[__ Science __ ] Is the Biblical Creation Ministry Divisive?

[AIG.com]

Is AiG’s stand on a historical Genesis and biblical authority causing division in the church?

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

Over the decades I've been involved with the evolution wars, I've noticed fewer and few creationists willing to debate the issue. The Dover Decision, confirming that ID is creationism with a bath and a haircut, seems to have been the tipping point.

 

[Hopeful]

Is AiG’s stand on a historical Genesis and biblical authority causing division in the church?

Continue reading...

As they didn't actually say their position on the subject of creation in your supplied commentary, I can only hope it is what I believe.
That being the case, if anything, it is causing division from the false churches.
Aren't we all for that?

 

[Barbarian]

We need to keep in mind that most creationists are no less Christian than other Christians. They may be wrong about how God created all things, but they do accept that He did. It's not a salvation issue.

 

[Highway54]

Is AiG’s stand on a historical Genesis and biblical authority causing division in the church?

Continue reading...

No, we all still believe the creation account.

 

[dwb001]

Isn't the truth always divisive?

 

[Barbarian]

Lies are certainly divisive. But creationism isn't a lie. It's a false doctrine that many Christians sincerely believe. And not one that will necessarily harm one's salvation, unless one makes an idol of it, and declares that it's necessary for a Christian to believe.

 

[Hopeful]

Isn't the truth always divisive?

Yes, as it is written..."For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb 4:12)
God's word will continue to separate the Spirit from the flesh until the last day.

 

[Hopeful]

Lies are certainly divisive. But creationism isn't a lie. It's a false doctrine that many Christians sincerely believe. And not one that will necessarily harm one's salvation, unless one makes an idol of it, and declares that it's necessary for a Christian to believe.

I guess that depends on what your definition of creationism is.
Is it the written of seven days, or is it millions of years?
BTW, all false doctrine are lies.

 

[Barbarian]

I guess that depends on what your definition of creationism is.
Is it the written of seven days, or is it millions of years?

As you probably know, Genesis itself tells us that the "days" are figurative, not literal ones.

BTW, all false doctrine are lies.

Nope. Error is not a lie. YE creationists are in error, but the vast majority of them honestly believe that new doctrine.

 

[Hopeful]

As you probably know, Genesis itself tells us that the "days" are figurative, not literal ones.

HUH?
What version of the bible are you using?

Nope. Error is not a lie.

You are right, but I wasn't discussing error.

YE creationists are in error, but the vast majority of them honestly believe that new doctrine.

By YE you infer that believing God made everything in six days is wrong.
And that it is somehow a new doctrine.
I can't agree.

 

[Barbarian]

HUH?
What version of the bible are you using?

KJV, for example shows that. It mentions mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, showing us that the "days" are not literal days.

Error is not a lie.

You are right, but I wasn't discussing error.

YE creationism is a error, not a lie.

By YE you infer that believing God made everything in six days is wrong.
And that it is somehow a new doctrine.

That's what the Bible says.

I can't agree.

And therein is the error. Not a lie.

 

[Hopeful]

KJV, for example shows that. It mentions mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, showing us that the "days" are not literal days.

Doesn't your bible have this in it ?..."And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
The sun was not necessary for time to be called a day.
Just light and darkness.

Error is not a lie.
YE creationism is a error, not a lie.

Millions of years of evolution is an error that has turned into a lie.

That's what the Bible says.

Then it is neither error nor lie.
If the bible said it, it is true.

And therein is the error. Not a lie.

Are you saying the (KJV) bible is in error?

 

[Barbarian]

Doesn't your bible have this in it ?..."And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

What it doesn't say is what matters. No sun. Keep in mind, "morning" isn't the arrival of a big light in the sky. If that were true, moonrises would be mornings. There's really no way to twist His word around to make it a literal account. Are you saying the (KJV) Bible is in error? Either you are wrong, or the KJV is wrong.

Millions of years of evolution is an error that has turned into a lie.

It's just a fact. No point in denial. As you probably know, even honest YE creationists familiar with the evidence admit that the evidence indicates millions of years of evolution. Would you like me to show you?

If the bible said it, it is true.

But as you see, YE creationists say it, not the Bible. YE creationism is an error, not a lie.

 

[Hopeful]

What it doesn't say is what matters. No sun. Keep in mind, "morning" isn't the arrival of a big light in the sky. If that were true, moonrises would be mornings. There's really no way to twist His word around to make it a literal account. Are you saying the (KJV) Bible is in error? Either you are wrong, or the KJV is wrong.

If you are willing to depart from what IS written, there is no longer any need to respond to you.

It's just a fact. No point in denial. As you probably know, even honest YE creationists familiar with the evidence admit that the evidence indicates millions of years of evolution. Would you like me to show you?

No thanks, as I recognize that just as God formed Adam as a completed man, so too made He the earth as a completed planet.

But as you see, YE creationists say it, not the Bible. YE creationism is an error, not a lie.

I see nothing of the sort, and will continue to believe what God HAS had written.
Your POV just accommodates more doubt of everything else that is written.
Things like a virgin birth, or feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, or even Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

 

[Barbarian]

If you are willing to depart from what IS written, there is no longer any need to respond to you.

As you now realize, the problem is that you have departed from what is written. Moonrises are not morning. "Big light in the sky" is not morning. Sunrise is morning. Your new doctrine requires that you add something new to scripture to make it work.

No thanks, as I recognize that just as God formed Adam as a completed man, so too made He the earth as a completed planet.

I know you want to believe that, but as you see, the planet continues to develop over time. So do humans. Would you like to learn about that?

I see nothing of the sort, and will continue to believe what God HAS had written.

The problem is that you've added to what God has written to make it more acceptable to you.

Your POV just accommodates more doubt of everything else that is written.
Things like a virgin birth, or feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, or even Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

How silly. Miracles are not in any way ruled out by a rational look at scripture.

 

[Hopeful]

As you now realize, the problem is that you have departed from what is written. Moonrises are not morning. "Big light in the sky" is not morning. Sunrise is morning. Your new doctrine requires that you add something new to scripture to make it work.

It is written..."And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Gen 1:3-5)
I don't see any mention of moons or suns there.
Or mornings either.

I know you want to believe that, but as you see, the planet continues to develop over time. So do humans. Would you like to learn about that?

I realize the planet is changing over time, but it started out when God made it and populated it with plants and animals one day at a time, until the seventh day, when He rested.

The problem is that you've added to what God has written to make it more acceptable to you.

I've added nothing to the scriptures I quote.

How silly. Miracles are not in any way ruled out by a rational look at scripture.

If I can't believe the account of the earth's beginning how can I believe the account that Jesus was in a grave and rose from it?
You put "the account" in doubt.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see any mention of moons or suns there.
Or mornings either.

Doesn't matter. "Morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, and it's not "Big light in the sky."

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Gen 1:3-5)
I don't see any mention of moons or suns there.
Or mornings either.

It's there. And as you see "morning" has a specific meaning. This is why the text itself tells us that it's not a literal account.

I've added nothing to the scriptures I quote.

You added a sun before God says there was one.
Miracles are not in any way ruled out by a rational look at scripture.

If you can't believe the account without adding a literal revision to it, how can you believe the account that Jesus was in a grave and rose from it?

Your revision puts "the account" in doubt.

 

[Hopeful]

Doesn't matter. "Morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, and it's not "Big light in the sky."

Maybe that is the cause of your lack of faith in what is written.
It "doesn't matter".

It's there. And as you see "morning" has a specific meaning. This is why the text itself tells us that it's not a literal account.

You added a sun before God says there was one.
Miracles are not in any way ruled out by a rational look at scripture.

If you can't believe the account without adding a literal revision to it, how can you believe the account that Jesus was in a grave and rose from it?

Your revision puts "the account" in doubt.

 

[Barbarian]

Doesn't matter. "Morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, and it's not "Big light in the sky."

Maybe that is the cause of your lack of faith in what is written.
It "doesn't matter".

If you had faith in what is written, you wouldn't feel a need to add to it. I merely accept it as it is.

That's what faith is. You've confused imagination with faith. Trust God instead of your own wishes.