Creationism, Darwinism and Natural History

[mark kennedy]

Do you always accept what dictionary's say without any discrimination? I do not. You may also want to consider that the purpose of a dictionary is to list DIFFERENT meanings of a word, different meanings that you may or may not want to combine, and that may not even be compatible with each other.

Bara, does not differ between lexicons and other exegesis. The canon of Scripture is based on the original and the only way to get that kind of meaning is from experts like Vine, Unger and White. I don't know what you think of Christian scholarship but Vine's dictionary is above reproach.

But let us see what a dictionary says then, because I think that way we may actually clear this up very efficiently. This is from Creationism | Define Creationism at Dictionary.com :

I know the popular usage of the English word 'creation', but the English word 'creation' is a translation from the Hebrew word, 'bara'. The literal and originally intended meaning is found in the Hebrew and supplemented with a concordance that shows every instance of the word in Scripture. I'm an evangelical which pretty much means I take the traditional view of the Christian church that the Scriptures are canonical in the original. As a matter of fact, all Christian scholars do, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or otherwise because if they don't they are branded as heretics and shunned.

First of all, unless we think that a dictionary should determine what is the accurate interpretation of Genesis

Hang on, that's not an interpretation, you can't have an accurate interpretation until the meaning of the word in the original is determined...

- and that is not what I think - it is clear that the definitions may or may not be compatible, depending on who is reading Genesis.

Which is a rejection of the clear meaning of Scripture, not an alternative interpretation.

Common ancestry denial is not there in the Genesis account as far as I can see, but those who are Creationists according to the first definition claim usually claim that it is there, so in fact there is a difference of opinion.

It's really not permissible to change the meaning of words that have been defined based on thousands of years of Christian scholarship. That is one of the abject failures of modernist thinking, you don't get to just change the meaning because you don't believe the message.

What is even more evident is that Creationists according to the first definition tend to deny evolution, regardless of whether that entails an evolution that God arranged or not.

Evolution defined scientifically or the ones Darwinians redefined dialectically? Even 'God' has been redefined in Liberal Theology so we are not talking about an honest exposition of the evidence any more then we are talking about an honest exegesis of the Hebrew words translated 'creation'.

Total evolution denial is also not there in the Genesis account as far as I can see, and so we have once more a difference of opinion. It should be rather clear from this that the first two definitions are not necessarily compatible. And I will soon show you that the definitions of others words that occur in dictionaries may also have meanings listed that are not compatible with each other. That is the normal state of affairs for dictionaries, and it does not mean that I think that they are wrong. They are just dictionaries.

Your talking in circles and as a matter of fact, you have it backwards. Creationism is based on the clear teaching of Scripture and the literal meaning of the words used in the Hebrew. Evolution, as you are calling it, is simply one long argument against creation. Darwinians, theistic evolutionist or not, are 'creation deniers' and have been since Darwin:

upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition (Darwin, Preface to On the Origin of Species)​

So you see, the Scriptures are not hard to understand, you either believe them or you don't. You don't get to redefine the clear meaning of the text based on your 'opinion'.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any priuate Interpretation: (2 Peter 1:20)​

Second of all, the meaning listed as the one with first priority in the dictionary is the one that involves common ancestry denial and general refusal to admit that things have evolved, regardless of how they may have evolved. That is in fact the definition that I agree with.

Which just tells me that you have redefined 'evolution' the same way you want to redefine 'creation'. Creationists never deny evolution as the change of alleles in populations over time, they refuse to make the, 'a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'. They don't do that because it's antithetical to Christian theism.

Third of all, I do not see the definition that Creationists like yourself claim is the correct one listed at all, and now I am talking about the idea that Creationism simply means "God did the creating". There is also very clearly a lot more in the Genesis account than that.

Actually, no there isn't 'a lot more then that'. The message of Genesis 1 is that God created the heavens, earth and life by divine fiat, ex nihilo or literally 'out of nothing'. That means that the original creation was not the result of the working of pagan elementals as the ancient mythologies of the Mediterranean region believed. The elements themselves and all of life was created by God and have no history prior to God's sovereign act of 'creation'.

That is the clear meaning of Scripture, you either believe it or you don't.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:2-5)​

That represents the first two things a Christian must believe in order to be a Christian, creation and that Jesus is Creator. This revelation is in addition to the reflection of God's glory in nature that leaves mankind without excuse for worshiping and serving the creature rather then the Creator. In reaction, you do not deny that God is Creator, your repent of these vanities or you are not a Christian. See how that works.

And so, some people who are Creationists in the second sense listed in the dictionary will agree with you, and some will not agree with you on such things as common ancestry denial. I wonder if that is something that you will accept, or if you will try to work around it somehow. I know for a fact that dictionaries often list different definitions of the same word, different definitions that are not meant to be combined. Instead, they are listed for reference and to help readers understand different ways of using a word, and so, to me, it is not a problem.

There you go again, creationists do no deny common ancestry. They refuse to make the presuppositions required for 'universal' common ancestry. A belief system that can only be described as atheistic. Theistic evolutionists are constantly complaining that they are getting a bad rap because they do believe in God as Creator. There is just one major problem with that, they change the meaning at will, without honestly admitting they have done so.

That practice is a fallacious line of reasoning known as 'equivocation'.

Let us look at an example of this general characteristic of dictionaries, in the word "fidelity":

fi·del·i·ty [fi-del-i-tee, fahy-] Show IPA
noun, plural fi·del·i·ties.
1.
strict observance of promises, duties, etc.: a servant's fidelity.
2.
loyalty: fidelity to one's country.
3.
conjugal faithfulness.
4.
adherence to fact or detail.
5.
accuracy; exactness: The speech was transcribed with great fidelity.​

Ok, what are we changing the meaning of this word to?

Now I think you will readily agree that a person who practices conjugal fidelity may not always know the facts or details of everything he or she is talking about, and that he or she may not always recount what others have said exactly (or even accurately) the way they said it.

