Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

1) Are you saying that the Hebrew 'bara' means newly created (i.e. it did not exist before, at all)?
2) Are you saying that if we find an exception in the geological column (i.e. a creature out of order with regards to the Genesis 1 account) that you will recant? Is this how we can falsify your views?

PS, 1-0 to Stu for quoting an abundance of Scripture references.

 The Monkey Trials - Day 1 Cross-Examination of a Friendly Witness

My friend is an evangelical Christian. He believes in the deity of Christ; that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; in miracles; and that Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings. But as an evangelist with a pre-science view of our reality believes that physical laws are easily substituted by God to perform miracles which include the generation of many animals and plants by popping them into existence out of nothing or directly from dust.  He does not believe in biological evolution and interprets the biblical text to only support miraculous creation of new species. He postulates that Adam and Eve were created by God by popping them into existence from dust or a piece of flesh and not by natural birth from a subhuman designed ape. 

I maintain that my friend (and others who hold a similar view) are eventually going to have to admit defeat and apologize for misleading others toward fictitious views of God's reality based on their misinterpreted Biblical beliefs as they cling to their beliefs against all odds and compelling truthful biological data that everyone else long ago accepted. Perhaps the first tenant of their faith to be exposed as deception or naivety will be their stand that accepting evolution results in biblical errancy. This series of posts will show how that can happen. 

My friend, for example, says that Genesis 2 and 3 are not allegory but detailed material reality based on an historical account supplementing Ge 1 on 'Day' 6. But, sooner or later he will have to allegorize these chapters of the Bible as well since a reading of all the creation references support the theistic evolutionary and direct creation of Adam and Eve by the Trinity. The only hint of a popping dust into creatures pathway in the Bible are two clearly symbolic verses of Ge 2:7 & 2:14. To show this, He has  called Jesus Christ as a witness which I will now cross-examine.

First let me apologize for my friend who has put you in the middle of our debate on evolution so whimsically and without studying the evidence from the reality that you have created for us. Secondly, it is a unique divine honor that I have to ask you questions related to your sacred word recorded in the Bible. I hope this dialogue will clarify your intended meaning of specific verses recorded for posterity in your word. You made the following statement to Stu as hostile witness to his prosecution and listed several verses after it:
'The Bible is absolute truth'.  

Since Stu moved on quickly to his next question, I wanted to give you a chance to elaborate about your intended meaning. 

Jesus- "the Bible is of course inerrant as we inspired the writers of the text. The books are selected to contain documentary of real situations, spiritual truths about how to live, and the history of the world from both a material and causal perspective as well as a spiritual and timeless logical perspective.  Although many books contain historical real documentary (Ex), some of my parables (Jn 15:1-8 ), statements (Mt 7:24-27), and entire chapters (Ge 2 & 3), and books (Rev) are highly symbolic involving fictional characters. But make no mistake about this, just because my parables and other statements are symbolic of spiritual values and other entities, they remain absolutely true and have great timeless value. These symbolic statements, metaphorical statements, and parables are just as true and important, even more so, as the historical truths are, since these are logical absolute truths that serve as guidance for your behavior and development through eternity and long after your present brief reality exists. "

Thank you for that clarification, Lord Jesus, that was a very sobering reminder of the importance of all scripture and that we must read and analyze it from different perspectives to gain it's complete meaning. 

Just one last question related to inerrancy and the meaning of Ge 2&3: Should we interpret these chapters metaphorically and symbolically of timeless spiritual values and entities that supplement Ge 1 as I have claimed or as a historical materially causal documentary of actual events as my friend Stu has claimed?

Jesus- "As I told you long ago in Ge 1, I evolved the earth (Jb 38:14, Is 42:5) and all of it's beings as described in Ge 1 and in the sequence stated.  Do not think that I was not involved in the process as some of your brothers and sisters do (Jb 38:41, Is 29:16,23, Is 40:21-24, Is 43:1, Jn 15:1-5, Mt 10:29-31)!  I make the rain fall where I wish (Ge 7:4, 1 Kn 18:41-45). I knit you together in your mother's womb (Ps 139:13, Is 44:2) as I did every being that ever existed (Jb 40:15, Is 41:4, Is 45:13) using my existing fixed laws (Jb 39:17) that I have also told Jeremiah (Je 33:25) and Job (Job 38:4-5, 38:33) that I have made."

Lee- But Lord you responded 'Blasphemy' to a comment that Stu made about possibly evolving man without stating it in the Bible.  Your other comments didn't make sense in spite of your above statement.  Would you please elaborate on your view of this in light of your other comments?

Jesus- "My comments were not understood and recorded correctly by the stenographer, so I will try again.  My rage was due to the way the traditional creationists have ignored what I have stated and twisted My word's meaning to fit their narrow and non-realistic views.  As I have stated above, Ge 1 describes the  sequence in which the earth and various species including mankind evolved under My direction and will. We evolved man in our image from the apes by natural birth as Eve states in the NET account.  My anger was fueled by Stu's statement that evolution in not described in the Bible when it clearly is by stating that the kinds were brought forth by the waters and earth in Ge 1 in a particular order according to their kind.  I also want to add that this was completed over a very long time in human terms where 'day' is equivalent to eons of time (2 Pet 3:8 ). The traditional creationists seem to be in denial that I perform my miracles and accomplish my will through the fixed laws that I created during the Big Bang (Job 38:4-5, 38:33). They seem to prefer magic and mystical fictional laws over my words. I knit Adam's genetic code together first (Ps 139:13, 1 Tim 2:13) in his subhuman mother which bore him naturally and raised him to maturity.  I then knit together Eve's genetic code (Ps 139:13) who was later born naturally (Ge 4:1 NET).  Later as she matured, she  became a companion and a helper for Adam (Ge 2:18-20 ). I made both of them naturally (Ge 4:1 NET) and with spiritual capabilities that neither of their parents had. They were a special creation of ours (Ge 1:26-27 ) as many informational enhancements in their genetic code (Jb 39:17, Dan 5:11-12) were necessary to make them fully human and spiritual beings in our image. These spiritual capabilities included the ability to distinguish between good and evil (Ge 2:17), abstract thinking, creativity, and the ability to express thoughts through language (Ge 1:26-27). Each person was a unique creation  (Ps 139:13) modified from the genetic code of their predecessors.

