Message to all Creationists

Hi Willie. Welcome to EvC.1. What you're advocating is to silently concede that the Genesis record is a myth and that creator Jehovah designed nothing.2. I and many other creationists are not YEC and not evolutionists as well.3. I apply science to the Genesis record when I think I have a viable argument. There areas in the record where science may be applied to the ID creationist position.4. I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Jude 3: ".....you should earnestly contend (argue/debate) for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." ASV5. The reason things are as they are and creationists make fools of themselves is that ID creationists have abrogated the research and education to secularists. Why, for example, did it take creationists so long to research the Biblical Exodus and the Biblical Mt. Sinai? Why is there so little coverage of the wonderful fulfilled prophecies in creationist churches?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. If the methodology is different than the reading of the record, it makes God out a liar, impostor and deceiver.2. If God had no hands on role in the design of what is observed, it immensely diminishes the glory due to God which is being attributed to natural and random operatives.3. It works to make God in the minds of his intelligent creatures nothing but a bystander relative to creation.4. Imo the Buzsaw IDist creationist ideology is more compatible to the LOT in that all energy existing has eternally existed in, by and through eternal God. As well it calls for eternal management/work relative to all existing energy.5. The message of Christ, the gospel stands or falls on the Genesis record. If it be myth, it calls the claims of Jesus to be the son of God and his references to the Genesis record into question. What applies to God (the 4 above points) all apply also to the credibility of his messianic son whom God sent to earth on his mission of salvation and eventual establishment of God's millennial kingdom on earth.6. If ID creationists had been more proactive in the origins debate likely they would be more knowledgeable as to how to support the IDist POV.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. When parables were told by Jesus he so designated.2. If the Genesis account is myth there would be no viable reason to trust the rest of the Biblical record, including the gospel message of salvation.3. But God did reveal to us many aspects of his version of creation in the Genesis record. He's already told us how things originated. If we choose to consider his words as myth that's our problem.4. Nobody's saying the creation is not impressive. The difference in you and me is that you think it became impressively designed by natural and random natural means. I believe it was designed intricately, wonderfully and complexly by the intelligence of a supreme designer, majesty of the universe.Imo, my version better satisfies the LOT relative to science and what is observed on other planets in the Solar System.5. You're implication that I'm arguing that your version doesn't require energy is a strawman. My point was that yours has no accounting for the alleged origin of the observed energy and mine does, energy being part and parcel of the eternal designer.6. I'm not as gullible as you. If Genesis were thought to be a myth, I'd have reason to assume the gospels were as well.7. Tell me briefly so as not to stray; if you are an intelligent designist, what intelligent role is implicated in abiogenesis, NS and RM?How would this serve to give you confidence that the gospels have any viability? Edited by Buzsaw, : wording correction

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

That's not how it works. When parable was used the text so indicated. For example:"Baalam took up his parable and said"... Numbers 23:7, 24:3
"Job continued his parable..." Job 27:1
".....my mouth in a parable I will utter..." Psalms 49:4
".....speak a parable to the house...." Ezekiel 17:2...."
".....one shall take up a parable...." Micah 2:4
".....the parable of the sower......" Matthew 13:18..."
".....the parable of the tares...." Matthew 13:36
".....learn a parable of the fig tree...." Mark 13:28There are more but that should suffice to make my point. This reasoning leads one to pick and choose what is parable and what is not. I suppose John 14:6 would be to you a parable since you likely are one who has a problem of the literacy of that one. Jesus's claim there is that he is the only way to God and eternal life and that no man comes to God but through him.An objective reading of the Genesis record is that it is history and certainly there is no indication in the text whatsoever that it is myth, metaphor or parable.Imo gullibility is associated with dogedly adhering to a weak argument. I've substantiated that your argument is weak and unfounded.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

If one is left to pick and choose according to one's personal whims, desires and ideology then it looses all authority and credibility. What author of a text book or history record would expect such application to one's work? Paul, an apostle of Jesus in the NT spoke of Adam as the first man in I Corinthians 15:22 and I Timothy 2:5.Jesus, upon several occasions implied the accuracy of the OT relative to prophecies concerning himself showing that he endorsed the OT wholeheartedly.Btw I fixed the "no" mistake. Thanks for citing it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

My position is not that the Biblical record is word perfect. Imo, there may be relatively insignificant errors due to the human element. My position is that unless the text so indicates, it is a correct historical record of origins and events.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Moose, yes, human works have been shown to have mistakes, but imo God would see to it that his message is generally accurate. The Biblical account begins with the origin of the heavens and the earth, commences to record (and prophecy) all of the major kingdoms of the earth all the way up to the end of this world and creation of new heavens and earth.Fulfilled prophecy and much of the verifiable archeological evidence lend a reasonable amount of support to the accuracy of the record. That is debatable, but that is my position and understanding of it. Imo, no significant falsification of it has yet been achieved.

1. Many professing Christians do pick and choose. We have these among us. They tend to be liberal and non-literalist. They're some of the ones I'm discussing about and debating with in this thread.Now you're creating this strawman which is not my position. I'm not saying there wouldn't be moral lessons if picking and choosing. My points have been relative to the historical record etc.Edited by Buzsaw, : change word

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Thanks, my friend, for picking two easy examples for me to address. 1. Prodigal Son Account:
Luke 15:ll "A certain man had two sons........"2.Good Samaritan Account:
Luke 10:30 "Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers...."v 31: "...And by chance a certain priest was going down.."v 32: "...And in like manner a "Levite" also......"v 33" "...But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed..."Thus we see certain men and real locations.Regarding the term certain relative to this matter:There are a number of other texts which use this word term nearly all, if not all, pertaining to certain alleged historical people and/or places. A few from the NT:
Luke 11:1 ".......as he (Jesus) was praying in a certain place...."
Mark 14:57 ".....And there stood up certain and bare false witness among them....."
Luke 11:27 "....a certain woman lifted up her voice and said unto him (Jesus)"......And he was with the desciples certain days in Damascus..."You will be hard pressed to find a text in the entire Bible which applies this word/term relating to parable, metaphor or myth.You're apply some stawmen regarding my position. My position/argument/point has not been that metaphor cannot be useful and good. My position is that the Genesis record and other texts which have no indication textually as being parable, metaphor or myth are meant to be certain places, people, things and events etc. In scripture they do have value in themselves to the contexts in which they exist.FYI: Buzzsaw = Buzsaw
Samaritin = Samaritan

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. I have to partly agree on your first statement. I say partly because I, as well as some others I know, make a concerted effort not to interpret when possible not to do so or when the text, context or corroborating scriptural text is reasonably clear. When the text, context or corroborating text is not clear one may opt either to offer an interpretation or simply admit that it it's meaning is not known to them.Where I agree is that many Christians, likely most, who are students and scholars of scripture do too much interpreting and too little, reading and keeping what is written. Revelation 1:3 promises a blessing on all who read, hear and keep what is written.2. I've already addressed the way to know whether text is metaphor or literal.3. True, every reader chooses how much to apply literally and metaphorically. Imo the more one chooses metaphor the less knowledgeable on will be regarding the book.This is true with any textbook, craft or history, etc. If the pilot of your next flight might be one who tends to be liberal in which fundamentals of piloting to implement you might not be as likely to reach your destination as you would with a literalist and fundamentalist pilot.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You appear to be about out of gas on this, GDR, but it's been an interesting and hopefully enlightening exchange of points for both of us and others to ponder.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Obvious, obviously, we're at an impasse here on this matter which is just one factor relative to the topic. Imo, it's best threadwise not to belabor it further unless someone has something significant to contribute, not already addressed.I've thoroughly explained my POV on it. It appears that you folks have as well. All will need to determine who is making sense here and who is not regarding the points aired in this exchange of views.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.