The Most Wild View On Creation

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
jalvarez4Jesus
Familiar Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:17 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby jalvarez4Jesus » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:55 am

It appears one of our admins is throwing a temper tantrum. I'll come back later.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18423
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby RickD » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:12 am

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:It appears one of our admins is throwing a temper tantrum. I'll come back later.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18423
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby RickD » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:17 am

Image
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby Audie » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:57 am

RickD wrote:
jalvarez4Jesus wrote:It appears one of our admins is throwing a temper tantrum. I'll come back later.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!



Words mean whatever they mean, in context. So , sure, "tantrum".

In thus czse, it means lucidity painful to a gapoerite.

(Was "I'll be back" a promisr, or a threat?)

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby Audie » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:58 am

RickD wrote:Image

No more gappetite for this craziness?

Katabole
Valued Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:42 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby Katabole » Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:12 pm

As Gap creationism is my creation stance, I thought I would add in something that has been mentioned in the past but only briefly and that is the doctrine of the devil. The origin of Lucifer.

The Time Factor


If there was no destruction after the original creation in Genesis 1:1, then the devil, Lucifer, could predate man by no more than five days, if it is assumed that the days mentioned in Genesis are 24 hour periods and not ages or epochs of time.

I believe it is the assumption of YEC's that the devil was created by God in Genesis 1:1. The truth is, I have never heard an in-depth explanation of his origin that made any sense from YEC's, Progressive Creationists or Day Age creationists. Lucifer or for that matter, the creation of angels, is simply not mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis.

This means that the following events must have occurred between the first day of creation and the fall of Adam and Eve:

The creation of angels and archangels including Lucifer and Lucifer's service to God as, "the anointed cherub that covereth", that is, the cherub that guards the mercy seat, in Ezekiel 28:11-15.

The fall of Lucifer because of his pride. Isaiah 14:12-15

The rebellion of Lucifer and the souls he deceived by his lies. Revelation 12:3-4

The fall of the angels that followed Lucifer and the preparation of everlasting fire for the Devil and his angels in Matthew 25:41. Some Bible scholars equate fallen angels with the devils (or demons, as they say). However, the Bible seems to make a clear distinction between the two.
This everlasting fire must have been prepared after the fall of Lucifer created the need for it, yet before the fall of man condemned him to the same place. Otherwise, it would have been prepared for Satan, his angels, AND man. But the text in Matthew 25:41 does not say the everlasting fire was prepared for man. It says the everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Lucifer, Satan, is called "that old serpent" in Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2. Would being five days older than Adam qualify him for that word "old"? If Adam is four days younger than Lucifer, why is Adam never referred to as "that old Adam"?


Lucifer's claim on the world


Jesus calls Satan the "prince of this world" in John 12:31 and John 14:30. Paul the apostle calls Satan the "god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4:4. What gives him a claim on this world, when did he get this claim and why did Christ and Paul give him those titles of prince and god?

In Luke 4:5-6 Satan told Christ that all the kingdoms of the world had been delivered unto him (“for that is delivered unto me”). Christ did not deny his claim or dispute it, but rather answered that only God Himself deserved worship (Luke 4:7-8). The devil’s claim of having the kingdoms of the world delivered unto him is allowed to stand. But when could this have been done? When Satan shows up in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2, before the fall of man, he is already the serpent and is in opposition to God. If Satan had some previous rule over the world, when did he practice this rule?

In Isaiah 14:12-15 where Satan’s original rebellion against God is recorded, the devil desired to exalt his throne above the stars of God (v.13). In order to exalt his throne, he had to have a throne. A throne indicates a place of rule and dominion as well as a kingdom to rule over. Yet, this kingdom which was ruled by Satan before the fall was below the stars of God and below the heights of the clouds. In Isaiah 66:1, God claims Heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool. The earth is not God's throne. What is left then for Lucifer to rule over if it is not Heaven? The earth is left. Satan had a throne on the earth before he rebelled against God. This would explain how he got his claim to earth and why he is given the descriptive titles "prince" and "god". The earth before Genesis 1:2
was Lucifer’s original domain. It was his original commission from God.


Lucifer's character from the beginning



The devil was “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44) and he “sinneth from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). To what beginning does this refer? It must refer to the beginning of the six-day creation. Nothing else makes sense.

If there is no gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the devil was created on the first day of the six days of creation, he must have been created as a sinner and a murderer, since he was these things from the beginning. But this is impossible for two reasons.

First, this interpretation would make God the author of sin.
Second, the Bible clearly states that the devil was perfect from his creation and that iniquity was not found in him until a later date (Ezekiel 28:15).

Lucifer was perfect when God created him, but became a murderer and sinner at some point in time after that. Therefore, the devil had to fall in sin somewhere between the time of his creation and the beginning of the world as found in the first chapter of Genesis.

Only the Gap Theory of creation provides a time for this. There is no other option.

I certainly would like to hear an explanation of Lucifer's origin from a YEC, Progressive, Day Age or Theistic Evolution perspective.
Well it may be the devil or it may be the Lord but you know you gotta serve somebody. Bob Dylan

Every one that is of the truth hears my voice. Jesus from John 18:37

jalvarez4Jesus
Familiar Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:17 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby jalvarez4Jesus » Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:25 pm

Well, bad news guys (not really, lol). I no longer am a gapper. But it wasn't because of "the Hebrew" or whatever. I still think Genesis 1:2 is chronologically after 1:1, but not by more than a day's time. Probably just a few seconds or so. Regardless, what convinced me (to now come back to YEC) was Matthew 19:4. It can't be talking about a pre-adamite race of angel men who were made male and female because the Bible never describes female angels or the "daughters of God". So, YECity YEC it is.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18423
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby RickD » Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:49 pm

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Well, bad news guys (not really, lol). I no longer am a gapper. But it wasn't because of "the Hebrew" or whatever. I still think Genesis 1:2 is chronologically after 1:1, but not by more than a day's time. Probably just a few seconds or so. Regardless, what convinced me (to now come back to YEC) was Matthew 19:4. It can't be talking about a pre-adamite race of angel men who were made male and female because the Bible never describes female angels or the "daughters of God". So, YECity YEC it is.

Everybody's a comedian.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
AreEl
Recognized Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:40 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Considering a move to North Parricide in Jacob's Bosom.

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby AreEl » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:12 pm

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Well, bad news guys (not really, lol). I no longer am a gapper... Regardless, what convinced me (to now come back to YEC) was...bla bla blanobody cares...So, YECity YEC it is.


Congratulations. You've just moved from absolutely crazy Gapcrap to deserving mild contempt from the rest of the Christian community.

(SushiGirl still thinks you're absolutely crazy because you're a WWFloodist. She's fun to have around, nevertheless. Let her be.)
Doing nothing is hard. You never know when you are finished.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4234
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby abelcainsbrother » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:19 pm

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Well, bad news guys (not really, lol). I no longer am a gapper. But it wasn't because of "the Hebrew" or whatever. I still think Genesis 1:2 is chronologically after 1:1, but not by more than a day's time. Probably just a few seconds or so. Regardless, what convinced me (to now come back to YEC) was Matthew 19:4. It can't be talking about a pre-adamite race of angel men who were made male and female because the Bible never describes female angels or the "daughters of God". So, YECity YEC it is.



Have you been listening to Kirk Cameron and how he debunked an OEC?
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

jalvarez4Jesus
Familiar Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:17 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby jalvarez4Jesus » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:49 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Well, bad news guys (not really, lol). I no longer am a gapper. But it wasn't because of "the Hebrew" or whatever. I still think Genesis 1:2 is chronologically after 1:1, but not by more than a day's time. Probably just a few seconds or so. Regardless, what convinced me (to now come back to YEC) was Matthew 19:4. It can't be talking about a pre-adamite race of angel men who were made male and female because the Bible never describes female angels or the "daughters of God". So, YECity YEC it is.



Have you been listening to Kirk Cameron and how he debunked an OEC?

No, I don't pay much attention to him nowadays. He's just a Hellywood phony pretending to be a Christian which pushing tons of unbiblical products and ideas. I will say this: I think most of the YEC groups (which may be a reason I went into gappy views) are professional liars. It's hard to say that about your own group, but I will say it. AIG, CMI, DrDino, CreationToday, ICR, etc. are a bunch of professional liars. May God raise some group up to do things honestly.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18423
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby RickD » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:56 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Well, bad news guys (not really, lol). I no longer am a gapper. But it wasn't because of "the Hebrew" or whatever. I still think Genesis 1:2 is chronologically after 1:1, but not by more than a day's time. Probably just a few seconds or so. Regardless, what convinced me (to now come back to YEC) was Matthew 19:4. It can't be talking about a pre-adamite race of angel men who were made male and female because the Bible never describes female angels or the "daughters of God". So, YECity YEC it is.



Have you been listening to Kirk Cameron and how he debunked an OEC?

Kirk Cameron couldn't debunk a bunk bed.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4234
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby abelcainsbrother » Sun Oct 09, 2016 3:43 pm

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
jalvarez4Jesus wrote:Well, bad news guys (not really, lol). I no longer am a gapper. But it wasn't because of "the Hebrew" or whatever. I still think Genesis 1:2 is chronologically after 1:1, but not by more than a day's time. Probably just a few seconds or so. Regardless, what convinced me (to now come back to YEC) was Matthew 19:4. It can't be talking about a pre-adamite race of angel men who were made male and female because the Bible never describes female angels or the "daughters of God". So, YECity YEC it is.



Have you been listening to Kirk Cameron and how he debunked an OEC?

No, I don't pay much attention to him nowadays. He's just a Hellywood phony pretending to be a Christian which pushing tons of unbiblical products and ideas. I will say this: I think most of the YEC groups (which may be a reason I went into gappy views) are professional liars. It's hard to say that about your own group, but I will say it. AIG, CMI, DrDino, CreationToday, ICR, etc. are a bunch of professional liars. May God raise some group up to do things honestly.

Be
I hope so too,but I just accept gappery and I'm not afraid to say so and I know there can be slight differences between others who accept it too,but overall it is the most true to me and this is why I accept it.I feel like YEC is the less true one out of the others but unlike alot of them I do not equate our salvation to my creation interpretation like they do and often have.I really believe they are going to have some explaining to do at the judgment seat of Christ for how they rewrite history and even slander brothers in Christ in order to push their creation interpretation. No other Christians of other creation interpretations do this for the most part even if they disagree.YEC's can be more hostile over a creation interpretation than even atheists who bash God and mock and make fun of Christians.It makes me rebel away from YEC even more.They act like the Pharisees in Jesus's day over their creation interpretation.It shows weakness in their arguments to me.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18423
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby RickD » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:27 pm

Katabole wrote:
If there was no destruction after the original creation in Genesis 1:1, then the devil, Lucifer, could predate man by no more than five days, if it is assumed that the days mentioned in Genesis are 24 hour periods and not ages or epochs of time.

Well, technically, at the very least lucifer had to be created sometime before he tempted eve.

I believe it is the assumption of YEC's that the devil was created by God in Genesis 1:1. The truth is, I have never heard an in-depth explanation of his origin that made any sense from YEC's, Progressive Creationists or Day Age creationists. Lucifer or for that matter, the creation of angels, is simply not mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis.

I don't think it's an accepted belief in yec, that lucifer was created in Genesis 1:1.

Angels are spiritual beings. They could've been created "any time" before eve was tempted. Even before the universe was created. They're not physical, so there's no need to have to believe they were created only after the physical universe existed.

And since scripture doesn't say a whole lot about when lucifer was created, any "in-depth" explanation of his origin, would be speculation, or from an extra-biblical source.

This means that the following events must have occurred between the first day of creation and the fall of Adam and Eve:

The creation of angels and archangels including Lucifer and Lucifer's service to God as, "the anointed cherub that covereth", that is, the cherub that guards the mercy seat, in Ezekiel 28:11-15.

The fall of Lucifer because of his pride. Isaiah 14:12-15

The rebellion of Lucifer and the souls he deceived by his lies. Revelation 12:3-4

The fall of the angels that followed Lucifer...

No it doesn't mean that at all.

Angels are spiritual beings. God could've created them before time, and the universe existed.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The Most Wild View On Creation

Postby Jac3510 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:04 pm

I agree that Scripture doesn't tell us when angels were created. I strongly doubt they were created before the universe was. So obviously they were created between Gen 1:1 and the tempting of Eve. I suspect, further, that the devil (and all the demons, for that matter), fell in the instant immediately following their creation. Given their nature (angels/demons are non-temporal beings), they don't more through time and space like we do. This further means that they are not subject to discursive thought. It is, then, silly to imagine them pondering things and ultimately coming to a conclusion to rebel against God. Rather, I imagine Satan in particular, being the highest angel, immediately perceived all there was to perceive and in that moment of absolute perception abandoned his place. Thus that first exercise of the will (by whatever motivation--we can only speculate) was to fall. And that, again, happened sometime before Gen 3. Point is, when you identify the time you think they were created, you also identity the time of their fall. In my opinion.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests