Bible-Creation-Evolution

[Nostromo]

It was in the newspapers only about a month ago, the first official school in UK opened which teaches creationism as opposed to evolution. It has 500 - 1000 students.

It teaches creationism alongside evolution.

I can't imagine that it's the first school to do so as during the Victorian era religious education was undertaken daily, the majority of the population would have been Christian.

If schools are starting to open which teach creationism, it hardly means evolution is growing in support - what it actually shows is that more people are becoming skeptical of evolution.

Over what sort of time scale are you measuring this "growing"? 150 years ago practically none of the general public would have known about evolution, let alone supported it.

I suppose it bears mentioning again that it doesn't really matter if none of the population support it, that doesn't make any difference to whether it is true or not.

 

[Mr Dave]

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

No it really isn't. There's history (yes I don't deny that), law, prophecy, poetry, proverbs, letters etc.

I'm more of a linguist than archaeologist, but know enough to know that some bits have archaeological support. Others do not.

I'm also very wary when people treat the OT as though it is one work.

 

[Mr Dave]

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

I didn't say there was no history contained within Torah, just that that is not it's primary focus.

This is more pronounced right at the beginning of Genesis and wears off. There needed to be a starting point to begin the story of the Jews, and as the very start of Torah had to set a few things out. This kind of writing was less important later on as other things became more important.

Have you seen The Last King Of Scotland? This is a false story working within a framework that is true that contains true events yet incorporated into a story that never actually happened.

In some ways there is a similar thing going on with a true story with true events with things that didn't actually happen as well working within this framework. Not a perfect analogy, I'm not claiming it to be. Please don't pick it apart as I'm already aware of that, just to show how this is possible to mix truth and, for want of a better word, fiction (Although fiction itself contains 'truths')

 

[AV1611VET]

No it really isn't. There's history (yes I don't deny that), law, prophecy, poetry, proverbs, letters etc.

I'm more of a linguist than archaeologist, but know enough to know that some bits have archaeological support. Others do not.

I'm also very wary when people treat the OT as though it is one work.

Mr. Dave, have you ever seen this post?

The Old Testament consists of 39 books, arranged as follows:

• 17 [historical] --- 5 [poetical] --- 17 [prophetical]

 

[Mr Dave]

Mr. Dave, have you ever seen this post?

[/LIST]

I had, but research1 said 'The entire Bible is history...'
making it sound like he gave no room in the Bible for anything other than history.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't say there was no history contained within Torah, just that that is not it's primary focus.

As J Dwight Pentecost points out, interpreting the Bible allegorically allows the mind of the reader to be the final authority for what the Bible says; as opposed to interpreting It literally, where even those hostile to the Bible are forced to admit to what It says.

 

[AV1611VET]

I had, but research1 said 'The entire Bible is history...'
making it sound like he gave no room in the Bible for anything other than history.

It is history in Its overall sense, but certainly contains sections of poetry as well.

Like a history book containing excerpts from our poets.

 

[Mr Dave]

As J Dwight Pentecost points out, interpreting the Bible allegorically allows the mind of the reader to be the final authority for what the Bible says; as opposed to interpreting It literally, where even those hostile to the Bible are forced to admit to what It says.

A literal interpretation is still an interpretation. It's also an interpretation that doesn't work or fit in with what the Bible says about itself.

If your church follows the Revised Common Lectionary you'll have recently had several sermons relating to the Sermon On The Mount. In this Jesus interprets law in a non-literal light. Looking at woman with lust does not fit the definition of adultery, yet according to Jesus the law can be interpreted to say that it is equally grave. If I am angry with someone I have not killed them (or murdered them) in any literal sense but according to Jesus (non-literal) interpretation of the law, they are equally bad. God Himself suggests here that it is wrong to read the Bible only literally, that or He Himself is in the wrong with His own law.

I could quote all the I AM sayings to show how absurd a literal interpretation is.

If St Paul spoke with tongues of angels without loving people he did not turn into a gong or a cymbal as a literal reading would suggest.


Yes literal readings are important and some parts of the Bible require a literal reading, but others do not. God Himself shows us that interpreting the Bible can in fact be the right thing.

I'd rather go with the Bible on this issue than J Dwight Pentecost.

 

[AV1611VET]

I could quote all the I AM sayings to show how absurd a literal interpretation is.

Suit yourself, Mr Dave -- that's certainly your prerogative.

 

[TheReasoner]

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

Oh, I'm telling you the same thing AV.

Why do I say that though? 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, anarchists, monarchists or even 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 according to our understanding. 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.

