Evolution and Heaven?

[philadiddle]

Tell when I’ve been equivocating.

Evolution as science and metaphysics, there is a difference between naturalistic assumptions and the genuine article of natural science. Define science.

You didn't answer his question. Quote what he said when he was equivocating, and explain what makes it equivocating. Continuing to misrepresent his view is the reason I haven't bothered much with responding to you, you couldn't care less about what we TEs actually believe, you just want to assume the worst and read that into our posts when it's not there. This is a good example of that.

 

[metherion]

Evolution as science and metaphysics, there is a difference between naturalistic assumptions and the genuine article of natural science. Define science.

You are the one who keeps insisting there is a difference while telling me that I must define science. Since YOU are the one espousing the difference, YOU should be the one defining it. And while you’re at it, tell me which fields of science allow miracles as explanations. Should be easy.

And, as Philadiddle said, you ASSERT that I have equivocated, but you never bother to show WHERE I did the claimed equivocating. That should be easy to do.

By all means, if you can do neither, merely ask me to define the terms you’ve conjured up again. I’ll take that as an admission that you’re just making stuff up.

You are not using any definition, at least none that you will admit. The fact is that there are two, one is science and one is supposition.

The fact is, you’ve made up a difference so you can pull this out and never have to deal with an actual issue because you attempt to bury me in meaningless requests to define terms encompassing differences you have made up.

No, define your terms

SO. YOU JUST ADMITTED to NOT going to see where I’ve defined things previous, and you have the gall to command me to do it again? If you haven’t bothered to go read the past pages where I have defined anything, after admitting to me that you haven’t gone back, why would I do so again? You’ll just ignore it again like this time and last time.

It goes no where because there are two definitions. You will admit to neither because you are using both, define your terms.

You are the one who has made up some second definition. Present YOUR definitions so we can all see why you are claiming there is equivocation, instead of baldly asserting it and delivering commands for ME to define terms that YOU have made alternate meanings to.

I'm not anti-science, I'm not anti-evolution, I'm anti-fallacy, define your terms.

Like the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum? You’re the one insisting there are alternate definitions, present them.

The thread is based on a simple question regarding a belief in evolution and salvation, first you render a scientific definition of science and then a theological definition of salvation. Define your terms.

See, there’s generally ONE definition of science, but you’ve made up a second and expect me to define mine so you can spring your second one like a trap, at least for science. So how about you define YOUR stuff?

Lamarck was the first to draw attention to natural law as an alternative to God's miraculous interpolation. Define your terms.

Prove he was the first.

Assumption of no miracles is atheistic. I will show you a science that accepts God as the cause when you define your terms.

No. Show me now. I already defined a term previously in the thread, but you’ve already admitted you couldn’t be bothered to go find it.

By the way, no it isn’t.

There is no God of the Gaps, there is no interobjective physical evidence. There are only two presuppositional truths that are mutually exclusive. Either God created life or life is the result of natural law. After life is created evolutionary principles are identical to the two concepts. Define your terms.

And that is COMPLETE God-of-the-Gaps/Deism. Either it happened based on laws we know of OR God did it. NOT God did it based on laws we know of, nothing. You define your alternate terms.

The inverse logical cause of creation is evolution.

By what reasoning?

Define science.

Since you’re the one insisting there are multiple definitions, you should define all of them.

I was referring to the substantive questions that are actually pertinent

Questions like why is this being derailed with dishonest ad infinitum quotes for definitions to terms that you are the one making up the alternate definitions to?

No, they are Newtonian and Aristotelian, they are scientific and they are theological, the are subjective and they are objective but they are not anti-science in the proper sense of that term. Define your terms.

So there we go! You are now talking of Newtonian science and Aristotelian science, the latter of which has three divisions, one of which is subdivided into metaphysics. However, Aristotelian science’s division which include metaphysics also deals with physics and mathematics, NEITHER of which encompass biology or the other science. Furthermore, Aristotelian science is not entirely metaphysical, but only in some degree, and the section that does is more properly put under the term ‘philosophy’, not science.

I have read a lot of philosophy, theology and scientific literature. This discussion is concerned with epistemology which demands clear definitions. Define your terms.

And? Your credentials of reading are supposed to impress me? It is more what you display in talking that makes an impression, and insisting other people are equivocating between multiple definitions without even the clearest hint of when such equivocations occur, a refusal to declare which ones are being equivocated between, a blatant admission of not going back to look at when terms are defined, and the like are far more interfering.

You not making points, your making an endless stream of personal attacks, refusing to define your terms and talking in circles. Define your terms.

That’s highly amusing coming from you; however, I will concede I may be overstepping my bounds and apologize. I’m sorry.
However, don’t you think this whole thing would have gone a lot smoother with a simple ‘are you referring to Aristotelian science or Newtonian science’, ‘which definition of evolution are you referring to HERE (quote)’, instead of YOU ARE NOT DEFINING YOUR TERMS YOU ARE EQUIVOCATING BUT I WON”T SAY WHERE AND I WON”T GO BACK IN THE THREAD TO READ ANY DEFINITIONS YOU HAVE GIVEN NOW DEFINE EVERYTHING FOR ME.

I have ignored nothing,

How about when you admitted to not going back to see where I defined anything just above?

I have the definitions I demand of you, all of them.

If that is the case, how hard is it to go ‘do you mean A or B’?

I have nothing to hide and nothing to prove. I learned early and often no Darwinian will ever admit to a miracle, nor will they ever admit to their a priori assumptions. Define your terms.

Funny, because I admitted to the Incarnation AND the Resurrection earlier, but you seem to have glossed over that. Unless you mean SOMETHING ELSE by Darwinian, so I’m going to have to ask you to define that.

Ok, that's enough of that. Here is the deal, define your terms or I will. Don't complain that I am telling you what you mean by them when you have refused to define them yourself.

I don't play this round the mulberry bush game evolutionists like.

Sure, go right ahead. And then I’ll tell you which I have and have not been using, and which are made up nonsense.

And funny, because the round the mulberry bush has been all you here. You still haven’t provided an actual location I’ve been equivocating at.

I know you think I'm ignorant because I read Genesis literally or I'm somehow anti-science but that's not based on anything I've said or posted.

Actually, no. I don’t think you’re ignorant. You obviously know quite a fair bit.

It's based on assumptions you made about me before we ever talked. I'm just trying to determine if you statement regarding evolution not being a salvation issue which is next to impossible when you will discuss neither.

Hrm. Funny that you feel qualified to tell me WHAT I feel about you, WHY I feel it about you, and WHEN I felt so about you. No, I got the feeling you were anti science the moment you started going REAL SCIENCE doesn’t contradict divine revelation, immediately alienating tens or hundreds of thousands or more practicing Christians and declaring millions of scientists’ life work and billions or trillions of man hours of research that brought advances to humanity SHEER BUNK. I got the feeling when you started saying that all ALL TEs do is motivated by a desire for applause from our Darwinian masters. I got that feeling when you started haphazardly misusing quotes and calling conclusions assumptions and declaring that science that doesn’t allow for miracles is atheistic and naturalistic and so are those that buy into it being real. When you started personally attacking the faith of every Christian who is a scientist and/or a TE. THAT is when I got the feeling you were anti-science. You show an awful lot of gall and pride when you presume to know what everything thinks, when they thought it, why they think it, and what they mean when they say better than the people thinking, knowing, and saying.

Either way, I know what those terms mean, I suspect you do as well which is why you won't admit the actual definitions.

No, I refuse to because you make up things like Darwinian naturalistic assumptions being everywhere and insisting for pages on end that I define things instead of putting forward an honest effort to say ‘Hey, do you mean A or B’ while telling me what I think and what I’m saying and why I’m saying it, especially when you are getting those WRONG.

It’s late, and I’m tired, and now that I know you were talking about Aristotelian vs Newtonian ideas of science, I’ll have something on that later.

By the way, since you finally let that slip, here you go:
I subscribe far more to the Newtonian model of epistomology, especially given my first hand experience with how models still have errors compared to the actual real-world applications of things. But, you know, I guess I’m an atheist since I don’t assume miracles happen when I make my Gibbs Free Energy calculations, and when I say science I mean more Newtonian science than Aristotelian.
And I DO apologize about the fake science definition,. See, I’m giving that apology its own paragraph. I thought you were going to throw out some kookery about historical vs operational, or science that uses your Darwinistic assumptions or what have you versus ones that don’t.

I STILL have no idea where you’re getting metaphysical evolution from, unless you plan to introduce your ‘transcendent a priori assumption of universal common descent’ stuff, which IS kookery, because UCD is a conclusion from evidence, which I expect you to deny, so whatever.

See, you got more from naming Aristotelian and Newtonian than from two pages of demanding definitions and accusing equivocation. HRM MAYBE THAT SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

Don't know, but they have many, many times.

List of women/goddesses who are said to have given birth while virgins:




Alcmene, mother of Hercules who gave birth on December 25th
Alitta, Babylonian Madonna and Child
Anat, Syrian wife of "the earlier Supreme God El," called "Virgin Goddess"
Cavillaca, Peruvian huaca (divine spirit) impregnated by the "son of the sun god" through eating his sperm in the shape of a fruit
Chimalman, mother of Kukulcan
Chinese mother of Foe (Buddha)
Coatlicue, mother of the Mexican god Huitzilopochtli
Cybele, "Queen of Heaven and Mother of God"
Danae, mother of Perseus
Demeter/Ceres, "Holy Virgin" mother of Persephone/Kore and Dionysus
Devaki, mother of Krishna
Frigga, mother of the Scandinavian god Balder
Hera, mother of Zeus's children
Hertha, Teutonic goddess
Isis, who gave birth to Horus on December 25th
Juno, mother of Mars/Ares, called "Matrona" and "Virginalis," the Mother and Virgin
Mandana, mother of Cyrus/Koresh
Maya, mother of Buddha
Mother of Lao-kiun, "Chinese philosopher and teacher, born in 604 B.C."
Mother of the Indian solar god Rudra
Nana, mother of Attis
Neith, mother of Osiris, who was "worshipped as the Holy Virgin, the Great Mother, yet an Immaculate Virgin."
Nutria, mother of an Etruscan Son of God
Ostara, the German goddess
Rohini, mother of Indian "son of God"
Semele, mother of Dionysus/Bacchus, who was born on December 25th
Shin-Moo, Chinese Holy Mother
Siamese mother of Somonocodom (Buddha)
Sochiquetzal, mother of Quetzalcoatl
Vari, Polynesian "First Mother," who created her children "by plucking pieces out of her sides."
Venus, the "Virgo Coelestis" depicted as carrying a child


And, yes, of course, Jesus, as a human, is the same as everyone of us. That is what it means to say "He was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and became man." That is what it means to say "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Remember that the first and most pernicious heresy the early Church dealt with (Gnosticism) was the denial that Jesus was truly human. That is why the Apostles' Creed (written against that heresy) emphasizes all the human qualities of Jesus: he was born, he suffered, he died, he was buried, he descended into Sheol---just like every other human.

In confirmation class, as we were studying this Creed, our pastor remarked that today people debate the word "virgin" in "born of the Virgin Mary". But in the early days of the Church, when the creeds were first being formulated, the controversial term was "born".

In any case, to reject Jesus' humanity is to reject the basis of the Christian faith, just as surely as rejecting his divinity is. The Incarnation was not play-acting.

I hate to see a list like that. It does not mean anything. Each of them is likely to be a special case which does not fit the virgin birth of Christ.

I don't believe I have to say this in this forum: Jesus Christ as a human IS different from every other human beings. He is born sinless. That "could" make Him biologically different. And He is certainly (100%) not a product of evolution (means the processes of evolution do not apply to Him).

If you like to have a more clear picture, then think about Adam. The sinless Adam IS biologically different from all of us. No wonder that Jesus is called the second (last) Adam.

 

[mark kennedy]

You didn't answer his question. Quote what he said when he was equivocating, and explain what makes it equivocating. Continuing to misrepresent his view is the reason I haven't bothered much with responding to you, you couldn't care less about what we TEs actually believe, you just want to assume the worst and read that into our posts when it's not there. This is a good example of that.

The equivocation is the blending of two very different definitions of evolution. I know what they believe and what they don't believe. When it comes to dealing with the kind of fallacious arguments TEs are obsessed with you have to ask yourself two fundamentally important questions. Why are Creationists their sword enemies and what do they actually believe with regard to Christian theism.

I know there are two definitions for evolution, one scientific and one philosophical. It does me no good to just say that if you can't see it. Repeatedly I have demanded a definition for the key terms, repeatedly this essential step has been dodged. Now I know when the definitions are posted they will be clearly understood.

Something far more important is going on here as well. The reason a clear definition for any of the core terms are not forth coming. Liberal Theology has been notorious for redefining terms without making this apparent. This practice has made it's way into the arguments of Theistic Evolutionists whether they know it or not, believe it or know, whether they want to admit it or not.

You want an answer to the question of the OP? I have one for you but only after 'evolution' and 'salvation' are clearly defined. I have been more then generous and patient allowing our friend to provide her own definitions and she has refused to do anything other then make scathing personal remarks aimed at me. Now, I will define them and if I'm right about Theistic Evolution simply being a deprecation of the clear testimony of Scripture the response will be to turn on me making as many personal indictments as possible, ignoring the substance of the definitions.

Which leads me to another question, why did you never bother to define evolution and salvation when you saw what the substantive issues involved were? I have an answer for that one as well.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I hate to see a list like that. It does not mean anything. Each of them is likely to be a special case which does not fit the virgin birth of Christ.

I don't believe I have to say this in this forum: Jesus Christ as a human IS different from every other human beings. He is born sinless. That "could" make Him biologically different. And He is certainly (100%) not a product of evolution (means the processes of evolution do not apply to Him).

If you like to have a more clear picture, then think about Adam. The sinless Adam IS biologically different from all of us. No wonder that Jesus is called the second (last) Adam.

I have long wondered if the theory about Genesis being derived from pagan sources carried over into the New Testament. The quote you are responding to here is the clearest indication that Theistic Evolutionists don't stop with the early chapters of Genesis.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are the one who keeps insisting there is a difference while telling me that I must define science. Since YOU are the one espousing the difference, YOU should be the one defining it. And while you’re at it, tell me which fields of science allow miracles as explanations. Should be easy.

It is easy, or at least it poses no great difficulties. The problem is that your entire discourse is focused on attacking Creationism, not defending science. I have cast no aspersions on the genuine article of science and certainly have no animosity toward empirical science. I wanted to make that clear before I posted the definitions for the core terms at issue. It was important because no matter what I post you will assail me with constant ad hominem attacks calling my definitions bogus. It will be clear to anyone who is remotely discerning that you had every opportunity to provide them and you refused.

And, as Philadiddle said, you ASSERT that I have equivocated, but you never bother to show WHERE I did the claimed equivocating. That should be easy to do.

It would have been had you provided a clear, concise definition of the principle terms you are using. You refused and I know why.

By all means, if you can do neither, merely ask me to define the terms you’ve conjured up again. I’ll take that as an admission that you’re just making stuff up.

You love the personal pronoun 'you' don't you? The purpose of these endless attacks has nothing to do with science or theology, it's a personal distaste for the convictions of Creationists regarding essential Christian theism. I can't just make a statement like that without proof but isn't it interesting that every post you have made in the thread has been focused on me rather then the subject of the thread. It's in virtually every line of your posts with only the vaguest of references to the actual topic. That is by far the most obvious fallacy of Theistic Evolution, the focus is on the Creationist rather then the substance of their convictions.

The fact is, you’ve made up a difference so you can pull this out and never have to deal with an actual issue because you attempt to bury me in meaningless requests to define terms encompassing differences you have made up.

Definitions are profoundly important, I just refuse to chase your fallacious logic in circles. I honestly believe you have no idea where this philosophy is coming from, you may even think your defending Christianity from mistreatment. Whatever the case, you cannot make a coherent statement with regards to evolution and salvation unless you clearly define both.

If I had just defined them myself you could have ignored it. Now you are forced to at least consider the substantive issues.

SO. YOU JUST ADMITTED to NOT going to see where I’ve defined things previous, and you have the gall to command me to do it again? If you haven’t bothered to go read the past pages where I have defined anything, after admitting to me that you haven’t gone back, why would I do so again? You’ll just ignore it again like this time and last time.

I didn't ignore it, I just waited for the discussion to draw you like a moth to the flame. There is one fallacy Theistic Evolutionists find irresistible, the inevitable ad hominem attack. What you may or may not say along the way is incidental since I know where you are going and I can just wait there until you arrive. You have been there for several pages, I have to give you credit for at least being consistent.

You are the one who has made up some second definition. Present YOUR definitions so we can all see why you are claiming there is equivocation, instead of baldly asserting it and delivering commands for ME to define terms that YOU have made alternate meanings to.

No, I did provide a definition for Darwinism, I know you understood it because you commented around it several times. The only thing you had to do was to define evolution and the clear difference between Darwinian Evolution and the genuine article of 'evolution' in Biology would have been inescapable. In fact it will be but since you refused to define your terms you just going to have to listen to mine with nothing to respond with except pedantic ad hominem attacks. Theistic Evolutionists always go there so I have come to the point where I wait for the discussion to go there and then I address the substantive issues. That way you don't even have to bother with a debate, it's over before it starts because all they will have is one long fallacious argument already refuted.

Like the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum? You’re the one insisting there are alternate definitions, present them.

I will, you already have the most important one, the bogus Darwinian definition. I'm just letting you wind down a little before I make a long, carefully prepared post you will want to ignore. The fact is, after all the drama you have worked so hard to create you won't be able to bury it. You guys are your own worst enemies.

See, there’s generally ONE definition of science, but you’ve made up a second and expect me to define mine so you can spring your second one like a trap, at least for science. So how about you define YOUR stuff?

That should do it, you have conceded that you have no definition for science or evolution. Why your afraid of what I will do with it is a mystery to me but my reason for being here is different then yours. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, I want to know how you think. Like Darwin, my interest is in the origin and development of living creatures as a theory of the mind.

Furthermore you have provided nothing with regards to Soteriology even though you have had ample time to do so. All well and good, you did exactly what I expected you to do, drive the thread off topic and focus on the same worn out fallacious logic that is Theistic Evolution, the inevitable ad hominem. Good job, thanks for confirming my prediction with such candor and alacrity.

Any way, I'm through wasting time on your pedantic ad hominems. You have posted enough to sufficiently prove you have nothing else, at least to my satisfaction.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

The equivocation is the blending of two very different definitions of evolution.

Where did he do this? Or, how is he doing this?

 

[metherion]

It is easy, or at least it poses no great difficulties. The problem is that your entire discourse is focused on attacking Creationism, not defending science.

Your usual standard baseless claim.

I have cast no aspersions on the genuine article of science and certainly have no animosity toward empirical science.

Since you are the one insisting there are differences, it is not up to me to define your terms. It is up to you.

I wanted to make that clear before I posted the definitions for the core terms at issue. It was important because no matter what I post you will assail me with constant ad hominem attacks calling my definitions bogus. It will be clear to anyone who is remotely discerning that you had every opportunity to provide them and you refused.

It might be because you already have multiple definitions, and I’m counting at least 3 for science: Newtonian, aristotelian, and something else. You also have a new meaning for Darwinian, with no evidence that it applies other than your bare assertion, that has a different from normal meaning. Ditto for evolution.

It would have been had you provided a clear, concise definition of the principle terms you are using. You refused and I know why.

Yes, you do. It’s for the reasons I claimed, and none other. Except you know my mind better than I do, so whatever YOU think is actually right, right?

You love the personal pronoun 'you' don't you? The purpose of these endless attacks has nothing to do with science or theology, it's a personal distaste for the convictions of Creationists regarding essential Christian theism.

Actually, no. Not one thing I’ve said to you has attacked you over anything about essential Christian theism. I’ve merely stated my distaste for and the arrogance of your debating techniques, pointing out where you are doing them over and over. After all, if you can use that same excuse to defend yourself against making ad hominems, so can I.

I can't just make a statement like that without proof but isn't it interesting that every post you have made in the thread has been focused on me rather then the subject of the thread.

Really? Even the ones I posted before you entered the thread? Well, if you can’t be bothered to read where I’ve defined things, I suppose that’s not surprising.

It's in virtually every line of your posts with only the vaguest of references to the actual topic. That is by far the most obvious fallacy of Theistic Evolution, the focus is on the Creationist rather then the substance of their convictions.

Actually, I’ve focused on your fallacious ‘define everything ad infinitum’ that you constantly pull.

Definitions are profoundly important, I just refuse to chase your fallacious logic in circles. I honestly believe you have no idea where this philosophy is coming from, you may even think your defending Christianity from mistreatment. Whatever the case, you cannot make a coherent statement with regards to evolution and salvation unless you clearly define both.

Since you are the one insisting there are multiple terms, you should be the one defining them, then I can provide mine, then we can have a decent discussion. Instead, you barge in with accusations of equivocation and demands for definitions without providing anything on your own.

If I had just defined them myself you could have ignored it. Now you are forced to at least consider the substantive issues.

I’m sorry, when I defined something, YOU ignored it, and now you claim that is what I would do? Oh, the irony...
And by the way... since I HAVE been addressing the ONE definition you provided, what does that suggest about my likelihood to ignore further ones? And since YOU ignored where I defined something, what does that say about YOUR likelihood to ignore further definitions of MINE?

I didn't ignore it, I just waited for the discussion to draw you like a moth to the flame.

Actually, you did. You admitted you did, and you still haven’t gone back to look for it. And remember, I posted in the thread before you did, so there’s no high horse of I JUST WAITED FOR YOU TO DO WHAT I KNOW YOU WOULD DO WHEN I CAME INTO THIS THREAD BEFORE YOU.

There is one fallacy Theistic Evolutionists find irresistible, the inevitable ad hominem attack. What you may or may not say along the way is incidental since I know where you are going and I can just wait there until you arrive. You have been there for several pages, I have to give you credit for at least being consistent.

That’s extremely funny, as it is again your M.O. Ask for definitions, attack right, left, and center, claim to be attacked, and hand wave your attacks away as just pointing things out. By the way, no, you don’t know where I’m going, perhaps because you haven’t seen fit to raise to the level of actual discourse from the level of DEFINE EVERYTHING AND I WILL BE DAMNED IF I DO THE SAME.

No, I did provide a definition for Darwinism, I know you understood it because you commented around it several times. The only thing you had to do was to define evolution and the clear difference between Darwinian Evolution and the genuine article of 'evolution' in Biology would have been inescapable. In fact it will be but since you refused to define your terms you just going to have to listen to mine with nothing to respond with except pedantic ad hominem attacks. Theistic Evolutionists always go there so I have come to the point where I wait for the discussion to go there and then I address the substantive issues. That way you don't even have to bother with a debate, it's over before it starts because all they will have is one long fallacious argument already refuted.

The second definition is for science, or evolution, or for the other terms you assert I am equivocating upon. You’ve provided ONE definition for Darwinian (wrong though it be), so a question for a second would obviously not be referring to that.

The only one claiming the difference between ‘Darwinian’ evolution and evolution is you, so it should be up to YOU to define the difference, not me. And I cannot listen to yours unless you actually GIVE them.

I will, you already have the most important one, the bogus Darwinian definition. I'm just letting you wind down a little before I make a long, carefully prepared post you will want to ignore. The fact is, after all the drama you have worked so hard to create you won't be able to bury it. You guys are your own worst enemies.

Oh, so you have something big waiting in the wings? Then provide it, don’t talk it up. And by the way, you will still have to show that your version of ‘Darwinian’ applies after you’ve defined both kinds of biology instead of us all taking it as being Gospel Truth merely because you deigned to finally define something.

That should do it, you have conceded that you have no definition for science or evolution.

Nothing of the sort. Perhaps if you actually read what I say?

Why your afraid of what I will do with it is a mystery to me but my reason for being here is different then yours. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, I want to know how you think. Like Darwin, my interest is in the origin and development of living creatures as a theory of the mind.

I’m not afraid, I find bait-and-ambush tactics highly distasteful. I’m not afraid of them, I just dislike them. By the way, you don’t know how I think, and you won’t, because you assume you know how I think and why I say what I do and then tell me I’m wrong when I tell you how I actually think.

Furthermore you have provided nothing with regards to Soteriology even though you have had ample time to do so.

See my first post in the thread. Furthermore, all that’s been done is demands for definitions with nothing given in return; there’s not BEEN much talk of it because of all the NO DEFINE X FOR ME AND I WILL DEFINE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOU!

All well and good, you did exactly what I expected you to do, drive the thread off topic and focus on the same worn out fallacious logic that is Theistic Evolution, the inevitable ad hominem. Good job, thanks for confirming my prediction with such candor and alacrity.

Actually, you’re the one who has driven it off topic with all these demands for definitions and talks of how you know all my reasonings for everything.

Any way, I'm through wasting time on your pedantic ad hominems. You have posted enough to sufficiently prove you have nothing else, at least to my satisfaction.

Maybe if you read what I posted instead of what you ASSUME I’m saying, including the last half of that post, you’d have something. Pity.

Now, I said I’d say something about Newtonian vs Aristotelian, even if Mark never got around to it. Here it goes.
Okay. So let’s talk Newtonian vs Aristotelian physics and why it’s still bunk to ask me to define which science I was talking about, as I wasn’t flipping between them.

Aristotelian science is divvied up into 3 sections: practical, poetic, and theoretical. The theoretical part is broken up into mathematics, metaphysics, and physics. Now, biology is not part of physics, and not part of Aristotelian science. Since I was referring to multiple fields of science, including biology (not physics), meteorology (not physics), atomic theory (debatable if it is physics, one could make the case for it belonging to physics or chemistry), and astrophysics (which is physics), it should be extremely clear I’m NOT talking about Aristotelian science. Nor have I ever mentioned mathematics, nor have I talked about metaphysicality in the science I HAVE talked about, despite your assertions that I HAVE been swapping.

Furthermore, metaphysics in Aristotelian science is not a field of science as astrophysics or biology or chemistry or whatnot are.

Furthermore, Aristotelian science is not exclusively metaphysical. Metaphysics is one part out of seven (depending on how you slice it. Normally I’ve seen politics/ethics/poetry/other fine arts/ math/phsyics/metaphysics), and the metaphysics does not even deal exclusively with theology. It has a metaphysical component, but it still deals with the physical. And the metaphysical parts are also not all theological.

And in the multiple colleges I have attended, in all the classes in the multiple fields I have taken, the only people who have ever spoken about Aristotelian science have been my parents, who teach philosophy.

Besides, I also specifically said:

Point me out a field of science not dealing with computers or directly man made things

‘Computer and other man made things’ are specifically NOT PHYSICS, and thus should specifically rule out any notion of Aristotelian science, yet that’s the first time you tell me to define science.

Especially because the beginning of your next paragraph was

Who said we are talking about natural science. This is about heaven and evolution, the issue is whether the two concepts are compatible. The problem is that we are talking about two things at the same time, you are working from two definitions of science and two definitions of evolution. The equivocation fallacy of Darwinian evolution being science is what has caused the confusion in this controversy in the first place so spare me the circular rhetoric.

which is where YOU introduce some non-’natural science’ definition, indicate multiple definitions of evolution and science, and declare Darwinian evolution (you’re using a completely made-up and inaccurate definition for what Darwinian means, but at least you bothered to explain that you meant something completely inaccurate and made up by ‘Darwinian’ instead of the actual definition of ‘having to do with Darwin’, so credit shall be given where it is due) to be not one of those types of science or something, but don’t bother to say which one YOU are trying to refer to.

By the by, there’s nothing but your bare assertions to suggest that your application of your specific definition of Darwinian is correct to apply, nor that evolution isn’t science, nor that the parts of evolution that make you apply the ‘Darwinian’ label to it aren’t also part of the science that is evolution. So the whole ‘evolution isn’t compatible with faith’ thing is all your bare assertions, nothing else, and I have no reason to give it any weight. That part is all bare, baseless assertion. NOT the Aristotelian version there.

Also, something I didn’t mention earlier:
You stated

You can attribute everything to God since he created the watch, or the laws of nature, but direct intervention and miracles are out of bounds.

That's the kind of thing you get into with Liberal Theology which is why it's notoriously ambiquise.

You are making assumptions about what I believe again. I believe in miracles. I have specifically talked about at least two here, though you have failed to address it every time I’ve talked about it, telling philadiddle something about my professing to miracles being meaningless because of a lack of definition of faith. So I wanted to say what I think of miracles:

Miracles happen. Miracles may or may not leave permanent, lasting effects. Some of them, like the Incarnation or the Resurrection of the multiplication of the loaves fall under the category of NOT leaving permanent, lasting effects that can be measured 2000 years later. Some, like a 4000 year old worldwide flood or instantaneous special creation with no precursors WOULD leave evidence. If they did happen, then methodologically naturalistic science would be sitting there, scratching its head, going “How do we naturally account for all this recent sudden creation?” and be totally unable to do so. That is NOT the case. I do not believe miracles are off limits. A lot of the miracles that anti-science or anti-evolution folks want to invoke would not be allowed as evidence by science, true, very true. BUT there would STILL BE all these ‘WHY IS IT LIKE THIS THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN NATURALLY’ moments in all the associated fields of science. There aren’t those moments everywhere. So, while science as it is may not allow miracles as explanations, if all the miracles actually DID happen, there would be tons and tons and tons of dumbfounded head-scratching moments in everything from astrophysics to zoology. There aren’t. So it’s not that those miracles COULD NOT happen, it’s that they DID NOT. HUGE difference.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Our friend philadiddle has asked one of the most important questions in the Origins Theology forum. Can you believe in evolution and still go to heaven? As simple as the question may seem on the surface the challenge is to define, in no uncertain terms, what is meant by the word evolution and what it means to be saved. The first impulse we all have is to dismiss the question as absurd since they are separate issues and they are, depending on whether or not evolution is more then a natural phenomenon. The questions involved are philosophical in nature, there can be no question about that. When you decide to take on a philosophical issue it becomes vital to define the terms you use. It's even permissible to make up words, philosophers do it all the time. Provided, of course, you clearly define your terms. Here are mine:

Science (from the Latin, lit. scientia, meaning "knowledge") - A directly observed or demonstrated truth reduced to cause and effect relationships. Generally subdivided into theory (Gk. episteme) and practice (tekhne). This approach to knowledge demands a unified theory accounting for the data set in a logical profession from facts, hypothesis, testing, theory and finally a law. The objective being a practical application of the theory. Sometimes referred to in terms of subjective-objective duality.

Creation (Heb. 'Strong's H1254 - bara' בָּרָ&#1488- A formative processes by divine fiat, From the nonpoetic uses (Primarily in Genesis) where the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that god brought the object of concept into being from previously nonexistent material (abbreviated from Vines)

Knowledge - a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic.[1] In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief." (Wikipedia)

Heaven - The dwelling place of God. (Deut 4:39; Ps 2:4; Deut 26:15; Col. 3:1)

Incarnation - The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), "became flesh" by being conceived in the womb of a woman, the Virgin Mary, also known as the Theotokos (God-bearer).

The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God. In the Bible its clearest teaching is in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (Wikipedia)

Faith - The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

Evolution - The change of alleles in populations over time. More elaborate definitions exist, for instance:

Defining Evolution NCSE​

That was really all I asked of metherion, instead of provided the vitally important core term definitions she has instead resorted to relentless ad hominem attacks. This is the practice of all theistic evolutionists and I cannot understand why they resort to such blatantly fallacious lines of argumentation. The subject of the thread is not me, the subject is whether or not you can believe in evolution and still go to heaven. The question is not as cut and dried as it might seem. My initial reaction is of course you can, but only if you do not reject God's ability to act by divine fiat.

The scientific definition of evolution is perfectly consistent with young earth creationism. There isn't a Creationist anywhere that does not believe that alleles (traits) change in populations over time. The problem is with Darwinian evolution that assumes exclusively naturalistic causes throughout natural history to the exclusion of an 'miraculous interpolation' or God acting by divine fiat:

In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Dawin, On the Origin of Species)​

That is from the Preface to Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' The book has been described as one long argument against creation which is clearly what the book was written to be. Evolution is not contrary to creation and certainly not assigning causes to natural law that are rightly attributed to God. The fact is that a scientific investigation is limited to phenomenon that can be directly observed and demonstrated.

Science does not make inferences into the totality of life emerging from natural law without miraculous interpolation. It is a discipline that is limited to natural phenomenon so when it comes to God acting in time and space by divine fiat science must remain silent or neutral. Clearly, in the endless debates surrounding the creation/evolution controversy God as a cause of anything is categorically rejected. The reason for this is not scientific, the reason is philosophical. Nowhere is science ever required to determine exclusively naturalistic causes, if a cause and effect relationship in a phenomenon cannot be determined it is regarded as an anomaly.

This has been the case since Science was redefined inductively during the Scientific Revolution. Before that Science was regarded as any body of work determining knowledge as a justified belief. Theology at this time was regarded as the 'Queen of the sciences' but with the advent of inductive scientific methodology Theology lost it's status as a science, principally because it is deduced from first principles that cannot be determined by naturalistic means. That doesn't mean it isn't true or God acting in time and space to create by divine fiat is no long an acceptable explanation for life. That is, unless you make the a priori assumption that there is nothing beyond the material elemental phenomenon of the created universe.

That's what the whole controversy revolves around, whether or not God can be the cause of life, being created fully formed, by divine fiat. Here is Newton's concept of investigating natural phenomenon.

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. (Wikipedia)​

You will notice the standard scientific process of an experiment, followed by a unified theory resulting in a law of science and finally addressing an exception. Clearly a miracle would be an exception to something happening as the result of a phenomenon acting as the result of natural law as the cause. It is also clear that Newton is reducing this manner of investigation to cause and effect relationships.

What we are seeing in these debates is an abandonment of the very principles Newton articulated to a rejection of anything supernatural. You would expect this from an atheistic materialist but a Christian is by definition a Creationist. That means simply that in order to be 'saved' a miracle is required, in fact a series of miracles throughout redemptive history culminating in hearing the Gospel, receiving the Holy Spirit of promise and being created a new creature in Christ.

In answer to the question of the OP. Yes of course you can believe in evolution and still go to heaven. That is providing the same miracle that happened at creation happens to you as a result of believing the Gospel.

I was not asking anything all that difficult when demanding a definition for the core terms used. What has to be determined is the clear meaning of words like 'evolution' and 'salvation' and about a half a dozen terms associated with the issues involved. I wasn't trying to trick or trap anyone, my objective was simply clarification of the issues and clear meaning assigned to the requisite terminology.

I have gone on record as saying the Darwinism is metaphysics. That leads me to another definition that is essential to understanding the difference between Darwinian evolution and the scientific definition from the genuine article of science.

It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (MIT 7.012: Introduction to Biology, Fall 2004)​

Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about and one of the primary reasons Creationists cannot effectively argue their position. Creationists know what their position is but Darwinism has replaced 'God' with 'natural law', evolution as a scientific definition is blended with a metaphysical one and will never admit it. The devil does not offer you a bottle of poison, he poisons a steak and invites you to dinner:

Karl Popper famously regarded the theory of natural selection as a ‘metaphysical research program’ (Philosophy Now, Jul/Aug 2012)​

Science is terrible at metaphysics because science as it has come to be defined is inductive. Inductive reasoning takes a small subset of a group and uses it to make inferences of the whole set. This causes major problems when you go from very small things in Physics to very large things in Cosmology. The result is something like String Theory that attempt to resolve the seeming contradictions, in an attempt at a unified theory. Einstein was working on a unified theory of physics on his death bed and the Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian professor of mathematics in the University of Cambridge attempted a unified theory of physics, both failed.

Here is how I know that Darwinism is metaphysics, 'the substantive element that transcends all reality:

' In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Change, actually a synonym for evolution, being the result of natural law and not miraculous interposition. The scientific (inductive) definition of evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwin and Darwinism adds the cause as natural law as opposed to miraculous interposition. That is transcendence in no uncertain terms, Popper was right but he was beat down so bad by the predominantly atheistic and agnostic world that he had to recant. It reminds me of Galileo having to recant after the inquisition except Galileo's position can be confirmed through a telescope. There is no telescope that can look into history.

Danial Dennet calls Darwinism 'universal acid' that eats through everything. That is a apt description for a transcendent principle that is contrary to common understanding. Most people infer some kind of a Creator or Designer for the universe in general and life in particular, that is always been understood in Western thought to be God. The Darwinian replaces that inference with 'natural law' as an a priori (without prior) natural assumption. That is why all the evidence points to evolution, the transcendence of the a priori assumption comes before the empirical evidence so when the evidence is examined it's all organized around their naturalistic assumptions, aka natural selection. God as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang is categorically rejected.

There is a reason evolutionists are so hostile to Creationism, it's the same reason that the Nicene Creed begins with a confession of Creation as a definition of Christian profession. The concepts, naturalism and creationism, are transcendent, in that, they transcend all the substantive elements that follow. Why do you think evolutionists never want to discuss the incarnation, resurrection, messianic prophecy or the internal, external and bibliographical tests of the credibility of Scripture?

They need not bother, by defining transcendence as naturalistic all reality is permeated with this one inference. In liberal theology they even change the meaning of the word God, to the 'god above god' (Paul Tillich), effectively putting their philosophy into theological terms rendering Christianity atheistic.

My definitions are on the table, what I expect in return is not a substantive argument to the contrary but a relentless ad hominem attack. If the discussion does become substantive after descending to the level it's at now, it will be a first.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I have long wondered if the theory about Genesis being derived from pagan sources carried over into the New Testament. The quote you are responding to here is the clearest indication that Theistic Evolutionists don't stop with the early chapters of Genesis.

C. S. Lewis had an interesting take on pagan myths that "anticipate" the gospel.

He suggests they represent an actual inspired longing, perhaps a subconscious memory of prophecy, which was reshaped into mythical form over time.

Then in Christ, the myth becomes historicized in the actual life of a real human individual. So, Christ is the reality toward which the pagan myths unwittingly point.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are making assumptions about what I believe again. I believe in miracles. I have specifically talked about at least two here, though you have failed to address it every time I’ve talked about it, telling philadiddle something about my professing to miracles being meaningless because of a lack of definition of faith. So I wanted to say what I think of miracles:

Miracles happen. Miracles may or may not leave permanent, lasting effects. Some of them, like the Incarnation or the Resurrection of the multiplication of the loaves fall under the category of NOT leaving permanent, lasting effects that can be measured 2000 years later. Some, like a 4000 year old worldwide flood or instantaneous special creation with no precursors WOULD leave evidence. If they did happen, then methodologically naturalistic science would be sitting there, scratching its head, going “How do we naturally account for all this recent sudden creation?” and be totally unable to do so. That is NOT the case. I do not believe miracles are off limits. A lot of the miracles that anti-science or anti-evolution folks want to invoke would not be allowed as evidence by science, true, very true. BUT there would STILL BE all these ‘WHY IS IT LIKE THIS THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN NATURALLY’ moments in all the associated fields of science. There aren’t those moments everywhere. So, while science as it is may not allow miracles as explanations, if all the miracles actually DID happen, there would be tons and tons and tons of dumbfounded head-scratching moments in everything from astrophysics to zoology. There aren’t. So it’s not that those miracles COULD NOT happen, it’s that they DID NOT. HUGE difference.

Metherion

I assume nothing, I know your a Christian and I don't like seeing you taken in by a philosophy that is largely atheistic. I know you believe in miracles, I just wanted you to admit it, it wasn't a trap, it's proof positive that you are both a Creationist and a Christian. Your profession of faith is vital to the discussion, I demanded definitions because I didn't want you to mistake my animosity toward Darwinism to be a personal indictment.

I have no problem discussing Astrophysics, it actually sounds very interesting. I would hope that scientific attempts at a unified theory of physics could emerge but I won't stand idly by and let the Scriptures be reduced to myth and metaphor even if it's done to defend Scripture. I only ask that you consider the definitions I offered and feel free to suggest any revisions or expansions of the definitions you think are warranted. Let's just dispense with the ad hominem attacks because they will serve to do nothing but derail the thread.

You have said you think evolution and salvation are two separate issues and I agree. I just have to qualify that because there are terrible distortions of science and religion out in the world that need to be screened from the discussion. I have never doubted that you are a Christian. As a matter of fact, my whole reason for pressing you so hard for definitions is based on it. I know you have to confess the incarnation and creation, as Christians we have no real choice left in that matter. When going into a discussion like this it is so very important that you do not mix the secular and the sacred, even when some of the issues overlap.

Why don't you take a deep breath, consider my explanation and let's try this again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

Creation (Heb. 'Strong's H1254 - bara' בָּרָ&#1488- A formative processes by divine fiat, From the nonpoetic uses (Primarily in Genesis) where the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that god brought the object of concept into being from previously nonexistent material (abbreviated from Vines)

First question; did you make this definition up? I've never heard the word "creation" be defined using the word "nonpoetic". If you use this definition then of course evolution will contradict "creation". That is not a common definition though, and it's not how anybody else I know understands it. Evolution does not contradict "creation" as most people define it.

I even looked up Strong's H1254 and it doesn't use any of the language you used to define it. It's kind of misleading because you make it look like you're using Strong's definition.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

If I respond to all of your post now it will just be a big mess of questions and things will get confused and ignored etc, so I just want to start with this definition, since you think definitions are so important.

 

[mark kennedy]

C. S. Lewis had an interesting take on pagan myths that "anticipate" the gospel.

He suggests they represent an actual inspired longing, perhaps a subconscious memory of prophecy, which was reshaped into mythical form over time.

Then in Christ, the myth becomes historicized in the actual life of a real human individual. So, Christ is the reality toward which the pagan myths unwittingly point.

As much as I disagree I have noticed the same thing in pagan mythology. There are themes in their myths that are strangely similar. That said, there is no pagan equivalent to the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures for one simple reason. The historical narratives have remained in the possession of the cultures and people one would expect if the revelation was received directly from God. The Hebrews are with us today, their history is inextricably linked to their Scriptures and they have preserved these writings with all due diligence.

Examples abound but the The Deluge tablet of the Gilgamesh epic that is so similar to the Genesis account of the Deluge were found n extinct Semitic language, Akkadian. That is a dead language and a dead culture of great antiquity bearing a similar account of the flood. That is where the similarity ends.

The Genesis account is very different, it was never attributed to pagan myths but the revelations made to Moses and the children of Israel at Sinai following the Exodus. Nothing like this exists in pagan mythology and the book of Genesis has never been regarded as a book of poetic myths. It's universally regarded as an historical narrative with limited but clear indications of real world historicity focused on God's work throughout redemptive history. This is Revelations 15 in it's entire 8 verses. It sings of God's righteous deeds that are still ongoing and will culminate in the judgments that will usher in the kingdom of God. This is clearly predictive prophecy and consistent with the whole testimony of Scripture that began with Moses and the judgments that delivered the children of Israel from captivity:

And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God. And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?
for thou only art holy:
for all nations shall come and worship before thee;
for thy judgments are made manifest.

And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles. And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever. And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Revelations 15:1-8)​

Genesis isn't important because you have to confirm your beliefs about God acting in the past or even the future. Genesis is important because God still acts in time and space by divine fiat every time a sinner hears the Gospel, believes the Word of God and becomes a new creature in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It's important because God has promised new creation to whosoever will. That's not mythology, that's the Gospel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

First question; did you make this definition up? I've never heard the word "creation" be defined using the word "nonpoetic". If you use this definition then of course evolution will contradict "creation". That is not a common definition though, and it's not how anybody else I know understands it. Evolution does not contradict "creation" as most people define it.

I even looked up Strong's H1254 and it doesn't use any of the language you used to define it. It's kind of misleading because you make it look like you're using Strong's definition.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

If I respond to all of your post now it will just be a big mess of questions and things will get confused and ignored etc, so I just want to start with this definition, since you think definitions are so important.

The sense in which 'creation' is used in these discussions are 'bara' or the ex nihilo creation. The definition was taken from Vine's Expository Dictionary and identifies a specific use of 'bara' in Genesis. I didn't make it up, it's from Vine's in an abbreviated form in an attempt to be concise.

I used the Strong's reference number because it's a standard, not because it's a great definition. In fact, the power of Strong's Concordance is in the exhaustive list of everytime the word is used. In order to get the kind of precise language needed for a discussion like this it requires an expositional or exegetical treatment of the word. I went with Vine's but there are more detailed exegetical treatments in the various Lexicons available.

Edited to add: I did free lance one part of the definition, the first part 'A formative processes by divine fiat' can be considered an attempt on my part to express the clear meaning of the word as I use it. I expect it falls a little short of a complete definition but I figured it was concise and substantive enough to communicate the inherent meaning.

 

[philadiddle]

The sense in which 'creation' is used in these discussions are 'bara' or the ex nihilo creation. The definition was taken from Vine's Expository Dictionary and identifies a specific use of 'bara' in Genesis. I didn't make it up, it's from Vine's in an abbreviated form in an attempt to be concise.

Vine's Expository Dictionary is a New Testament Greek dictionary, it doesn't define the word bara'. You started by referring to the Hebrew word bara' and then attempted to use a dictionary that looks at Greek NT words. Does this seem like equivocation to anyone else?

Also, what I could find of Vine's online is the following: Create, Creation, Creator, Creature - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Now, maybe there's another article in Vine's that you are using but nothing about that description implies "divine fiat" (and you admitted that you added that one) nor does it imply things being created from non-existent material, nor does it say anything about scientific language, or nonpoetic use.

In fact, nothing about your definition is like the Vine's New Testament Greek definition that you are claiming to be abbreviating.

If definitions are so important to you, you'll have to do much better than this. As it stands right now, the definition you gave for "creation" is just something you made up to fit your needs. It's ironic because you were complaining earlier that liberal theologians had a habit of changing definitions without telling anyone....

 

[philadiddle]

The definition was taken from Vine's Expository Dictionary and identifies a specific use of 'bara' in Genesis.

It is a Greek Dictionary.

 

[juvenissun]

I have long wondered if the theory about Genesis being derived from pagan sources carried over into the New Testament. The quote you are responding to here is the clearest indication that Theistic Evolutionists don't stop with the early chapters of Genesis.

I don't think that is a problem at all. Don't atheists have basically the same humanism as Christians? Did we copy the human nature from them? Anyone can copy anything anyway at anytime. But copies will never go anywhere. The system of Christianity, as it has been developed for thousands of years, can never copy or be copied. The list of case on virgin birth is only a laughing-stock.

 

[juvenissun]

C. S. Lewis had an interesting take on pagan myths that "anticipate" the gospel.

He suggests they represent an actual inspired longing, perhaps a subconscious memory of prophecy, which was reshaped into mythical form over time.

Then in Christ, the myth becomes historicized in the actual life of a real human individual. So, Christ is the reality toward which the pagan myths unwittingly point.

I did not read his stuff. But I agree.

All pagan myths (I can never know enough of them) are not just fictions in vain. The content (earlier, or later than the OT) can mostly fit into the Biblical descriptions. Ancient myths in Asia are not likely to have anything relationship to the writing of Genesis. But many descriptions are either quite similar or complementary to Genesis. This is one of the reason I used the Tai-Ji figure as my avatar here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well my prediction that all that can be expected are ad hominem attacks was confirmed in this post by philadiddle but I'm rather surprised that it came in the form of a false accusation. I told him that the first sentence in the definition was my own attempt at a concise definition. The rest came from a lengthy treatment of the word 'bara' from Vine's Expository Dictionary. While the excerpt was painfully brief it was none the less a legitimate source.

Vine's Expository Dictionary is a New Testament Greek dictionary, it doesn't define the word bara'. You started by referring to the Hebrew word bara' and then attempted to use a dictionary that looks at Greek NT words. Does this seem like equivocation to anyone else?

Also, what I could find of Vine's online is the following: Create, Creation, Creator, Creature - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

That's odd, My Vines Expository Dictionary has Old Testament words as well. It's the Hebrew word used in the Genesis account and Vine's has an extensive treatment of the word. Think you need to go back and double check your source material there dude.

Now, maybe there's another article in Vine's that you are using but nothing about that description implies "divine fiat" (and you admitted that you added that one) nor does it imply things being created from non-existent material, nor does it say anything about scientific language, or nonpoetic use.

Ok, the 'divine fiat' was an expression. After the first line it's an excerpt from Vine's I assure you. It most certainly does speak of scientific language and nonpoetic use, I have the book right here on my coffee table.

In fact, nothing about your definition is like the Vine's New Testament Greek definition that you are claiming to be abbreviating.

If definitions are so important to you, you'll have to do much better than this. As it stands right now, the definition you gave for "creation" is just something you made up to fit your needs. It's ironic because you were complaining earlier that liberal theologians had a habit of changing definitions without telling anyone....

The definition was taken from Vine's Expository Dictionary and identifies a specific use of 'bara' in Genesis.

It is a Greek Dictionary.

This is not the complete discussion of 'create' from Vine's but while I did go to some pains to be concise, the definition essentially comes from Vine's Expository Dictionary. This portion does cover 'bara' and your accusation that I just made it up is clearly a misunderstanding on your part:

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa. 45:18: "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara] the heavens; God himself that formed [yasar] the earth and made [asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara] it not in vain, he formed [yasar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. Especially striking is the use of bara in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God's past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh (God's literal name) is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: "I have made [asah] the earth, and created [bara] man upon it: I, even, my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa. 45:12). Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory. (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Vine, Unger, White)​

Satisfied? I will accept your apology when you realize your error.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think that is a problem at all. Don't atheists have basically the same humanism as Christians? Did we copy the human nature from them? Anyone can copy anything anyway at anytime. But copies will never go anywhere. The system of Christianity, as it has been developed for thousands of years, can never copy or be copied. The list of case on virgin birth is only a laughing-stock.

I appreciate your optimism, I have to remain a little skeptical. It looks like an attack on the credibility of Scripture to me, implying that the virgin birth is contrived from pagan sources. This is a very common criticism of the Old Testament and only occasionally are such criticisms attempted for the New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark