Evolution as a necessary socio-political creation story

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A “very comprehensive research based on Scripture?” Chuck Missler didn’t even know as much as the first three letters of the Hebrew and he apparently never even read an academic translation of the Bible but relied upon the KJV. Moreover, he is never cited in any academic literature. Outside of Koinonia House and its tight-knit followers, he is an unknown.

I realize that some churches still teach these things in their Sunday school classes for children, but that does not make them true.

As part of my M.A. I was trained in the techniques of scholarship. I know the difference between good and insufficient scholarship. I find that Chuck Missler employs good scholarship in that for each point he makes he provides comprehensive and full Scriptural evidence. As far as relying on the KJV, many reliable commentaries have used the KJV, and the more modern translations have only identified cosmetic changes due to updating the 17th Century language. There are around eight 17th Century words that have different meanings, and once the change of meaning has been identified, the KJV present no problem in reliable hermeneutics.

He says that he does not take the Bible absolutely literally, because that would deny the different literary genres in it. He says that he takes it seriously and demonstrates good knowledge of the different genres that make up the Bible. The other thing that I find good scholarship on his part is that he does not put his views forward as being the exclusively correct ones. He recognises the work of other very competent scholars who have different views to his own. He says that the views he puts forward are just the way he sees it, and that his hearers should not believe everything he says at face value, but to do their own homework in the Scriptures to establish what he is teaching is consistent with the Scriptures and therefore has value. He doesn't, as you have done, rubbish other scholars who may have different opinions to what he has.

In actual fact, after having closely studied the Old and New Testaments of the Bible over 55 years, and having an M.Div that required me to do three years of extensive, moderated study of the Old and New Testaments through a respected and accredited Bible College, I find that after viewing Chuck Missler's 24 sessions on Genesis, and 24 sessions on his Revelation commentary, I find hardly anything that he does not justify in Scripture, and parts of Revelation that he does not understand, he is honest in saying that he has no idea of what they mean. But he believes that the obscure parts of the Old Testament can be interpreted through the New Testament, and vice versa.

So my review of Chuck Misslers' work is very positive, in spite of him having no actual academic theological qualifications. But I do have post graduate qualifications in Literature, Scholarship and Theology and therefore recognise his expertise resulting from his 50 years of intense study of the Old and New Testaments, and also his academic qualifications in Information Technology, which he has applied to the Bible to show that it is an integrated work with the uninterrupted stream of God's plan of salvation through 40 authors over thousands of years. He has discovered through the structure of the Bible, which he is well academically qualified to comment on, that although it has been written over thousands of years through 40 different authors, there is strong evidence of a supervising designer who exists outside our physical and time-based universe, who knows the end from the beginning, and has designed the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as a complete account of God's plan of salvation from the very beginning of creation, right through to when the world and universe will be destroyed to make way for a totally new universe and world.

So you can rubbish Chuck Missler all you like, but from my academic qualified standpoint, your opposition to him doesn't hold water.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As part of my M.A. I was trained in the techniques of scholarship. I know the difference between good and insufficient scholarship. I find that Chuck Missler employs good scholarship in that for each point he makes he provides comprehensive and full Scriptural evidence. As far as relying on the KJV, many reliable commentaries have used the KJV, and the more modern translations have only identified cosmetic changes due to updating the 17th Century language. There are around eight 17th Century words that have different meanings, and once the change of meaning has been identified, the KJV present no problem in reliable hermeneutics.

He says that he does not take the Bible absolutely literally, because that would deny the different literary genres in it. He says that he takes it seriously and demonstrates good knowledge of the different genres that make up the Bible. The other thing that I find good scholarship on his part is that he does not put his views forward as being the exclusively correct ones. He recognises the work of other very competent scholars who have different views to his own. He says that the views he puts forward are just the way he sees it, and that his hearers should not believe everything he says at face value, but to do their own homework in the Scriptures to establish what he is teaching is consistent with the Scriptures and therefore has value. He doesn't, as you have done, rubbish other scholars who may have different opinions to what he has.

In actual fact, after having closely studied the Old and New Testaments of the Bible over 55 years, and having an M.Div that required me to do three years of extensive, moderated study of the Old and New Testaments through a respected and accredited Bible College, I find that after viewing Chuck Missler's 24 sessions on Genesis, and 24 sessions on his Revelation commentary, I find hardly anything that he does not justify in Scripture, and parts of Revelation that he does not understand, he is honest in saying that he has no idea of what they mean. But he believes that the obscure parts of the Old Testament can be interpreted through the New Testament, and vice versa.

So my review of Chuck Misslers' work is very positive, in spite of him having no actual academic theological qualifications. But I do have post graduate qualifications in Literature, Scholarship and Theology and therefore recognise his expertise resulting from his 50 years of intense study of the Old and New Testaments, and also his academic qualifications in Information Technology, which he has applied to the Bible to show that it is an integrated work with the uninterrupted stream of God's plan of salvation through 40 authors over thousands of years. He has discovered through the structure of the Bible, which he is well academically qualified to comment on, that although it has been written over thousands of years through 40 different authors, there is strong evidence of a supervising designer who exists outside our physical and time-based universe, who knows the end from the beginning, and has designed the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as a complete account of God's plan of salvation from the very beginning of creation, right through to when the world and universe will be destroyed to make way for a totally new universe and world.

So you can rubbish Chuck Missler all you like, but from my academic qualified standpoint, your opposition to him doesn't hold water.

That's an interesting overview about Chuck Missler, Watchmen1. It seems to parallel mine in how and why I value the scholarship of the scholars whom I reference as well (many of whom are Christian).

Like you, I don't feel that a lot of the opposition or criticism I see directed at them holds much water. In this, we seem to have a lot of things in common in how we trust who we trust, and why we do.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So you can rubbish Chuck Missler all you like, but from my academic qualified standpoint, your opposition to him doesn't hold water.

So you can rubbish Chuck Missler all you like, but from my academic qualified standpoint, your opposition to him doesn't hold water.

I did not rubbish Chuck Missler; I simply posted objective facts about his lack of education and expertise in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Furthermore, studying translations of the Bible, especially inadequate ones, is not studying the Bible—it is merely studying what the translations say. The Bible is the word of God, and it deserves to be studied, really studied in the languages in which God chose to give it to us. And, when the Bible is really studied, some of the things that we learned as children in Sunday school do not prove to be true. Furthermore, using these Sunday school teachings in an attempt to refute the theory of evolution and to defend interpretations of the Bible that have been proven incorrect is futile.

My closing comments: The theory of evolution is based upon the finest methods of scientific inquiry and it has been endorsed by more than four million men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in at least one field in the natural sciences. The 47 men who have earned a doctorate in a field in the natural sciences but who are strenuously opposing the theory of evolution are not currently employed as scientists due to their having made themselves unemployable as scientists. In order to support themselves financially, they peddle young earth propaganda.

The theory of evolution is based upon hundreds of billons of observations and the objective interpretation of those observations. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, sociology, or politics. The Bible says absolutely nothing about the theory—a theory that is totally irrelevant to the Christian faith. However, when Christians argue against the theory, they make themselves, the Bible, and the Christian faith appear to unbelievers to be a religion of the intellectually impaired. I am a conservative, evangelical Christian, and I have seen, and continue to see, the irreparable harm that anti-evolution teaching is doing to our faith.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I did not rubbish Chuck Missler; I simply posted objective facts about his lack of education and expertise in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Furthermore, studying translations of the Bible, especially inadequate ones, is not studying the Bible—it is merely studying what the translations say. The Bible is the word of God, and it deserves to be studied, really studied in the languages in which God chose to give it to us. And, when the Bible is really studied, some of the things that we learned as children in Sunday school do not prove to be true. Furthermore, using these Sunday school teachings in an attempt to refute the theory of evolution and to defend interpretations of the Bible that have been proven incorrect is futile.

My closing comments: The theory of evolution is based upon the finest methods of scientific inquiry and it has been endorsed by more than four million men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in at least one field in the natural sciences. The 47 men who have earned a doctorate in a field in the natural sciences but who are strenuously opposing the theory of evolution are not currently employed as scientists due to their having made themselves unemployable as scientists. In order to support themselves financially, they peddle young earth propaganda.

The theory of evolution is based upon hundreds of billons of observations and the objective interpretation of those observations. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, sociology, or politics. The Bible says absolutely nothing about the theory—a theory that is totally irrelevant to the Christian faith. However, when Christians argue against the theory, they make themselves, the Bible, and the Christian faith appear to unbelievers to be a religion of the intellectually impaired. I am a conservative, evangelical Christian, and I have seen, and continue to see, the irreparable harm that anti-evolution teaching is doing to our faith.

Evolution suggests that God is not all-powerful and is unable to create a whole universe and habitable planet in an instant of time. There was one question that someone put about God taking six days to create the world, "Why did He take so long?"

Also, it implies that both the Father and Jesus are liars. When Jesus said that the world was created in six days, He used the Greek word for the 24 hour day.

Further more, in Genesis 1-3, it says that God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, and so the seventh day becomes the Sabbath. We know that the Sabbath is a 24 hour day, not millions of years, and the word for the Sabbath "day" is the same Hebrew word for "day" for every other reference to a 24 hour day throughout the Old Testament. And the word for "day" in the creation account is the same exact Hebrew word. So it seems inconsistent for the same Hebrew word for "day" is used everywhere in the Old Testament, except for the six days of creation. It seems that someone decided to change the meaning of the Hebrew word just for Genesis 1-3.

It has been proved that Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that it is historical narrative. Scholars who take the Bible seriously and literally agree on that. Scholars who decide that the Bible is mainly allegorical differ in their opinions and tend to take the Evolutionary perspective. It is inconceivable that Moses would use the Hebrew word for "day" meaning 24 hours in all the rest of the book of Genesis except for Genesis 1-3 where he would say the meaning of the word there means millions of years. One could say that Moses believed in Evolution, along with the pagan cultures around Israel, and deliberately changed the meaning of the Hebrew word for "day" just for that section of Genesis. But there is no evidence of that. When Moses received the Ten Commandments he quoted which was the only document written directly by God Himself, there is written "Six days hath the Lord made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh He rested and that is the Sabbath Day. The word for "day" is exactly the same as all the rest. So God confirmed by His own hand that His meaning of "day" is 24 hours. Any sensible student of language would confirm that the Hebrew meaning of "day" being 24 hours, would certainly apply for the whole book of Genesis without exception.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Evolution suggests that God is not all-powerful and is unable to create a whole universe and habitable planet in an instant of time. There was one question that someone put about God taking six days to create the world, "Why did He take so long?"

Also, it implies that both the Father and Jesus are liars. When Jesus said that the world was created in six days, He used the Greek word for the 24 hour day.

Further more, in Genesis 1-3, it says that God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, and so the seventh day becomes the Sabbath. We know that the Sabbath is a 24 hour day, not millions of years, and the word for the Sabbath "day" is the same Hebrew word for "day" for every other reference to a 24 hour day throughout the Old Testament. And the word for "day" in the creation account is the same exact Hebrew word. So it seems inconsistent for the same Hebrew word for "day" is used everywhere in the Old Testament, except for the six days of creation. It seems that someone decided to change the meaning of the Hebrew word just for Genesis 1-3.

It has been proved that Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that it is historical narrative. Scholars who take the Bible seriously and literally agree on that. Scholars who decide that the Bible is mainly allegorical differ in their opinions and tend to take the Evolutionary perspective. It is inconceivable that Moses would use the Hebrew word for "day" meaning 24 hours in all the rest of the book of Genesis except for Genesis 1-3 where he would say the meaning of the word there means millions of years. One could say that Moses believed in Evolution, along with the pagan cultures around Israel, and deliberately changed the meaning of the Hebrew word for "day" just for that section of Genesis. But there is no evidence of that. When Moses received the Ten Commandments he quoted which was the only document written directly by God Himself, there is written "Six days hath the Lord made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh He rested and that is the Sabbath Day. The word for "day" is exactly the same as all the rest. So God confirmed by His own hand that His meaning of "day" is 24 hours. Any sensible student of language would confirm that the Hebrew meaning of "day" being 24 hours, would certainly apply for the whole book of Genesis without exception.

Some glaring errors in this post need to be corrected.

The phrase “six days” is not found anywhere in Genesis.

The phrase “six days” in reference to the creation of the earth first appears in Exodus 20:11, For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (NRSV). In this verse, the Hebrew word ימים is translated as day, and, depending on the context, the word can express the concept of a twelve hour day from sunrise to sunset as in Gen. 1:5, or the concept of a twenty-four hour day from one sunset to the next as in Ex. 20:11, or it can be used figuratively. Virtually all Old Testament scholars agree that when it is used in creation contexts, it expressed the concept of a twenty-four hour day from one sunset to the next.

The theory of evolution does not suggest anything about God.

The theory of evolution does not imply anything about either the Father or Jesus.

Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus say that the world was created in six days,

There are many more false statements in this post about Moses, etc. but I do not have the time to correct so very many errors in a single post.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolution suggests that God is not all-powerful and is unable to create a whole universe and habitable planet in an instant of time. There was one question that someone put about God taking six days to create the world, "Why did He take so long?"

Also, it implies that both the Father and Jesus are liars. When Jesus said that the world was created in six days, He used the Greek word for the 24 hour day.

Further more, in Genesis 1-3, it says that God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, and so the seventh day becomes the Sabbath. We know that the Sabbath is a 24 hour day, not millions of years, and the word for the Sabbath "day" is the same Hebrew word for "day" for every other reference to a 24 hour day throughout the Old Testament. And the word for "day" in the creation account is the same exact Hebrew word. So it seems inconsistent for the same Hebrew word for "day" is used everywhere in the Old Testament, except for the six days of creation. It seems that someone decided to change the meaning of the Hebrew word just for Genesis 1-3.

It has been proved that Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that it is historical narrative. Scholars who take the Bible seriously and literally agree on that. Scholars who decide that the Bible is mainly allegorical differ in their opinions and tend to take the Evolutionary perspective. It is inconceivable that Moses would use the Hebrew word for "day" meaning 24 hours in all the rest of the book of Genesis except for Genesis 1-3 where he would say the meaning of the word there means millions of years. One could say that Moses believed in Evolution, along with the pagan cultures around Israel, and deliberately changed the meaning of the Hebrew word for "day" just for that section of Genesis. But there is no evidence of that. When Moses received the Ten Commandments he quoted which was the only document written directly by God Himself, there is written "Six days hath the Lord made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh He rested and that is the Sabbath Day. The word for "day" is exactly the same as all the rest. So God confirmed by His own hand that His meaning of "day" is 24 hours. Any sensible student of language would confirm that the Hebrew meaning of "day" being 24 hours, would certainly apply for the whole book of Genesis without exception.

Here's the thing: I don't think the Bible necessarily fully defines what God's being "ALMIGHTY" amounts to, and in our reading of it, we shouldn't assume that God's power must include, or always require, instantaneous results. To assume the Bible insists that "almighty" absolutely denotate that God's power is not only superlative but also instantaneous at any given moment and for all purposes is to assert an ad hoc expectation.

Our requiring that 'almighty' must mean the power God uses in all instances is always immediate is more appropriate for a Houdini story or a super-hero comic book and really only serves to assuage the demands of our modern day sensibilities for ultimate power, particularly, it's more fitting for the expectations that come with magical, pagan thought rather than ancient Jewish thought. We all have been lulled into the expectation for "the quick fix." I don't think even the ancient Jews ever fully expected this; I doubt Moses did either.

God isn't required to fit nice and neatly into our conceptual grids and express His power in only categorical terms of "perfection" that meet with modern fancies and interpretations. For any of us to expect this, even where the 'creation' story in Genesis is concerned is to commit various fallacies and to push false conclusions.

There's a lot the Bible says; there's also a lot it doesn't actually say, particularly where the comprehensive nature of God's power is concerned. We should recognize this.