In Reply to Pedro

I agree. It is very time consuming as I already debate a number of people at work and various others I encounter. Mostly, it is a guy at work who I have conversations and debates with, some via verbal interaction and some IM & email. To be honest I do not wish to get into "long winded" debates simply because I do not have the time to do so. but I think every view posted is extremely important so I will do my best to reply and post my thoughts to comments and not push them to the side. I think what I will do if I have the time is, (if your two or three postings ahead of me) is to sum up your emails and have one rebuttal or email in reply to them. I just want to state that when I debate I do so that the truth would be exposed and my overall intentions are to be "a fisher of men". In so I mean to bring men to Christ. God has given me the opportunity with this blog to be used as my pulpit and I thank him for that, so I must be sure that I'm keeping things in perspective (Matthew 25:21) with the responsibility God has given me and not use it for my own purposes (to win arguments and so receive victory for myself)

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" Paul said (1st Cor 10:31)
I'm simply stating that when I debate I don't debate just for the fun of debating (Dominic has stated to me months ago that he loves debating and that's why he engages me often) I told him that's fine, but I debate so that, in hopes, we find the truth. If at any time I feel I go in circles with him, I don't continue "arguing" with him:

Jesus said: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)

My bible puts it well when it says (in my notes) Teaching should be given in accordance with the spiritual capacity of the learners. and in 1st Cor 2 it says: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. So you see I don't go more than I should with individuals because then, as Solomon says "it's meaningless, a chasing after the wind"

And now that the intro is over, here's my posting: :)

Pedro said: My Response: Naturally, I agree that when I say “I believe”, those beliefs do not supersede the Word of God as written in the Bible. It is kind of silly to even suggest that could have been the case, but I guess if you are dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s, you do have to make that distinction

And

Only the Word of God is the Truth and the reader must interpret the Word of God for themselves to form their own beliefs. (emphasis mine)

I would like to add this excerpt taken from one of my favorite informative sites regarding the "interpreting of Scripture" to make it very clear - AiG
A basic principle of Scriptural interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture—that is why we are confident in what we teach about Genesis—it is consistent with the rest of Scripture (unlike all the attempts at compromised ‘interpretations’—

I'm glad you state this, I think this is very important and I want any reader coming upon this post to understand that you believe this. However in making that statement you are majorly contradicting, compromising and saying God is a liar because what he says in his word is not true (which we will see with your other arguments, namely that God could of used Evolution) In another email I sent you I asked you if these were truly your beliefs (all the arguments you presented of Evolution etc...) and you stated that they were. I was confused because in your opening statement to an email you said this:

Evolution or Creation? Do we really have to subscribe to one line of thinking or the other as Christians? Could it be... could it just be that both are right? We will certainly never know for sure, but I think so. (emphasis mine)

I cannot express how much this is a contradictory in terms. I assume that you are professing to be a christian by this statement and want any reader stumbling upon this as well to know that. I praise God for that, Hallelujah because that makes us brothers destined to be heirs with Christ one day, I have no doubt about that nor am I questioning that (because I know you personally). But I believe then as you are my brother I must help you to understand God's ways and more importantly his word. To this (your question, could it just be that both are right?) I would reply the way Jesus replied to the Sadducee's when they asked him a certain question in Matthew 22. He said "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God"

It would seem from the statement you made and the rest of that posting/reply and your obvious arguments against the watch maker theory that you are an advocate and defender of Evolution. In other words you would be labeled as what's called an Theistic Evolutionist (that God used millions of years and the evolutionary process to bring about his creation)

Again, this contradicts God's word and who He is. Your saying that he didn't do it the way He says he did. Therefore, that makes him a liar, and if he is a liar then he is not God, why would anyone want to follow Him then?

In a great article given on AiG by Monty White, Ph.D. he states this clearly.
Many theistic evolutionists (such as Prof. Wood) compromise their interpretation of Genesis and believe in millions of years in which evolution has supposedly occurred, with God controlling the processes. They also believe that God still controls these processes and that evolution is still proceeding. These teachings are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that God has completed His creation (Genesis 2:1-2).
If you accept the idea of evolution, you have to accept the evolutionary dogma that the human species is just part of the evolution of life, nothing special and certainly not the end-product.
Yet the Bible teaches that human beings are special. God created the first human pair in His image and likeness. Adam and Eve were created by God- Adam out of the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam's side. God did not cause them to evolve from some ape-like creature. We are not related to animals. There is not a hint of evolution in what the Bible teaches about our origins.

The true evolutionist would argue with me that I am not arguing about the evolutionary process but now I am arguing Abiogenesis. Evolutionist say that we (creationist) often make the misconception that as they are defending macro-evolution (the process of one species evolving into a completely different species over millions and millions of years) they are not and do not wish to talk about Abiogenesis (the studying of how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth) I think this is ridiculous. You want to argue evolution and it's process but you don't want to argue how the first organism got there to evolve in the first place?

Moving on..... Simply stated, as people of God, to say that God used both creation and then evolution to bring about his work, is to say God lied when he stated in Genesis "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He made it very clear from the very first sentence that He did it all. The answer is "no" both cannot be right. Either one is right and the other is wrong.

I need to add that if you are suggesting (based off of your email) that the entire creation account is one big parable, I would have to point you to the obvious. What part of Genesis, especially in the very first verse and on to the next few chapters would give you the impression that He was speaking in a parable or not speaking literally? It is very clear when Jesus is speaking in a parable or telling an allegoric story (hence the disciples asking why he was speaking in parables) Plus it was prophesied that he would speak in parables, He was fulfilling prophecy!!! (Matt 13:35) The creation account is Gods literal telling of what he did. It is "plain" reading and "plainly" laid out for us. Why are we such a stubborn people who try to pervert and distort the word of God? Furthermore, why in Romans 8:19-22 does Paul not tell us when referring to the creation of the world that this was just a parable? He speaks of it in many other epistles as well. So does the author of Hebrews and so on throughout the new testament. No one explains it away to be just a parable. They take it literally and believe it as God said it.


We should be careful when teaching such things without studying what the word of God says on the matter first. Scripture says: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the "creation" of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

He says men are without excuse. They have no excuse for not giving glory to God because he is all over his creation. Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the LORD. (Isaiah 66:2) My bible notes put it well when it says "No one-not even one who has not heard of the Bible or of Christ-has an excuse for not honoring God, because the whole created world reveals him"

But for the one's who don't give him credit or glory and try to use a humanistic or post modernistic argument to account for what we all see today, I answer them with yet again, God's word "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (Romans 1:21-23)
I have heard many biblical scholars put it this way, and I must agree "They became stupid or dumb on purpose".

If you believe in God then you believe His word. You believe Him when he says He created the stars (Genesis 1:16; Job 26:13; Psalm 8:3; Psalm 33:6; Psalm 136:7; Psalm 136:9; Amos 5:8 (New International Version) and has them all named (Psalm 147:4)

You believe Him when he says He Created Heaven and our planet (Gen 1:1)

You believe Him when he says He has every hair on your head numbered (Matt 10:30) and that he has your name written in the palm of his hand (Isaiah 49:16)

I can go on and on and on with this. The point is you cannot believe in one part of God's word and not believe others. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

and

"For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

and

"All Scripture is God-breathed (this includes Genesis) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (emphasis mine)

So to say God used evolution is against what God said Himself. There are many more scriptures that support the fact that God did not use evolution in any part of the process of His creation. He doesn't say it, nor does he even remotely hint it.

Pedro said: When God said in Genesis that he created the heavens and the earth in 7 days, did he literally mean 7 human days as we know it? God was pretty clear that his time does not equal our time. He said "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This is the classical example from most evolutionists.

So if this is a simple case of how to "interpret" the six day creation acct, and to answer the "Pedro said" statement above, allow me to use this to clarify:
The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.
If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8, '... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...'. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says, '... and a thousand years as one day'. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word 'day' already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.

What does 'day' mean?

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.*
Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom's meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase 'evening and morning', anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, 'evening and morning'. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.

To read the article in it's entirety:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp


Moving on...........

