Tonight, Matt SIngleton will be arguing in the affirmative and Brady Hornstra will be arguing against this. I (Nate Werner) will be moderating. This debate will start at 7 PM EST and continue until 8 PM EST 10/24/17 or earlier, depending on how the debate goes. Matt will begin with his opening statement, followed by Brady. After which, there will be 2 rebuttal periods separated by 48 hours for each debater. The 1st will be a response to the opening statements and the 2nd will be a response to the previous rebuttal. After this, there will be a period of cross-examination where each debater will ask the other 5 questions. There will be a 24 hr break after which Brady followed by Matt will give their closing statements. I will then open up the comments for audience participation for 6 hrs. Each debater may choose whether to respond to a question asked to the other. If I consider a comment to be off topic then I will delete it. Normal rules of the group apply, anyone violating the group rules will be removed. Please do not comment until after I have made it available.
Also, I will be posting Brady's opening statement for him since he will be unavailable to do so.
I would like to end this with a quick prayer. "Lord, please allow your truth to be made known tonight. Please give both debaters clear minds as they write their responses, and allow the audience to read and comprehend what is being said. I pray for mutual respect among all parties involved. σύν σοφὶα καί ἀλήθεια. Amen."
opening statement:
Affirmative:Matt SIngleton I would like to thank God for the Honor of defending His Word publicly. I am sure I will lack perfect, but I will do so with all my strength to honor Him. I also thank Brady Hornstra for competing in this venue as well nate werner for moderating as well as the team of this facebook page for setting this up.
When we approach God's Word do we approach it as learned men on a conquest with our tools of education to seek and acquire the truth which we may excavate and extract from the ancient documents to attain eternal enlightenment and immortality? Or do we approach it as wretched sinners void of honor, reputation laying down our good works and scholarship counted as dung and receiving the light of the Word solely on it's own accord?
In the Spirit of the later I give the affirmative. The evidences that i have acquired are not used as a basis for either my faith or my doctrine. Instead they are the fruits of seeing the World which God has blanketed me in through faith.
My approach here can be Identified as such. Understanding Genesis preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text translated in the Authorized King James Version, I interpret Genesis 1-11 as a historical narrative in accordance with the historical grammatical hermeneutic (this hermeneutic I apply to all scripture) and operating under a basic regulative principle. Henry Morris understood 2 forms of miracles creative/divine miracles which would supercede the laws of physics and providential miracles which God operates without breaking the laws of physics. I see genesis 1 as being creative miracles throught the period were these laws are either not in place or only partially in place. Genesis 2-9 see a world operating in accordance with physic only having an highly different nature and environment or ecology.
The disaster of the flood changed the earth into eventually the environments of today.
here I will simply list the basic evidences for my premise. I will provide links later when need as well as deal with various criticisms independently and offer personal hypothesis and interpretations I have developed as they come up
1. Genesis 1 is a historical record. The 2 mainhistorians of this jewish account Flavius Josephus employed by Rome and Archbishop James Usher employed by Britain interpretted these accounts as historical even though they could have went with metaphor. Hebraic Scholar James Barr not only assumed gen 1-11 to be meant historical but knew of none of his liberal colleagues to hold and alternative interpretation. the ancient pre-socratic philosophers logically debunked all their national pagan myths of being historical. No atheist evolutionist were there to observe the alternative of darwinian evolution.
2. Knowing the massive size of the universe it is apparent that more energy would be require to make the universe, even if we add time we also must assume the vast energy of time and after all is said the power to create our universe is automatically relatively infinite, imply need for a divine source of energy.
3.God is a historical character) witnesses confirm the person of Jehovah active in events interacting several people in the garden of eden also through out genesis and the bible, as well religious people all over the world have at times seriously claimed to interacte with him. As a person he fits the description of the creator which is required for the creation of the world. more importantly he is a valid witness to genesis 1.
4. The light problem is hard for secular cosmology. How can 11 billion light years account for at least 32 billion light years of space?
5. unreflected light may be instantaneous and God is under no constraint to not create it every where as opposed to starting at one point, in fact this is more consistent with the 1st day.
6. The Bible claims a wet earth. A wet earth would destroy planetary evolution which poses an old molten lavic earth which shoul evaporate such phenomena. this destroys inuformitarianis and evolution.
7. Boyles law teaches that gas expands when heated. this destroys starformation which requires gas to contract.
8.Lunar formation has been a highly rejected theory as the moon lacks many elements on the earth.
9. The law of pasteurization proved the dead material does not become living material. this contradicts abiogenesis and leaves evolutionist speculating on space aliens.
10. Darwin though cells were simple but they require a trillion parts thus implying the need for intelligent design.
11. Plant evolution lacks evidence.
12. the requirements for establishing an ecosystem multiplies the need for a Designer, the God of the Bible.
13. The obvious lack of transistional fossils leave evolution an adhoc fantasy.
14. Macro evolution mathematically requires more time than our current 3 billion year timeline.
15. The growth of the human population is mathematically way to small for anything past a 5-6000 year history.
16. We are extremely lacking in geo historical evidence for the geologic column.
17. the pre cambrian layer has pointed some scientist to a world wide flood at some point. Massive canyons and marine fossils also point this way.
18. There have been peer reviewed papers showing the mathemaitcal feasibility of Noahs Ark but not the mythological competitors.
rebuttal: brady
Since Matt enumerated his pieces of evidence, I will number my responses so that they correspond with his evidence.
1. First of all, Josephus and Usher are historians, not theologians. Second, Usher's work was mostly ignored. Third, no sources are given for what James Barr actually said.
2. Even if this is true, it does not necessitate a young universe.
3. This presupposes that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be a literal account, which is the very thing that you are trying to prove. So presupposing it is in order to prove that it is means you are begging the question.
4. First of all, space expands, and the further out it is, the faster it expands. Second of all, don't even try to pretend that this isn't a massive problem for a young universe, because a young universe requires space to expand many times faster than what it currently is.
5. Conjectures don't count as evidence. You yourself admitted that it is a conjecture when you said, "unreflected light may be instantaneous."
6. Again, you are presupposing a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 to prove a literal interpretation.
7. No, Boyle's law says that at a constant temperature, pressure and volume are inversely related.
8. Even if that is true, that does not prove a young universe by any means.
9. There is no such law called "law of pasteurization." But I'm guessing you're just referring to pasteurization. Sure, non-living things tend to stay non-living. But if that was always the case, then Jesus would still be in the tomb.
10. Does what Darwin falsely thought somehow prove that the universe is young or that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be read as a literal and historical account?
11. I am not well versed in evidence for evolution of plants. But even if there wasn't any evidence at all for evolution of plants, how does that prove that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be read literally? Also, just making a blanket statement such as claiming there is zero evidence for plant evolution needs backing. Also, what would you expect to find if plants had evolved over time?
12. I think you're forgetting that you aren't debating an atheist. How does God being creator necessitate a young universe?
13. There are plenty of transitional fossils. Take the whale, for example. We currently have odontocetes. We have fossils of dorudon, rodhocetus, kutchicetus, amblocetus, pakicetus. Part of why people say we don't have transitional fossils is because they have unrealistic expectations of what transitional fossils are supposed to look like.
14. You give no evidence to back that claim up. And even if it was true, it does not necessitate reading Genesis 1-11 literally.
15. You are assuming that the current growth rate has always been the growth rate. However, before the industrial revolution, death rates used to be much higher than what they currently are.
16. There are actually two locations where we have the entire geological column in its entirety. One is the Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the other is the Williston Basin of North Dakota.
17. If the existence of massive canyons are evidence of a global flood, then was the Valles Marineris on Mars caused by a global flood?
18. First of all, can you show me any of those peer-reviewed papers? Second, even if that is true, it still doesn't show that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be read historically.
My response:
In response, first of all there seems to be a major seems to be a major misunderstanding as to the purpose of the affirmation. I am not here to establish that Genesis ought to be interpreted literally, I am providing scientific and historical evidence for the literal interpretation as was my original affirmation universally accepted (including yourself) until admins changed it 2hrs before the debate. I don't mind fending off weak hermeneutical attacks, but I am not going to play by misguided new rules because of scientific impotence to rebut my case.
Also the 18 arguments form a commulative case sotogether they establish evidence confirmimg the literal understanding of genesis 1-11. In science it is often considered ludirous to establish a theory witn a basis of only a single fact.
1. Yes they were historians and have an expertise in affirming if a report is historical. As far as James BArr's quote
"James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. "
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
"creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."
As far as Usshers scholarship look at what wikipedia says of his chronology/ "Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of scholarship: it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as expertise in the Bible, biblical languages, astronomy, ancient calendars and chronology. Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts—for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
2. The power required creating the universe pinpoints God as the most likely possible cause.
3. nonsense. an eye-witness is not question begging. God has millions of eye witness and is the likely 1st cause. he had eye witnesses in the Garden of Eden and therefore He was present to observe the creation days which he reported.
4.Oh, space expands? Into what? What is outside of space? You have atheistic presupposition that space expands into nothing. But as we can see from the results of spring theory expansion past the speed of light which according to the theory of relativity is impossible. But what if space is solid? The pressures at the ends of the universe are in fact are so concentrated that life would be impossible.
5. if light takes time then reflection takes more time, that is a fact not conjecture. But Einstein agrees to the conjecture. Einstein was well aware of this dilemma. He said, “It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.”
6."Is there enough water for a World Wide Flood? Yes there is. In the past few years using seismic tools. They have found that a mineral called ” wadsleyite” holds 2% water by weight. That may not sound like much until you realize how much wadsleyite exists in the upper mantle of the earth. Figures show that 2% would work out to be somewhere around 30 oceans worth added to the water that we already know exists. And this has been tested in more than one place by more than one scientist which makes the results observable and repeatable which is empirical evidence. Which means evolutionists can no longer deny the possibility that a flood of this magnitude could happen."http://www.yecheadquarters.org/?p=1627
"The hydrogen-isotope [deuterium/hydrogen (D/H)] ratio of Earth can be used to constrain the origin of its water. However, the most accessible reservoir, Earth’s oceans, may no longer represent the original (primordial) D/H ratio, owing to changes caused by water cycling between the surface and the interior. Thus, a reservoir completely isolated from surface processes is required to define Earth’s original D/H signature. Here we present data for Baffin Island and Icelandic lavas, which suggest that the deep mantle has a low D/H ratio (δD more negative than -218 per mil). Such strongly negative values indicate the existence of a component within Earth’s interior that inherited its D/H ratio directly from the protosolar nebula. (emphasis added)"
Hallis, L.J., et al., Evidence for primordial water in Earth’s deep mantle, Science 350(6262): 795-797, November 13, 2015.
https://biblescienceforum.com/.../earth-created-from-water/
Kola superdeep bore hole discovers water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
7.Boyle’s law, also called Mariotte’s law, a relation concerning the compression and expansion of a gas at constant temperature. This empirical relation, formulated by the physicist Robert Boyle in 1662, states that the pressure (p) of a given quantity of gas varies inversely with its volume (v) at constant temperature; i.e., in equation form, pv = k, a constant. The relationship was also discovered by the French physicist Edme Mariotte (1676).
8. the universe can't explain the moon while God can.
9. The reurrection was a miracle and does not debunk a science law. just like the ascension does npt debunk gravity.
10. Darwin is the alternative an it does not work. Evolutionist a minimum need to go to the back of the academic line.
11. They would need a source of carbon dioxide to begin with.
12. I have reiterated this point already.
13. The whales do not look like those mammals, there hip bones are not vestigal because they help mating. To make up a fact without historical record must have a high demand to be proven. Don't complain because evolution does not meet these demands. Evolution is based upon random acts, not determined acts.
14.http://www.icr.org/.../mathematical-impossibility-evolution/
15.http://creationwiki.orgHuman_population_growth_indicates_..._(Talk.Origins)
16.2 locations of all the earth is insignificant especially when they do not match the original 100mile deep model.
"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.
17. the are scientist who believe mars was a global flood.
18.http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in...
"In the ship classification rules, a ship should satisfy two kinds of stability criteria: GM for small heel angle, and dynamic stability. We applied the ABS (American Bureau of Shipping)’s rule to all 13 hull forms. The results showed that all hull forms except hull #1 sufficiently satisfied all the requirements. It should be especially noted that the Ark was 13 times more stable than the standard for safety required by the ABS rule."
http://www.icr.org/article/8039/ this was abreviated for space.added
14. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible! http://www.icr.org/.../mathematical-impossibility-evolution/
19. pre Cambrian layer
"It took a global flood to tap that capacity, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper propose. They base their proposal on a study published last year by Shanan Peters of the University of Wisconsin and Robert Gaines of Pomona College. They offered evidence that the Cambrian Explosion was preceded by a rise in sea level that submerged vast swaths of land, eroding the drowned rocks.
“There’s a big kick that correlates with the sea level rise,” Dr. Smith said of the fossil record. He and Dr. Harper propose that this kick happened thanks to the new habitats created by the sea level rise. These shallow coastal habitats were bathed in sunlight and nourished with eroding nutrients like phosphates. Animals colonized these new fertile habitats, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper argue, and evolved to take up new ecological niches." Carl Zimmer quoting Paul Smith and David Harper http://www.nytimes.com/.../new-approach-to-explaining... 1. When determining the message of a passage, it would be wiser to look to a theologian over a historian. Ergo, while what Ussher and Josephus wrote may be useful, it wasn't to determine the message of the text. There are also many scholars who do not read Genesis 1-11 literally. John Walton, Scott McKnight, NT Wright, Pete Enns, Denis Lamoureaux, and many others do not read Genesis 1-11 literally.
2. Like I said before, I don't reject it, but it doesn't prove that Genesis 1-11 ought to be read literally.
3. But you're assuming that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be an eyewitness account in order to prove that Genesis 1-11 is an eyewitness account. Ergo, you are begging the question.
4. Again with poisoning the well. You hear something scientific that you don't like, so you just declare it as "atheistic" so that our audience will reject it before even looking into it.
5. The conjecture that I was referring to was when you said "unreflected light may be instantaneous." Also, simply quoting Einstein saying that there is a logical circle doesn't mean that he was referring to unreflected light being instantaneous.
6. This has nothing to do with what #6 was previously about.
7. Boyle's law does not imply that stars should not exist.
8. What kind of argument from incredulity is that?
9. Even if God is the only explanation that life exists, it doesn't follow that Genesis 1-11 must be interpreted literally.
10. This is barely a coherent claim.
11. Of course there needs to be carbon in order to carbon date things. How does this prove a literal reading of Genesis 1-11?
12. No, you haven't demonstrated that God existing necessitates a young universe.
13. Even if evolution doesn't happen, that doesn't prove that Genesis 1-11 must be read literally.
14. Even if evolution is false, that doesn't prove that Genesis 1-11 must be read literally.
15. I can't access the article. Since your entire argument for #15 depends on that article, I have nothing to say.
16. The claim that fossils date strata and strata date fossils ignores how geologists actually date strata. They date strata by dating the rock that makes up the strata, not the fossils themselves.
17. The only scientists who believe there was a global flood on Mars are those who need there to have been a global flood so that their interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is maintained.
18. That article is not peer-reviewed.
Nothing Matt said here proves that Genesis 1-11 must be interpreted literally. Thanks for the debate Matt, but make sure you actually defend your thesis next time.
Denial: Brady Hornstra
Before I start my opening statement, I want to thank Matt Singleton for being willing to debate me on this topic. I reject the claim that there is convincing scientific and historical evidence that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is a factual record of historical events.
The first thing I want to say is that my opponent is most likely selective with how he interprets Genesis 1-11 literally. Genesis 1:6 describes a solid dome that is placed over the earth. My opponent most likely does not believe that there is a solid dome over the earth. If one would read Genesis 1-11 literally, then they would conclude that Genesis 1:16 says that the moon produces its own light. Also, Genesis 2:4 says that God created the earth in one day, not six days. Also, Genesis 2:5 says that no bushes are anywhere, but Genesis 1:12 says that all sorts of vegetation had sprouted forth. Genesis 2:17 says that on the very day that Adam and Eve eat of the fruit, they will die. However, neither Adam nor Eve died on the day that they ate of the fruit. Also, Cain in Genesis 4:14 says that if anyone finds him, he is afraid that they will kill him. God doesn’t tell Cain that only he and his parents are the only other people on the planet, rather God tells Cain He will have vengeance on anyone who kills Cain. Why would God tell him this if Cain and his parents are the only people on the planet? These are some of the main issues that result from interpreting all of Genesis 1-11 completely literally.
The next thing that I want to say is that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 has never been popular within Christianity until within the past 100 years. Origen wrote, “Again, who would think that one was a partaker of good and evil by munching on what was taken from the other tree? And as far as God walking in the paradise in the evening, and Adam hiding himself under a tree, I do not think that anyone doubts that these things are to be taken figuratively, and that they indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.” Augustine wrote, “Some works belonged to the invisible days in which he created all things simultaneously, and others belong to the days in which he daily fashions whatever evolves in the course of time from what I call the primordial wrappers.” Justin Martyr, Cyprian of Carthage, and Irenaeus all argued that the days of Genesis 1 are periods of 1000 years. Thomas Burnet wrote in Sacred Theory of the Earth that most commentators of his time held to the chaos-restitution theory of Genesis 1. Dr. Joshua Moritz notes that the earliest geologists were Christian. Since those geologists believed in a finite history of the earth, that allowed them to have freedom to study the age of the earth. According to Rodney Stiling, “the view of the Flood as partial or limited had emerged as dominant among most English-speaking Christians, including evangelicals” by the mid-1800s. BB Warfield, the theologian who came up with the concept of biblical inerrancy, had no problem with affirming evolution. Young-earth creationism became popular within Christianity only as a result of Henry Morris’s book The Genesis Flood. Morris got his view of creation from that of Seventh Day Adventists. Given the historical aversion to accept Genesis 1-11 as strictly historical, we should be slow to be arrogant and assert that young-earth creationism is the best interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
There are also a handful of philosophical problems that result from young-earth creationist rebuttals to evidence for an old earth. The first problem is that it doesn’t treat God as a God of order. When people point out that it would have taken light from distant stars several billion years to arrive here on earth, they might respond by saying that the speed of light has changed since the beginning of creation. In order for something that is currently 12.5 billion light years away to be only 6,000 years old, the speed of light would had to have been over two million times faster 6,000 years ago. Either it slowed down exponentially or by year. If exponentially, the speed of light would have been over 15,000 times faster just less than 50 years ago. If by year, then the speed of light would lose almost 100 billion m/s each year. If that is the case, then next year, the speed of light would be negative next year. When young-earth creationists make the claim that the speed of light had slowed down from 6,000 years ago, not only is this very ad hoc, but the amount of slowing down required is not possible without a bona fide miracle. This implies that God constantly needs to tinker with His creation in order to get it the way that he wants. This is certainly not the impression of God that we get from Scripture who is described as being the completely sovereign and almighty creator of the universe.
Nothing about young-earth creationism holds up to scrutiny. The hermeneutic required is inconsistent, the history of interpretation of Genesis 1-11 must be ignored, the logical conclusions of their scientific claims are impossible, and God is portrayed as a God who must tinker with His own creation to keep it going.
matt's rebuttal:in response: Brady I appreciate your cordiality.
"my opponent is most likely selective with how he interprets Genesis 1-11 literally. Genesis 1:6 describes a solid dome that is placed over the earth. My opponent most likely does not believe that there is a solid dome over the earth."
I work hard not to be so. Now when we talk about "Dome" their is a popular meme put out by liberals and flat earthers of a solid glass dome over a flat earth, if that is the case then no.
But I do teach and ice canopy around the globe that faded away after the flood. It could be called a dome.
Being Created by God in the 1st week I am sure God got the math right.
I believe it was upheld my many factors. I am thinking about 15-20 percent of the earths water. (this amount of water lowered the earths weight and therefore it's gravity) The global spin would bring centipedal force to keep it up. The bottum layer would decorated with hydrogen which frozen would take on metallic qualities and also be lifted by the earth's increased electromagnetic field. The higher laters were salty water and ice, melting and freezing according to the solar positioning in the day cycle.
For a longer presentation I suggest my youtube video explaining my view. https://youtu.be/JtcjJgNeguA
The best written defense I have seen of the canopy is by Troy Lawrence. We disagree on some issues but his presentation and His math is brilliant. Origins:The origin of matter space time and life" https://www.createspace.com/5369786
"Genesis 1:16 says that the moon produces its own light."
The moon produces light. But it is reflected light. reflected light is a lesser light than the direct light. I don't see where the text is saying that the moon has to generate light internally.
"Also, Genesis 2:4 says that God created the earth in one day, not six days"
Generations in Hebrew is "toledoth" This a record usually placed in tombs as a stone tablet. Moses edited these records under inspiration.
"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," One issue you will nottice in the masoretic text is that 2:4 also says heavens instead of Genesis 1:1 Heaven. The heavens were split when God separated the waters from the waters."
So it was after that and I would argue that it was the sabbath, because the was the day God was finished creating and the people were ready observe events.
"Also, Genesis 2:5 says that no bushes are anywhere, but Genesis "
Nope, you ignored "before it was in the earth" He is going back in the story to explain something. That would be "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." he is explaining the mist that was watering the earth and Eden.
"Genesis 2:17 says that on the very day that Adam and Eve eat of the fruit, they will die. However, neither Adam nor Eve died on the day that they ate of the fruit"
They Died spiritual, because they sinned against God. Our life is spiritual when our spirit died we died.
Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
"God doesn’t tell Cain that only he and his parents are the only other people on the planet, rather God tells Cain He will have vengeance on anyone who kills Cain. Why would God tell him this if Cain and his parents are the only people on the planet?"
In Gen. 1:28, the first commandment to Adam and Eve was to multiply. If Eve only had 2 kids would that would amount to adding. Some Scholars estimate that in 900 years Eve would probably produce 50 children. But many ancient societies started procreating as teenagers. So it is most likely that there several children by this time.
"The next thing that I want to say is that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 has never been popular within Christianity until within the past 100 years. " you are establishing your case on cherry picked theologians as opposed to poulations.
The fact is that Luther and Calvin were young earth Bible scholars centuries before your timeline. Augustine took gen. 1 symbolically but still held to a young earth understanding of history.
The early church had to struggle with the pagan philosophy of platonism. this philosophy was a double edged sword helping pagans to understand monotheism and some christian similarities but distorting many scriptures Origin was infamous for many of these teachings. That salvation was universal for even the devil and that jesus and the holy spirit were as far from the father as they are from us. reincarnation etc.
The "periods of a thousand years" is likely from the epistle of barnabus which was claiming the 7 days as an eschatology like many dispensationalist today. But that would be an implication and not necessarily a denial of gen 1. literally interpreted in the meaning. many of the famous bishops of the time would have conservative evangelical looking commentaries even thou they would propose more catholic symbolic theologies.
If the limited flood emerged in the 1800's it is obviously motivated by the popular evolution theory.
flood geology was the first view of geology in science and there were proponents around until the early twentieth century. Henry Morris started a revival of this view, he did not invent the concept. By the way, Henry Morris co-operated with 7th day adventist scientists, but he was by no means was he a 7th day adventist. His publishing group was titled "Presbyterian & Reformed" He was a dispensationalist which differs greatly from 7th day adventist. So his crime is accepting the scientific credentials of seventh day adventists. if this is your view then what do you make of D.A. Carsen? He is a brain Surgeon who was awarded 65 honarary doctorates. Should we descriminate against he abilities because of bad theology?
A good book on creation history is here
https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B007RFG27G...
In response to your problem with light speed.
The basic problem here which I agree that some young earthers are confused about, is the idea Light was already present throughout the universe before the stars were created it did not start in stars. God created the light which was plasma had it already instantaneously spread across the universe and God made the stars from this plasmatic light on day 4.
for more explanation here is a video.
https://youtu.be/2yOqDRGrmmA
The God of YEC is sovereign and all powerful. The OEC and TE universe is based on a foundation of chaos with no purpose everything has to be an accident with no order.
brady's response: //Now when we talk about "Dome" their is a popular meme put out by liberals and flat earthers of a solid glass dome over a flat earth, if that is the case then no.//
Matt doesn't say anything about why it cannot be that there is a solid dome over the earth. He only uses a fallacy known as poisoning the well to dissuade anyone from thinking that the text says that there is a solid dome over the earth.
//The moon produces light. But it is reflected light.//
The moon cannot produce light if it reflects light. It also cannot reflect light if it produces light. Which one does the moon do?
//So it was after that and I would argue that it was the sabbath, because the was the day God was finished creating and the people were ready observe events.//
I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. Genesis 1 says that God created the world in six days, but Genesis 2:4 says that it was only one day. It has nothing to do with the generations.
//Nope, you ignored "before it was in the earth" He is going back in the story to explain something.//
But Genesis 2:7-8 says that man was created before plants were created, which is not the order of events presented in Genesis 1.
//They Died spiritual, because they sinned against God. Our life is spiritual when our spirit died we died.//
But that isn't the literal reading of the text. So thanks for admitting that you don't actually read all of Genesis 1-11 literally.
//Augustine took gen. 1 symbolically but still held to a young earth understanding of history.//
My point is that Augustine did not read Genesis 1-11 literally. It doesn't matter how old he thought the earth was.
//The "periods of a thousand years" is likely from the epistle of barnabus which was claiming the 7 days as an eschatology like many dispensationalist today.//
Again with the poisoning the well and unsupported conjectures.
//If the limited flood emerged in the 1800's it is obviously motivated by the popular evolution theory.//
Notice how I said that that interpretation was popular by the mid-1800s? Considering the theory of evolution was developed in the mid-1800's, it is historically false that the limited flood view was influenced by the theory of evolution. Not to mention that you are poisoning the well again.
//flood geology was the first view of geology in science and there were proponents around until the early twentieth century//
Even if there were proponents of this view from the very beginning, a majority of Christian geologists held to the uniformitarianism view of geology.
//His publishing group was titled "Presbyterian & Reformed" He was a dispensationalist which differs greatly from 7th day adventist. So his crime is accepting the scientific credentials of seventh day adventists.//
No, his science was based on theology of a very fringe group of Christianity whose prophetess claimed to have visions of God bringing her back to the flood and creation week.
//God created the light which was plasma had it already instantaneously spread across the universe and God made the stars from this plasmatic light on day 4.//
Which would make the stars and universe seem older than what it actually is, thus making God dishonest.
//The OEC and TE universe is based on a foundation of chaos with no purpose everything has to be an accident with no order.//
This cannot be further from the truth. OECs and TEs still affirm that God created everything in the universe that we see. Thus, we would deny the claim that the universe is purposeless and is an accident.My response:
the reason the canopy is not a dome that exists today is because the windows of heaven were opened in gen. 8. when jedus ascended to heaven there was no dome. The Old Testament uses "functional language" so modern scientific language for recording was not spelled out, though statements are true scientifically. so the "lesser light" of the moon could be understood as reflective light functionally. In context gen.2:4 dies involve generations. there is no ancient manuscript separating gen.1 from2. and remember the bible was not iriginally written with chaoter and vs divisions. gen. 2:7-8 is referring to the plants in the garden of eden, not on earth. i believe i spoke more previously. gen 2:7 the breath put in man is his spirit. I recollect "ruach" represents breath/wind, blood,spirit. i don't deny that there are figures of speech throughout scripture. Only they muat ashere to the context. Augustines "well" was poisoned before his conversion as a professional heathen platonic philosopher. Evolution preced darwin by his grandfather erasmus and also Lamarck and his school. you have not identified "christian" in your uniformitarian claim, just as most deists were also called christian. The uniformitarians were primitive as they were unaware of water in the russian superdeep bore hole. or the wadseylite and ringwoodite layers containing oceans of water. thus ruining the vulcanist foundation of unuformitarianism. we should pay more attention to scripture when second peter 3 claims only 8 people survived the flood. Before Morris came on the seen ythe british "evolution protest movement" was publicly known in the 1930's and continues to this day. in the 1800's john clark maxwell the founder of electro magnetism was a young earth evangelical. baptist missionary William Carey founded a christians school in india teaching young earth creationism. of course in the early 1800's we see the cult of jehovah's witnesses. there watchtower believes in an old earth so should we paint old earthers with the same brush? God never told us the size of the universe, the light is not a problem with the modern estimation but pop science has not proven the size of the universe and therefore, God is not decieving anyone because interpretations are not necessarily observations. If God orchestrated the evolutionary cosmos then he created catastrophe evil destruction, murder and death with no accountability. sp for instance a fossil of a neaderthal has cancer. God created cancer in that soul with no justifiable cause. Thus evil is part of God's "good" creation. The God of creation made the world "very good" and it was mans actions that brought catastrophe and death. We are not revealed nature in rational propositions, instead we are revealed scripture as a light in the darkness.
CROSS EXAMINATIONS:
MATT EXAMINE'S BRADY Question #1 for brady hornstra:
As a theistic evolutionist it is common to assume that you have a big bang cosmology. As such you would recognize the origins of the theory.
"" Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre"
But George lemaitre did not actually invent the idea of the "cosmic egg"
"Rigveda (10.121) also mentions the Hiranyagarbha (literally, golden embryo/womb/egg) that existed before the creation. This metaphor has been interpreted differently by the various later texts. The Samkhya texts state that Purusha and the Prakriti made the embryo, from which the world emerged. In another tradition, the creator god Brahma emerged from the egg and created the world, while in yet another tradition the Brahma himself is the Hiranyagarbha.[19]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution"
In fact the hindu myhtology is extremely similar to the big bang theory.
"" Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[9] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."[10] Hindu creationism is a form of old earth creationism. According to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the earth.[11][12]"
Now If the big bang is true then the hindus had a more clear revelation of it than the scriptures.
SO how could the apostle Paul warn people about false teachers turning to Fables (2Timothy 4:3) when apparently the fables would be revealing more truth than the scriptures?
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître Associate RAS[1] (French: [ʒɔʁʒᵊ ləmɛ:tʁᵊ] ( listen); 17 July 1894…
en.wikipedia.org
Moderator:
Nate WernerGroup Admin Matt, this is TOO long. Please refrain from monologuing.
RemoveMatt: Now If the big bang is true then the hindus had a more clear revelation of it than the scriptures.
SO how could the apostle Paul warn people about false teachers turning to Fables (2Timothy 4:3) when apparently the fables would be revealing more truth than the scriptures?
Brady Hornstra First, your question seems to suggest that scientific accuracy of the Bible is more important than theological accuracy. Second, 2 Timothy 4:3 says that people will leave sound doctrine for teachings that they want to hear. Considering the Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory and not a doctrine, it does not relate in the slightest to the verse you provided.
Matt SIngleton Genesis
9:4 teaches the life is in the blood. From here we see the development
of the blood used in the doctrine of blood atonement. If this is not
literally the case, then why is blood atonement necessary?
Manage
Brady Hornstra This
question suggests that if something isn't literal, then there aren't
even theological truths behind it, which is totally false. Even though I
reject Genesis 1-11 as a literal history, I affirm it as theologically
true.
Remove
Matt SIngleton Brady Hornstra then answer the question as to why it is theologically true.
Manage
Matt SIngleton "
If this is not literally the case, then why is blood atonement
necessary?" If you can't answer my question, then I can ask the next
question.
Matt SIngleton question
3: A key component of evolution is random processes. If God is in
charge of the universe, and the universe operates randomly then it is
often assumed that God operating would not upon nature, instead his
operations would be nature itself. This lead the father of theistic
evolution Pierre Teilhard De Chardon to accept pantheism. Do you
disagree or agree with his conclusions? Explain why.
Manage
Nate WernerGroup Admin That question is not fair game. This debate is not about pantheism.
Remove
Matt SIngleton Nate Werner False false false! he is representing theistic evolution. it is about theistic evolution.
Manage
Nate WernerGroup Admin Matt SIngleton, who is moderating this debate?
Remove
Nate WernerGroup Admin Then ask questions that are on topic. This is your only warning.
Matt SIngleton question
4: Does general revelation (in reason and nature) give you answers
superior to those of special revelation from scripture?
Brady Hornstra No, but if general revelation never makes us wonder if our interpretations are correct, we are doing something wrong.
Remove
Matt SIngleton Question
5: Neanderthal fossils have been found with a diagnosis of cancer. Many
many thousands of years before any Garden of Eden. theologically this
implies that God caused design problem(cancer) to kill humanoids before
there was a choice over Sin and thus make God the author of Evil. How do
you theologically reconcile this?
ManageSecondly, God describes His creation as "good," but we assume without even realizing it that He means that creation was perfect. Many scholars have suggested that "good" has a closer meaning to "functions well" rather than "is perfect." Plus, non-YECs tend to believe that Satan fell before creation week, thus meaning that evil existed before humans did.
BRADY EXAMINES MATT
Brady Hornstra 1. What would convince you that Genesis 1-11 does not need to be interpreted literally?
Remove
Matt SIngleton The
Scripture teaching that Genesis 1 is not meant to be taken according to
it's context or specifically saying what it is referring to "thou word
really means evolution" etc.
Manage
Brady Hornstra 2. Were the ancient Hebrews more concerned with correct science or correct worldview?
Remove
Matt SIngleton The
ancient Hebrews did not author the Scriptures, God did. The ancient
people were concerned with unity. The same language, the same
philosophy, government, art culture etc.
Science was not divorced from world view because they must all form a unified truth. They were not like the pagan gnostics who divide spirit and material. The reason the gnostics and platonist made this divide is because mythology was defeated and so the philosophers had a separate truth of logic. But logic needed history and so the philosophers submitted to judaism and Christianity. Which had the revealed word of God in the scriptures. hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. "
ManageScience was not divorced from world view because they must all form a unified truth. They were not like the pagan gnostics who divide spirit and material. The reason the gnostics and platonist made this divide is because mythology was defeated and so the philosophers had a separate truth of logic. But logic needed history and so the philosophers submitted to judaism and Christianity. Which had the revealed word of God in the scriptures. hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. "
Matt SIngleton Brady Hornstra they would be concerned with both and did not expect God to be divided about the truth.
Brady Hornstra I asked which they were *more* concerned with
Remove
Matt SIngleton Brady Hornstra you set the principle of claiming questions were malformed. you are putting a false dicotomy. I explained the answer.
Let's move onto the next question.
Let's move onto the next question.
Brady Hornstra 3.
If the world was proven to be billions of years old and evolution was
proven to be true, what impact would that have on your faith?
Remove
Matt SIngleton Brady Hornstra
I had accepted the principles of theistic evolution as a pre-teen
through teenager. So I believe I would continue my philosophy of that
time.
God was Darker, all evil was ultimately due to his will. I still feared God. But I did not bel...See More
ManageGod was Darker, all evil was ultimately due to his will. I still feared God. But I did not bel...See More
Brady Hornstra 4. What do you consider to be the biggest piece of evidence against YEC?
Remove
Matt SIngleton If
we are talking about YEC as a movement, the starlight problem is
historically been used the most. There are many answers now and I am
convinced that my cosmology hypothesis exhausted this topic.https://www.facebook.com/pg/Biblicalhistoricalscience/about/?ref=page_internal {look at articles and/or videos linked in long description.
As far as the bible there were some good arguments from the gap theory.
the problem for mainstream creationists is that they hold to galacto-centrism which it would take 225million years for the sun to rotate aound the milky way.
As far as the bible there were some good arguments from the gap theory.
the problem for mainstream creationists is that they hold to galacto-centrism which it would take 225million years for the sun to rotate aound the milky way.
Brady Hornstra I guess your YEC
LikeShow more reactions
Matt SIngleton The age of tree's and the challenge of an LXX chronology.
LikeShow more reactions
Brady Hornstra 5.
Do you think there is any validity to the claim that Genesis 1-11 was
primarily a criticism of ancient Near Eastern paganism, and not
primarily a historical chronology?
Matt SIngleton Moses
edition of Genesis was probably arranged in opposition to the pagan
culture. But history is the primary concern of the toledoth stones
which moses had used. more importantly Christ's genealogy in luke is
tied to the genesis genology along with king
David in Chronicles. If the genealogy is not accurate then the
Supremacy of not only David but Christ himself is up for debate. If the
Sovereignty of Christ is in Question then so is the Sovereignty of God.
If Jesus is the truth, his origins must be true. So God is concerned
with providing the truth in scripture. Because if the pagans were right
about History then we are rebelling against their truth and we have no
right to criticize them.
2 comments:
on the distant starlight, with SPIRAL CR hypothesis we know the strongest science not only aligns w/ the scriptural narrative and it's YeC timeline, but attests to it.
as explained and referenced in:
'Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe'
Kindle: www.amazon.com/dp/B075RS4GM7
SPIRAL vs SCM info-graphic: www.researchgate.net/publication/317415683
Could you give me a thesis a statement for your interpretation?
Post a Comment