Evolution and Creation - do they mix?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lands21

Veteran
Oct 21, 2003
1,218
56
43
Washington
Visit site
✟1,672.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Recently I had a conversation with a Christian co worker (lets call her Sam) on evolution and the bible. When I told her that I believed God created the world within 7 literal days Sam thought I had lost my mind. “What about the rocks that are millions of years old? What about all the scientific evidence proving evolution took place? Couldn’t God have used evolution to create us and Genesis is just a figurative poem? Didn’t Jesus talk in parables? Maybe Genesis is a parable!” I believe many Christians currently have the same questions as Sam; some have even given up on a literal definition of Genesis. This poses a huge threat to the Church and is worth spending some time on.

I have always found it interesting when talking with a Christian about this subject that their line of reasoning/questioning always starts with science not with scripture. In Proverbs we are taught that all knowledge begins with a loving reverence for the Lord (Proverbs 1:7) yet when the latest “scientific evolutionary discovery” is published we place our evolutionist tinted reading glasses on and start reading “In the beginning…” Does this not seem backwards? Should we not be putting our biblical glasses on and reading the world through them? If we did I think more of us would see that evolution is nothing more then the new world faith (naturalism). It is not science; it can not be proven or repeated. It is a theory put forth to allow people not to believe in God! We must understand that very smart, gifted, non Christian scientists are pushing this faith because it allows them to live an individualistic, unmoral, self centered life style. I read an article from a former evolutionary scientist who stated that the only reason he believed in evolution was because the only other logical option is creation. And if he believes in creation, he would then need to believe in a Creator and would then need to change his sexual lifestyle. He was not willing to do so; therefore he continued to preach evolution. Scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). “[Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). The bible is our ultimate authority by which science should be evaluated, not the other way around.

There are Christians who say that the Genesis account of creation is nothing more then a figurative poem meant to put creation into a framework we can understand. That God created this world and evolution was His means of doing so. This is a statement that needs to be vigorously attacked that I believe are made by Christians who are again reading scripture with naturalistic glasses on, or are not reading scripture at all. The fact is if you read scripture without any knowledge of evolution or any other theories of creation, you would come to the simple fact that God created the earth in 7, 24 hour days. Although the bible is not a science text book, when the two subjects cross paths, scripture speaks with ultimate authority.
If Genesis is meant to be taking figuratively, then we would expect to see the authors of the New Testament refer to Genesis figuratively; after all, they also had the Old Testament. However, no where in the New Testament do we see this. Need proof? Mark 13:19; John 1:3, Acts 4:24, 14:15, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, Revelation 4:11, 10:6, 14:7 all refer to a completed past event, not a continuous evolving process. Jesus refers to the creation of Adam and Eve as a historical event (Mark 10:6). Paul’s presentation of the original sin in Romans 5:12-20 depends on a historical view of creation and Adam, as does our salvation in Jesus; “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"
Evolution was developed and accepted as a direct attack on the God of scriptures. Not because evolutionists believed that a Creator is not needed, but because they did not want to live for that same Creator. Marvin Lubenow writes: “The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation.”
Through the Bible, God has revealed everything required of us, and everything He has promised us and it starts it with the literal account of creation. If this account is unreliable, then we place the rest on scripture on shaky ground.
 

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
what are the key elements of this argument?

some have even given up on a literal definition of Genesis. This poses a huge threat to the Church and is worth spending some time on.

The question is a hermeneutical one. What are the proper techniques for understanding, say Gen 1? you propose that the only possibility to be considered is literal. You are in fact, importing a huge system of interpretation with that single word. It is best(imho) described as the literal, common sense, man in the pew, modern, Old Princeton, reformed hermeneutic that took shape in the battles of theology with geology in the early 19thC. it is a topic in itself. it however is clearly not a single word issue-literal.


Should we not be putting our biblical glasses on and reading the world through them?

absolutely. how do we do so? by reading the Scriptures. How do you know where Jerusalem is? there is no map in Scripture. how do you know what the word yom means? the Scriptures don't contain a dictionary. Look at the table of contents for your Bible. That too, the canon itself, is not part of the Scriptures, but a significant part of early Church history and as such is part of general not special revelation.

This is a statement that needs to be vigorously attacked that I believe are made by Christians who are again reading scripture with naturalistic glasses on, or are not reading scripture at all. The fact is if you read scripture without any knowledge of evolution or any other theories of creation, you would come to the simple fact that God created the earth in 7, 24 hour days.

This too, rests on your "literal foundationalist hermeneutical principles. How did the first readers of Gen 1 read it?
as modern science, modern history, a modern newspaperman's factual account of the order and how creation was accomplished?

of course not, these are very modern notions. The first readers saw:
the justification for their Sabbath.
the creation of kingdoms and the providential filling of them.
the radical desacralization of the world, it is not full of gods but is the temple of YHWH.
the neighbor gods are not gods at all, but merely timekeepers placed in the sky to do the bidding of YHWH, mere bit players.


.....
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
jeffderuyter21 said:
Okay - what is your point then............

general revelation and the knowledge obtained from it is essential to build these Scripture colored glasses you use as a metaphor. Scripture does not stand by itself, as in alone without any outside help to interpret it. special revelation relies on general revelation for lots of information that is essential to the exegetical and hermeneutical task.

Scripture is not isolated from the rest of the world but is embedded within a very specific cultural and historical matrix that without understanding you end up with YECism, geocentrics, flatearthers who each see themselves as the only faithful interpreters of Scripture to the modern world.

yet all are thoroughly modern interpretations that neglect the distinction between human interpretations of Scripture and the words of Scripture itself.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
jeffderuyter21 said:
The fact is if you read scripture without any knowledge of evolution or any other theories of creation, you would come to the simple fact that God created the earth in 7, 24 hour days.

Which is why you shouldn't be taking Scripture literally. A literal, non-contextual understanding of the Bible will cause you to reach the wrong conclusions about the world around you.
Although the bible is not a science text book, when the two subjects cross paths, scripture speaks with ultimate authority.
No, it doesn't. The two speak with equal authority. In the case of conflict, it must be assumed that, as a literary device, the factually incorrect portions of the Bible must be intended allegorically or in some other non-literal manner.
 
Upvote 0

Soldat_fur_Christ

Active Member
Mar 23, 2006
44
6
Sanford, Michigan
✟7,696.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Dannager said:
[/size][/font]
Which is why you shouldn't be taking Scripture literally. A literal, non-contextual understanding of the Bible will cause you to reach the wrong conclusions about the world around you.

No, it doesn't. The two speak with equal authority. In the case of conflict, it must be assumed that, as a literary device, the factually incorrect portions of the Bible must be intended allegorically or in some other non-literal manner.

:eek: :scratch: :eek:

Then, if I may point out... where do we start taking scripture literally? I think Genesis points it out greatly....

Like I've said in other postings, everything in the Bible was revealed to humans to write down by God. Why would God not tell Moses the truth? An unfortunate event happens when non-believers think that the Bible was completely a work of man... They're not understanding that God was the author. Also, why would God need a method of macroevolution in the first place? Would it not be easier to accept Genesis as literal? It makes more sense that way, then saying we evolved from amoebe.

You're putting God below man, which is wrong... you're trying to explain him away in Human terms, and are trying to claim that the Bible has errors, or some parts are literary work... etc. Can't we all come together as all, one FULL Bible believing body??


Not using this to judge anyone... But you die, and your standing in front of God for your judgement... You're still saved, but he ask's you why you held to a foolish human/worldly understanding of the world, and why didn't you believe Genesis? What would you say?? (Granted being God, he would already know, but I'm using this to try and make a point)

-Umm, because it seemed not literal??? :eek:

Believe and not question, don't be deceived by the world and it's thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gwenyfur
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Soldat_fur_Christ said:
:eek: :scratch: :eek:

Then, if I may point out... where do we start taking scripture literally? I think Genesis points it out greatly....

Like I've said in other postings, everything in the Bible was revealed to humans to write down by God. Why would God not tell Moses the truth? An unfortunate event happens when non-believers think that the Bible was completely a work of man... They're not understanding that God was the author. Also, why would God need a method of macroevolution in the first place? Would it not be easier to accept Genesis as literal? It makes more sense that way, then saying we evolved from amoebe.

You're putting God below man, which is wrong... you're trying to explain him away in Human terms, and are trying to claim that the Bible has errors, or some parts are literary work... etc. Can't we all come together as all, one FULL Bible believing body??


Not using this to judge anyone... But you die, and your standing in front of God for your judgement... You're still saved, but he ask's you why you held to a foolish human/worldly understanding of the world, and why didn't you believe Genesis? What would you say?? (Granted being God, he would already know, but I'm using this to try and make a point)

-Umm, because it seemed not literal??? :eek:

Believe and not question, don't be deceived by the world and it's thinking.

Do you see, though, that we see it quite from the other perspective in which the YEC POV is actually more consistent with the "worldly" POV than TE is? In other threads people are talking about the flat-earth view held by the Biblical authors. It doesn't seem to us TE's that God is trying to tell us that the world was flat. It seems to us that He is trying to tell us something else, and that He used symbols and terms that would have been familiar to the original audience (eg. a flat earth).

Let us suppose that God had told Moses all about evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, general and special relativity, string theory, and a number of other things about the world. What would have come across as the content of God's message to Man? It would most certainly have been that it was that Man should have flawless understanding of the workings of nature. However, it has not been the position of the Orthodoxy throughout the ages that this has been the content of God's message to Man.

Instead, the nature of Orthodox theology has revolved around God's intention to meet Man precisely where he is, in his historical and social context, and reveal Himself to him as his true origin. Whether the workings of the natural world are correct or incorrect is irrelevant. What the society understands them to be, at the time, is useful. Whether the society is moved to worship God is key.

You might do well to read a few Patristic interpretations of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Let us suppose that God had told Moses all about evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, general and special relativity, string theory, and a number of other things about the world.


instead of God telling Moses the state of our current science, propose that God told Moses the state of science 500 years in our future.

could we understand it?
or would we fight it as something wrongheaded and contradictory to the best science we know?
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
rmwilliamsll said:
Let us suppose that God had told Moses all about evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, general and special relativity, string theory, and a number of other things about the world.


instead of God telling Moses the state of our current science, propose that God told Moses the state of science 500 years in our future.

could we understand it?
or would we fight it as something wrongheaded and contradictory to the best science we know?

Good point.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Let us suppose that God had told Moses all about evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, general and special relativity, string theory, and a number of other things about the world.

rmwilliamsll said:
instead of God telling Moses the state of our current science, propose that God told Moses the state of science 500 years in our future.

could we understand it?
or would we fight it as something wrongheaded and contradictory to the best science we know?


what i find interesting about either way of doing the experiment. God telling Moses our current science or the science 500 years in our future, in neither case can the point be made that Moses can use these ideas to communicate religious truth about God to the Israelites. They would be arguing over the science, just as we do now over the YECist position. seldom is the discussion over the theology of the verses in Genesis, it is almost always over the science. Why is that? the issue is primarily religious yet the discussion is dominated by science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
jeffderuyter21 said:
Recently I had a conversation with a Christian co worker (lets call her Sam) on evolution and the bible. When I told her that I believed God created the world within 7 literal days Sam thought I had lost my mind. “What about the rocks that are millions of years old? What about all the scientific evidence proving evolution took place? Couldn’t God have used evolution to create us and Genesis is just a figurative poem? Didn’t Jesus talk in parables? Maybe Genesis is a parable!” I believe many Christians currently have the same questions as Sam; some have even given up on a literal definition of Genesis. This poses a huge threat to the Church and is worth spending some time on.

She's probably been taught her whole life that the Bible is an elaborate mythology. It is truly staggering how widespread this belief is throughout throughout the academic world. Beliving anything in the Bible is literally true, certainly miracles, is virtually unheard of among the intelligensia of our day. Of course she looked at you as if you had lost your mind, she has been told her whole life that the Bible is just religious poetry with no brearing on history.


