• 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.

Christianity... and the fact of evolution

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,812
11,607
Space Mountain!
✟1,370,549.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

I'm not saying that people "need" an outside source; I'm saying that the Bible isn't consistently clear, and thus this is why we have hundreds of various Christian denominations, dozens of (English) Bible versions and translations, and several views on various important biblical doctrines. If the Bible were ACTUALLY so clear, there'd be a lot less diversity of viewpoints about it in the Churches, even of those viewpoints pertaining to various interpretive issues which have emerged due to the apparent disparity between the concepts of literal creationism and evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,199
1,367
✟728,215.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

I find myself at a place were what I would like is educated discussion with people, not winning arguments, or defending this or that view, or coming up with 'untouchable thelogical answers'. I level my criticism at 'ideas', particularly those people put too much confidence in such as evolution theory. I have perhaps less chance of changing the mind of an biblical literalist, and I don't attempt it, but believing in six day creation should not really make one opposed to all science.

If we all, christians and non-christians recognised with more humility how little we do know with certainty, and asked the questions that really concern us, rather than posing 'clever' questions, then maybe we would make more headway.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,373
11,915
Georgia
✟1,095,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I have perhaps less chance of changing the mind of an biblical literalist, and I don't attempt it, but believing in six day creation should not really make one opposed to all science.

Amen! Christianity AND Science!

But that does not mean we need to fall for myths and legends about an amoeba turning into a rabbit.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,373
11,915
Georgia
✟1,095,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married

Which is why your "give me easy-to-read-Bible 2 to interpret easy-to-read-Bible" has no end to it and does not work. Because you will just ask for Bible-3, Bible-4, Bible-n until you get an answer that you want. And the next guy can ask for Bible-n+1, Bible-N+2 ... until he gets the answer he wants


The problem in your scenario is not that you can't read easy-to-read-Bible its that you don't like what it says and hope that same easy-to-read-Bible-n will come along and you give the twist that your belief in evolutionism "needs".

A bit more transparent than maybe you had at first imagined.

I'm not saying that people "need" an outside source; I'm saying that the Bible isn't consistently clear

You say it - and then make every effort to avoid the details in the Bible that refute it.

For example - Exodus does not describe "befuddled, muddled, not-sure, is it 7 days or not" stories.

Rather Exodus tells us they had food 6 days and no food the 7th day if they did not save up the extra food they got on Friday.

In other words - EVEN if an atheist reads the book - they will see that the account in the book is not about "befuddled and no clue about the 7 day week" -- but rather the account "details" are "very very very specific".

You and I both know this.

You avoid this detail and a zillion others like it when making your 7-day-week-is-confusing statements.

And we can all see it.

Why not at least try to support your own conjecture?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,812
11,607
Space Mountain!
✟1,370,549.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

First off, I have little in the way of any agenda to get people, or other Christians, to "believe" in the theory of evolution; in fact, I almost couldn't care less, unless the theory is getting in the way in which people are able, or therefore not able, to place their faith in God and Jesus Christ.

I "believe" in evolution because this belief of mine reflects my understanding of science and its attending evidences--and like you, I've read a whole lot (but most likely a different allotment of books and other science sources). But again, I don't expect anyone to spend their time worrying about evolution--I think we Christians, however we might disagree about Genesis 1, do agree that what is important is for people to be concerned about is the truth of God's Word.

I'm not playing games here, and I'm not concerned so much that you don't believe in evolution, that's fine with me. But I do think of Genesis 1 more as typological theology than any kind of literal, physical history. And I think it is a theological statement that affirms One God and sets the context of the Seven Day pattern of the Law in Exodus.

However, even though the 7 day Sabbath pattern is clearly established from the creation account through the Law, this doesn't mean that the Bible as a whole, especially those portions we identify as being a part of the genre of Prophecy, is or was even meant to be clearly understood. In fact, I think Deuteronomy 29:29 insinuates this.

Feel free to disagree ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,812
11,607
Space Mountain!
✟1,370,549.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Yep ... I'll "second the motion" for wanting to have educated discussions with people about the Bible and science rather than debates. (But, North American culture loves a debate ... ...unfortunately!)
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,199
1,367
✟728,215.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I think Intelligent Design theory has got a bad rap, and don't see ID as the same as literal 24 day creationism. All the same ID must lead back to a Creator of some kind, probably only as far as Deism, not all the way to Judeo-Christian Theism. But what I don't understand, and I don't live in America, but doesn't your Constitution say that all citizens are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Why then can Intelligent Design not be taught is what I don't understand. In any case, rightly or wrongly the decision was taken to ban it I understand from science classes, but as Kurt Vonnegut pointed out, its a perfectly natural thing to think about, and although in America while one is in a science class one cannot think about it, as soon as you leave the class you can go back to thinking about it.

But going back to evolution, the term has varying content depending on who it is using it. The way some (mainly neo-darwinists) use it would make evolution irreconcilible with Scripture. Some say it simply means 'change' but for it to be a theory it has to say a bit more than that.

I think Genesis is an Epic Poem. But before poetry came to be viewed as merely an expression of a poet's emotions, it was understood as a mode of knowing, poetic knowing, and expressing, one which comprehends things as a whole, not as scientific knowledge explains by dissection. So there are two profoundly different modes of knowing. Faith would be the highest form of the poetic way of knowing.

In one a person com-prehends ('takes in' in the sense of intellectual sym-pathy). In the other he ex-plains ('lays outside' the movement opposite to comprehend) and no act of intellectual sympathy is involved. The first is poetic knowledge, knowledge by con-naturality, the second scientific. In the modern world the scientific has been elevated, and the poetic devalued.

"Since there exist two modes of knowledge, the best attitude is...to refrain from a judgement of value, and to watch out when to use which. For most of the trouble comes when people do not keep their methodological power dry (eg. when poetic knowledge was applied to scientific problems, before the rise of modern science - or scientific knowledge is applied to domains reserved for wisdom, as people are inclined to do in the social sciences today" Karl Stern - The Flight from Woman
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

paul becke

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,012
814
84
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟227,714.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
 
Upvote 0

paul becke

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,012
814
84
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟227,714.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
Read post #56, here, Via Crucis :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...g-the-old-there-is-no-evidence-of-god-canard/

It's about the science, as per Pauli, for example ; not about any faith-driven feeling of obligation. Not to speak of the advancement in our understanding, since Paui's day.

As Max Planck wrily observed, science advances one funeral at a time ; and 'A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'

And one might add, seemingly, a new generation whose tenures do not depend on the prevaling atheist
orthodoxy, guarded with an unambiguously totalitarian ferocity.

PS Sorry about the underlining. Can't remove it by the normal means.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,373
11,915
Georgia
✟1,095,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
another day of marvelling at God's glory through evolution!

Atheists say that all the time... oh now WAIT!

Darwin himself admitted that his faith in evolutionism destroyed his Christianity entirely - as did Dawkins admit the same thing
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,373
11,915
Georgia
✟1,095,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married

Which is why your "give me easy-to-read-Bible 2 to interpret easy-to-read-Bible" has no end to it and does not work. Because you will just ask for Bible-3, Bible-4, Bible-n until you get an answer that you want. And the next guy can ask for Bible-n+1, Bible-N+2 ... until he gets the answer he wants


The problem in your scenario is not that you can't read easy-to-read-Bible its that you don't like what it says and hope that same easy-to-read-Bible-n will come along and you give the twist that your belief in evolutionism "needs".

A bit more transparent than maybe you had at first imagined.

I'm not saying that people "need" an outside source; I'm saying that the Bible isn't consistently clear

You say it - and then make every effort to avoid the details in the Bible that refute it.

For example - Exodus does not describe "befuddled, muddled, not-sure, is it 7 days or not" stories.

Rather Exodus tells us they had food 6 days and no food the 7th day if they did not save up the extra food they got on Friday.

In other words - EVEN if an atheist reads the book - they will see that the account in the book is not about "befuddled and no clue about the 7 day week" -- but rather the account "details" are "very very very specific".

You and I both know this.

You avoid this detail and a zillion others like it when making your 7-day-week-is-confusing statements.

And we can all see it.

Why not at least try to support your own conjecture?


Which is exactly what Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and many others on this very board claim that it did to them as well.



F
I "believe" in evolution because this belief of mine reflects my understanding of science

Fine.

I "disbelieve" evolutionism because its wild claims that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a horse over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long and talented enough length of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science... trailing all the way up to the summit of mt improbable" -- are total nonsense.

So it is not merely that it contradicts the Word of God - that causes the problem for blind faith evolutionism - it is the problem that it is pure nonsense and only serves atheism at the end of the day -- as even Darwin admits.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,373
11,915
Georgia
✟1,095,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
But I do think of Genesis 1 more as typological theology than any kind of literal, physical history.

How do you test your speculation about the text at that point? Exegesis -- ??? or Eisegesis??


The gospels begin with the teaching that the prophetic time period of Daniel 7 pointing to the coming of the Messiah was fulfilled - by contrast you have invented out of whole cloth the idea that prophecy was not meant to be understood. .Christ differs with your view at that point.

What is more Exodus 20:11 is legal code -- not fiction, not myth and it states clearly the very doctrine on orgins - the very affirmation of Genesis 1-2 details that blind faith evolutionism cannot tolerate. Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,820
74
Las Vegas
✟263,478.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
There is a difference between translation and interpretation--at least to me.
For instance:

Again, on that whole day thing:
Genesis 2:17
but from the tree of discernment of function and dysfunction you will not eat from him, given that in the day you eat from him you will surely die,


bê'yom
בְּיוֹם (day)

Genesis 1:5
and Elohiym called out to the light,day, and to the darkness he called out, night, and evening existed and morning existed, day one,


yom
יוֹם (day)


The word for day in each of the creation days in the original Hebrew is written differently than the word day for when God said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate of the tree. Translation is stating that difference, interpretation is saying it means the same thing--which it obviously doesn't-one means an evening morning time period (creation days), the other (for Adam and Eve) means a period of time which can be days, months, years or longer.
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/translation1.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,373
11,915
Georgia
✟1,095,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The word for day in each of the creation days in the original Hebrew is written differently than the word day for when God said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate of the tree.

In addition Hebrew is a "high context" language in which the same word can have different meanings depending on the context.

In Ex 20:8-11 the word for Day and Days - is consistent between the days that the people work - and the days of Genesis 1-2:4 - that hardwired link "in legal code - not mythology" puts a limit on the effort to wrench the Bible to fit blind faith evolutionism
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
GOOD observation for all the other posters who try or tried to say interpretation is done by everyone.
i.e. No, YHWH forbids interpretation - it is used only by those sons of disobedience who have been deceived by interpretation in order to defend a falst interpretation.
TRANSLATION is GOOD AND HEALTHY.
interpretation is forbidden, and deceptive and wrong to do.

There is a wholly, completely different source and purpose of both.

 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Evolution remains a theory, not a fact.

Everyone has a choice.
Either believe God's explanation of creation and life issues.
Or don't believe.

It is a choice.
That is why God told us to choose life that we and our seed may live.
Sounds like a plan............Because the Bible says so..........

..................
................
 
Reactions: LLoJ
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Gods helpers created life as we know it by the technique of evolution.

The creators of Genesis didn't know any better AND they didn't claim to be writing by divine inspiration. That theory came much, much latter. The authors were writing a book for spiritual instruction to the child like minds of Bronze age sheep herders. It was the biased and exaggerated story of the Israelite people for public consumption.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟554,225.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives

This is ten thousand percent incorrect.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you--Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" John 5:45-47 He also said, "assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5:18

So when you deny the absolute truth of Genesis, which was written by Moses and was the first five books of Moses, which set the Jews called "the law," you are denying the express words of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The first 5 books? Moses even wrote about his own death after the fact! Shazamm!!

The OT books were finalized in Babylon and show signs of multiple authors, redactions and edits. They contain a number of contradictions internally and with the reality of the material world. Those books were written by Israelites for and Israelite audience AFTER they lost their capital Jerusalem and were once again in bondage.

Jewish converts to the Jesus movement may have misremembered Jesus in justification of their new religion. Jesus quoted spiritual truths from the scripture but knew they were man made and faulty.
 
Upvote 0