My main problem hence is twofold.

One, your belief is contrary to every analysis of the universe God made.
Two, your belief is absolute and leaves no room for mistakes, but it's locus is your own personal interpretation. Meaning you elevate your own opinions to godhood. And THAT is extremely dangerous.

 

[Mr Dave]

Suit yourself, Mr Dave -- that's certainly your prerogative.

What's that supposed to mean

Jesus isn't planted into the ground with grapes growing from His arms.
Jesus isn't made of wood with hinges attached.
Jesus isn't lots of stones/rocks or even tarmac that you walk/drive on.
Jesus isn't made of flour and water.

He isn't literally a vine, a door, a way, bread. Read it in a non-literal light (against what Mr. J Pentecost recommends) then these passages make sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I'm telling you the same thing AV.

Why do I say that though? 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, anarchists, monarchists or even 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 according to our understanding. 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.

My main problem hence is twofold.

One, your belief is contrary to every analysis of the universe God made.
Two, your belief is absolute and leaves no room for mistakes, but it's locus is your own personal interpretation. Meaning you elevate your own opinions to godhood. And THAT is extremely dangerous.

Jesus loves you --

 

[TheReasoner]

Jesus loves you.

And you too. As do I. Love you that is. Which isn't to say I'm not angry with you for what I very seriously consider a strong position of sinful pride and selfglorification given that you insist on your own personal - and very human [hence fallible] - interpretation is infallible. Despite that it is neither the only way to read the bible NOR congruent with all analysis of God's creation. Aren't you mocking God by calling Him a liar, AV? Aren't you doing jumping jacks on thin/practically nonexistant ice claiming you cannot be wrong and saying your own opinions is God's word as opposed to saying that your opinions is what you understand God's word to say while admitting your own fallibility?

See, anyone who admit that they can be wrong I have few problems with. Yet anyone who refuses that possibility I DO have a problem with. Especially when that is done in God's name.

 

[Research1]

What's that supposed to mean

Jesus isn't planted into the ground with grapes growing from His arms.
Jesus isn't made of wood with hinges attached.
Jesus isn't lots of stones/rocks or even tarmac that you walk/drive on.
Jesus isn't made of flour and water.

He isn't literally a vine, a door, a way, bread. Read it in a non-literal light (against what Mr. J Pentecost recommends) then these passages make sense.

Biblical literalism has nothing to do with taking every word literal. This is a common misunderstanding. I think someone needs to go over the basics...

 

[AV1611VET]

See, anyone who admit that they can be wrong I have few problems with. Yet anyone who refuses that possibility I DO have a problem with. Especially when that is done in God's name.

I think your problem is more of a personal nature, myself.

• faith guardian = posts: 8,766
• AV1611VET = posts: 1,652,707

I have the feeling that you're one of those everyone-is-wrong-but-me kinds; especially when we discussed the definition of 'faith', and you dismissed that atheist's remark like you did.

[sign]But I could be wrong.[/sign]
​

Usually when I clarify that some interpretations are my suppositions, it doesn't mean a thing with you guys.

I spend, in my opinion, an inordinately excessive amount of time justifying even basic doctrine against those who tell me I'm making something up.

But let me ask you this, so you can ignore it:

If you don't like the fact that I have [what you ... ironists ... call 'my interpretation'], then whose interpretation do you want me to start believing?

And please answer with a specific name, or I'm going to take what you said with [the usual] grain of salt.

You guys want to accuse me of 'my interpretation' -- fine -- tell me whose interpretation I should be following then.

Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? you?

Be specific please.

 

[AV1611VET]

Biblical literalism has nothing to do with taking every word literal. This is a common misunderstanding. I think someone needs to go over the basics...

That is correct -- the Bible isn't allegory, it contains allegory; about as much allegory as the newspaper.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think your problem is more of a personal nature, myself.

• faith guardian = posts: 8,766
• AV1611VET = posts: 1,652,707

Still need to point to your artificially inflated post count to make yourself feel superior, AV?

What is the point for someone to claim to be a Christian -- who claims to believe in "truth" -- and be such an obvious fraud?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is correct -- the Bible isn't allegory, it contains allegory; about as much allegory as the newspaper.

And pity the poor literalists who mistake the comics for the local news.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still need to point to your artificially inflated post count to make yourself feel superior, AV?

It isn't about quality though, is it?

You have over 24,000 posts yourself.

What if someone said you have never claimed to be a professor?

(Try hard to answer this, would you please?)

 

[AV1611VET]

And pity the poor literalists who mistake the comics for the local news.

... or the local news for the comics.