Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[Hentenza]

Then why are you typing on a computer built by the same human wisdom that says evolution is a fact?

Not even science claims that evolution is a fact.

 

[Hentenza]

I agree with what Gluadys and others wrote in answering your post. Specifically, that I too wouldn't say that you "aren't Christian", but would say that the Christian faith that God doesn't lie to us extends to the what God tells us through His creation, and hence the idea that Christian Faith leads directly to the support of evolution.

Thanks everyone for answering that, too!

Papias

The Christian faith leads directly away from the support of evolution not the other way around. But then, the debate continues.

 

[Lion King]

Why is a human interpretation of the Bible "God alone" but God's Creation "human wisdom"? Makes no sense to me.

Is it really "human" interpretation? I always thought one is supposed to be taught by the Holy-Spirit about things relating to God (i.e creation) and not to rely on the knowledge of men, no?

Take your signature for example, "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Automatically, you assume that science is inerrant and if any bible interpretation contradicts science (human wisdom), then that interpretation is wrong. However, what science fails to mention is that the so-called theories they believe in (big-bang, evolution etc) are loaded with assumptions and no concrete evidence. Is this not putting your own knowledge above God's? To claim to know how the earth and human beings were created when the bible clearly says otherwise? Now Genesis is being read as allegorical instead of being literal by some, when clearly Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve.

I guess at the end of the day, it always comes down to where your faith rests, and I put my faith in the LORD.

 

[Assyrian]

Is it really "human" interpretation? I always thought one is supposed to be taught by the Holy-Spirit about things relating to God (i.e creation) and not to rely on the knowledge of men, no?

Take your signature for example, "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Automatically, you assume that science is inerrant and if any bible interpretation contradicts science (human wisdom), then that interpretation is wrong.

Yes the Holy spirit can lead us and teach us, but also, our own natural biases and misunderstandings and men following their own imagination rather than the Holy Spirit can deceive us. That is why we are told 1John 4:1 NET Dear friends, do not believe every spirit,1 but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1Cor 14:29 NET Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said. 1Thess 5:21 ESV but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Even with the leading of the Holy Spirit you are no further forward because you have to test the leading to see if it is genuine. The difference with 'sound science' is in the name, sound science is science that has been tested again and again. In other words, sound science follows the very advice Paul and John give to the churches, to test everything and hold on to what is good. The other difference is that it is so much easier to rigorously test the natural world than it is to test the leading of the Holy Spirit. So if science has tested something like the earth going round the sun, the age of the earth, or evolution, and this contradicts some long held interpretation, it is the interpretation that was mistaken, and more scientific evidence will only serve to confirm and deepen our understanding of what has already been established.

However, what science fails to mention is that the so-called theories they believe in (big-bang, evolution etc) are loaded with assumptions and no concrete evidence.

There is plenty of evidence and the assumptions are tested with every new experiment every new test that is run. If the assumptions are wrong then there is no reason for the experiments to work. If they do give the expected answer, then it is simply by fluke, that might happen once by chance, but how can these flukes keep falling into place? No, if the assumptions were wrong then science would be a meaningless jumble. It isn't.

Is this not putting your own knowledge above God's? To claim to know how the earth and human beings were created when the bible clearly says otherwise?

You mean your interpretation says otherwise? Remember Paul says we only know in part 1Cor 13. All this means is that you interpretation of Genesis was something you did not understand fully.

Now Genesis is being read as allegorical instead of being literal by some, when clearly Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve. I guess at the end of the day, it always comes down to where your faith rests, and I put my faith in the LORD.

Genesis has been read allegorically since the early church. Don't forget you can describe real people in allegory and parable too, just look at the Good Shepherd. Just because Genesis is allegorical doesn't mean there wasn't a real Adam and Eve. But are you so sure Jesus and Paul, interpreted Adam and Eve literally? Jesus never mentioned Adam and Eve and used Genesis to teach about marriage and divorce rather than young earth creationism. And Paul tells us he interpreted Adam as a figure of him that was to come Rom 5:14.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Could somebody clear something up for me?

He saves face by calling the designer "Mind" instead of "God", but it is acknowledged that only God had the capability of making plants and animals and the designs in them. Hodge bases his charge that Darwinism is atheism on the grounds that Darwinism denies design:

"By design is meant the intelligent and voluntary selection of an end, and the intelligent and voluntary choice, application, and control of means appropriate to the accomplishment of that end. That design, therefore, implies intelligence, is involved in its very nature. ...
"The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his theory, not he himself." pg 172-173.

The theory does not deny "design" in the sense "control of means appropriate to the accomplishment of that end". What Darwin did was discover an unintelligent process that gives design.

So are we talking about genuine (natural) design or just the appearance of design?

For example, a person seeing a tiger with it's striped fur may think that God had specifically given the tiger stripes so that he may blend into his environment and hunt more effectively. In reality evolution gave the tiger his stripes through millions of years of completely blind trial and error: big cats with stripes lived and big cats without stripes died. We only see the successful end result - hence the appearance of design.

Genetics is a completely different case. From what little I know, genes do actually organise themselves almost like a language, even with their own 'grammar'. This seems as close to intentional design as nature is capable of.

