Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

[miamited]

What if it is both, though? What if he instantly created the processes and the base materials that led to the established order of the universe over billions of years?

Hi cogent,

Well, that is the basic TE's premise. However, I don't find it supportable by all of the evidences given in God's truth.

First of all, I understand the 'plan'. The reason that God created this realm is that He would get to what is explained in the Revelation of Jesus chapter 21. God created this universe and all that is in it as a place for man to live. The whole and entire purpose of God's creating this realm is for a place for man to live. A place where the working out of sin, repentance and salvation could be made that God would, at the end of this, gather those who would believe and be their God and we would be His people. Understanding that that is the purpose and that God does have the power wisdom and abilities to create all things out of nothing, then to then think, "Well, yea, but it took Him millions or billions of years to do it", seems ludicrous to me. My Father is a powerful, omnipotent and wise Creator. He can create all that I see even instantly at once if that is what He would choose to do. If, however, the understanding of the plan is correct, then the answer must be asked: Why would He take billions of years for it to form through natural processes?

Now, depending on the TE theory that you might hold to, it either embraces evolutionary processes or it teaches that, as you say, God created all the physical and biological objects of this universe in some not quite perfectly completed form, and then when this form was completed, God stepped in again and then created man. This is how the theory explains Adam as formed of the dust of the ground and then the genealogies that follow. In either case, the theory doesn't fit all the testimony given us in the Scriptures.

If we understand that the days were ages, then we have to believe that plant life could live for years without sunlight and that really isn't possible if it is dependent on natural processes. However, for plant life to live one day, as defined by a single rotation of the planet, there is no problem. Full grown, healthy plants can live several days without sunlight before they begin to show the effects of such an existence.

I hold that the key to really coming to grips with believing that God did in fact create this realm just exactly as He tells us in the Genesis account is understanding God's 'plan'. Understanding the full power and glory of God.

The second evidence for me is in God's including in the account of the creation days that each one consisted of an evening and a morning. The word 'yom' can mean a couple of different time spans. It is one of those words where context must be included to properly define. God knows this and knew that a time would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine, and so He included for us those contextual clues needed to properly define the word. Never in all of the writings of men from the earliest evidences we have to this very day, today, has the word 'yom' or 'day', when it is describing some age or long time span beyond a roughly 24 hour day, been defined with a descriptor of 'evening and morning' of day. There is also the evidence of Hebrew language translation that holds that anytime the word 'yom' is written and preceded or followed by a numeric descriptor, that the word 'yom' is to be understood as a day as defined by one rotation of the planet.

Then, if we believe the order of the creation, then the sun, moon and stars were not created until 'day' four. I really have a hard time considering that the earth sat spinning for millions or billions of years all by itself. For me, that's just completely illogical.

Ultimately, the issue boils down to only one creation account can stand. Either God did it in 6 rotations of the planet or everything sat for millions or billions of years until natural processes brought to fruition what we have today. Only one can be true, and as I explained the born again believer wants to know the truth. Jesus said that we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide all those who really were God's children into all truth. So, that begs the question: If God did it just exactly as He has told us in the timeframe that He has told us with all the evidences that He has given us to understand the timeframe that He intended us to understand, then is the one who believes otherwise getting the truth that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would give them? Conversely, if God did it over many ages as man's science has 'proven', then are those who don't believe that getting the truth that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would give them?

I believe Jesus! I believe that when we are born again that the Holy Spirit does guide us into all truth. Now, what is that truth? Is it what God has given us evidence for with all the supporting evidences to support that initial evidence, or is it what man has proven is the truth?

As with salvation; as with the creation; as with believing all the other miracles of the bible that ultimately must stand without any empirical evidence to support, we must each one decide for ourselves what we believe is the truth. For me, that truth is that God did create in the order and timespan that He has told us. That time span supports that the whole of our universe is somewhere around 6,000 years old. Yes, I listen to, and I have studied much of the evidence that is stacked up against what I believe. But there is this constant gnawing in my mind, just like a detective who has seen a clue but can't quite put his finger on its implications to a case, that says to me, "Somehow, their evidences are based on false premises. I don't know enough about the processes or have the great knowledge that these men who give of their lives to study and measure these things. But I still have this gnawing, this questioning mind that tells me that there is just something amiss about either the base evidence that is being accepted to get to the answers that they come up with.

As I said, the greatest impetus for me is understanding the plan and the power of God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[MKJ]

Indeed, a variation of that appears to have been the position of St. Augustine of Hippo. He held to an instantaneous creation in "seed" form, with the Genesis days of creation showing the fruition of that over time.

That seems to fit well with all the parameters of creation being established in the big bang and each aspect of creation coming to fruition in its due time according to God's plan and purpose.

What I would add, however, is that I don't see God as a Deist does, sitting back and merely watching it unfold. God is active in all natural processes--just as much so as in super-natural events. So both the instantaneous beginning and the continuing unfolding are God's work.

And there was good reason for Augustine to say that, even without a biological theory of evolution to consider. It is clear that all things were not created at a moment in their final form. Creation is changing all the time, new people and animals and plants being born.

Clearly many things only existed potentially at one time which now exist actually.

 

[miamited]

Hi MKJ,

You posted: Clearly many things only existed potentially at one time which now exist actually.

That's an intriguing proposition. Do you have any exemplars to offer to support that?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KWCrazy]

That's great. Nobody here is talking about disagreeing with scripture. Only challenging how it's interpreted by a certain demographic within Christianity.

The problem is not HOW it's being interpreted, the problem is that some people are interpreting things that are straight forward and specific.

Did you ever consider that Christ wasn't talking about their scientific or historical accuracy?

Please cite your Scriptural basis for this false doctrine.

Perhaps maybe Christ understood that there was a bigger message to be received through those narratives, and that message is what was accurate.

If man evolved rather than was created by God then nearly everything prior to the coming of Christ and most things after are false. Please cite your references for inferring that He would continue the deception and not clarify even to His disciples that it was all allegory.

nobody is cherry picking scripture.

Just denying two thirds of it.

Certain types of Christians just like to wage their own crusade claiming that those who read certain scriptures as poetry or apocalyptic or literal account are "picking and choosing",

You can believe what you want. I'm more interested in exposing those who teach false doctrine.

you can try to smear all you want but the fact is that nobody is tossing out any scripture.

You tossed out the first three chapters of Genesis.
Let's look at some miracles that science tells us cannot have happened. You decided whether they should be tossed out or not.

These are Miracles Of Creation
(Miracles of Creation, requiring divine intervention in one or both of the two basic laws of science, the laws of conservation of mass / energy and the law of increasing entropy)

Creation Of Matter
Miracle And Reference
Creation of Physical Cosmos: Geneis 1:1; 2:4; Col. 1:16
Fire and Brimstone: Genesis 19:24
The Unconsumed Burning Bush: Exodus 3:3
Daily Bread From Heaven: Exodus 16:35
Water from the Rock: Exodus 17:6
Unfailing Oil and Meal: 1 Kings 17:14
Elijah’s Meal in the Wilderness: 1 Kings 19:6
Increase of the Widow’s Oil: 2 Kings 4:2-6
Feeding of One Hundred Men: 2 Kings 4:42-44
Feeding Five Thousand Men: Matt. 14:21; Mk. 6:44; Lk. 9:14-17; John 6:10,11
Feeding Four Thousand Men: Matthew 15:34-38; Mark 8:4-9

