Coming out of the theistic evolution closet

[gluadys]

How could science determine this?

Why don't you study up on it? Science has developed some excellent dating methods.

 

[gluadys]

Ironic as it may be... that was a denial of a denial. God's Word could have EASILY described the process of evolution. The Hindus religion was started by a primitive peolle, and they teach that we come back in another creatures form. If God wanted to, evolution could have EASILY been explained.

God could also have easily explained the actual size and shape of the earth and the structure of the solar system too. But God didn't. Not in scripture. He left those unimportant details for us to discover for ourselves through scientific inquiry. And some Christians thought science was telling lies when those discoveries were made, too.

There were past creations. There will be also a new creation to replace this one. Is that a lie, too?

"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17

Yes, I am assured by faith that there will be a new creation. And, though we may have no memory of this one, I also expect that if there are scientists in that new creation, that when they explore it scientifically, it will be clear that it is new.

But our earth is 4.5 billion years old. Our universe is 13.7 billion years old. And I see nothing in either scripture or science to support the theory of a gap or a recent creation within that time frame.

Creations are classrooms where men and angels learn more about God. Old schools are torn down and replaced with new. Each creation serves God's purpose in revealing more about himself.

To me, this sounds more like gnosticism than biblical teaching.

I will try again... try this one.

http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html

I've skimmmed it and seen nothing much but arguments from authority. But give me time to take a closer look at it.

Paintings have molecular structure. One can analyze the paint to see its from the same source. Obe can analyze the strokes used by the artist to determine if they are by the same artist. There is a parallel method here. DNA, or molecular structure of the paints use.... Structure is structure. And, God creation of biological life is a work of art. A work that exceeds genius.

I understand about how one can identify the artist from the technique. (Linguistically--an area I know better---one can use a similar techique to identify a writer, or to tell whether or not two texts were written by the same person or two different people.)

But nothing we know of DNA or the morphology derived from it is parallel to this sort of pattern. It is a quite different pattern.

Likewise...


I know of others who would argue that point with you. But, why bother? You think you really are willing to change your mind? I do not see it.

Just the same, Grace and peace, GeneZ

Well, I agree it would be a very hard sell.

You could begin by identifying which geological strata correspond to the most recent destruction of the earth and describing the evidence that indicates this to be the case.

 

[gluadys]

Here are some scriptures that I believe all theistic evolutionists have to either change or manipulate in some way to go with the teachings of the big bang theory and evolution.

God Bless

I don't see any reason to change or manipulate any of them.

 

[gluadys]

Adam's body was said to have been formed from the elements of the earth. Only in recent history has science discovered all the minerals that make up the human body. Decaying human bodies do not resemble (or smell like) the earth. How could Moses know?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Why would he need to? The end process of decay is a return to the elements of earth. That was obvious to humans long before Moses was born.

 

[gluadys]

For those theistic evolutionists and others who say the Bible is not the Word of God:

John 1


The Word Became Flesh

So are you saying that in Jesus, the bible became flesh? Wouldn't that make the bible God?

|-- Here Jesus Christ is the Word of God that became flesh. Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. Now, would anyone like to put God in a box and say that Jesus Christ is the only Word of God, and God cannot convey His Word in written form? --|

There is a big difference here. Jesus is described as the Word which was in the beginning, the Word through whom all things were created, the Word who was with God and who was God.

Where is any of this said about the scriptures?

Now, I am not going to take the position that it is incorrect to refer to the bible as the word of God, but I do think we need to understand that the bible is not the Word of God in the same way that Jesus is. The bible is the word of God more in the same way as God's workmanship in creation is. (Which is why theologians of the 18th and 19th century often spoke of God's two books: creation and scripture. Both are channels through which The Word of God (Christ) is made known to us. The Word of God (Christ) speaks to us through both of these secondary words.)

1 Thessalonians 2
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe.


Note: "heard". The gospel had not yet been written, so the Word of God here is not a written document. Is not "receiving the Word of God" here receiving Christ?

2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


Note: "spoke" The prophets did not give out copies of scripture. They delivered a living word from God given by the Holy Spirit. It was only written later.




1 Corinthians 2
12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[1]

Again "speak" Paul is not referring here to documents, but to the preaching of the Word under the power of the Spirit.




