A simple question

[gluadys]

Reading Genesis as a child I never considered the creation account to be anything other than the 6 literal days. Even after learning about evolution in school it just never made much sense to me. Then after becoming an adult this conviction grew even stronger into what it is today. So with that as a backdrop; when an evolutionist who also believes in the God of the Bible (which to me is an oxymoron) tells me that Genesis could mean billions of years it tells me that faith in God's Word was now secondary to man's knowledge. If we conform God's Word to man's knowledge we render God irrelevant. We've now become our own god. It says that man's fallible knowledge is held up higher than God's own Word. The idea that we as lowly human-beings begin to put God in our clearly defined box of paradigms is absolutely ridiculous. If what we believe doesn't fit the paradigm we just adjust God's Word to fit the paradigm instead of holding fast to His Word. It's no longer a matter of faith, but of pride. In effect, we put hand cuffs on God based on our own prideful knowledge. God is now made in our own image. May God help us!

I have bolded several sections of your post to draw attention to some assumptions you are making that I believe are incorrect. I can understand why you personally do not accept evolution. You could not make sense of it when it was introduced to you in school. Probably no one was able to answer your questions. They may even have encouraged you to reject evolution. So you believe firmly that your understanding of scripture is correct and therefore evolution is not.

What you fail to do is distinguish between God's Word and your understanding of scripture, and this leads to false assumptions about people who disagree with you.

Because you identify your personal reading of scripture with the word of God, you assume that a Christian who accepts science is setting human knowledge above God's Word. They are not. They are simply disagreeing with your view of what God's Word says.

You speak of them holding fallible human knowledge higher than God's Word. But we have also only fallible human knowledge of God's Word. We can be just as wrong about our understanding of God's Word as about our understanding of God's world. To me, making adjustments in how I understand scripture because of what I have learned about God's world means that I am accepting my human fallibility and learning to hear God's Word more clearly. This is humility and faith, not pride.

To me, it seems that pride and presumption lie with those who assume their understanding of God's Word is protected from human fallibility, such that their personal interpretation of scripture can be trusted not to deviate from God's Word. Only such pride in one's own infallible understanding explains the tendency to equate disagreement with one's views as antangonism to God's Word.

 

[GenemZ]

I do not see how saying "absolutely" or "for sure" would make my statement--or anyone else's--more resolved than not. Just arrogantly affirming a belief does not add to its veracity.

One who does not know what he is talking about can have no certainty. You are claiming that no one can express truth with certainty. Therfore, one must assume you can not show certainty.

There are those who delude themselves who will take a shortcut and avoid gaining true knowledge,and replace stubborness for conviction. The Muslim world is filled with such nonsense. And, so are arrogant Christians who have strong emotional drive.

And, then there are ignorant Christians who are pusillanimous by nature. These would never dare try and fake such a conviction. It would be seen through too easily. For they do not have the emotional drive to even try faking it. So, they must create fine-sounding arguments as smokescreens to impress the unsuspecting and naive.

Yet, God wants us to become sure in what we know. That only comes by accepting sound doctrine. If you can find it. Many only seek out their own kind of people so thet can feel comfortable within a like-minded group. But, that does not make them sure. It simply does not threaten them in their insecurities when amongst like-minded folks. TOE's? YEC's? It does not matter what side of the pole one takes. If it is not truth, then whatever appears to be conviction is an illusion at best.

In case you're wondering. The poster asked why people die in that world.

And I answered the question by attempting to show that the question was misdirected. However, I did include a "positive" submission with my response (just for you, Genez!)

You really have not any idea what I speak of. I realize that now. His question was not misdirected. You only offered misdirection. You could not answer his question. Its just that simple.

I don't believe there is a "Millenium." And even if there is, humans will die because that's what humans do.

I see you did not even bother to read what Scripture has to say on the subject of dying during the Millennium. . And.... don't ask me if I am surprised that you do not believe there will be a Millenium reign of Christ. I'm not. I do not see how you could.


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

One who does not know what he is talking about can have no certainty. You are claiming that no one can express truth with certainty. Therfore, one must assume you can not show certainty.

Not true. My point is that claiming something is "truth" by using forceful words does not add to the veracity of the claim.

And, so are arrogant Christians who have strong emotional drive.

Agreed.

You really have not any idea what I speak of. I realize that now. His question was not misdirected. You only offered misdirection. You could not answer his question. Its just that simple.

Why would I answer a question that I believe is misdirected? That doesn't make any sense to expect me to do such a thing...

I see you did not even bother to read what Scripture has to say on the subject of dying during the Millennium. . And.... don't ask me if I am surprised that you do not believe there will be a Millenium reign of Christ. I'm not. I do not see how you could.

I have bothered to read what Scriptures say on this subject, and I do not reject it--I reject your interpreation of it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Reading Genesis as a child I never considered the creation account to be anything other than the 6 literal days. Even after learning about evolution in school it just never made much sense to me. Then after becoming an adult this conviction grew even stronger into what it is today.

snip snip in order to address a single issue

does this bother anyone else? that the understanding as a child is held up as a good thing for adults to do?
i know that C.Hodge contented that for its first 100 years never had a new idea come out of Princeton Seminary.
i know that Jesus said we must have the faith of a child to enter into the kingdom.
but nowhere in the Faith do i see the proposition that the best thing to do is to be frozen in time with the understanding that we had as children.

it really is such an amazing statement.
i read Genesis as a child and with that childish understanding, knowing little of the world, i understood the essential elements of Gen 1 just as God intended that i do. of course i knew nothing of Hebrew poetical parallelism, nor of the polytheism of the surrounding neighbors to Isreal, but that is unimportant for God intended that a 5 year old understands Scripture. and when he is 40 believes the same way.

this is common sense, man in the pew, hermeneutic in a nutshell.
Scripture was written not to the Hebrews or to the Greeks but to 20th C English speaking American 5 year olds and we are just fooling ourselves with language studies and archeology and all the rest of the apparatus that adults use to read Scripture.

_Lifeviews: Make a Christian Impact on Culture and Society_
R.C. Spoul

My mother told me repeatedly 'if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all'.
so i will start this review with the one paragraph in the book that i found useful.

One of my all-time favorite anecdotes concerns the meeting of a theologian and an astronomer. the astronomer was frustrated with the theologian for making religion too complicated. He said, "why are you fellow so obscure? You talk about supralapsarian this and traducsianism that. You quibble over fine points of predestination and God's omniscience. For me religion is simple; it's the Golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"I understand your frustration," replied the theologian. "You astronomers often confuse me with your talk of expanding universes this and exploding novae that. You're always talking about astronomical perturbations and galactic anomalies. For me astronomy is simple. It's twinkle, twinkle little star." pg 170

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"


....

 

[GenemZ]

Not true. My point is that claiming something is "truth" by using forceful words does not add to the veracity of the claim.

Its not a matter of forcefulness. When someone uses the words "perhaps." Or, "maybe" .... those words indicate uncertainty. Yet, you deny what I said with certainty. Ironically, in return, your soultion to what you just attacked was done with uncertainty. I sense that you might be a first year seminary student that does not yet know what he is doing. That's all.

I have bothered to read what Scriptures say on this subject, and I do not reject it--I reject your interpreation of it.

.

Fine with me. Its not me you are to answer to. And, the Lord wants it to be that way. Its good that you reject my interpretation. It shows that you will be accountable for your own actions. That God's judgement of us all will be true.

For no one can convince you of anything you do not want to believe. And, we will be held accountable for what we did want to believe. And, God gives us many chances in our lifetime. I love how there will be no excuses heard from those who lose all the rewards God already has in waiting for those who are his. There will be no arguing back. For we will all know that God was ultimately fair with even the most rebellious. He always gives grace before judgement.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

does this bother anyone else? that the understanding as a child is held up as a good thing for adults to do?
i know that C.Hodge contented that for its first 100 years never had a new idea come out of Princeton Seminary.
i know that Jesus said we must have the faith of a child to enter into the kingdom.
but nowhere in the Faith do i see the proposition that the best thing to do is to be frozen in time with the understanding that we had as children.

it really is such an amazing statement.

It is indeed.

I think a lot of the confusion about when it is right to be child-like and when it is right to pursue maturity comes down to the basic definition of faith.

Marcus Borg in The Heart of Christianity points out that faith has several different meanings which he sums up in four words: assent, trust, fidelity, vision.

Assent is intellectual. It focuses on what we believe e.g. that Jesus died for our sins.
Trust on the other hand is relational. It focuses on who we believe in.
Fidelity is also relational. It focuses on who we will be loyal to.

And vision comes somewhere in between. It calls for commitment to the vision of the present and future which God invites us into. So intellectually it requires some understanding of that vision. This is why so many of Jesus' parables describe the kingdom of God. But vision goes beyond understanding what the kingdom of God is like. It also requires a commitment to living as citizens of the kingdom of God here and now. And that is relational-both in respect of God and of each other.

When Jesus holds up the faith of a little child as a model, I believe he is pointing to faith as relationship--especially faith as trust.
When Paul exhorts Christians to become mature in the faith, I think he is referring both to deepening one's commitment to Christ (fidelity, vision) and to deepening one's understanding of the intellectual aspects of faith (assent, vision).

I also think that if one really does have the child-like faith/trust Jesus is referring to, one will never be afraid of what one may learn intellectually about the world or about the bible. One can say with the Psalmist:

"Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change, though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble with its tumult." (Ps. 46:2-3)


I know that for many people who have never been exposed to such things as theistic evolution or modern biblical scholarship before, the effect is one of feeling that one's foundations have been removed and one is lost at sea in the middle of a violent storm. The bible itself seems no longer to be trustworthy. It is natural to want to go back to the apparent certainties of childhood.

All I can do is re-assure that trust in God, that very child-like trust Jesus commended, will carry one through the intellectual storms battering at those foundations and one will find them again after one has ridden out the storm. Child-like faith (trust) in God gives us freedom to explore the content of faith (assent) and knowledge without fear, so that our faith (all senses) will be matured.

I would also say that the content of faith (assent) the what-it-is that we believe, is far less important than faith as relationship (trust, loyalty, commitment to the vision). Not that faith as assent can be ignored, but that it is not the principal criterion of our walk with Christ.

 

[vossler]

Scriptural hermeneutics has changed and will continue to change as we learn more about both the universe and about Scripture itself, necessarily so. The secret of orthodoxy is to monitor and test the new knowledge not to attempt to isolate yourself from it.

If hermeneutics changes to the point that as you begin to read the Bible's very first chapter and it says things like "first day" along with "evening and morning" that your not to interpret that as a 24 hour day but as an undetermined period of time then can you can only imagine just what else isn't what is says it is.

but there really is no good way to address your posting for you seem absolutely sure that you are right and following God, and filtering out anything that conflicts with this. we can tell you that we hold Scripture as authoritative and well above scientific knowledge but you will just dismiss it as you do TE- it's just an oxymoron. we can explain that we pray for knowledge and insight of Scripture as you presumably do, but you dismiss what we believe God has told us as--oxymorons.

My previous words above are a case in point to this. Scripture clearly states one thing and yet evolutionists will claim it says something else.

but the worst part is that you have no tools with which to judge science, only to absolutely dismiss it when you think it conflicts with your interpretation. it is this false notion of conflict that will in the long run drive investigators away from your communities when they understand that you can't see the truth that they discover. and into liberal unbelieving churches. the sad effect of orthodoxy's anti-intellectualism and isolation from modern culture.

I only have the tools God gave me, that's true. I'm not a scientist and nor will I ever be one. Thankfully God doesn't require me to be one either.

as for me, i will try to serve God by engaging with culture, by trying to understand science, all the while having the authority, inspiration and unity of Scripture leading my way.

May God bless you in that endeavor.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

Jeremiah 4, speaks of a humanoid creation that existed and was wiped out.

23 I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.


24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.

26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger."


They were humanoid, but not like Adam with the same soul type who was created in the image of God. They did not have the same soul as we do, or Jesus would have died for the sins of several worlds. I know it sounds strange. Prior creations appear to have been progressive, and the last one was an introduction to what was to come. Which was, "us!"

Professor Stan Ashby (Ancient languages, Harvard) taught on this topic. He taught at a Bible College after he retired, and I heard it on tape. He explained that other Hebrew words could have been used in that passage. Yet, this one translated "people," is only a generic term for man. For what that's worth, there was a humanoid creature in the last creation that was wiped out. In this creation mankind had never been wiped out. If it had, we would not be posting right now.


25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.




Grace and peace, GeneZ

I agree with you. I think the earth was destroyed before the creation and God was re-making it yet again.

We know Lucifers fall was before adam as well, so do you think he posibly had anything to do with the first destruction of the earth?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If hermeneutics changes to the point that as you begin to read the Bible's very first chapter and it says things like "first day" along with "evening and morning" that your not to interpret that as a 24 hour day but as an undetermined period of time then can you can only imagine just what else isn't what is says it is.

framework interpretation understands it as a 7 24 hr day week. but doesnt try to read modern science into it.


...

 

[vossler]

does this bother anyone else? that the understanding as a child is held up as a good thing for adults to do?
i know that C.Hodge contented that for its first 100 years never had a new idea come out of Princeton Seminary.
i know that Jesus said we must have the faith of a child to enter into the kingdom.
but nowhere in the Faith do i see the proposition that the best thing to do is to be frozen in time with the understanding that we had as children.

it really is such an amazing statement.
i read Genesis as a child and with that childish understanding, knowing little of the world, i understood the essential elements of Gen 1 just as God intended that i do. of course i knew nothing of Hebrew poetical parallelism, nor of the polytheism of the surrounding neighbors to Isreal, but that is unimportant for God intended that a 5 year old understands Scripture. and when he is 40 believes the same way.

this is common sense, man in the pew, hermeneutic in a nutshell.
Scripture was written not to the Hebrews or to the Greeks but to 20th C English speaking American 5 year olds and we are just fooling ourselves with language studies and archeology and all the rest of the apparatus that adults use to read Scripture.



"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"

I think it's even more amazing that people believe that as a child of 5 when we read the story of Genesis which clearly talks about 6 literal days that upon becoming an adult we're to transform our way of thinking to believe something entirely different. If that makes me in your eyes someone "knowing little of the world", I can honestly say I'm comfortable with that.

 

[Critias]

does this bother anyone else? that the understanding as a child is held up as a good thing for adults to do?
i know that C.Hodge contented that for its first 100 years never had a new idea come out of Princeton Seminary.
i know that Jesus said we must have the faith of a child to enter into the kingdom.
but nowhere in the Faith do i see the proposition that the best thing to do is to be frozen in time with the understanding that we had as children.

it really is such an amazing statement.
i read Genesis as a child and with that childish understanding, knowing little of the world, i understood the essential elements of Gen 1 just as God intended that i do. of course i knew nothing of Hebrew poetical parallelism, nor of the polytheism of the surrounding neighbors to Isreal, but that is unimportant for God intended that a 5 year old understands Scripture. and when he is 40 believes the same way.

this is common sense, man in the pew, hermeneutic in a nutshell.
Scripture was written not to the Hebrews or to the Greeks but to 20th C English speaking American 5 year olds and we are just fooling ourselves with language studies and archeology and all the rest of the apparatus that adults use to read Scripture.



"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"


....

Maybe you missed the part about having faith like a child. Do you know what this means?

It doesn't mean we are to act like a child.

These strawmen are getting old.

 

[Scholar in training]

I think it's even more amazing that people believe that as a child of 5 when we read the story of Genesis which clearly talks about 6 literal days that upon becoming an adult we're to transform our way of thinking to believe something entirely different. If that makes me in your eyes someone "knowing little of the world", I can honestly say I'm comfortable with that.

Sometimes we need to revise our understanding of the Bible. (Do you think kids are going to entirely understand the nature of the Trinity or complicated things like the hypostatic union?) Especially when certain parts of Genesis are taken so literally that we neglect to see the literary/moral messages within the text.

 

[Critias]

Careful now. Just because one concludes that it is historical in nature does not mean the message is thrown out.

That is yet another strawman.

 

[Scholar in training]

Careful now. Just because one concludes that it is historical in nature does not mean the message is thrown out.

That is yet another strawman.

I always did (especially when I was a kid), and I was never properly taught all the literary aspects of the Bible. It's the disease of reading Scripture like a present-day history book.

 

[Critias]

Because it happened with you does not automatically mean it happens with everyone.

I too believe that the Church has done a poor job in teaching how to interpret the Bible.

 

[GenemZ]

I agree with you. I think the earth was destroyed before the creation and God was re-making it yet again.

We know Lucifers fall was before adam as well, so do you think he posibly had anything to do with the first destruction of the earth?

The earth was destroyed and recreated several times. Just like Israel was scattered and regathered more than once.

I have reason to believe the destruction of at least one era was a direct result of Lucifer's thinking.

Look at Genesis 1. The first three days of light were made without the sun. Only on the forth day was the sun "made" to bear light. The Hebrew does not say that the sun was created. It was said to have been made to bear light. Apparently, the sun was a part of an earlier creation having another function. In this creation, it was made to bear light.

Genesis 1:16 niv
"God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

God did not "bara" (create out from nothing) these light bearers!

He made them to bear light. Just like someone makes a swing out of an old tire and a rope. God took existing creations and made them into something they were not before he had. In the beginning God created (bara) the Heavens and earth. What we call the sun, moon, and stars, were created in the beginning. Later on, they were made to bear light.

What produced the light for the first three days?

Revelation 22:5 niv
"There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever."

You ever notice that Lucifer means, "bearer of light?"

And, ever notice that certain angels were called, "morning stars?" The others, referred to as Sons of God?

Job 38:6-7 amp


"Upon what were the foundations of it fastened, or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"



I believe in the last creation Lucifer and the morning stars had a function in effecting life on this planet by the light they produced! That after the final pronouncement of their judgement they lost all rights to having dominion over this planet.

God replaced their dominion with Adam, and replaced their function with rocks in space that were "made" to take over their function. (I also believe that is why we see ancient pagan worship of the sun and stars, motivated by demonic influence over pagans).



Lucifer use to "herald in the morning in the old creation.



Isaiah 14:12 niv " How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations! "


Look at the firefly. God's creative ability is astonishing! He decided to make Lucifer and certain angels share in his nature to be able to bear light. After all, God will be supplying the light of the future Home of Righteousness. There will be no more sun or moon. There will be no more sun and moon.

God decided to create in certain angels a quality that they could identify with God in! To bear light! Lucifer used to bring in the morning of the old creation. His morning stars used to unfluence movement of life on earth (the ancient predecessor to astrology) and set seasons.

There is a lot more to say on this, but I will keep it brief as possible.

I believe one destruction of the prehistoric earth came as a result of God being angered with Lucifer. Know of the theory that a great meteor hit the earth and destroyed almost all life? Well......

Luke 10:18 niv
"He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

Lucifer had enough power to herald in the morning! That was a great power of light.

Light = heat.

I think that was the case, and may have happened several times while God was yet disciplining the implacable, rebellious, Satan.

Ezekiel 28:17, tells us in the KJV.
"Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

The Knox translation reveals the meaning this way....

"A heart made proud by its own beauty, wisdom ruined through its own dazzling brightness."

God has created some very unusual creatures we witness to. The "electric eel" The light bearing "firefly." And, he created originally Lucifer to bear light! And, also the morning stars!

That is why the sun and moon were not new creations in this creation. That they were already existing, and God simply made them only to bear light after the first three days of light without them! God was the light of the first three days of this creation. He wanted us to know he produces such light so we can have insight into the Word of God!

Yes..... God puts into His Word hidden things that are buried treasures to be dug out. Gems! Spiritual wealth and prosperity!


Revelation 22:5 niv
"There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever."

So many treasures are hidden, waiting to be found!

Colossians 2:2-3 niv
"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

And, for now, all the Christ we can know is to be found in the written Word! Buried treasures await those who wait upon the Lord.

1 Corinthians 3:12 kjv
"Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble..."

How's your shovel?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[vossler]

Sometimes we need to revise our understanding of the Bible. (Do you think kids are going to entirely understand the nature of the Trinity or complicated things like the hypostatic union?) Especially when certain parts of Genesis are taken so literally that we neglect to see the literary/moral messages within the text.

Without a doubt there are complicated things within scripture that a child will not understand. The point is they don't come out and clearly say one thing and then through nothing other than man's knowledge say something entirely different.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

Informative post GeneZ, thanks again. Though this inspires more interesting questions as well.

Some specalute that demons are the pre-adamites and are differant than fallen angles that followed lucifer. This seems plosible if all the pre-adamites followed Lucifer. As demons seek bodies, but angles are spirit beings and have no need for bodies.

I forget where it is at, but I believe lucifer was also Gods master musician. AQny clue as were to find it?

 

[nephilimiyr]

You know genez, that was sure interesting. I've heard some of that before so I am familiar with it and perhaps for all I know you just gave us an accurate discription of what really took place.

I don't feel too comfortable with going into detail like you just did when I don't see it in God's word, yet. There are somethings that I can believe without the word specifically stateing it however. For instance the Hebrew used in Gen. 1:2 for formless and void is "tohu" and "bohu". Tohu signifies desolation and bohu signifies emptiness and when both are used together it has always signified judgment from God. So I don't need Gen. 1:2 to specifically tell me that God had passed judgment but the meaning of the words and how they're used together does tell me this.

The thing is though, I can only do this up to a certain point. I see God had passed judgment and that is what made the earth tohu and bohu, formless and void, but when I look for more specifics I tend to get lost. I can read Isa. 14 and Eze. 28 and see that some beautiful, glorious creature God had made sinned and decided he was going to trump God. In Rev.12 He is the great red dragon who took with him an army(stars) out of heaven and in Job 41 he is leviathan, the king over all the children of pride but how can we glean any real history about this being with more specifics?

 

[vossler]

What you fail to do is distinguish between God's Word and your understanding of scripture, and this leads to false assumptions about people who disagree with you.

Because you identify your personal reading of scripture with the word of God, you assume that a Christian who accepts science is setting human knowledge above God's Word. They are not. They are simply disagreeing with your view of what God's Word says.

Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place? If you're honest you would say no. Then it would be safe to say the science changed the interpretation of God's Word and therefor took precedent. So it really doesn't come down to my personal reading of scripture because I'm not the one taking liberties with the text, you are. Therefore, it is you that must, beyond a shadow of a doubt, clearly and convincingly, prove your point. Your task is great because the Word of God is clear and without ambiguity.

My job then is when you or someone else tells me the story of evolution, the first thing I must do is hold it up to scripture and see if it holds any water. As you know, I believe that evolution clearly doesn't and you believe the opposite.

You speak of them holding fallible human knowledge higher than God's Word. But we have also only fallible human knowledge of God's Word. We can be just as wrong about our understanding of God's Word as about our understanding of God's world. To me, making adjustments in how I understand scripture because of what I have learned about God's world means that I am accepting my human fallibility and learning to hear God's Word more clearly. This is humility and faith, not pride.

To me, it seems that pride and presumption lie with those who assume their understanding of God's Word is protected from human fallibility, such that their personal interpretation of scripture can be trusted not to deviate from God's Word. Only such pride in one's own infallible understanding explains the tendency to equate disagreement with one's views as antangonism to God's Word.

I have no presumption that my understanding of God's Word is protected from human fallibility. Quite the opposite, I revere God's Word and wish to do nothing that in any way would minimize it. I have no pride in knowledge, only in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is through Him that I can do all things. I think most people can see that the knowledge of evolution can and does cause pride in oneself, certainly not in the knowledge of Christ.