Jesus- "Ge 2 was intended to be understood as My spiritual development of mankind (Ge 2:3-7, Is 45:18). Adam was my primary objective as a spiritual being in my image; all other entities follow him in priority (Ge 2:7, 9, 19, 22).  This spiritual account is more important than the others as it shows My desire and intent from an eternal perspective (Ge 2:5).  This is not described elsewhere in the collection of books and it needed  to be displayed after the historical sequential evolution account of Ge 1 to address these spiritual matters."  

Jesus- "You are body and spirit. Your body is made from the dust consisting of the elements provided to the earth from the heavens which preceded you. This was my plan. You are spirit that lives in your earthly physical body manifested from My physical laws .   Elihu knew his mother bore him and yet realized that he was made from the clay and dust of the earth.  I breathed life into everything including your dust at the beginning of creation. Everything that exists in your world was designed after your spiritual and bodily design was completed." 

Jesus- "In Ge 3, I knew everything that would happen before breathing life into your world (Jn 1:1-3, Is 41:26-27, 1 Pt 1:2, 1:20, Rom 8:29-30) and still I made you even knowing that you would sin and commit evil toward Me and your neighbor. I knew that I would have to come and save you and all of mankind from that sin and evil (Rom 8:32). I knew that my death and resurrection would be the only way to save you while allowing you to know evil like Me and learning how to overcome and resist it (Rom 8:34). I am still here after having overcome spiritual evil and can hardly wait for our eternal life together once you have been adequately educated on sin and evil in the world and chosen me to help you resist that path. I joyfully wait nearby to continue your education (just like many of Adam and Eve's descendants) as your older brother. (Rom 8:38-39)" 

Jesus-"I hope you can now understand that taking Ge 2 & 3 allegorically in no way undermines the inerrant message of scripture but enhances the spiritual message that I wanted to convey to everyone in the first place. I hope this will put an end to the bantering between you in this debate."

Lee- Yes, Lord, I hope your testimony accomplishes that as well.  Thank you for clarification and direction. 

Lee- I would like to ask for a  recess until tomorrow for contemplation and analysis of all parties in light of the, some will say, shocking and critical information that Jesus has just provided. It is clear to me that facts presented in this testimony will affect the strategy taken by all parties represented in the debate. 

Until we resume court,
Lee

Just a short response to your last post.
[Lucien]- 'Technically God could have introduced mutations that would develop all the creatures we see now.'

Thank you for the confirmation of my viewpoint.  Now if you would just acknowledge that He actually does use nature to do this the debate between us on evolution would be over.  

[Lucien]- 'The intermediate forms with unfinished features /functionality looked /operated terrible, and could only be kept alive in the fallen world if God sustained them supernaturally. '

I don't think that you are aware that each species genome contains huge numbers of variations within it that don't require any miracles or modified laws of physics to support. You and I (as well as others) differ in our nucleotide sequence at a rate of roughly one in every thousand pairs or for about 4 million differences between us. That is a lot of tolerance for differences that the human genome with its life supporting nano-machines (proteins and other structures) can support. This complex factory of molecules and backup systems  operate in our bodies just fine tolerating an enormous amount of variation and errors. There are about 30 million differences between me and my ape cousins with the apes also feeling just fine. I don't believe that you understand the level of built in redundancy or tolerance to change in nucleotide sequence that animals are capable of supporting using redundant sequences and the regulation of protein production; otherwise you would not have made the statement above about God having to intervene supernaturally. There is a lot of error tolerance using back-up or redundant sequences in our collective human genome.

The last part of your post didn't make sense to me. God made light and it came from our sun and the heavens on 'Day' 1 .   It was available to plants near the earth's  surface after 'Day' 1 like it states in the Bible 'let there be light' at the surface of the deep. Stu and I have both provided posts making our case about the sun becoming visible after the cloud cover dispersed on Day 3. Also, on 'Day' 4 the phrase used was , And God saith, 'Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, -Genesis 1:14 YLT. He didn't create the sun since it was already there in the heavens but enabled it to be seen from the surface where before this, it produced light during the daytime part of the earth rotation but could not be seen through the clouds. The Hebrew word 'bara' for created was not used in this verse nor were the words sun or moon. Illuminaries or lights were used in this verse instead. If you want proof for my interpretation here is the verse:  "When I made clouds the garment thereof, And thick darkness a swaddling-band for it, -Job 38:9 ASV when describing the creation of the earth. 

So, my case for evolution  is well documented and just fine, however, you haven't made any case yet, so you have no case against evolution thus far. 

God even gives you the the sequence of evolved kinds in Ge 1, so God Himself has made the case for evolution in the Bible. Obviously you disagree with Him if you deny evolution of the different kinds over time; the earth brought forth life first as plants (microbial at first), then the waters brought forth sea animals and the earth brought forth birds, then the earth brought forth crawling land animals, beasts and field animals, and finally man in God's spiritual image as an imaginative and creative creature being both body and spirit. The different sequence is listed in Ge 2 with man first.  Maybe the different sequence in Ge 2 is confusing you?  Are you saying that the earth and oceans didn't bring them forth in that order shown in Ge 1? Have you misinterpreted the Bible again?

Lee

My friend is an evangelical Christian. He believes in the deity of Christ; that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; in miracles; and that Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings. But as a scientist he also believes in biological evolution and reads it into the biblical text. He postulates that Adam and Eve were created by God through a designed evolutionary pathway of slow genetic changes and natural birth. He does not accept that God instantaneously created Adam and Eve -- or as he puts it, that God "popped them into existence."

I maintain that my friend (and others who hold a similar view) are eventually going to have to anesthetize their evangelical beliefs as they cling to their faith in theistic biological evolution. Perhaps the first tenant of their faith to go to sleep will be their stand on biblical inerrancy. This post will show how that can happen.

My friend, for example, says that Genesis 2 and 3 are allegory. But, sooner or later he will have to allegorize the rest of the Bible as well since a reading of all the creation references support the special and direct creation of Adam and Eve. There is no hint of an evolutionary pathway. To show this, I will eliminate Gen 2&3 from the Bible (horror:) and see what a face value reading of Scripture would say without those chapters.

I call for my first witness, Jesus Christ.

Raise your right hand and repeat after me. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

State your name and occupation.

