Is there a denomination that accepts theistic evolution/old earth?

[BobRyan]

While I think parts of the Bible are inspired, I do not believe the Bible is 100% correct. By one definition any Christian not under authority of the Vatican is “Protestant.” Not all Protestants believe it is proper to sacrifice animals for propitiation of sin, even though the Bible’s tells them to sacrifice animals, thus they may say the Bible is divinely inspired, but they do not follow certain Biblical regulations.

That's in interesting statement.

Hebrews 10 says the animal sacrifices ended at the cross "he takes a way the first to establish the second" regarding the "sacrifices and offerings". You say that if we accept the entire Bible on a given topic that this is causing a problem when it comes to animal sacrifices?? seriously??

 

[thecolorsblend]

Starts with reading the Bible to get the doctrine on origins instead of reading Darwin to get that doctrine

Sacred Scripture describes the creation of mankind and, specifically, that God created mankind.

How mankind changed and adapted through the course of history is not recorded in Sacred Scripture. The theory of evolution satisfactorily fills in some of the gaps on that.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul refused the attempts of some Jews to circumcise the Gentiles.

True. Because gentiles were not required to be circumcised in NT or OT if all they wanted to do was join in synagogue for worship as we see in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18:4 etc.

The "some Jews" in that case are "some Christian Jews" as we see in the examples above - the non-Christian Jews had no problem with gentiles joining in worship to the one true God.

If you convert to Judaism, you must be circumcised.

Not true. Gentiles could worship the one true God - and choose the Jewish religion without having to also "Become a Jew"

 

[Albion]

Starts with reading the Bible to get the doctrine on origins instead of reading Darwin to get that doctrine

EVERY Christian church thinks that Creation started with God and that the Bible indicates as much.

That isn't the issue at all.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul also defied Jewish laws of what is unclean by eating with Gentiles. .

Jesus defied "jewish tradition" in Mark 7 as did Paul in certain cases - but neither of them defied scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

A certain amount of evolution in mankind's background is simply undeniable.

I don't understand why that is controversial in some segments of the Christian religion.

Starts with reading the Bible to get the doctrine on origins instead of reading Darwin to get that doctrine

EVERY Christian church thinks that Creation started with God and that the Bible indicates as much.

That isn't the issue at all.

Christians that got to that point without reading the Bible .. are hard to find.

The answer to the point about "why evolutionism is controversial in some segments of the Christian religion" has to do with reading the bible in Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11 to get to the correct doctrine on origins instead of going to Darwin to get it.

 

[Albion]

Christians that got to that point without reading the Bible .. are hard to find.

Exactly. All the ones I referred to--which is all of the churches--base their beliefs about Creation on the Bible accounts.

It is a waste of time for everyone here to have any reply be "Christians who disagree with my church's interpretation of Scripture have never read the Bible."

 

[BobRyan]

Exactly. All the ones I referred to--which is all of the churches--base their beliefs about Creation on the Bible accounts.

The specific question being asked - to which I responded was of this form "why evolutionism is controversial in some segments of the Christian religion"

You are apparently addressing the question "why is belief in evolutionism not controversial in some other segments of the Christian religion"

My first response on this thread was to identify some of those segments that you are apparently talking about - the ones that teach evolutionism...

Today at 1:33 PM #110

And if I am not mistaken -- that is you and I agreeing on the answer to the title of this thread.

 

[dqhall]

Jesus defied "jewish tradition" in Mark 7 as did Paul in certain cases - but neither of them defied scripture.

Do you claim Biblical passages requiring animal sacrifice are not scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

Because 'six days' is not necessarily at absolute statement meaning 144 hour period as we understand time. No one here has convinced me logically of an absolutist young Earth theory, not even remotely.

Until you read Ex 20:8-11 where we find that the day is the same at Sinai for the 7 day week as for Genesis 2:1-3 ... seven days.

A certain amount of evolution in mankind's background is simply undeniable.

I don't understand why that is controversial in some segments of the Christian religion.

Starts with reading the Bible to get the doctrine on origins instead of reading Darwin to get that doctrine

Exactly. All the ones I referred to--which is all of the churches--base their beliefs about Creation on the Bible accounts.

It is a waste of time for everyone here to have any reply be "Christians who disagree with my church's interpretation of Scripture have never read the Bible."

I don't say "have never read the Bible" -- I say "reading the Bible to get the doctrine on origins instead of reading Darwin to get that doctrine"

 

[BobRyan]

While I think parts of the Bible are inspired, I do not believe the Bible is 100% correct. By one definition any Christian not under authority of the Vatican is “Protestant.” Not all Protestants believe it is proper to sacrifice animals for propitiation of sin, even though the Bible’s tells them to sacrifice animals, thus they may say the Bible is divinely inspired, but they do not follow certain Biblical regulations.

That's in interesting statement.

Hebrews 10 says the animal sacrifices ended at the cross "he takes a way the first to establish the second" regarding the "sacrifices and offerings". You say that if we accept the entire Bible on a given topic that this is causing a problem when it comes to animal sacrifices?? seriously??

Do you claim Biblical passages requiring animal sacrifice are not scripture?

No - I claim that if you read all the Bible texts on that subject you find the Bible itself saying when it is that the time for animal sacrifices ends as a liturgy for the church. It was not "because we just felt like not doing it - as Christians".

Look at the Protestant reformation - it was all about "getting back to the Bible" as the source of doctrine and not simply "whatever idea for doctrine is most popular at the moment".

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Starts with reading the Bible to get the doctrine on origins instead of reading Darwin to get that doctrine

Sacred Scripture describes the creation of mankind and, specifically, that God created mankind.

True. And if Genesis 1 and 2 were only that one statement ... and if Ex 20:11 did not point to "the very details" most unwelcomed in the story of evolutionism as the doctrine on origins then it would all be 'up in the air' as to what the details are.

How mankind changed and adapted through the course of history is not recorded in Sacred Scripture. The theory of evolution satisfactorily fills in some of the gaps on that.

there is no theory of evolution that can be stated "for in six days God created the heavens and the earth" nor is it stated in the Genesis 2:1-3 form.

Even the Hebrew and OT scholars in all world class universities freely admit that the account for origins in Genesis 1-2 and Ex 20:11 is nothing remotely compatible with evolution's own doctrine on origins. they are as far apart as day and night.

Ex 20 "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made" is so obviously "not" the evolutionism that is so popular today that it goes without saying.

 

[Jamdoc]

A certain amount of evolution in mankind's background is simply undeniable.

I don't understand why that is controversial in some segments of the Christian religion.

Mostly because they don't understand genetics and don't understand the concepts. They see the word evolution and immediately start thinking "What you think Men came from monkeys? Then why are there still monkeys!" Just complete and utter ignorance.

 

[bekkilyn]

Interesting how in the first of the two Genesis creation accounts, the sun wasn't created until the fourth "day" and yet somehow we insist that God's "day" is the same length of time for our earth to make one revolution around the thing that didn't exist when creation began. Also interesting how the multitudes of other planets and suns that God created aren't all on the same day/night timeline as earth, so do they all just have fake "days" since God obviously couldn't figure out how to make all of these "days" consistently 24 hours since he's bound to using our interpretation of what a "day" is. Why do we keep putting all of these limitations on God? Are we going to try to force him to use a Timex next time?

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting how in the first of the two Genesis creation accounts, the sun wasn't created until the fourth "day"[ and yet somehow we insist that God's "day" is the same length of time for our earth

Ex 20 "six days you shall labor... for in six days the Lord made".

In Genesis 1 we have the sun created on day 4. But on day 1 we have light and the dividing of light from darkness... and a rotating planet that give "evening and morning were the first day".

The idea that God Himself knows of no other way to have light on Earth apart from a fusion reaction on the Sun 98 million miles away is an "assumption" made by some folks who do not like to just leave the text as it is for some reason. The burden of proof in that case is on them to show that God really does not know any other way to make light.

 

[BobRyan]

"What you think Men came from monkeys? Then why are there still monkeys!" Just complete and utter ignorance.

Its worse than that.

"what .. you think men came from bacteria? then why can't you show bacteria turning into eukaryotes after more than 50,000 generations of real life observation?"

yeah... stuff like that.

 

[bekkilyn]

Ex 20 "six days you shall labor... for in six days the Lord made".

In Genesis 1 we have the sun created on day 4. But on day 1 we have light and the dividing of light from darkness... and a rotating planet that give "evening and morning were the first day".

The idea that God Himself knows of no other way to have light on Earth apart from a fusion reaction on the Sun 98 million miles away is an "assumption" made by some folks who do not like to just leave the text as it is for some reason. The burden of proof in that case is on them to show that God really does not know any other way to make light.

You don't know the length of time between the light dividing from the darkness before the sun was created, or even if time passed in a way that humans could even remotely recognize since God is not bound by our conceptions of time. Genesis 1 may simply be a description of the best way the human writer had of describing what occurred in a way that was even halfway comprehensible.

Exodus 20 still doesn't confirm how long God's "days" were during creation. The six earth days that humans used for the work week are not necessarily the same as the "days" of creation...just representative of them for the purpose of marking out human time.

To determine that God is using our conception of time for his is reading into scripture something that isn't there, and then that God actually *gives* us real, physical evidence of evolution might just be another hint that God's time, as such, is not our own. Seems like the burden of proof would be on those who have put time limits on God considering that the whole idea of young earth creationism wasn't even invented until the early 20th century.

 

[Jonaitis]

Let's put aside these speculative doctrines and listen with awe.

It really has nothing to do with doctrine. God said he created the world in six days, you don't need to build anything upon that.

 

[Jonaitis]

Your opening and closing comments would seem to contradict one another.

They don't.

When I said Scripture is not a science textbook, I was referring to his comment on why God didn't lay out a detailed account of creation scientifically. However, in my latter comment I said that if there is any science that contradicts whatever has been written concerning creation (evolutionary process vs man made from the dust of the earth on the sixth day), it should be rejected.

Please, don't be that guy who responds like he can't read contexts.

 

[Jamdoc]

Its worse than that.

"what .. you think men came from bacteria? then why can't you show bacteria turning into eukaryotes after more than 50,000 generations of real life observation?"

yeah... stuff like that.

The real catch is, that doesn't happen on its own, and the fossil record doesn't support happening completely by chance, but it does support a creator modifying life forms from one form to another. There's an appearance of transition, but it seems a lot more deliberate than random chance and naturalists would propose.