Of redemptive history

[shernren]

Mark has said this yet again:

Biology has nothing to do with this, it never has. This is about evolution as natural history as opposed to the Bible as redemptive history. You cannot believe both. Now as far as evolution as the change of the frequency of alleles in populations over time, that creates not problems. It's the assumption of common descent that is the 'fundamental' issue here and I refuse to accept it as an a priori self evident fact.

(emphasis added)

Now, precisely how is evolution as natural history mutually exclusive to the Bible as redemptive history?

Name just one event in redemptive history that evolutionists don't believe is real and relevant to our lives.

 

[laptoppop]

Global flood. Evolutionists interpret the geologic formations as taking millions of years to form, and a record of evolution. Creationists interpret the geologic formations as coming from pre-flood, flood, and post-flood deposits. Genesis presents Noah and the Ark and a global flood as history.

 

[busterdog]

Redemptive history: overcoming death in a real sense.

Evolution: death is the moderator of everything good.

 

[gluadys]

Redemptive history: overcoming death in a real sense.

Evolution: death is the moderator of everything good.

Again the false equation of evolution with death. It is not death that moderates evolution. It is differential reproductive success. The variants which produce the most descendants become the most common. Simple logic. How does that make death the moderator of evolution?

 

[HypnoToad]

Name just one event in redemptive history that evolutionists don't believe is real and relevant to our lives.

Everything from Genesis 1 to 11?

 

[hithesh]

Everything from Genesis 1 to 11?

Well, that's not a good answer, it should be noted that it's an insult to the early Christians, such as Augustine who took that stance that certain events in Genesis should be taken literally, and that you shouldn't don't allow yourself to become a joke, by faulty reasoning.

What you need to show is how certain events as taken as allegorical in Genesis 1-11 negatively effect the "biblical" interpretation of the purpose of Christ.

If anything, my understanding of Genesis as allegorical, have greatly influenced my understanding of my Savior, are you telling me that some how my relationship to Christ, is not as strong as yours since you are a "literalist"?

Who decide what is to be taken as allegorical and what is to be taken literal other than man?
Who decides the Christ is returning with a metallic sword protruding from his mouth,
or that christ with a sword protruding out of his mouth is allegorical?

There are no verses in the bible that dictate that I am suppose to take the Genesis account of Creation as any more literal, than the numerous verses in the Bible, that even you and I agree are allegorical.

 

[HypnoToad]

Well, that's not a good answer, it should be noted that it's an insult to the early Christians, such as Augustine who took that stance that certain events in Genesis should be taken literally, and that you shouldn't don't allow yourself to become a joke, by faulty reasoning.

What you need to show is how certain events as taken as allegorical in Genesis 1-11 negatively effect the "biblical" interpretation of the purpose of Christ.

If anything, my understanding of Genesis as allegorical, have greatly influenced my understanding of my Savior, are you telling me that some how my relationship to Christ, is not as strong as yours since you are a "literalist"?

Who decide what is to be taken as allegorical and what is to be taken literal other than man?
Who decides the Christ is returning with a metallic sword protruding from his mouth,
or that christ with a sword protruding out of his mouth is allegorical?

There are no verses in the bible that dictate that I am suppose to take the Genesis account of Creation as any more literal, than the numerous verses in the Bible, that even you and I agree are allegorical.

Nice little strawman.

I made no claim here whatsoever about what is to be taken as literal and what is to be taken allegorical. I made no claim here that anyone taking Gen.1-11 as allegorical is not a real Christian.

The question was: "name one event in redemptive history that evolutionists don't believe is real and relevant to our lives".

The events of Gen.1-11 are typically not seen as real events by evolutionists or theistic evolutionists. If an event is not "real", it is impossible to be "real and relevant".

 

[hithesh]

The events of Gen.1-11 are typically not seen as real events by evolutionists or theistic evolutionists. If an event is not "real", it is impossible to be "real and relevant".

Just because something is real, that does not mean it's relevant, and just because something is relevant, does it mean that it's real.

An example, would be the story of the Tortiouse and the Hare. It does not matter that the race in the story is not real, what's relevant is the meaning. We derive meaning as much (if not more) from allegory, as we do from real events.

Genesis is quite relevant for me. Viewing it allegorical has increased the importance of it's relevancy, while for me a literal take on it, dimishes that quality (for me at least).

Instead of finding meaning in a tree, I find meaning in the choice of name for that tree, "The tree of knowledge; The tree of Good and Evil", instead of finding meaning in another person who desired to eat of a fruit from that tree, i see that I have desired the fruit as well.

Something real to you might not be relevant, while something relevant to me might not be "real".

 

[HypnoToad]

Just because something is real, that does not mean it's relevant, and just because something is relevant, does it mean that it's real.

An example, would be the story of the Tortiouse and the Hare. It does not matter that the race in the story is not real, what's relevant is the meaning. We derive meaning as much (if not more) from allegory, as we do from real events.