2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

And note that this verse does not refer to scripture as the Word of God.

|-- Why might it be harmful to reject or replace the creation accounts in Genesis with the teachings of man(humans), such as the big bang and evolution? --|

Why replace one with the other? They are both important.




1 Timothy 6

20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.


But science is not godless.



1 Corinthians 2
4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. [/color]


Indeed faith should rest on God's power as science rests on evidence.

Again, unless you can prove to me from the Bible that this belief I hold of God creating the universe, as recorded in Genesis literally, then I stand by my beliefs and will express my beliefs against these teachings of humans.

God Bless

Science cannot be proven from the bible any more than God can be proven from science.

But that does not make either science or God false.

 

[gluadys]

or for early orthodox Christian defenders of darwin read _darwin's forgotten defenders_

I borrowed that book from our public library years ago and have never been able to find another copy for personal use.

Do you know if it is still available and where I could purchase one?

 

[GodSaves]

This gets back to the matter of learning to recognize genre. The commandments themselves are not allegory, nor are they set in a larger story that is allegory. The commandments themselves are law, based, as much biblical law is, on the codes common throughout Mesapotamia and the Middle East, with some alterations unique to the Hebrew tradition. The commandment on the sabbath is not set off from the others, as all together form an unbroken text.

The commandments are set in the framework of the sacred origin legends of the nation of Israel, collectively known as the Exodus.

You have yet to explain the part I bolded and how it should be read allegorically and the other sentence that surround it are to be read literally.

Can you find a scriptural example of God testing a person's faith by asking them to give intellectual assent to something which they knew to be untrue?

I stated God tests man's faith, you added the rest. Here are scriptures to show God has tested man's faith.
Job 1
Job's First Test
6 One day the angels [1] came to present themselves before the LORD , and Satan [2] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD , "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD .

Genesis 22
Abraham Tested

1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."


Many theistic evolutionists have stated that evolution and the big bang theory do not speak of God, which they don't. These teachings contradict God's teachings in Genesis, so what does the Bible say about this?

1 Timothy 6

20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.

Can you give me a source for science teaching that God did not make humans to be living souls?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684801582/mindbrainsoul/002-1674673-3946456

No, for the bible clearly presents this as a miracle, and science does not deny the possibility of miracle.

Well what do you call the creation of the universe out of nothing? I would say it constitutes to be a miracle as well. And science refutes this. I have not seen anything from science saying it can account for miracles. That would imply God.

God Bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I borrowed that book from our public library years ago and have never been able to find another copy for personal use.

Do you know if it is still available and where I could purchase one?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-3656565-0838345?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

it's a good book, coupled with Warfield's writings on evolution give a good basis for the response to Darwin before the 1900's fundamentalist reaction to liberalism's denial of the miraculous.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Here is the ten commandments. Tell us, by pointing out the parts of speach, that lend it to be allegorical? How is the bold different in writing style then the rest? The ten commandments gives a clear teaching of how one is suppose to read the creation accounts of Genesis. As you stated and I believe, the ten commandments were divinly given and above is what was said by God Himself.

In bold, you had Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

There's one very obvious way this verse is different from the rest of the Sabbath commandment: it doesn't appear in the other listing of the commandments! Check it out for yourself in Deuteronomy 5. Note carefully the statement given after this listing of the commandments (with a reference to the exodus substituted for a reference to creation): "These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me."

Of course, Exodus 20:11 is still inspired Scripture, but it was not written by God's hand directly onto the stone tablets. Most likely, it is inspired commentary on the commandment, the same way Deuteronomy 5:15 is. To claim that it was on the stone tablets and is "what was said by God Himself" is to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture. If we can trust Deuteronomy 5:22, then clearly Exodus 20:11 is different in both author and genre than the verses around it.

 

[GenemZ]

Mine ......

Adam's body was said to have been formed from the elements of the earth. Only in recent history has science discovered all the minerals that make up the human body. Decaying human bodies do not resemble (or smell like) the earth. How could Moses know?

Your's......

Why would he need to? The end process of decay is a return to the elements of earth. That was obvious to humans long before Moses was born.

