- Mar 27, 2007
- 37,582
- 5,355
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
Then why are you typing on a computer built by the same human wisdom that says evolution is a fact?
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
Why is a human interpretation of the Bible "God alone" but God's Creation "human wisdom"? Makes no sense to me.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
lucaspa said: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.
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.
big cats with stripes lived and big cats without stripes died
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.Papias said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?Interesting thoughts Assyrian...very interesting, indeed.
Are you saying we should test the knowledge of the LORD using the wisdom of mere men?
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.How do ye test the ressurection of Jesus Christ using science?
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."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 mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:11-13
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 only by faith that I understand how the LORD created the universe and everything in it, not science.
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."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.
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?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 10:6Paul 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: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.
"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?
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.There goes your early church beliefs claim.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
You interpreted Adam as mankind in the last paragraph.Did a monkey father Adam?
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.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.
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.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?
It's odd how creationist like to quote that passage, thinking all the time they know what really happened.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
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.It is faith that also teaches me that the LORD created man and woman from the beginning of creation.
Until it is tested, which science does.Are they still not assumptions, no? An educated guess is still a guess in my book.
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.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.
If only you could show that they did. Rom 5:14 GNT Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.Jesus Christ and the other apostles believed in a literal account of Genesis and that is all I need.
People who show you were wrong to think that allegorical interpretation of Genesis was something new.Augustine and Origin, who are they?
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?
You interpreted Adam as mankind in the last paragraph.
Scripture throughout, mentions the creation of mankind from dustMankind 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.
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.
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.
It's odd how creationist like to quote that passage, thinking all the time they know what really happened.
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.
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.
People who show you were wrong to think that allegorical interpretation of Genesis was something new.
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.How do you explain the body returning to dust, if you do not take these parts of Scripture to be literal?
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.The sun did stand still in the heavens:
"Which commands the sun, and it rises not; and seals up the stars." Job 9:7
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.Where does it say that in the bible?
Are the assumptions tested every time an experiment comes back with a consistent answer? Yes or no?Do the big-bang and evolution "theories" rely on assumptions? Yes or No?
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.You forgot about how science explains to us, in great detail by the way, the supernatural act of creation.
The problem is you think you understand how and when.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
Jesus doesn't say that, you are taking his words out of context and assuming that was what he was talking about.From the creation of the heavens and earth as mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
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.Is Paul speaking of Moses figuratively too, I suppose?
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.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.
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.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.
I am sure you prefer your own opinions, but what has got to do with what I said?Scripture claim otherwise, and yet I am supposed to take the opinions of mere men like Augustine and Origins? I'll pass, thank you.
You mean like literalist traditions? Yes they can have quite a hold."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
'no uncertain terms'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.
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?
You interpreted Adam as mankind in the last paragraph.
Scripture throughout, mentions the creation of mankind from dustMankind 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.
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.
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.
People who show you were wrong to think that allegorical interpretation of Genesis was something new.
'no uncertain terms'
As opposed your new thread where you conflate 'Creation' and 'Creationism'?
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.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.The bible doesn't just describe mankind created from dust, it says we were all made from dust,
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.As always from your erroneous revision of Genesis leads to a mixing of metaphors, one real and one imagined.
I actually quoted the verse last week to Gruj.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 wasn't appealing to the authority of scripture when I showed how the bible uses the metaphor of God as a potter?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.
Where does he say that? Don't you get embarrassed quoting 2Peter 3 while misrepresenting what Paul says?Bear in mind that our Lords 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,
Misrepresenting Paul... and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the writer of Hebrews, James, Peter and Jude.as do all New Testament writers.
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.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 τύποςas '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.
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.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.Of course if you take it literally it means you not only have to deny evolution, you also have to deny human reproductive biology.
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?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.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.
So the church should not have used the universal acid of Copernicanism either? They should not have revised their interpretation of the geocentric passages?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.
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).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 explains your arguments.You haven't made a single substantive claim, why bother addressing fallacious distortions.
Explains this one too.'Science' is a term you have failed to understand and a discipline you failed to follow.
Have you no idea what I was discussion with Lion King?Have you no shame?
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.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.'no uncertain terms'
As opposed your new thread where you conflate 'Creation' and 'Creationism'?
Have a nice day
Mark
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.
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.
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?
Where does he say that? Don't you get embarrassed quoting 2Peter 3 while misrepresenting what Paul says?
Misrepresenting Paul... and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the writer of Hebrews, James, Peter and Jude.
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.
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.
So because Paul used the common biblical metaphor of God as a potter...
So the church should not have used the universal acid of Copernicanism either? They should not have revised their interpretation of the geocentric passages?
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?