God (Jn 1:1,14; 8:58). Creator and Sustainer of the universe and all of life (Col 1:16-17; Jn 1:3, 10; Heb 1:3, 10)

What do you believe and teach about the inerrancy of the Bible?

The Bible is absolute truth (Jn 17:17; Jn 10:35b; Jn 8:28; Jn 16:12-15; Mt 5:17-18).

What does the Bible teach about OT history - people, places and events?

Well, it's all true, not just the parts about faith and practice --

The people were historical (Adam and Eve: Mt 19:4-5 and Gen 1:27); (Abel to Zechariah: Mt 23:35-36); (Moses: Jn 3:14-15; 7:19); (Isaiah: Mk 7:6-9; Mt 13:13-17)

The places are real (Sodom: Mt 11:20-24); (Bethlehem: Jn 7:42)

The events really happened (Creation: Gen 1); Noah and the ark: Mt 24:37-39 and Gen 6:5-8; 7:6-23); Jonah and the great fish (Mt 12:38-41 and Jonah 1:17)

So tell me -- How did you create life? Remember you are under oath and you cannot use the testimony of Genesis 2 and 3. They have been ruled inadmissible.

Thus says God the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and its offspring, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it (Is 42:5)

The LORD commanded and they were created (Ps 148:5). The LORD sent forth His Spirit and they were created (Ps 104:30). And just as Elihu said to Job, "Behold I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of clay" (Job 33:6)

So are you saying that we have been formed out of inorganic material and not organic material as evolution requires?

Of course. I created man in My own image, in the image of God I created him; male and female I created them (Gen 1:27) and I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven images (Is 42:8) -- especially chimpanzees. I have warned you to not make for yourself any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, for I am a jealous God (Ex 20:4,5). I have created for My glory, whom I have formed, even whom I have made (Is 43:7) for it is I who made the earth and created man upon it." (Is 45:12)

As Moses said, "Indeed, concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth has anything been done like this great thing"? (Deu 4:32)

But you still could have used evolution and been silent about it in the Bible.

Blasphemy! How can anything evolve without a mother? It was Adam who was first created then Eve (1 Tim 2:13). Have you not read what I said in my previous testimony (Mt 19:4) that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female! Man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake (1 Cor11:9). He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man (Hb - Adam) in the day when they were created (Gen 5:2).

How do you account for the fact that so many people, and many Christians try so hard to read evolution into the Scripture?

People became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-22)

Thank you. You may step down, but I reserve the right to call you back to the stand.


Lee -- You may cross-examine the witness.

Lee


The bee losing its wings is not enhanced functionality, but LOSS of functionality.
A few mutations to lose the wing, but how many thousands/millions to generate it. And what did it look like before it was finished? Centuries of useless wings in development.
Technically God could have introduced mutations that would develop all the creatures we see now.

Some questions:
-The intermediate forms with unfinished features/functionality looked/operated terrible, and could only be kept alive in the fallen world if God sustained them supernaturally. This would mean miracle after miracle, overruling nature's laws.
-How did God mutate the plants? There was no sunlight... Oh wait, you believe the sun came before the earth. I forgot. I was referring to the Biblical text where the sun was created on day 4, after the earth and the plants. Also, neither were there flying creatures to pollinate the plants. And had it rained yet? Did God sustain the plants and trees supernaturally for eons of time?

I could ponder on, but do you see the problem?
Biblically your case is extremely weak and you have to rely on constant supernatural intervention or all your creatures-in-progress would be food for the hunters already developed.


Lucien

Bret, I have been writing down and posting my views on cosmological and biological evolution for over two years now on all aspects of both. I do not plan on rewriting it all. Please just read what I have already posted if you want to know where I stand.I haven't changed my position on anything that I have posted.  I would like to see your position and justification of your views where you disagree with me though. So start the ball rolling if you would like. It will be interesting to see your exposure and dismantling. 

You're correct in that mutations (changes in genetic sequences) are real. But you are wrong in saying that they are all bad. Many are neutral and seem to have little impact on the organism. Many have a deleterious effect on the organism and can cause death or severe impairment of functionality. Rarely a beneficial change will occur that proves enhanced functionality in the organism's environment or access to a new environment (like the windy island for the wingless bee that Lucien described). 

Think about this, all genetic code for all the different species consists of the same set of nucleotides and yet the sequences are different by millions of mutations (or variations in the sequence). These species couldn't exist if all changes to the genetic sequences were 'bad'. Occasionally and rarely the right sequence of mutations is made in the gametes of a mating pair of organisms to produce a different species in their progeny.  

The Darwinists claim this occurs by random chance and natural selection. I don't believe that these changes occur by random chance at all but are part of God's grand plan and design. Furthermore, I believe the probability hurdles are too high for random chance to clear in the short time of 13.7 billion years since the beginning of the universe. I believe God helped the natural processes along on numerous occasions to develop our galaxy, solar system, earth, the formation of cellular life, multicellular life, apes and mankind at a faster pace than random chance would support. God's grand plan includes mutations, good, bad, pleasure, pain, obedience, disobedience, and all the events we observe and personally experience in our world today. It is all part of a grand education that mankind is receiving in the grand plan. Yes, even the disobedient eating of the fruit from the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' was included in God's plan. There were no surprises for God on that 'day' either. God permit's evil to exist in this world; did you think being His child and being made in His image was going to be easy and always be pleasurable? No it isn't, you get to learn and know it all first hand: both good and evil.

Lee

Sorry for the delay, I'm out in the ocean where it's hard to reach you.

Where is Leisure Lee?
(Vacation #?)

I noticed that Lee was afraid that Lucien was getting his information about DNA
from those (crazy) YE's ... that are known for exaggerating (lying) about Scientific data!
I've always found it somewhat funny ... that the people who have the strongest belief
in the honesty & accuracy of God's Word (the YE's)... are the same ones that are always
being accused of Lying, Faking, or Cheating the data that they use to defend their case!

We live in a World where EVERYONE reads the headlines ... and about 2% of us actually
read the entire articles ... and then there's a few kooks (like myself) that enjoy
pouring over the RAW data that was used to generate the article ... and subsequently
the attention grabbing Headlines!

The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the Sept 2005 issue of "Nature"(#437)
showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million
of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases – that is, 75.8% of the total genome!
This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome
in single nucleotide polymorphisms (changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome)!
Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another
~3 % difference between the alignable sequences. In addition, variation in copy number
of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference
between the two species! Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70% ... !!!

The highlighted sentence was taken out of context (by Secular Scientists)... and used
as the Headline that 99.999% of people remember as the whole story!

NEVER EVER EVER trust the implications of a Headline to a Scientific article !!!
The REAL TRUTH is almost always buried in the data!

Maybe the best lesson that we can learn here is ...
that the Science is honest ... but those who report (& distort) the data are liars !!!



20 Bret*11

Lee,

Thank you for your cordial post and informative summary. I will do my best to present the "traditional case" and hope I don't disappoint you.

I look forward to our theological debate as it will be refereed by God's Word which we both hold as authoritative over science. I will let Bret and Lucien contend with you regarding biological evolutionary science as I expect my scientific arguments against evolution to be pretty much in line with theirs.

You're right -- up until now I have been painting "theistic evolution " with a broad bush and not dealing directly with your version of it. This has not been a personal attack on you, but a general attack on theistic evolution as I see all forms of TE lethal (eventually) to a healthy Christian worldview. Regardless, as a brother and a friend you deserve a proper hearing of your particular position and I will respectfully give you that.

You must understand that you brought on some of this passionate opposition yourself with your flamboyant statements about "monkeys to men" as being the only rational position for the Church to take -- completely discounting thousands of years of prayerful church scholarship. I would have hoped that you would have had a little more respect for Christ's servants, and a little more humility about what you think you know about reality and the current scientific understanding of it. But we all have said things that were more heat than light. So I am happy to restart this debate and will try to stick to the facts and avoid any ad hominems.

Actually I see your version of TE -- progressive/evolutionary creationism -- as much more compatible with Scripture than most of the other versions of TE that I am familiar with. We agree that humans are not a product of contingency and natural selection, but rather a product of God's design, creative power, natural law, and miracle working. We agree that man is material and spiritual -- and that God determines each individual's genetic code, having constant precise control over all the natural laws. Like you I believe that God has predestined us before the foundation of the world to be chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1), but I don't believe in a "hard determinism" which would override man's personal responsibility. Like you I believe that God is omniscient and knows the end from the beginning (Is 46:9-10).

Where we disagree is on the special revelation of man's creation. You say that "God created mankind as a culmination and perfection of lower level designs of which the ape is the predecessor species." It is true that God made man as the crown jewel of His creation, but I believe He did not do it by evolving predecessor species. I will show that the Scriptures clearly teach that God miraculously and directly created man as a physical being. That is, God "popped Adam and Eve into existence" as special creations; He did not do it by a "slow design process which evolves new organisms through natural processes." Without special creation Christian redemptive doctrine dissipates.

I'm delighted that you believe that Adam and Eve were real historical people, but you think it is not necessary for me to address this issue. However,it is foundational to the debate (especially for the TEers that informed Christianity Today) so I will begin my series with that topic.

Stu

Bret,


I just want to say something.
Deleterious mutations are not ALWAYS bad.
Think for example of the bumblebees loss of information to make wings.
This is beneficial on a windy island.

Wait, I think we may have had this discussion before, and you countered it (quite rightly) with the fact that if you brought these bumblebees into a colony of winged bumblebees, they would certainly lose out.
Unless they got put in a bumblebee care-home.

I look forward to your debate with Lee, as it is crystal clear that science (secular as well as done by Biblical creationists) supports your view.
The author on the two links I sent did an interesting talk on the CRS conference last year on the topic.


Lucien

Lee ...

I've decided to (pretty much) let Stu handle the early Genesis battle with you ...
as (with the exception of the word "Day")... he seems to be more qualified (credentialed)
than I am ... and has already indicated a desire to make the case for "popped" !!!
(Don't worry ... I'm sure that I'll be lured into adding some comments to the issue!)

I would prefer to brain-wrestle you on the MYTH of (Macro) Evolution!
(both Biological & Stellar)

So ... before I start to expose & dismantle the fallacy that is destroying Science ...
I need to know exactly "what?" is the Lee (nuanced) version of these fables?

Let's start with Mutations!
Mutations are REAL !!!
But ... mutations are BAD !!!
Even the most dyed-in-the-wool Evolutionists will ALL admit that 99.999% of mutations
are deleterious (Bad) for the gene-pool of any species!
(with the "possible" exception being bacteria?)

So ... my question for you is ...
Is God responsible for all of the bad mutations ... or just the good ones?



20 Bret*11

Stu, congrats on your decision to document your views.   Take your time, just please address the real issues with a compelling set of logical and Biblical arguments. The reason for me stating this is based on some of your comments made in your last post. It looks like you are focused on defending our faith against mislabeled 'theistic evolutionists' that believe in Darwinism.  I will look forward to a thoughtful series of posts. 

I noticed in your initial plan  that you were preparing to address two non-issues:

1) [Stu]- 'I just never thought I’d have to explain to a fellow believer why Jesus is not an evolutionary byproduct of the monkey family.' 

My position describes how God created mankind as a culmination and perfection of lower level designs of which the ape is the predecessor species.  Your statement indicates that you still lump all evolutionists together. There you go again misrepresenting my views by associating my position with humans as a 'byproduct of the monkey family'.  You still have my views mixed up with Darwin's, Francis Collins', and Kenneth Miller's, if you are sincere in your statement.  I have never ever claimed that mankind was an evolutionary by-product (or here by chance) and pointed out to you several times over the past two years that this is a Darwinist viewpoint.  

Some of the theistic evolutionists like Collins and Miller believe Darwinian evolution is the process that God used but would add that God guided the development through his laws and the characteristics of each organism's environment. They also contend that humans are contingent and result from chance, natural selection, and the characteristics of predecessor species.  

It can be easily argued that this contingent view of speciation is a deistic view of creation. It is counter also to statements made in the Bible about God's fore knowledge of future events.  I have had to explain too many times now that this contingent or chance outcome of creation is not my view.  This perceived inability to comprehend what I have repeatedly stated and which is clearly different than Darwinist views is getting very tiring and irritating in having to explain  again and again. I know you are more capable than this and should understand by now the differences.  

It you understand the differences, and are associating my views intentionally with this other view purposely, it implies you are trying to deceive others into thinking that I hold Deistic non-Judeo-Christian views that make mankind an accident of nature.  This is distortion of the truth and you need to stop.  If you want to address this alternative theistic evolution viewpoint in your rationale that's fine but don't pretend and insinuate that my position is the same as theirs which is anti-Biblical!  Theirs is uncontrolled without God in the loop; mine includes God as the director of all designs who determines each individual's genetic code and other characteristics. 

Possibly another explanation as to why your not understanding my position is due to the deterministic character of the natural laws and God's precise control of them. From our previous discussions I know you believe that reality cannot be predetermined as it would interfere with mankind's free will. This anti-predestination view may be blocking comprehension of what I have explained about God controlling the genetic changes deterministically through natural laws.   

The Bible clearly states that God has foreknowledge of future events, that He controls our future, and our descendants. The  natural laws must be deterministic and under His control in order for this to occur. It turns out that they are based on what science has discovered. 

 I hope you will include in your position's defense some rationale related to your views on God's ability to control reality deterministically through His natural laws. I hope you will include the Biblical support for your views on this as well.  I believe He can control natural laws effectively to bring about the slow design evolution of plants, animals, and humans to very exacting molecular specifications. This is a different branch of theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) or progressive creationism. It is not Darwinism (that results in by-products of evolution), it is a slow design process which evolves new organisms through natural processes and under God's control. 

2) [Stu]- '(1) Adam is clearly a historical person and not symbolic'

There is no issue with there being an historical first Adam and Eve.   I have not raised this as an issue. There had to be a first man either by the slowly designed evolutionary pathway or by your instantaneous popped into existence method.  Evolutionists also believe that there was a first Homo Sapiens but born through slow genetic changes and natural birth. Just because I believe Ge 2 & 3 are allegorical about the spiritual development of the first two humans doesn't mean that Adam and Eve weren't real people.  You might want to focus more on the other topics in your posts.

Lee

Dear Fellow Sojourners,

First of all I want to thank my brother Lee for challenging us “special creationists” to present the biblical defense of the traditional view of the Church. I have to admit all these years I took the Bible’s teaching at face value and never put all the verses together in a structured order. I just never thought I’d have to explain to a fellow believer why Jesus is not an evolutionary byproduct of the monkey family. As I wrote to the Editors of Christianity Today ...

Is that a picture of Jesus or Adam evolving from the hominid on your cover
page (June 2011)?  Since Jesus' human ancestry is directly traced back to
Adam in Luke 1:23-38, and according to Paul He is our "second Adam" (1 Cor
15:21-22;45), you're weak defense of the faith and compromising stance makes a monkey out of both of them.

Currently I’m thinking that I will show the “face value” teaching of the Bible in three parts:

(1) Adam is clearly a historical person and not symbolic
(2) Adam did not have any predecessors, hence he did not evolve and must have been a special creation of God
(3) Without Adam being a historical special creation, biblical Christianity fails. Any form of “theistic evolution” (including Lee’s brand) is not a viable option for a Christian.

I don’t have tons of time so the series may drag out a bit. But I am thankful for the opportunity to do a Berean search of the Scriptures and present my case to this audience.

Sincerely in Christ,

Stu

1)
I am not a snake expert but I do believe they have a brain. I am unsure why you think I implied they do not.
I don't think they have a voice-box, so you got that part right.

Let's just for the sake of argument assume that a person is possessed by a demon.
By definition this means that that demon (at least in part) has taken control of that person. Would you agree?
Now the question to you is the following: Is that person still real? Or has (s)he become symbolic at the moment of possession?
I believe a demon-possessed creature is still a real creature (whether snake, person, or something else).

2)
You raise a fair point in demanding some reference to substantiate my claim.
But in the same paragraph you imply you won't accept a YE reference. Or if I over-dramatised that, you certainly make a sweeping statement about scientist who believe the earth to be a lot younger than you to be distorters.
Do you see a problem here?
I do.

Looking at genome comparison is (largely) a game of statistics.
Facts are facts and numbers are numbers.
The difference in interpretation (I think) does not play as large a role as in other matters, as this takes place in the empirical science realm, as opposed to historic interpretations. (both chimps and humans are alive today and DNA is readily available)
So I think you should be willing to be honest enough to accept a publication by a Biblical creationist.
Especially since this is so highly embarrassing for you and your evolutionary colleagues that they will likely not shout it from the roof-tops and will try to marginalise this as much as they can.
In fact, first they will ridicule it, then vehemently oppose it, and ultimately accept it as self-evident and twist it to fit-in with the ever-so-plastic "theory" of evolution and claim that this was what they always meant anyway!

Also, you are right in saying that the term 'junk-DNA', coined by (atheistic) evolutionists as evolutionary left-overs, is becoming out-dated and rightfully so. Gladly Bible believing creationists and honest researchers have been purposefully looking for functions in this portion of DNA, because they (the Bible believers) refused to succumb to the mainstream thought of the day and forced to believe God would be so wasteful.
It was also evolutionists that came up with a long list of vestigial organs, but again it was the believers in Design that one by one cancelled things of this list.
So face-up, evolution really hinders good scientific research, and the genome comparisons between pan paniscus and homo sapiens will be piled upon the already poor track-record of evolution.

Just in case you would be interested in YE material:
http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death
http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome
(I remembered the 70% correctly, albeit this is about the y-chromosome only, I admit. But be careful with your response to that, as I am curious if you want to have your cake and eat.)

Oh, yes, science magazines run by atheists refuse to publish creationist material as you probably are aware, so getting stuff from Science or Nature that is embarrassing for their own cause will probably be hard, but I will try, if you want me to.

Lucien

Lucien,
There are two items that I wanted to respond to in your recent posts. 

1) The part related to symbolism that I am not understanding in your replies is your denial of symbolism in the talking snake portion of scripture. I believe you are saying that the snake or creature is talking without the prescence of a brain or voicebox and the communication with Eve is being manipulated by Satan as he modulates the airwaves or mentally communicates with Eve and she thinks the creature is talking. What is puzzling to me is that you don't call this symbolism of Satan conversing with Eve!  Maybe you have a special definition of symbolism that you haven't defined for us. This certainly seems like symbolism to me and that the snake is really a metaphorical representation on Satan if he is the one manipulating the sound waves, brain waves as well as the snake!  I seems to me you do believe that these verses are symbolic but are reluctant to admit it since your case against evolution would crumble if you did. 

