A Request For the Theistic Evolutionists

Hi ebia,

I thought that the original post was quite clear, IMO.

There are heaps of active threads dealing with the arguments you are putting forward. AFAIK there are no other currently active threads dealing with the question put in the OP and similar.

Firstly, what is AFAIK?

Secondly, I don't generally go on the open creation vs. evolution forums because they ignore the evidence put forward and attack character. The evolutionists that one finds on their are what most consider to be "hard core" evolutionists. They clearly demonstrate that they are so committed to their belief in evolution given how quickly and how harshly they respond to their opponents. I prefer to debate fellow Christians in Christian only forums because we have a similar basis and we debate the Bible.

You've turned a distinctively different thread into the same old bashing out of repeatedly refuted arguments.

I am fully allowed to discuss fellow poster's posts if I want to. If you don't want to read them then don't. If you think that they are off topic then ignore them. You also purposefully went off topic when you firstly responded to my post, and now where you are debating with me. Also, you have not "refuted" any of my comments.

Yours in Christ,
COML.

CentreOfMyLife said:

Firstly, what is AFAIK?

Click to expand...

As Far As I Know.

CentreOfMyLife said:

Do you know what the term "genesis" means? In the introduction of the Book of Genesis in my Today's English Version Bible it says the following:

The name Genesis means "origin". The book tells about the creation of the world, the beginning of sin and suffering in the world [which can only happen given a literal creation], and about God's way of dealing with mankind.

Click to expand...

As originally written, Genesis, like many ancient works, did not have a title. In Hebrew it is referred to as Bereshith (= "in the beginning) for the rabbis customarily refer to biblical books by their first few words. Just as papal pronouncements are still "named" by their first words in Latin. "Genesis" is based on the Greek title which did not exist until the Septuagint translation was made. So the name Genesis is a purely human invention. It is not part of the original text.

Also, if what you say is true, then why wait for more than 80% through chapter one of Genesis to finally include mankind? If Genesis is supposed to reveal our relationship with creation, then why not just start the book at Genesis 1:26?

Click to expand...

Basically that is what the second creation account does. But the writer of the first creation account wanted to focus more on what happened before the creation of humanity. He was responding to the creation account in the Enuma Elish where humanity is an afterthought.

What makes you say that the evidence or the "universe" says that it's old? It isn't an overly hard task to realise that the evidence can't "speak for itself". It must be interpreted by biased people with underlying belief systems that heavily affect the conclusion that they reach about the origin of the evidence. Even renoun evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould realised this obvious fact.

Click to expand...

Different interpretations are not equally valid. If they were, last Thursdayism would count as a valid scientific theory instead of as philosophical twaddle. The evidence does "speak for itself" by ruling out many interpretations, and the evidence spoke strongly enough to 18th and 19th century Christian geologists who expected to find support for the biblical concept, that they concluded from the evidence that the earth is ancient and no flood was ever global in extent. This was a conclusion arrived at in 1831 --entirely independently of conclusions about evolution. In fact, Charles Lyall, who summarized the geological knowledge of his time was a creationist, opposed the contemporary Lamarkian theory of evolution.

I could say that a larger number have been deceived by the Evil One. He, and many atheists themselves, realise that if you can destroy Genesis, then in the rubble you'll find the "sorry remains of the Son of God" as His life and death is 100% predicted on the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate and mankind's need to be redeemed and saved from eternal separation from God.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. My sin and my need for redemption are not contingent on what some other person did. The bible is clear that we are accountable for our own sins, not those of another person, even the first person.

Take away the meaning of Jesus' death and Christianity will die. Without the original sin, then Christianity is meaningless.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "the" original sin. That is not the theologicial meaning of "original sin". Original sin refers to an aspect of human nature--not to a particular sin.

What God was telling the Israelites is that "because I worked for six literal days and rested for one literal day and since you are my people, you will do like wise". This passage and commandment has lost all authority and meaning if God never did work for six literal days. It also makes God out to once again be a liar.

Click to expand...

There is a lot more about the Sabbath than the passages in Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20. Many refer to the Sabbath as a cycle of years, not days. I see no reason a weekly cycle cannot be a reminder in miniature of a much longer period of time.

In any book and most pieces of writing, a word cannot be used symbolically the first time it is used.

Click to expand...

Please find me a book of literary criticism that sustains this proposition.

gluadys said:

Please find me a book of literary criticism that sustains this proposition.

Click to expand...

There will be not supporting documentation, becuase the assertion that was made in the previous post by Centre is ridiculous, and misunderstands the purpose and function of literature.

Keep up the good work, glaudys!

depthdeception said:

There will be not supporting documentation, becuase the assertion that was made in the previous post by Centre is ridiculous, and misunderstands the purpose and function of literature.

Keep up the good work, glaudys!

Click to expand...

I know. This is one of those pseudo-hermeneutical rules made up on the spot to justify the conclusion.

CentreOfMyLife said:

Hi ebia,

I thought that the original post was quite clear, IMO.

Click to expand...

So? I felt I needed some points clarified in order to respond. How you felt it is irrelevent to my response.

Secondly, I don't generally go on the open creation vs. evolution forums because they ignore the evidence put forward and attack character. The evolutionists that one finds on their are what most consider to be "hard core" evolutionists. They clearly demonstrate that they are so committed to their belief in evolution given how quickly and how harshly they respond to their opponents. I prefer to debate fellow Christians in Christian only forums because we have a similar basis and we debate the Bible.

Click to expand...

Fine. It still doesn't have to be done here. But I give up - when the thread originator returns I guess he can start over if he wants.

I am fully allowed to discuss fellow poster's posts if I want to. If you don't want to read them then don't. If you think that they are off topic then ignore them. You also purposefully went off topic when you firstly responded to my post, and now where you are debating with me.

Click to expand...

Yes, well, we all make mistakes.

Also, you have not "refuted" any of my comments.

Click to expand...

Did I say I had? I implied they had been refuted elsewhere.

Hi Sugarloaf,

As a theistic evolutionist, I don't have problem with Genesis being taken as literal history, in fact I think it is very important! The question is really, what is history? Living in the 20th century, we seem to view anything less than a rationalised, scientific account of history as "false", and so when we see people reading Genesis in a way that is "non-scientific" we think they must be twisting the text. But this isn't actually the case!

The thing is, back in the time the Bible was written, the people were not so tied up in scientific thought that we are nowadays. To them, what we would now call "myth" and "legend" were just as valid forms of literal history as our history books today are. Indeed, in many cases, they were more important, as they portrayed symbolism and theology in a way that our "history" does not. You've probably noticed this yourself; have you been at church when your pastor/priest turned to the Book of Numbers to tell you how many sheep there were in the Jewish census? Unlikely, but he has probably referred to Adam and Eve or David and Goliath in a sermon, to teach the power of God and what happens when we turn against him .

So the question for us as Christians today, in this crazy, scientific world where religion is seen by many as irrational and pointless, is how would the ancient Jews have seen Genesis? Did a text have to be a factual, historical account (as we know it) to be true? Or were myth, legend, and allegory viewed as acceptable, truthful ways to narrate history within a religious framework? When we do this, we can see why it is not necessary (and indeed, a largely 19th-century idea) to view a 6000-year-old Earth, or a global flood, as literal, scientific fact; the Jewish people never thought that way!

Peace,
Nick