleted it too.

My third response was a single line saying "Phillip...don't ever ask this again" but deleted it because I thought it didn't express enough my anger, sorry, rage, at people who can't seem to let go of these questions.

My fourth response was again only one line"why is it any of your business? If I refuse to answer you, can you live with that?" but I thought it made me look as if I was chickening out of the argument.

My fifth response was nothing but just hurling off my screen at the wall, breaking it in the process and not being able to reply you at all.

But then I thought it was better if I honestly tell you how these questions make me feel.

Neo,

please forgive me. I Lol'd while reading this.

I know this is a difficult subject for you, and I'm glad you can keep your sense of humor about it!

No problem. The only thing difficult is what I have tried to convey many time before. I don't reject Christ, I do think people need salvation. If I reject genesis story why all of a sudden I am asked what is Christ to me or why? Phillip or anyone else can simply say I can't trust scripture, and then tell me that I really can't. And then I can never actually tell if any is true or false. How is that even a conclusion? Oh because I say that genesis story is fiction, because I accept scientific facts? So I must either reject all or accept all, and that within the protestant canon? I don't see it that way and unless you guys are prepared to accept that I can do that, you will never understand the view from my side.

Some here want me to say it all, then they can punch holes in it. Tell me how wrong I am. Well guys I have thought about that. But the end result is that I have to keep defending and explaining again and again. It doesn't work that way. I am tired now, after two years I am really tired of this stuff. I also happened to say in previous threads that I don't care about creation stances anymore. You can believe the earth is standing on a turtle and I wouldn't really be bothered. I don't attack pc or oec to test why you guys keep avoiding the obvious science evidence imo. The only reason I even objected in the previous some posts was because I thought I should raise the point why I don't accept those.

Evolution is not for every christian, not every christian has the stomach to fully endorse the consequences, I have though good or bad and I am trying to be as logically consistent while keeping facts in check. It wasn't easy for me to accept this things either. And if anything I have been honest about my take on it.

So I really do mind you guys asking me again and again why Christ matters to me or why do I believe salvation is needed or why I believe in the bible? If it had been a non-believer asking me these questions, an atheist perhaps, I actually wouldn't mind. But since its my fellow sinners who are throwing first stones at me. It makes my helpless.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Philip wrote:

1over137 wrote:
I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

But the glaring question he's avoided is, WHY does Neo believe in the death and Ressurrection of Jesus and why does he believe salvation is even necessary (and I want to emphasize I'm not questioning his faith in Christ) - as to even know this is a crucial thing, one must believe what the Bible says Jesus did and said? Espescially as he's said there are large amounts of Scripture he thinks are factually untrue. And so why doubt huge parts of Scripture but then selectively choose to believe the Gospel? And so what is Neo's criteria in deciding what parts of Scripture are true and which are false? Yet, Jesus confirmed the OT is God's Word and true, yet this He doesn't accept? I don't understand how he decides anything is true or not true about Jesus or the Bible, because from what I can see, he CAN'T! He only appears to find validation in what he thinks ican be physically proven.

And all of the evolution arguments used to refute Scripture seem ironic when one realizes that Jesus rising physically after a physical death Was instantaneous and inexplicable scientifically! A universe began via the things God spoke into existence - did He need vast amounts of time to do this - as there is a moment when nothing we know of existed, and then suddenly, it DID! No scientific process can explain nothingness becoming SOMETHING. And this shows that God stands above all processes and can do whatever He wants, however He so desires. He doesn't need a PHYSICAL process as He has the ability to miraculously supersede the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's just not logically consistent to not understand God didn't necessarily create or otherwise do things as we THINK He couldn't have. Can a man dead three days suddenly appear robust and talking, ETC???

Phillip...I wrote five responses up till now and deleted all five. One was too long and addressed your questions but I pondered over the thing for a while realizing I have answered the same idiotic questions so many times, and so I deleted it. Because I now know that some guys can't just get it.

Next reply was quite filled with vulgar language pointed at you for being thickheaded. I regretted what I wrote and deleted it too.

My third response was a single line saying "Phillip...don't ever ask this again" but deleted it because I thought it didn't express enough my anger, sorry, rage, at people who can't seem to let go of these questions.

My fourth response was again only one line"why is it any of your business? If I refuse to answer you, can you live with that?" but I thought it made me look as if I was chickening out of the argument.

My fifth response was nothing but just hurling off my screen at the wall, breaking it in the process and not being able to reply you at all.

But then I thought it was better if I honestly tell you how these questions make me feel.

Neo,

please forgive me. I Lol'd while reading this.

I know this is a difficult subject for you, and I'm glad you can keep your sense of humor about it!

And I think Philip's points are good questions. I don't understand some of the things you say sometimes. I've never heard a Christian say that he believes part of scripture is fiction. I'm sure if you clarify, it'll go a long way for some to understand how and why you think differently. Sometimes I think that I just gravitate towards other believers who think the same as I do. Understanding why other believers think differently than I do helps me grow. I can't learn something new if I'm only reading things that I already agree with.

I know your salvation has been attacked before. But neither I nor Philip are doing that. We are simply trying to understand.

I don't think his questions are bad, but they are being asked in a way which is very demeaning, and further irrelevant to the topic of evolution.

Maybe some other day I will. Right now because these questions have been asked both here and in real life so many times that I am fed up of them. I hope you guys can understand that. If you don't believe me ask Dan he sometimes get a hard time because of this too. He can verifiable-y tell you what I just told you.

Neo wrote:
No problem. The only thing difficult is what I have tried to convey many time before. I don't reject Christ, I do think people need salvation. If I reject genesis story why all of a sudden I am asked what is Christ to me or why? Phillip or anyone else can simply say I can't trust scripture, and then tell me that I really can't. And then I can never actually tell if any is true or false. How is that even a conclusion? Oh because I say that genesis story is fiction, because I accept scientific facts? So I must either reject all or accept all, and that within the protestant canon? I don't see it that way and unless you guys are prepared to accept that I can do that, you will never understand the view from my side.

Because people want to know your rationale for rejecting parts of scripture, while believing other parts.

Why is the bible reliable when it comes to what you believe it says about the gospel, yet it's unreliable when it comes to what you believe it says about creation.

Like I said before regarding the bible and creation, I believe the bible and nature come from the same place. God. That to me is a fact. If my interpretation of nature in any way contradicts my interpretation of scripture, logic tells me one or both of my interpretations are wrong. So I study a little more to see where I'm in error.

I don't think his questions are bad, but they are being asked in a way which is very demeaning, and further irrelevant to the topic of evolution.

Maybe some other day I will. Right now because these questions have been asked both here and in real life so many times that I am fed up of them. I hope you guys can understand that. If you don't believe me ask Dan he sometimes get a hard time because of this too. He can verifiable-y tell you what I just told you.

Sure, I understand. While I disagree that Philip is asking in a demeaning way, I can see that you think so because it's a sensitive subject for you. I'm not in your shoes, so I can't speak to your feelings. But I guess that's why I want you to clear the air on this, so I can learn something.

Something similar was the discussion about drones. The only thought I had given to the use of drones, was basically that I thought it was a good thing. It kept American soldiers out of harms way, while still doing the job that soldiers do. And then when I heard your perspective, a differing perspective, I had to think deeper about the subject. And I learned something.

Well, Neo, you are clearly taking what are perfectly reasonable questions, personally. I've not been one disrespectful or accusing you of not being a Christian, as some may have - I don't know all of the history here. And I was one of the ones who has previously defended you and your right to have your own views. And the answer to how you decide what Scripture to accept and what not to just can't be that complicated, at least as to your criteria. When someone asserts they reject large amounts of the Bible as being false, then that needs some challenges. Period! Jesus quoted PROLIFICALLY from the OT, confirmed by His framing and references this to be the case. He obviously views the OT as being God's Holy Word.

And everyone is not knowledgeable about your references of supposedly having redundantly answered this issue. So, this is your response, to get furious? I'm rather surprised. I'm certainly not attacking you or questioning your faith, but AM trying to understand what appears to be a lack of consistency in how you decide the truth of Scripture. I only pressed the issue because you appeared to ignore my questions. And do not think this is all over evolution beliefs. For me, it's the total dismissal that SOMEHOW (and that can be reasonably debate) it's not even God's Word. Plus, I'm unclear on which parts you dismiss and which you apparently embrace.

We're all big boys here, so let's not get mad just because someone asks important clarifying questions. And please don't assume or expect someone to have read all of your previous interactions concerning this subject. With what you have asserted on a Christian forum, you should EXPECT to be rigorously challenged by those unclear about your views. No questions are being asked here that wouldn't be asked of anyone else, so please try not to take it so personally.

I just accept that I won't receive any clarity on Neo's views. Which is fine. It's not some inquisition, although past history here and elsewhere have, unfortunately, hurt Neo. And as he's sincere and honest in what he believes, I can accept that.

Phillip, I don't take anything from you and I can say that you were one of the few people who defended me and approached me. So believe me there is nothing personal here. If there had been I would have gone silent. But to be honest I'm just fed up, my friend. Its not you, my words led k this morning into a small heated exchange.

I see people burning the bibles a lot these days, God doesn't interfere. I see Muslims killing Christians, yet God doesn't interfere. But I must believe that he defended the protestant canon with all his Might? It doesn't sound true to me.

That being said, I have never said large parts of the scripture are untrue. I said specifically that I reject the genesis creation story. Because we have evidence against it. That is the total sum of assertion.

Now as to your questions, all of you who questioned me please read on
Who is Christ? what he is to me?
Son of God, my saviour.

But neo why do you need saving or anyone else does?
Because we are imperfect and sin often.

Did sin bring death?
No.

Was Adam and eve a real couple
May be, I don't deny a historical adam and eve, they could have been a real couple, I just don't think they were the first couple who populated the earth as the genesis story says.

But doesn't that mean you can discard all other scripture?
No. That doesn't follow. I didn't ask to call the genesis story as fiction. I found evidence which directly contradicted it and so I rejected it.

Evidence to the contrary is my criteria in this regard. Suppose the bible said the earth was flat, then I would reject the story of passage associated with it. Its legitimacy as God inspired would certainly be in question.

The problem with your question is quite profound. This is not an argument of whether God can do the miraculous or not. No one is denying that. I am not denying that. The question is did he do it the way Genesis says he did? The evidence says genesis is wrong. Since I believe in God and since God can't be wrong, the only logical conclusion left is that the story is wrong.

But you have to give up inerrancy Neo?
Yes I realize that. But I rather give up inerrancy and believe in a God rather than believe in a God inspired genesis story which I have evidence against and which logically entails that its not man but its God who is wrong since he got the whole story to man...that in nutshell means there is no God since if there would be a God he could never be wrong, and the only thing left then would be to be an agnostic or atheist.

But how do you know if other parts of scripture are really true about what happened?
I don't know, I have no way to gauge that information but I believe they happened because I think its safe to think so. There is logic and theology and all that stuff. The reason as I said earlier why I reject genesis is not based in logic of probability e.g I don't think it can happen or God can't make it happen but rather did it happen the way Genesis says it happened?

This is a subtle distinction, which renders the whole idea of me rejecting scripture on whim, void.

Neo, that's helpful. Thanks for clarifying for those of us who may not have understood where you are coming from. I appreciate it! We're all brothers here - a bit rowdy, argumentative and rude sometimes - but brothers, nonetheless! Say, kind of reminds me of my biologicals!

Neo,

As a believer living in the relative safety of the United States, I cannot imagine what believers in your country go through on a daily basis.

I hope you don't mind me praying for you and your family's safety. And that God through the Holy Spirit, will strengthen your faith, even with what you're living through.

Whether we are going through simple trials and problems that life brings, or going through life in fear of our lives or our family's lives, the only constant in it all is that God will never leave us. Even when it seems He's not there.

I apologize earlier for my outburst I hope you understand why I felt so bad. These questions sound so loaded to me now.

Also the thing is the further I have studied the bible the more I have come to believe that the Bible is clearly very YEC. And that realization hasn't helped me at all, rather it complicated faith based ideas. It is not a matter of yom anymore. How did Moses used the word and how did the audience took the word are very powerful points. I don't think yom's usage is so abstract that we can easily say it means age or longer periods of time. It also can mean only one day. And whether someone agrees or not, my conclusion is that YEC is what Moses had in mind when he wrote this. I remember having a thorough discussion with Jac on the topic and while we both disagreed at the end, the one thing I did agree with him was the usage of Yom.

There is simply no merit to say that Moses wrote and indicated an abstract term to mean vague periods of time. What was he going to tell the people if someone asked in the middle of the reading of the scriptures?

So imagine a discourse here, lets say Moses is reading genesis 1 to the public and he gets to the first yom reference and a hand goes up.

Random person asking question - "Hey Moses, how do you mean Yom here?" do you mean it as a day or as longer periods of time?
Moses: Longer period of time.
RP asks again: "But then why is there a morning and evening written with it?"
Moses: it secretly means the start and end of ages.
RP says: But can't you just write longer period of time and leave out also the evening morning thing which is quite confusing and actually gives the impression that its a 24 hour day?
Moses: I can't do that, its God's word.
RP says again: Okay so tell me how long is this yom?
Moses is confused: I don't know.
RP: So you mean you have no idea how long it took God to make us?
Moses: Yes because you see Yom can mean different things it could mean one day and a long time period too.
RP *confused*: so if you don't know why does it say evening and morning? That got to tell you something now.
Moses angry: Sit down you don't get to question God's word.

So I hope you can see how ridiculous this notion of a vague time duration would be to the audience for whom this story was being conveyed. They wouldn't even be able to teach their children the lesson of the six days.

And later Moses and other writers reference six day creation. And infact the Sabbath is a 24 hours day because the other were too. But anyways I hope some of you can show me how yom as long periods of time work out for Moses and his audience. Consider this a fun exercise. My contention is that it would not be practical nor helpful as it doesn't explain anything, considering those chaps only had the first 5 books and that also in a 40 year period.

RickD wrote:Neo,

As a believer living in the relative safety of the United States, I cannot imagine what believers in your country go through on a daily basis.

I hope you don't mind me praying for you and your family's safety. And that God through the Holy Spirit, will strengthen your faith, even with what you're living through.

Whether we are going through simple trials and problems that life brings, or going through life in fear of our lives or our family's lives, the only constant in it all is that God will never leave us. Even when it seems He's not there.

Thank you, prayers are needed. Anyone who can, please remember your brothers and sisters in places where the name of Christ can still have you get killed. Thanks.

neo-x wrote:I apologize earlier for my outburst I hope you understand why I felt so bad. These questions sound so loaded to me now.

Also the thing is the further I have studied the bible the more I have come to believe that the Bible is clearly very YEC. And that realization hasn't helped me at all, rather it complicated faith based ideas. It is not a matter of yom anymore. How did Moses used the word and how did the audience took the word are very powerful points. I don't think yom's usage is so abstract that we can easily say it means age or longer periods of time. It also can mean only one day. And whether someone agrees or not, my conclusion is that YEC is what Moses had in mind when he wrote this. I remember having a thorough discussion with Jac on the topic and while we both disagreed at the end, the one thing I did agree with him was the usage of Yom.

There is simply no merit to say that Moses wrote and indicated an abstract term to mean vague periods of time. What was he going to tell the people if someone asked in the middle of the reading of the scriptures?

So imagine a discourse here, lets say Moses is reading genesis 1 to the public and he gets to the first yom reference and a hand goes up.

Random person asking question - "Hey Moses, how do you mean Yom here?" do you mean it as a day or as longer periods of time?
Moses: Longer period of time.
RP asks again: "But then why is there a morning and evening written with it?"
Moses: it secretly means the start and end of ages.
RP says: But can't you just write longer period of time and leave out also the evening morning thing which is quite confusing and actually gives the impression that its a 24 hour day?
Moses: I can't do that, its God's word.
RP says again: Okay so tell me how long is this yom?
Moses is confused: I don't know.
RP: So you mean you have no idea how long it took God to make us?
Moses: Yes because you see Yom can mean different things it could mean one day and a long time period too.
RP *confused*: so if you don't know why does it say evening and morning? That got to tell you something now.
Moses angry: Sit down you don't get to question God's word.

So I hope you can see how ridiculous this notion of a vague time duration would be to the audience for whom this story was being conveyed. They wouldn't even be able to teach their children the lesson of the six days.

And later Moses and other writers reference six day creation. And infact the Sabbath is a 24 hours day because the other were too. But anyways I hope some of you can show me how yom as long periods of time work out for Moses and his audience. Consider this a fun exercise. My contention is that it would not be practical nor helpful as it doesn't explain anything, considering those chaps only had the first 5 books and that also in a 40 year period.

That would be the case of the "reader" was reading what Moses wrote based on a concept that was quite foreign to Moses' audience:
Theology of creation being written in a literal and concrete way.

Read Genesis again and tell me that Moses believe that light existed before the creation of the sun that, according to him, gives that very light.
Read Genesis again and tell me that every time the word YOM is used it means 1 literal day.