Well yea!!! I can certainly agree with that statement, I know someone who is doing it right here. You can't even recount what I just said or what the church has been teaching since the time of Moses.

If we take another example, the word "affection", it is also clear that the meaning first listed in the dictionary may not be taken as a meaning that sums all the other meanings up. Meaning number 1, 2, 3 and so on are instead meant to reflect the variety of meanings that a word may have:

af·fec·tion1 [uh-fek-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
fond attachment, devotion, or love: the affection of a parent for an only child.
2.
Often, affections.
a.
emotion; feeling; sentiment: over and above our reason and affections.
b.
the emotional realm of love: a place in his affections.
3.
Pathology . a disease, or the condition of being diseased; abnormal state of body or mind: a gouty affection.
4.
the act of affecting; act of influencing or acting upon.
5.
the state of being affected.​

Ok, there's the definition...

I hope that you do now see that meanings listed for a word in a dictionary are not necessarily listed in a logical order, and that they are not necessarily compatible with each other. From that it should furthermore be clear that not everything a dictionary says should be taken as the Gospel truth, or the Genesis truth, for that matter.

I hope at some point you learn that a sound exegesis of the original language is how words in Scripture are defined. You are not going to get multiple meanings from different expositional dictionaries when it comes to 'bara'. I not only think your approach is erroneous and fallacious, I think it's tragic.

I have to assume you just don't know any better. I can tell you this for sure and this is true of every sinner that ever believed the Gospel and received the Holy Spirit. Unless your eyes are opened to these things, you will be blinded by your own willful ignorance and die in your sins. That is not my opinion, the is the clear testimony of Scripture.

I will pray for you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Erth]

Bara, does not differ between lexicons and other exegesis. The canon of Scripture is based on the original and the only way to get that kind of meaning is from experts like Vine, Unger and White. I don't know what you think of Christian scholarship but Vine's dictionary is above reproach.



I know the popular usage of the English word 'creation', but the English word 'creation' is a translation from the Hebrew word, 'bara'. The literal and originally intended meaning is found in the Hebrew and supplemented with a concordance that shows every instance of the word in Scripture. I'm an evangelical which pretty much means I take the traditional view of the Christian church that the Scriptures are canonical in the original. As a matter of fact, all Christian scholars do, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or otherwise because if they don't they are branded as heretics and shunned.



Hang on, that's not an interpretation, you can't have an accurate interpretation until the meaning of the word in the original is determined...



Which is a rejection of the clear meaning of Scripture, not an alternative interpretation.



It's really not permissible to change the meaning of words that have been defined based on thousands of years of Christian scholarship. That is one of the abject failures of modernist thinking, you don't get to just change the meaning because you don't believe the message.



Evolution defined scientifically or the ones Darwinians redefined dialectically? Even 'God' has been redefined in Liberal Theology so we are not talking about an honest exposition of the evidence any more then we are talking about an honest exegesis of the Hebrew words translated 'creation'.



Your talking in circles and as a matter of fact, you have it backwards. Creationism is based on the clear teaching of Scripture and the literal meaning of the words used in the Hebrew. Evolution, as you are calling it, is simply one long argument against creation. Darwinians, theistic evolutionist or not, are 'creation deniers' and have been since Darwin:

upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition (Darwin, Preface to On the Origin of Species)​

So you see, the Scriptures are not hard to understand, you either believe them or you don't. You don't get to redefine the clear meaning of the text based on your 'opinion'.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any priuate Interpretation: (2 Peter 1:20)​

Which just tells me that you have redefined 'evolution' the same way you want to redefine 'creation'. Creationists never deny evolution as the change of alleles in populations over time, they refuse to make the, 'a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'. They don't do that because it's antithetical to Christian theism.



Actually, no there isn't 'a lot more then that'. The message of Genesis 1 is that God created the heavens, earth and life by divine fiat, ex nihilo or literally 'out of nothing'. That means that the original creation was not the result of the working of pagan elementals as the ancient mythologies of the Mediterranean region believed. The elements themselves and all of life was created by God and have no history prior to God's sovereign act of 'creation'.

That is the clear meaning of Scripture, you either believe it or you don't.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:2-5)​

That represents the first two things a Christian must believe in order to be a Christian, creation and that Jesus is Creator. This revelation is in addition to the reflection of God's glory in nature that leaves mankind without excuse for worshiping and serving the creature rather then the Creator. In reaction, you do not deny that God is Creator, your repent of these vanities or you are not a Christian. See how that works.



There you go again, creationists do no deny common ancestry. They refuse to make the presuppositions required for 'universal' common ancestry. A belief system that can only be described as atheistic. Theistic evolutionists are constantly complaining that they are getting a bad rap because they do believe in God as Creator. There is just one major problem with that, they change the meaning at will, without honestly admitting they have done so.

That practice is a fallacious line of reasoning known as 'equivocation'.



Ok, what are we changing the meaning of this word to?



Well yea!!! I can certainly agree with that statement, I know someone who is doing it right here. You can't even recount what I just said or what the church has been teaching since the time of Moses.



Ok, there's the definition...



I hope at some point you learn that a sound exegesis of the original language is how words in Scripture are defined. You are not going to get multiple meanings from different expositional dictionaries when it comes to 'bara'. I not only think your approach is erroneous and fallacious, I think it's tragic.

I have to assume you just don't know any better. I can tell you this for sure and this is true of every sinner that ever believed the Gospel and received the Holy Spirit. Unless your eyes are opened to these things, you will be blinded by your own willful ignorance and die in your sins. That is not my opinion, the is the clear testimony of Scripture.