So does a bowel movement. And, so does a rotting piece of fruit. It did not make the ancients know that the human body was made of the elements of the earth. It only let them know that the decaying matter of a dead body blended in with the earth....... That is, if the flies and bugs did not remove the body first.

Your argument is really weak. But, it does not matter. It appears that real strength is not required in your arguments. Your appearance of strength lies in being unabashedly contradictory. As long as you can contradict God's Word without blinking, no matter how superficial your logic may be..... your strength is in lacking having any fear of God. Kind of like a dare devil who walks up to the edge of a cliff and almost falling off, laughing at the others looking on in fear. You may walk away feeling superior to those who would not dare attempt such a thing, seeing them as too timid... but it proves nothing but a willingness to be contrary.

Some people's fallen nature falls along those lines. In your case, what you are clinging to satisfies a natural need. The way to destruction is broad and wide. This wide and broad way has a vast amount of variation to offer for the multiplicity of personal desires which are contained within the full spectrum of mankind's list of depraved individual preferences. Some love legalism in their flesh. Some love to be perceived as having a superior intellect to others. Some love to over indulge in sensual pleasure. Some take pride in having an altruistic nature. Some love the intrigue of supernatural phenomenon.... and on, and on, it goes. Jesus warned that the road to destruction is broad and wide. He was correct.

So, after a point, why argue with someone who is only pleasing what they lust after? Its not truth. Its really a desire to be a rebel and prove that one is intellectually superior to another, by setting up arguments that the inferior ones can not refute on your terms. Yet, they can see how foolish you are in refusing to see any possible alternative to what is fed to you by the shrine of current scientific assumption and opinion.

You refuse to acknowledge that what you prefer to accept as truth, must be able to also line up with God's Word. So? What does your ilk end up doing? Discrediting God's Word as not having any real authority where you wish to disagree. Fine. We are told not to judge. That will come later. But, on the other hand, we are told to discern. We can see where judgement is due.

Have a nice lifetime in the cosmos doomed to pass away...


Now, I feel better getting that off my chest...

Grace and truth........ GeneZ

 

[Micaiah]

Closer to legend than myth I would say, but in any case not straightforward unvarnished history.

What is the difference between legend and myth?

Many of the stories in the bible passed through a lengthy period of oral transmission in which story-tellers elaborated on the details of events.

A previous quote from yourself:

The commandments themselves are not allegory, nor are they set in a larger story that is allegory. The commandments themselves are law, based, as much biblical law is, on the codes common throughout Mesapotamia and the Middle East, with some alterations unique to the Hebrew tradition. The commandment on the sabbath is not set off from the others, as all together form an unbroken text.

Ahhhhh the ubiquitous Mesapotamia stories. I'd be interested to seen the actual literal translations of these stories, and learn where they originated. Seems that for every story in Scripture, there was a matching legend doing the rounds at the time. Evidently a convenient way for some to explain away the supernatural origin of Scripture.

The exact meaning of folklore, legend, or myth in this context is still unclear. What is clear is that you do not believe that God spoke to Moses and gave him the commands as clearly stated in Scripture. Again your mistake is to elevate mans theories on the origins of Scripture above the plain teaching of Scripture.

The main point was to make the stories memorable so that neither the stories, nor the significant teachings in them, would be lost over time. And to remind the people of Israel of who they were and who their God was and of the covenant God had made with them.

This is liberal theology in action, and its satanic origins are plain to those who are willing to see. It doesn't just affect your view of origins. It calls into question all of God's word.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation of Christ's resurrection. I could use the same mode of interetation to dismiss most of what is recorded in Scripture on the resurrection. The bible itself records that men were paid to spread a lie about what happened. (Hey, why shouldn't we expect to the same mentality from those who were antagonistic toward God in the OT.)

 

[Marshall Janzen]

What is clear is that you do not believe that God spoke to Moses and gave him the commands as clearly stated in Scripture.

Are you suggesting that Exodus 20:11 is part of what God spoke directly to Moses and wrote on the stone tablets? If so, how do you reconcile that view with Deuteronomy 5?

 

[Andy D]

Andy, let me ask you a question about the part of the paragraph above which I have bolded, and especially the part I underlined.

You say God has breathed life into....each one of us. Have I got that right?

Now when do you think God breathed life into you? And why do you think God breathed life into you at that point and not some other point?