I have always found it interesting when talking with a Christian about this subject that their line of reasoning/questioning always starts with science not with scripture. In Proverbs we are taught that all knowledge begins with a loving reverence for the Lord (Proverbs 1:7) yet when the latest “scientific evolutionary discovery” is published we place our evolutionist tinted reading glasses on and start reading “In the beginning…” Does this not seem backwards?


Good luck getting a lot of amens on that point, when it comes to origins theology on here, you won't get many conversations on actual theology. Proverbs 1:7 paraphrased so graciously, 'loving reverance', is more often translated 'fear'. The worldly wisdom that is passing off itself as knowledge itself is devoid of the fear of God. What really gets me going is when people can't tell the difference between evolution are science and evolution as history. There is no question in my mind that either certain miracles happened, or we believe a lie.

Should we not be putting our biblical glasses on and reading the world through them? If we did I think more of us would see that evolution is nothing more then the new world faith (naturalism). It is not science; it can not be proven or repeated. It is a theory put forth to allow people not to believe in God! We must understand that very smart, gifted, non Christian scientists are pushing this faith because it allows them to live an individualistic, unmoral, self centered life style.


I have allways had an interest in Christian apologetics and the Bible as history. Years ago I happened into a Bible college that had a class on the Bible and science and that was the first time I heard of Creationism. The teacher said something very simular to what you just did. He had a copy of Carl Sagan's Cosmos he dedicated to his mistress. Not everyone turns to naturalistic explanations of our origins because they are living immoral lifestyles. I do believe that naturalism/materialism is diametrically opposed to Biblical Christianity. It might interest you to know that the literal meaning of science is 'knowledge'. What is misleading about the general term 'knowledge' is that it has more then one meaning.

Just as the New Testament has 3 words for love (eros, phileos and apape), the Old Testament has two words for knowledge. I do have a point so bear with me.

Nakar- 'to know, regard, recognize'. ...he did no recognize him'. (Gen. 25:23).

Yada -'to know'. Essentially yada means (1) to know by observing and reflecting (thinking), and (2) to know by experiencing. Genesis 8:11 says that Noah 'know' the waters had abated as a result of seeing the freshly picked olive branch in the doves mouth.

(Source, Vines Exposotors Dictionary)

See the two different kinds of knowledge, modernist would have you believe it's knowledge (science) of natural as opposed to supernatural events. That is simply not true and until sometime in the 19th century theology was still considered the queen of the sciences. Science is the knowledge of yada, observation and reflective thinking. A single word for 'science' defined in strickly naturalistic terms leaves out another nuiance of knowlege as experiential wisdom. A version of yada is used to describe the tree of the 'knowledge' of good and evil. It is used in Exodus 31:3 to describe the artisians for Building the Tabernacle:

"And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge (yada), and in all manner of workmanship, to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze..."

The question that keeps coming to my mind is if you don't believe Genesis is literal then what about John 1. In the beggining was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God (Ton theon, face to face with God). The Word became flesh and dwelled among us. (John 1:1,12)

John 1 and Genesis 1 use the same language and their talkig about the same historic events, the creation. Genesis can be considered allegorical I suppose, I don't really get worked up about that. However, the incarnate Word of God being the virgin born, miracle working, crucified, ressurected, ascended, glorifed soon returning eternal Son of God does concern me greatly. Where does it stop with proevolution Christians, the parting of the Red Sea, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, the miracles of Christ and the Apostles. No self respecting modernist would dare admit to a miracle as an historic event, much less one that is scientificlly verified.

My thing is this, the meaning of the word for Word in John (Logos) and the word for knowledge in the OT and the literal meaning of the word science appear to be identical.

Grace and peace,
Mark

As far as the rest of the OP you are preaching to the choir, believe me. The Bible makes it clear
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have always found it interesting when talking with a Christian about this subject that their line of reasoning/questioning always starts with science not with scripture.

That is because any and every human language and word within that language only carries meaning when it is related to a concept in observed reality. And trust me, the interpretation of YECism requires as much reading of science into Scripture as anything else.

Let's take Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Let's read the passage literally, work from the perspective of an ancient Jew, and see what connects. We are told that there is a firmament between the waters later on, and that this firmament is labeled Heaven. The immediate connection is that this firmament is actually the sky, the waters below are the great ocean before God has split it to give land, and that the waters above have coloured it blue, which is why the sky is blue. Then we read that the sun and stars and moon are in it. And sure enough, when I look up at the sky, I don't see any reason to believe that the sun and moon and stars are anywhere outside the sky, do I? And then we read that the birds are to fly across its face. Obviously this refers to the sky.

Coming back to Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We have established that the heavens in Genesis 1:1 are comfortably identified with the sky. A prescientific Jew has no reason to believe that there is anything outside the sky. In apocalyptic passages, first the stars fall to the ground, and then the sky is rolled up. Wouldn't the order be the other way around if the stars are external to the sky?

Now, take off your prescientific glasses.
Are you surprised with what we've read?

Any YEC I talk to will surely say that in Genesis 1:1 "the heavens" are outer space. But then that is reading science into the passage. You only believe that God created outer space in Genesis 1:1 because science told you so. But like I showed you, if you don't believe in outer space, you wouldn't believe that God had created outer space in Genesis 1:1.

It's the same with a lot of other problems. You tell me whether a prescientific Jew would believe from Genesis 1 that God created

electrons, protons, neutrons
atoms
molecules
DNA and its information (common YEC theme)
proteins
microorganisms
plankton
seaweed (they aren't plants that grow on land)
kangaroos (since I presume no prescientific Jew ever saw a kangaroo)
multiple continents
comets
the Solar System
the Andromeda galaxies

You believe that these things exist and were created by God. Yet Genesis 1 never explicitly mentions them. Don't you have to read yoru science (which is the only reason you believe these things exist) into Genesis 1 to believe that God created all these things?

And

You believe that the heavens of Genesis 1
are outer space
because science tells you that outer space exists
even though the passage doesn't seem to talk about outer space.

while

We believe that the days of Genesis 1
are days within a mythical framework
because science tells us that evolution happens
even though the passage doesn't seem to talk about evolution.

Is there any difference?

YECist interpretation requires science as much as any other. It's just that YECists are so deeply hypnotized by scientism that when they are using the science they understand to interpret Scripture they aren't even aware that they are interpreting Scripture using science.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
rmwilliamsll said:
Let us suppose that God had told Moses all about evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, general and special relativity, string theory, and a number of other things about the world.

what i find interesting about either way of doing the experiment. God telling Moses our current science or the science 500 years in our future, in neither case can the point be made that Moses can use these ideas to communicate religious truth about God to the Israelites. They would be arguing over the science, just as we do now over the YECist position. seldom is the discussion over the theology of the verses in Genesis, it is almost always over the science. Why is that? the issue is primarily religious yet the discussion is dominated by science.

Augustine "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" said:
. . .

In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events
that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as
to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and
defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in
a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: “Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic.” And he explains
the statement in Genesis, “And they shall be two in one flesh,” as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church.

. . .

How many in the YEC community, before reading this (and possibly after), thought it was a slippery slope to pull figurative meanings out of Genesis? Will the figurative meanings be substantially different, depending on whether we think the events are also historical? I think so. I think so because when a particular element takes on an historical meaning, it is almost impossible to take its mythical meaning as well. rmwilliams, you often cite the example of the Sun and Moon as "timekeepers." Can any YEC reasonably draw this out of the text?
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I think so because when a particular element takes on an historical meaning, it is almost impossible to take its mythical meaning as well.

i think it is a function of how we currently think. Medieval exegesis involved the 4 fold way: he literal sense, the moral sense, the allegorical sense and the anagogical sense (which derived heavenly meanings from the earthly text). Allegorical meaning was at the heart of this approach. Allegory comes out of fusing the historical and the eternal, and the divine and the human. They are not kept distinct, and so the basic historical meaning of the text is lost.*
from: http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/archives/biblicaltheo_hermeneutics.htm

they had no problem weaving incredible stories into the text. Rabbinical exegesis follows a similiar path, multiple levels which only minimally interact.

it seems to lead back to K.Armstrong's distinction of logos and mythos as very basic ways of looking at the world.


*i chose this quote to show first, it's similiarity to what you are saying, second, to show that what Paul says about peter often tells us as much about Paul as about Peter. this "so the basic historical meaning of the text is lost." is fully the author speaking not the Scriptures, telling us that the historical is the true truth, a modern hermeneutical position, not the ancient one in control when the Scriptures were written.
 
Upvote 0

lands21

Veteran
Oct 21, 2003
1,218
56
43
Washington
Visit site
✟1,672.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No, it doesn't. The two speak with equal authority. In the case of conflict, it must be assumed that, as a literary device, the factually incorrect portions of the Bible must be intended allegorically or in some other non-literal manner.

Wow... this poses a lot of problems for your faith. Science says it is impossible to raise someone from the dead, never mind raise yourself....Science says it is impossible to change the weather, or feed 5000 with a loaf of bread, or walk on water...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
jeffderuyter21 said:
Wow... this poses a lot of problems for your faith. Science says it is impossible to raise someone from the dead, never mind raise yourself....Science says it is impossible to change the weather, or feed 5000 with a loaf of bread, or walk on water...

science says nothing about miracles. other than show me or that doesn't sound possible. Does it make the categorical statement that they are impossible? no it make a probablistic statement that: we have never seen this happen, it violates X, Y, Z theories, it is extremely unlikely to the point that it is effectively impossible, or beyond reasonable doubt. but it never speaks with 100% certainty. why? because it's major tool induction, requires that you have seen all the data in order to make an absolute statement. and all the data is not in.
 
Upvote 0

f U z ! o N

I fall like a sparrow and fly like a kite
Apr 20, 2005
1,340
59
36
Neptune
✟1,895.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Soldat_fur_Christ said:
:eek: :scratch: :eek:



Believe and not question, don't be deceived by the world and it's thinking.
and what if no one questioned? what if scientists and people never asked questions? the world wouldn't move forward. we'd still be in the dark ages. FAITH DOES NOT HAVE TO BE BLIND
 
Upvote 0

savedbygracebre

Regular Member
Jun 26, 2005
318
23
✟579.00
Faith
Protestant
Funny thing occured to me why browsing this thread. Someone mentioned how scientists don't believe in miracles(referring to the resurrection, healings, etc. I would say that is an incorrect statement! Believe me, if they actually think that my ancestors started out as pond scum and that my forefathers were walking "apes" then i would have to say they believe in miracles. The things they want us to believe about how we came into this world are actuallyfar harder for me to even concieve than any of the miracles found in the Bible! Need i say i belive in the God of the Bible and His perfect creation that we have ruined thru the centuries.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
savedbygracebre said:
Believe me, if they actually think that my ancestors started out as pond scum and that my forefathers were walking "apes" then i would have to say they believe in miracles.
Are you suggesting miracles leave behind traces of evidence? Because, whether you're familiar with it or not, we DO have evidence for common ancestry.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Proselyte

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
564
20
51
The OC
✟8,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Soldat_fur_Christ said:
:eek: :scratch: :eek:

Then, if I may point out... where do we start taking scripture literally? I think Genesis points it out greatly....

Like I've said in other postings, everything in the Bible was revealed to humans to write down by God. Why would God not tell Moses the truth? An unfortunate event happens when non-believers think that the Bible was completely a work of man... They're not understanding that God was the author. Also, why would God need a method of macroevolution in the first place? Would it not be easier to accept Genesis as literal? It makes more sense that way, then saying we evolved from amoebe.

You're putting God below man, which is wrong... you're trying to explain him away in Human terms, and are trying to claim that the Bible has errors, or some parts are literary work... etc. Can't we all come together as all, one FULL Bible believing body??


Not using this to judge anyone... But you die, and your standing in front of God for your judgement... You're still saved, but he ask's you why you held to a foolish human/worldly understanding of the world, and why didn't you believe Genesis? What would you say?? (Granted being God, he would already know, but I'm using this to try and make a point)

-Umm, because it seemed not literal??? :eek:

Believe and not question, don't be deceived by the world and it's thinking.

Nice post!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.