The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

CrimsonMoon -> The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/20/2008 7:07:57 PM)

Genesis / Creation

In the beginning, God created the heaves and the earth. Then God said, "Let there be a one-cell organism." And God saw the one cell-organism was good. An indiscernible age of time passed. The first indiscernible age of time.

Then God said, "Let the one-cell organism multiply and evolve". And the one-cell organism multiplied over an indiscernible age of time. The second indiscernible age of time.

Then God said, "Let there be moss." And God saw the moss, that it was good. An indiscernible age of time passed. The third indiscernible age.

Then God said, "Let the moss become shrubs and trees." And after an indiscernible age of time, shrubs and trees evolved from the moss. An indiscernible age of time passed. The fourth indiscernible age.

Then God said, "Let there be death and suffering. Let pain be throughout all the earth." And there was death. And God saw the death, and God called the death good.

Then God said," Let there be dinosaurs, to rule the earth. But God did not like the dinosaurs and so he sent a plague to kill them off. And an indiscernible age of time passed. The fifth indiscernible age.

Then God said, "Let the fish that evolved from the one-cell organism become a tetrapod and speciate into a variety of tetrapods. Let one of them become an amniote and let amniote develop into several subgroups. Let one of these be a mammal, and from this mammal, let there be an ape-type creature and let it continue to evolve until it is made in my image." And an indiscernible age of time passed. The sixth indiscernible age.

Then God rested for an indiscernible age of time. The seventh indiscernible age of time.

Genesis / The Flood:

God observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil. So the Lord was sorry he ever allowed them to evolve and put them on the earth. It grieved his heart. And the Lord said, I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the small area of Mesopotamia. Yes, I will destroy every living thing – all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky, well at least those that inhabit Mesopotamia. I am sorry I ever allowed them to evolve.

Now God saw that the earth had become corrupt and was filled with violence. God observed all this corruption in the world. for everyone on earth was corrupt. So God said to Noah, “I have decided to destroy all living things (in Mesopotamia) for they have filled the earth with violence.”

“But Lord,” Noah replied. “It will take me 100 years to build an ark according to your specifications. Wouldn’t it be easier for me to just leave Mesopotamia and move to, say, Egypt?”

Behold! I am about to cover the earth, I mean Mesopotamia, with a flood that will destroy every living thing that breathes, well, everything in Mesopotamia that is. Everything on the earth, I mean Mesopotamia, will die.

For forty days the floodwaters rose higher and higher above the ground lifting the boat high above the earth. Finally the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks -- (oops, sorry, scribal error) – rising more than twenty-two feet above Mesopotamia. But God put up a barrier around Mesopotamia to contain the flood waters to protect Egypt and the other areas of the world, the people who were corrupt and wicked and filled with violence, the large animals, the small animals, and the birds that inhabit the air.

EXODUS

The Lord came down on Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. And wrote on tablets of stone in his own hand.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Me your God… because after unspecified ages of time I made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and then rested for an unspecified age of time, therefore I am blessing the seventh day, and hallowing it."

Gospel of Matthew

Some Pharisees cam and tried to trap him with this question: Should a man be permitted to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Haven’t you read the Scriptures?”

Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning God made them male and female. And by the beginning, naturally I do not mean the beginning, but after billions and billions of years after the creation of the single-cell organism, and of course when there existed both a male and female of the evolved ape type creature that by random chance evolved into the image of God. ”

Gospel of Luke

Jesus was known as the son of Jospeh, the son of Heli, the son of Mattat……the son of Noah (who was spared from the great flood of Mesopotamia), the son of Methuselah…..the son of Seth (who is an allegory) the son of Adam (also an allegory) the son of God (sorry, scribal typo) the son of the ape-type creature, the son of the mammal, the son of the amniote, the son of the tetrapod, the son of the fish, the son of the one-celled organism, the son of God.

Romans

For all creation is eagerly waiting for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will all creation -- I mean -- for it was part of God’s plan that all creation be subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in the glorious freedom from death and decay which God created it under.

2 Peter

The deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command and that he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water (sorry, typo) that he brought the earth from the land and surrounded it by land, then created water an indiscernible age later. Then he used the water to destroy the earth, I mean Mesopotamia, with a great, er, local flood.

My point to all this is very simple. Why is it that creationists are the ones accused of reading meaning into scripture that isn’t there? How is it that we are accused of NOT reading from the text (exegesis)?