2) I don't believe that you have provided us with valid data, comments,  and percentages related to DNA comparisons. None of the scientific journals quote these low of numbers in their sequencing comparisons between humans and chimps.   Would you provide us with your factual sources for this information?  I hope you haven't obtained this information from YE sources which are known for their distortions of facts related to biological evolution. 

Also, for almost ten years now the inter-gene (non-coding) regions haven't been called junk DNA. Although, these regions were called junk DNA twenty years ago, around the turn of the millennium these regions were found to be highly involved in regulatory functions during embryo development and during cell operations. You must be citing some old papers when you state that evolutionists currently think of these regulatory sequences as junk DNA. 

Certainly evolutionary biologists working actively in the field presently do not think of these regions as junk today. You may not be up to speed in your review and understanding where this field stands at present. However, please don't misrepresent the views of scientists today to mislead our few readers toward the YE views. God  hates distortion of the truth. 

There are only two parts of your post that I can agree with you about 1)  your statement that geneticists still have a great deal to learn about and 2) you share a lot of code sequences with other life forms including bananas. 

Lee

Hi Stu,

good post.

I must correct you though on your 99%.
That was the number (although others went lower to around 95%) of the part of the genome that coded for proteins.
Now that they have started looking into the 'junk' DNA section (labelled as such by evolutionists), the scientists are finding that we are actually a lot more different and the number has now dropped to the 70% area.
All we are learning is that we have still soooooo much to learn about genetics.

Note that we share about 50% with bananas!

It is sheer foolishness to say we share a common ancestor that was an apelike creature based on numbers alone. Humility would come in handy in that we are far from understanding genetics fully.
The more we dig into DNA, the deeper we get...


Lucien

I've been reading the "scientific case" for monkey to man -- the supposed 99% genetic similarity -- and was amused enough to make my own little cartoon.

I have copied in its entirety my post on the 10th of June.

"
Lee,

you may think we are making progress, because you think I am starting to think the snake may be symbolic after all.
What I meant to get across, is that no voice box is needed to make sound. The required voice box was a Lee concoction.
Just because I think a voice box may not be required does not mean I am saying the snake was symbolic.

Lucien
"

So, I did NOT say the snake is symbolic, rather, the creature that spoke to Eve was real, visible and audible.
Please tell me what part of that you do not understand?

Stu, thanks for proceeding to make your case for the traditional view. I look forward to reading it and providing my feedback on this rationale. This is what I have been asking you to do for quite some time now. Of course, I think you are the one that has been misled by Satan and are doing his work by dividing us on these issues. Good luck with making a clear and convincing case which resolves the issues between Ge 1, 2, & 3 that are apparent by a straight forward simple literal and historical reading of the two versions of creation. I mean this, I don't see how you can claim these to be real material historical events at present without creating issues between other verses in the Bible, particularly Ge 1. It would be wonderful to see a logical and rational resolution of these issues. I would like to ask you to at least address the questions and issues that I have posted while making your traditional case, I believe this would go a long way in resolving our conflicts relating as to whether Ge 2 & 3 is allegory, factual material events in history, or some combination of both. As I have stated many times now, the issues surface only when one reads Ge 2 & 3 from a strictly historical, chronological, and materialistic perspective but not from a symbolic or allegorical perspective of the spiritual development of creation. But this is what you have chosen to declare a fight with me about to defend the historical chronological materialistic position as a supplement to Ge 1 occurring on 'Day' 6.

One last thing, you stated that you didn't think that what you stated was character assassination, but by selecting and including those Bible verses you posted, you are insinuating that I have commited those sins. You may not have personally made those comments, but you had the Bible do it for you, so you might as well have said it yourself. Also, the following phrases that you did state get very personal, contrary to your claim of innocence:

'By rejecting the Bible's clear teaching'
'continue to pray that the Spirit break through your blindness'

I am not rejecting the Bible's teaching, just your interpretation of it. It seems to me that calling me blind because you don't see things the same way that I do is very personal.


Lucien, I have been challenged myself in trying to understand the YE concepts and how they rationalize their viewpoints related to Ge 1, 2, & 3. Foremost, I read your posts and believed that you thought very little of Ge 2 & 3 was symbolic or allegory. I now see that you have accepted some symbolism but yet don't have clear picture on exactly what in these chapters is symbolic. I believe you have stated that everything in Ge 2 and 3 is historical meaning that Ge 2 & 3 describes real events, word for word real discussions and actions between real material entities. I am still trying to understand your new position that some of this is symbology. Would you please describe for us any of the entities or events mentioned besides the talking snake (Satan) that you believe are symbolic instead of real material events?

I am trying to help you and others from a scientific perspective since science involves a factual understanding of reality and the two topics we are discussing (earth age and evolution) are scientifically directly at odds with the YE positions on both. It seems that you care little about how reality operates and whether it might have any bearing on your understanding of biblical phrases. This is where I think I can help you.

Bret, based on your recent post, I have the impression that you believe that some of the Bible is symbolic but nothing in Ge 2 & 3 is allegory or symbolic. Would you enumerate these symbolic cases in Ge 2 & 3 for us if you believe there are any? If there aren't any aspects of Ge 2 & 3 that are symbolic, please let us know that as well. I would like to find out from you, what is the filtering criteria that you use to declare what verses are symbolic and which ones are not, especially in Ge 1, 2, & 3.

The questions that you have asked me are very good questions. My answers are below. I have tried to keep them succint to not overwhelm the readers. We can go into more detail in future posts if you like.

In your post, you have given us a number of examples of how various substances can affect or impair the mind's activities. There is a big difference however, between mind activity at a physical level and how knowledge or information can get there at a spiritual level. Jesus states you are body and spirit. The knowledge of good and evil is spiritual and not part of the body. Knowledge that collects as part of your mind is one thing but physical brain function is totally different. Knowledge and understanding takes a long time to accummulate and requires proper brain function, not impaired function, especially knowledge of good and evil, which comes by deliberate personal acts, observation, and thoughtful analysis of consequences from infancy forward with rebuke and praise from other people around you. It cannot be obtained by merely eating a type of existing fruit or some advanced type of fruit provided by God.

You ask why use symbolism here, it is because a great deal of the meaning is lost by a simplistic historical interpretation of this chapter. A symbolic representation is necessary to gain the full meaning of this account. An allegorical account that is understandable to virtually all people of all ages gets them to think about the broader picture of what is displeasing to God and how it separates Him from us. This can be any personal willful act that advances our own personal gain at the expense of another being including God. The problem of sin and people commiting it is much deeper and broader than eating fruit from a tree. This is as story about humans wanting to be like God with the knowledge of good and evil. Unfortunately, there is only one way to make this happen: committing all kinds of sin and observing the results. In Ge 2, sin in general is symbolized by eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Fruit such as olives and grapes are often used in the Bible to symbolize various spiritual concepts. Fruit is often used to symbolize the result of some activity. In this case, sin or the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was personally pleasing to Eve and Adam but not pleasing to God. They became aware of sin as anything that displeased God and personal acts that they should not commit. Nakedness was just an example of this awareness of sin and the hiding and finding them out by God was symbolic in general of the way humans act when aware of their sin. God knows we will commit an sinful act even before we know it and always knows where to find us. He even lives in some of us Christians while we are committing these acts, but doesn't like it. This story is not about a popped out preprogrammed Adam and Eve eating fruit that God told them not to do a few minutes earlier! A symbolic interpretation expands the meaning to a much broader domain and applicability to the world and spiritual life in general.

The fruit of this tree of the knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of all spiritual sin (those human acts that are not okay with God). The first humans (those with the ability to differentiate between good and evil in their mind) chose to commit sin spiritually and personally through various decisions and acts. When we do this, we experience, observe and discover the effects of it on the other beings around us. Mankind was the first animal created that could discern sin or what would be displeasing to God the Father Creator between good and bad, right and wrong. This didn't happen by chance and natural selection according to Darwin, God developed us from the ape this way using His natural laws to do it, into a spiritual being that has the awareness of right and wrong.

There is no question that we do need redemption from our sins against each other and God and from the very first one of them. The sin is real and God hates it! It is just not limited to eating fruit from the wrong tree, it is all sin which is pervasive in all human lives. It is a much bigger story and is just as true in a symbolic sense. Humans were committing sin in many forms, that sin had to be paid for and with a much bigger price tag than the price of an apple off the wrong tree. Sin in general separates us from the eternal tree of spiritual life with God and forced God himself to come back to earth many years later to pay for it with His life. I hope you can see why this is a much bigger and important story from a symbolic interpretation. Most people get this aspect of the allegory. God wanted us to get the broader picture and that is why this allegory is used in Ge 2 & 3 as he directed the author to paint us a picture of two strange miraculous trees and a conversation between a talking snake and the first humans.

Lee

You think he is deceiving me, and I think he is deceiving you. Only one of us can be right.

You say that "When someone disagrees with Stu's (sic)rigid interpretation ... that he(sic) prefers to attack you (sic) personally and to muddle the debate with character assassination." That is not true as one can clearly see in my post of June 7 and your response. As a Christian friend and brother I have a responsibility to admonish you when I think you are being deceived. Warning a brother of the wiles of Satan is not character assassination of the brother -- it is character assassination of Satan. Tough -- yes; an unloving ad hominem attack -- no. So stop pouting. You and I have voluntarily agreed to take on the responsibility to contend earnestly for God's truth on the matter. This is spiritual warfare.

I accept your admonishments of me without taking them as "character assassination" and readily admit that I will need to repent if I am guilty of any of your accusations. I sure hope that you are wrong.

You have stated your biblical case. Now it's my turn to do the same -- but not the way you want me to -- prove that you are wrong when you declare Gen 2 and 3 symbolic and not historical. I can't do that -- nobody can make you change your mind. That is not how scriptural disputes are decided. What I can do, however, is show you that the entire cannon of Scripture rests on an historical Gen 2 and 3.

In a series of posts I will use the fundamental rule for interpreting Scripture which came out of the Reformation -- the Analogy of Faith. It states that "Scripture is to interpret Scripture" and that "all Scripture will be found to be in agreement and will not contradict itself." After I make my case the audience can decide for themselves where the truth leads; and God the Holy Spirit can decide what He will do with Satan and the deceived brother.

May the best biblical argument prevail and may God be glorified in the process.

"I am not as prideful as you continue to insinuate, I am a wretch just like you and everyone else, all falling short of God's glory. I'm trying to pass on what I know to you to help you overcome your scientific challenges."

My scientific challenges? What a privilege! What about those billions of people that don't have a BSc?
If helping me overcome my scientific challenges is your aim, then your goal is somewhat misguided. I thought we were discussing God's Word and the age of the earth here...


Bret,
It took me several posts for Lee to realise that YE's do believe in symbolism in the Bible. Even in Genesis. But he did accept it from me, so I am sure he will do the same with you.

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that YE's (including myself) think that EVERY word
of EVERY verse MUST be taken 100% literally?
Matthew was speaking of a spiritual reality ... not a material reality!
Figurative language almost always has to be used when the Bible speaks of spiritual or heavenly things!
My problem is with questioning God's choice of Words when He is describing His creation of
heaven & earth, all living things, and the timeframe & order that they were created in!

I had already told you that I was quoting Matthew to defend my "narrow" interpretations ...
and NOT to attack your claim of symbolism!

We keep speaking about a "talking snake"... when the Bible tells us that it was a subtly deceitful serpent!
God "may" have turned this creature into our modern-day snake ... but we have NO idea of what
this serpent was like at this point of creation! (?)

As for your problem with believing that a piece of fruit could affect one's knowledge ...
these trees were totally unique ... and can NOT be compared with a common fruit tree!
God could have easily pre-programed us to have a permanent reaction to specific chemicals
that He had placed in the fruit of these trees!
Take mushrooms ... for example!
Some make a good hamburger great!
Some can make you hallucinate for hours ... and others for days!
Some will cause toxic shock ... and change you for all eternity!
Some people eat a pound of peanuts everyday ... while others will drop dead after eating just one!
Can you see how this could have been REAL ???

My other question for you is ... if this is NOT how Mankind fell into sin ... then what really happened?
Something "actually" had to happen for Mankind to NEED redemption ... right?
Why wouldn't God just tell us the "real" story of Man's fall ... as opposed to making up a fable?
It's NOT the fact that God "could" have made-up this story for us ... but WHY ???
What would be the point of telling us a fake story ... instead of the real one?