Creation of Energy, Force, or Power
Miracle And Reference
Energizing the Created Cosmos: Genesis 1:2,3
Translation of Enoch: Genesis 5:24
Smoking Furnace and Burning Lamp: Genesis 15:17
Pillar of Cloud and Fire: Exodus 13:21
Wall of Water at the Red Sea: Exodus 14:29
Giving of the Law on Sinai: Exodus 24:12-18; 31:18
Glory Cloud in the Tabernacle: Exodus 40:35
Burning of Nadab and Abihu: Leviticus 10:1,2
Fire of the Lord at Taberah: Numbers 11:1,2
Sun and Moon Standing Still: Joshua 10:11-14
Consumption of Gideon’s Offering: Judges 6:21
Glory Cloud in the Temple: 1 Kings 8:10,11; 2 Chronicles 7:1,2
Fire on Elijah’s People: 1 Kings 18:37-39
Elijah’s Deliverance by Fire from Heaven: 2 Kings 1:10-14
Parting of the Water by Elijah’s Mantle: 2 Kings 2:8
Translation of Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11
Parting of the Waters by Elisha: 2 Kings 2:14
The Floating Ax-head: 2 Kings 6:6
Reversing Shadow on the Sun Dial: 2 Kings 20:11; Isaiah 38:8
Translation of Ezekiel: Ezekiel 3:14,15
Protection in the Fiery Furnace: Daniel 3:20-26
Voice from Heaven at Christ’s Baptism: Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22
Walking on the Water: Matthew 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:19
Transfiguration of Christ: Matthew 17:2,3; Mark 9:2,3; Luke 9:29-31
Darkness at the Cross: Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:45
Rending of the Temple Veil: Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45
Ascension of Christ: Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9
Translation of Philip: Acts 8:39
Rapture of Paul to Paradise: 2 Corinthians 12:2-4
source

 

[MKJ]

Hi MKJ,

You posted: Clearly many things only existed potentially at one time which now exist actually.

That's an intriguing proposition. Do you have any exemplars to offer to support that?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Sure. You and I. I was surely not around at the beginning of all things, and I assume that you weren't either.

Having time as part of the created universe, having change, means things at some times do not not fully exist, and at others they do. There are seeds of things (you could look back in time and see all the genes and bits of matter spread around the universe that would become me, and the events that would being them together), and things which have dissipated (the bits of my dog who dies last year), and even things which become other things (say, a tree becomes a table).

 

[miamited]

Sure. You and I. I was surely not around at the beginning of all things, and I assume that you weren't either.

Having time as part of the created universe, having change, means things at some times do not not fully exist, and at others they do. There are seeds of things (you could look back in time and see all the genes and bits of matter spread around the universe that would become me, and the events that would being them together), and things which have dissipated (the bits of my dog who dies last year), and even things which become other things (say, a tree becomes a table).

Hi MKJ,

Oh, well if that was your intended meaning then I'm not sure it applies to this discussion regarding evolution unless, of course, you believe that every time a new baby or animal or plant begins that 'evolution' has occurred. If that is the definition accepted by evolutionists of what constitutes evolution, then I would have to reclassify myself as an evolutionist.

Perhaps you should hop into the 'evolution' threads and see if there is agreement between them of your premise. I'm fairly confident that you'll find that they are not in agreement with you on what constitutes the principles of evolution.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you really think that the mindset back then was the same as it is now?

You mean were they as vague about what they were talking about as you are?
No, I think they could explain themselves very well. A talent long lost.

 

[SkyWriting]

I also have no problem in understanding that God can speak an entire universe into existence and the moment it came into existence we could have used the measuring sticks that we have today and come to the conclusion that all the heavenly bodies were ancient and not brand new.

Perfectly explained. The time table for Creation was intended for us to understand as 24 hour days. The results are finished and complete complete with star light and soil for growing food. Exactly as scripture describes.

 

[Sayre]

You mean were they as vague about what they were talking about as you are?
No, I think they could explain themselves very well. A talent long lost.

Uh, what?

I'm not being vague, I believe Genesis is inspired myth. I asked if you thought the common mindset has changed overtime. Sorry that went over your head .

I don't think the ancients were dumb by any means. I just think they were starting with a different worldview.

About the Ancient Hebrew Culture

In the world, past and present, there are two major types of cultures; the Hebrew (or eastern) culture and the Greek (or western) culture. Both of these cultures view their surroundings, lives, and purpose in ways which would seem foreign to the other. With the exception of a few Bedouin nomadic tribes living in the Near East today, the ancient Hebrew culture has disappeared.

