Bible-Creation-Evolution

[TheReasoner]

Shouldn't this be a new thread now, about which Bible translation is best? Just saying, I thought we were talking about creation, not the difference between versions of the Bible.

AV, why do you think it matters to salvation/Christology whether the earth is old or young? Actually anyone who thinks it matters can answer. I don't see it as a salvation issue, so I wonder why people get so het up about it?

It doesn't. But I do get worked up about Christians who claim that it is, preaching creationism and not love. I think it pulls attention from mercy and compassion onto something which only serves to push people away from Christ. My time in academia has shown much disbelief when I tell people I am a believer precisely because they now equate christianity with creationism and not mercy, compassion and love. This does get me sorrowful and angry. How many people will not see Christ's love and help spread it contributing to a better world because someone decided it was a good idea to say science is antithetical to christianity?

It's perhaps the greatest spiritual tragedy of this day and age.

Last poll in UK showed 60% did not believe in evolution, or at least were skeptical about it.

Did you know roughly 50% of the population has an IQ<100?
That's pretty slow.

Science is not a matter of a democratic consensus in the population at large. If it were quantum mechanics would have been rejected because it is counterintuitive and difficult to grasp. The same goes for relativity. We might be stuck with teleology and the ptolemaic system because that's based on a form of common sense interpretation of the most simple observations we can make.

Na, most Christians just know better.

Touché, so err yeah. We evolved.

We sure did
And yes, Like Mr. Dave. I'm a Christian. Are YOU, 1611? Or are you someone who dismisses science and claims cultural supremacy under a religious guise from fear or some form of ethnocentrism? Most I know who say "Christians just know better" or "Christians are better" tend to think Christianity and Christians are somehow white american middle class capitalists endowed with a divinely inspired culture and national identity which is tantamount to the gospel of Christ. In my time in the missions field I have met many such. People who travel to teach culture and opinion, not Christ's love and salvation. Funny thing is, they word themselves very similarly to what you just did. Not that I'm saying you're that way, but I AM asking. What do you think a Christian is?
Is he a capitalist, a socialist or does that not really matter?
Is he someone in bluejeans and a flanel shirt? Does he wear a kimono, a bisht? Is a christian someone who can wear nought but a loincloth, male or female? Does it matter?
Is a Christian someone who defies natural science, is it your opinion that a christian a scientist or engineer cannot exist if he or she accepts what creation tells them?

I know what I think a Christian is. It's someone who loves when others hate. Someone who speaks up for the weak, who shields those who needs shielding. Someone who promotes peace, compassion, forgiveness and love. In all circumstances.
But hey. I could be wrong and it might be all about evolution instead. If it is and I am wrong I'll convert to Buddhism however.

 

[Mr Dave]

We sure did
And yes, Mr. Dave. I'm a Christian. Are YOU? Or are you someone who dismisses science and claims cultural supremacy under a religious guise from fear or some form of ethnocentrism? Most I know who say "Christians just know better" or "Christians are better" tend to think Christianity and Christians are somehow white american middle class capitalists endowed with a divinely inspired culture and national identity which is tantamount to the gospel of Christ. In my time in the missions field I have met many such. People who travel to teach culture and opinion, not Christ's love and salvation. Funny thing is, they word themselves very similarly to what you just did. Not that I'm saying you're that way, but I AM asking. What do you think a Christian is?
Is he a capitalist, a socialist or does that not really matter?
Is he someone in bluejeans and a flanel shirt? Does he wear a kimono, a bisht? Is a christian someone who can wear nought but a loincloth, male or female? Does it matter?
Is a Christian someone who defies natural science, or is a christian a scientist or engineer?

I know what I think a Christian is. It's someone who loves when others hate. Someone who speaks up for the weak, who shields those who needs shielding. Someone who promotes peace, compassion, forgiveness and love. In all circumstances.
But hey. I could be wrong and it might be all about evolution instead. If it is and I am wrong I'll convert to Buddhism however.

Indeed we did. Just on the side, did you get my posts confused with 1611's? You seem to be responding to me by answering his questions.

But since you ask, yes I am indeed a Christian. I do not dismiss science, I do not claim supremacy (or I don't think I do ) under a religious guise. I wasn't the one who said 'Christians know better' in the post (hence my first question to you).

Unfortunately I've noticed some of the cultural teaching over Christ's salvific love out there in the world; the British press tends to not support such people, neither do British Christians (for the most part at least).

I wholly agree with your definition of Christian (but would just add in the bits about faith in Christ) but yes.

 

[TheReasoner]

Indeed we did. Just on the side, did you get my posts confused with 1611's? You seem to be responding to me by answering his questions.

