Coming out of the theistic evolution closet

[herev]

That's why we think the interpretation of Genesis, the one that says God created in seven literal days, is nonsense.

Not all of us TE's think creationist views are nonsense-- I just disagree with them

 

[herev]

Your interpretation is not in harmony with the plain teaching of Scripture

define plain--and according to who's view

Either we can depend on the historicity of Genesis, or we cannot.

First, let's limit the discussion to Genesis 1 and 2 as this is about creation vs. theistic evolution. Who says there is historicity in Genesis 1 and 2?

God doesn't give the choice of the bits that make sense or that are convenient.

God actually gives plenty of choices. YOu choose your belief, I choose mine. But we both choose to believe in some parts of the Bible as non-literal--you and me both, so why do you get to choose, and I don't?

 

[aeroz19]

I go to a fundamentalist church, the generation before mine in the family are day-age creationist, but I let everyone one of them know that when I stick my head up proudly saying 'I am a liberal Christian and a Theistic Evolutionist and despite what you say I have strong faith in the Lord.' and they back down, and remember those who say another person is weak of faith is weak in faith themselves.

But, Aduro, you cannot say this anymore. You went from 8/8 Christian to...

5/8's Christian, 1/8's Universalist, 1/8's Agnostic, and 1/8 Buddhist

to...

3/8's Christian, 2/8's Universalist, 2/8's Agnostic, and 1/8 Buddhist

I see a pattern here...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Micaiah - it is a sure sign that you have no rational, logical or theological argument of any weight whatsoever when you are reduced to rubbishing other people's faith with phrases like "feigned sanctimoniousness".

 

[artybloke]

Not all of us TE's think creationist views are nonsense-- I just disagree

Some of us do think it's nonsense though.

 

[herev]

Some of us do think it's nonsense though.

Hi arty, yes, I know, and I have no trouble with you for thinking that. I think my comment may have been unclear. I didn't disagree with you--I was saying I just disagree with them
Keep up the good fight

 

[Micaiah]

Where does God tell us that we have to depend on the historicity of the bible in order for it to be true with regards to salvation or the message that is conveyed in the bible?

There is a passage in Scripture that talks about the futility of our faith if Christ did not die. The spiritual truths of salvation are firmly anchored in historical events and facts. Man has inherited a sinful nature, which is why he sins. He inherited that nature from Adam who disobeyed God. If you question the historicity of Genesis because some people do not think it is scientific, why not say that Christ did not rise from the dead. After all, there is no shortage of the earth's so called wise who will point out that people do not rise from the dead.

 

[herev]

If you question the historicity of Genesis because some people do not think it is scientific, why not say that Christ did not rise from the dead.

But we didn't say Christ did not rise from the dead. Why is it that creationists argue this type of point.
You say we don't believe in the Bible if we don't beleive the creation accounts to be literal--we say, yes we do--we don't believe your interpretation.
You say you don't accept God's word over man's word--we say, that's not true.
So you say, well, if you believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are not literal, then you could easily believe that Chrsit didn't rise from the dead--we say, no--we do believe that Christ rose from the dead, It is a different genre indeed from creation to Gospel.
Why is it that creationists so want to put words in our mouths instead of believing what we say we believe
hmmmm, oddly enough that's their beef with us in the creation accounts--that we should just believe the words as literal.
HOwever, with Genesis, we don't have access to the writer to ask, so we interpret differently than creationists.
In this case, creationists do have the writers here to ask and, you know what, we really meant what we said. Believe it.

 

[Bushido216]

There is a passage in Scripture that talks about the futility of our faith if Christ did not die. The spiritual truths of salvation are firmly anchored in historical events and facts. Man has inherited a sinful nature, which is why he sins. He inherited that nature from Adam who disobeyed God. If you question the historicity of Genesis because some people do not think it is scientific, why not say that Christ did not rise from the dead. After all, there is no shortage of the earth's so called wise who will point out that people do not rise from the dead.

<lucaspa>

No one doubts that theological truths of the Genesis myth. However, the literal history is open to doubt due to the evidence that God has left us in His Creation, Earth and the Universe as a whole.

Also, no one doubts the Divine Power. God as the First Cause is mighty powerful enough. Also, we are not saying that God couldn't create in the way you say He did, we're simply saying he didn't.

As to Christ. Micaiah you are confusing data with theory. You have a theory that men cannot rise from the dead. Yet, we have Jesus. So, instead of throwing away the data we toss the theory. Now we can say that men cannot rise from the dead without the help of a deity.

Understand?

</lucaspa>

 

[notto]

If you question the historicity of Genesis because some people do not think it is scientific, why not say that Christ did not rise from the dead. After all, there is no shortage of the earth's so called wise who will point out that people do not rise from the dead.

Because there is not direct, observable, scientific evidence that Christ did not rise form the dead by a miracle. I accept it on faith.

There is direct, observable, scientific evidence that the creation story in Genesis is not literal and can not be the way that God created (unless God is a liar).

Young earth creation and a literal reading of the creation narrative in Genesis has been falsified by looking at the evidence in creation. The same cannot be said about the resurection.

I don't question Genesis because it is not scientific, I question it because it cannot be so based on what we see around us. It is not a question of authority, but one of observation of the creation itself to tell us how God created.

 

[OneLastBreath]

Bingo. God created the Universe himself, didn't he? So what we learn through science, based on careful observation in Creation, is as pertaining to our faith as the Bible itself. After all, having the same creator it only makes sense that they carry the same message. The problem is when people try to use Genesis to answer questions it wasn't written to answer. The purpose of of the Genesis creation account is to explain why God created the Universe. It was good. Whether you accept a literal or non-literal interpretation, the creation story is written in the form of Hebrew poetry. Even a YEC who knows anything about the Hebrew language will agree to that. It's a repetitition of ideas. Trying to use the creation story to answer how God created the Universe and when God created the universe makes as much sense as trying to find out what the capital of Sweden is using a map of Australia. So, we turn to Creation to give us the answer. And Creation offers something that Genesis cannot: proof that the Universe is old. If YECs could find a place in the Bible that says the Creation story should be accepted word for word, complete literally, than they'll have their proof for their beliefs. As there is no such passage, we look to science. And unlike YECs, we have our answer, and it isn't based on an assumption. Plugging your ears and yelling "I'm not listening" when scientific findings contradict your beliefs won't make them go away. You say Genesis is literal, and you base it in on a guess. I say it's not literal and I base it on fossil records, the cosmic background radiation, general relativity, the lifecycles of stars...

 

[Bushido216]

I could swear that you're channeling lucaspa.

 

[Micaiah]

You say Genesis is literal, and you base it in on a guess. I say it's not literal and I base it on fossil records, the cosmic background radiation, general relativity, the lifecycles of stars...

Actually, what you are saying is that God's word is not reliable, so lets pretend it doesn't mean what it was plainly intended to mean. The display of exegetical gymnastics people perform in order to achieve this, and the eloquence (or should I say verbosity) is impressive.

The sad part is they undermine and obfuscate what is really a very simply, beautiful, if not poetic, and factual account of our origins. I am eternally grateful to the Creator for the simple and clear way He described our origins. I cannot think of a way to make it simpler or clearer if I tried, without it becoming like the sort of stuff I have to wade through when I want to find out about my insurance policy. It almost seems to me that God anticipated the nonsense proposed by Darwin and his supporters, and phrased the account to remove any doubt about such issues.

 

[artybloke]

Actually, what you are saying is that God's word is not reliable

No matter how often you repeat this, it doesn't stop being a lie.

if not poetic

It bears all the hallmarks of poetry to me. I should know. I am one.

 

[notto]

Actually, what you are saying is that God's word is not reliable, so lets pretend it doesn't mean what it was plainly intended to mean. The display of exegetical gymnastics people perform in order to achieve this, and the eloquence (or should I say verbosity) is impressive.

The sad part is they undermine and obfuscate what is really a very simply, beautiful, if not poetic, and factual account of our origins. I am eternally grateful to the Creator for the simple and clear way He described our origins. I cannot think of a way to make it simpler or clearer if I tried, without it becoming like the sort of stuff I have to wade through when I want to find out about my insurance policy. It almost seems to me that God anticipated the nonsense proposed by Darwin ad his supporters, and phrased the account to remove any doubt such issues.

So clear, he dictated it twice? Why and when, according to plain reading and the factual account of our origins, were animals created?

 

[Micaiah]

Shall we start a new thread, or would you like a link to a previous discussion on the matter.

PS. Notto, any discussion is pointless if we cannot agree on a method of interpretation. I understand you are saying that if the plain intent of Scripture is accepted, there is a contradiction in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis as to when animals were created. I'm prepared to continue the discussion if we both adopt that mode of interpretation.

 

[notto]

Shall we start a new thread, or would you like a link to a previous discussion on the matter.

PS. Notto, any discussion is pointless if we cannot agree on a method of interpretation. I understand you are saying that if the plain intent of Scripture is accepted, there is a contradiction in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis as to when animals were created. I'm prepared to continue the discussion if we both adopt that mode of interpretation.

Go ahead. I good place to start would be to clarify what you mean by 'plain teaching' and 'plain intent' of scripture. My guess is that we both probably agree on the plain intent of scripture. As has been mentioned to you, nobody is doubting the intent or teaching of scripture. What needs to be determined is how we interpret that scripture when the evidence in creation is in conflict with physcal descriptions of the creation given in scripture. I contend that even if why don't accept the physical descriptions given, that it has no efect on the intent or teachings of scripture.

 

[Bushido216]

Actually, what you are saying is that God's word is not reliable, so lets pretend it doesn't mean what it was plainly intended to mean. The display of exegetical gymnastics people perform in order to achieve this, and the eloquence (or should I say verbosity) is impressive.

