• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,040
9,030
65
✟428,925.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Scripture is content, but that's not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the authority on which that content is to be believed, a very different question altogether.



I don't think so. Christ's church could survive without the Bible, as it did for centuries before the Canon was established. But without the church and its tradition, the Bible would be regarded as nothing more than a moderately interesting collection of obscure ancient texts.

Why do you suppose I "doubt scripture" when all I do is doubt your interpretation of it?

You are,correct in that the content Is either authoritative or not based upon who wrote it. The authority of scripture is based upon men who were inspired by God to write making the content authoritative.

The church immediately had the apostles from the,start to lead and,guide them in person and in writing. The letters to the churches were widely circulated and,were considered authoritative. What the apostles wrote was considered scripture by the churches and was claimed by the apostles to be scripture. So the authority of the writings were based upon the authority of the,man who wrote them. Thus the content of scripture has authority.

The same goes for the OT. Jesus himself spoke of the authority of the OT. The truthfulness of it. You doubt scripture itself, not my interpretation. I merely point to,day it says. People who interpret it differently than what it says are the interpreters not me and others like me. The false interpretors are the ones that make,claim of "the bible really isn't saying what it says."

I and others like me just say what it says. It says God created,in six days. Interpretors say God didn't create in six days despite what it says. I and others like me interpret nothing. We just speak what it says.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,040
9,030
65
✟428,925.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
There is certainly a great deal of scholarship pointing to that conclusion. Are you seriously proposing that John was lying? That he would write and circulate a book among people who had at least second-hand knowledge of the events described which seriously misrepresented those events and expect to get away with it? Come on, be real.

There is also a great deal of scholarship that says John couldn't have written the book. Why do,you believe the scholars that say it was written by him?

The writer of John could indeed have been lying. After all he was a man and we all know that men wrote the bible. And men are,fully capable of lying.

Now, I am on your side here. I believe that John was written by John. I believe every word of it. But I am consistent in that. I believe every word written in scripture where there are those that do not. That is the difference. Some pick and choose what to believe based upon their own interpretation. Whereas I choose to believe what is written. Some believe some of scripture and disbelieve other parts,of scripture. I believe all,of it. Those that do not are double minded. They are the arbitors of truth. They pick and choose what is truth in scripture and what is not.

Whereas People like me believe it is all truth. We don't make ourselves arbiters of truth. The bible is truth. To leave what is true and what is not in the hands of men has led to far too many problems in the church. Remember "thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light into my path." No where in the,words of Christ or any apostle is there remotely a hint that any part of scripture is untrue. In fact "all scripture is profitable for teaching" teaching what? Teaching that it's not truth or teaching that it is truth? Genesis teaches us how the world,and,life was made. That's the truth we should be,teaching. If evolution though of all life evolving from one thing was truth then the bible would have said so, because God is not a deceiver or a liar. The truth is God created just as he said he did and that is profitable for teaching.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,394.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm very confused here. I do not understand where you are,coming from. Have you asked Jesus to,me your Lord,and savior?
Yes.
If you have then why are you questioning the validity of,scripture.
Because I don't have any reason to think that it is all historically accurate. Notice that you haven't given me a reason.
Why are you So dead set on doubting scripture?
I'm not dead set on doubting scripture. But I seldom just spontaneously start believing random things for no reason.

Now, can you tell me why you think the Bible is God's word, is inerrant and should be interpreted literally? It's obviously important to you, but you haven't said why you think any of those things is true.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You are,correct in that the content Is either authoritative or not based upon who wrote it. The authority of scripture is based upon men who were inspired by God to write making the content authoritative.

The church immediately had the apostles from the,start to lead and,guide them in person and in writing. The letters to the churches were widely circulated and,were considered authoritative. What the apostles wrote was considered scripture by the churches and was claimed by the apostles to be scripture. So the authority of the writings were based upon the authority of the,man who wrote them. Thus the content of scripture has authority.
That is my point exactly, but better articulated. The authority of the NT texts derives ultimately from the Apostles themselves as guided by the Holy Spirit, not some imaginary magic whereby Jesus produces the texts directly through plenary verbal inspiration.