Pedro said: If you read enough of the New Testament, it becomes very clear, very quickly that Jesus love to speak to people via parables (a.k.a Stories)................................What does this mean? What Jesus is getting at is that he speaks via story telling so that only his true followers and believers will understand the moral of the story.

Why would Jesus teach something that only a selected few are to understand? One of the many reasons Jesus spoke in parables was because he was speaking to stubborn people, hence the saying "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them"

another reason, as a commentator puts it so well is: The enemies of Jesus were always waiting for him to say something on account of which they might accuse and persecute him (Luke 11:53-54). By speaking in parables, Jesus was making it very hard for them to use his words against him. He could hardly be arrested for telling homely stories!

Jesus did not only use parables in his ministry, He taught many things and we can clearly see this at times such as after being tempted in the desert he began to teach in Matt chapter 4. In Matt chapter 5 he teaches the Beatitudes, to be salt and light, the fulfilment of the law and so on. He did not preach or teach these in parables and everyone understood that...

Pedro said: "Fact is, God has not changed his methods" Sure he does, he changes his methods all the time. Jesus healed many men who were blind. With one demon possessed man who was def and blind he just healed him (Matt 12:22) With the blind man from Bethsaida, Jesus spit on his eyes (hahahaha) Yet another man, Bartimaeus, scripture says "Immediately he received his sight" (NIV)


To say that God doesn't change his methods is to say that God doesn't change his mind. If that's the case then why does God say this in 2nd Chronicles: Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the LORD's wrath did not come upon them during the days of Hezekiah. Even though it clearly said that God's wrath was on him. God was set on getting Hezekiah. The real fact is, is that God changes his methods all the time because he is God and we are not and he can do so (But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases - Job 23:13)... There are countless scriptures to show that God doesn't stick to one method of doing something.... I realize this is a reduntant argument but wanted to address it anyway.

Pedro said: "I believe that God instituted evolution itself and used it as his method of creation. I believe that God created that first spark of life and guided it patiently and deliberately towards the creation of not just humans but all living things. How breathe taking!"

This contradicts what you said above when you said: My Response: Naturally, I agree that when I say “I believe”, those beliefs do not supersede the Word of God as written in the Bible. It is kind of silly to even suggest that could have been the case, but I guess if you are dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s, you do have to make that distinction" And "Only the Word of God is the Truth and the reader must interpret the Word of God for themselves to form their own beliefs."

Pedro said: "I just don’t understand why many Christian’s are so intent on disproving evolution" Because evolution, this grand fairy tale for adults, the greatest lie ever told and this astronomical improbability tries to take my God, Creator and Savior out of the picture. I will not and cannot stand for it. I praise God that I don't have to actually defend Him or the Word nor does God need me to. Charles Spurgeon said it this way "Defend the Bible? I would as soon defend a lion! Unchain it and it will defend itself.

Pedro said: "when if we really think about it, evolution itself is the most miraculous creation of all creations" Now you sound as though you have accepted this notion of evolution as fact. Yet you cannot provide evidence of any species turning into another species. Fossils cannot tell you anything about evolution. How can you tell from a fossil that the animal even had offspring? And how can you tell then if it did, that it mutated? Fossils tell you one thing, it's dead now. Be careful Pedro, when you believe in something that you cannot see, that means you have faith in it, making it your own religion. Creation and evolution is not a battle between religion and science, it is a battle of "our" religion against "their" religion. A battle of two world views.

Pedro said: "The fact that God chooses to create a creation that dynamically evolves and self-improves over time in a direction that he sees fit is extraordinary." Question for you. When God was finished with all of his creating on the sixth day it said "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" If everything was "very good" (no mutations, no disease, no sickness, for death by sin had not entered the world yet) then why do we need to "dynamically evolve and/or self improve" ? Are you saying that God did a poor job the first time? hmm....

Pedro said: "The evidence of evolution is all around us. There is no denying that God created the tendency of living things to evolve. One of the best examples of this evolution at work is the domestic Dog. Only a couple hundred years ago, there were only a hand-full of Dog breeds (which stemmed from the wild wolf). Since then dogs have been selectively breed by humans into hundreds of varied breeds of all shapes and sizes. Everything from a few inches in the Chihuahua to a few feet in the Irish Wolfhound; from white to black, and every color in between; from long fur to short, from straight fur to curly. ... and all this from dogs that looked much like the wild Wolf. This evolution of dogs is fact and there is no denying it."

Pedro, let us use common sense and common logic shall we ?(that which God gave us both)There is no doubt that we see "variations" of dogs today which we know came from other "dog like" animals from interbreeding different "kinds" of dogs and so on. No one in their right mind would dispute that.


And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. (emphasis mine) He did not say "according to their species"


This is your proof for evolution? Dogs mate with dogs and we get different kinds of dogs? Notice after all the breeding and years that have gone by, the outcome is still a dog like animal? (four legs and a tail etc.) According to the evolutionary process, at some point through natural selection and "beneficial mutations" we should have a completely different species of animal that is not a dog as though genetic code decided it was going to make up new code. Tell me can you produce Chinese books with the English alphabet? If not, then how can we get the Black Bear from your dogs, or the Elephant? This would otherwise be known as "micro evolution" (the dogs)which I still think to be a poor choice of words but nonetheless I will use it. What we are referring to is your "macro evolution" (Whale from Grizzle Bear). I think the illustration below shows the absurdity of what your "theory" states: "Click on the Picture"

The cartoon says this for those who can't make out the words, from left to right each picture given it's respective number: 1.Yes, after millions of years of evolving what was once a "single-celled" organism somehow developed lungs (and legs!) and hopped out onto Dry Land. 2. This first "lone" amphibian found a Mate (how so darn lucky something else of opposite sex evolved also at the same time and rate), and over time evolved into many other creatures, such as the giraffe.... 3. The Polar Bear... 4. And even our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln! 5. Other amphibians, meanwhile, inexplicably kept reproducing more amphibians.

Do you see how ridiculous this notion is? Not only did they have to evolve but they had to "by chance" hope that a female evolved also with the opposite reproductive organs to mate and reproduce, why??? they had no need to reproduce. when did they decide they needed to? Man I could go on with this........... We will save this for another post.

moving on..........

Pedro said: "Evolution is clearly evident in all living things. God allowed Scientists like Darwin to discover it" Please don't even get me started on Darwin. You make statements like this and don't even know what your talking about. I will just include but a few statements about Darwin. (again I will expose him and his theory more in a future post) these are but a fraction of facts about Darwin, his theory and his book.

Some facts about Charles Darwin:

• His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in Nov 1859. the full title, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; this concept led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of man-kind.
• 1831 Graduated from the University of Cambridge with a degree in Theology
• Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.
• It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horse back travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.
• His theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England. (http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon7finches.html)
• In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with it's ridiculous arguments.
• Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract", and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.
• When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "let us take an imaginary example" Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "as we have already demonstrated previously." elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.
• He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (Charles Darwin Origin of the Species, 1860,p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed. Vol. 11)

I could seriously go on and write a small book about Darwin. I supposed you are right, God did use Darwin but it was not for a discovery, it was a display of his foolishness, in not giving the Creator credit for his creation. What an insult to the Father. The creation trying so hard to discredit his creator, why would he think God would even allow it, as though he could even do so anyway.

So now I must close. I realize that I have spent a considerable amount of time on this particular email but I feel that it was import to clarify much. If anyone would like to comment or respond, feel absolutely free. Pedro is family (my wife's cousin) and a great friend of mine. We are both replying to each other(and having other personal conversations) in good o'l productive arguing. I highly respect him as I do Dominic (who may very well be reading this post as well)

I believe (by the word of God) that we are all extremely unique and different and special to God. You are one in a million and yet you are God's. He knows you by name and you were "fearfully and wonderfully" made by him. You did not happen by chancy or by random selection. The reason why you might seem common to a monkey is because you share a common designer. We all know the lug nuts from a Chevy can fit on a Pontiac, so we will see some similarities in his creation, this does not "prove" evolution occurred. And he did not make you by accident either. He chose the name Pedro before Adam and Even even set foot in the Garden. He knows the future he has planned for you, you are of great worth to him. I implore you, don't exchange lies for his truth.

Your brother,

Joe

-Man of God