Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

They're both theologically wrong because they require a deceptive god.

Who's setting the requirements?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for the QED.

I've noticed you say this every time you have no response.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who's setting the requirements?

The requirement that God not be deceptive? Certainly not you.

 

[ottawak]

Who's setting the requirements?

You are. You require a deceptive God to support your reading of Genesis.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I have no problem with that. The whole creation event was unnatural. Plants and animals don't naturally come into existence fully formed. Adam woul have had a thirty year old body when he was formed. No problem. Trees would be decades old. No problem.

But God included into all living things a clock. That tells us when they were formed. Not their apparent age. So why say 'I made this today but I'm going to set the clock so it says I made it a million years ago'.

Why?

If scientists studied Adam the day he was created do you think they would conclude that he was 1 day old? Probably not because fully grown men do come into existence in one day. The same situation occurs with the rocks they don’t form in one day so seeing rocks that are fully developed would lead them to believe that they were formed millions of years ago. It’s not that God made them appear to be old it’s that God fully developed them that’s why they appear to be old.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, not everyone. He only "told" people who read Genesis literally.

God has told both of us the same exact thing thru the Bible. You chose to say it didn’t happen the way it is written I choose to say it did. The message wasn’t different it was our choice to believe it that was different.

 

[ottawak]

God has told both of us the same exact thing thru the Bible. You chose to say it didn’t happen the way it is written I choose to say it did. The message wasn’t different it was our choice to believe it that was different.

I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.

I wonder if "death of the author" applies here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.

Well Genesis isn’t the only evidence of a 6 day creation there’s also Exodus 20. I’m assuming that your under the impression that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 did not take place on the same day? This may be plausible looking only at the creation account in Genesis but it doesn’t line up with what we read in Exodus 20 where God said He made the earth and the heavens and everything in them in 6 days. So exodus 20 is proof that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 took place on the same day.

 

[ottawak]

I wonder if "death of the author" applies here.

Had to look that one up--thanks.

 

[ottawak]

Well Genesis isn’t the only evidence of a 6 day creation there’s also Exodus 20. I’m assuming that your under the impression that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 did not take place on the same day? This may be plausible looking only at the creation account in Genesis but it doesn’t line up with what we read in Exodus 20 where God said He made the earth and the heavens and everything in them in 6 days. So exodus 20 is proof that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 took place on the same day.

Exodus 20 (and I assume here you are particularly referring to Ex 20:11) isn't "proof" oF anything--it's commentary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wonder if "death of the author" applies here.

I don't know. I'd ask Jacques Derrida about it,.............but he's dead.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've noticed you say this every time you have no response.

What further points are there to make, when you're demonstrating the points I make?

 

[AV1611VET]

If scientists studied Adam the day he was created do you think they would conclude that he was 1 day old? Probably not because fully grown men do come into existence in one day. The same situation occurs with the rocks they don’t form in one day so seeing rocks that are fully developed would lead them to believe that they were formed millions of years ago. It’s not that God made them appear to be old it’s that God fully developed them that’s why they appear to be old.

My Dental Challenge

 

[AV1611VET]

God has told both of us the same exact thing thru the Bible. You chose to say it didn’t happen the way it is written I choose to say it did. The message wasn’t different it was our choice to believe it that was different.

I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.

In other words, you agree with him?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I chose to say it didn't happen the way you choose to read it. You don't own the meaning of the text, you merely ascribe meaning to it.

I agree with you that we all come to the Genesis text (or any biblical text for that matter) and choose how we'll read it, but I think it's an oversimplification to say that any and all of us "merely ascribe" meaning to it. This could be the case if all readings are somehow equal, but I get the feeling that not all of them are equal.

If they were equal, would we all be here scrambling among ourselves with verbal fisticuffs over the 'real' meaning of Creation accounts in Genesis in light of the Theory of Evolution?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My Dental Challenge

 

[ottawak]

I agree with you that we all come to the Genesis text (or any biblical text for that matter) and choose how we'll read it, but I think it's an oversimplification to say that any and all of us "merely ascribe" meaning to it. This could be the case if all readings are somehow equal, but I get the feeling that not all of them are equal.

If they were equal, would we all be here scrambling among ourselves with verbal fisticuffs over the 'real' meaning of Creation accounts in Genesis in light of the Theory of Evolution?

I suppose, but what we are really talking about here is the "calling God a liar" stance of the creationists. Figurative readings of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself and have been suggested by reputable Christian theologians in the past without incurring the kind of wrath dispensed by modern creationists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suppose, but what we are really talking about here is the "calling God a liar" stance of the creationists. Figurative readings of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself and have been suggested by reputable Christian theologians in the past without incurring the kind of wrath dispensed by modern creationists.

I heartily agree that some creationists go overboard when saying that disagreeing with them equates to "calling God a liar." But, I think the rabbit-hole goes deeper than all of this on both sides, and in this recognition, the only way to deal with someone like @AV1611VET is to cull out the deeper, more personal biographical and developmental formations he's had in his thinking over the years of his life.

The catch here is that if we can't do this--and usually we can't very easily since people don't just want to be open books--then we might as well just be arguing with a wall. We have to be able to do more than simply insist to some person that he (or she) is inconsistent in believing what he believes or in interpreting the biblical texts that he reads, and we have to be able to do more than just demonstrate some cursory level of inconsistency. And if these interlocutors don't 'allow' us to go deeper into their reasoning and psychology, then we're stuck arguing with them on the cursory level.

And we make no progress.

This is why threads like this perpetuate themselves ad naseam.

 

[AV1611VET]

Figurative readings of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself ...

Either that, or Philo of Alexandria popularized it.

Philo's deployment of allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with Greek philosophy was the first documented of its kind, and thereby often misunderstood. Many critics of Philo assumed his allegorical perspective would lend credibility to the notion of legend over historicity. Philo often advocated a literal understanding of the Torah and the historicity of such described events, while at other times favoring allegorical readings.

SOURCE