So ... you see ... the question isn't if these passages "could" be symbolic?
The question is ... WHY would God use symbolism here ... instead of truth?

I'm really hoping that we can finally move on to the Scientific merits of Macro-Evolution?
You seem to think that this issue is not up for debate ... and I would agree !!!
But ... you believe this to be Fact ... and I know that it is Fiction !!!
Are you ready to rumble?


20 Bret*11

Thanks Bret for the clarification. Although I think the verses that you chose to quote were improper in this case and self defeating for your argument, I appreciate your candid answers to my questions and the respect you demonstrate for other interpretations.

The reason I say this is that you chose to use verses which utilize a great deal of symbolism to make your point against a symbolic interpretation of other verses. You call them 'many key' verses without enumerating which ones so I will have to guess which in future posts. Certainly Ge 2:7 and 2:14 must be included in the list and likely some of the ones in Ge 3 related to the talking snake, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which I at least think are symbolic verses and which I have described what I think they mean in detail in earlier posts.

The verses you selected are about mankind's spiritual proclivity to do evil instead of good, that following evil leads to spiritual destruction, and ends with a warning that there are people who will dishonestly pretend to know what is good for you while leading you into evil and destruction. None of these phrases are actually used in the verses, but yet you and I know that is what they are describing. These are very good examples of symbolism and the Bible is ripe with it.

If we read, these verses like the YEs read Ge 2:7, 2:14, and Ge 3, we wouldn't get the meaning that Mathew intended. Instead, we would wait until we get to Heaven and then look for a narrow gate instead of wide gates to find a safe path into Heaven, and we would expecting to see false prophets there that are evil hungry wolves dressed like a sheep (either naked or dressed in a wool suit). I think you should see the point I am trying to make by now. The Bible quite often doesn't intend for us to interpret it word for word in a literal simplistic sense but symbolically as Mathew did here and other earlier inspired authors did as well. The symbolism didn't start with Mathew but extends back and is included in many of the books of the Bible. I am just one of many that believe this to be the case, especially in Ge 2&3. If you read many verses in the simplistic literal word for word sense you have missed the true meaning.

Certainly we as well as other animals and plants are made from the same ingredients (atoms) that are in the dust of the earth, but it doesn't mean that God popped us into existence from it. God gives us a spiritual life that is not simply a result of breathing air into some dust. It didn't have to occur in an instant of time, could have been done over eons. These verses are clearly symbolic to me.

Lee

Lee ...

My use of the Matthew verses was more of a defense ... than an attack!
You often times criticize Lucien & myself (and now Stu as well) of being too
"Narrow Minded" in our views ... and our interpretations of God's Word!

The passages explain to us that "Narrow" is the path that leads to "Life"!
It also says that the gate is "Strait" as well ... !!!
Therefore ... (I believe that) a straight-forward narrow reading (& understanding)
of the Scriptures is a good thing! ... a God thing! ... and exactly the point that
Matthew was making here!

I included the "False Prophets" verse because it just happened to immediately
follow the other two verses ... and for good reason!
I believe his warning is directly related to the previous verses!
He's saying that even if a (so-called) man-of-God comes to you preaching a broad
message ... that is pleasing to the masses ... you should NOT believe him!

I was NOT implying that YOU were the Prophet of the false message!
But ... I am afraid that you (and even Stu ... to some extent)... are allowing
yourselves to become more vulnerable to these attacks ... by believing in a
much "broader" interpretation of many of the "key" passages of the Bible!

Please try to receive this as a friendly warning ... as opposed to an attack!
Even if you feel that my warning is misguided (as you probably do?)... please try
to understand and accept my motivation as pure!
In turn ... I believe that your heart is in the right place ... even though you
vehemently disagree with me on many issues!


20 Bret*11

Hi Lucien,

Thanks for the feedback. I will try to use as few words as I believe I can get away with and still have my meaning clear and understandable. In the case that you brought up, I felt that I needed to refer to several types of miracles that God can produce by controlling the physical laws since that was the subject we have been addressing. I thought it relevant to Bret's question but was expanding on it to show a larger breadth of control than what he was questioning me about. I did this to show how the existing laws can support miracles throughout the Bible. In hindsight, it looks like I might be wasting my words on you.

I wasn't trying to state that you accept the talking snake as a symbolic of a allegorical encounter with Satan in a general sense, as I believe. I was trying to state that you might possibly accept the 'sound waves' coming from the 'snake' as symbolic of talk. In that way you would be accepting a limited amount of symbolism since the snake was not actually talking with a voice box but possessed and modulating the air to produce sounds that Eve could hear. It seems to me that is why we need more words and the ones we use clearly stated to express our views. Terse inadequate phrasing just results in confusion about what we are really thinking.

In any case, I will try to be more succinct and as clear as I can. Also, I am not as prideful as you continue to insinuate, I am a wretch just like you and everyone else, all falling short of God's glory. I'm trying to pass on what I know to you to help you overcome your scientific challenges.

Lee

Hi Lee

you keep complaining that only you are really answering questions, and perhaps indeed you do so more than any of the others.
But in Bret's question about 'apparitions', you responded as follows:

"Although I keep getting more questions and no answers from anyone, I will continue to answer yours. The existing laws of nature have the capability to transform from one element into another, energy can be changed into matter and matter into energy. I know you are familiar with this: particle interactions. God can control this interaction to produce miracles when He wishes through the hidden variables. Since water can be changed to wine using the existing laws, decayed matter can also be repaired, the dead brought back to life, radiation in a furnace could be made to pass right through the living beings, light can be bent by space time curvature and every miracle described in the Bible can be performed by controlling the variables I've described in the existing laws. I have no issue with the resurrection nor should you from what I have described to you about the physical laws and Gods control of them. The existing laws do not tie God's hands as some have said, but facilitate his ability to control its events and His miracles. "

There is a lot of writing here, but I think you could have done with just the bold parts.
Your lengthy replies are time-consuming to read through, and frankly come across as a parade of your knowledge, in which you pride yourself so much.
Please remember that keeping it short and sweet will help keeping the discussion alive, and that ALL we have/are/know comes from God. Without God we would not only know ANYTHING, but we would not even exist.
I think we all can do with being succinct, but you span the crown, by far... Although I see there are posts from you that are more to the point, so 'we are making progress' (LOL)


Lucien