Adam and Eve

[theFijian]

First off, Creation is fallen. It is not to be seen as God's book of works, nor will you find any hint of any such philosophy in the Bible.

There's more than just a hint, Creation is quite plainly God's book of works. God is by definition the 'Creator', nothing we do, nor any supposed physical aftershocks of the Fall can mask his revelation. Creation speaks of his invisible and visible qualities. It is quite clear that Creation is God's handiwork, and there for part of divine revelation (as per Rom 1). 'Book of works' is just a tag for that concept, not too difficult to understand I would have thought. More evidence of Creatinists denying/twisting divine revelation.

Secondly, though I do not at all subscribe to the idea that anyone who believes in evolution lacks saving faith, it is nevertheless quite clear from my interactions with atheists in the open forums that it forms a foundation for world views that exclude God, and inasmuch as evolution is interpreted that way, it is precisely the kind of thing being spoken of in 1Cor 1:27.

It's run of the mill now for Creationists round here to twist scripture, the verse you like quoting Paul is precisely talking about the Cross. Feel free to read something into it that isn't there though.

Thirdly, I am trying really hard here not to get pulled into an argument. I have my understanding. You can have yours.. whatever. Just don't try to pull a more-authoritative-than-thou maneuver on me unless you have something a LOT more substantive than "Creation is God's book of works."

Just as soon as you come up with something more substantive than "were you there to see evolution happen? then I aint believing it!" which has been the sum of you arguments so far.

 

[Shane Roach]

'Book of works' is just a tag for that concept, not too difficult to understand I would have thought. More evidence of Creatinists denying/twisting divine revelation.

It is a tag line you are using to support a view of how to look at the world that is anti-scriptural.

It's run of the mill now for Creationists round here to twist scripture, the verse you like quoting Paul is precisely talking about the Cross. Feel free to read something into it that isn't there though.

I will allow my words and your to speak for themselves on this.

Just as soon as you come up with something more substantive than "were you there to see evolution happen? then I aint believing it!" which has been the sum of you arguments so far.

This is a bald faced lie. I have repeatedly said that the reason I believe creation and not evolution is because I trust the people who teach creation more than I trust the people who preach evolution, but that I do not deny that evolution is possibly true. I have further stated tht I think it is clear that evolution is taught with more certainty than it deserves, and I have expalained why.

Apparently I will have to abandon this thread as well, but it's all good. I see where the theistic evolution movement is headed now, and that was my goal.

 

[chaoschristian]

I see where the theistic evolution movement is headed now, and that was my goal.

And you assessment is?

 

[theFijian]

It is a tag line you are using to support a view of how to look at the world that is anti-scriptural.

So Creationism is reduced to the position that the revelation of God is anti-scriptural despite Romans 1 clearly stating God is revealed through nature. It gets more and more bizarre.

I will allow my words and your to speak for themselves on this.

My words were straight from the context of the verse you were quoting, your words were wishful thinking.

Apparently I will have to abandon this thread as well, but it's all good. I see where the theistic evolution movement is headed now, and that was my goal.

It will certainly be less entertaining round here with one less drama queen.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The extended metaphor of the two books of God, the book of words and the book of words goes back to at least Roger Bacon and has been a very useful one historically. It was widely used in the foundational centuries for science as a justification for looking carefully at the world. It is instrumental in the process of desacralization of the physical world that had to preceed science. I find it a useful and thought provoking metaphor. It is not important that the exact words are not found in Scripture for the idea itself is pervasive.

 

[Assyrian]

Where does the bible say creation is fallen? I get the impression the OT writers saw creation as glorifying God the creator.

 

[GenemZ]

Still, I have long been convinced that whatever the truth of creation is, it is not all that important to Christianity.

Its vitally important. Yet, by the likes of what many Christians have to say, we could never see why it would be.

An accurate understanding of this present creation is foundational to the needed knowledge for insight into why angels are at war in the invisible realm. Why Satan is now free to plead his case, yet stands condemned. Why man was created in God's image.

Many things usually not asked can be answered by having an accurate understanding of this present creation, and how it got here. If you do not believe me? You ever wonder why there is so much confusion over this issue? Its a doorway to light on the other side that will give a glimpse into why Satan was condemned. You think he wants that to be understood by men? When men are an important tool in his attempt to vindicate his fall? It is clear that this one issue is fought harder than most. Even the Deity of Christ has an easy day in comparison to this area of understanding.

TE was a rationale created as to hide the true meaning of the fossil records. Men do not know this. Many will go with the flow of what pleases their particular personality and emotional design. Its varies widely in man. Yet, the truth will always be found on the strait and narrow path. Jesus did not say that many find it.

TE is a cosmic attempt to hide the truth about the prehistoric life of the fallen angels. YEC is an attempt to be devout to tradition, as if traditional belief were truth. Both sides have some truth to them. Both sides have false understandings. Its where one sees the falsehood in the other that perpetuates their belief that their side must be right. Both sides are stupid. Both sides are smart. Both do not have the full picture, only bits of the truth mixed with lies........

TE is a free for all. YEC's are almost Inquistional in approach when you disagree with their interpretation of Scripture. They are quick to call names and belittle what they fail to understand. And. TE's have a smug sense of superior thinking when they know certain data they have contradicts what YEC's hold to be absolute truth.

In other words...... its a mess that rages on, because both are not motivated in seeking a better understanding of the truth, but only seeking a perfecting of what they desire others to believe.

The more I look at it though, the more I wonder what theistic evolutionists make of the rest of Genesis, and specifically the story of Adam and Eve and of how sin came into the world?

It varies. Usually between the belief that man was not advanced enough to understand evolution, so God needed to make up a myth to supply man with a feeling of knowing truth.... to..... Adam and Eve were stories made up by men, not God.

Those have been what I have witnessed to so far. That is, with those who are Christians. Atheistic evolutionists are all over the map, and deny the Word of God means anything meaningful in the discussion.

Are most theistic evolutionists also universalists, or do they deny literal interpretations of other books like the Revelation or even the Gospels?

That, usually depends on what their particular church teaches. There is no evolutionsist "view" of these things.

How do you shift gears from denying the first several chapters of Genesis to acknowledging the rest of it?

The usual rationale I have been handed is that the creation account is myth created by God because man would not have had the ability to understand the truth, and the rest of Genesis was something that was known history to the author. History passed down by oral tradition.

I am neither TE, nor YEC.....

I hope that may help a little bit more in what your seeking to find.

Philippians 1:9 niv
"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight."

​

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why man was created in God's image.

i'll bite.
what is the image of God in man?
and why was man created in God's image?

inquiring minds want to know *grin*

 

[theFijian]

The usual rationale I have been handed is that the creation account is myth created by God because man would not have had the ability to understand the truth

'Myth' and 'truth' are not mutually exclusive.

 

[GenemZ]

Why man was created in God's image.

i'll bite.
what is the image of God in man?
and why was man created in God's image?

inquiring minds want to know *grin*

The Hebrew word more accurately means, "shadow image." Man's design is a reflection of God. Just as a creative work reflects to us the soul of the artist.

First of all. Genesis one speaks of God creating man. Not so, for Genesis 2.

Genesis 2, speaks of the Lord not creating man. But rather, forming and molding from the elements of the earth, a lifeless body.

What was breathed into the nostrils of that lifeless body?

Breathed into the nostrils what had been already created in Genesis 1:27!

"So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them."


​

God had already created what he called "man" before any body was provided. Provided for the soul! The soul is what God created in his image!


The soul will either live forever (Eternal life) or exist forever (Lake of Fire). It will always be.

That, reflects a part of God's image who always has been, and always will be.....



Now....

Different Hebrew words in the creation were at play in Genesis 1, and 2.

When God CREATED man in his image? It was the Hebrew word 'Bara.'

Bara, is a Hebrew word that the Jews of old would only associate with God. For it held a special and unique meaning of creating something out from nothing. "Ex nihilio."

Man's soul was created "out from nothing."


Now, in contrast. The Hebrew word used in the bringing about of the human body? Was not 'bara.'

For it was not created out from nothing. It was something formed from pre-existing matter. The elements of the earth!

Nor, was the body to live/exist forever. The soul does!

The Hebrew word used in the forming of the lifeless body was, 'yatsar.' Yatsar means to mold and form something from what is existing material. The body of Adam was simply an earthly home for what was created in God's image, the soul.

God created man as being sovereign over the earth.

And?

God is sovereign over all creation.

"God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth."



​

God is free will to choose all he desires.

God gave man volition within an area of limited freedom, from which he can choose. All this reflects on the nature of God = image. Animals do not have such volition.


God is conscious of self.

Man reflects this quality.

Animals do not reason. Man reasons, etc.

The soul is immaterial. God is Spirit!

It was man's soul that was created in God's image.

It will be the soul that leaves the body and takes on a new body of Heaven. Its the soul that lasts for ever. Not our body.

The body is simply the means for expression of the soul, to other souls, while we are locked into time and space.

The body is not what was created in God's image. The body is only a medium of expression for the soul.

God created souls to be either male or female. The body design only reflects the essence of the soul. The reason one is female is not because of hormones. The soul is the reason one is female, or male. God created the sexes of the body as to be in harmony with the soul's expression.

So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them.


​

Now? If God wanted to tell us that man came from a chimp? It would have been simple to do!

Just look at primitive Hinduism! They saw man coming from different levels of karma! Your aunt can come back as a cow!


It would not have been difficult for God to explain evolution to ancient man, if that were the means for bringing man into existence!

That being the case? And, what evolutionists claim to be true?

God lied. Or, God's Word is not God's Word....and is a lie.

John 14:2 niv
"In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you."



​

God does not play games with misleading myths. For, God has no fear of confusing man with what man can not yet understand.

God gets glory when he reveals to man what man can not yet understand, so when men of the future finally understands what was meant? They know a man could not have made it up! That's just the opposite for the reason given in the rationale, claiming the creation account is myth!


God tells the truth even when he knows it will not be understood by the one first hearing it.

Mark 9:32 niv
But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.



​

That happened a good number of times between Christ and his disciples. They were constantly misunderstanding things he said and did. It was only later on that they finally understood Him. Jesus did not make up little myths to satisfy their dark minds for the moment.


God gets glory when something is finally, later on, understood. For it reveals that the man writing was not the author of what was said. For if man does not understand what he is told to write? How can he be the author?

Luke 2:50 niv
"But they did not understand what he was saying to them."
​

Luke 9:45 niv
"But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it."

Luke 18:34 niv
"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about."

John 8:27 niv
"They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father."



​

God tells the truth, even when it is not yet understood!

For God knows at the right time, the Spirit will open the eyes of humble grace oriented believers, and make them able to see what even the one who wrote the words found in Scripture might not have seen himself at the time of writing!

Example?

When David wrote Psalm 22? Crucifixions did not exist as a means of execution! David had no idea what it was he was actually prophesying about!

But, God always knew we would be made able to see what David could not! Yet, David penned those very words we find in Psalm 22, by means of God's Spirit! Not, one of his own private interpretation!

No need for myths in God's Word! For God does not try to explain away what man can not yet understand. He simply tells the truth now, and causes future generations with the grace capacity to understand, to see what is there!

John 12:16 niv
At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him."


​

God does not resort to myths! That's for paganism. For keeping Satan's followers in the darkness of childish thinking. For religion. Not, for Christianity as it should be.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What was breathed into the nostrils of that lifeless body?
wind, air as a complex pun and metaphor for soul, spirit, animating principle.

The soul is what God created in his image!
that is not what it says:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

it says created man, male and female in his image. not a word about a soul, spirit, air, wind etc.

Jesus did not make up little myths to satisfy their dark minds.

Mat 13:10 ¶ And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

not only is Jesus using stories, parables, myths (they are all the same thing, fictional accounts with a pointed meaning) but he is using them to conceal as well as to reveal. exactly the same purpose as myth, to hide in plain view from those who are not initiatied into the mysteries and to show to those who are.

The soul is immaterial.
the metaphor is with wind, air, both of which are material items.

God does not play games with misleading myths.
but yet that is exactly what Jesus says he is doing, hiding the truth from some and revealing it to others. sure sounds like misleading to me.

Example? When David wrote Psalm 22? Crucifixions did not exist as a means of execution!

Psa 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.

Psa 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

There is no hint of crucifixion in this chapter. In fact, these two verses are the only ones about death methods.
sword, dogs, lions, all common ways to punish people. (i don't know what to do about the horns of the unicorns)

God created souls to be either male, or female.
more odd theology, where do you get this stuff? i'd read someone who makes this awkward point to see where it comes from, that souls have gender, have a reference handy?

but in the end, an interesting posting but it doesn't tell me what the imago dei is or why man was created in God's image, which is what i really wanted to understand from what you said earlier.

 

[Pats]

Is it just me, or does the Gap Theology interject alot betweeb the lines?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is it just me, or does the Gap Theology interject alot betweeb the lines?

gap itself, like schofield's bible commentary doesn't.
however some adherents to it apparently do.

the stuff about the angels and great rebellion, for which we have Milton not Moses to thank, are a constant part of it however.

 

[GenemZ]

Is it just me, or does the Gap Theology interject alot betweeb the lines?

What do you think it interjects? A lot of?


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Assyrian]

All the stuff you think happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

The usual exposition of the gap theory I have come across takes references in the prophets to some catastrophe or cosmic event, which come either without a time reference, or whose time reference is ignored. The prophecies are then said to refer to the gap, and a complicated prehistory built from them.

I think the gap theory is really good as an attempt to see if there is more in Genesis than the simplistic six day interpretation. But I see it as a good start rather than a final conclusion.

 

[Pats]

What do you think it interjects? A lot of?


In Christ, GeneZ

I do not really know a lot about Gap Theology.

Your posts, if they are an example of Gappist thinking, seem to interject information between the lines of scripture that is not written there.

 

[jereth]

I do not really know a lot about Gap Theology.

Your posts, if they are an example of Gappist thinking, seem to interject information between the lines of scripture that is not written there.

I think there is a tendency for all sides (YECist, OECist and TEist) to overlook Gap Theory too quickly.

Gap Theory, at its bare essence, is simply the belief that Genesis 1 is not the beginning of absolutely everything. Most gap theorists believe that the universe, the solar system and the earth existed for billions of years prior to Genesis 1. What we have in Genesis 1 is merely a description of God's "renovation" of the pre-existent earth.

Many different varieties of Gap Theory arise out of this basic foundation:
A. Ruin/Reconstruction theory - the belief in a former creation that was destroyed by God's judgment (as expounded by genez)
B. "Soft gap theory" - lacks the ruin/reconstruction aspect; the earth simply lay empty from the beginning of the universe till Creation Week
C. Time Dilation (eg. White Hole Cosmology) - the squeezing of billions of years worth of events into a short space of time within Creation Week. Despite masquerading as YECism, this is just a more sophisticated form of Gap Theory.
Etc.

Of course, Gap Theory will always fail to win over a significant number of adherents because, ultimately, it breaks down under the scientific scrutiny and sound biblical exegesis. But it is an interesting theory worth looking at because it may function as a stepping stone between YECism and OECism.

 

[Assyrian]

My basic take on Genesis could be described as Gap. It is that just I see six of them in the narrative.

 

[shernren]

When God CREATED man in his image? It was the Hebrew word 'Bara.'

Bara, is a Hebrew word that the Jews of old would only associate with God. For it held a special and unique meaning of creating something out from nothing. "Ex nihilio."

Man's soul was created "out from nothing."

Bara is only associated with God? I agree wholly.
Bara always means ex-nihilo creation? I disagree. God is said to "bara" Israel in Isaiah. Was Israel created ex-nihilo?

First off, Creation is fallen. It is not to be seen as God's book of works, nor will you find any hint of any such philosophy in the Bible.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3315378-a-christian-foundation-for-science.html

Christianity is the faith which has placed most glory and emphasis on the material world, compared with all others. Why throw that beautiful heritage away?

Secondly, though I do not at all subscribe to the idea that anyone who believes in evolution lacks saving faith, it is nevertheless quite clear from my interactions with atheists in the open forums that it forms a foundation for world views that exclude God, and inasmuch as evolution is interpreted that way, it is precisely the kind of thing being spoken of in 1Cor 1:27.

Read the context. 1 Cor 1-2 refers to the message of the cross as foolishness and weakness, not the message of six-day recent creation.

Thirdly, I am trying really hard here not to get pulled into an argument. I have my understanding. You can have yours.. whatever. Just don't try to pull a more-authoritative-than-thou maneuver on me unless you have something a LOT more substantive than "Creation is God's book of works."

And yet this is precisely what you seem to be doing. To be honest, your posts have quite a few snickers and snide remarks that make it seem as if you've been there, done that, creamed the evolutionists, got the T-shirt, and went home to dinner.

I'm not asking for a fight either. I'm just asking for you to listen and consider what we see in nature and in the Bible.

I don't believe this, and as I said earlier it is interesting that despite what was presented early on in the thread, so far everyone who is a theistic evolutionist shares in common some degree of belief that the scriptures are not quite what they seem. They are either to be meticulously unraveled for allegories, or else one has to bring some outside understanding into them to clarify their meaning. They are not meant to stand on their own according to each one of the people to post so far. I've been examining them for years now and I find none of this necessary to get a good understanding that fits with the experience of God and Christ in my life.

You have to bring some outside understanding into the Scriptures to clarify their meaning. You're just so used to it that you don't ever see it.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23469087&postcount=45

The argument from there is one I have been through a million times and am not interested in repeating. (Yes, 1,000,000 is hyperbole)

2 Peter 1:16-21
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The passage refers to the witness of the apostles concerning the life of Jesus Christ, not six-day creation. Again you are quoting Scripture out of context.

I hate to be terse like this but apparently it's a style you like. So happy reading!

 

[GenemZ]

Bara is only associated with God? I agree wholly.
Bara always means ex-nihilo creation? I disagree. God is said to "bara" Israel in Isaiah. Was Israel created ex-nihilo?

First I must say this....... You have cut and pasted quotes from various posts, by different people, and placed them all in one single post.

If you would like to confuse the way things are kept in order here, and how folks know that their post is being referred to..... I suggest you like everyone else has learned to do. Respond to each post individually.

Most posters seeing me being quoted first might just skip over it. For its custom here that we respond to individuals. We do not create collages of many posts, into one.

Now...

I never said it always refers to ex nihilio. I said it was a unique word used in association with God. And uniquely, can mean to create 'out from nothing.' Bara also holds some other meanings, as well. I never claimed it was only used one way. I think you have created something out from nothing over this.

Bara is only associated with God? I agree wholly.
Bara always means ex-nihilo creation? I disagree. God is said to "bara" Israel in Isaiah. Was Israel created ex-nihilo?

I believe God created Israel... out from nothing.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29 nasb
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God."
​

I believe "bara" was deliberately chosen to humble the Jews who had become terribly proud, arrogant, and rebellious in Isaiah's day.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Isa 43:15[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King. [/FONT]
​

For, it could mean God took a people who were nothing and then created a great nation out of them. All revealing God's grace at work and being glorified. God gets the credit. Israel could not boast in herself.

Now.....


We see no more Bara taking place in Genesis 2. Only in Gensis 1. For, that was what God rested from!

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."
​

All his designing and creating was rested from, from that point on. The body for Adam had already been designed (asah) in God's mind. What took place with the body was "molding class." The body was not "bara." It was yatsar. It was molded and formed from the elements of the earth. Elements that had already been created (bara) as spoken of in Genesis 1.

That why the same creation account continues in chapter two, but it was with a different emphasis. Its not about two different creation accounts, as some claim. One relates to the other, and from a different approach.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Isa 65:17[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. [/FONT]
​

This present creation will someday be forgotten by a future generation. For it will have been replaced with a new creation. Just like this creation, replaced a creation that does not come to mind to us.

In Christ, GeneZ