(And please, don’t try to explain why my creation example does not perfectly follow evolution as I am trying to make a hermeneutic point not explain the cosmology of evolutionists.)



drj11 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/20/2008 7:26:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
My point to all this is very simple. Why is it that creationists are the ones accused of reading meaning into scripture that isn’t there? How is it that we are accused of NOT reading from the text (exegesis)?


It's really pretty simple. Any honest and objective scientific observation of God's creation will show you that genesis is not to be understood as a historical text. Discrepancies between observed creation and scripture indicates a mistake on our part, in one area or the other. A misinterpretation of a scientific observation, or a misinterpretation of the Bible. A couple hundred years ago, you might have been able to honestly say that the discrepancies might be a misinterpretation of scientific evidence... but that doesn't fly anymore. Interpreting genesis literally is wrong, overwhelmingly and conclusively. If your understanding of the Bible can not be reconciled with anything other than a 6k year old universe/earth, the error is on your part. It's up to you to figure out what genesis actually means after that.

In other words, if you do not take reality into account when interpreting the text, your interpretation will be flawed.



gluadys -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/20/2008 8:25:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
My point to all this is very simple. Why is it that creationists are the ones accused of reading meaning into scripture that isn’t there? How is it that we are accused of NOT reading from the text (exegesis)?


Isn't that what you were just doing in your example? Quite amusing btw. But not at all the way an evolutionary creationist (theistic evolutionist) would read the text.

This is the problem. You think this must be how evolutionary creationists read the text because that is how you as a creationist would read it if you wanted to "reconcile" science with scripture. You expect to find science in scripture and so you think evolutionary creationists also expect to find science in scripture and insert it a la your example.

What you need to get clear is that we do not expect the scriptural accounts to be scientific and we do not need to reconcile them with science. So we don't need to read these texts the way you think we need to.



cow451 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/21/2008 12:38:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon

Genesis / Creation



Newbie: Creative, but poor hermeneutics. You should use this in Sunday School. You'll gets lots of laughs.



PromiseLander -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/21/2008 1:31:14 PM)

CrimsonMoon:
DUDE! Now I've got to clean a mouthfull of V8 off of my computer screen! That was hilarious!
If anyone can't see the paradox of "Christian Evolutionist" then apparently they're not understanding something correctly...



cow451 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/21/2008 2:14:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

CrimsonMoon:
DUDE! Now I've got to clean a mouthfull of V8 off of my computer screen! That was hilarious!
If anyone can't see the paradox of "Christian Evolutionist" then apparently they're not understanding something correctly...

Thanks for validating my point in Post #4.



drj11 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/21/2008 2:22:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

CrimsonMoon:
DUDE! Now I've got to clean a mouthfull of V8 off of my computer screen! That was hilarious!
If anyone can't see the paradox of "Christian Evolutionist" then apparently they're not understanding something correctly...


Let me ask you something... have you ever explained something to a child (or had something explained to you as a child) that was complicated, or would be hard for their young mind to understand? The machinery and minute details of this thing are really secondary to the lesson you want them to understand. So you use a metaphor or allegory to enable them to comprehend the point you are trying to make.

What are the important points of the creation story, and would those points have the same impact as a scientific treatise of creation?

Why would God write a science book when the audience is every member of the human race, and not just scientists?



GHitch -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 10:05:35 AM)

Crimson : Very amusing. I like it. Especially the evolutionist parts [:D] There is no place for Darwinism in Genesis or the NT for that matter.

Nevertheless, I don't think it's that easy in reality. Even some of the old Jewish rabbis saw the genesis account as including unspecified lengths of time.
Generally known as gap theory. Gap theory basically is that some length of time must have passed after the 1st verse to arrive at the earth being empty and chaotic in the 2nd.

Some of the rabbis also thought that the days were symbolic of eras consisting of 7000 years each. And these gap theorists also tended to think that earth was created long before gen 1:2 Of course YECs don't accept that.

Any evidence for that? Well if you trust dating technologies and theories of star light, yes. (Unless Humphry's Starlight theory is correct - that would seriously change the data.)
Actually it isn't the technologies used for dating - rather the underlying assumptions used in their development.

Not all creationists are YECs. [;)]
In any case much can be said for both views and probably the truth is something none of us ever imagined. [8D]



drj11 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 11:28:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

Crimson : Very amusing. I like it. Especially the evolutionist parts [:D] There is no place for Darwinism in Genesis or the NT for that matter.