What happened to this ancient Hebrew thought and culture? Around 800 BCE, a new culture arose to the north. This new culture began to view the world very much differently than the Hebrews. This culture was the Greeks. Around 200 BCE the Greeks began to move south causing a coming together of the Greek and Hebrew culture. This was a very tumultuous time as the two vastly different cultures collided. Over the following 400 years the battle raged until finally the Greek culture won and virtually eliminated all trace of the ancient Hebrew culture. The Greek culture then in turn influenced all following cultures including the Roman and European cultures, our own American culture and even the modern Hebrew culture in Israel today.

As 20th Century Americans with a strong Greek thought influence, we read the Hebrew Bible as if a 20th Century American had written it. In order to understand the ancient Hebrew culture in which the Tenack was written in, we must examine some of the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought.

It seems vital to me that we acknowledge that Genesis was written under the Hebraic worldview and it would be an error to interpret it through a Greek worldview. That's my point.

How is your interpretation founded in the Hebraic, rather than Greek, worldview?

 

[miamited]

Perfectly explained. The time table for Creation was intended for us to understand as 24 hour days. The results are finished and complete complete with star light and soil for growing food. Exactly as scripture describes.

Hi SW,

Uhhh, I don't think you understood the position of my post. Your post is perfectly in agreement with my belief.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Sayre,

You wrote: It seems vital to me that we acknowledge that Genesis was written under the Hebraic worldview and it would be an error to interpret it through a Greek worldview. That's my point.

Well, that would depend on who is the author of the Scriptures. If it is what Paul claims, then they were neither written according to a Jewish worldview or a Greek worldview. They were written according to God's worldview.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Sayre]

Hi Sayre,

You wrote: It seems vital to me that we acknowledge that Genesis was written under the Hebraic worldview and it would be an error to interpret it through a Greek worldview. That's my point.

Well, that would depend on who is the author of the Scriptures. If it is what Paul claims, then they were neither written according to a Jewish worldview or a Greek worldview. They were written according to God's worldview.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

So this is boiling down to the understanding of inspiration.

I don't believe in dictation. I believe God inspired the writers, but He did not dictate the words, and consequently we see the worldview of the writer permeating into the words.

This is the "accommodation" view of inspiration and it is fairly conservative.

If this isn't your view, what is? Are you suggesting that the Old Testament is not influenced by the ancient Hebraic worldview?

 

[miamited]

Hi sayre,

Well, my understanding is that there are some parts of the Scriptures that were, as you put it, dictated. However, most of it not. The Pentateuch surely was and many of the writings of the prophets where we are told, "And God said..." I'm of the understanding that there isn't much of man's ideas and thoughts in the Scriptures. Probably the historical books such as King, Chronicles, etc. However, I also temper this understanding to applying specifically to the MSS. But, neither do I find that most translations today fall far from the mark.

First and foremost I understand the Scriptures to be Holy and separate from any other writings we have on all the face of the earth. Every other book or written document that has ever been penned is by men about the things of men. The Scriptures have been written by God about the things of God and they are unique in that regard. Logically, if they were written by God, and God is perfect, why would we expect to find any error?

Having followed along in this thread and others some of your posts and our dialogue back and forth, I will readily agree that there is quite a lot about 'who' God is; 'what' He has done in this realm, etc. that we are not in agreement on. In and of itself, that is ok. It is, unfortunately, far too common among those who carry the name of Christian, but it is what it is.

Finally, in much of what is contained in the Scriptures that we hold today it really isn't important if a few of the words are not translated exactly as each one might think the original language should be translated. The purpose for which God gave unto us the Scriptures was not so men could argue and discuss ad nauseum if every word is correct. The purpose for which God gave mankind the Scriptures was that we might have a written, therefore harder to change over the centuries verses hearsay and word of mouth, revelation of who He is, what He has done, who we are and what we have done, and the provision that He has made that we might, if we choose, gain eternal life. They finally end by giving us a glimpse of how all this realm of existence will work out.

Now, as to the specific issue that is being discussed here, to wit, the days of creation and the age of the earth. For me, this idea that we should somehow understand the clear explanation of the account differently because we have to make some sort of allowance that the account was written by the Jews or with some Jewish 'worldview', seems like just so much nonsense. You see, my position is that truth is truth. Whether someone tells a story that is true with a particular worldview is really only going so far as saying, truth is different for different folks. In other words, the person who wrote the account believed what they wrote to be the truth because of their knowledge, status, worldview, etc, but it really isn't the truth. I reject that. My position remains that truth is truth no matter the who, what where, when of the author.

I honestly am not only suggesting that the old covenant writings were not influenced in some way by the ancient Hebraic worldview in any way that would change the 'truth' of what they tell us, it is the very foundation of my faith in all that my Creator has given me that I might know Him.

However, I am wise enough and old enough to know that that is not the position of honor that many give the Scriptures and that's ok with me. I have come to understand that, sadly, following the truth isn't usually going to keep one in step with the crowd. I am always tempering my acceptance of the things I believe and the things that I agree are righteous deeds with one small singular place of the Scriptures in which Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Only a few will find it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

Uh, what? I'm not being vague, I believe Genesis is inspired myth.

There ya go. Invent a new phrase unused by any humans or written about by any thought specialists, and imagine yourself as not vague.

I asked if you thought the common mindset has changed overtime. Sorry that went over your head.

It did. WT are you talking about?

I don't think the ancients were dumb by any means. I just think they were starting with a different worldview.

One that included all five senses. Pretty crazy, I agree.

About the Ancient Hebrew Culture

It seems vital to me that we acknowledge that Genesis was written under the Hebraic worldview and it would be an error to interpret it through a Greek worldview. That's my point.

So you think that the 1000's of translators who've worked on each of the 21 odd common versions made the mistake of not knowing Hebraic worldview when they translated? That's a poor assumption.

How is your interpretation founded in the Hebraic, rather than Greek, worldview?

That happens in the translation process, as your link explains thoroughly.


"Myth" is something we choose to believe is fiction.
"Inspired" is something we do because of the influence of experienced events or relationships. "Inspired Myth" is an oxymoron, as is "Scientific History", two words never used together properly, because they cannot be logically combined.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi SW,

Uhhh, I don't think you understood the position of my post. Your post is perfectly in agreement with my belief.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

My mistake....I should have concluded my commentary on your remarks like this:

Perfectly explained. The time table for Creation was intended for
us to understand as 24 hour days. The results are finished and
complete complete with star light and soil for growing food.
Exactly as scripture describes.

 

[Sayre]

There ya go. Invent a new phrase unused by any humans or written about by any thought specialists, and imagine yourself as not vague.

It isn't a new phrase. bible - What does CS Lewis mean by True Myth? - Christianity Stack Exchange

So you think that the 1000's of translators who've worked on each of the 21 odd common versions made the mistake of not knowing Hebraic worldview when they translated? That's a poor assumption.

Strawman much? I never said that. Translation is not the same thing as interpretation. Simply converting from one language to another does not explore the intended meaning of the author.

If you don't think that stories can be inspired, i.e. inspired myth, then what do you think Jesus' parables were?

 

[Sayre]

Hi sayre,

Well, my understanding is that there are some parts of the Scriptures that were, as you put it, dictated. However, most of it not. The Pentateuch surely was and many of the writings of the prophets where we are told, "And God said..." I'm of the understanding that there isn't much of man's ideas and thoughts in the Scriptures. Probably the historical books such as King, Chronicles, etc. However, I also temper this understanding to applying specifically to the MSS. But, neither do I find that most translations today fall far from the mark.

First and foremost I understand the Scriptures to be Holy and separate from any other writings we have on all the face of the earth. Every other book or written document that has ever been penned is by men about the things of men. The Scriptures have been written by God about the things of God and they are unique in that regard. Logically, if they were written by God, and God is perfect, why would we expect to find any error?

Having followed along in this thread and others some of your posts and our dialogue back and forth, I will readily agree that there is quite a lot about 'who' God is; 'what' He has done in this realm, etc. that we are not in agreement on. In and of itself, that is ok. It is, unfortunately, far too common among those who carry the name of Christian, but it is what it is.

Finally, in much of what is contained in the Scriptures that we hold today it really isn't important if a few of the words are not translated exactly as each one might think the original language should be translated. The purpose for which God gave unto us the Scriptures was not so men could argue and discuss ad nauseum if every word is correct. The purpose for which God gave mankind the Scriptures was that we might have a written, therefore harder to change over the centuries verses hearsay and word of mouth, revelation of who He is, what He has done, who we are and what we have done, and the provision that He has made that we might, if we choose, gain eternal life. They finally end by giving us a glimpse of how all this realm of existence will work out.

Now, as to the specific issue that is being discussed here, to wit, the days of creation and the age of the earth. For me, this idea that we should somehow understand the clear explanation of the account differently because we have to make some sort of allowance that the account was written by the Jews or with some Jewish 'worldview', seems like just so much nonsense. You see, my position is that truth is truth. Whether someone tells a story that is true with a particular worldview is really only going so far as saying, truth is different for different folks. In other words, the person who wrote the account believed what they wrote to be the truth because of their knowledge, status, worldview, etc, but it really isn't the truth. I reject that. My position remains that truth is truth no matter the who, what where, when of the author.

I honestly am not only suggesting that the old covenant writings were not influenced in some way by the ancient Hebraic worldview in any way that would change the 'truth' of what they tell us, it is the very foundation of my faith in all that my Creator has given me that I might know Him.

However, I am wise enough and old enough to know that that is not the position of honor that many give the Scriptures and that's ok with me. I have come to understand that, sadly, following the truth isn't usually going to keep one in step with the crowd. I am always tempering my acceptance of the things I believe and the things that I agree are righteous deeds with one small singular place of the Scriptures in which Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Only a few will find it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi Ted,

It seems that we definitely differ in terms of what inspiration means. I do not think it implies that the text is acultural, nor was it dictated.

Since you cannot refer to the text to justify your form of inspiration, just as I cannot, we are each left with our opinions. I will stick with mine and file yours appropriately.

God bless you too

 

[miamited]

Hi Sayre,

Yes, it would seem. Now, the question is which one of us knows the truth? Actually there is a test that has recently come up that gives support to some of the 'dictation' of the Scriptures. Have you looked into the bible 'codes'? It is a phenomenon that can only be found in the Pentateuch. Not even other writings of the Scriptures yield the results, and no other writing of man since in any literature, shown in the Pentateuch.

Now, I don't base my faith on the 'codes' but it is certainly an odd and unique anomaly.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[MKJ]

Hi MKJ,

Oh, well if that was your intended meaning then I'm not sure it applies to this discussion regarding evolution unless, of course, you believe that every time a new baby or animal or plant begins that 'evolution' has occurred. If that is the definition accepted by evolutionists of what constitutes evolution, then I would have to reclassify myself as an evolutionist.

Perhaps you should hop into the 'evolution' threads and see if there is agreement between them of your premise. I'm fairly confident that you'll find that they are not in agreement with you on what constitutes the principles of evolution.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

What Augustine said was very much related to what I have pointed out - that in the created universe, we see things existing not only actually, but potentially - the universe and all of its multiplicity folds out and reveals itself over time, not all at the instant of creation.

Clearly Augustine was not thinking of modern evolutionary theory, since it didn't exist. But this fact, which I think we all accept, does impact many of the silly things people say when objecting to evolution. Clearly we do believe that it is possible for things to be revealed over time, that we do not think every thing that exists has to be there at the beginning, that things can change their forms.

If I as a unique soul can come into being only in the 20th century, with my own unique physical and spiritual being, with my own unique genetic profile and set of circumstances which happened to result in my existence, we cannot object to the same kinds of things happening in other creatures or physical objects.

All evolution means, when you get right down to it, is that there are genetic changes over time that make enough of a difference between creatures that we label them as different species. They are not really different than differences and changes in anything else, or between two individuals close together in time and space.

All living things represent a type of continuum, God knows each in its perfect individuality, and how it is connected to each of the others - each creature could be a "species" to him, or all a unity of life. We being human see things in their individuality but imperfectly, and in their unity to, imperfectly. Part of the way we do that is by organizing them according to their relationships with other things, giving them group designations - species, family, class, kingdom, and so on.

A difference, a change, that moves a creature within human catagories - species - isn't fundamentally different from the kind of change Augustine was speaking about. The philosophical problems that seem to bother people with evolution - that "one thing that God made could change to another thing" is the very same problem Augustine was speaking about, and which is a major issue in all philosophical systems. How can a thing have a fixed nature and be knowable to us if it can change?

And yet we don't seem to want to deny change altogether.

 

[miamited]

What Augustine said was very much related to what I have pointed out - that in the created universe, we see things existing not only actually, but potentially - the universe and all of its multiplicity folds out and reveals itself over time, not all at the instant of creation.

Clearly Augustine was not thinking of modern evolutionary theory, since it didn't exist. But this fact, which I think we all accept, does impact many of the silly things people say when objecting to evolution. Clearly we do believe that it is possible for things to be revealed over time, that we do not think every thing that exists has to be there at the beginning, that things can change their forms.

If I as a unique soul can come into being only in the 20th century, with my own unique physical and spiritual being, with my own unique genetic profile and set of circumstances which happened to result in my existence, we cannot object to the same kinds of things happening in other creatures or physical objects.

All evolution means, when you get right down to it, is that there are genetic changes over time that make enough of a difference between creatures that we label them as different species. They are not really different than differences and changes in anything else, or between two individuals close together in time and space.

All living things represent a type of continuum, God knows each in its perfect individuality, and how it is connected to each of the others - each creature could be a "species" to him, or all a unity of life. We being human see things in their individuality but imperfectly, and in their unity to, imperfectly. Part of the way we do that is by organizing them according to their relationships with other things, giving them group designations - species, family, class, kingdom, and so on.

A difference, a change, that moves a creature within human catagories - species - isn't fundamentally different from the kind of change Augustine was speaking about. The philosophical problems that seem to bother people with evolution - that "one thing that God made could change to another thing" is the very same problem Augustine was speaking about, and which is a major issue in all philosophical systems. How can a thing have a fixed nature and be knowable to us if it can change?

And yet we don't seem to want to deny change altogether.

Hi MKJ,

Well, my first question anytime someone tries to teach me based on knowledge of someone outside the Scriptures is: And you believe this man knows the truth because...? I mean really, there are a whole plethora of men who have written seemingly wise things about God, but how do we know that they know the truth? Do you have first hand knowledge that Augustine was born again? Here's what wiki concludes about him:

Nonetheless, though considered to be mistaken on some points, he is still considered a saint, and his feast day is celebrated on 15 June.[13] He carries the additional title of Blessed among the Orthodox, either as "Blessed Augustine" or "St. Augustine the Blessed."[14

So, how do you know that what you preach as supported by some writing of Augustine's that you can't even go back and ask him, "Well, look, is this really what you meant to confer to the reader when you wrote...?" is really the truth about the real and actual beginning that was even several thousand years before his day?

You say that he wrote: that in the created universe, we see things existing not only actually, but potentially - the universe and all of its multiplicity folds out and reveals itself over time, not all at the instant of creation.


Now, I probably don't understand it as he meant it, but that statement says to me that he is merely saying that over time events fold out and reveal themselves. I mean to me this is nothing more than some really wise guys way of saying, "Well, we don't know how the future will play out because the multiplicity of all possibilities of the universe will fold out and we will see these things as they come into being. But I don't get even the slightest inkling that he is talking about biologicals here, but merely events.

You're probably a lot smarter than I am so I'll leave you to believe what you like. However, just because you're smarter than I doesn't make even on whit of difference as to whether you know the truth about the things of God. For that, one must have the indwelling Holy Spirit. Stupid, poor, rich learned the things of God are only made known by the Spirit of God.

So, was Augustine born again or was he just a guy 1700 years ago who did a lot of study of religiosity and did he intend that this statement he wrote was to be understood to have even a whit of inference to the days of creation? Those are the questions you will need to provide answers to for me, before I would be willing to consider that he may have known the truth about the creation account.

Sorry, but I'm rather a Sola Scriptura kind of guy. I believe what the Scriptures tell me and not much else when it comes to the things of God. You seem to be obviously hell bent to believe and teach that evolutionary theory is the explanation of the truth of how things became to be what they are today. I'm not quite so interested in getting to hell quite as quickly.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted