Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[ken777]

These four accounts cannot be reconciled

You're too late! Already done!! Look it up.
The modern arguments that suggest God cannot provide inerrant Scriptures for us to believe and live by is not supported by Jesus or the apostles.

 

[Indent]

The words "if" and "cultural limitations" are used to discredit the NT authors.

What about Jesus?

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning God made them male and female." (Matthew 19:4)

“But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)


The objections to evolution are twofold:
1. The evidence is interpreted according to a godless dogma.
2. The Scriptural evidence, both OT & NT.

Jesus was situated in the cultural limitations of the time.

The Genesis narrative doesn't necessarily preclude evolution. I can believe in a literal Adam and still view the opening chapters of Genesis as expressed by myth (John Walton from Wheaton has a strong case for such a position).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .But ultimately it doesnt matter, really. Its not like God is going to quiz us before He lets us into Heaven and ask us how old the Earth is.

What is going to matter is how people respond to their need for Christ. Placing barriers in the way of their need for Christ, including the barrier of claiming they need to reject the findings of science in order to be a full fledged Christian, is not cool.

 

[Jamie Lee]

Oh, I think the whole first chapter is actually a poetic parable. Men at the time of the writing of the Bible were quite unable to take the literal truth about the universe at the time. It was actually a great achievement of God to get His word to say so little about creation so that man's mistaken ideas of the time would not be, later, much of an impediment.

I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.

Hello Ken.

These four accounts cannot be reconciled, Ken, each account is a different description
of the same event. Ultimately, whether there was one or two angels, whether they were
standing or sitting, is in the end, irrelevant. The Gospels are solely about Jesus Christ of
course.

Not all Biblical Christians accept that all the scripture is inerrant.

When God speaks through a prophet, that is inerrant.
When a prophet receives a vision from God, that is inerrant.
Messianic prophecies are inerrant.
When Jesus speaks, that is inerrant.

There is a vast difference between God speaking directly to us or to Israel.
And men describing what happened during Christ's life.

The scriptures say God doesnt change.
So God speaks to us today the same way He did then.
I once experienced this inexplicable event. I was depressed one day and was asking God why He allows bad things to happen, and having a crisis of faith. But I said, I dont understand it, but Ill trust you. As soon as I thought that, this man tapped me on the shoulder and said he had a message from God for me. He told me God had seen my pain and I would do great things and a lot of other stuff. Then I thought in my heart, "God, im sorry. Im just so weak." The man stopped what he was saying, looked me in the eye, and said "youre strong. Gods telling me that right now." I went home immediately and wrote down the prophecy. But, it was less than an hour after it happened, but I still couldnt remember everything he said. I drew a line to indicate where I forgot what he said next.
A year later I got this out and wrote a paper on it. To my amazement, I realized I left the most important part out. Id forgotten to write about when he told me I was strong when I was thinking I was weak.
But just because I couldnt remember exactly what happened didnt mean it didnt happen or that it wasnt true or not from God.
So, I dont know why it would be any different for the people who wrote the Bible.
I dont know if the Bible contains errors or not, but honestly, I havent seen much evidence for it, and Ive looked into it. Those accounts dont seem all that contradictory to me, couldnt the angels just have been moving around?
But, whether it does or not, to me is of little import. Its like evolution:whether the Bible contains errors or the earth is billions of years old or a few thousand, God is still God, a God I know personally, and Ill still follow Him.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Right ... and we start off in the womb with gills too, don't we?

Well, not full fledged gills. Actually, the embryo starts to prepare to form gills,and then appears to drop that plan and go on to become the land animals we actually are. Just like it starts to grow a tail, and then the outer tail dies off. Those are, indeed, signs of the distant past in our evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Are you sure your faith is strong enough to keep you from straying and to help you inherit eternal life??

Our strength is totally inadequate. His strength gives us eternal life.

 

[ken777]

Jesus was situated in the cultural limitations of the time.

Jesus was referring to a specific Scriptural passage in Genesis and there is no suggestion He did not believe this was factually correct. The "cultural limitations" argument just does not work when it comes to doctrinal truth. Our faith is not based on myth.

The Genesis narrative doesn't necessarily preclude evolution. I can believe in a literal Adam and still view the opening chapters of Genesis as expressed by myth (John Walton from Wheaton has a strong case for such a position).

I have read some of John Walton - he uses the cultural argument to make the Bible creation account into a myth.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.


The scriptures say God doesnt change.
So God speaks to us today the same way He did then.
I once experienced this inexplicable event. I was depressed one day and was asking God why He allows bad things to happen, and having a crisis of faith. But I said, I dont understand it, but Ill trust you. As soon as I thought that, this man tapped me on the shoulder and said he had a message from God for me. He told me God had seen my pain and I would do great things and a lot of other stuff. Then I thought in my heart, "God, im sorry. Im just so weak." The man stopped what he was saying, looked me in the eye, and said "youre strong. Gods telling me that right now." I went home immediately and wrote down the prophecy. But, it was less than an hour after it happened, but I still couldnt remember everything he said. I drew a line to indicate where I forgot what he said next.
A year later I got this out and wrote a paper on it. To my amazement, I realized I left the most important part out. Id forgotten to write about when he told me I was strong when I was thinking I was weak.
But just because I couldnt remember exactly what happened didnt mean it didnt happen or that it wasnt true or not from God.
So, I dont know why it would be any different for the people who wrote the Bible.
I dont know if the Bible contains errors or not, but honestly, I havent seen much evidence for it, and Ive looked into it. Those accounts dont seem all that contradictory to me, couldnt the angels just have been moving around?
But, whether it does or not, to me is of little import. Its like evolution:whether the Bible contains errors or the earth is billions of years old or a few thousand, God is still God, a God I know personally, and Ill still follow Him.

God does not require inerrancy to use the Bible or you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Jesus was referring to a specific Scriptural passage in Genesis and there is no suggestion He did not believe this was factually correct. The "cultural limitations" argument just does not work when it comes to doctrinal truth. Our faith is not based on myth.


I have read some of John Walton - he uses the cultural argument to make the Bible creation account into a myth.

Or you can call it a parable, if that word makes better sense to you.

 

[klutedavid]

You're too late! Already done!! Look it up.
The modern arguments that suggest God cannot provide inerrant Scriptures for us to believe and live by is not supported by Jesus or the apostles.

Hello Ken.

Do you have a web site that can explain the anomalies?

 

[klutedavid]

I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.


The scriptures say God doesnt change.
So God speaks to us today the same way He did then.
I once experienced this inexplicable event. I was depressed one day and was asking God why He allows bad things to happen, and having a crisis of faith. But I said, I dont understand it, but Ill trust you. As soon as I thought that, this man tapped me on the shoulder and said he had a message from God for me. He told me God had seen my pain and I would do great things and a lot of other stuff. Then I thought in my heart, "God, im sorry. Im just so weak." The man stopped what he was saying, looked me in the eye, and said "youre strong. Gods telling me that right now." I went home immediately and wrote down the prophecy. But, it was less than an hour after it happened, but I still couldnt remember everything he said. I drew a line to indicate where I forgot what he said next.
A year later I got this out and wrote a paper on it. To my amazement, I realized I left the most important part out. Id forgotten to write about when he told me I was strong when I was thinking I was weak.
But just because I couldnt remember exactly what happened didnt mean it didnt happen or that it wasnt true or not from God.
So, I dont know why it would be any different for the people who wrote the Bible.
I dont know if the Bible contains errors or not, but honestly, I havent seen much evidence for it, and Ive looked into it. Those accounts dont seem all that contradictory to me, couldnt the angels just have been moving around?
But, whether it does or not, to me is of little import. Its like evolution:whether the Bible contains errors or the earth is billions of years old or a few thousand, God is still God, a God I know personally, and Ill still follow Him.

Hello Jamie.

Excellent post, believing in Jesus Christ is what the entire revelation is
all about. A deep trust in Jesus from the moment you believe, until the
day you die, that's what matters. Insignificant differences in the Gospel
accounts, do not undermine the Majesty and Glory of Jesus Christ.

I am discussing small and insignificant aspects of the Gospels. This has no
bearing on the reconciliation that Jesus granted to humanity, none whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fundamentalist, Bible bashing, fanatic. I just
do not accept, that every single line in the scripture is handwritten by God.
These small differences have no impact on any Christian doctrine.

 

[mmksparbud]

After the 6 days were over, God breathed life into the planet and made them living souls, and set the planet in orbit with the sun. Then the normal 24 hour periods began, and thats when He set Adam in the garden, and made Eve.

Sorry, but God did not create everything and then after 6 days breathe life into everything. He created all the birds and all the water animals and told them to be fruitful and multiply when He created them on day 5. In day 6 He created the Land animals and told them to be fruitful and multiply and then He created Adam and Eve also on day 6. And God breathed into man and he became a living soul. With every single day there are the words "and it was so"---it happened as God spoke, not later. When God speaks, it is done. When Jesus said "Lazarus come forth"---he came forth right then and there, not later. If He says in 6 days you will turn purple with yellow polka dots, then it will happen in 6 days. When He says 'Let there be light"--there was light. When He said let the dry land appear---that is what happened---that is the power of God--not 6 days later, not 6 mths later, not 6000 years later--right when He commands it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

In my view there is no fact to evolution whatsoever. What I think you have done here is fallen for the tons of unproven nothings and turned them into something. That's exactly how the illusion is created. you break them down one by one and find there is nothing there, but all together we feel at least *some* of it must be correct because there is so much of it, but all said and done there is not one iota of proof.

To me it just as ridiculous as saying it all came about by itself and grew by itself from there on out to now.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well of course, just because its there, its an attachment site. But the tendons and ligaments and muscles don't need their attachment site to look like the remnant of a tail.

And another funny thing . . . . those species who still have tails don't have them, their tails stick out, you know, and don't provide that attachment point you claim to be so important.

And that doesn't bother them. Oh dear, how do they manage, without that attachment point?

It's going to look like whatever it needs to look like to accomplish what it needs to. How do they manage without that attachment point? Obviously, they don't need it, they have a tail.

 

[dad]

Oh, you replied again with nothing but a denial! Well, I'm glad to present a little more evidence for evolution that you can deny.

You and I share a coccyx. It is clearly a remnant of a tail.

Since men had no tails in recorded history including Scripture the question arises: who had tails? Apparently the coccyx is useful.

"
In humans and other tailless primates (e.g., great apes) since Nacholapithecus (a Miocene hominoid),[5][6] the coccyx is the remnant of avestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;[7] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.[8]Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.[8]

The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e.,defecation, continence, etc.): the levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through theanococcygeal raphe, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.[8]

Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: the anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine.[8] Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.[9] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

So, if you were God could you have created man with one of these and animals with one too, but with different reasons in mind? To assume it got there only as a result of evolving rather than creation is pure unsupportable unbelief.

Also, your claim that I deny evolution is false. Evolution happens but it did not create us. It is after the creation fact and you have no evidence at all that it is anything more. Stop preaching demonic baseless doubt about the creator and His word here.

 

[dad]

... to look like the remnant of a tail.

Looks can be deceiving.

 

[ken777]

Hello Ken.
Do you have a web site that can explain the anomalies?

Google harmonizing Jesus resurrection and take your pick.

 

[ken777]

Since men had no tails in recorded history including Scripture the question arises: who had tails? Apparently the coccyx is useful.

"
In humans and other tailless primates (e.g., great apes) since Nacholapithecus (a Miocene hominoid),[5][6] the coccyx is the remnant of avestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;[7] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.[8]Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.[8]

The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e.,defecation, continence, etc.): the levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through theanococcygeal raphe, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.[8]

Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: the anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine.[8] Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.[9] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

So, if you were God could you have created man with one of these and animals with one too, but with different reasons in mind? To assume it got there only as a result of evolving rather than creation is pure unsupportable unbelief.

Also, your claim that I deny evolution is false. Evolution happens but it did not create us. It is after the creation fact and you have no evidence at all that it is anything more. Stop preaching demonic baseless doubt about the creator and His word here.

The fact that there is a progressive similarity in design from animal to human seems to persuade some people that it must have been caused by evolution. When we step back and make God's Word our tie post, we can see the extraordinary expression of God's character as he gradually unfolds truth to us, building on the steps that have gone before, that identify His work:

"Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made." (Romans 1:20 NRSV)​

 

[MrMoe]

because walking across town makes sense, but walking across the country is impossible.

What point were you trying to make to the person you quoted?

 

[Armoured]

What point were you trying to make to the person you quoted?

"Macro" and "micro" evolution are terms made up by YEC people. It's a goal post shift. There is no such distinction.