Creation of Heaven and Earth

[JLVaughn]

You are so angry you can't think straight. AiG's hero, Charles Spurgeon is a counter-example of your claim here. He was an old-earther of some sort. Are you accusing him of borrowing his worldview from the "atheistic rationalists?" Yes you are.

This is faulty logic. Because a Christian claims evolution as viable does not make it Scripturally sound.

That doesn't follow. Obviously, you can't think straight. Spurgeon was an anti-evolutionist. Not an evolutionist as you claim.

...came from the "dog-kind" on the ark...

You take one example that came from AiG and not even from one of their own people, which you use to discredit the entire argument.

How many links do you want? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/zoo/arctic-fox Are you denying that YECs including those from AiG commonly claim dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor?

Please, go back and read that again. If I am wrong, show us a link and we can both learn from the experience. Besides, they weren't saying it was a dog explicitly, but an ancestor that would have the genes that would give rise to dogs and the like.

To avoid answering the issue, you continue to add to what I said. Are you denying that YECs including those from AiG commonly claim dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor?

Do you have anything beyond your faulty dog-fox connection? It's not even a serious threat to the idea, since their original ancestor need not even have been the same.

Their original ancestor need not be the same as what? I've never said that their original ancestor was the same as anything. Are you denying that YECs including those from AiG commonly claim dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor?

Given two millennia of interpretation and unanimous agreement on particular issues across the board, I think I am justified. Unless you are more qualified and/or insightful than most every Christian scholar to ever exist. I am not arrogant enough to believe so of myself.

There is less historical agreement on Genesis creation than even eschatology. I have quoted at length several qualified and insightful Christian scholars. I got the whole idea from them. You are apparently arrogant enough to believe you know what everyone who came before you should have known. Look at your accusations above against Spurgeon.

[Aduro]

Dear JLVaughn,

1. I never did claim to be an expert on everything Charles Spurgeon ever said.

I recalled some incidence where it was said he had some inclination to evolutionary thought and out it went. If that pleases you, have your fill, sir.

2. I said you took what they said about foxes/dogs and ran a mile with it. They do say they came from a common ancestor, but you claiming it as a "dog-like" ancestor must make one wonder at your intended meaning. Although I have heard different stories about this, and it really could be they were just similar, rather than related. It does no real harm to creationism, although the same can't be said of evolution's various problems.

3. Good night!

[JLVaughn]

Aduro,

1. I never did claim to be an expert on everything Charles Spurgeon ever said.

I recalled some incidence where it was said he had some inclination to evolutionary thought and out it went.

Again, you have falsely made long ages equivalent to "evolutionary thought."

But if you look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will there see more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "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." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Sermon delivered on Sunday, June 17, 1855 at New Park Street Chapel.

2. I said you took what they said about foxes/dogs and ran a mile with it. They do say they came from a common ancestor, but you claiming it as a "dog-like" ancestor must make one wonder at your intended meaning. Although I have heard different stories about this, and it really could be they were just similar, rather than related. It does no real harm to creationism, although the same can't be said of evolution's various problems.

Again, you are making a false accusation. I have never called the common ancestor dogs and foxes "dog-like." The various YEC authors and organizations repeatedly say "dog-kind." That is the term I have used. Any prejudice you imagine comes from those you think you agree with.

YECs believe that dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor, the "dog-kind" on the ark. They occasionally add the adjective "wolf-like." I have not done so except when directly quoting one of those sources.

Evolutionists believe that dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor, the "archaic canine" (which just means old dog-kind). At this level, YECs and evolutionists believe the same thing. Dogs and foxes "evolved" from an ancient dog-kind.

Neither group has fossil evidence for this claim. Both your views require an ancient "dog-kind," therefore you both hypothesize it. You then assume it proven true by necessity.

Your primary disagreement with evolutionists is the timing.

[Aduro]

Again, you have falsely made long ages equivalent to "evolutionary thought."

Tell me, what is the purpose of long ages? If not for evolution, where do you get them? And don't say "dating methods," as those beg the question of evolution. Why, JLVaughn, do you need long ages? Evolution requires long ages and therefore evolutionists expect them, which leads us to where we began. You are just deluding yourself and we are just going to have to differ on this issue. So sorry.

Evolutionists believe that dogs and foxes came from a common ancestor, the "archaic canine" (which just means old dog-kind). At this level, YECs and evolutionists believe the same thing. Dogs and foxes "evolved" from an ancient dog-kind.

Neither group has fossil evidence for this claim. Both your views require an ancient "dog-kind," therefore you both hypothesize it. You then assume it proven true by necessity.

Your primary disagreement with evolutionists is the timing.

It's still irrelevant any way you put it. If God made the ancient ancestral kind of fox and dog separately, or whether or not they were the same before a split, it doesn't matter. They could have split before or after, which likely happened early on. Evolutionists have no real answer, either, except to offer long ages and point to what we know in the present.

Why don't you tell us the exact tale of your Biblical Genesis, including whether or not you think Adam was real or just a figurative head of man at some point? Failing or following that, why not tell us why God would institute death as the mechanism for change, which is the prime ingredient for evolution? Further, how are they "male and female from the beginning" in light of this revelation (Mark 10:6)? Naturally, your interpretation is going to provide skewered results, and none of us are going to get anywhere, except your temper.

What is the point of the present world, why do people die, have disease, sin and reject God? When does the present world "end," or does it? What do Christians still on Earth need to do, since everything is complete? Considering there is no more sin, can anyone even be condemned to Hell, which no longer exists? How does your litany of confusion make sense of the present time?

[JLVaughn]

Aduro,

Tell me, what is the purpose of long ages? If not for evolution, where do you get them? And don't say "dating methods," as those beg the question of evolution. Why, JLVaughn, do you need long ages? Evolution requires long ages and therefore evolutionists expect them, which leads us to where we began. You are just deluding yourself and we are just going to have to differ on this issue. So sorry.

You've can accused Spurgeon of being an evolutionist. Spurgeon had long ages before Darwin wrote his book. Lightfoot, for that matter, had long ages between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3 when he wrote his dating scheme some 350 years ago. This was before biology as a science. What did he need long ages for?

No, you are deluding yourself.

It's still irrelevant any way you put it. If God made the ancient ancestral kind of fox and dog separately, or whether or not they were the same before a split, it doesn't matter. They could have split before or after, which likely happened early on. Evolutionists have no real answer, either, except to offer long ages and point to what we know in the present.

So the standard YEC claims are irrelevant. That's good, because they have the same Just So stories the evolutionists have, except faster.

Why don't you tell us the exact tale of your Biblical Genesis, including whether or not you think Adam was real or just a figurative head of man at some point? Failing or following that, why not tell us why God would institute death as the mechanism for change, which is the prime ingredient for evolution? Further, how are they "male and female from the beginning" in light of this revelation (Mark 10:6)? Naturally, your interpretation is going to provide skewered results, and none of us are going to get anywhere, except your temper.

I already told you. It didn't look anything like your claims here. You said it was wrong, yet you didn't read it. I also repeated the YEC tale. You said that was both wrong and irrelevant. Since I can't get it right, I'll just let you tell me your version and put you back on ignore.

What is the point of the present world, why do people die, have disease, sin and reject God? When does the present world "end," or does it? What do Christians still on Earth need to do, since everything is complete? Considering there is no more sin, can anyone even be condemned to Hell, which no longer exists? How does your litany of confusion make sense of the present time?

Spoken like a true dispensensationalist. Wah! Wah! Life's hard. Then we die! Wah! Wah! Wah! Pure escapist eschatology.

[Aduro]

JLVaughn,

If you want to talk about someone showing their true colors, practically every post you make screams of your eschatological party's polemic. Please, by all means, continue to play the misunderstood martyr, get upset and take peoples' statements out of context, just so you can wave around a red herring and cry victory.

...No, you are deluding yourself.

I didn't say Spurgeon was an evolutionist, did I? I said he borrowed from their ideas. The logical conclusion of accepting vast ages or that animals progress "upward" is to fall in line with atheistic evolutionary thought. Some become more advanced evolutionists than others. Also, you are in error: Lightfoot's creation date was at 3929 BC. You seem to have this erroneous notion that if someone believed in an instantaneous creation, that they have a belief in vast ages. What are you trying to play at, the ignorance of the posters involved here?

So the standard YEC claims are irrelevant...

I actually said it doesn't matter either way, since they are both plausible. To discredit the entire creationist position because of one interpretation that you disagree with and ignore any other possible explanation seems to be you begging the question of its error in the first place, rather than honestly examining it.

I already told you...

You gave us scant details and deflected any questions seeking clarification on certain points, like the mysterious Adam figure in your eschatology.

And put me back on ignore? Because you just can't stand me having positions you hate? And look, even! I have yet to say your views are heretical or to call you a hyperpreterist since you unignored me, but I am just much too ignorant for your tastes, or just intolerable!

Spoken like a true dispensensationalist...

There's that JLVaughn charm shining through! But, no thanks. I am a postmillenniallist, and while I do disagree with you, that does not make me a dispensationalist. The resurrection has to happen for the entire Creation, and not just the people. I look forward to the world and God's creations being redeemed, along with man. You are the one who abandons them to a Crapsack World, with heaven being some far away place Christians reach at their deaths. I have no fear of a future Anti-Christ, but I do have the certainty that the Church will conquer this world, spiritually and that condition will change the body. In that future, man and God are no longer separate, and the world is shed of the evils of this present time, which is something to actually work towards and look forward to.

In your worldview, what is the point of evangelism? It's done! What more can you do? Sin and death are no more, Hell is cast into the lake of fire! Your world is today's world, but divorced from sense. Your world is the bleak one, not mine. You can at least be fair and not call me a dispensationalist, unless you want me to talk about you in such a way.

[JLVaughn]

Lightfoot believed In a gap between Gen. 1:1 & 1:3 and believed Gen. 1:3ff was a local creation is Palestine. Lightfoot's first day was after the gap.

John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, p 216.

James Jordan, Creation in Six Days, and online here http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.97.04.htm

Go do a little research. Quit blindly repeating things you don't know but think you know.

[Aduro]

JLVaughn,

You and Sailhamer at least have in common the irrational belief that your long age views have long been the Christian consensus. Also, would you mind giving a quote coming directly from Lightfoot, which states that he believed in a gap before Genesis? I will admit that I have never read that, or extensively read on Lightfoot in particular. Help a poor brother out?

And it's okay if you want to ignore the rest of my post. If it should offend, just pretend it doesn't exist!

[JLVaughn]

Aduro,

I have tried to get Lightfoot to read him myself. No luck. Would you be so kind as to try?

Sailhamer claims to follow Lightfoot. Jordan references, but does not dispute, Sailhamer's claim about Lightfoot. Given the rest of Jordan's claims, if Sailhamer had misrepresented Lightfoot, Jordan would have mentioned it.

Until I can read Lightfoot myself, I will take the word of these two noteworthy and antagonistic witnesses.

[Aduro]

There appears to be a complete works of Lightfoot on the web, but I failed to download any of the 16+ parts earlier. I was using poor wifi at the time, so I might be able to do it now.

EDIT: Yeah, these appear genuine. But... they're massive. Here: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1 ... works.html

This might take a while for me.

[JLVaughn]

Thanks for the link. I wonder when Todd added that.

[OldDad]

I would only add that bereshit "In the Beginning" is a reference to a period of time, not a moment. This can be confirmed by its only other uses (Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 49:34) and with a slight variation Hosea 9:10. In these examples it refers years or a season.

"The heavens and the earth" is a merism meaning the entire universe and all it contains (stars, galaxies, etc). This is one of the reasons day four is not about the creation of the sun, moon and stars.

But, yes this is about the real physical universe and not covenants, etc.

If God wanted the word "ibereshit" in His Scriptures, He would have put it there. I would be very careful of considering adding or deleting the Scriptures. See Rev./22 18,19. :OldDad]/Quote