Nevertheless, I don't think it's that easy in reality. Even some of the old Jewish rabbis saw the genesis account as including unspecified lengths of time.
Generally known as gap theory. Gap theory basically is that some length of time must have passed after the 1st verse to arrive at the earth being empty and chaotic in the 2nd.

Some of the rabbis also thought that the days were symbolic of eras consisting of 7000 years each. And these gap theorists also tended to think that earth was created long before gen 1:2 Of course YECs don't accept that.


Or they didnt think the account was a literal story detailing how the earth was created at all. In particular I can think of Philo's exegesis, where he argues that the days are symbolism for the creation of the sequence (or order), and don't correspond to literal days at all.

I always thought the gap theory was a fairly recent thing, for those still trying to reconcile literal/historical interpretation of genesis with modern scientific reality.



gluadys -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 12:27:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
There is no place for Darwinism in Genesis or the NT for that matter.


Interestingly, this a statement most theistic evolutionists support. Why would one expect to find modern science in an ancient text?



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 2:21:42 PM)

quote:

Why would one expect to find modern science in an ancient text?


Umm, maybe because they are GODS SPOKEN WORDS, and He can speak anything He pleases?! I, for one, WOULD expect (at least not be surprised) if the God that created me chose to record creation (science) somewhere. Perhaps the BIBLE?! Wow, I just can't get over the above quote. The Bible is not just an ancient text. It is the manifestation of the Power of God. Give me a break. I thought this was a Christian website.



wayward1 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 3:04:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I thought this was a Christian website.



I'm sincerely sorry to butt in but it seems odd to me that a human finds himself qualified to decide that another human shouldn't be able to make such a statement about the bible. I agree with the statement so you disagree with me as well. Why would the bible contain anything revealed by modern science?

Or more correctly, why doesn't it? If it had a few passages about the covalent, ionic, metallic, and hydrogen bonds that had remained a mystery to us all until they were finally discovered by science in the early 1900s then perhaps we wouldn't be able to say "why would an ancient text contain anything about modern science".

Even just one such tidbit of information would have been extraordinarily convincing evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration because people of that time would have had ABSOLUTELY no way of knowing about things recently revealed by science. They would have looked at each other as they wrote the words being divinely dictated to them and said "what the heck is this mumbo jumbo?" To which the only natural response would have been "I don't know man just write it down. It's God's word, not ours." Surely God knew about our chemistry though. Why not throw in one piece of knowledge humans would only discover after hundreds of years of scientific exploration and learning?

In fact His refusal to do so is the only thing that relegates His book to being worthy of such speculation. It is clearly NOT MEANT to be unquestionable, or it would include at least some piece of unquestionably divine knowledge like a little tiny map of the human Genome or something, that people simply could NOT have guessed correctly about.

It is therefore God's will that His bible be "questionable" because He had the power to make it unquestionable and elected not to. So your insistence that people not question it could be misconstrued as going against God's will.

As for the part I quoted above, sir, I imagine there are all manner of people from all walks of life who believe vastly different things about God but all consider themselves to be Christians. We should be able to find ways to have a spirited debate without suggesting someone doesn't belong because this place is for Christians.

But even if someone isn't a Christian as you have assumed and stated, what good would it do to reject them for it? Everyone can't be born a Christian. If someone is here perhaps it's because they are searching or trying to understand Christianity. I can't get over this line I've quoted here in much the same way you can't get over the line you quoted. It just seems so polarizing that I simply would NOT have expected it from someone who claims to have the grace of God in his life.

It is graceless and judgmental to say such a thing. And I too thought this was a Christian website where such things would not be expected from Christians.



FreddieD -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 3:13:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon

Gospel of Luke

Jesus was known as the son of Jospeh, the son of Heli, the son of Mattat……the son of Noah (who was spared from the great flood of Mesopotamia), the son of Methuselah…..the son of Seth (who is an allegory) the son of Adam (also an allegory) the son of God (sorry, scribal typo) the son of the ape-type creature, the son of the mammal, the son of the amniote, the son of the tetrapod, the son of the fish, the son of the one-celled organism, the son of God.


And God was the son of Mary!!! The Holy Mother, the Queen of Heaven.

FreddieD



benelchi -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 3:15:07 PM)

From a bible for those who insist on an ultra literal interpretation regardless of the context.

Lk 2:1 "Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth, he then organized groups to go by foot, and ship to every continent and and island to proclaim his decree. After many years the whole earth had been notified."



gluadys -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 3:21:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

Why would one expect to find modern science in an ancient text?


Umm, maybe because they are GODS SPOKEN WORDS, and He can speak anything He pleases?!


And it is evident from the most cursory reading of scripture that God did not please to incorporate any references to modern science into the bible.

quote:

I, for one, WOULD expect (at least not be surprised) if the God that created me chose to record creation (science) somewhere.


And God did. In the natural world he created BY HIS WORD.



DanJames -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 5:28:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

CrimsonMoon:
DUDE! Now I've got to clean a mouthfull of V8 off of my computer screen! That was hilarious!
If anyone can't see the paradox of "Christian Evolutionist" then apparently they're not understanding something correctly...


Let me ask you something... have you ever explained something to a child (or had something explained to you as a child) that was complicated, or would be hard for their young mind to understand? The machinery and minute details of this thing are really secondary to the lesson you want them to understand. So you use a metaphor or allegory to enable them to comprehend the point you are trying to make.

What are the important points of the creation story, and would those points have the same impact as a scientific treatise of creation?

Why would God write a science book when the audience is every member of the human race, and not just scientists?


I think the difference is that the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme could have been written in a very simplified form, understandable to any audience, and not have all the obvious discrepancies that we would find in the first chapter of Genesis. If that had happened there would be no disagreement between Creationists and subscribers to the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme. The problem is that the first chapter of Genesis cannot possibly be read as the GUS without stretching it beyond the point of any literary writing style (except myth/fiction). AiG wrote a much less laughable rendition of the first chapter of Genesis which portrays how it could have been written, if God had used the GUS as his creative agent. Definitely worth a look if you've used this argument.



cow451 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 5:56:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

Why would one expect to find modern science in an ancient text?


Umm, maybe because they are GODS SPOKEN WORDS, and He can speak anything He pleases?! I, for one, WOULD expect (at least not be surprised) if the God that created me chose to record creation (science) somewhere. Perhaps the BIBLE?! Wow, I just can't get over the above quote. The Bible is not just an ancient text. It is the manifestation of the Power of God. Give me a break. I thought this was a Christian website.


The "words" in the Bible were handed down verbally from generation to generation until being either written or compiled by Moses. We do not have any original manuscripts.

Shoe-horning any scientific concepts into Genesis makes no sense at all and takes scripture out of historical context.

Your defensiveness and definition of "Christian" does not make your interpretation "right".



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 6:09:01 PM)

quote:

I'm sincerely sorry to butt in but it seems odd to me that a human finds himself qualified to decide that another human shouldn't be able to make such a statement about the bible.


I never said anything along these lines. You read into it a bit too much. I gave my opinion. This is a message board where we debate topics such as this if you didn't notice. There's nothing I can do if my debating angers you.

quote:

Or more correctly, why doesn't it? If it had a few passages about the covalent, ionic, metallic, and hydrogen bonds that had remained a mystery to us all until they were finally discovered by science in the early 1900s then perhaps we wouldn't be able to say "why would an ancient text contain anything about modern science".

Even just one such tidbit of information would have been extraordinarily convincing evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration because people of that time would have had ABSOLUTELY no way of knowing about things recently revealed by science. They would have looked at each other as they wrote the words being divinely dictated to them and said "what the heck is this mumbo jumbo?" To which the only natural response would have been "I don't know man just write it down. It's God's word, not ours." Surely God knew about our chemistry though. Why not throw in one piece of knowledge humans would only discover after hundreds of years of scientific exploration and learning?

In fact His refusal to do so is the only thing that relegates His book to being worthy of such speculation. It is clearly NOT MEANT to be unquestionable, or it would include at least some piece of unquestionably divine knowledge like a little tiny map of the human Genome or something, that people simply could NOT have guessed correctly about.

It is therefore God's will that His bible be "questionable" because He had the power to make it unquestionable and elected not to.


This is a debate that has been alive since the Bible was published. Why didn't God mention quantum physics in the Bible? If so, would there be any reason not to believe in Him?

Well, there is 2 problems with this. Faith is not faith when there is no doubt. God did exactly what He needed to do, and who are we to tell Him what is required by US to believe in Him? He sent His Son to work miracles, and to die for your sins. Whether you have faith in Him or not is up to YOU. You obviously don't, and I'm saddened, because I guarantee you your life would change for the good when you give your life to your Savior Jesus Christ. God did what He wanted. To say it isn't fair because He did not record Calculus in Scriptures is shallow.

Secondly, and most surprisingly. I have visited Atheistic websites and forums (VERY unpleasant btw) and I even posted a question on one. "If tomorrow, the rapture recorded in Revelation were to come true, and millions upon millions of Christians world-wide just vanished, and Christian churches ceased to exist, would that be enough for you to believe?" I counted all the replies, and 83% of individuals who replied to my question replied with a resounding NO! And actually, they added a few cuss words and told me exactly what they thought about me. I have to admit, I was flabbergasted. The moral of the story is this: no matter WHAT the Almighty God does for mankind, people STILL WILL NOT accept Him. Jesus Christ RAISED A MAN FROM THE DEAD and people did not believe!!!!! And this is shown through the bitterness of people's hearts proved by the statistic I just showed you.

So to claim God's reliability is challenged because He chose not to record something YOU claim is necessary for YOU to believe is arrogant and egotistical in the face of the Holy, Just God. I pray you will soon realize your need for Him. Life is not about us.

quote:

So your insistence that people not question it could be misconstrued as going against God's will.


These are words you put in my mouth. Never did I say this. I questioned it for decades, and it is through this questioning that God "smacked me in the face" and humbled me to the point of selflessness recognition. And thank God He intervened, because I would not be alive today if He didn't.

quote:

As for the part I quoted above, sir, I imagine there are all manner of people from all walks of life who believe vastly different things about God but all consider themselves to be Christians.


One can consider themselves a Christian all day long. Considering oneself a Christian does not make oneself a Christian. The reason I take this so seriously is that as a CHRISTian, should not I listen to CHRIST'S words? I mean, the last time I checked, that is kind of a requirement. Where are those words recorded? Scriptures. When Jesus speaks, I listen. I don't claim He was a myth and all He said is an allegory. Allegories are not absolutes. Jesus' commandments are. Why should someone consider Genesis an allegory when there is nothing to indicate it is? But, as Gluadys has already admitted, she claims it is an allegory by the science she observes. Her Scriptures change with science, and THAT is something I have a problem with.



benelchi -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 6:21:49 PM)

quote:

The reason I take this so seriously is that as a CHRISTian, should not I listen to CHRIST'S words? I mean, the last time I checked, that is kind of a requirement. Where are those words recorded? Scriptures. When Jesus speaks, I listen. I don't claim He was a myth and all He said is an allegory. Allegories are not absolutes. Jesus' commandments are.


This is completely a straw man argument. There are many Christians who believe in the historicity of the biblical account, believe in the historicity of the Gospel account, and believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and still reject the idea that Ge. 1 is a literal 6 day account.

quote:


Why should someone consider Genesis an allegory when there is nothing to indicate it is? But, as Gluadys has already admitted, she claims it is an allegory by the science she observes. Her Scriptures change with science, and THAT is something I have a problem with.


The reason why someone should consider looking at the Genesis 1 account as a non literal account is because there is internal evidence for a non literal interpretation. One of the earliest recorded proponents of the day age theory of Creation was Augustine, and his conclusions were based entirely on the internal evidence from scripture; he made his proposition many, many centuries before science raised questions about a literal interpretation.



gluadys -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 6:38:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Let me ask you something... have you ever explained something to a child (or had something explained to you as a child) that was complicated, or would be hard for their young mind to understand? The machinery and minute details of this thing are really secondary to the lesson you want them to understand. So you use a metaphor or allegory to enable them to comprehend the point you are trying to make.

What are the important points of the creation story, and would those points have the same impact as a scientific treatise of creation?

Why would God write a science book when the audience is every member of the human race, and not just scientists?


I think the difference is that the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme could have been written in a very simplified form, understandable to any audience, and not have all the obvious discrepancies that we would find in the first chapter of Genesis. If that had happened there would be no disagreement between Creationists and subscribers to the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme. The problem is that the first chapter of Genesis cannot possibly be read as the GUS without stretching it beyond the point of any literary writing style (except myth/fiction). AiG wrote a much less laughable rendition of the first chapter of Genesis which portrays how it could have been written, if God had used the GUS as his creative agent. Definitely worth a look if you've used this argument.


But for what purpose would God have inspired Moses or any other ancient writer to use the modern scientific framework of uniformitarianism? Were the Israelites asking how old the earth is? Were they asking about the formation of the Grand Canyon? Were they asking what fossils are? Was it to explain fossils and geological strata that the story of Noah's flood was told and retold?

Or did God inspire these scriptures to answer questions that were much more pertinent to the Israelites? Such as: who is this God who led us out of Egypt? Is he the only God or are the gods of other nations real too? Who made the natural world we know? Our God or the gods of the nations? one God or many gods? Is this world, (as the Canaanite and Babylonian cosmogonies said) the fruit of a war among the gods? Were humans made to serve the gods as slave labour? Or was the world made by one God, the God of Israel, who had no need to conquer other gods? Were humans made, not as slave labour, but in God's image as lords and stewards of creation? Why does wickedness exist in the world? Does God care about wickedness one way or the other?

If these were the important questions, what need is there, in the stories which reveal the answers, to speak in terms of issues like uniformitarianism which would not even be thought of for many millennia yet.

The problem with the AiG rewrite is that it tries to answer questions people ask about creation today. It doesn't deal with any of the issues that were important in ancient Israel. It would certainly be understandable to ancient peoples (the Hindu cosmogony is even older and envisions a process of trillions of years). But it would be nearly useless as a practical aid to faith in the face of their own situation. It would make sense to them, but it would not speak to their hearts.



wayward1 -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 7:03:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

I'm sincerely sorry to butt in but it seems odd to me that a human finds himself qualified to decide that another human shouldn't be able to make such a statement about the bible.


I never said anything along these lines. You read into it a bit too much. I gave my opinion. This is a message board where we debate topics such as this if you didn't notice. There's nothing I can do if my debating angers you.


Finding something "odd" is quite different from finding something "angering".

quote:



This is a debate that has been alive since the Bible was published. Why didn't God mention quantum physics in the Bible? If so, would there be any reason not to believe in Him?

Well, there is 2 problems with this. Faith is not faith when there is no doubt.


I suppose that is what prompted Douglas Adams to imagine God basically said this to His creation, "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

quote:

God did exactly what He needed to do, and who are we to tell Him what is required by US to believe in Him?


No one in particular, just one of His creation, unable to believe. Who are you to question my value?

quote:

He sent His Son to work miracles, and to die for your sins.


Don't you mean "our" sins?

quote:

Whether you have faith in Him or not is up to YOU.


Is it, but recently it was asserted that God will chose me and reveal Himself to me.

quote:

You obviously don't, and I'm saddened, because I guarantee you your life would change for the good when you give your life to your Savior Jesus Christ. God did what He wanted. To say it isn't fair because He did not record Calculus in Scriptures is shallow.


I didn't say it was unfair.

quote:

Secondly, and most surprisingly. I have visited Atheistic websites and forums (VERY unpleasant btw) and I even posted a question on one. "If tomorrow, the rapture recorded in Revelation were to come true, and millions upon millions of Christians world-wide just vanished, and Christian churches ceased to exist, would that be enough for you to believe?" I counted all the replies, and 83% of individuals who replied to my question replied with a resounding NO! And actually, they added a few cuss words and told me exactly what they thought about me. I have to admit, I was flabbergasted. The moral of the story is this: no matter WHAT the Almighty God does for mankind, people STILL WILL NOT accept Him. Jesus Christ RAISED A MAN FROM THE DEAD and people did not believe!!!!!


Did he? Wonder why Paul never mentioned an empty tomb then? If I had been asked the question you asked on that atheist website I would have said yes, that would have been a good enough reason to believe. It would help if I could witness just one bodily assumption into heaven but I wouldn't require it.

quote:

And this is shown through the bitterness of people's hearts proved by the statistic I just showed you.


My heart is warm.

quote:

So to claim God's reliability is challenged because He chose not to record something YOU claim is necessary for YOU to believe is arrogant and egotistical in the face of the Holy, Just God. I pray you will soon realize your need for Him. Life is not about us.


Again, I am considered egotistical and arrogant. I did not claim it was necessary. I said it would have made it unquestionable and since it's not there it appears God intended for it to be questionable. How is this arrogant? Disagreeing with you doesn't make me egotistical.

quote:



These are words you put in my mouth. Never did I say this. I questioned it for decades, and it is through this questioning that God "smacked me in the face" and humbled me to the point of selflessness recognition. And thank God He intervened, because I would not be alive today if He didn't.


I'd happily take such a slap in the face. And I'm sincerely glad you got yours. Perhaps it's not my time yet. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I must have gathered that from what you wrote and then responded as if you had actually written it. I didn't mean to offend or assume too much.

quote:



One can consider themselves a Christian all day long. Considering oneself a Christian does not make oneself a Christian. The reason I take this so seriously is that as a CHRISTian, should not I listen to CHRIST'S words? I mean, the last time I checked, that is kind of a requirement. Where are those words recorded? Scriptures. When Jesus speaks, I listen. I don't claim He was a myth and all He said is an allegory. Allegories are not absolutes. Jesus' commandments are. Why should someone consider Genesis an allegory when there is nothing to indicate it is?


Unfortunately for all of us, the best we can actually do is to put our faith in the men and women who have gone before us. Unless you personally have had it revealed to you that JESUS IS LORD, then you have to trust that someone else had it revealed them. Your faith is placed in the people you learned about Christianity from who placed their faith in the people they learned about christianity from, who placed their faith in the people they learned about Christianity from, all the way back to somewhere around 2000 years ago when, supposedly, some human placed his faith in the actual almighty God through directly witnessing his actions on earth.

quote:

But, as Gluadys has already admitted, she claims it is an allegory by the science she observes. Her Scriptures change with science, and THAT is something I have a problem with.


One major problem with the world is that ignorant people and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts. This is in no way directed at anyone here. The fact that "her scriptures change with science" is not only NOT something I'd have a problem with, it's something I would like to see from ALL of my fellow humans. It is simply an observation we can all agree with when we apply it to the certainty of the religious fanatics who bombed the world trade center. Life should be one doubt after another. I wish they would have doubted themselves.

The creator of startrek will be best suited to speak for me in closing. "To me the whole joy and glory of Jesus is the fact that he was one of us. It seems to me that the whole statement of the New Testament is, "Hey, man, you can too, because I was born like you. I died like you. There's nothing special about me that's not special in you. And I'm offering you both." And I think the divinity thing is baloney because they've taken away from the glorious, divine message that he kept saying over and over again. Divine, yes. But so are we. I think that's what he was saying: "So are you."

Jesus came to be part of nature, like us, what could make it more obvious that being part of nature is divine in and of itself?



drmark -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 7:58:23 PM)

quote:

This is completely a straw man argument. There are many Christians who believe in the historicity of the biblical account, believe in the historicity of the Gospel account, and believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and still reject the idea that Ge. 1 is a literal 6 day account.
Is Genesis a "literal account" of humankind created in God's Image? Is Genesis a "literal account" of Original Sin and the Curse? Is Genesis a "literal account" of the Hebrew patriarchs? What does it take, benelchi, to make one part of Genesis a "literal account" and another, written in the exact same literary style, context, and original intent, some symbolic allegory?



benelchi -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 8:04:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

This is completely a straw man argument. There are many Christians who believe in the historicity of the biblical account, believe in the historicity of the Gospel account, and believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and still reject the idea that Ge. 1 is a literal 6 day account.
Is Genesis a "literal account" of humankind created in God's Image? Is Genesis a "literal account" of Original Sin and the Curse? Is Genesis a "literal account" of the Hebrew patriarchs? What does it take, benelchi, to make one part of Genesis a "literal account" and another, written in the exact same literary style, context, and original intent, some symbolic allegory?



Actually it is NOT all written in the same literary style, this is misinformation often presented by those trying to argue for a literal interpretation, but it is completely wrong.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 8:12:22 PM)

quote:

Actually it is NOT all written in the same literary style, this is misinformation often presented by those trying to argue for a literal interpretation, but it is completely wrong.


Say what?! Iv'e read Genesis plenty of times. I'm sure I could say the same for drmark. We do not present "misinformation" to try to deceive you. It is an observation we make, and it happens to be true. Instead of claiming Genesis was not written the same, can you provide evidence for your claim? What in Genesis 1 leads you to believe it is an allegory? If you find something, I guarantee you read WAY between the lines, because there's just nothing there.



drmark -> RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists (7/26/2008 8:28:03 PM)

quote:

Actually it is NOT all written in the same literary style, this is misinformation often presented by those trying to argue for a literal interpretation, but it is completely wrong.
Well, you've certainly dimissed one of the world's authorities on Biblical Hebrew as being misinformed! From the article "Should Genesis be taken literally?":
quote:

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI