| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
23rd January 2012, 09:35 PM
| | Loudmouth
   
| | Join Date: 3rd July 2008
Posts: 3,029
Blessings: 101,531 My Mood 
Reps: 127,433,160,464,321,440 (power: 127,433,160,464,329) | | Originally Posted by CabVet Now, for your first question, and I hope you can agree with me here, I think the problem is that some portions of the Bible simply cannot be reconciled with science. And the whole thing simply does not make sense to me if anybody can pick and choose what parts they believe in and don't.
But that also depends on how you define "Christian".
Genesis is probably the only book which cannot be reconciled with science (if it is interpreted literally). Much of the Old Testament is intended to be read as a kind of history book, and other events - Jesus healing the blind for example - are miracles, which break the laws of science.
Christians have tried to define themselves using the Nicene Creed. Originally Posted by CabVet Nope, I share even less of my views with YECs and I just said I respect them more because I think they are at least consistent.
Coincidently, one another thread I got into an argument with a creationist by pointing out that many other creationists would disagree with their interpretations. I'm not sure "consistent" is the right word - they just seem reluctant to argue with one another.
--------------------------- Originally Posted by Verysincere Without the confusion of tradition with what the Bible actually says, would Young Earth Creationism be promoted by more than a tiny percentage of the population?
The fathers of the early church (Irenaeus of Lyons, 2nd century; Origen, 3rd century; St. Augustine, 4th-5th century AD) rejected a literal reading of Genesis. Even today the official position of the Catholic church in theistic evolution. The Jews too have often regarded Genesis as metaphorical.
YEC is a surprisingly recent development which can be traced back to 18th century American Protestantism. Yes, it was a reaction to Darwin's book.
__________________ I judge you unfortunate because you have never been unfortunate; you have passed through life without an antagonist; no one will know what you can do, not even yourself. Lucius Annaeus Seneca If we seriously think about it, it probably makes more sense to assume that this is a naturally evil world that has somehow been mysteriously 'contaminated' by goodness, rather than the other way around. M. Scott Peck Thanks to everyone for the good reputation points. |
23rd January 2012, 09:37 PM
|  | מלמד ידי למלחמה ונחת קשת־נחושה זרעתי
  
 | | Join Date: 2nd October 2011
Posts: 1,853
Blessings: 1,027,535
Reps: 97,319,825,429,187,056 (power: 97,319,825,429,190) | | Originally Posted by Split Rock  This is not the first time you have made a statement like this. Most theistic evolutionists I know do not twist either science or scripture. Their view is that sciecne should not be interpreted through the bible, since the bible is a religious text, not a science text. They also understand that the bible was written by fallible men and those men did not have our understanding of the physical world around us that we have.
Cupid Dave keeps claiming to be a Theistic Evolutionist so maybe he is forming an opinion based on his antics?
But, yeah, you are spot on. |
23rd January 2012, 09:41 PM
| | Loudmouth
| | Join Date: 3rd July 2008
Posts: 3,029
Blessings: 101,531 My Mood
Reps: 127,433,160,464,321,440 (power: 127,433,160,464,329) | | I thought Cupid_Dave was a gap theorist? 
__________________ I judge you unfortunate because you have never been unfortunate; you have passed through life without an antagonist; no one will know what you can do, not even yourself. Lucius Annaeus Seneca If we seriously think about it, it probably makes more sense to assume that this is a naturally evil world that has somehow been mysteriously 'contaminated' by goodness, rather than the other way around. M. Scott Peck Thanks to everyone for the good reputation points. |
23rd January 2012, 09:54 PM
| | מלמד ידי למלחמה ונחת קשת־נחושה זרעתי
| | Join Date: 2nd October 2011
Posts: 1,853
Blessings: 1,027,535
Reps: 97,319,825,429,187,056 (power: 97,319,825,429,190) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson I thought Cupid_Dave was a gap theorist?
He's a creation literalist. He just adds what he thinks are "facts" to the scripture so it stays literal.
But, yeah he is much closer to GAP than TE. He's tries to blend Qabalah into some portions of the bible, though he hasn't shown any knowledge of that subject, either, as well as some aspects of British Israelism (he thinks that the Irish are the true Isrealites ie: he is in the line of King David)
He chooses what he likes to meet the end goal of his theology about himself, which he bases off of Rev 5:5.
He doesn't just pick cherries. |
23rd January 2012, 09:59 PM
|  | Soli Deo Gloria
24    
| | Join Date: 3rd February 2010 Location: Kingdom of God
Posts: 5,085
Blessings: 1,063,633 My Mood 
Reps: 777,225,593,994,326,912 (power: 777,225,593,994,335) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson I thought Cupid_Dave was a gap theorist?
My understanding is he is a literalist day-age OEC and I'd also agree with Harum's assessment. I also find him very gnostic in many respects.
__________________
Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. Who are you who judge another’s servant? Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. |
23rd January 2012, 10:07 PM
| | מלמד ידי למלחמה ונחת קשת־נחושה זרעתי
| | Join Date: 2nd October 2011
Posts: 1,853
Blessings: 1,027,535
Reps: 97,319,825,429,187,056 (power: 97,319,825,429,190) | | Originally Posted by progmonk My understanding is he is a literalist day-age OEC and I'd also agree with Harum's assessment. I also find him very gnostic in many respects.
Agreed.
It's like he spent a week with some Hasidic Jews and learned a small handful of things that he neither understands or knows how to apply and everything else, following that same pattern, is just filler. |
23rd January 2012, 10:09 PM
|  | Question everything
   
| | Join Date: 7th December 2011
Posts: 6,447
Blessings: 16,279,883 My Mood
Reps: 202,730,584,776,064,704 (power: 202,730,584,776,072) | | Originally Posted by Huram Abi He's a creation literalist. He just adds what he thinks are "facts" to the scripture so it stays literal.
But, yeah he is much closer to GAP than TE. He's tries to blend Qabalah into some portions of the bible, though he hasn't shown any knowledge of that subject, either, as well as some aspects of British Israelism (he thinks that the Irish are the true Isrealites ie: he is in the line of King David)
He chooses what he likes to meet the end goal of his theology about himself, which he bases off of Rev 5:5.
He doesn't just pick cherries.
Agreed, then it is GAP (or whichever group misinterprets both science and the Bible) that I have more problems with.
__________________
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" Stephen H. Roberts |
23rd January 2012, 10:15 PM
| | מלמד ידי למלחמה ונחת קשת־נחושה זרעתי
| | Join Date: 2nd October 2011
Posts: 1,853
Blessings: 1,027,535
Reps: 97,319,825,429,187,056 (power: 97,319,825,429,190) | | | GAP certainly does that. |
25th January 2012, 07:41 PM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 29th September 2011
Posts: 2,816
Blessings: 1,070,810 My Mood 
Reps: 65,255,168,917,501,008 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson
Genesis is probably the only book which cannot be reconciled with science (if it is interpreted literally).
Even today the official position of the Catholic church in theistic evolution.
The Jews too have often regarded Genesis as metaphorical..
You are wrong on this idea that Genesis read literally can not be reconciled with science.
I mean, "In the beginning" is the Big Bang idea, that the Cosmos has not always been there, but suddenly appeared and expanded into what we see now.
Light was delayed for some time after the Big Bang in what is called Cosmic Dark Age.
Every verse, when examined in detail does correspond to scientific facts. |
25th January 2012, 07:50 PM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 29th September 2011
Posts: 2,816
Blessings: 1,070,810 My Mood
Reps: 65,255,168,917,501,008 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson I thought Cupid_Dave was a gap theorist?
Nah...
I a Yom interpreter.
Based on the use of this Hebrew word for day, which as you know, can mean a duration of ANY length, it seems clear the Bible writers were referring to the seven by Geology today. Chronologic measurement: The geologic time scale provides a system of chronologic measurement relating stratigraphy to time that is used by geologists, paleontologists, and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth  The table of geologic time spans presented here agrees with the dates and nomenclature proposed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy and uses the standard color codes of the United States Geological Survey. Each era on the scale is separated from the next by a major event or change. The geological or deep time of Earth's past has been organized into various units according to events which took place in each period. Different spans of time on the time scale are usually delimited by major geological or paleontological events, such as mass extinctions. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Paleogene period is defined by the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which marked the demise of the dinosaurs and of many marine species. Older periods which predate the reliable fossil record are defined by absolute age. Summary Description Geologic Clock with events and periods.svg The geological clock: a projection of Earth's 4,5 Ga history on a clock ("MA" = a million years (Megayear) ago; "GA" = a billion years (Gigayear) ago) Date 2010-10-31 06:53 (UTC) Source File:Geologic_clock.jpg
Last edited by cupid dave; 25th January 2012 at 07:57 PM.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
