Charasmatics Stance on Evolution

[Andrew]

AMEN! Straight to the point crystalpc!

I wrote this in my notes:...

Jesus, Luke and Paul took it literally

Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is only symbolic -- sort of like a fairy tale or legend.

What is their authority for deciding what is literal and what is symbolic in the Bible? Are they making their decisions based on a popular man-made theory?

As Christians, we should let the Bible tell us whether the creation account in Genesis is symbolic or literal.

Perhaps the best proof that it is literal is the fact that Jesus himself took it literally:

* Matthew 19:4
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

* Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Jesus was quoting from Genesis 1:27. Can you imagine His listeners replying, "But Rabbi, that is not to be taken literally!"

Luke took the creation account in Genesis to be literal too.

* Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

How can a genealogy be a genealogy if it lists a man who didn't really exist?

And like Jesus and Luke, the apostle Paul took it literally too.

* Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

* 1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

* 1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

All these verses would be meaningless if Adam and Eve were not real first man and first woman. And if God indeed formed Adam out of the dust using dust, how does apes evolving into first man/Adam fit into the scripture?

IOW, if apes, which evovled from something else, evolved into man, you cannot say that man was formed out of the dust of the earth.

 

[Andrew]

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Either we:

1. Accept this as truth and reject evolution

or

2. Take this verse as a symbolic fairytale

or

3. Force-fit billions of years of evolution into that one verse

I'll stick to 1.

 

[crystalpc]

I am with you! Evolution makes no sense any way. It is suppose to be the survival of the fittest in Evolution. If that were true, then we would see that in our own genetic make up today.
It is forbidden for cousins to marry, simply because it is the bad genes that come out in the children. If survival of the fittest were true, then the good genes would override the ill effects of the bad genes. The strongest female and male, if they are closely related do not make stronger children but weaker ones. Look at the Royal Families of Europe!

 

[He put me back together]

So you think it's figurative? That the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is a term used for something that actually happened in a more specific and scientific theory of our origin? Something else?

I'm assuming that your claim isn't limited to the tree being wooden, but that it's suggestive of something more.


Huh?


I don't agree with you. I believe the defence of Genesis' account and the opposition to some of these scientific theories is a thrust to maintain the Bible's credibility. How will you defend against someone denying the evidence of Jesus' resurrection in the scriptures if you take other accounts of similar style (ie, not visions) metaphorically?

Saying that those things are figurative is not something you want to give to atheists. That attitude is a threat to our evangelical attempts.

I suppose that before Christ's kingdom comes, a 7 headed, 10 horned creature will actually ascend from the ocean and walk the earth?

 

[He put me back together]

Again scripture has to be the guide, Jesus believed in creation, who am I to question it.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Not an argument against natural selection, or whether or not sin is water and pulp.

 

[He put me back together]

AMEN! Straight to the point crystalpc!

I wrote this in my notes:...

Jesus, Luke and Paul took it literally

Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is only symbolic -- sort of like a fairy tale or legend.

What is their authority for deciding what is literal and what is symbolic in the Bible? Are they making their decisions based on a popular man-made theory?

As Christians, we should let the Bible tell us whether the creation account in Genesis is symbolic or literal.

Perhaps the best proof that it is literal is the fact that Jesus himself took it literally:

* Matthew 19:4
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

* Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Jesus was quoting from Genesis 1:27. Can you imagine His listeners replying, "But Rabbi, that is not to be taken literally!"

Luke took the creation account in Genesis to be literal too.

* Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

How can a genealogy be a genealogy if it lists a man who didn't really exist?

And like Jesus and Luke, the apostle Paul took it literally too.

* Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

* 1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

* 1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

All these verses would be meaningless if Adam and Eve were not real first man and first woman. And if God indeed formed Adam out of the dust using dust, how does apes evolving into first man/Adam fit into the scripture?

IOW, if apes, which evovled from something else, evolved into man, you cannot say that man was formed out of the dust of the earth.

hmmmm. Now, how does this disprove natural selection again?

 

[He put me back together]

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Either we:

1. Accept this as truth and reject evolution

or

2. Take this verse as a symbolic fairytale

or

3. Force-fit billions of years of evolution into that one verse

I'll stick to 1.

why does God's explanation of things in terms we can understand always equate to be a fairy tale to you? Do you take Christ's parables seriously? Are the beasts in revelation fairy tales? Why must these things be demeaned in such a way? Is it really THAT hard to grasp?

 

[LynneClomina]

Well, actually, upon further review, I do notice that I used the words "Do you" instead of "Do we," upon comments that should have been addressed to the group. In that light I painted a bad picture of my intents--I appologize.

thank you... that means a lot to me

Lynne

 

[Perceivence]

I suppose that before Christ's kingdom comes, a 7 headed, 10 horned creature will actually ascend from the ocean and walk the earth?

I specifically precluded visions in my post.