Genesis is quite relevant for me. Viewing it allegorical has increased the importance of it's relevancy, while for me a literal take on it, dimishes that quality (for me at least).

Instead of finding meaning in a tree, I find meaning in the choice of name for that tree, "The tree of knowledge; The tree of Good and Evil", instead of finding meaning in another person who desired to eat of a fruit from that tree, i see that I have desired the fruit as well.

Something real to you might not be relevant, while something relevant to me might not be "real".

All irrelevant. Read the question again - "real A - N - D relevant".

 

[hithesh]

All irrelevant. Read the question again - "real A - N - D relevant".

Well it seems I am in error.

I guess in that case something can't be allegorical and "real", it can only be allegorical and relevant.

 

[gluadys]

Everything from Genesis 1 to 11?

The events in these chapters are:

the creation
humanity's fall into sin
God's judgment on a sinful world (flood)
the reassertion of human pride & God's judgment on that pride (Tower of Babel)

TEs believe these events are described in the bible in the form of stories. But they do believe these events occurred, if not precisely as described.

So let's go back to the original question again as you have not yet named an event in redemption history that TEs don't believe is real and relevant to our lives.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Well it seems I am in error.

I guess in that case something can't be allegorical and "real", it can only be allegorical and relevant.

Yes and no...

Human concepts, philosophy, ideals, morals, etc. are all real things, they just are not tangible, solid objects.

The YEC world view seems to put anything intangible on a lower par than physical objects or historical events, they are somehow less important. I feel this is a mistake, that in human history the intangible elements are more important than the physical, that the intangible ideas (all men created equal, the cherry tree, the log cabin) are more moving and important to the people at the time then actual physical elements.

 

[HypnoToad]

The events in these chapters are:

the creation
humanity's fall into sin
God's judgment on a sinful world (flood)
the reassertion of human pride & God's judgment on that pride (Tower of Babel)

TEs believe these events are described in the bible in the form of stories. But they do believe these events occurred, if not precisely as described.

So let's go back to the original question again as you have not yet named an event in redemption history that TEs don't believe is real and relevant to our lives.

Oh, I see. They're real as long as we exclude all the details.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Oh, I see. They're real as long as we exclude all the details.

Here is a perfect example of what I was saying...

See how he feels that all the intangible ideas and philosophy of Genesis are worthless if there was not a physical event.

The ideas mean nothing to him unless they are tied directly to the physical.

 

[laptoppop]

Not not worthless -- just deceptive. The stories are clear. They are referred to by Jesus. They are true.

 

[HypnoToad]

Here is a perfect example of what I was saying...

See how he feels that all the intangible ideas and philosophy of Genesis are worthless if there was not a physical event.

The ideas mean nothing to him unless they are tied directly to the physical.

Strawman.

I made no claim here whatsoever suggesting that an allegorical view equates to worthlessness.

 

[hithesh]

Strawman.

I made no claim here whatsoever suggesting that an allegorical view equates to worthlessness.

Let's just say less worth.

If you don't believe that allegorical interpration of Genesis, is not of less worth, than a literal view, then what's the problem?

If they can be of equal worth, then why the issue with non-literalist, and thestic evolutionist who fall into that camp?

STRAWMAN! (sorry I just wanted to say it once )

 

[Deamiter]

Not not worthless -- just deceptive. The stories are clear. They are referred to by Jesus. They are true.

Just as XianJedi keeps repeating, these are utterly unconnected sentences.

Jesus never once clearly refers to one of these stories as history but always in reference to the meaning behind the story. And you certainly haven't begun to explin how a myth is any more deceptive than a parable! Finally, do you honestly believe that the stories would be any less true if they hadn't actually happened? Why?

And Xianjedi -- cut out the "I'm going to be ultra-literal to make you look wrong." You're just picking definitions that make it look like TEs reject Genesis when we do nothing of the sort. Are the parables real? Would you reject the parables if some or all of the details hadn't happened exactly as Jesus said they did?

I mean, good job pointing out that the boolean operator "and" makes the statement false if "real" is synonamous with "historical" but a person intelligent enough to figure that out should be intelligent enough to figure out what was implied by the quote in the OP and what the OP was trying to discuss.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Not not worthless -- just deceptive. The stories are clear. They are referred to by Jesus. They are true.

Only deceptive if your world view holds physical things above the intangible.

The only world views that I have seen that do this repeatedly and strong atheists and YECs.

I can understand why atheists do, but it is strange to me that Christians would, it seems odd to place the physical world above the spiritual.

 

[Mallon]

I can understand why atheists do, but it is strange to me that Christians would, it seems odd to place the physical world above the spiritual.

Sooo true. There's a quote in shernren's signature that attests to this very fact:

There is a masterly lack of logic in accusing an Age of Materialism and then invoking a wholly material spirituality - is there not? - A.S. Byatt, Possession​

​