Anti-Creation = Anti-Christian = Anti-Semetism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
1. Anti-Creation
2. Anti-Christian
3. Anti-Semitism .... I think all three are authored by Satan .... Do you ?

I think Anti-Creation is the deadliest because it seems so harmless ... it is presented under the clever disguise of science.

It is one thing to poo-poo the Genesis story .... but if we shred it we must also shred everything Jesus and the apostles taught ... everything they said hinges on Genesis being true.

Remove the Genesis record of Creation and there is nothing left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ

Rocky Wiley

Active Member
Aug 28, 2012
929
156
43
83
Southeast USA
Arnie Manitoba said:
Remove the Genesis record of Creation and there is nothing left.
There is good reason to believe that Genesis is about the covenant God made with man. Just as heaven and earth in Revelation speaks of the covenant, so does Genesis.

The scripture very definitely states that all things were created by God but to state that the earth and everything else was created a little over 6000 years ago, brings everything in conflict with science and God is not the author of confusion.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
my whole life is committed to Christ and i do not believe the Genesis account is a literal account of creation - does that exclude me from the Body of Christ? The creation account is my favorite story in the OT - i've spent days talking about it on this board (I do not rememer mentioning Jacob or joseph or even David more than once or twice), but i do not believe the creation account resembles a scientific account - does that mean i have more in common with antiChristians than the Body of Christ? I am not willing to call a piece of ancient, inspired literature, science - why should I deny evidence that is not accounted for in the story? Does Jesus really need my literal minded support for this story? NO He does nt - Jesus was not even willing to call picking grain on the Sabbath, work when the establishment demanded Him to do so. I suggest we stop fashioning the creation account into a millstone.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
The bible carefully plots out the genealogy from Jesus back to Adam and tells how many years each person lived.

It comes out to about 4004 BC , which is about 6015 years ago.

So 6000 years is not something that idiot Christians have dreamed up .

You might try to get away with allegorize parts of Genesis ..... but you will run into a brick wall if you try to water down the accurate genealogy contained in the Old Testament..

Here is just the portion from Adam to Noah:

....................................

Genesis 5 (New International Version)

This is the written account of Adam’s family line.

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.

18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 After he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived a total of 969 years, and then he died.

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.

32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
not need to allogorize a revelation from God. Which makes me wonder why people do not try to apply science to the Book of Revelation? Perhaps we should demand that the Book of Revelation be taught science classrooms, along with history classrooms......
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Arnie,

Are you aware that there are three different versions of the Genesis genealogies (Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint), and that they don't agree with each other?
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
River Jordan said:
Arnie,

Are you aware that there are three different versions of the Genesis genealogies (Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint), and that they don't agree with each other?
Do any of them add up to 43 million years ?
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Of course not, but the point is....if you take any of them as 100% complete, literal timelines for the history of humanity, then the others are necessarily wrong.
 

Harry3142

New Member
Apr 9, 2013
44
6
0
Whenever I have seen a denomination insist that we must accept the creation stories (there are 2 seperate stories) of Genesis as a literal event, I remember 2 ministers whom I met in the 1960's. One insisted that I must accept the creation stories as literal, accept The Great Flood as literal, and accept The Tower of Babel as literal. It culminated with his insisting that I must accept the curse of Ham (Genesis 9:24-27) as literal, and also accept that it now applies to all who are of African descent. As a result I was to accept that the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization doing God's work. Needless to say, we parted company quickly.

The other minister who insisted that I must accept the creation stories as a literal event also insisted that I accept the founding of the Christian church as taking place not at Pentecost, but on Mt. Sinai with Moses. I was also to accept that we were still bound by the laws of Torah as interpreted by their hierarchy. This included my worshiping on Saturday rather than Sunday, as well as obeying not only the law against working on that day, but also all of the other laws which they had added to that 'no work' law in order to make it 'more holy'. We also departed company quickly.