The same goes for the OT. Jesus himself spoke of the authority of the OT. The truthfulness of it.
With all due respect, I don't think you know what the "truthfulness" of it consists in.

I and others like me interpret nothing.
That in itself is an interpretation. I don't know why you like to pretend that it isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Genesis teaches us how the world,and,life was made. That's the truth we should be,teaching. If evolution though of all life evolving from one thing was truth then the bible would have said so, because God is not a deceiver or a liar. The truth is God created just as he said he did and that is profitable for teaching.
I think you would find Genesis more "profitable for teaching" if you could forget, even for a little while, using it primarily as a source of proof texts against evolution. Why do you care so much about evolution, anyway, that you have to strive so hard to make the Bible speak against it? It's only a scientific theory and in the end might not even be true.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,040
9,030
65
✟428,925.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes.

Because I don't have any reason to think that it is all historically accurate. Notice that you haven't given me a reason.

I'm not dead set on doubting scripture. But I seldom just spontaneously start believing random things for no reason.

Now, can you tell me why you think the Bible is God's word, is inerrant and should be interpreted literally? It's obviously important to you, but you haven't said why you think any of those things is true.

Why don't you think it's historically accurate? Are you not aware of all the archeological finds that have shown the accuracy of scripture? There is quite a bit of information out there showing its accuracy. Here's just one site that talks about it.
https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/1912,24

Keep in mind that more stuff is being found that validates the accuracy of scripture.

Also remember that Jesus himself authenticated the OT. The apostles authenticated the OT. Neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any indication that the OT was wrong or full of fables. They always spoke of it as authoritative.

Scripture is taken literally because those with the authority of God took it literally. Jesus took Moses literally, he took Noah literally. Paul took Adam literally.

You either take the OT literally or not. You cannot take some of it literally and some,of it not. Why, because you are using your own judgements on what is truth and what is not truth. Just like archeology has proven the,accuracy. Many years ago,you,could have been in the camp of disbelieving in scripture when it came to the Babylonian king spoken of. But now we have evidence that he existed. Well, I would have been in the camp of believing scripture before the discovery. Why? Because I,trust scripture not man.

Men of God wrote inspired by God. That makes what they wrote accurate as God does not lie nor does he deceive. To say scripture is not true makes God and the men he inspired liars or deceivers. If he inspired them in writing can you give me any evidence that God would tell them to,lie or deceive the people they are,writing to? It is wholly within the character of God to have men convey the truth. It is not within his character to purposefully have men lie on his behalf. That's why i believe.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Why don't you think it's historically accurate? Are you not aware of all the archeological finds that have shown the accuracy of scripture? There is quite a bit of information out there showing its accuracy. Here's just one site that talks about it.
https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/1912,24

Keep in mind that more stuff is being found that validates the accuracy of scripture.
Wrong. Archaeology validates the uncontroversial proposition that many of the biblical narratives are based on real events in history, a point no one here is disputing. What it does not do is validate the notion that the text of those narratives is literally accurate history in the modern sense you insist on.

Also remember that Jesus himself authenticated the OT. The apostles authenticated the OT. Neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any indication that the OT was wrong or full of fables. They always spoke of it as authoritative.
Again with the false dichotomy. "Wrong and full of fables" is not the only alternative to literally accurate history, nor is it necessary for a text to be literally accurate history in order to be authoritative.

Scripture is taken literally because those with the authority of God took it literally. Jesus took Moses literally, he took Noah literally. Paul took Adam literally.
You don't know that. Jesus, in particular, was careful to refer to the text as literature rather than to the historical events themselves.

You either take the OT literally or not. You cannot take some of it literally and some,of it not.
OK then, not. But that doesn't mean I have to believe that it is "lies" or "wrong and full of fables." That's your predicament, not mine. I don't know why you think the OT has to give us modern literally accurate history or it's useless. Is that all you think it's for?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,040
9,030
65
✟428,925.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Wrong. Archaeology validates the uncontroversial proposition that many of the biblical narratives are based on real events in history, a point no one here is disputing. What it does not do is validate the notion that the text of those narratives is literally accurate history in the modern sense you insist on.

Again with the false dichotomy. "Wrong and full of fables" is not the only alternative to literally accurate history, nor is it necessary for a text to be literally accurate history in order to be authoritative.

You don't know that. Jesus, in particular, was careful to refer to the text as literature rather than to the historical events themselves.

OK then, not. But that doesn't mean I have to believe that it is "lies" or "wrong and full of fables." That's your predicament, not mine. I don't know why you think the OT has to give us modern literally accurate history or it's useless. Is that all you think it's for?

Either a story is truth, fable or lie. There is no other option. You've heard of fact or fiction right. When I tell you history it is either truth or fiction. Or perhaps truth mixed with fiction. But if God tells you something it is truth not fiction unless he says it is. Just like Jesus did.

I don't struggle with anything. You do. People who do,not trust the validity of scripture are the double minded ones. They look at two different things and have to change the word of God to fit thoughts and theories of man. People like me have no problems with scripture. We believe in it. The predicament you find yourself in,is what do,you believe and what do you not believe. You must decipher fact from fable. I don't have to decipher. Its all fact. Its much harder to try and justify why you believe somethings and not others. If someone asked me about any historical event in the OT I would say it's true. You,must try and decide if it is true Or not saying I believe this But I don't believe that.

Jesus was not careful about anything. He spoke the truth and never hinted in any way that the OT was only literature of fables.

Therefore, upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been poured out on the earth, from the blood of that righteous man Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
Matthew 23:35 CEB
http://bible.com/37/mat.23.35.CEB

Jesus also validates the story of Jonah. He also in Luke 16 uses
Abraham and Moses saying people didn't listen to them and the prophets validating they existed and were not fables.

He uses "it is written" as a validation of if the old testament. It is written is not merely a statement meaning something that is written down. It is a reference to it is established, meaning established as true.

http://deeperstudy.com/link/intro_ot_f.html







Wrong. Archaeology validates the uncontroversial proposition that many of the biblical narratives are based on real events in history, a point no one here is disputing. What it does not do is validate the notion that the text of those narratives is literally accurate history in the modern sense you insist on.

Again with the false dichotomy. "Wrong and full of fables" is not the only alternative to literally accurate history, nor is it necessary for a text to be literally accurate history in order to be authoritative.

You don't know that. Jesus, in particular, was careful to refer to the text as literature rather than to the historical events themselves.

OK then, not. But that doesn't mean I have to believe that it is "lies" or "wrong and full of fables." That's your predicament, not mine. I don't know why you think the OT has to give us modern literally accurate history or it's useless. Is that all you think it's for?


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: lismore
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Either a story is truth, fable or lie. There is no other option. You've heard of fact or fiction right. When I tell you history it is either truth or fiction. Or perhaps truth mixed with fiction. But if God tells you something it is truth not fiction unless he says it is. Just like Jesus did.
I have no response to that. I am astonished and saddened by it.

I don't struggle with anything.
But you miss out on quite a bit. Answer my previous question: Do you really think that the divine purpose of the OT is only to provide us with accurate literal history?
You People who do,not trust the validity of scripture are the double minded ones.
Only if they confuse "validity" with literally accurate history.
You must decipher fact from fable.
Only if I think that the "fact" is all that I am looking for.

But we're not getting anywhere with this. I would like to try something different; an experiment, if you're willing.

Assume I am a Christian (but not a Protestant), a Traditional Christian whose faith is fairly defined by the Nicene Creed and a Patristic understanding of Scripture. Assume as well that I have rejected the theory of evolution for reasons not having to do with the Bible.

Pitch your Bible doctrine to me. Lay out the advantages I would realize if I converted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,040
9,030
65
✟428,925.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
I have no response to that. I am astonished and saddened by it.

But you miss out on quite a bit. Answer my previous question: Do you really think that the divine purpose of the OT is only to provide us with accurate literal history? Only if they confuse "validity" with literally accurate history. Only if I think that the "fact" is all that I am looking for.

But we're not getting anywhere with this. I would like to try something different; an experiment, if you're willing.

Assume I am a Christian (but not a Protestant), a Traditional Christian whose faith is fairly defined by the Nicene Creed and a Patristic understanding of Scripture. Assume as well that I have rejected the theory of evolution for reasons not having to do with the Bible.

Pitch your Bible doctrine to me. Lay out the advantages I would realize if I converted.

First of all the answer to your question of course the OT is not meant only as a history book. I would have thought I made myself clear on that. Make no mistake. It IS a history book with a purpose. The reason the history was written was to show us a lot of stuff about the world and the sinfulness,of man and how things came to be. It was given so We could learn about God and his character, power and all that he is and what he demands of,men. It was given to,provide prophecy of the coming of the Christ. It was given to us to show us how God opperated in the history of man.

Whatever was written in the past was written for our instruction so that we could have hope through endurance and through the encouragement of the scriptures.
Romans 15:4 CEB
http://bible.com/37/rom.15.4.CEB

Brothers and sisters, I want you to be sure of the fact that our ancestors were all under the cloud and they all went through the sea. All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. However, God was unhappy with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness. These things were examples for us, so we won’t crave evil things like they did. Don’t worship false gods like some of them did, as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and they got up to play . Let’s not practice sexual immorality, like some of them did, and twenty-three thousand died in one day. Let’s not test Christ, like some of them did, and were killed by the snakes. These things happened to them as an example and were written as a warning for us to whom the end of time has come. No temptation has seized you that isn’t common for people. But God is faithful. He won’t allow you to be tempted beyond your abilities. Instead, with the temptation, God will also supply a way out so that you will be able to endure it.
1 Corinthians 10:1‭-‬9‭, ‬11‭, ‬13 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1co.10.1-13.CEB

See Paul confirmed that historicity of the OT and uses it for a purpose to instruct us. The OT writers were inspired and all scripture is profitable for teaching and reproving and instruction of righteousness.

The apostolic teachers and Christ himself verified its historical nature. But just like God does he never lets an opportunity to go waste. He uses history to teach us about him and his purposes for us including The need of righteous living.

I'll get to your other thought later.




Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lismore
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
First of all the answer to your question of course the OT is not meant only as a history book. I would have thought I made myself clear on that. Make no mistake. It IS a history book with a purpose. The reason the history was written was to show us a lot of stuff about the world and the sinfulness,of man and how things came to be. It was given so We could learn about God and his character, power and all that he is and what he demands of,men. It was given to,provide prophecy of the coming of the Christ. It was given to us to show us how God operated in the history of man.

Whatever was written in the past was written for our instruction so that we could have hope through endurance and through the encouragement of the scriptures.
Amen, brother. But that does not explain why you insist on imposing modern standards of historiographical facticity on it. And before you get started, try really hard to forget about the theory of evolution for just a little while. I am not, repeat not, trying to impugn the historicity of Genesis in order to make way for modern scientific theories.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,838
1,697
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,344.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The main difference I find with the idea of evolution to most non believers is that there doesn't need to be a God for the creation of life. The naturalistic process of evolution through natural selection and mutations can create anything without the need for any preexisting code or law that may direct it. That same idea is then used to speculate about all existence right back to a point where there is life from non life or some sort of chemical formula that leads to simple life. The same mechanism is also used for all existence. The main idea of late has been nothing is really something which is to do with quantum fluctuations which then evolved step by step into matter. Dawkins is one for claiming the awesome power of selection not just in biology but for just about everything. So there is a fine line between where God comes in and its easy to argue that God may not be needed at all. Any question about how life comes from non life is then fobbed off a a minor issue that no one knows about yet.

The aim is to take God out of the equation altogether and by using a mechanism that can produce all the life we see starting from such a small point seems to just about do the job of taking God out of the picture. In other words in all that we see the only part God played was to produce some chemicals that led to simple life and some quantum fluctuations that led to all existence. Then its only a small step to take God out of the picture altogether. So I think theistic evolution is and should be more than that. It should also be about an ongoing direction that God may have built into life. In this sense there is a important difference between what a world view of evolution is and what theistic evolution is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So there is a fine line between where God comes in and its easy to argue that God may not be needed at all.

The aim is to take God out of the equation altogether and by using a mechanism that can produce all the life we see starting from such a small point seems to just about do the job of taking God out of the picture. In other words in all that we see the only part God played was to produce some chemicals that led to simple life and some quantum fluctuations that led to all existence. Then its only a small step to take God out of the picture altogether. So I think theistic evolution is and should be more than that. It should also be about an ongoing direction that God may have built into life. In this sense there is a important difference between what a world view of evolution is and what theistic evolution is.

Do you deny the well known process of a baby's development during pregnancy? After all, we all agree that God made each of us, and the scripture even says so. Do you say that all the findings of ontology and are wrong, and that God magically poofs the baby into existence at 9 months? Of course you don't.

Yet, the exact same argument you just gave can also be said about pregnancy.

Those atheistic doctors have tried to describe the pregnancy process with biochemistry and DNA, so there is a fine line between where God comes in and its easy to argue that God may not be needed at all.

The aim is to take God out of the equation altogether and by using a mechanism that can produce the baby we see starting from such a small point seems to just about do the job of taking God out of the picture. In other words God played no part and it's all chemicals and natural processes that make a baby. Then its only a small step to take God out of the picture altogether. So I think theistic pregnancy is and should be more than that. It should also be about an ongoing direction that God may have built into life. In this sense there is a important difference between what a world view of pregnancy is and what theistic pregnancy is.

It feels kinda silly, doesn't it? It does to me. Accepting the scientific process of how God is doing something in no way "removes Him altogether", at least not to me. If it does to you, then may I suggest that you have a very small picture of God, and that you have to decide how you see pregnancy as well.

Any question about how life comes from non life is then fobbed off a a minor issue that no one knows about yet.

It's true that we don't know if it was a chemical route or a miracle that gave the first life. I think a reasonable Christian position is that it was a miracle, with regular evolution after that. However, look at the progression here:

our understanding in the Year 1500:

Lightining - divine intervention?
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention?
Age of the earth - ~6,000 years
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?



our understanding in the Year 1800:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution?
Age of the earth - ~6,000 years? starting to look like at least millions of years.
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 1900:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution? Evolution by natural selection?
Age of the earth - ~at least millions of years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 2000:

Lightning - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria.
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - evolution by natural selection.
Age of the earth - 4.55 billion years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention? An RNA world? endosymbiosis? Micelles?
etc.

See how it goes? Hanging your faith on pockets of ignorance makes a continually shrinking "God of the Gaps". There is no need to do that - especially when realizing that God works through all things, all the time (see John 5:17) makes all these things the creative action of God anyway. To miss that is to fall for the atheist's line that God is banished from everything, when instead He is omnipresent.

The fact that there are multiple plausible routes to the first cell makes it pointless (and dangerous to one's faith) to require a miracle there. It's kind of like asking how I went from my house to the movie theater. There are several possible road routes I may have driven, or I may have rode my bike, or I may have been miraculously teleported there by God. With that question, don't we all guess the more normal routes before saying that God intervened by teleporting me to the movie theater - especially after seeing my warm car outside? Of course we do.

To be clear - I think the TE position that "God intervened against his natural laws to make a miraculous first cell, which then evolved to give us the life we see today" is a plausible TE position. I just don't think it's the best way to go, both for your faith and for bringing others to the faith. I think it is better to allow for the possibility of God using his natural laws to build the first cell, just as he did to knit you in your mother's womb, or to bring life to the forms we see today. That avoids any evidence denial, giving you a robust faith in a constantly active God.

in Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,838
1,697
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,344.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you deny the well known process of a baby's development during pregnancy? After all, we all agree that God made each of us, and the scripture even says so. Do you say that all the findings of ontology and are wrong, and that God magically poofs the baby into existence at 9 months? Of course you don't.

Yet, the exact same argument you just gave can also be said about pregnancy.
The big difference in the pregnancy example and the evolution of something from say a simple life form into a more complex one which is sort of similar to gestation to full term is that all the codes for that life form (the baby) come from the parents and they give all the instructions for every detail that the baby will end up with. That would be like saying that evolution (natural selection and random mutations) is guided by instructions to a predetermined end result.

Supporters of evolution would protest at this description as it supports an agent of some sort that had designed those instructions. As one of evolution's biggest supporters Richard Dawkins has stated when comparing natural selection with a blind watchmaker " A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind".
Richard Dawkins Quotes on Evolution from - 29 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes

So the question is did God have a purpose in mind when he created that first bunch of chemicals, bacteria or simple life form in the beginning. That is the difference between what a world view of evolution and a theistic view of evolution has which is pretty significant in the scheme of things because it contradicts the theory of evolution. If there is a purpose then despite the claims that evolution is a blind, unconscious, automatic process which has no purpose in mind it does have a purpose and it is guided by God.

It feels kinda silly, doesn't it? It does to me. Accepting the scientific process of how God is doing something in no way "removes Him altogether", at least not to me. If it does to you, then may I suggest that you have a very small picture of God, and that you have to decide how you see pregnancy as well.
I tend to think that many people don't appreciate and consider the idea of theistic evolution enough to realize what it represents. Many would have the basic idea that it may begin with some sort of simple life but what that represents is another thing. There are many unanswered questions such as, at what point did God intervene and create ? Any point is a contradiction of evolution and allows for a supernatural creation.

Did God create at the chemical point before life or at simple single celled life. Did God create any instructions at that point so that life or the chemical could begin to form more complex life or did he just let it be and hope for the best. Remember that it is at these early stages that is probably the most difficult to imagine evolving through natural selection and random mutations as the odds are so much higher to create those precise conditions for life from a lesser form of life that has no predetermined code to help it along. I would like to think that even though evolution may come across to many as a unguided process that there is some orchestration behind the scenes. In fact there is support for very early preexisting codes of life around such as the Cambrian explosion and other forms of life such as bacteria that is millions and in rare cases billions of years old which is similar to modern bacteria.

It's true that we don't know if it was a chemical route or a miracle that gave the first life. I think a reasonable Christian position is that it was a miracle, with regular evolution after that. However, look at the progression here:
when it comes to a world view of evolution any point of a miracle creation is a contradiction and still classed as supernatural creation. Sometimes I just think its trying to accommodate both sides of the story and they don't sit well. Maybe its just moving the special creation back to a point that accommodates evolution. It doesn't have to be a case of evolution or creation. There are other views that support limited evolution that even non religious people support. I personally don't know and have not formed a view because like someone has said we were not there and there's still a lot of unanswered questions.
our understanding in the Year 1500:

Lightining - divine intervention?
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention?
Age of the earth - ~6,000 years
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?

our understanding in the Year 1800:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution?
Age of the earth - ~6,000 years? starting to look like at least millions of years.
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 1900:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution? Evolution by natural selection?
Age of the earth - ~at least millions of years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 2000:

Lightning - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria.
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - evolution by natural selection.
Age of the earth - 4.55 billion years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention? An RNA world? endosymbiosis? Micelles?
etc.

See how it goes? Hanging your faith on pockets of ignorance makes a continually shrinking "God of the Gaps". There is no need to do that - especially when realizing that God works through all things, all the time (see John 5:17) makes all these things the creative action of God anyway. To miss that is to fall for the atheist's line that God is banished from everything, when instead He is omnipresent.

The fact that there are multiple plausible routes to the first cell makes it pointless (and dangerous to one's faith) to require a miracle there. It's kind of like asking how I went from my house to the movie theater. There are several possible road routes I may have driven, or I may have rode my bike, or I may have been miraculously teleported there by God. With that question, don't we all guess the more normal routes before saying that God intervened by teleporting me to the movie theater - especially after seeing my warm car outside? Of course we do.

To be clear - I think the TE position that "God intervened against his natural laws to make a miraculous first cell, which then evolved to give us the life we see today" is a plausible TE position. I just don't think it's the best way to go, both for your faith and for bringing others to the faith. I think it is better to allow for the possibility of God using his natural laws to build the first cell, just as he did to knit you in your mother's womb, or to bring life to the forms we see today. That avoids any evidence denial, giving you a robust faith in a constantly active God.

in Christ-

Papias
I totally agree and the bible event tells us to read and test things and check them out to find the answers and not to take things on face value. We are in interesting times as well. though we have discovered a lot and dispelled many myths we also have accumulated a lot of knowledge. It takes a fraction of the time for something to change and become outdated and we have greater awareness. We are at a point where there is not as much to discover in our world. We still have a lot of challenges to overcome and find cures for diseases like cancer but we are now sequencing our DNA and can see the bigger picture.

We are at a point where we have moved beyond the atom to the quantum world and are beginning to see this strange and different place where things don't act the way we have traditionally measured them. Its interesting that at this point where things are so tiny and something can come from nothing that the traditional science doesn't apply as much and things act contradictory to the way we have measured things. This may either cause us to revise some of the theories we have come to understand or take things into new dimensions beyond the realities we know of now. So maybe science is reaching a point where it cannot answer everything and this is the point of where God may come in.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
our understanding in the Year 2000:


Age of the earth - 4.55 billion years.


in Christ-

Papias

Lets pick on this one.....the age of the earth...or say their dating techniques that determined to false age was rocked when soft dinosaur tissue (as well as other animal tissue) was found preserved with the fossils. The question of how the tissue survived for 65+ MY's has the Old Earthers baffled. Scientist have also found C14 in diamonds (shown not to be contamination) which should have decayed completly away a long time ago if the diamonds are as old as some claim them to be.

The better answer, especially for those that trust the bible and scientific evidence is about 6,000 years.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
The better answer, especially for those that trust the bible and scientific evidence is about 6,000 years.
:)
Yes. The TRUTH is the only answer as well as the better answer for everyone.
Yes, even though the whole world is deceived [except a few who find the narrow road to life in Y'SHUA].
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
:)
Yes. The TRUTH is the only answer as well as the better answer for everyone.
Yes, even though the whole world is deceived [except a few who find the narrow road to life in Y'SHUA].

If your an atheist or of some belief that doesn't accept the authority of the bible, that's one thing. But if you claim to be christian..that's another thing.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Really ?
How would that change the TRUTH ?
Even atheists who do what is right benefit from it.
i.e. like YHWH'S PROMISE: WHOEVER BLESSES MY PEOPLE, I BLESS. WHOEVER curses MY PEOPLE I CURSE.
"WHOEVER" - no matter what they believe.

If your an atheist or of some belief that doesn't accept the authority of the bible, that's one thing. But if you claim to be christian..that's another thing.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Really ?
How would that change the TRUTH ?
Even atheists who do what is right benefit from it.
i.e. like YHWH'S PROMISE: WHOEVER BLESSES MY PEOPLE, I BLESS. WHOEVER curses MY PEOPLE I CURSE.
"WHOEVER" - no matter what they believe.

You missed the point. Or I made it badly.
Christians who trust the bible...should trust the bible. Atheist don't trust the bible because they're atheist.....they reject the truth.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
You missed the point. Or I made it badly.
Christians who trust the bible...should trust the bible. Atheist don't trust the bible because they're atheist.....they reject the truth.
Yes, YHWH'S WORD is completely and totally TRUSTWORTHY, and Y'SHUA is absolutely completely FAITHFUL.
Everyone 'should' trust YHWH - HE CREATED THEM !
There's a lot of Christians (in name at least) who do not trust YHWH nor HIS WORD. They don't even commit their lives to Y'SHUA !
Perhaps there is also an atheist someplace who does trust the BIBLE ? I don't know. There were some non-Christians in the last century who trusted the BIBLE - they used stories in the BIBLE for information / direction and they benefited from this. Who knows, they might even become ALIVE IN Y'SHUA ! ? (some day)
 
  • Like
Reactions: -57
Upvote 0