Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I think you're making too much of the difference between the two words - and having to fudge a bit in addressing these verses. Maybe 'bara' was only ever used to describe God (rather than humans) creating something - that was the impression I got from the lexicon I checked; perhaps DB knows more about it. However, the use of 'asah' for God making things doesn't necessarily imply a different kind of creation, and to me it sure doesn't imply pre-existing material or previously existing animals. God could have 'made' everything totally new.

Nope it is never something new when "asah" is used.This is consistant throughout the whole OT.As a matter of fact I challenge anybody to find where "asah" means something new like "bara" does.If it is never something new when "asah" is used then we know it already existed or exists based on context of verse.And again this was discovered by studying Genesis 2:1-4 and then applying it Genesis 1.

I think DB answered this quite well above - but are you going to answer his question? Is it possible for something to exist prior to when Scriptures states it is newly created?

Nicki wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I think you're making too much of the difference between the two words - and having to fudge a bit in addressing these verses. Maybe 'bara' was only ever used to describe God (rather than humans) creating something - that was the impression I got from the lexicon I checked; perhaps DB knows more about it. However, the use of 'asah' for God making things doesn't necessarily imply a different kind of creation, and to me it sure doesn't imply pre-existing material or previously existing animals. God could have 'made' everything totally new.

Nope it is never something new when "asah" is used.This is consistant throughout the whole OT.As a matter of fact I challenge anybody to find where "asah" means something new like "bara" does.If it is never something new when "asah" is used then we know it already existed or exists based on context of verse.And again this was discovered by studying Genesis 2:1-4 and then applying it Genesis 1.

I think DB answered this quite well above - but are you going to answer his question? Is it possible for something to exist prior to when Scriptures states it is newly created?

I already answered that.It depends on the context of the verse when "bara" is used to know if things existed before but regardless it will still be something new God produced.I already explained this but I'll explain it again.When God creates certian life "after its kind"? Then it means this is new life is based on previous life that existed but it is still new kinds of life.

It is the context of the verse that we know if things existed before.I explained that when "bara" is used it does not mean that nothing existed before just because it will still be new things produced by God.However at other times "bara" can mean something totally new God produced that never existed and it is based on context how we know.

And again the stuff helps Day Age creationism too to know,which is why I'm surprised certian Day Agers are reluctant to this knowledge.It also helps Day Age creationism to know that over 400 years ago the KJV bible was written from an old earth interpretation too,which is why I brought it up on here.I don't think they realized what I was getting at but I know how they look at the evidence too when it comes to science so I know it helps Day Age creationists with the way they interpret the evidence as far as science is concerned.

But the KJV helps both Day Age and Gap Theory make their case that the earth is old and not young.This is why I have shared it on here.Yet it seems like fellow old earthers just don't like the KJV for whatever reason.It is good to know there were old earth creationists back then because young earth creationists would have us believe that Christians have always been young earth creationists.

And again the stuff helps Day Age creationism too to know,which is why I'm surprised certian Day Agers are reluctant to this knowledge.

Just because people believe in a Day/Age creation concept, that does not meant they must believe in either GAP or evolution. In fact, million of Christians accept the first, but reject both of the latter. FORGET about your distaste for evolution, when it comes to your evaluating GAP for it's truthfulness.

ACB: It also helps Day Age creationism to know that over 400 years ago the KJV bible was written from an old earth interpretation too, which is why I brought it up on here.I don't think they realized what I was getting at but I know how they look at the evidence too when it comes to science so I know it helps Day Age creationists with the way they interpret the evidence as far as science is concerned.

It matters not one bit whether Day / Age is true, in relationship to GAP! And if Day/Age is false, it still doesn't make GAP right or wrong! The earth could be very young and also there was NO GAP. Day/Age could well be true, but there is NO GAP!

ACB: But the KJV helps both Day Age and Gap Theory make their case that the earth is old and not young.

NO it doesn't! Only if the translation is accurate, and only if one's interpretation of it is correct. But you are nowhere near having scientific evidences that support more than an old creation - except for desperate and questionable word analysis! And analysis which modern Biblical scholars, almost to a one, dismiss this GAP fantasy. It's clear, ACB, that you think that if you could only prove that the Bible supports GAP, that people would begin to believe the Bible due to it supposedly lining up with the scientific evidences. But the scientific evidences are already so debated that their is massive conjecture about them - even amongst Christians. GAP will not convince people the Bible is true. Other thing - clearly you see GAP as an answer to evolution - which is irrelevant. So is Day/Age/Progressive Creationism.

GAP must stand on its on, but the problems it offers are massive. And if you don't have significant portion of modern Christian language scholars and scientists on board, forget about convincing "Joe Sixpack!" And that has been the issue for about a century - you're not getting any younger. FAR more important is concentrating upon evidences that convincingly point to the fact that the physical universe and life itself would be impossible without a supremely intelligent, all-powerful, eternal Presence from which all things sprang. THAT makes people start asking good questions. From an evangelical strategy, GAP is a huge waste of time and effort!

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Yet it seems like fellow old earthers just don't like the KJV for whatever reason.It is good to know there were old earth creationists back then because young earth creationists would have us believe that Christians have always been young earth creationists.

I don't like using the KJV as much as modern versions because it's written in 400-year-old English and can be hard to understand. Words have changed their meaning in English over that time (like 'replenish') so I'd rather read, and recommend to others, versions which have been translated much more recently by trying to find the best current words and phrases to give the same meanings as the Scriptures in the original languages. Whatever version you use, it's a big stretch to get a 'gap' out of it.

Philip wrote:And again the stuff helps Day Age creationism too to know,which is why I'm surprised certian Day Agers are reluctant to this knowledge.

Just because people believe in a Day/Age creation concept, that does not meant they must believe in either GAP or evolution. In fact, million of Christians accept the first, but reject both of the latter. FORGET about your distaste for evolution, when it comes to your evaluating GAP for it's truthfulness.

ACB: It also helps Day Age creationism to know that over 400 years ago the KJV bible was written from an old earth interpretation too, which is why I brought it up on here.I don't think they realized what I was getting at but I know how they look at the evidence too when it comes to science so I know it helps Day Age creationists with the way they interpret the evidence as far as science is concerned.

It matters not one bit whether Day / Age is true, in relationship to GAP! And if Day/Age is false, it still doesn't make GAP right or wrong! The earth could be very young and also there was NO GAP. Day/Age could well be true, but there is NO GAP!

ACB: But the KJV helps both Day Age and Gap Theory make their case that the earth is old and not young.

NO it doesn't! Only if the translation is accurate, and only if one's interpretation of it is correct. But you are nowhere near having scientific evidences that support more than an old creation - except for desperate and questionable word analysis! And analysis which modern Biblical scholars, almost to a one, dismiss this GAP fantasy. It's clear, ACB, that you think that if you could only prove that the Bible supports GAP, that people would begin to believe the Bible due to it supposedly lining up with the scientific evidences. But the scientific evidences are already so debated that their is massive conjecture about them - even amongst Christians. GAP will not convince people the Bible is true. Other thing - clearly you see GAP as an answer to evolution - which is irrelevant. So is Day/Age/Progressive Creationism.

GAP must stand on its on, but the problems it offers are massive. And if you don't have significant portion of modern Christian language scholars and scientists on board, forget about convincing "Joe Sixpack!" And that has been the issue for about a century - you're not getting any younger. FAR more important is concentrating upon evidences that convincingly point to the fact that the physical universe and life itself would be impossible without a supremely intelligent, all-powerful, eternal Presence from which all things sprang. THAT makes people start asking good questions. From an evangelical strategy, GAP is a huge waste of time and effort!

You are OK with evolution eventhough it is a lie.So it is not so important to you to see it go away.I feel differently about it and I know the Gap Theory is the only creation theory that could defeat and destroy evolution.If evolution is not big of a deal to you and you don't mind people being taught it in our society as true science eventhough it is not then you won't see the importance of destroying evolution.