So you will forgive me if I immediately become very suspicious of the true motives of anyone who insists that in order to be a Christian I need to turn off my intellect and instead accept blindly whatever they tell me. In my 68 years I've seen that ploy used enough times in the 'real world' to believe that it's anything other than an attempt to intimidate the people they've targeted by using Scripture itself as a smokescreen to hide their own agenda, namely, lust for power.
 

Quantrill

New Member
Nov 29, 2013
235
18
0
Texas
Harry3142 said:
Whenever I have seen a denomination insist that we must accept the creation stories (there are 2 seperate stories) of Genesis as a literal event, I remember 2 ministers whom I met in the 1960's. One insisted that I must accept the creation stories as literal, accept The Great Flood as literal, and accept The Tower of Babel as literal. It culminated with his insisting that I must accept the curse of Ham (Genesis 9:24-27) as literal, and also accept that it now applies to all who are of African descent. As a result I was to accept that the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization doing God's work. Needless to say, we parted company quickly.

The other minister who insisted that I must accept the creation stories as a literal event also insisted that I accept the founding of the Christian church as taking place not at Pentecost, but on Mt. Sinai with Moses. I was also to accept that we were still bound by the laws of Torah as interpreted by their hierarchy. This included my worshiping on Saturday rather than Sunday, as well as obeying not only the law against working on that day, but also all of the other laws which they had added to that 'no work' law in order to make it 'more holy'. We also departed company quickly.

So you will forgive me if I immediately become very suspicious of the true motives of anyone who insists that in order to be a Christian I need to turn off my intellect and instead accept blindly whatever they tell me. In my 68 years I've seen that ploy used enough times in the 'real world' to believe that it's anything other than an attempt to intimidate the people they've targeted by using Scripture itself as a smokescreen to hide their own agenda, namely, lust for power.
You're real cute. You want to identify 'literalists' with the 'ku klux klan' which is hated by most. Its the same boring tactic of trying to identify Hitler with anothers position. Surely you can come up with something more original? Maybe not. Rather, I doubt you could.

So, now that 'you're' somoke scree has been penetrated, what is your motive?

Quantrill
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
Quantrill said:
I know this isn't my business...sorry Harry 3142 if I misspeak on what you were saying....


You're real cute. You want to identify 'literalists' with the 'ku klux klan' which is hated by most. Its the same boring tactic of trying to identify Hitler with anothers position. Surely you can come up with something more original? Maybe not. Rather, I doubt you could.

I don't think that's what he was trying to do. As far as I can tell he was explaining his personal experience and how that influenced his opinion. Don't automatically assume the worst.


So, now that 'you're' somoke scree has been penetrated, what is your motive?

Why must you assume he has " a motive" for what he is saying? Isn't it possible that he was actually saying what he meant? That he was giving his actual viewpoint, not lying?
 

Quantrill

New Member
Nov 29, 2013
235
18
0
Texas
snr5557 said:
I know this isn't my business...sorry Harry 3142 if I misspeak on what you were saying....


You're real cute. You want to identify 'literalists' with the 'ku klux klan' which is hated by most. Its the same boring tactic of trying to identify Hitler with anothers position. Surely you can come up with something more original? Maybe not. Rather, I doubt you could.

I don't think that's what he was trying to do. As far as I can tell he was explaining his personal experience and how that influenced his opinion. Don't automatically assume the worst.


So, now that 'you're' somoke scree has been penetrated, what is your motive?

Why must you assume he has " a motive" for what he is saying? Isn't it possible that he was actually saying what he meant? That he was giving his actual viewpoint, not lying?
Please don't instruct me on how to reply to another. Feel free to reply as you wish, and then carry on your discussion. You are quite the hypocrit to tell me not to assume something when you have in reality 'assumed' an opposite position.

No need to assume, when you let the poster answer for himself.

Quantrill
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
River Jordan said:
Of course not, but the point is....if you take any of them as 100% complete, literal timelines for the history of humanity, then the others are necessarily wrong.
Fair enough .... but if you rely 100% on the literal scientist timelines that man evolved over 43 million years you could be wrong too

You appear to question the bible timeline but readily accept your own timeline .