The sad part is they undermine and obfuscate what is really a very simply, beautiful, if not poetic, and factual account of our origins. I am eternally grateful to the Creator for the simple and clear way He described our origins. I cannot think of a way to make it simpler or clearer if I tried, without it becoming like the sort of stuff I have to wade through when I want to find out about my insurance policy. It almost seems to me that God anticipated the nonsense proposed by Darwin and his supporters, and phrased the account to remove any doubt about such issues.

You are using your theory as to how the universe was formed to deny the data that God left us in his Universe! You are denying God!

 

[gluadys]

Go ahead. I good place to start would be to clarify what you mean by 'plain teaching' and 'plain intent' of scripture. My guess is that we both probably agree on the plain intent of scripture.

I would not agree that a plain, literal reading of the text is also the plain intent. I would contend that the textual evidence supports that the plain intent of the writer was NOT to provide a literal chronology of creation.

 

[GodSaves]

First, let's limit the discussion to Genesis 1 and 2 as this is about creation vs. theistic evolution. Who says there is historicity in Genesis 1 and 2?

God actually gives plenty of choices. YOu choose your belief, I choose mine. But we both choose to believe in some parts of the Bible as non-literal--you and me both, so why do you get to choose, and I don't?

HOwever, with Genesis, we don't have access to the writer to ask, so we interpret differently than creationists.
In this case, creationists do have the writers here to ask and, you know what, we really meant what we said. Believe it.

Who says Genesis 1 and 2 are not history?

Herev, I am surprised by this reasoning, it sounds too much like that of a non-believer. 'You choose your belief, I choose mine.' Sure we each choose, but some worry about those who they think are choosing the wrong belief. Don't you agree? Atheist who choose not to believe in God, do you not worry about them? And creationists who worry about theistic evolutionists putting some faith in men by believing theories men came up with to be true. Where else with the theistic evolutionists be lead, that is what creationists worry about.
Creationism leads one to the Bible, theistic evolution leads one to works of scientists such as Darwin. This is not to say you don't read the Bible, but you look to those who are scientists for understanding of the beginning, when it is written in Genesis. It is a simple fact, or what should we say theory...


This there not a fundamental flaw in your last statement I quoted above. Creationists don't have Moses here to talk with to understand Genesis. But we have scientists here to tell us. Am I correct in reading this? So because we have scientists here we should follow them? This is the worry of a creationists, or at least myself. I do not poke fun at TE's, at least I have never meant to. It is a common concern that I have for TE's as well as non-believers, who will either follow. You know some Glory is taken away from God by TE's. It is relatively easy to see. TE's and others with a belief in evolution give much credit to man for their theories on evolution. In this way glory is not completely given to God, it is shared with God and men. Because TE's say God created by evolution, but it took man to figure it out through the creation. So the glory is split between man and God. God does not get the full Glory. Men are attributed for their theories, TE's point to their works to back up there belief. Haven't many of the TE's pointed to Darwin to back up their beliefs, even you herev? Why didn't you point to God? Isn't HE suppose to receive full Glory for all He has created?

Everytime you look to evolution ask yourself if you are looking to God or men. Ask yourself if you are giving Glory to God, when you believe that man remained through evolution because of himself. Does evolution ever talk about God? Any mention, no matter how small? Does it? Does it give the slightest of Glory to Him? Or is this where TE's come in and save the day. They take the same evolutionary theory with no mention of God, and say God started it. Alright we had a theory with no Glory going to God, now God can share some Glory with men and we will call ourselves Theist Evolutionists. Evolution through God, or God through evolution. Well at least TE's can give God some Glory.

I am asking you herev, to seriously think about this before you respond. You will initially want to respond to me saying I am wrong. I am confused. I don't understand. I speak foolishly, and I dillusional. But who is to say I am. Will God count me wrong if I am wrong because I went to the Bible to understand the beginning? Will God count you wrong if you are wrong because you went to men to understand the beginning? Where will these men take you in the future and will you follow? Even if it goes on to take more Glory from God? Will turn and say no it is not taking any glory from God. Well ask yourself, are men getting credit for this theory? Are they being rewarded? Do they make mention of God? Do you know for a fact, that you would stake your salvation on it, that they are correct? I am not saying your salvation is on the line, but it could be if you follow them even farther in their future theories.

Think for a moment, could this be something Satan could use as a tool to confuse and derail Christians? Is Satan really this smart, this much of a deceiver? Would he really have men tell me lies, lead me slowly away from God without me noticing? How far will you be lead by the evolutionary theory? Can something that seems harmless actually be harmful, could Satan actually work this way? Maybe we all can see and understand completely how Satan can work and deceive, so then we are never deceived. Or maybe Satan is just a bit way beyond us and really is a great deceiver and this could be one of his tricks, great deceptions for the masses. You know for non-believers(atheists mainly) the one of the hardest thing for them to get over to become a Christian is evolution. Maybe that is where TE's come in saying it is ok to give glory to men and Glory to God. Compromise. Carefull in your beliefs that you do not compromise your soul.

I do not say any of this to belittle you or to hurt you. I say this out of care as a brother as many of our discussions have been. This really isn't about evolution it is more about who you will allow to seperate you from God, little by little without you knowing it. Even with you arguing that you are not.

God Bless you!