Well in Psalms 139 I think it is, it talks about us being wonderful made...we are formed in the womb. I know Psalms is song and poetry and that is why it is probably the most beautiful book we have to soothe our souls and hearts and minds when troubled or rejoicing but still, they do state a lot of truth just as Proverbs does. God breathes that life into us in the womb I am guessing. He breathed life into Adam as a fully grown man in the Genesis account, that is how I see it. But I was born into sin because of the fall of man. I needed to be reborn as a new creature in Christ which was my conversion, salvation. Good question though

 

[Andy D]

The bible tells us that God breathed into the man he had formed and made him a living soul. It tells us that humans were made in the image of God (which I understand to be the same thing as being a soul.)

Now who is to say that the process by which God formed the man from the dust was not evolution?

But if you try to fit it into evolution along a time line as generally the theory of evolution is, I am interested to know just where the being in the image of God fits in if man didnt walk the earth intil millions of years after the first species..or billions, doesnt matter, but the species that man came from, why didnt they have a soul if they were nearly the image of God? Was it that the first species that God decided was good enough to have a soul He breathed it into them and they were a human being?

That might make sense if evolution stopped us from preaching the gospel. It doesn't. Have you ever considered it may be creationism which Satan is using to keep/drive people away from Christ by associating Christianity with falsehood about creation? There are certainly many people who have turned their back on the church, or never given Christianity a chance, because they associate it with a belief about creation that they find utterly ridiculous.

Well many find Christianity ridiculous full stop considering it means believing in the supernatural and that the God of the universe loved us enough to send His only begotten Son Jesus Christ to be humiliated and die for us.

 

[Andy D]

You explain why they should not have lived. Many were taking the bread and cup wrongly. Many were sick and dying amongst them. God does not tolerate ignorance in his believers. Sometimes mercy overrides when there is anough faithful believers in their midsts. But, I think you are not ready for what I am telling you. All you are doing is giving me "Oh Yeah!" reactions.

Faith comes by knowing God's Word. Religion is not faith. Superstition is not faith. Good intentions is not faith. Even when misquoting the Bible, or totally misunderstanding it. Faith comes from hearing the Word taught correctly and accurately... and hearing it.

Yet, there are those who are living in areas where Christianity is hated and the penalty is death. These usually get martyrd soon after they first get saved. God chose them to be born there. That's a different element, and an honorable one if they were walking in the Spirit when put to death.

You think you're unique? I was disowned by my family when I announced my faith. Have you been? Its not hard to do if you are walking in the Spirit. Why do you brag like its you being this noble? If its from the Spirit, its grace, and has no need to be announced to anyone as if you are better than them. But, you seem to think your emotional expression makes you better than other believers? Any believer walking in the Spirit is not afraid to die for their faith. Grace makes them that way. The emotions brag. The Spirit accepts and humbly moves on.

I was not comparing them. I was comparing to your bragging, as if it were an indicator of being right with God, and everyone else who disagrees with you must be wrong, because you feel that way.

You do not know what you will do until you are tested. Its like a young man bragging about how brave he will be in battle. You just don't know what you are made of until its required of you. God may have to test you a bit on this issue. When you realize its God giving you the courage, you stop bragging like you are special to feel this way. Just accept it, and humbly move on.

For a start, I am not bragging but stating what I believe to be honest. I thought a brother or sister in Christ would actually also desire to give their life for Christ, deny thyself as it says in Luke 9:23. Whether I give my life as in dying for my faith or whether I give my life in service, it is up to what God has called each one for. The ones as you correctly said are in countries such as China or Nigeria where Christian religion is not accepted are very often martyred for their faith soon after conversion although God always keeps a few from it as He is in control and no man can touch us unless God allows it. Once we give ourselves to God, we are His. I am not sure why you choose to pull down a Christian in their faith rather than exhort or encourage.

Mormons feel this way. Jehovah Witnesses will tell you the same. Catholics, too. Baptists, Pentecostals...and even Orthodox Jews. Is God so confused?

