|
We will have eternity to
talk with God about it. Our little earthly minds cannot fathom the austere
power of God anyway. So, why don't you save that discussion for Heaven?
Kat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:04
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creation &
Evolution
Could be ............... but a 6000 year old
earth? I don't know. -----Original
Message----- From: Kevin Deegan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
[email protected]Sent:
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creation
& Evolution
It seems to me that ICR has some pretty valid SCIENTIFIC reasons for
believing in a young Earth. David Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John
wrote:
> ... it doesn't take 24 hours to say
> "Let there be
light."
But you are saying that day 1 was millions of years. Doesn't
your argument
here discount your perspective more than mine?
It
might not take 24 hours to SAY, "Let there be light," but I have no idea
how long a process it would be for light to come into being after saying
it.
The Bible says, "and the evening and the morning were the first
day."
Shouldn't I believe that? Why say "evening and morning" if not to
convey to
me a length of time with which I am familiar?
John
wrote:
> i d not defend evolution.
Why do you think each day
was millions of years? Is there something in the
Bible that gives you
some indication of this? It seems to me that the issue
of time has only
come up with the development of evolutionary theory. It
seems! to me
that the only motivation for long time in Genesis i s to try and
accomodate evoluionary theory. Please show me where I am wrong in my
thinking here. What Biblical text leads you to believe that each day was
millions of years (as opposed to 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, 1 thousand
years, 1
million years, 1 billion years, 1 trillion years,
etc.).
John wrote:
> Day 3 we have the creation of greenery.
but none
> of it had yet sprouted (Gen 2:5).
That is a very
interesting viewpoint that I do not believe I have ever
heard. Did you
come up with this on your own?
Apparently you do not view Genesis 1
& Genesis 2 as two different accounts.
I view them as two different
accounts of the same creation event. Genesis 1
I view as the scientific
/ chronological account. Genesis 2 I view as the
architect's account,
the blueprint of the mind of God giving us the
philosophical why of
creation.
John wrote:
> God causes seedling growth only after
he made man
> (6! th day) and the sun (Gen 2:9)Seeds do not
need
> sun , of course. No need, no problemo.
Genesis
1:11-13
(11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so.
(12) And the earth
brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree
yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw
that it was good.
(13) And the evening and the morning were the third
day.
Genesis 2:4-6
(4) These are the generations of the heavens
and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the LORD God
made the earth and the heavens,
(5) And every plant of the field before
it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the
LORD God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth, and there was not a
man to till the ground.
(6) But there went up a mist from the earth, and
watered the whole face of
the ground.!
Genesis 1 definitely
mentions grasses and herbs an d angiosperms (fruit
bearing trees), which
themselves BEAR SEED. Seeds do not bear seeds
themselves. Rather, it is
the mature plant that bears seed. It seems to me
that these two accounts
are telling us that God did not create seeds and
cause them to grow, but
rather he created the plants themselves, without
seeds, and created them
to bear seeds.
Genesis 2 has God creating man before plants and
animals. Genesis 1 has God
creating plants and animals before man. Why
the opposite sequence? It
seems to me that Genesis 2 gives us the mind
of God, showing us that in
God's mind, he was creating plants and
animals for man, even though the
actual scientific sequence was in a
different order. It would be like me
sharing a blueprint for building a
house, and showing how I desire a pool
and courtyard to augment the
house by being at the very center of the house.
When I actually build
the house, I start with the pool and courtyard, a! nd
then build the
structure around it. Some might inte rpret this sequence to
mean that
the house was built for the pool and courtyard, but my real
thinking is
toward the house, with the pool and courtyard being
complimentary to the
house.
So it seems to me that Genesis 2 is the blueprint, giving us
the wisdom of
God's mind. Genesis 1 is the scientific and chronological
account.
Physical observations of nature should confirm Genesis 1, but
not
necessarily Genesis 2. Have you ever considered this
perspective?
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this
list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
