A Question to the Creationists

[mark kennedy]

That is because creationism -- in all its forms -- is a falsified scientific theory. It's not bashing "creationists" the people, but rather rejecting creationism the theory.

Nonsense, TOE as natural history is based on naturalistic assumptions, not scientific evidence. Your bashing Biblical Christians because they do not go quitely into the world's mold, shame on them.

Like Willtor, I believe Moses appealed to God and God parted the waters. That's a belief. I have no scientific evidence for or against, nor do I expect any to be found. If the "naked archeologist" is correct, there is archeological support in the form of stele in Greece.

The testimony of Moses and the New Testament is evidence.

And, yes, Darwinian evolution would have happened to all life, just like gravity would be operating on that other planet. What's the problem? Why would you think God would use a different material method to create the diversity of life elsewhere? Would you expect God to hold that planet in orbit by a different material method? Why?

I would not assume anything beyond our ability to directly observe or demonstrate, that's the essense of science.

If you are speaking of Dawkins, then yes, God as creator is shunned. But that is because Dawkins is an atheist. ID is shunned because the evidence shows that this version of creationism is false.

Creationism is rejected because God acts in time and space, ID is rejected because God acts in time and space. Are you sure you believe that God does anything in the natural world that is not subordinate to natural law.

 

[shernren]

Creationism is rejected because God acts in time and space, ID is rejected because God acts in time and space. Are you sure you believe that God does anything in the natural world that is not subordinate to natural law.

(emphasis added)

That one word demonstrates the extreme intellectual poverty of your theology of creation. In fact, mark kennedy, I believe that everything God does in the natural world is not subordinate to natural law. The very idea that anything God does could be subordinate to anything external of God is heretical, and if you had even one theological bone in your body you would understand that immediately.

I believe that God acts in all time and space. I reject creationism and ID because the god of creationism and ID, in so many formulations, acts only in some time and space. To so many IDists and creationists, any time and space in which evolution acts is a time and space in which God is not acting. To so many IDists and creationists, the vast and grand processes of gravity and electromagnetism which sustain the entire known universe are nothing more than "insensible, random forces" which "divert the glory from God".

To give God the glory for a thin film of life on a small speck of dust, ID would sell away the entire universe to chaos!

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

Every Christian i know takes portions of the Bible figuratively
Are we literal "sons of God"?

TE's just take a literal interpretation of Genesis, when we already take small portions of the Bible as figurative, why condemn them for pushing figurative interpretation slightly further and going against tradition?

Kepler was shunned by the church because he went against their traditional "Christian" beliefs

Those who believe in Christ as their Savior are saved, we need unity and unanimity, and we achieve that by believing in similar basics.
Its like a Methodist saying a Baptist isn't saved because they take different portions of the Bible differently

 

[mark kennedy]

That one word demonstrates the extreme intellectual poverty of your theology of creation. In fact, mark kennedy, I believe that everything God does in the natural world is not subordinate to natural law. The very idea that anything God does could be subordinate to anything external of God is heretical, and if you had even one theological bone in your body you would understand that immediately.

God acting in time and space is exactly what is described in the Genesis account of creation. This speaks volumes of the audacity of TEs who have become convinced of their own intellectual superiority as they mock the book of Genesis that is clearly written as an historical narrative. The reason you have rejected Creationism is not because you have a superior intellectual theology but because you bought into the a priori assumption of Darwinism. Don't pretend that you reject creationism on theological grounds, I've dealt with you supposed theology before and you can't make a single substantive point based on it.

I believe that God acts in all time and space. I reject creationism and ID because the god of creationism and ID, in so many formulations, acts only in some time and space. To so many IDists and creationists, any time and space in which evolution acts is a time and space in which God is not acting. To so many IDists and creationists, the vast and grand processes of gravity and electromagnetism which sustain the entire known universe are nothing more than "insensible, random forces" which "divert the glory from God".

Nonsense, you reject creationism and ID because it is unpopular with secular academics. They have really convinced you that you are superior to creationists so you never do the actual work of making a substantive argument. As long as you make long scathing and insulting posts you receive token credulity from your Darwinian instigators. You reject YEC and ID because they have the audacity to attribute to God what the naturalistic assumptions of TOE attribute to natural law.

You made this kind of an accusation before and probably still don't realize you have no theological ground to stand on.

