Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Astrid]

Like many things we may glean from various ANE sources, we know less of anything with any firm assurance than we'd all like to, and there are competing theories as to the origination(S) of the Genesis accounts.

So, the answer to your question is a qualified "Yes and No."

And just like our private discussion we had about Paul's supposed snake-bite survival, I have some scholarly sources to put into the academic stew. That is, if you want to be bothered by any of that. Or not. I get it that some people don't.

I dont really need details. The story, like the snakebite
story is not believable to me.
Nothing against fiction and magic realism per se,
but I do like truth in labeling.

"Nobody knows who ( all ) composed it, why,
or when" will do.

You didnt say anything about why genesis is
special.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I dont really need details. The story, like the snakebite
story is not believable to me.
Nothing against fiction and magic realism per se,
but I do like truth in labeling.

"Nobody knows who ( all ) composed it, why,
or when" will do.

You didnt say anything about why genesis is
special.

That's because "special" is a subjective term, not an objective one.

 

[Astrid]

That's because "special" is a subjective term, not an objective one.

You didnt answer the first time i asked, when I phrased it diffetently

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You didnt answer the first time i asked, when I phrased it diffetently

The real question for me is: do you really want an answer?

I'm not the one here who is avering that the book of Genesis is "somehow profound" on any sort of objective, empirical scale, especially not one that somehow shows that either evolution OR creation are the actual mode of human existence such as we know it today.

It is different though as far as ANE literature goes, and I'm going to go along with the late Conrad Hyers in saying that as a form of Cosmogony (rather than mere ancient Cosmology), the first chapter of Genesis itself is "different."

Conrad Hyers (article) - The Genre of Genesis 1​

As to whether the rest of the book of Genesis is different remains open to other angles of scholarly study, such can be found for comparative study on the first 11 chapters of Genesis, as seen in the book, Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (2015), Eds. Charles Halton, Stanley N. Gundry.

 

[Astrid]

The real question for me is: do you really want an answer?

I'm not the one here who is avering that the book of Genesis is "somehow profound" on any sort of objective, empirical scale, especially not one that somehow shows that either evolution OR creation are the actual mode of human existence such as we know it today.

It is different though as far as ANE literature goes, and I'm going to go along with the late Conrad Hyers in saying that as a form of Cosmogony (rather than mere ancient Cosmology), the first chapter of Genesis itself is "different."

Conrad Hyers (article) - The Genre of Genesis 1​

As to whether the rest of the book of Genesis is different remains open to other angles of scholarly study, such can be found for comparative study on the first 11 chapters of Genesis, such as is in the book, Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (2015), Eds. Charles Halton, Stanley N. Gundry.

Perhaps you give equal attention and credence to all
creation accounts.

For myself, I dont understand the interest, far less
how anyone stakes their entire construct of reality
on one of them being true.

 

[ottawak]

So you believe bits and pieces of the Bible, is that what your saying?

Your ego is showing again. Disagreeing with you about the interpretation of a text is not the same as disbelieving it.

Honestly you sound like your agnostic at best. You can’t believe in the miracles that Jesus Himself said He performed but the only miracles you can believe in are the two that are required for salvation even tho they defy what science teaches us as being possible just as much as every other miracle God performed. Sounds convenient. So when all the other miracles are mentioned you say that these are impossible so they couldn’t have really happened but when it comes to Christ’s incarnation and resurrection you believe these are possible even tho science tells us they are just as impossible as all the rest of God’s miracles? That’s holding to a double standard my friend, your being inconsistent in your logic and beliefs. Your willing to dismiss logic on the two miracles that can save you but you can’t accept all the rest because you don’t believe they could possibly happen. To me that sounds like agnosticism because your inconsistent in your logic and beliefs. An atheist clings to the side of logic and reason, a believer clings to the side of faith and trust, and your somewhere in between.

Clearly you haven't got a clue about what anybody but you believes about the Bible. Are you willing to even consider the possibility that a person can reject the theory of literal inerrancy and still believe the Bible to be divinely inspired truth?

BTW, Bradskii is an atheist, so it is not really a very useful rhetorical stategy to sneer at his Christian faith.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your ego is showing again. Disagreeing with you about the interpretation of a text is not the same as disbelieving it.

We’re not talking about interpretation here we’re talking about believing the miracles that took place.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you willing to even consider the possibility that a person can reject the theory of literal inerrancy and still believe the Bible to be divinely inspiretd truth?

Nope

 

[ottawak]

We’re not talking about interpretation here we’re talking about believing the miracles that took place.

It would be useful, I think, if you would meditate on the difference between real people and events and stories in a book about them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps you give equal attention and credence to all
creation accounts.

Attention? Somewhat, yes. Credance? No.

For myself, I dont understand the interest, far less
how anyone stakes their entire construct of reality
on one of them being true.

Who said that I construct my "entire reality" on one of them? I haven't. I know that some others here do, but that's their thing.

If you think this same reduction to a certain epistemic positon can be applied to me as well, then you haven't being paying attention to the things that I've said on the whole here on CF. If by chance you've just missed it all, I'll say it one more time:

I'm an Existentialist, primarily. This, to me, means that I take Reality as it is (i.e. an 'Other'). Reality in its unknown enormity is my beginning point, and it is such before I pick up a Bible or any other bit of World Religion, whether past or present. ​

 

[Astrid]

Attention? Somewhat, yes. Credance? No.

Who said that I construct my "entire reality" on one of them? I haven't. I know that some others here do, but that's their thing.

If you think this same reduction to a certain epistemic positon can be applied to me as well, then you haven't being paying attention to the things that I've said on the whole here on CF. If by chance you've just missed it all, I'll say it one more time:

I'm an Existentialist, primarily. This, to me, means that I take Reality as it is (i.e. a 'Other'). Reality in its unknown enormity is my beginning point, and it is such before I pick up a Bible or any other bit of World Religion, whether past or present. ​

Re attn, credence, i was just asking.
" entire reality" was a side note, not about you

 

[BNR32FAN]

It would be useful, I think, if you would meditate on the difference between real people and events and stories in a book about them.

And there ya go we’re right back to what I said a few posts back about the word of God being just another book. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Re attn, credence, i was just asking.
" entire reality" was a side note, not about you

Alright. Thank you for the clarification, Estrid.

 

[Astrid]

Your ego is showing again. Disagreeing with you about the interpretation of a text is not the same as disbelieving it. Clearly you haven't got a clue about what anybody but you believes about the Bible. Are you willing to even consider the possibility that a person can reject the theory of literal inerrancy and still believe the Bible to be divinely inspired truth?

BTW, Bradskii is an atheist, so it is not really a very useful rhetorical stategy to sneer at his Christian faith.

Ego / vanity- said to be Satan's favourite sin.

We noted the implied personal infallibility.

 

[ottawak]

And there ya go we’re right back to what I said a few posts back about the word of God being just another book. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

No, that's just bigotry on your part. You have blinded yourself to the possibility that God could inspire any other form of literature besides 100% accurate literal history--which does an injustice to both God and His Word.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We’re not talking about interpretation here we’re talking about believing the miracles that took place.

...which is a matter of interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that's just bigotry on your part. You have blinded yourself to the possibility that God could inspire any other form of literature besides 100% accurate literal history--which does an injustice to both God and His Word.

If I drop my bigotry and accept Genesis as allegory, will you drop your bigotry and accept Genesis as literal?

 

[ottawak]

If I drop my bigotry and accept Genesis as allegory, will you drop your bigotry and accept Genesis as literal?

No. You are entiled to your view and I am entiled to mine. We must each make our own way in the matter as we judge it to bring us closer to Christ. What I object to is the the assertion that to reject a literal interpretation is to reject divine inspiration. That is the bigotry I speak of.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I object to is the the assertion that to reject a literal interpretation is to reject divine inspiration.

If I reject an allegorical interpretation, am I rejecting divine inspiration?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, that's just bigotry on your part. You have blinded yourself to the possibility that God could inspire any other form of literature besides 100% accurate literal history--which does an injustice to both God and His Word.

Indeed... anyone who claims to believe in God needs to look at the world around them and concede that He is incredibly creative... that has to apply to His words as well as His actions.