But since you ask, yes I am indeed a Christian. I do not dismiss science, I do not claim supremacy (or I don't think I do ) under a religious guise. I wasn't the one who said 'Christians know better' in the post (hence my first question to you).

Unfortunately I've noticed some of the cultural teaching over Christ's salvific love out there in the world; the British press tends to not support such people, neither do British Christians (for the most part at least).

I wholly agree with your definition of Christian (but would just add in the bits about faith in Christ) but yes.

lol

Epic fail on my part. I'm sorry Dave. I meant 1611

 

[1611AV]

It doesn't. But I do get worked up about Christians who claim that it is, preaching creationism and not love. I think it pulls attention from mercy and compassion onto something which only serves to push people away from Christ. My time in academia has shown much disbelief when I tell people I am a believer precisely because they now equate christianity with creationism and not mercy, compassion and love. This does get me sorrowful and angry. How many people will not see Christ's love and help spread it contributing to a better world because someone decided it was a good idea to say science is antithetical to christianity?

It's perhaps the greatest spiritual tragedy of this day and age.



Did you know roughly 50% of the population has an IQ<100?
That's pretty slow.

Science is not a matter of a democratic consensus in the population at large. If it were quantum mechanics would have been rejected because it is counterintuitive and difficult to grasp. The same goes for relativity. We might be stuck with teleology and the ptolemaic system because that's based on a form of common sense interpretation of the most simple observations we can make.


We sure did
And yes, Like Mr. Dave. I'm a Christian. Are YOU, 1611? Or are you someone who dismisses science and claims cultural supremacy under a religious guise from fear or some form of ethnocentrism? Most I know who say "Christians just know better" or "Christians are better" tend to think Christianity and Christians are somehow white american middle class capitalists endowed with a divinely inspired culture and national identity which is tantamount to the gospel of Christ. In my time in the missions field I have met many such. People who travel to teach culture and opinion, not Christ's love and salvation. Funny thing is, they word themselves very similarly to what you just did. Not that I'm saying you're that way, but I AM asking. What do you think a Christian is?
Is he a capitalist, a socialist or does that not really matter?
Is he someone in bluejeans and a flanel shirt? Does he wear a kimono, a bisht? Is a christian someone who can wear nought but a loincloth, male or female? Does it matter?
Is a Christian someone who defies natural science, is it your opinion that a christian a scientist or engineer cannot exist if he or she accepts what creation tells them?

I know what I think a Christian is. It's someone who loves when others hate. Someone who speaks up for the weak, who shields those who needs shielding. Someone who promotes peace, compassion, forgiveness and love. In all circumstances.
But hey. I could be wrong and it might be all about evolution instead. If it is and I am wrong I'll convert to Buddhism however.

Thats all nice and dandy but, This thread is not about proving we are a Christian, its about Christians who believe in evolution to provide us Christians who believe in Creation, with Biblical evidence of Evolution so we can understand why you would call yourself a Bible Believing Christian and also believe in evolution based on the Holy Bible.

Now if a wolf in sheeps clothing wants in on the convo. that is fine as well, just show me the Biblical evidence regarding evolution.

Now I can show you many many many examples of direct Creation in the Bible, can you show me Evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

that is fine as well, just show me the Biblical evidence regarding evolution.

Show me too -- a mountain of it -- so my faith can say unto it: "Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea;"*

* Translation: take a hike.

 

[TheReasoner]

Thats all nice and dandy but, This thread is not about proving we are a Christian, its about Christians who believe in evolution to provide us Christians who believe in Creation, with Biblical evidence of Evolution so we can understand why you would call yourself a Bible Believing Christian and also believe in evolution based on the Holy Bible.

Now if a wolf in sheeps clothing wants in on the convo. that is fine as well, just show me the Biblical evidence regarding evolution.

Now I can show you many many many examples of direct Creation in the Bible, can you show me Evolution?

You cannot. You can show subjective interpretation of passages which can be interpreted differently which - according to your interpretation - supports creationism as per your own wishful thinking.
I can show you verses of a very similar character revealing the world as flat, square and with a hard dome above it upon which God walks. Does that mean this interpretation is correct? No.

You claim to be a bible believing Christian. I move to suggest you are NOT a bible believing Christian, but a self believing Christian. One who believes what he wants the bible to say, and darn all else. Why do I say this? Because while you claim to be a bible believing Christian so do some people who claim the earth is flat. Others who are laissez faire capitalists believe they find support for their social darwinism in it. Others who are socialists or revolutionary communists believe the same. Some racists like KKK members believe the same. Evolutionists believe it, young earth creationists believe it, liberation theologians, prosperity theologians, and many many more groups. And the funny thing is, every one of these groups can find something that supports them provided they interpret the bible a certain way. And we ALL interpret it. What makes me say you believe YOURSELF as opposed to the bible is therefore that you are extremely certain that your interpretation is correct when it is neither the only possible interpretation nor one that is held by the majority. Furthermore you display zilch humility when it comes to your interpretation which in my book means you glorify your own interpretation and elevate it to the position the bible should have.

Besides, if you really WERE a bible-believing Christian in the sense that you actually read it literally in it's entirety you'll get some serious problems defending certain things. For example, should men whose testicles are crushed be denied entrance to heaven? (Deuteronomy 23:1.)
And what about all the other rules the bible sets down before us? Do you wear fabrics of mixed threads? Do you shave your sideburns?

And as for creation per your viewpoint:
As an example the notion that the sun - around which the earth orbits - was created four days after the earth is nonsensical. Both because the term "day" has no meaning without a sun and our rotation about our axis and because without it this planet would be a frozen wasteland. Which according to the bible it was not.
Furthermore, in genesis 2:4-9 it is clear God created man first, then trees. Whereas in Genesis 1 it's the other way around. Genesis 2 and 1 also disagree on which came first of man and animal.

Furthermore, the creation parable in Genesis says we were created from the dirt. This could be a simplification of our creation from the single-cell organisms which crowd the dirt. I.e. millions of years of creation condensed into a story they could relate to culturally and intellectually at that time.

See I do not believe my interpretations are infallible like you do. I do not fancy myself to be God nor my wishes or interpretations to be His word. No, I do not. But I do believe in an honest and truthful God whose existence is something His creation can only point towards, not away from. You seem to forget that the verses you refer to as absolute say God spoke and His creation came to be. That means that the universe is a physical manifestation of His words. A dynamic echo of His voice if you prefer that analogy. The very creation is His voice booming through the ages. And that voice cannot lie because God cannot. We can misinterpret and misunderstand, yes. We're human. But God cannot lie. Yet you insist that He is, pointing to your own subjective and highly fallible human interpretation of the bible as evidence for your position. And this comes after two millennia of Christians misinterpreting the scriptures time and time again. Sometimes very very badly at that. And those two thousand years come after the Jews misinterpreted it up, down and sideways as well. And yet you believe that YOU are infallible. How incredibly arrogant!

 

[AV1611VET]

You claim to be a bible believing Christian. I move to suggest you are NOT a bible believing Christian, but a self believing Christian. One who believes what he wants the bible to say, and darn all else.

I'm wondering if Mr. Dave, when he reads this, will move to have it stricken from the record?

 

[Mr Dave]

Show me too -- a mountain of it -- so my faith can say unto it: "Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea;"*

* Translation: take a hike.

No can do, alas there are as many references to evolution as there are to microbiology, wave-particle duality, speed limits, cats etc. Doesn't stop these things from being so.

Sorry, nothing's taking a hike today

 

[Mr Dave]

Now I can show you many many many examples of direct Creation in the Bible, can you show me Evolution?

We've already happily admitted that the Bible doesn't talk of evolution. Why would it?

You've said you side with the Bible over man's teaching. Man teaches about the development of creation in scientific terms (and to a degree, historical) when talking of evolution. The Bible talks of it not in scientific terms, nor in historical terms, but theological and 'legal' (for want of a better word) terms. Believing that God created the world and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive. Man's teaching address different issues so can both be seen as true; the mistake would come if you tried to read a theological/legal text as a scientific/historical one and vice versa.

The first few chapters of Genesis do not address science nor history.
The theory of evolution does not address theology nor 'legal' issues.

 

[Research1]

We've already happily admitted that the Bible doesn't talk of evolution. Why would it?

You've said you side with the Bible over man's teaching. Man teaches about the development of creation in scientific terms (and to a degree, historical) when talking of evolution. The Bible talks of it not in scientific terms, nor in historical terms, but theological and 'legal' (for want of a better word) terms. Believing that God created the world and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive. Man's teaching address different issues so can both be seen as true; the mistake would come if you tried to read a theological/legal text as a scientific/historical one and vice versa.

The first few chapters of Genesis do not address science nor history.
The theory of evolution does not address theology nor 'legal' issues.

The theory of evolution is found mentioned in the Bible. It is referenced to in 1 Timothy 1: 20 and also the Book of Acts. When Paul was in Athens, he encoutered the atheist epicureans who believed in a naturalistic origin theory. The theory of evolution goes back to several ancient Greek philosophers, and 1 Timothy 1: 20 labels these atheistic-naturalistic views as ''science falsely called'' i.e pseudo-science.

 

[Mr Dave]

The theory of evolution is found mentioned in the Bible. It is referenced to in 1 Timothy 1: 20 and also the Book of Acts. When Paul was in Athens, he encoutered the atheist epicureans who believed in a naturalistic origin theory. The theory of evolution goes back to several ancient Greek philosophers, and 1 Timothy 1: 20 labels these atheistic-naturalistic views as ''science falsely called'' i.e pseudo-science.

1 Tim. 1:20 "among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have turned over to Satan, so that they may learn not to blaspheme."

Try as I might, I can't see evolution there, not even on the most contrived of interpretations

Not believing God pinged everything into existence goes back a long way, the theory of evolution as now understood is not taken from them. Acts 17 talks about the resurrection of Christ and us all being God's children. On a side not at the beginning, we are told that there were epicureans there.

Neither of those passages talk of the theory of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

We've already happily admitted that the Bible doesn't talk of evolution. Why would it?

What about prescient evolution?

The first few chapters of Genesis do not address science nor history.

I disagree.

 

[Mr Dave]

What about prescient evolution?

I disagree.

Go on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go on.

I believe Genesis 1 to be a legitimate event in history.

True, as you said, it doesn't address history -- but it is history.

 

[Research1]

1 Tim. 1:20 "among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have turned over to Satan, so that they may learn not to blaspheme."

Try as I might, I can't see evolution there, not even on the most contrived of interpretations

Not believing God pinged everything into existence goes back a long way, the theory of evolution as now understood is not taken from them. Acts 17 talks about the resurrection of Christ and us all being God's children. On a side not at the beginning, we are told that there were epicureans there.

Neither of those passages talk of the theory of evolution.

Sorry that was typing error, i meant 6: 20. -

''O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called''

Another translation -

''O Timothy, take good care of that which is given to you, turning away from the wrong and foolish talk and arguments of that knowledge which is falsely so named''

The Greek for 'science' or 'knowledge' is gnosis (from where the term Gnostic derived). The context is about cosmology etc here, and so it is talking about false views not compatible with the Bible - i.e metaphysical naturalism or atheistic evolution.

 

[Mr Dave]

I believe Genesis 1 to be a legitimate event in history.

True, as you said, it doesn't address history -- but it is history.

We're in a bit of a pickle then as I don't believe it to be a 'legitimate event in history'.

Leaving the history of the world and the fact that it doesn't tie up with what's written, I'll give my views based on the text.

Firstly, it doesn't even claim to be history, it claims to be Torah, Law/Guidelines. The histories come after Torah. You don't read something like Harry Potter and assume it's telling a true story because it doesn't claim to (even though you could read it that way) be doing so. The creation story doesn't claim to be history, it claims to be Torah so why not read it in the way it intends.

It sets out why we need law/guidelines, because man is flawed and will do things that aren't good so needs some rules in which to work. It thus sets a precedent for the rest of the Torah. Otherwise one could legitimately ask, "why do we need rules, we're not that bad." It does this through the means of a story, as this makes much more sense to many more people easily than it would if it was set out as an essay (from a culture that was big on story telling this makes even more sense).

It speaks a lot of theology to the audience; One Good God (not one of many, or a corrupt God), a God that is creator (not Himself a part of creation), a God that provides (not a God that takes), a creation which itself worships God (not a creation that is to be worshipped), man having authority (not being wholly submissive to all other things).
Adam means 'man' and so the person of adam is representative of what it is to be male.
Eve is the mother of all living (3:20) and so is representative of what it is to be motherly and in essence what it is to be female. Together they represent humanity and show a lot to do with relationships etc.

Like the the works of Aesop or La Fontaine this speaks huge messages and a lot of depth without having to be historically accurate because like in the works of Aesop or La Fontaine, stories can really get messgaes across in a way that essays do not.

Would you mid expanding on why you believe it to be so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Firstly, it doesn't even claim to be history, it claims to be Torah, Law/Guidelines.

So the Exodus isn't history either, it's Torah?

 

[Research1]

The entire Bible is history. I don't think Dave has studied archeology which has verified the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

 

[AV1611VET]

The entire Bible is history.

This is why it is very dangerous to take the Bible allegorically.

It can lead to anti-Zionism, if one isn't careful.

 

[Hespera]

The entire Bible is history. I don't think Dave has studied archeology which has verified the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

That leaves out that a lot of it is poetry, economic advice, rules, etc, and that that those parts that are historical in nature are by turns accurate, semi accurate, totally distorted, pure fiction, historical novel, etc.

Some aspects are of course verifiable thro' acrhaeology etc, such as the existence of certain rivers and mountains and tribes of people.

The things that would confirm it as a holy book tho, are conspicuously missing. No garden, no trace of the exodus, no stone tablet with ten commandments, none of those exist.