Bible-Creation-Evolution

[TheReasoner]

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.

My wish is for you to think critically. That does NOT mean you should think like me.

What particular theological perception you want to follow is up to you. So long as you're humble, and seek to ever grow closer to Christ. You MUST - regardless of what you choose - be aware that you are human and can be wrong. Even about creationism which you believe in so strongly. Apparently as strongly as I did before I started checking the claims.

I know I am not right about everything. I know my view of reality is most certainly wrong at some level. I know I am searching and trying my best - but always failing at some degree to follow Christ.

However, there are some things I can know with a very very high degree of certainty. Among these are that the earth is not flat and that it was not created the way you say it was. Had it been then it would be apparent in creation due to God's truthful nature. It isn't. And, the bible does not necessarily support your viewpoint either.

You see AV, you believe that your interpretation is infallible, right? And you believe what you do despite that God's very creation, which He spoke into being denies your interpretation with everything it is. From the structural makeup of eukaryotic cells to the nature of light, the geological makeup of this and other planets, the composition of the solar system and so on and so forth. It ALL says you're wrong. It ALL backs another interpretation than yours. So give me ONE reason why your interpretation is correct or even has any merit at all. Does the bible unequivocally support it? Absolutely not. Does ANYTHING in this universe support it? No. Nothing does.

I don't care whether you're a baptist, lutheran, catholic or whatever. What I care about is the message you're sending. You're telling everyone who will listen that Jesus is nonsensical drivel which is contradicted by the very makeup of the universe. In effect to a person educated in natural sciences you're effectively doing the same as telling them the earth is shaped like a tetragonal pyramid, that the sun is a bunny and that this is absolutely true and proves that Jesus is God. Your claims make just as much sense as that. Just as much sense as pointing at a red bicycle and saying "That battleship is brown with yellow spots!"

I am not saying that you should think this way or that, I am telling you the same I would tell someone who thinks the world is flat: You're wrong about that one assertion. By claiming it you're alienating Christ from very resourceful and potentially great people who could further the Kingdom of God and the love Christ proclaims.


As for your bringing up the atheist blog. Of course I dismissed that. As should anyone dismiss any random source. I can't quote some random 15 year old on a random forum as a believable source on heavy philosophical reasoning. Your source was something which would have caused a submitted paper to be graded a solid F at any respectable educational institution.
If you wish to lend credence to your claims you MUST use credible sources AV. Okay, so one atheist says so in his blog. Does that mean it is an opinion held by all people? No. Does it mean it fits the defintion? No, and it doesn't - as shown. Any source one quotes should be a decent source. If you think you have solid backing for your definition crack out Webster's or a lexicon and quote THAT. Not a random blog for pity's sake.



I wonder at your need for some specific name to follow. Have you not read my posts? I thought I had made it very clear I consider no interpretation to be infallible. I myself believe Luther, Franz of Assisi and Desmond Tutu all have highly valid points. To mention some. But will I follow one of them to the letter, not leaving any room for my own thought? No. I will not. They, like me, were humans. The only one I will try to follow as closely as I can is Jesus.



I am not an ultimate authority. I am human, a man with flaws. I do not know whose theology is best. I do not know what is true, but I do know some things are NOT true. Those things include creationism as advocated by the apparent majority of creationists. Flat earth models and geocentrism is also NOT true. But I cannot tell you exactly how God created the earth. I cannot tell you what the universe's 'origo' is. I can tell you that it did not pop out of an ancient egg, nor sprang from a dead god's corpse. I know the centre is not me. Nor this planet.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It isn't about quality though, is it?

Not to you.

You have over 24,000 posts yourself.

The majority of whcih are worth reading, IMO -- how about yours?

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

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

I honestly wouldn't care. Whatever points I make stand on their own regardless of who I am or who other people see me as. Self-esteem (by any means necessary) doesn't enter into it.

Unlike you, I don't need people on this board to treat me like I'm significant in order for me to believe that I am -- so I don't need to refer to my post count to prove myself to anyone else.

If I have a point to make, I make it. If I want respect, I go out and earn it.

I suggest you try it sometime.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see AV, you believe that your interpretation is infallible, right?

You tell me, faith guardian.

It'll be refreshing to see you say something about me that can't be filed under 'false accusation'.

 

[Mr Dave]

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

I've never disputed the fact the Bible isn't allegory but that it contains it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I honestly wouldn't care.

Some people do care, though; and when this gets to be a police state, maybe some day then we can be prevented from dealing with issues in ways other that the ways you would handle it.

(Assuming, of course, they put you in charge.)

 

[TheReasoner]

You tell me, faith guardian.

It'll be refreshing to see you say something about me that can't be filed under 'false accusation'.

False accusation? I have replied to what I have read. Maybe I have misunderstood you.

To clarify: Can it be you're wrong about creationism? Is it possible you're wrong and the universe is right?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Some people do care, though;

Some people have nothing that gives their own lives fulfillment and meaning, so they seek it from somewhere else.

You've tried Christianity -- clearly, it failed, so you tried finegling "respect" on the internet. It's failing too.

Let's see what your next step will be:

and when this gets to be a police state, maybe some day then we can be prevented from dealing with issues in ways other that the ways you would handle it.

(Assuming, of course, they put you in charge.)

Ah, yes, the martyr complex -- that's always the next step on the passive-aggressive train. The belief that people will try to stop you because they fear what you have to offer.

Only problem is, you offer nothing -- just a failed con.

 

[sandwiches]

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

Then why call it 'literalism' if there's nothing literal about it? Or there is in as much as reading a newspaper is 'newspaper literalism.'

What exactly is the different between interpreting the Bible as a 'literalist' and as just a normal reader?

 

[sandwiches]

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.

This is an amazing post and this is the saddest evasion I've seen AV post:

Jesus loves you --

 

[1611AV]

faith gardian and Mr. Dave
Do either of you believe the book of Jonah, and believe it to be a literal account?

 

[TheReasoner]

faith gardian and Mr. Dave
Do either of you believe the book of Jonah, and believe it to be a literal account?

Literal? I am not sure if you're going to pull some random verse out and toss that in my face.

It could be an account of actual events, yes. I do consider that a possibility. Regardless it reveals much about God's will, the need for repentance and the mercy of God, I think. Do I think it must be "literal" in order to have value or to be true? No. I do not. Jesus' parables were true, despite them obviously not being literal.

Whatever is, is. God is God regardless.

 

[1611AV]

Literal? I am not sure if you're going to pull some random verse out and toss that in my face.

It could be an account of actual events, yes. I do consider that a possibility. Regardless it reveals much about God's will, the need for repentance and the mercy of God, I think. Do I think it must be "literal" in order to have value or to be true? No. I do not. Jesus' parables were true, despite them obviously not being literal.

Whatever is, is. God is God regardless.

Do you believe the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights?

That Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly?

That the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land and Jonah lived after this?


I know this has nothing to do with evolution but Im just curious in your interpretation. 3 honest questions await 3 honest answers, thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

3 honest questions await 3 honest answers, thanks.

With allegorists, you have to explain that when the newspaper says:

• sunrise @ 6:53 a.m.
• sunset @ 7:49 p.m.

... the publishers aren't pushing geocentrism.

 

[1611AV]

With allegorists, you have to explain that when the newspaper says:

• sunrise @ 6:53 a.m.
• sunset @ 7:49 p.m.

... the publishers aren't pushing geocentrism.

Brother, the thing is they do take some things literally and have no problem with it, but then blame us for taking it all literal while calling it "our interpretation".

What most fail to see is the spiritual. They do not believe Gods word is Spirit (Living) That His Word is as much God as God is.

When I get to Heaven, if my fault is taking God at his Word, then I think Im OK. Amen?

 

[Assyrian]

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.

And where would we be without J Dwight Pentecost to point out where Paul got it wrong Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically...

 

[AV1611VET]

When I get to Heaven, if my fault is taking God at his Word, then I think Im OK. Amen?

AMEN and AMEN! Preach it!

 

[AV1611VET]

And where would we be without J Dwight Pentecost to point out where Paul got it wrong Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically...

Galatians 4:24a Which things are an allegory:

That's not literal to you?

Can I tell you ahead of time that what I'm about to say is an allegory, and someone would take it figuratively?

 

[Assyrian]

Galatians 4:24a Which things are an allegory:

That's not literal to you?

Can I tell you ahead of time that what I'm about to say is an allegory, and someone would take it figuratively?

Saying it is an allegory is literal, the allegory itself isn't.

But you haven't explain why J Dwight Pentecost contradicts Paul, or why you keep quoting J Dwight when you know this.

 

[Tiberius]

A recap of my discussion with 1611AV...

I posted some passages that can be interpreted as Biblical support of evolution in THIS post.

You replied in THIS post, saying that John 1:3 states that God created everything.

I replied in THIS post to say that if we consider that God used evolution by means of natural selection as a tool to get the job done, there is still no contradiction. Just as we say that a man cuts a piece of wood when he really used a saw to cut it, we can say that God created all the plants when he was using evolution as a tool to create them. Assyrian, who is a believer, agreed with me, stating his agreement in THIS post.

Instead of actually replying to that, you instead post THIS, where you quote Genesis 2:5 to once again claim that God created the plants directly.

I replied with THIS post, where I say that even if your claims were true and Genesis 2:5 does eliminate the possibility of evolution, it only applies to plants and herbs of the field, that is, crops and cultivated land. It clearly does not apply to wild plants, such as those that make up jungles, forests and the like.

You then responded four days later with this:

Nope, that would be this,
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

No evolution or human selection, Just God made trees for food

Now, this again does not eliminate evolution. It directly states that it is only talking about the plants that God put in the Garden. It is NOT talking about the plants growing in Australia, or in the Amazon rainforest. And I'll even be so kind as to grant that, given the Biblical importance of the Garden of Eden, God decided to directly create it himself instead of relying on evolution to get the job done. But even if this passage does eliminate evolution, it eliminates it in one small area only. You have yet to show me any passage which shows that evolution is impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I replied in THIS post to say that if we consider that God used evolution by means of natural selection as a tool to get the job done, there is still no contradiction. Just as we say that a man cuts a piece of wood when he really used a saw to cut it, we can say that God created all the plants when he was using evolution as a tool to create them.

Okay if I say something here?