To give God the glory for a thin film of life on a small speck of dust, ID would sell away the entire universe to chaos!

TEs like their Darwinian cohorts attribute to nature was is rightfully attributed to God.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1: 19-23)​

The fallacious and inflammatory content of your posts tells me that the root of bitterness is bearing fruit in you. You are a prime example of why I stayed away from theological topics with evolutionists. You treat theological principles like tackling dummies and make sport of things you know nothing about.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Jpark]

1) Is believing in Creationism essential to salvation on the cross? If so, how? Please cite Biblical scripture.

2) Why do creationists not cut off their eyes and hands when they sin?

3) Why do you think evolution is a tool of the devil? Where does it say this in scripture?

1. No, it is not essential. It is more biblical.

2. The reason why creationists accept a literal interpretation of Genesis is because they are seeing the creation account from the perspective of the ancient Israelites, who themselves interpreted it literally. Surely Moses, the author of Genesis, interpreted it literally.

3. I think evolution is satanic, but only because my father told me. I used to think it was compatible.

 

[Willtor]

God acting in time and space is exactly what is described in the Genesis account of creation. This speaks volumes of the audacity of TEs who have become convinced of their own intellectual superiority as they mock the book of Genesis that is clearly written as an historical narrative. The reason you have rejected Creationism is not because you have a superior intellectual theology but because you bought into the a priori assumption of Darwinism. Don't pretend that you reject creationism on theological grounds, I've dealt with you supposed theology before and you can't make a single substantive point based on it.



Nonsense, you reject creationism and ID because it is unpopular with secular academics. They have really convinced you that you are superior to creationists so you never do the actual work of making a substantive argument. As long as you make long scathing and insulting posts you receive token credulity from your Darwinian instigators. You reject YEC and ID because they have the audacity to attribute to God what the naturalistic assumptions of TOE attribute to natural law.

You made this kind of an accusation before and probably still don't realize you have no theological ground to stand on.



TEs like their Darwinian cohorts attribute to nature was is rightfully attributed to God.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1: 19-23)​

The fallacious and inflammatory content of your posts tells me that the root of bitterness is bearing fruit in you. You are a prime example of why I stayed away from theological topics with evolutionists. You treat theological principles like tackling dummies and make sport of things you know nothing about.

Have a nice day
Mark

My interpretation of Genesis is not based on evolution. If evolution were discredited tomorrow, my interpretation of Genesis wouldn't change.

What is it that you are really arguing? Is it _for_ the Bible or _against_ evolution? If it's _for_ the Bible, we have no quarrel on that point, though we may perhaps debate hermeneutics.

 

[crawfish]

God acting in time and space is exactly what is described in the Genesis account of creation. This speaks volumes of the audacity of TEs who have become convinced of their own intellectual superiority as they mock the book of Genesis that is clearly written as an historical narrative. The reason you have rejected Creationism is not because you have a superior intellectual theology but because you bought into the a priori assumption of Darwinism. Don't pretend that you reject creationism on theological grounds, I've dealt with you supposed theology before and you can't make a single substantive point based on it.



Nonsense, you reject creationism and ID because it is unpopular with secular academics. They have really convinced you that you are superior to creationists so you never do the actual work of making a substantive argument. As long as you make long scathing and insulting posts you receive token credulity from your Darwinian instigators. You reject YEC and ID because they have the audacity to attribute to God what the naturalistic assumptions of TOE attribute to natural law.

You made this kind of an accusation before and probably still don't realize you have no theological ground to stand on.



TEs like their Darwinian cohorts attribute to nature was is rightfully attributed to God.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1: 19-23)​

The fallacious and inflammatory content of your posts tells me that the root of bitterness is bearing fruit in you. You are a prime example of why I stayed away from theological topics with evolutionists. You treat theological principles like tackling dummies and make sport of things you know nothing about.

Have a nice day
Mark

Wow. I really think you need to go back and read your own posts with a fresh eye every now and then. Pot = kettle.

 

[Breckmin]

1) Is believing in Creationism essential to salvation on the cross? If so, how? Please cite Biblical scripture.

I used to believe in theistic evolution and was still saved. I had my own
theories about Hominina and how Homo sapiens became sinful. I was
wrong...and I was deceived by 10's of thousands of inductions which
I didn't realize were systematically deceiving me. It was through
praying for protection that God gave me wisdom to see where I had
been deceived. (It also involved deception in higher criticism and
Documentary Hypothesis which was also inductive).

2) Why do creationists not cut off their eyes and hands when they sin?

The same reason they don't cut off their heads every time they "think"
an evil thought. It is just plain silly not to use logic and see the pragmatism
of what Christ was talking about as it relates to soteriology.

3) Why do you think evolution is a tool of the devil? Where does it say this in scripture?

I think 2 Peter 3: 3-7 is very rich in identifying the importance of
interpreting scientific observation through the historical knowledge
of some type of flood. I do not believe in the exactisms which
require it to kill all animals or be higher than mountains which could
have been forming through catastrophic plates, etc.

The flood is the most important axiom from which to interpret
geological evidence.

Why do I think "evolution" is a tool of the devil? One reason is
that it takes the processes which God uses to provide variety
among the species and falsely interprets them (through inductive
reasoning which is "open" for error) as an origin for all species.

The problem, however, is with the equivocation regarding the
English word "evolution." Since speciation is observed, we need
to differentiate between evolution as being common descent
with modification at the species level within genera which IS
observed, and evolution as being the theory of "universal
common descent."

If you try and identify macro evolution without addressing
the areas of dispute regarding templates of information for
the emergence of new genes...you will completely miss the
difference between observable speciation and a macro
evolution which surpasses the information barrier with the
emergence of non existing genes in a particular population.

Speciation which occurs within genera is always a re-arrangement
of the same genetic information rather than an observation of
new emerging genes.

Universal common descent theory is the second greatest lie
ever told. The greatest lie is anything that keeps you from
believing that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus
Christ as the unique Man that God became.

 

[Breckmin]

Even though I believe in some sort of flood does NOT mean I am a
young earth creationist.

I am tenaciously agnostical on the age of the earth. Yes I believe
in a literal Adam and Eve and I believe that the "fall" of Adam occurred
less than 10,000 years ago...BUT I am not even certain when it is
logical to start "aging" Adam. I do not consider the Torah a scientific
textbook to apply to 20th Century standards of critical thinking and
analysis, nor do I believe it is logical to nitpick at the words written
under Moses, Aaron and Joshua as though you can identify meaningful
contradictions.

The creation account is a recollection of Adam and Eve passed down
through centuries and there are similar accounts in other pagan writings
which corroborate the historicity of account Moses was recalling.

If you look for meaningless contradiction you will find it. If you seek
logical resolution in the midst of complication and what God is doing
through His Sovereign will/decree you will be more likely to align
yourself with truth.

The safest position is obviously to just believe every word of the
translated English bible and not question. This will actually keep
you closer to the truth than going off on your own intellectual
compaign of critical thinking.

Fascinating.

 

[Breckmin]

1) 3) Why do you think evolution is a tool of the devil?

The problem with "universal common descent theory" (not speciation)
is that it is the product of requiring naturalistic or materialistic explanation
in science rather than looking at the empirical world as creation.

It is this influence of "materialism/naturalism" that is undeniable in peer
review today. To require naturalistic explanation which eliminate theistic
implication is not only circular at the point of defining the empirical world
as materialistic rather than the product of creation, but it also ignores
the Sustaining Order of the Creator throughout the creation to even
have processes like cystalization to work in an orderly fashion.

It is "aw-theistic" to require so called "natural" explanations without
even knowing whether or not "natural" is independent of supernatural
sustaining order and power. To look at the morphology of species
and use inductive reasoning to conclude common ancestry is clearly
aw-theistic (without theism) especially when commonalities do not
equal relatedness.

It is for this reason that so many Christian note the "atheistic"
agenda of requiring natural explanations and eliminating theistic
implication from science.

Speaking from personal experience...anyone who believes in
universal common descent theory does not understand the
influence of "atheistic" thinking which formed the whole Neo
Darwinian world view. I used to claim I was a "creationist"
when I was TE...but I did not identify the aw-theistic influence
of eliminating theistic implication from science.

The best way to be delivered from the systematic deception
of universal common descent theory is to first pray for protection
to the Holy Creator for protection from that which is not from Him
and that which is deception.

The second thing to do is to systematically dissect each and
every induction which leads to the false conclusion of universal
common descent theory.

10 thousand weak inductions does NOT equal one valid one...
especially in the face of the Law of Biogenesis and other deductions
involving templates of information for codons to code for amino acids
by which you KNOW special creation is needed (to arrange such information).

Beginning to identify all of the inductions which are open to error is
the second step out of the deception of universal common descent theory.

The first step is prayer on your knees and on your face (literally) before
a Holy God and Creator.

 

[marlowe007]

More and more, I find myself agreeing with mark kennedy. Ultimately salvation doesn't hinge on one's view of origins, but what he says about Genesis being a clear historical narrative is the simple truth. The Bible shouldn't be treated with figurative compromise.

 

[Willtor]

More and more, I find myself agreeing with mark kennedy. Ultimately salvation doesn't hinge on one's view of origins, but what he says about Genesis being a clear historical narrative is the simple truth. The Bible shouldn't be treated with figurative compromise.

... except where it is intended to be figurative. In those places we _must_ take it figuratively or we do the author a disservice.

 

[mark kennedy]

More and more, I find myself agreeing with mark kennedy. Ultimately salvation doesn't hinge on one's view of origins, but what he says about Genesis being a clear historical narrative is the simple truth. The Bible shouldn't be treated with figurative compromise.

Much of the language is highly figurative, that's just one of the literary features. The fact remains that it's an historical narrative as indicated by the geneologies and the sequencial series of events described, each one building on the previous one. It's called poetic prose but it's still an historical narrative. The real question is rather or not people want to believe it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Sources Please:

... except where it is intended to be figurative. In those places we _must_ take it figuratively or we do the author a disservice.

Where do you get your information? It's an historical narrative complete with geneologies, do you consider the Chronociles of the Kings to be figurative or how about Matthew and Luke? Perhaps you might be interested in some of my sources :

Geneology: In Hebrew the term for genealogy or pedigree is "the book of the generations;" and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression often extended to the whole history, as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, where "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that Gospel. (Smith's Bible Dictionary)

So Genesis 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," wherein his descendants are traced down to Noah; Genesis 6:9, "the generations of Noah," the history of Noah and his sons; Genesis 10:1, "the generations of the sons of Noah," Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the oldest and most precious existing ethnological record; Genesis 11:10-26 "the generations of Shem," Genesis 11:27 "the generations of Terah," Abram's father; Genesis 25:12 "the generations of Ishmael," Genesis 25:19 "the generations of Isaac"; Genesis 36:1, "the generations of Esau"; Genesis 37:2, "the generations of Jacob"; Genesis 35:22-26, "the sons of Jacob," etc., repeated Exodus 1:1-5; also Exodus 46:8, a genealogical census of Israel when Jacob came down to Egypt; repeated in Exodus 6:16, etc., probably transcribed from a document, for the first part concerning Reuben and Simeon is quoted though Levi is the only tribe in question. (Fausset's Bible Dictionary)​

The Scriptures teach, in both the Old and New Testament, that through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.

For all have sinned - In Adam, and in their own persons; by a sinful nature, sinful tempers, and sinful actions. And are fallen short of the glory of God - The supreme end of man; short of his image on earth, and the enjoyment of him in heaven. (John Wesley's Notes)

Sin originated with Satan Isaiah 14:12-14, entered the world through Adam Romans 5:12, was, and is, universal, Christ alone excepted ; Romans 3:23; 1 Peter 2:22, incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death ; Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Romans 6:23 and has no remedy but in the sacrificial death of Christ ; Hebrews 9:26; Acts 4:12 availed of by faith Acts 13:38,39. Sin may be summarized as threefold: An act, the violation of, or want of obedience to the revealed will of God; a state, absence of righteousness; a nature, enmity toward God. (Scofield Commentary)​

It is remarkable that the Anticreationists, Christian and otherwise, insist on a firguative interprutation even though Christian scholars have always taught something very different.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). In Romans there is a stepwise logical progression, here's how Adam fits into Paul's theology:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Those are my sources, where are yours?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

*snip*

It is remarkable that the Anticreationists, Christian and otherwise, insist on a firguative interprutation even though Christian scholars have always taught something very different.

*snip*

Oh really? If by this you mean that there have always been Christian scholars who took it literally, then yes. But there have also always been Christian scholars who took the creation account as figuratively-only.

I don't know what the genealogies have to do with it.

 

[jckstraw72]

Oh really? If by this you mean that there have always been Christian scholars who took it literally, then yes. But there have also always been Christian scholars who took the creation account as figuratively-only.

I don't know what the genealogies have to do with it.

there's ALWAYS been Christian scholars who took it as figurative only?! Who in the ancient Church do you have in mind?

 

[Willtor]

there's ALWAYS been Christian scholars who took it as figurative only?! Who in the ancient Church do you have in mind?

St. Augustine wrote a book called "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" in which he discouraged the faithful from taking it literally, but if they were going to do so, that they ensure they not contradict the natural philosophers.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Augustine wrote a book called "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" in which he discouraged the faithful from taking it literally, but if they were going to do so, that they ensure they not contradict the natural philosophers.

well i havent read that book, i do know that in the City of God he interprets Genesis literally -- everything except the 6 days actually, which he interprets as literally one moment -- he thought God created everything in a single instant. other than that he accepted the timeline literally. he even says in that work that it is futile to argue with those who don't accept the revealed timeline, but rather, they are just deserving of mocking. he also says that its ok to place allegories onto the Genesis story, as long as you dont deny the literal history of it. he also says that literally every kind of death entered because of sin -- so there was no physical death of any kind before man sinned.

found em:

In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has decla...red this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? City of God, Book XVIII.XL

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII.XXI
On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, ...as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, "Now that rock was Christ!" No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good ...and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man's experience of it is not good. . .These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.

 

[Willtor]

well i havent read that book, i do know that in the City of God he interprets Genesis literally -- everything except the 6 days actually, which he interprets as literally one moment -- he thought God created everything in a single instant. other than that he accepted the timeline literally. he even says in that work that it is futile to argue with those who don't accept the revealed timeline, but rather, they are just deserving of mocking. he also says that its ok to place allegories onto the Genesis story, as long as you dont deny the literal history of it. he also says that literally every kind of death entered because of sin -- so there was no physical death of any kind before man sinned.

found em:

Whether he treats the creation account literally, this is what we have been discussing.

As to death before the fall, to be fair, "no physical death of any kind" is just silly and if he really said that, he should have known better. After all, Adam and Eve were told they could eat the fruit of the garden and that's plant death.

In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has decla...red this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? City of God, Book XVIII.XL

And yet,

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, book I, chapter XIX)

On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, ...as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, "Now that rock was Christ!" No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good ...and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man's experience of it is not good. . .These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.

When he says, "as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise!" it sounds as though he is arguing against gnosticism which holds that it could not have been literal -- not on account of evidence, but on account of the intrinsic imperfection of flesh.

If that is, indeed, the context of the quote, it softens the comment at the end. He says of the narrative:

In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, book I, chapter XIX)

 

[jckstraw72]

every Church Father i know of insists that there was no physical death of any kind before man sinned, because this earth was given to man as his kingdom, and thus its fate is tied to ours. St. Paul tells us that the creation became subject to futility, and that it also awaits redemption --- thus it wasnt always the way it is now, and it requires redemption -- that means it must have fallen.

the quote where St. Augustine warns against anti-scientific interpretations of Scripture is always used in this debate. but evolutionists can only assume that St. Augustine would apply it against creationists, whereas i believe he would apply it against the wild assumptions of theistic evolutionists. conversely, the quotes that i have provided are undoubtedly in favor of creationism.

 

[Willtor]

every Church Father i know of insists that there was no physical death of any kind before man sinned, because this earth was given to man as his kingdom, and thus its fate is tied to ours. St. Paul tells us that the creation became subject to futility, and that it also awaits redemption --- thus it wasnt always the way it is now, and it requires redemption -- that means it must have fallen.

I'd like to see a quote that insists there was no physical death -- and which is quite explicit as applying to plants/animals/etc.

Are you of the opinion that the plants that Adam and Eve ate did not die when they ate them?

the quote where St. Augustine warns against anti-scientific interpretations of Scripture is always used in this debate. but evolutionists can only assume that St. Augustine would apply it against creationists, whereas i believe he would apply it against the wild assumptions of theistic evolutionists. conversely, the quotes that i have provided are undoubtedly in favor of creationism.

I am not, here, concerned with whether evolution is defensible. I am more concerned with the interpretation of Scripture.

The quotes that you have supplied defend creationism in the broadest sense. It is a sense that would include Theistic Evolutionists. Is creation-in-an-instant really more similar to six-day creation than 14 billion year creation? Two of them take the days as figurative-only.