Jase said:
homo-sapiens are 200-250,000 years old. That's a LOT of time for people with pretty much the same amount of grey matter as us to be sitting around doing nothing.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jase said:What scientists would call "hominid" or man have been around 30-40 million years. Civilization is much younger than that, but much older than 6-10,000 years. The Egyptian pyramids were built almost 5,000 years ago, and ancient Egypt is older than that.
Painting cave drawings? Not sure what you mean by wordstuff.
Shane Roach said:homo-sapiens are 200-250,000 years old. That's a LOT of time for people with pretty much the same amount of grey matter as us to be sitting around doing nothing.
How do you shift gears from denying the first several chapters of Genesis to acknowledging the rest of it?
Are most theistic evolutionists also universalists, or do they deny literal interpretations of other books like the Revelation or even the Gospels?
Shane Roach said:The more I look at it though, the more I wonder what theistic evolutionists make of the rest of Genesis, and specifically the story of Adam and Eve and of how sin came into the world?
Jase said:What do you mean by this?
So the Earth and Universe don't have billions of years of history? Why do we see stars that are 13 billion light years away then? I don't have to have made the universe to see problems with a 6,000 year old Earth with a 4.5 billion year history. Much like morality, and my ability to "know good and evil" like God, I also was created in his image with the ability to reason.Shane Roach said:Much like your judgement concerning morality, when you have made the universe you will then have the credibility to tell me whether or not things are appearance or historical fact.
I don't think they were doing nothing. They were living life much like we do.Shane Roach said:homo-sapiens are 200-250,000 years old. That's a LOT of time for people with pretty much the same amount of grey matter as us to be sitting around doing nothing.
I believe creationists made up that lie, but someone else can correct me.Shane Roach said:Okay, well if you don't know then go perusing a creationist web site. Talking about things like the moths in england still being in textbooks today, years and years after the whole experiment has been debunked. That's not the only example either.
Conservatives are trying to take over science classes today. You can read it in the news daily. This is hardly an inexcusable lie by evolutionists. It's an observable fact, regardless of the scopes monkey trial.The scopes monkey trials were a total scam as well, and yet to this day you will find evolutionists pointing to them as if they were a real attempt by conservatives to take control of the schools.
There is only one scam story I've ever heard is legitimate and that is the Piltdown man, and from what I heard, it was evolutionists that uncovered that it was a scam.It's not a matter of these things debunking the theory. It is a matter of these things revealing the lengths to which the scientific community is quite clearly willing to go to sell the theory as completely reliable.
chaoschristian said:I'm not aware of having denied the first several chapters of Genesis.
But let me ask you this, what do you mean by 'denying'?
Universalists? Not to my knowledge. Last time I checked I wasn't.
With regards to interpreting scripture, I hold that each part (book) of scripture needs to be interpreted on its own merits, and that often parts of books must be interpreted on their own merits as well, as in the case of Genesis, which I hold is a collection of stories and not a monolithic presentation.
But then again, I'm the one you'll find harping on the idea that the whole concept of 'The Bible' is itself an artificial one, and that our post-modern, post-literate sensitivities preclude us from experiencing scripture as its various parts were originally intended. But that's a tangent and now I'll shut up.
All of scripture is myth that does not interpret itself. And yet despite that the authoritative truth still maintains and asserts itself on the one who is experiencing it.
Regarding Adam and Eve, what's more important to our understanding of our salvation, that one knows that these two were actual historical people, or that through their story one realizes that humanity is in a broken relationship with God that only God can rectify?
Jase said:double post.
The reason I said we were talking past each other is that I've never suggested there's a textual indication within these verses that the account is an allegory (or that the account is literal). These verses refer to the account, and whether the account is literal or not should be determined by the account itself.Shane Roach said:My point is that there is no textual indication that 1Tim 2:13-14 is allegory nor all that difficult to interpret.
Here, you appear to be restating the assertion I've challenged without interacting with what I've said. I showed that Paul can use an allegory as a narrative example, and such usage still makes sense. That was the whole point of my mention of the clearly-marked allegory in Galatians. Since we know Paul can use an allegory to support his point, why would a reference to Adam and Eve be a "strong indication" they were literal, and why do you think it wouldn't make sense if they weren't?Read straightforwardly, it is a strong indication that Adam and Eve were literal people, since it makes little sense to use them as a narrative example otherwise.
Jase said:Conservatives are trying to take over science classes today. You can read it in the news daily. This is hardly an inexcusable lie by evolutionists. It's an observable fact, regardless of the scopes monkey trial.
Shane Roach said:I don't believe this, and as I said earlier it is interesting that despite what was presented early on in the thread, so far everyone who is a theistic evolutionist shares in common some degree of belief that the scriptures are not quite what they seem. They are either to be meticulously unraveled for allegories, or else one has to bring some outside understanding into them to clarify their meaning. They are not meant to stand on their own according to each one of the people to post so far. I've been examining them for years now and I find none of this necessary to get a good understanding that fits with the experience of God and Christ in my life.
The argument from there is one I have been through a million times and am not interested in repeating. (Yes, 1,000,000 is hyperbole)
2 Peter 1:16-21
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation .
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
KJV
So then you also agree that Allah, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Buddha, Brahma should all be referenced as well? God belongs in philosophy and religion classes, not science classes. And most science classes don't go into origins. I had to take a college level evolution class, and my professor has a Bachelor's and Ph.d from Oxford and Cambridge, and the only time he brought up abiogenesis regarding origins was to say at present time, it doesn't have much support.Shane Roach said:Some small number are, but if you are referencing the fact that people would like some mention of God when we begin to go over origins, you are over the line again. That's not trying to control anything other than what sort of propaganda their kids have to choke down in schools
Shane Roach said:With the exception of this, it sounds an awful lot like how I look at it. I do not however believe that the world necessarily was ever meant to be looked at as a source for truth concerning origins.
I am aware of some problems with adding up the "begats" to get the age of the earth, but at the same time it honestly is well within the ball park as far as I am concerned. I mean, it's not as if it adds up to 1000 BC or something.
Another thing that is neither here nor there is that according to the old earth time line of natural history, mankind has been around for what, a couple hundred thousand years?
What the heck were we doing the first 290,000 before we suddenly went crazy with the wordstuff?
I have dozens of questions like that, and I already whined about all my trust issues.
Anyhow darn you for showing up so late.
CC said:I'm not aware of having denied the first several chapters of Genesis.
But let me ask you this, what do you mean by 'denying'?
Universalists? Not to my knowledge. Last time I checked I wasn't.
With regards to interpreting scripture, I hold that each part (book) of scripture needs to be interpreted on its own merits, and that often parts of books must be interpreted on their own merits as well, as in the case of Genesis, which I hold is a collection of stories and not a monolithic presentation.
But then again, I'm the one you'll find harping on the idea that the whole concept of 'The Bible' is itself an artificial one, and that our post-modern, post-literate sensitivities preclude us from experiencing scripture as its various parts were originally intended. But that's a tangent and now I'll shut up.
All of scripture is myth that does not interpret itself. And yet despite that the authoritative truth still maintains and asserts itself on the one who is experiencing it.
Regarding Adam and Eve, what's more important to our understanding of our salvation, that one knows that these two were actual historical people, or that through their story one realizes that humanity is in a broken relationship with God that only God can rectify?
Pats said:But, if I may ask for clarrification on the emphasized portion? Can you, or would you mind, expanding on that?
chaoschristian said:Scripture conveys the mythos of Christianity and in that manner it is myth - all of it. It contains and conveys and asserts the Christian world view, our values, our means of attaining understanding and interpreting our relationship with our Creator.
It is unfortunate the the nature of the word 'myth' has come to be associated with fiction or falsehood. When I use myth, I'm using it more as Joseph Campbell would use it.
yourdictionary.com said:[*]a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
[*]A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
[*]A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
[*]A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).
[*]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?