Whilst I am not the judge, I cannot accept the doctrine of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian. I dont accept any religion to be Christian where they base their salvation upon works rather than grace. No man is able ot be righteous before an Almighty Holy God unless He comes through Jesus Christ. Any other doctrine is foolishness to think we can appease God by doing good works. God can do all things Himself, He doesnt need us to do good works, it is by faith we please God and not by works. For by grace we are saved and NOT by works lest any one should boast. God isnt confused...whilst we may all interpret some things differently and whilst many will be mislead in different areas, God knows who are of that one faith and following that one God and have that one Spirit and in the one church and many members of the one body.

God did create this present creation is six literal days. I think you are blanking out in understanding what it is I have been showing you. The reality is, God had created other creations prior to this one. This one was created in six literal days! Others had been destroyed. That is where the fossil records come from. And, in the future, this creation will be replaced with a New Heavens and Earth. God did it before, and he will do it again. That's the point you blank out on.

I cannot find in the Bible where God created other creations prior to this one, please give me the verses. I can see it state clearly He created in 6 literal days. The other fossil records are EASILY explained by the flood. I can give you some evidence if you like?

Cop out. You can not mix fresh water and salt water (universal flood) and have much of the sea life no go extinct. God was not out to destroy the planet in Noah's flood. He was out to destroy man who had become mutant and evil. Man was not living all over the earth at that time. Noah could not preach to men living in the other side of the world to warn them before judgement! They all had to be in an area only large enough so Noah's preaching would be known to all of them! Noah's flood was not universal. The water covering the face of the earth in Genesis 1, was a universal flood.

Not a cop out because I didnt give you any facts or my beliefs, I was pretty clear that I dont have a theory on the salt and fresh water but that it is possible for there to be many that make sense. You are not all knowledgeable so wait until the evidence is all presented.

I have seen enough evidence showing there was a global flood but for some reason TE's and OEC's must deny a global flood even though the Bible is translated correctly on it being a global flood, to support their theories. Well, I will begin to give some scientific evidence then.

God bless you

 

[Andy D]

Why don't you study up on it? Science has developed some excellent dating methods.

Please list the dating methods so I can research them?

 

[Andy D]

But our earth is 4.5 billion years old. Our universe is 13.7 billion years old. And I see nothing in either scripture or science to support the theory of a gap or a recent creation within that time frame.

I have a major problem with life being on this earth for even a million years let alone 500 million years.

Now many will state that there is much scientific evidence that proves a global flood ever occured and that creationism is a lie. I however see much scientific evidence to state otherwise. Also, it lines up perfectly with the Bible and whilst it still requires some theories as we cant know everything yet, it makes sense.

If you look at our solar system you can see evidence of a young earth, if you look at our planets, moons, stars, you will see the evidence. I give you some stuff to start chewing on. I am getting some information from a Christian author named Keith Piper who has a book called Answers. He cites his sources in many cases, but either way it shouldnt be hard for any TE's to refute the information if you desire to try.

We have many large stars in our universe that are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They couldnt have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years as their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

Hydrogen in stars is continually turned into helium and hydrogen cannot be made from any other elements. Fred Hoyle states that if the universe was as old as big bang theorists think then there would be little hydrogen left as it would all be converted to helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.

Since 1836, over 100 different observatories at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet for hour. At this rate 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil the earth's oceans making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.

I can give HEAPS more...so just deal with this to start with. Maybe all these observatories who are experts in the field were incorrect in their calculations, mathematical calculation which are a more exact science than other fields that go by theories.

 

[artybloke]

Please list the dating methods so I can research them?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#generic
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Can't at the moment find a list of all the methods used, but this little lot will give you enough information to be going on with.

I have a major problem with life being on this earth for even a million years let alone 500 million years.

Fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

 

[Andy D]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#generic
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Can't at the moment find a list of all the methods used, but this little lot will give you enough information to be going on with.



Fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

Thank you. And also you can see I have started to back up my argument why I have the problem with life being here that long from my last post.

I will check out the dating techniques and hopefully they are easy enough to understand

 

[Andy D]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#generic
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Can't at the moment find a list of all the methods used, but this little lot will give you enough information to be going on with.

Very informative and it does allow me to see both sides of the arguement now. I am beginning to notice that YEC's and Evolutionists are coming up with data and then it is being refuted by the opposition. It appears nothing much is left to be accepted as absolute truth by both sides.