 

[Papias]

NSP wrote:

For example, a person seeing a tiger with it's striped fur may think that God had specifically given the tiger stripes so that he may blend into his environment and hunt more effectively. In reality evolution gave the tiger his stripes through millions of years of completely blind trial and error: big cats with stripes lived and big cats without stripes died. We only see the successful end result - hence the appearance of design.

Or perhaps as God supported the different habitats to evolve, he considered the pre-tiger, and caused mutations for plain coats of different colors, splotches, stripes, and other patterns, knowing in advance how it would work out, and then supported the whole process, indeed "creating" a tigers stripes, but through mutation and natural selection?

That would still be "design" in the real sense, and fully consistent with the evidence as shown by science.

big cats with stripes lived and big cats without stripes died

Oh, and sorry to sound nit-picky (this could have been what you were thinking of anyway), but all of the pre-tigers died, it's just that on average, those with stripes tended to live a little longer, and have a few more kids that survived to reproduce themselves. But yeah, I agree.

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Or perhaps as God supported the different habitats to evolve, he considered the pre-tiger, and caused mutations for plain coats of different colors, splotches, stripes, and other patterns, knowing in advance how it would work out, and then supported the whole process, indeed "creating" a tigers stripes, but through mutation and natural selection?

That would still be "design" in the real sense, and fully consistent with the evidence as shown by science.

If He was going to do that arguably He could have skipped the millions of years it took to create our modern tigers (as well as the many tigers he knew would die because they could not compete against their more adapted rivals) and simply made them straight off the bat. It would take a lot less time and avoid a lot of pointless suffering.

 

[Artistic crusader]

I don't think NONHUMANS evolved( I have my doubts because I have seen well thought out arguments used against evolution that made sense).Mostly cause it seems that if an animal that's extinct is similar to an animal that is still alive, scientists have to assume that they evolved JUST CAUSE they're similar. Sounds very ridiculous.

I don't believe humans themselves evolved.

I see all these people use evolution by using ANIMALS AS AN EXAMPLE.

I have never however seen them use humans as an example.

I mean COME ONE.

There's no explanation for why humans are the only super intelligent species on earth.

Humans are unique for many reasons. Super intelligence. Why don't we just add " no evolution" to the list? Scientists have observed animals evolving but no human has ever been put in a cage and observed.

Maybe there were neanderthals. Doesn't mean we came from them and science can't say we did just cause we're similar to them. Science used to think the universe revolved around EARTH.

But to say that one needs to believe evolution to be christian is stupid.

It sounds more like one needs to believe evolution to believe what YOU think the christian faith is.

 

[Lion King]

Yes the Holy spirit can lead us and teach us, but also, our own natural biases and misunderstandings and men following their own imagination rather than the Holy Spirit can deceive us. That is why we are told 1John 4:1 NET Dear friends, do not believe every spirit,1 but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1Cor 14:29 NET Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said. 1Thess 5:21 ESV but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Even with the leading of the Holy Spirit you are no further forward because you have to test the leading to see if it is genuine. The difference with 'sound science' is in the name, sound science is science that has been tested again and again. In other words, sound science follows the very advice Paul and John give to the churches, to test everything and hold on to what is good. The other difference is that it is so much easier to rigorously test the natural world than it is to test the leading of the Holy Spirit. So if science has tested something like the earth going round the sun, the age of the earth, or evolution, and this contradicts some long held interpretation, it is the interpretation that was mistaken, and more scientific evidence will only serve to confirm and deepen our understanding of what has already been established.

Interesting thoughts Assyrian...very interesting, indeed.

Are you saying we should test the knowledge of the LORD using the wisdom of mere men? How do ye test the ressurection of Jesus Christ using science?

"For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:11-13


It is only by faith that I understand how the LORD created the universe and everything in it, not science.

There is plenty of evidence and the assumptions are tested with every new experiment every new test that is run. If the assumptions are wrong then there is no reason for the experiments to work. If they do give the expected answer, then it is simply by fluke, that might happen once by chance, but how can these flukes keep falling into place? No, if the assumptions were wrong then science would be a meaningless jumble. It isn't.

"Assumptions are beliefs or ideas that we hold to be true — often with little or no evidence required."

Assumptions are still assumptions, no-matter which way you look at it. Big-bang is full of them, so is evolution. If you wanna put your faith in them, fine, but my faith will remain the word of God.

You mean your interpretation says otherwise? Remember Paul says we only know in part 1Cor 13. All this means is that you interpretation of Genesis was something you did not understand fully.

Genesis has been read allegorically since the early church. Don't forget you can describe real people in allegory and parable too, just look at the Good Shepherd. Just because Genesis is allegorical doesn't mean there wasn't a real Adam and Eve. But are you so sure Jesus and Paul, interpreted Adam and Eve literally? Jesus never mentioned Adam and Eve and used Genesis to teach about marriage and divorce rather than young earth creationism. And Paul tells us he interpreted Adam as a figure of him that was to come Rom 5:14.

Jesus Christ spoke of a literal creation of Adam and Eve:

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

Paul in Romans 5:12 certainly believed that sin entered this world through a literal Adam, and that we are saved through a literal Jesus Christ:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." Romans 5:14

How are we not supposed to consider Adam and Moses "real" in that passage? There goes your early church beliefs claim.

 

[gluadys]

BTW you responded: But I do note he is not saying "Christians must accept evolution", nor that those who do not currently accept evolution are not Christians. Rather, he is saying that Christian faith requires accepting evolution.

I'm guessing that in your mind there is some difference in the two positions, but honestly it quite escapes me. I suppose it's because I don't understand the definition of 'requires' quite the same as you.

To me, it is a matter of recognizing that we progress in faith. Not everything becomes clear either to an individual or to the church at large just because we have placed our faith in Christ.

That's why there are continual controversies in the Church through history.

Does Christian faith require not eating meat from animals sacrificed to pagan gods? Does it require celibacy--at least for clergy? Does it require tithing? Does it require only male clergy? Does it require freeing slaves, rejecting war, etc. etc.

We don't get pat answers to these and other issues: so when we discuss them we need to remember that individuals on both sides of these issues are Christian. Yet the Christian faith, once we think it through and pray it through, waiting on the illumination of the Spirit, may indeed require a decision favoring one side over the other.

So we need to think out logically and prayerfully the consequences of our faith, but without belittling those who, for one reason or another, are coming to different conclusions.

So, I don't like directing statements at persons which are really a matter of pondering the question: "what does our faith say about this?" It is one thing to say "As I see it the logic of Christian faith requires accepting evolution." It is a totally different thing, (and I would say a pernicious thing) to say that a person who doesn't accept evolution is not Christian. Insofar as they have committed themselves in faith to Christ as Saviour and Lord, they are Christian whether or not they have seen the logic that leads Christians to accept evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

Interesting thoughts Assyrian...very interesting, indeed.

Are you saying we should test the knowledge of the LORD using the wisdom of mere men?

No I am saying we should test our understanding of the mechanics of the universe we get by assuming God's intention in the bible is to teach us cosmology and biology, and the assumption we fully understand what he is saying and how he is saying it. I mentioned heliocentrism, the earth going round the sun. This is an older controversy, but one where the church faced the same problem we do today, scientific development (Copernicus) challenging and overthrowing an old universally accepted interpretation that the sun went round the earth. Should the church have accepted the growing scientific evidence the earth went round the sun and found new way to interpret the geocentric passages, as it did. Or should they have stuck staunchly to geocentrism and said we cannot test the knowledge of the LORD using the wisdom of mere men?

How do ye test the ressurection of Jesus Christ using science?

Just bring Jesus' corpse to a pathologist. No wait we can't. What do you think would have happened to the early church if the Pharisees and priests had been able to drag out Jesus body and show he wasn't risen from the dead? But yet that is the very test Peter and John carried out to check out Mary Magdalene's report. They ran to the tomb to see if Jesus was still in the tomb. Today, science simply cannot tell you if Jesus rose from the dead or not. It can tell you dead bodies don't naturally do that, they stay dead, but the resurrection was never about a dead body spontaneously coming back to life. It is about the power of God to transform and raise the body. Science simply cannot comment on what God can and cannot do, or whether God did this with the body of his son Jesus. However science can examine the earth and species living and dead, it can't tell you Jesus remained in the grave, it can tell you the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.

"For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:11-13

So, what the Holy Spirit does is teach us is about spiritual things rather than natural, about the heart and character of God and his plan of redemption from before the foundation of the world.

It is only by faith that I understand how the LORD created the universe and everything in it, not science.

Indeed. However the age of the earth and biology are things the natural man can understand. So whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion, whether species evolved, or emerged as separate species from the mud and dirt, it is faith that tell us it is God who created it all.

"Assumptions are beliefs or ideas that we hold to be true — often with little or no evidence required."

Assumptions are still assumptions, no-matter which way you look at it. Big-bang is full of them, so is evolution. If you wanna put your faith in them, fine, but my faith will remain the word of God.

You haven't answered my point. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, why do we keep getting the same consistent results in different experiments with different wrong assumptions? The only assumption underlying all of science, the only one untested and untestable is the fundamental reality of the universe we are studying. But that is something Christians believe too, it is the doctrine of creation, that God's creation is real.

Jesus Christ spoke of a literal creation of Adam and Eve:

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

Where does he mention Adam and Eve? Be careful you are not reading your interpretation of Genesis into a passage Jesus used to teach about marriage and divorce.

Paul in Romans 5:12 certainly believed that sin entered this world through a literal Adam, and that we are saved through a literal Jesus Christ:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." Romans 5:14

How are we not supposed to consider Adam and Moses "real" in that passage?

Well the whole passage from verse 12 to 21 is a comparison of Adam and Christ, if Paul tells Adam is a figure of Christ, how do you know Paul isn't speaking figuratively?

There goes your early church beliefs claim.

Augustine rejected a literal six day creation but interpreted Adam and Eve literally. Origin rejected a six day creation, believe Adam and Eve were real people (afaik), but thought the story of the garden was full of allegory.

 

[Lion King]

No I am saying we should test our understanding of the mechanics of the universe we get by assuming God's intention in the bible is to teach us cosmology and biology, and the assumption we fully understand what he is saying and how he is saying it. I mentioned heliocentrism, the earth going round the sun. This is an older controversy, but one where the church faced the same problem we do today, scientific development (Copernicus) challenging and overthrowing an old universally accepted interpretation that the sun went round the earth. Should the church have accepted the growing scientific evidence the earth went round the sun and found new way to interpret the geocentric passages, as it did. Or should they have stuck staunchly to geocentrism and said we cannot test the knowledge of the LORD using the wisdom of mere men?

Scripture throughout, mentions the creation of mankind from dust but science claims otherwise, and states that human beings evolved from monkeys. Who should I believe? The only ONE i have always placed my faith in; the LORD.

Did a monkey father Adam?

Just bring Jesus' corpse to a pathologist. No wait we can't. What do you think would have happened to the early church if the Pharisees and priests had been able to drag out Jesus body and show he wasn't risen from the dead? But yet that is the very test Peter and John carried out to check out Mary Magdalene's report. They ran to the tomb to see if Jesus was still in the tomb. Today, science simply cannot tell you if Jesus rose from the dead or not. It can tell you dead bodies don't naturally do that, they stay dead, but the resurrection was never about a dead body spontaneously coming back to life. It is about the power of God to transform and raise the body. Science simply cannot comment on what God can and cannot do, or whether God did this with the body of his son Jesus. However science can examine the earth and species living and dead, it can't tell you Jesus remained in the grave, it can tell you the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.

Again, it's funny how science is able to tell us explicitly how the earth was created, whilst at the same time, rely on assumptions for their "facts".

bottomline, science believes the big-bang to be true because they want it to be true, and not because it's true.

So, what the Holy Spirit does is teach us is about spiritual things rather than natural, about the heart and character of God and his plan of redemption from before the foundation of the world.

Is the creation of the heavens and earth natural? God created the earth at the command of His voice and you consider that an act of nature? This reminds of the story of Job being questioned by the LORD:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?

To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy? - Job 38:4-7

Indeed. However the age of the earth and biology are things the natural man can understand. So whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion, whether species evolved, or emerged as separate species from the mud and dirt, it is faith that tell us it is God who created it all.

It is faith that also teaches me that the LORD created man and woman from the beginning of creation.

You haven't answered my point. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, why do we keep getting the same consistent results in different experiments with different wrong assumptions? The only assumption underlying all of science, the only one untested and untestable is the fundamental reality of the universe we are studying. But that is something Christians believe too, it is the doctrine of creation, that God's creation is real.

Are they still not assumptions, no? An educated guess is still a guess in my book.

Well the whole passage from verse 12 to 21 is a comparison of Adam and Christ, if Paul tells Adam is a figure of Christ, how do you know Paul isn't speaking figuratively?

Paul was clearly speaking in literal terms when he mentioned Adam, Moses and Jesus Christ in the time-line. Adam brought sin into the world and Jesus brought salvation.

Augustine rejected a literal six day creation but interpreted Adam and Eve literally. Origin rejected a six day creation, believe Adam and Eve were real people (afaik), but thought the story of the garden was full of allegory.

Jesus Christ and the other apostles believed in a literal account of Genesis and that is all I need.

Augustine and Origin, who are they?

 

[Assyrian]

Scripture throughout, mentions the creation of mankind from dust but science claims otherwise, and states that human beings evolved from monkeys. Who should I believe? The only ONE i have always placed my faith in; the LORD.

The bible doesn't just describe mankind created from dust, it says we were all made from dust, that God is the potter who formed each one of us from clay. Of course if you take it literally it means you not only have to deny evolution, you also have to deny human reproductive biology. But who denies that we are also the product of our mother and father having sex? Why should we? The picture of God as a potter says God made us, but it says nothing about the biology involved, it does not mean God literally took a lump of clay and threw it on his potters wheel.

I notice you avoided the question of geocentrism, if the bible is full of potter metaphors, it is also full of references to God making the sun rise, the sun stopping in its course at Joshua's command, the sun hurrying back to the place it rises at night and the earth being fixed and unmovable, references everyone took literally until science showed us it was wrong, and we had to change our interpretation of all these passages. Or was the church wrong to do this?

Did a monkey father Adam?

You interpreted Adam as mankind in the last paragraph.

Scripture throughout, mentions the creation of mankind from dust
​

Mankind is a lot wider than a single child in a single generation, and the evolution of an entire species is a very gradual affair. But even if you take Adam as a single individual, his parents would have been the same species, only Adam was the first God called to have a personal relationship with him.

Again, it's funny how science is able to tell us explicitly how the earth was created, whilst at the same time, rely on assumptions for their "facts".

bottomline, science believes the big-bang to be true because they want it to be true, and not because it's true.

That must be why scientist spend so much time trying to poke holes in the Big Bang and come up with better ideas. Worth pointing out here, you failed completely to address what I said.

Is the creation of the heavens and earth natural? God created the earth at the command of His voice and you consider that an act of nature?

Science just studies what has happened to the universe since it existed, which is natural, and has been going on for 13.7 billion years.

This reminds of the story of Job being questioned by the LORD:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?

To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy? - Job 38:4-7

It's odd how creationist like to quote that passage, thinking all the time they know what really happened.

It is faith that also teaches me that the LORD created man and woman from the beginning of creation.

From the beginning of creation of what? From the beginning of the creation of the universe, or the beginning of creation of the human race? Which was Jesus talking about, how God made the world or how God made humans? It may be faith to read things into scripture that the text isn't saying, but it is not faith in God or faith in scripture, it is simply faith in your own interpretation.

Are they still not assumptions, no? An educated guess is still a guess in my book.

Until it is tested, which science does.

Paul was clearly speaking in literal terms when he mentioned Adam, Moses and Jesus Christ in the time-line. Adam brought sin into the world and Jesus brought salvation.

Then why did Paul say Adam was a figure of Christ? Just an off the cuff aside? Why shouldn't a figurative interpretation follow the time line, I have hear plenty of sermons on the prodigal son that follow the time line of the parable, none of them thought the prodigal son was a real person.

Jesus Christ and the other apostles believed in a literal account of Genesis and that is all I need.

If only you could show that they did. Rom 5:14 GNT Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

Augustine and Origin, who are they?

People who show you were wrong to think that allegorical interpretation of Genesis was something new.

 

[Lion King]

The bible doesn't just describe mankind created from dust, it says we were all made from dust, that God is the potter who formed each one of us from clay. Of course if you take it literally it means you not only have to deny evolution, you also have to deny human reproductive biology. But who denies that we are also the product of our mother and father having sex? Why should we? The picture of God as a potter says God made us, but it says nothing about the biology involved, it does not mean God literally took a lump of clay and threw it on his potters wheel.

How do you explain the body returning to dust, if you do not take these parts of Scripture to be literal?

I notice you avoided the question of geocentrism, if the bible is full of potter metaphors, it is also full of references to God making the sun rise, the sun stopping in its course at Joshua's command, the sun hurrying back to the place it rises at night and the earth being fixed and unmovable, references everyone took literally until science showed us it was wrong, and we had to change our interpretation of all these passages. Or was the church wrong to do this?

The sun did stand still in the heavens:

"Which commands the sun, and it rises not; and seals up the stars." Job 9:7http://bible.cc/job/9-8.htm

You interpreted Adam as mankind in the last paragraph.

Scripture throughout, mentions the creation of mankind from dust
​

Mankind is a lot wider than a single child in a single generation, and the evolution of an entire species is a very gradual affair. But even if you take Adam as a single individual, his parents would have been the same species, only Adam was the first God called to have a personal relationship with him.

Where does it say that in the bible?

That must be why scientist spend so much time trying to poke holes in the Big Bang and come up with better ideas. Worth pointing out here, you failed completely to address what I said.

Do the big-bang and evolution "theories" rely on assumptions? Yes or No?

Science just studies what has happened to the universe since it existed, which is natural, and has been going on for 13.7 billion years.

You forgot about how science explains to us, in great detail by the way, the supernatural act of creation.

It's odd how creationist like to quote that passage, thinking all the time they know what really happened.

Oh, but i do know what really happened:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3

From the beginning of creation of what? From the beginning of the creation of the universe, or the beginning of creation of the human race? Which was Jesus talking about, how God made the world or how God made humans? It may be faith to read things into scripture that the text isn't saying, but it is not faith in God or faith in scripture, it is simply faith in your own interpretation.

From the creation of the heavens and earth as mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

Then why did Paul say Adam was a figure of Christ? Just an off the cuff aside? Why shouldn't a figurative interpretation follow the time line, I have hear plenty of sermons on the prodigal son that follow the time line of the parable, none of them thought the prodigal son was a real person.

Is Paul speaking of Moses figuratively too, I suppose?

Scripture clearly states that a literal Adam brought sin into the world and a literal Jesus Christ brought salvation to the world. Paul certainly believed Adam was a real person in Romans 5 — as real as Christ.

However, since that goes against your evolution theory, you would like to have me believe that it is my interpretation of the bible that is wrong - because science is inerrant.

People who show you were wrong to think that allegorical interpretation of Genesis was something new.

Scripture claim otherwise, and yet I am supposed to take the opinions of mere men like Augustine and Origins? I'll pass, thank you.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

 

[Assyrian]

How do you explain the body returning to dust, if you do not take these parts of Scripture to be literal?

Being made from dust is a beautiful sad biblical metaphor for our mortality because our bodied do crumble into dust when we die, at least in dry desert climates. But we weren't literally made from dust, you know all that biology stuff again.

The sun did stand still in the heavens:

"Which commands the sun, and it rises not; and seals up the stars." Job 9:7

Except you do realise it isn't the sun moving in the sky, it is the earth rotating. How can a immobile sun stand still to make the day longer then hurry along to the place it sets after the miracle? That was a passage that presented real problems for the church when science showed it is really the earth that goes round the sun, not the other way round.

Where does it say that in the bible?

Where does it say what? I was looking at a number of different things including your question about biology (of sorts) a monkey giving birth to Adam.

Do the big-bang and evolution "theories" rely on assumptions? Yes or No?

Are the assumptions tested every time an experiment comes back with a consistent answer? Yes or no?

You forgot about how science explains to us, in great detail by the way, the supernatural act of creation.

How can science explain something that supernatural, Science can only tell you what has happened on the natural level, but it is very good at that.

Isaiah 54:16 WEB Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals, and brings forth a weapon for his work. Could an obstetrician give a scientific analysis of God's supernatural act of creation when the smith was born? Hardly. Could he explain in great detail the biology involved in the smith's conception and and prenatal development? He certainly could, and he would be right too. Science can tell us in great detail what happens naturally, it can not comment on the work of God, or say it wasn't God at work.

Oh, but i do know what really happened:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3

The problem is you think you understand how and when.

From the creation of the heavens and earth as mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

Jesus doesn't say that, you are taking his words out of context and assuming that was what he was talking about.

Is Paul speaking of Moses figuratively too, I suppose?

Sure. Don't forget he speaks allegorically about Hagar and Sarah in Galatians. Including Moses in his figurative description of Adam, doesn't mean Moses wasn't a real person. It doesn't mean Adam wasn't a real person either. But neither does it mean Adam was real, or that Paul thought he was real. All we see here is that Paul interpreted Genesis figuratively thought the figurative interpretation of Adam was important enough to use in his letter.

Scripture clearly states that a literal Adam brought sin into the world and a literal Jesus Christ brought salvation to the world. Paul certainly believed Adam was a real person in Romans 5 — as real as Christ.

Not if Paul is speaking figuratively, and there is no reason Paul could not use a figurative interpretation of Adam to describe a very real Christ. Jesus used a figurative story of the Good Shepherd to his very real self.

However, since that goes against your evolution theory, you would like to have me believe that it is my interpretation of the bible that is wrong - because science is inerrant.

What has evolution got to do with Romans 5 which mentions nothing about how Adam was created? However science does contradict your interpretation of Genesis, just as it contradicted the traditional geocentric interpretations, and I see no reason your interpretation should be any more sacrosanct than the geocentrists.

Scripture claim otherwise, and yet I am supposed to take the opinions of mere men like Augustine and Origins? I'll pass, thank you.

I am sure you prefer your own opinions, but what has got to do with what I said?

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

You mean like literalist traditions? Yes they can have quite a hold.

 

[mark kennedy]

I intend to respond to this thread in no uncertain terms but first I want to see what happens when a creationist tries a a title like that.

 

[Assyrian]

I intend to respond to this thread in no uncertain terms but first I want to see what happens when a creationist tries a a title like that.

'no uncertain terms'
As opposed your new thread where you conflate 'Creation' and 'Creationism'?

 

[mark kennedy]

The bible doesn't just describe mankind created from dust, it says we were all made from dust,

That is a revisionist claim with no basis in the clear testimony of Scripture. That is not an alternative interpretation, 'Adam' has always been understood to be the first man by the early church fathers, by Christian scholarship spanning 2,000 years against a vast diversity of doctrinal and cultural background. Most importantly here, in direct contradiction of your often made claim that Adam is a metaphor for humanity. This distortion of the text is a revision of the text based on a preference for a naturalistic explanation of origins, it exists no where in the testimony of Scripture.

that God is the potter who formed each one of us from clay.

As always from your erroneous revision of Genesis leads to a mixing of metaphors, one real and one imagined. The text here, you never bother to quote, cite or reference proclaims God's sovereign right to create some for honor and others for ignoble service. Had you bothered to appeal to the authority of Scripture and actually examined the clear meaning of the texts you carelessly allude to you would have recognized that.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)​

Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity, as do all New Testament writers. Something you have been shown repeatedly only to return to your erroneous claim that Adam is a figure of speech in Paul's writings.

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)​

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​

But of course you already know this.

Of course if you take it literally it means you not only have to deny evolution, you also have to deny human reproductive biology.

Nonsense! You must deny nothing of the sort. What you must deny is the false assumption of common descent and the a priori assumption of chimpanzee/human common ancestry. You are transitioning from one fallacious error to another.

But who denies that we are also the product of our mother and father having sex? Why should we? The picture of God as a potter says God made us, but it says nothing about the biology involved, it does not mean God literally took a lump of clay and threw it on his potters wheel.

You should learn the book of Romans before you twist the Paul's doctrinal exposition of grace and justification by faith to fit your naturalistic assumptions. A text without a context is a pretext, a sound exposition of the requisite texts will bear this out. But of course, you already know this since you have been shown repeatedly.

I notice you avoided the question of geocentrism, if the bible is full of potter metaphors, it is also full of references to God making the sun rise, the sun stopping in its course at Joshua's command, the sun hurrying back to the place it rises at night and the earth being fixed and unmovable, references everyone took literally until science showed us it was wrong, and we had to change our interpretation of all these passages. Or was the church wrong to do this?

Interesting that you say, 'change our interpretation of all these passages'. That's what happens when you import the universal acid of Darwinian metaphysics to Biblical hermeneutics, you end up with a revisionist distortion of Scripture.

You interpreted Adam as mankind in the last paragraph.

Scripture throughout, mentions the creation of mankind from dust
​

Mankind is a lot wider than a single child in a single generation, and the evolution of an entire species is a very gradual affair. But even if you take Adam as a single individual, his parents would have been the same species, only Adam was the first God called to have a personal relationship with him.

The Scriptures teach nothing of the sort. Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)​

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam. You can believe Paul or Darwin, they can't both be right.

That must be why scientist spend so much time trying to poke holes in the Big Bang and come up with better ideas. Worth pointing out here, you failed completely to address what I said.

You haven't made a single substantive claim, why bother addressing fallacious distortions.

Science just studies what has happened to the universe since it existed, which is natural, and has been going on for 13.7 billion years.

'Science' is a term you have failed to understand and a discipline you failed to follow.

People who show you were wrong to think that allegorical interpretation of Genesis was something new.

Have you no shame?

'no uncertain terms'
As opposed your new thread where you conflate 'Creation' and 'Creationism'?

To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator, to reject God's revelation in nature is to reject the Gospel. The Scriptures are clear on this and you have some nerve to conflate science and 19th century naturalism, only to conflate your false assumptions with Scripture.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

The bible doesn't just describe mankind created from dust, it says we were all made from dust,

That is a revisionist claim with no basis in the clear testimony of Scripture. That is not an alternative interpretation, 'Adam' has always been understood to be the first man by the early church fathers, by Christian scholarship spanning 2,000 years against a vast diversity of doctrinal and cultural background. Most importantly here, in direct contradiction of your often made claim that Adam is a metaphor for humanity. This distortion of the text is a revision of the text based on a preference for a naturalistic explanation of origins, it exists no where in the testimony of Scripture.

Sounds like an Appeal to Antiquity there Mark, a fallacy of course but one that might have a bit more credibility if you showed you actually believed the argument and went back to the Catholic Church or better still Greek Orthodox.

Do you actually have an argument against the scriptural point I made? Your contradiction claim doesn't work, why shouldn't God use the same imagery of being made from dust for creating each individual and the whole human race? Because Creationists hold so tightly to literalism, they seem to have problems every time they do venture into exploring biblical metaphor, and try to treat biblical symbolism the way the handle literal interpretation. Biblical imagery cannot be tired down so easily, the word of God is living and active. Look at how Paul interprets Adam, you will find him being used as a figurative picture of Christ, as a figure who includes the whole human race, with Eve as an illustration of marriage and a picture of Christ and the church.

As always from your erroneous revision of Genesis leads to a mixing of metaphors, one real and one imagined.

What you need to show is why, when the picture of people being dust, or God the potter making people from clay, is such a common metaphor throughout the bible, why Genesis is the only place in the bible we have to take the imagery literally. Genesis even uses the same Hebrew word for potter when it says the Lord God formed the man.

The text here, you never bother to quote, cite or reference proclaims God's sovereign right to create some for honor and others for ignoble service.

I actually quoted the verse last week to Gruj.

Assyrian You problem is, when the bible describes life metaphorically, very often it uses the metaphor of a potter making us from clay
Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay.
Psalm 103:14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.
Eccles 3:20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'?
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
It is not that we need to find metaphorical hints of evolution, your problem is that that your alternative to evolution, God forming Adam from clay, is itself a very common biblical metaphor, even the word 'formed', it the same word as potter. Why is Genesis the only place in the bible where people take it literally when God is described as a potter making people from clay? Why is Genesis the only place where people think God making us from clay contradicts our normal biological origins?​

Had you bothered to appeal to the authority of Scripture and actually examined the clear meaning of the texts you carelessly allude to you would have recognized that.

I wasn't appealing to the authority of scripture when I showed how the bible uses the metaphor of God as a potter?

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)​

Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity,

Where does he say that? Don't you get embarrassed quoting 2Peter 3 while misrepresenting what Paul says?

as do all New Testament writers.

Misrepresenting Paul... and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the writer of Hebrews, James, Peter and Jude.

Something you have been shown repeatedly only to return to your erroneous claim that Adam is a figure of speech in Paul's writings.

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)​

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​

But of course you already know this.

I know you have tried to argue against Paul's description of Adam as a figure of Christ, I also know that each time you failed and could not defend your claims.

Of course if you take it literally it means you not only have to deny evolution, you also have to deny human reproductive biology.

Nonsense! You must deny nothing of the sort. What you must deny is the false assumption of common descent and the a priori assumption of chimpanzee/human common ancestry. You are transitioning from one fallacious error to another.

Are you even following the arguments here? If we take all the imagery in the bible of God the potter making people from clay literally, not only does making Adam from clay means Adam did not come about through biological evolution, it also means all the verses about God the potter making us from clay contradict human reproductive biology too. We also started off with God taking a lump of clay, not a man and a woman having sex.

But who denies that we are also the product of our mother and father having sex? Why should we? The picture of God as a potter says God made us, but it says nothing about the biology involved, it does not mean God literally took a lump of clay and threw it on his potters wheel.

You should learn the book of Romans before you twist the Paul's doctrinal exposition of grace and justification by faith to fit your naturalistic assumptions. A text without a context is a pretext, a sound exposition of the requisite texts will bear this out. But of course, you already know this since you have been shown repeatedly.

So because Paul used the common biblical metaphor of God as a potter making people from clay to speak of God's sovereignty and grace, that means the picture of God as a potter making the man from from clay in Genesis must be literal? How exactly does that follow? Would you not consider the that imagery in Genesis is also showing us the sovereignty, grace and tender love of God creating the human race?

Interesting that you say, 'change our interpretation of all these passages'. That's what happens when you import the universal acid of Darwinian metaphysics to Biblical hermeneutics, you end up with a revisionist distortion of Scripture.

So the church should not have used the universal acid of Copernicanism either? They should not have revised their interpretation of the geocentric passages?

The Scriptures teach nothing of the sort. Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)​

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam. You can believe Paul or Darwin, they can't both be right.

Not sure what any of that has to do with my point to Lion King, or what sin entering the world through Adam has to do with evolution (if Paul wasn't actually speaking figuratively like he say 2 verses later).

You haven't made a single substantive claim, why bother addressing fallacious distortions.

That explains your arguments.

'Science' is a term you have failed to understand and a discipline you failed to follow.

Explains this one too.

Have you no shame?

Have you no idea what I was discussion with Lion King?

'no uncertain terms'
As opposed your new thread where you conflate 'Creation' and 'Creationism'?

To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator, to reject God's revelation in nature is to reject the Gospel. The Scriptures are clear on this and you have some nerve to conflate science and 19th century naturalism, only to conflate your false assumptions with Scripture.

Have a nice day

Mark

So when creationists reject what we have learned about the amazing universe God created, they reject the gospel? No I would never agree with anything so harsh.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sounds like an Appeal to Antiquity there Mark, a fallacy of course but one that might have a bit more credibility if you showed you actually believed the argument and went back to the Catholic Church or better still Greek Orthodox.

It goes back further then that:

• ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD) "But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man"
• TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD) "And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ."
• ORIGEN (c. 244 AD) "IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]."

The Early Church Fathers , every Christian tradition and the New Testament writers all understood Adam to be our first parent. I'm not pulling this out of my hat and you know full well that your interpretation of the Genesis accounts did not exist until the advent of Darwinism.

Do you actually have an argument against the scriptural point I made? Your contradiction claim doesn't work, why shouldn't God use the same imagery of being made from dust for creating each individual and the whole human race? Because Creationists hold so tightly to literalism, they seem to have problems every time they do venture into exploring biblical metaphor, and try to treat biblical symbolism the way the handle literal interpretation. Biblical imagery cannot be tired down so easily, the word of God is living and active. Look at how Paul interprets Adam, you will find him being used as a figurative picture of Christ, as a figure who includes the whole human race, with Eve as an illustration of marriage and a picture of Christ and the church.

Your hermeneutics are flawed and fallacious, when the Scriptures are using a metaphor it is almost always indicated in the immediate context. In the case of Adam the passage in Genesis is clearly understood to be an historical narrative, not a metaphor for humanity. Throughout the New Testament when Adam is described as and understood to be created, not evolved from predecessors. That is not an argument from antiquity (an expression you made up) but an appeal to the absolute authority of Scripture. You don't get to dismiss what you don't believe about the Bible by labeling it a metaphor, your problem is that you don't believe the Genesis account, not that it's too old to be literal.

What you need to show is why, when the picture of people being dust, or God the potter making people from clay, is such a common metaphor throughout the bible, why Genesis is the only place in the bible we have to take the imagery literally. Genesis even uses the same Hebrew word for potter when it says the Lord God formed the man.

I'm not chasing this this around the mulberry bush with you. You are mixing metaphor with historical narratives and it's a deeply flawed 19th century philosophy, not a sound hermeneutic of the clear testimony of Scripture.

It is not that we need to find metaphorical hints of evolution, your problem is that that your alternative to evolution, God forming Adam from clay, is itself a very common biblical metaphor, even the word 'formed', it the same word as potter. Why is Genesis the only place in the bible where people take it literally when God is described as a potter making people from clay? Why is Genesis the only place where people think God making us from clay contradicts our normal biological origins?[/INDENT]I wasn't appealing to the authority of scripture when I showed how the bible uses the metaphor of God as a potter?

There is no indication that Moses is using 'Adam' as a metaphor, Paul never did and Jesus never did. Your awkward insistence that this is some kind of a clay metaphor is absurd and fails every test of Scripture.

Where does he say that? Don't you get embarrassed quoting 2Peter 3 while misrepresenting what Paul says?

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'.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)​

The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary. Don't you get tired of being wrong about everything you preach on these boards, distorting the Scriptures to fit your naturalistic assumptions.

Misrepresenting Paul... and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the writer of Hebrews, James, Peter and Jude.

I'm not the one distorting and twisting the Scriptures here, you have never made a single point stick and you have been refuted countless times. You can't make the most basic exposition of the requisite text without conflating an historical narrative with a metaphor in an unrelated text. You are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees and want to make a scathing indictment based on that.

It's sad really but all too common.

I know you have tried to argue against Paul's description of Adam as a figure of Christ, I also know that each time you failed and could not defend your claims.

You try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam. Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' you pretend it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)​

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​

This is how the word is used in other passages:

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.​

tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.​

tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.​

tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.​

Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)​

Not once have you done a competent exposition of the requisite text and repeatedly shown that your false teaching regarding them is in error. Yet you still make these scathing indictments distorting the Scriptures to your own harm. I am not offended, I pity you Assyrian.

Are you even following the arguments here? If we take all the imagery in the bible of God the potter making people from clay literally, not only does making Adam from clay means Adam did not come about through biological evolution, it also means all the verses about God the potter making us from clay contradict human reproductive biology too. We also started off with God taking a lump of clay, not a man and a woman having sex.

There are no arguments just shallow rationalizations.

So because Paul used the common biblical metaphor of God as a potter...

No he did not and you know it.

So the church should not have used the universal acid of Copernicanism either? They should not have revised their interpretation of the geocentric passages?

The Bible does not speak to astronomy, it does speak to human ancestry and it begins with Adam. Why don't you just abandon these fallacious arguments and try something substantive? Could it be that you don't have anything?

Have a nice day
Mark