I will pray for you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Why are you avoiding the arguments in my post and trying to make me say things? Why do you quote me and say so many things that have no relation to anything I said? Why do you preach to me? I have no use for your sermons, for I belong to the Church and I get my teachings from there and not from some internet warrior on a rampage.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Believing in microevolution is just a realization that things adapt over time. Evolutionist is a term that speaks of someone who believes that God is never invoked as a primary cause. It's important to realize, apart from the original creation God need not direct the course of evolution, He has already provided the molecular mechanisms and natural processes that have been inherited from the originally created 'kinds'.

when microevolution occurs (such as wolves into dogs), is God guiding that process or does it happen by itself?

No, God doesn't have to micromanage that particular change.

(My emphasis added) So unless I'm mistaken it seems that evolution as you describe it is actually more "naturalistic" than the type of evolution TEs believe in.

To clarify, many creationists believe in microevolution - God created all living things as described in Genesis and since that time they have adapted into different forms. However, these adaptations happen by themselves. God is not involved in the process. Theistic evolutionists on the other hand believe in a much wider range of evolution - from the first single-celled organisms living over 3 billion years ago to modern man. Yet they also believe God has somehow "guided" this process. They may not take Genesis literally but they seem to believe in God's involvement with evolution more than creationists do.

With that in mind it seems somewhat contradictory to accuse TEs of having a more "naturalistic" view of God's creation than creationists themselves.


[EDIT] You also wrote "Evolutionist is a term that speaks of someone who believes that God is never invoked as a primary cause." Theistic (or even deistic) evolutionists do not fit this definition, as they believe God to be the cause of evolution - indeed the cause of everything in existance.

 

[MrsLurking]

I don't know what you think of Christian scholarship but Vine's dictionary is above reproach.

Vine's is not necessarily a "bad" resource but it CERTAINLY should not be described as "above reproach". Let's keep it in perspective. It is a "pop-level" reference tool for non-scholars. It is very incomplete and in many ways outdated.

Obviously, you will never see Vine's used in serious scholarly work, and certainly not in the best translation work. To be frank, Vine's isn't even on the radar. (It is much like mistaking a Casual Tourist's Guide to Modern English for The Oxford English Dictionary.)

By "incomplete", I don't just mean that the entries are mere rough summaries nor do I refer to the fact that it doesn't try to include the important data you'd find in a complete lexicon. Even by its own standards, a lot of lemma are missing.

Lexicography is an area fraught with a lot of popular misconceptions. Even far too famous Biblical scholars who got their Ph.D.'s before the 1970's (and far too many "pop" scholars who attended unaccredited programs ever since) lacked even the most foundational backgrounds in applied linguistics and comparative linguistics. And sadly, the resulting damage extended to a lot of Bible tools used by the layperson. And the monolingual limitations of U.S. culture exacerbates the problem. It can be very difficult to comment on a lot of controversial passages without first taking the layperson through a lot of the most basic fundamentals of how language really works. Without that foundation, most lay people ---and far too many radio preachers and pop writers --- treat translation as if it were a mathematical exercise of equivalence where A=B. And that myth creates enormous Bible interpretation problems.

Of course, in that regard, few tools have done as much damage to popular-level Bible interpretation than Strong's Concordance. How many preachers who SHOULD know better will say in their sermons, "Now the NJZ Bible translates this passage incorrectly. What it SHOULD say is....." simply because they thought they "discovered" something using Strong's Concordance that all of the professional scholars just happened to overlook!

Vine is still a big seller out of Christian mailorder catalogs. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Vine's is "above reproach." Indeed, most scholars would prefer, at best, to say that "Vine's is not all that bad."

 

[mark kennedy]

Why are you avoiding the arguments in my post and trying to make me say things? Why do you quote me and say so many things that have no relation to anything I said? Why do you preach to me? I have no use for your sermons, for I belong to the Church and I get my teachings from there and not from some internet warrior on a rampage.

Why are you rejecting the authority and canon of Scripture? You argument is pretty much that 'creation' can mean anything you want it to because it doesn't matter what it means in the original Hebrew. You not making a series of arguments, your making the same one over and over. Theistic Evolutionist do this, they beg the question of proof on their hands and knees and then pretend it's the Creationist that has the problem. Let's talk about where we are and how we got here because you simply took up Papias's argument and failed to defend it even worse then he did. It's called tag teaming and it's a diversion, not an argument.

Papias accused me of equivocating the meaning of creation in the Nicene Creed and Genesis 1. I did what all Christian scholarship does, I went back to the Canon of Scripture because therein is found the authority and doctrine, the Scriptures are the primary source for Christian theism. That is in the original testimonies of those whom God originally made the revelation we call the Word of God. These testimonies were not derived from pagan mythologies and have never been a matter of private interpretation as you have been shown:

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)​

Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles are the one who received the oracles of God. The Word they received was a direct revelation from God, confirmed by signs, miracles and mighty deeds. This was the confirmation at the time of Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles. The Christian faith is predication on these testimonies, the Gospel itself is confirmed through Apostolic authority. To deny this would be to deny the Christian faith.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Erth]

Why are you rejecting the authority and canon of Scripture?

I am not.

Neither am I controlled by the idolatry and self-made spirit of Biblicalism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Vine's is not necessarily a "bad" resource but it CERTAINLY should not be described as "above reproach". Let's keep it in perspective. It is a "pop-level" reference tool for non-scholars. It is very incomplete and in many ways outdated.

You will find the Vine's is faithful to the original and if you have a better expositional dictionary show it to me. What you are actually arguing here is a Modernist view that is really nothing more then a regurgitation of Liberal Theology rendering the testimony of Scripture null and void.

By what means did you determine that Vine's is faulty because it dovetails perfectly with all the works of Christian scholarship used for this kind of exposition and exegesis.

Obviously, you will never see Vine's used in serious scholarly work, and certainly not in the best translation work. To be frank, Vine's isn't even on the radar. (It is much like mistaking a Casual Tourist's Guide to Modern English for The Oxford English Dictionary.)

We are not talking about the English translation, we are talking about the meaning of 'creation' and what it really means to be a Creationist. The meaning is not found in the Oxford Dictionary, it's found in the original Hebrew from which Genesis was translated. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, not in the modern sense but in the Biblical sense based on the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. These doctrines proceed essentially from the canon of Scripture in the original language.

By "incomplete", I don't just mean that the entries are mere rough summaries nor do I refer to the fact that it doesn't try to include the important data you'd find in a complete lexicon. Even by its own standards, a lot of lemma are missing.

I have not relied exclusively on Vine's, what you will find that it is a broader, more comprehensive exposition of the original words and how they are used in Scripture. Vine's does not deviate from an credible Christian lexicon or exegesis and the Oxford dictionary is certainly not a viable alternative for this kind of expositional definition.

Lexicography is an area fraught with a lot of popular misconceptions. Even far too famous Biblical scholars who got their Ph.D.'s before the 1970's (and far too many "pop" scholars who attended unaccredited programs ever since) lacked even the most foundational backgrounds in applied linguistics and comparative linguistics. And sadly, the resulting damage extended to a lot of Bible tools used by the layperson. And the monolingual limitations of U.S. culture exacerbates the problem. It can be very difficult to comment on a lot of controversial passages without first taking the layperson through a lot of the most basic fundamentals of how language really works. Without that foundation, most lay people ---and far too many radio preachers and pop writers --- treat translation as if it were a mathematical exercise of equivalence where A=B. And that myth creates enormous Bible interpretation problems.

I did not know that you were a Biblical scholar capable of doing the kind of exegetical analysis required to make these kind of sweeping quality judgments. Your indictment against Vine's would appear to be suspended on your knowledge of the original languages and the scholarly tools required to examine the Scriptures in the original languages. What are your academic credentials or your primary source material to make such a scathing indictment against the scholarship and academic credibility of Vine, Unger and White?

Of course, in that regard, few tools have done as much damage to popular-level Bible interpretation than Strong's Concordance. How many preachers who SHOULD know better will say in their sermons, "Now the NJZ Bible translates this passage incorrectly. What it SHOULD say is....." simply because they thought they "discovered" something using Strong's Concordance that all of the professional scholars just happened to overlook!

Now you are extending your indictment to Strong's Exhaustive of the Bible? Where do you get your audacity, more importantly, where do you get the authority to make such facetious categorical rejection of Christian scholarship. If you have knowledge of superior Lexicons and Concordances that surpass that of Vine, Unger, White and Strong tell us now. Where is the source material you base your conclusions on?

Vine is still a big seller out of Christian mailorder catalogs. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Vine's is "above reproach." Indeed, most scholars would prefer, at best, to say that "Vine's is not all that bad."

Then find a better one and show me how it deviates from the original, or somehow fails to produce a faithful rendering of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Where are your credentials and where is your source material?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mathetes123]

except that the TEs and evos need 4.6 billion years for evolution to work.
it cant happen on a young earth.

It can't happen on an old earth either. It just doesnt stretch the imagination as much as we can be more easily led to believe evolution can happen if given enough time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why are you rejecting the authority and canon of Scripture?

I am not.

You most certainly are, there is no other basis for your rejection of the argument. All Christian theism is inextricably linked to the revelation passed on to us in the canon of Scripture. Christian scholarship, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant is unanimously in concert that the Scriptures are the direct revelation of God. My definition of 'creation' is from the original Hebrew the book of Genesis was written in. universally understood in Christian theism to be the Word of God. You have no basis for rejecting that definition except to reject the credibility and authority of Scripture.

Neither am I controlled by the idolatry and self-made spirit of Biblicalism.

Now you would go so far as to call the canon of Scripture idolatry? Your problem is not that you don't understand what Genesis is telling us about original creation, your problem is that you don't believe it. You have no right to come into come into a Christians only forum and call the authority of the Word of God and the testimony of the prophets and apostles idolatry. Your indictment is little more then childish mockery of things you know very little about and could care less.

What do you have to say for yourself?

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

Then find a better one and show me how it deviates from the original, or somehow fails to produce a faithful rendering of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Where are your credentials and where is your source material?

You seem to be struggling with basic reading comprehension difficulties. I did NOT challenge any aspect of creation or BARA. Nor did I say that Vine's is a "bad" resource. I said that it is a "pop level" tool that is very incomplete and is NOT used in serious scholarship.

I'm NOT talking about "modernist scholarship" or "liberal theology". I'm talking about SCHOLARSHIP, such as that of the top Evangelical scholars of our day. I challenge you to choose whatever leading Evangelical scholars you happen to trust and ask them this: Do they use Vine's in their most intensive research destined for publication in JETS (Journal of Evangelical Theological Society) or JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature) or for a paper they will be reading at the November SBL/AAR conference? Or are they using DBAG (Fred Danker's revision of the German Bauer Greek NT Lexicon, Arndt & Gingerich English version) and HALOT (the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament in 5 Volumes)? Don't be surprised if they chuckle at your question. Yes, they may well CONSULT Vine's and cite it because it is interesting from a history of Bible interpretation and translation perspective but it is an OUTDATED and NEVER RIGOROUS source. Period.

I'm NOT going to be baited into revealing my identify or that of my husband, VerySincere, but your pastor could very likely have some of my husband's New Testament reference tools in his study. I have a relevant doctorate but my husband's career is much more associated with Biblical lexicography than mine. (My publishing CV is relatively sparse compared to his because we married and started a family just a few years after I was his T.A. at a major university which I'm sure you would recognize.) But even though his name would shut you up if I gave it, YOU DON'T NEED TO TAKE HIS PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS OR MY SAY-SO TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. You can ask ANY contemporary Evangelical scholar---I don't care HOW conservative or liberal or polka-dotted you choose to consider him or her---whether they use VINES or if they use DBAG and HALOT as their lexicographic sources of greater authority of scholarship and you are going to get THE SAME ANSWER!

My goodness you are slow. And I was flabbergasted that the Oxford English Dictionary analogy flew miles over your heads like a drone unseen. And quit building straw-man opponents to rant against. I didn't at all attack any concept of creation or anything else OTHER THAN your naive claim of an amateur that "Vine's is above reproach" would tend to suggest that you thought Vine's was some important scholarly authority.

Vine's has been a HANDY little tool for quick consultation ever since it came out in 1940. Why do I say it is outdated, besides the fact that it is so old? I could give a long list of issues (as well as defects) but let's review a few: It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version Bible. [Do you know many people who choose the ASV as the primary Bible?] It is secondarily and roughly compatible with the KJV of 1611. Indeed, this disjunction in itself often confuses readers. Anyway, I don't know why I'm even wasting time tutoring you when you've made clear that you are not interested in learning the facts.

If you think a Bible tool from 1940, even if you dealing with various revisions such as the Thomas Nelson volume, represents the most complete modern Bilbical lexicographical scholarship, there's not much I can do to help you. And that's not because of my grad degrees and post-doc work. It's because you are a dilettante speaking without knowledge, a common malady on these threads. (However, most participants know that about themselves. You don't.)

 

[mark kennedy]

(My emphasis added) So unless I'm mistaken it seems that evolution as you describe it is actually more "naturalistic" than the type of evolution TEs believe in.

Truly, theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins believe the testimony of Scripture, including the miracles of the New Testament. Sometimes they are simply convinced the the theory of evolution is a valid explanation for the evidence and conclude that the naturalistic view of natural history is reliable. The problem with the whole creation/evolution is that the debate and discussion is that Darwinian evolution and special creation as defined in Scripture are mutually exclusive. Never would a Darwinian admit to a miracle or God's direct intervention into the workings of the world or the affairs of man.

You have more then one kind of a Theistic Evolutionist just as there are a variety of Creationists. Some who fall naturally into either category are simply unbelievers while others just have broad spectrum of different opinions.

I have to say this though, I have yet to engage a theistic evolutionist that seriously and specifically identified God creating anything tangible. They instead rail against Creationists for believing that God has and does act in time and space, particularly when it comes to creation. When it comes to the New Testament miracles like the Incarnation, resurrection, ascension and new birth of the believer you are talking about the same power demonstrated in the 1st century and continuing to this day. What is not commonly understood and really should be, is that Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

To clarify, many creationists believe in microevolution - God created all living things as described in Genesis and since that time they have adapted into different forms. However, these adaptations happen by themselves. God is not involved in the process. Theistic evolutionists on the other hand believe in a much wider range of evolution - from the first single-celled organisms living over 3 billion years ago to modern man. Yet they also believe God has somehow "guided" this process. They may not take Genesis literally but they seem to believe in God's involvement with evolution more than creationists do.

That is certainly not an unreasonable way of looking at things. I am not opposed to nor would I take issue with a Christian who holds such views. That might seem a little strange coming from someone who argues so vigorously with evolutionists, allow me to explain. If you are convinced that the scientific and academic world has made it's case concerning evolution as natural history, go in peace I have no problem with you. At one time I nursed the idea of being a theistic evolutionist and could have worked out the difficulties with my theology that would have arisen as conflicts with the testimony of Scripture. It really wouldn't be as hard as you might think.

That is not what is going on in these forums. Creationism is relentlessly and viciously attacked which is little more then an attempt to undermine Christian conviction. Well meaning Christians often get caught up in this believing that it is the Creationist who is a danger to the Christian faith, I know better. If you maintain the clear testimony of Scripture and still maintain that the Genesis account is far too general and poetic in it's literary style to be regarded as a basis for your view of natural history or the basis for a natural theology I have no problem with you. I know what the dangers of theistic evolution are because of what the modernist philosophy has done under the guise of Liberal Theology in our seminaries and find that approach to the Christian faith altogether unacceptable.

What I am contending with is the presupposition of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the Big Bang. They are crystal clear on what they believe, or more importantly, what they don't believe.

With that in mind it seems somewhat contradictory to accuse TEs of having a more "naturalistic" view of God's creation than creationists themselves.

What happens after the original creation may well be exclusively naturalistic, a working of what is regarded as divine providence. I not only don't reject naturalistic causes I actually believe in a radical adaptive evolution that would have had to happen following the Flood. God need not micromanage the normal function of biological inheritance and adaptation, the molecular mechanisms fully formed at creation are sufficient to the task. What I stand firm on is the original creation, which, all but the most contentious of TEs would agree to, namely, 'In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. The difference is that I believe the creation week following this creation was also God doing what only God can to in creating life on this planet. The Scriptures are crystal clear on this matter which is the reason for my apologetic approach to the subject of origins.

[EDIT] You also wrote "Evolutionist is a term that speaks of someone who believes that God is never invoked as a primary cause." Theistic (or even deistic) evolutionists do not fit this definition, as they believe God to be the cause of evolution - indeed the cause of everything in existance.

That's very true and I don't regard the vast majority of theistic evolutionists as enemies of the faith. As a matter of fact, I believe they have been fooled into believing that the problem is Creationists when the truth is they are being used as a trojan horse but the atheistic materialists you describe in your last paragraph.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You seem to be struggling with basic reading comprehension difficulties. I did NOT challenge any aspect of creation or BARA. Nor did I say that Vine's is a "bad" resource. I said that it is a "pop level" tool that is very incomplete and is NOT used in serious scholarship.

Well and good, let's see your superior exposition and exegetical treatment of the text in Genesis 1, particularly with regards to the words translated 'created'. You and the others simply have no foundation for rejecting the definition I have put forth repeatedly in this thread in in these forums. It's not a question of reading comprehension, this baseless indictment follows the vein of Darwinian thought that if you don't make the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes, you are automatically assumed to be ignorant. It's nothing more then a fallacious personal attack, in effect, an argument that never happened.

I'm NOT talking about "modernist scholarship" or "liberal theology". I'm talking about SCHOLARSHIP, such as that of the top Evangelical scholars of our day. I challenge you to choose whatever leading Evangelical scholars you happen to trust and ask them this: Do they use Vine's in their most intensive research destined for publication in JETS (Journal of Evangelical Theological Society) or JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature) or for a paper they will be reading at the November SBL/AAR conference? Or are they using DBAG (Fred Danker's revision of the German Bauer Greek NT Lexicon, Arndt & Gingerich English version) and HALOT (the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament in 5 Volumes)? Don't be surprised if they chuckle at your question. Yes, they may well CONSULT Vine's and cite it because it is interesting from a history of Bible interpretation and translation perspective but it is an OUTDATED and NEVER RIGOROUS source. Period.

If you think Vine's got it wrong then where is your exegesis of the text? Vine's is a perfectly adequate tool for an exposition of 'bara' and the other words in Genesis used to describe the original creation. I think you realize that. I'm not trying to translate the text here from the original languages, there are sufficient tools and resources to define the words in question. What you are doing is making an ad hominem argument with no bearing on the argument I have made.

I'm NOT going to be baited into revealing my identify or that of my husband, VerySincere, but your pastor could very likely have some of my husband's New Testament reference tools in his study. I have a relevant doctorate but my husband's career is much more associated with Biblical lexicography than mine. (My publishing CV is relatively sparse compared to his because we married and started a family just a few years after I was his T.A. at a major university which I'm sure you would recognize.) But even though his name would shut you up if I gave it, YOU DON'T NEED TO TAKE HIS PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS OR MY SAY-SO TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. You can ask ANY contemporary Evangelical scholar---I don't care HOW conservative or liberal or polka-dotted you choose to consider him or her---whether they use VINES or if they use DBAG and HALOT as their lexicographic sources of greater authority of scholarship and you are going to get THE SAME ANSWER!

Frankly I could care less who you or your husband are, it's beside the point. If you honestly believe that Vine's is inadequate then you have ample opportunity to offer an alternative definition for 'bara' or the other words translated 'creation' in the English versions of the Scriptures. What is important to realize here is that you have not made the slightest attempt, nor do I believe you intend to. Either you can accept my definition for 'creation' or you can propose your own based on whatever scholarly work you believe to be superior. Otherwise this post can be dismissed as yet another fallacious ad hominem from a theistic evolutionist who has nothing else to offer.

My goodness you are slow. And I was flabbergasted that the Oxford English Dictionary analogy flew miles over your heads like a drone unseen. And quit building straw-man opponents to rant against. I didn't at all attack any concept of creation or anything else OTHER THAN your naive claim of an amateur that "Vine's is above reproach" would tend to suggest that you thought Vine's was some important scholarly authority.

You go through all the trouble to write a list of exegetical tools evangelicals use to understand the Scriptures in the original and your alternative to Vine's is the Oxford English dictionary. You failed to list the Oxford dictionary as one of the tools evangelicals use for this kind of exegetical work, could that be because it's irrelevant to the meaning of the Hebrew words in question? I always know when I have you guys, the debate will descend into this kind of scathing personal indictment and insults because you have simply run out of substantive things to contribute to the thread. I understand what your saying perfectly, I just don't agree with it. You think that makes me stupid, I happen to know it just means I'm not easily distracted with these fallacious personal indictments, in fact, they are definitive proof that you have nothing else.

Vine's has been a HANDY little tool for quick consultation ever since it came out in 1940. Why do I say it is outdated, besides the fact that it is so old? I could give a long list of issues (as well as defects) but let's review a few: It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version Bible. [Do you know many people who choose the ASV as the primary Bible?] It is secondarily and roughly compatible with the KJV of 1611. Indeed, this disjunction in itself often confuses readers. Anyway, I don't know why I'm even wasting time tutoring you when you've made clear that you are not interested in learning the facts.

Do you know that 85% of the KJV came from the Tyndale translation? Don't condescend to me lady, I know a good deal more then I need to for this kind of infantile reproach. I haven't found a dimes worth of difference between the various translations from the originals into the English and certainly not anything significant enough to warrant your inflammatory rhetoric. The Vine's Dictionary is perfectly sufficient and the Oxford Dictionary is grossly inadequate to understand the meaning of the words used in Genesis 1. That being the source of my definition for 'creation' your argument is simply built on shifting sand in a vain attempt to attack the personal credulity of an individual, which is irrelevant.

If you think a Bible tool from 1940, even if you dealing with various revisions such as the Thomas Nelson volume, represents the most complete modern Bilbical lexicographical scholarship, there's not much I can do to help you. And that's not because of my grad degrees and post-doc work. It's because you are a dilettante speaking without knowledge, a common malady on these threads. (However, most participants know that about themselves. You don't.)

Again, if you have a better definition for 'bara' let's hear it. Otherwise what is your point? You've dismissed Vine's work so show us yours, let's see this superior exposition of the text from the original from these 'professional' scholastic tools of exegesis.

What you are doing is called trolling, it serves no other purpose.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Erth]

Look Mark, I have to be honest. I find your perspective to be heterodox, your arrogance to be tiring, and as for your arguments, I think you are mostly trolling people who are replying to the point.

I am unsubscribing, and we can mutually see it as a good riddance.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The problem with the whole creation/evolution is that the debate and discussion is that Darwinian evolution and special creation as defined in Scripture are mutually exclusive. Never would a Darwinian admit to a miracle or God's direct intervention into the workings of the world or the affairs of man.
...
I have to say this though, I have yet to engage a theistic evolutionist that seriously and specifically identified God creating anything tangible.

Well, that's the problem you see: how would a theistic evolutionist argue "I can prove [X] was created directly by God because..." ?

Creationists attempt to use this argument by saying "I can prove [X] was created directly by God because it could not possibly have evolved." Indeed this is an argument I often see you using. The first problem here is that we often an prove [X] did evolve, and the second problem is that even if we can't prove it did evolve, we are simply using God as a excuse for our own ignorance. "I cannot explain how this happened, therefore God must have done it."

That is why Darwinian evolution and Genesis seem incompatible to many creationists - in order to prove God's existance, we must deny the evidence for evolution. If we have evidence for evolution, God is either redunant or non-existant. That is also why atheists often see theism as an excuse for ignorance.

If I were to go looking for God in nature - looking for proof of His existance and not just a gap in evolutionary theory - what should I expect to find?

That's very true and I don't regard the vast majority of theistic evolutionists as enemies of the faith. As a matter of fact, I believe they have been fooled into believing that the problem is Creationists when the truth is they are being used as a trojan horse but the atheistic materialists you describe in your last paragraph.

Evolution is only a "trojan horse" if we allow it to be. Creationists regard it as a threat to religion, which is exactly what religion-hating atheists want - and they think they will win because they have the evidence on their side.

What we need is fo more Christians to accept Darwinian evolution, not reject it. Then it will lose it association with atheism.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

At one time I nursed the idea of being a theistic evolutionist and could have worked out the difficulties with my theology that would have arisen as conflicts with the testimony of Scripture. It really wouldn't be as hard as you might think.
...
I know what the dangers of theistic evolution are because of what the modernist philosophy has done under the guise of Liberal Theology in our seminaries and find that approach to the Christian faith altogether unacceptable.

So if I understand what you're saying ... you prefer creationism not because you think there is anything wrong with theistic evolution, but because accepting evolution (or rather, denying a literal interpretation of Genesis) is the first step on the slippery slope to denying everything in the Bible?

I have to admit, I can see where you're coming from. I've seen a few TEs on this forum repeating propaganda made up by atheists. I've seen some say there is no evidence the Romans ever took a census like the one described in the Book of Luke (even though we do have evidence) and some say that aspects of Jesus life may have been "borrowed" from pagan dieties like Horus (even though this claim has been completely refuted).

Nevertheless, I think you're creating a dichotomy here: either you have to be a literalist and argue that every word in the Bible is true (regardless of the evidence) or you have to be a wishy-washy "liberal" who blindly accepts everything atheists tell them, and be a christian only in name.

I disagree. Some parts of the Bible are easier to defend than others - it depends on the evidence. Some parts may have to be re-interpreted, but that doesn't mean we have to throw everything out.

 

[mark kennedy]

Look Mark, I have to be honest. I find your perspective to be heterodox, your arrogance to be tiring, and as for your arguments, I think you are mostly trolling people who are replying to the point.

What I'm doing is defining 'creation' Biblically. That's all I have been doing for the last few pages and if you don't agree with that approach to doctrine perhaps your problem isn't with me, it may be with the Scriptures.

I am unsubscribing, and we can mutually see it as a good riddance.

That's entirely up to you but whether you post to the thread or not the definition of 'creation' does not change because you don't like it.

Thanks for the exchange,
Mark

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

What we need is fo more Christians to accept Darwinian evolution, not reject it. Then it will lose it association with atheism.

we might accept darwinism if it were true.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, that's the problem you see: how would a theistic evolutionist argue "I can prove [X] was created directly by God because..." ?

At this point they won't even attempt to define what is meant by 'creation'. There are two issues involved, one is doctrinal and one is historical. Whether or not the evidence demonstrates that God acted in time and space is secondary to defining what is meant by 'creation'.

Creationists attempt to use this argument by saying "I can prove [X] was created directly by God because it could not possibly have evolved." Indeed this is an argument I often see you using. The first problem here is that we often an prove [X] did evolve, and the second problem is that even if we can't prove it did evolve, we are simply using God as a excuse for our own ignorance. "I cannot explain how this happened, therefore God must have done it."

With regards to the history and origin of life on this planet we are not left to our own devices. God's revelation that is clearly seen in the mind of the natural man leaves him without excuse since:

the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:20-23)​

God's divine attributes and eternal nature' are clearly seen, leaving us all without excuse. In addition we receive a fuller revelation through the Scriptures which are a witness to God's power being demonstrated throughout human history, continuing to this day.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)​

That means that the New Testament witness concerning the original creation is evidence, preferred over all pagan and secular sources for these histories.

That is why Darwinian evolution and Genesis seem incompatible to many creationists - in order to prove God's existance, we must deny the evidence for evolution. If we have evidence for evolution, God is either redunant or non-existant. That is also why atheists often see theism as an excuse for ignorance.

That is simply not true, there are two definitions of 'evolution' at work. There are the scientific evidences for the 'change of allele in populations over time. Then there is the 'a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'. Creationists are not opposed to 'evolution' as science or even as a theory of natural history. What the Creationist contends with is Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are opposed to any theistic reasoning, not allowing God credit as the designer, let alone the Creator.

If I were to go looking for God in nature - looking for proof of His existance and not just a gap in evolutionary theory - what should I expect to find?

What I would expect to find is the molecular mechanisms needed for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. What I would expect to see are Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record evolving, even as our mythical ancestors would have had to. I wouldn't expect to find an army of Darwinian apologists who simply assume you are ignorant because you conclude a Creator or and Intelligent Designer was, in fact, the primary source of life on this planet. What they are arguing is not science, it's supposition.

Evolution is only a "trojan horse" if we allow it to be. Creationists regard it as a threat to religion, which is exactly what religion-hating atheists want - and they think they will win because they have the evidence on their side.

It's only dangerous if you let it in, taking an apologetic stand on the doctrine and the genuine article of science can prevent that incursion. The truth is that it should have happened decades ago but the church was so bent on compromise that now it is running rampant. An apologetic response to their ceaseless incursions is in order.

What we need is fo more Christians to accept Darwinian evolution, not reject it. Then it will lose it association with atheism.

That is what got us here in the first place, accepting Darwinism means you accept the naturalistic assumptions of atheistic materialists. They are the enemies of theistic reasoning and I guarantee when they are done with the Creationists Theistic Evolutionists are next. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that they are in the same boat and making enemies of Creationists is a self defeating course of action.

So if I understand what you're saying ... you prefer creationism not because you think there is anything wrong with theistic evolution, but because accepting evolution (or rather, denying a literal interpretation of Genesis) is the first step on the slippery slope to denying everything in the Bible?

That's about as close to what I'm saying as I think we are going to get. I could reorganize my theology around a Darwinian view of natural history without too many difficulties at all. The only two issue are the original creation in Genesis 1:1; 21; and 27. The other one is original sin which is inextricably linked to Romans 5 as the basis for our need for justification. As I said, I could easily manage the difficulties such a position would present without ever undermining the credibility of Scripture or attacking a single Creationist for taking Genesis 1 literally. I do see a slippery slope here since Darwinian logic allows for no deviations from the naturalistic assumptions it's based on. I would also add that I dare say Charles Darwin would have never disparaged a persons personal beliefs and was by all accounts a kind and gentle natured man.

I simple reserve the right to remain unconvinced, call that incredulity if you will, they have not made their case. What is more they have taken on an impossible burden of proof since they include all of natural history and reject any hint of God interacting with the functionality of natural law.

I have to admit, I can see where you're coming from. I've seen a few TEs on this forum repeating propaganda made up by atheists. I've seen some say there is no evidence the Romans ever took a census like the one described in the Book of Luke (even though we do have evidence) and some say that aspects of Jesus life may have been "borrowed" from pagan dieties like Horus (even though this claim has been completely refuted).

Unfortunately those are some of the various arguments TEs sometimes indulge themselves in.

Nevertheless, I think you're creating a dichotomy here: either you have to be a literalist and argue that every word in the Bible is true (regardless of the evidence) or you have to be a wishy-washy "liberal" who blindly accepts everything atheists tell them, and be a christian only in name.

I never accepted the testimony of Scripture blindly. I have spent a great deal of time exploring the credibility of Scripture as history. I was astonished at the claims of Scripture and often pursued a better understanding with deep skepticism, sometimes still do. Believe it or not one of the most convincing things lending credibility to the claims of Scripture are the cultures that they have been attached to. The Hebrews have maintained their sacred documents meticulously well for thousands of years. Their culture, the blood line, their language and their religion completely intact. Never was the Hebrew Scriptures out of their possession and they are found exactly where you would expect to find such oracles of God. You would expect to find them in the custody of the people who they were entrusted to.

I disagree. Some parts of the Bible are easier to defend than others - it depends on the evidence. Some parts may have to be re-interpreted, but that doesn't mean we have to throw everything out.

I don't disagree with that. I am aware of a number of passages I find questionable, don't get me wrong, I don't reject them but I'm open to substantive criticism. I can well understand someone who has serious doubts and honest criticisms of some of the histories reported for a host of reasons they may include. That's not an abandonment of the faith, that's what Christian Apologetics are there for. I know I have struggled many times and in many ways, the biggest struggle for me early on what the deity of Christ. That doctrine drove me up the wall and I didn't see any real support for the doctrine anywhere in the New Testament. I wasn't really skeptical, I just remained unconvinced. After that difficult struggle it would become obvious to me, I sometimes even chuckle to myself that I couldn't see it sooner. When it comes to evolution and origins I have and will remain skeptical as long as I am unconvinced.

Most importantly, I would like for you to understand, I mean none of this personally. I am very serious about the doctrinal issues and do not compromise on those issues. The canon of Scripture is not on the table for me to compromise with regards to the redemptive history, doctrine or theology. If the positive evidence of the Darwinians claims convince me I will happily rethink my theology. If on the other hand they choose to pursue a course of fallacious logic and faulty evidence I will remain a critic and a defender of what I am convinced is the truth of God, in fact, the very Word of God

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

What we need is fo more Christians to accept Darwinian evolution, not reject it. Then it will lose it association with atheism.

we might accept darwinism if it were true.

Indeed

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Well, that's the problem you see: how would a theistic evolutionist argue "I can prove [X] was created directly by God because..." ?

At this point they won't even attempt to define what is meant by 'creation'.
...
With regards to the history and origin of life on this planet we are not left to our own devices. God's revelation that is clearly seen in the mind of the natural man leaves him without excuse ... God's divine attributes and eternal nature' are clearly seen, leaving us all without excuse.

I aked for what I should expect to find if I were looking for evidence of God in nature - you reply that evidence of God is "obvious" and that our failure to find it is due to our refusal to define "creation".

That's a bit of a non-answer. It's sounds as though you're saying "The evidence is so obvious that if fail to notice it's your own fault" - without specifying what this evidence actually is.

What I would expect to find is the molecular mechanisms needed for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. What I would expect to see are Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record even as our mythical ancestors would have had to.

I think another user (Papias?) has answered your point on genetics and human EQ before; we already know of a few genes which increase human brain size and folding. A few that I know of include:

• HAR1 (involved in the development of the cerebral cortex, and possibly sperm production)
• ASPM and CDK5RAP2 (both responsible for controling brain size).

As for chimpanzee fossils, it's possible we will find them in the future. After all, we have found quite a few Miocene ape fossils - so not all primate fossils are automatically considered hominins.

That is what got us here in the first place, accepting Darwinism means you accept the naturalistic assumptions of atheistic materialists. They are the enemies of theistic reasoning and I guarantee when they are done with the Creationists Theistic Evolutionists are next. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that you are in the same boat and making enemies of Creationists is a self defeating course of action.

(My emphasis) Evolution is not atheisms' personal trump card, not matter how often they treat it as such. They deny theistic reasons because they are atheists, not because Darwinism is so damaging to religion.