But I was not even discussing that in this thread,though.I was showing how this interpretation is correct and showing how it confirms old earth creationism whether or not you accept the Gap Theory. It is wrong for Christians to think wrong things about "bara" and "asah" because of modern scholars teaching lies about them. And this knowledge I have shared does also help Day Agers make their case and have given a few examples to show how. It should be important to know if you believe a certian interpretation is true.

Nicki: I don't like using the KJV as much as modern versions because it's written in 400-year-old English and can be hard to understand.

Plus, scholarship accrues - there is substantially more information, knowledge and scholarship available to modern translators, as opposed to what was available to translators living 400 years ago. And yes, language morphs in meanings and usage.

ACB: You are OK with evolution even though it is a lie.So it is not so important to you to see it go away.

ACB, of COURSE I don't agree with evolution - I'm a PE guy. But the issue isn't, "We should embrace GAP theory because it refutes evolution. GAP is either true or not - despite what evolutionists believe. Actually, evolutionists could assert their is some kind of GAP - depends upon when one believes such a GAP exists. But that's not my point. My point is, you just don't latch onto a theory mostly because you think it discredits another one. BOTH theories can be wrong, BTW.

ACB: "... the importance of destroying evolution.

You don't need GAP to do that. I've spoken prolifically as a skeptic of macroevolution, but I also think GAP is bunk. You should not let your anti-evolution views be an argument to believe GAP. That's really bad theology AND bad science!

Philip wrote:

Nicki: I don't like using the KJV as much as modern versions because it's written in 400-year-old English and can be hard to understand.

Plus, scholarship accrues - there is substantially more information, knowledge and scholarship available to modern translators, as opposed to what was available to translators living 400 years ago. And yes, language morphs in meanings and usage.

The evidence confirms this interpretation though proving these modern scholars wrong even if you reject the Gap Theory too.They don't know about the scientific evidence though.Like I have pointed out before It is good when God word lines up with the book of nature and not when it does'nt. It is good to know that by understanding the difference betwern "bara' and "asah" that we can know that there were hominids and neanderthals before God created man new and you Day Agers agree with this,so what is the problem? It is evolutionists that have the problem with these beings before man,but not for Day Age or Gap Theory. So we have God's word and the nature he created confirming it true and correct instead of having to believe modern scholars that don't know the difference by blind faith,because they say so.

Philip wrote:

ACB: You are OK with evolution even though it is a lie.So it is not so important to you to see it go away.

ACB, of COURSE I don't agree with evolution - I'm a PE guy. But the issue isn't, "We should embrace GAP theory because it refutes evolution. GAP is either true or not - despite what evolutionists believe. Actually, evolutionists could assert their is some kind of GAP - depends upon when one believes such a GAP exists. But that's not my point. My point is, you just don't latch onto a theory mostly because you think it discredits another one. BOTH theories can be wrong, BTW.

ACB: "... the importance of destroying evolution.

You don't need GAP to do that. I've spoken prolifically as a skeptic of macroevolution, but I also think GAP is bunk. You should not let your anti-evolution views be an argument to believe GAP. That's really bad theology AND bad science!

Well perhaps your perspective would be changed if you actually saw how it defeats evolution.But I'm not trying to get people to accept the Gap Theory in order to defeat evolution.I don't really even care which creation interpretation a person accepts as long as they have been saved and are a Christian even if it is Theistic Evolution.I just believe this interpretation true and so I try to show why and how it is true.Using it to deafeat evolution is just something I've come to realize from my years of dealing with evolutionists and how much more effective The Gap Theory is now compared to others that I know about. I know people disagree with me but I believe The Gap Theory is the only creation interpretation that can defeat evolution,but it is OK if you don't agree. I think it is one of them things where peoples minds would be changed if they saw how effective it can be against evolution and people's perceptions would change. Seeing is believing,sometimes.