Something not adding up here River



.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Arnie Manitoba said:
Fair enough .... but if you rely 100% on the literal scientist timelines that man evolved over 43 million years you could be wrong too

You appear to question the bible timeline but readily accept your own timeline .

Something not adding up here River
Well, if you can show me any scientist making that sort of demand, you'll have a point. If you can't, then you're once again guilty of arguing via straw man.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
River Jordan said:
Well, if you can show me any scientist making that sort of demand, you'll have a point. If you can't, then you're once again guilty of arguing via straw man.
Darwin proposed that evolution happened over hundreds of thousands of years ... later that timeline was changed to millions of years .... and later was changed to millions and millions of years .... and of course lately it is billions and billions of years

I take that as a scientific observation that the evolutionist has some confusion assessing timelines ... which of course makes me question his authority to say we are older than 6000 years.

6000 is actually a long time .... and historically it was always seen as a long time .... do you know why it seems so short now ?? ... because side by side with billions of years it makes it look very small by comparison.

Actuarial studies show that starting with just 8 people at the time of Noah , the current world population should be 5-7 million people which is what the worlds population is now.

If mankind has been around for millions and millions of years the population of the world would be trillions and trillions ... which obviously is not the case..
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Arnie Manitoba said:
Darwin proposed that evolution happened over hundreds of thousands of years ... later that timeline was changed to millions of years .... and later was changed to millions and millions of years .... and of course lately it is billions and billions of years

I take that as a scientific observation that the evolutionist has some confusion assessing timelines ... which of course makes me question his authority to say we are older than 6000 years.

6000 is actually a long time .... and historically it was always seen as a long time .... do you know why it seems so short now ?? ... because side by side with billions of years it makes it look very small by comparison.

Actuarial studies show that starting with just 8 people at the time of Noah , the current world population should be 5-7 million people which is what the worlds population is now.

If mankind has been around for millions and millions of years the population of the world would be trillions and trillions ... which obviously is not the case..
Arnie, once again you've been misled. That the earth was at least millions of years old pre-dated Darwin's Origin of Species. For example, Buffon in the late 1700's estimated that the earth was billions of years old. By the early 1800's, estimates were between hundreds of millions of years to billions of years.

Whoever told you otherwise isn't a reliable source.
 

horsecamp

New Member
Feb 1, 2008
765
23
0
aspen said:
my whole life is committed to Christ and i do not believe the Genesis account is a literal account of creation - does that exclude me from the Body of Christ? The creation account is my favorite story in the OT - i've spent days talking about it on this board (I do not rememer mentioning Jacob or joseph or even David more than once or twice), but i do not believe the creation account resembles a scientific account - does that mean i have more in common with antiChristians than the Body of Christ? I am not willing to call a piece of ancient, inspired literature, science - why should I deny evidence that is not accounted for in the story? Does Jesus really need my literal minded support for this story? NO He does nt - Jesus was not even willing to call picking grain on the Sabbath, work when the establishment demanded Him to do so. I suggest we stop fashioning the creation account into a millstone.
River Jordan said:
Arnie, once again you've been misled. That the earth was at least millions of years old pre-dated Darwin's Origin of Species. For example, Buffon in the late 1700's estimated that the earth was billions of years old. By the early 1800's, estimates were between hundreds of millions of years to billions of years.

Whoever told you otherwise isn't a reliable source.
river Jordan isn't God more of a reliable source than people ...?God said Adam lived how long?

now if the days were millions of years and Adam was created on the 6th day and lived at least through day 7 then you got a real problem..

ESPECIALY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT EVEYTHING JESUS HIMSELF SAYS ABOUT ADAM ..

AND if your going to trust men some what ..why in the world would you trust Buffin ALSO KNOWN IN LUTHERAN CIRCLES AS BUFFIN THE MEADOW MUFFIN .... :D

instead of Martin Luther a devout bible believer and creationist.

if you like him so much

why don't you call your self Buffin the meadow muffin youth minister :D
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
Somewhat off topic .... but there is one example where we can truly use the word billions

And that is the number of Christians who have been save just since the time of Jesus only 2000 years ago.

A lot can happen in a short time.