• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution as a necessary socio-political creation story

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
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 at the lower end of the intelligence and education spectrum argue against the theory, they make themselves, the Bible, and the Christian faith appear to unbelievers to be a religion of the intellectually handicapped. 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.
Seeing that everything that has been made was made by Jesus, then I guess He would have something to do with how the universe and our world came into being. Have a look at Chuck Missler's Genesis Commentary. It is a real eye opener.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,717
13,279
78
✟440,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It seems that you are basing your view on information other than the Bible itself. If you believe that Jesus was nothing more than a 1st Century Galilean peasant, then you would have no real idea of how the universe came into being, and Evolution would be your only explanation.
The key is that it was the way God chose to do things. But Jesus never discussed how He did it. Evolution just happens to be the way it works; we see that going on around us constantly.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,717
13,279
78
✟440,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
YE creationism is a great atheist-maker.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,504
20,786
Orlando, Florida
✟1,518,487.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
It seems that you are basing your view on information other than the Bible itself. If you believe that Jesus was nothing more than a 1st Century Galilean peasant, then you would have no real idea of how the universe came into being, and Evolution would be your only explanation.

I never said Jesus was nothing more than a Galilean peasant. But expecting him to be an authority on science isn't warranted.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟172,998.00
Faith
Baptist
Seeing that everything that has been made was made by Jesus, then I guess He would have something to do with how the universe and our world came into being. Have a look at Chuck Missler's Genesis Commentary. It is a real eye opener.
A commentary on Genesis by a man who does not know even the first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet! What a gross absurdity!

Check out this commentary on Genesis by a man who cared enough about the Old Testament to learn how to read it and then spent a large portion of his life studying the Book of Genesis in the original Hebrew and in the ancient translations of the Hebrew text:

Westermann, Claus (Chap. 1-11) exe., xii, 636 pages, 1974 (German), 1984 (English)
Westermann, Claus (Chap. 12-36) exe., 604 pages, 1981 (German), 1985 (English)
Westermann, Claus (Chap. 37-50) exe., 269 pages, 1982 (German), 1986 (English)
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The key is that it was the way God chose to do things. But Jesus never discussed how He did it. Evolution just happens to be the way it works; we see that going on around us constantly.
It's basically the next best guess if one doesn't want to accept the six day creation as described in Genesis 1-3.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I never said Jesus was nothing more than a Galilean peasant. But expecting him to be an authority on science isn't warranted.
Seeing that according to the Bible, Jesus, as the pre-incarnate Son of God created it all, I would think that as the designer and creator He would be the best authority.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,504
20,786
Orlando, Florida
✟1,518,487.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Seeing that according to the Bible, Jesus, as the pre-incarnate Son of God created it all, I would think that as the designer and creator He would be the best authority.

Trinitarian and Chalcedonian Christology doesn't necessarily imply that Jesus was the cosmic answer man before he became human. That's confusing religious symbols with concrete realities. It no more makes sense to go to Jesus words to answer science questions than in would be to go to a scientist to ask religious questions.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Trinitarian and Chalcedonian Christology doesn't necessarily imply that Jesus was the cosmic answer man before he became human. That's confusing religious symbols with concrete realities. It no more makes sense to go to Jesus words to answer science questions than in would be to go to a scientist to ask religious questions.
In the middle of Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew there is a small two letter group that wasn't translated. They are the first and last letters of the alphabet. It is a code to say that the first and last were involved in the creation of the world. In John 1:1, there is the same untranslated group of Greek letters (alpha and omega) that also stands for the first and last. Jesus is described as the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. He was the first Adam and the last Adam. This "code" in Genesis 1:1, linking with John 1:1, clearly validates that Jesus Christ is responsible for the creation of the world.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,504
20,786
Orlando, Florida
✟1,518,487.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
In the middle of Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew there is a small two letter group that wasn't translated. They are the first and last letters of the alphabet. It is a code to say that the first and last were involved in the creation of the world. In John 1:1, there is the same untranslated group of Greek letters (alpha and omega) that also stands for the first and last. Jesus is described as the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. He was the first Adam and the last Adam. This "code" in Genesis 1:1, linking with John 1:1, clearly validates that Jesus Christ is responsible for the creation of the world.

That doesn't mean that as a human being, he had all the answers, or more importantly, that God has revealed to us all the answers. The point of this Christology is in Christ, we have finite humanity united with the infinite God. Not that necessarily Jesus was smarter than Einstein. Jesus had a human mind, just as we all do. To imply otherwise is to entertain heresy, perhaps Docetism (Christ merely appeared to be human) or Eutychianism (Christ's humanity was subsumed by his divinity). Jesus was not God in a human skinsuit just pretending to be human.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't mean that as a human being, he had all the answers, or more importantly, that God has revealed to us all the answers. The point of this Christology is in Christ, we have finite humanity united with the infinite God. Not that necessarily Jesus was smarter than Einstein. Jesus had a human mind, just as we all do. To imply otherwise is to entertain heresy, perhaps Docetism (Christ merely appeared to be human) or Eutychianism (Christ's humanity was subsumed by his divinity). Jesus was not God in a human skinsuit just pretending to be human.
I think you have a very limited view of who Jesus really was and is. There are ample references in the Gospels that show that Jesus was not only a real human, but He was God as well. Only God could still a storm, walk on water, knew the thoughts of people, fed 5000 people with a child's lunch on two occasions, cast out a legion of demons. No one since the ascension of Christ has been able to do those things. Only God could say, "Before Abraham was, I AM", being the same "I AM" who spoke out of the burning bush to Moses. Jesus showed He was God when He was transfigured before John, Peter, and James on the mount of transfiguration, and met with Elijah and Moses. So to say that Jesus was just a finite human shows that you need to do your homework in the Scriptures to see who Jesus really is.

There is a heresy taught by Joyce Meyer and others like her, that Jesus didn't become God until His resurrection. There is nothing in the Scriptures that say that. He was truly God and truly man from the day He was born in Bethlehem, and He is still the God-man seated at the right hand of the majesty on high.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,504
20,786
Orlando, Florida
✟1,518,487.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I think you have a very limited view of who Jesus really was and is. There are ample references in the Gospels that show that Jesus was not only a real human, but He was God as well. Only God could still a storm, walk on water, knew the thoughts of people, fed 5000 people with a child's lunch on two occasions, cast out a legion of demons. No one since the ascension of Christ has been able to do those things. Only God could say, "Before Abraham was, I AM", being the same "I AM" who spoke out of the burning bush to Moses. Jesus showed He was God when He was transfigured before John, Peter, and James on the mount of transfiguration, and met with Elijah and Moses.


And yet the same Jesus said his followers would do greater things. The point isn't that Jesus is superhuman. That's not what Chalcedonian Christology implies. Jesus experienced all the limitations of human life in a real, not illusory way. He had to learn to walk, talk, read, and write just like every other human being. Jesus didn't perform miracles according to his divine nature in isolation, but according to human nature united with the divine will.

So to say that Jesus was just a finite human shows that you need to do your homework in the Scriptures to see who Jesus really is.

I never said Jesus was just a finite human. You run the risk of trying to think of divinity in the wrong terms, as "the big Other", in contradistinction to humanity. This actually decenters Christ, and makes God an object of speculation or projection.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
And yet the same Jesus said his followers would do greater things. The point isn't that Jesus is superhuman. That's not what Chalcedonian Christology implies. Jesus experienced all the limitations of human life in a real, not illusory way. He had to learn to walk, talk, read, and write just like every other human being. Jesus didn't perform miracles according to his divine nature in isolation, but according to human nature united with the divine will.



I never said Jesus was just a finite human. You run the risk of trying to think of divinity in the wrong terms, as "the big Other", in contradistinction to humanity. This actually decenters Christ, and makes God an object of speculation or projection.
Sounds like the hyper Charismatic doctrine that teaches that Jesus was just an ordinary human being empowered by the Holy Spirit. This gives the impression that we can do exactly the same things He did through the power of the Holy Spirit. The problem is that with Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and Creflo Dollar who teach the doctrine, they have not achieved anything more than just speech making about it. They have not achieved any of the minor miracles that Jesus did let alone the greater works they say they can do.

I'd better stop now before I get my rear end kicked for getting so far off topic! :)
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,504
20,786
Orlando, Florida
✟1,518,487.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Sounds like the hyper Charismatic doctrine that teaches that Jesus was just an ordinary human being empowered by the Holy Spirit. This gives the impression that we can do exactly the same things He did through the power of the Holy Spirit. The problem is that with Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and Creflo Dollar who teach the doctrine, they have not achieved anything more than just speech making about it. They have not achieved any of the minor miracles that Jesus did let alone the greater works they say they can do.

I'd better stop now before I get my rear end kicked for getting so far off topic! :)

Well, I'm not a Charismatic/Pentecostal, but they aren't completely wrong. Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and did his miracles not according to some kind of abstract "divine nature" but according to his relationship to the Father and the Spirit. Personhood always must be superior to metaphysics in any real Christology worth anything.

Orthodox Christology contains mysteries, but it's important to not reduce the mysteries to some kind of positivism, as facts about the divine nature and its characteristics. The mysteries exist for adoration and inspiration, but Christianity goes off the rails when it tries to profane them by turning them into epistemological or political foundations.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Well, I'm not a Charismatic/Pentecostal, but they aren't completely wrong. Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and did his miracles not according to some kind of abstract "divine nature" but according to his relationship to the Father and the Spirit. Personhood always must be superior to metaphysics in any real Christology worth anything.

Orthodox Christology contains mysteries, but it's important to not reduce the mysteries to some kind of positivism, as facts about the divine nature and its characteristics. The mysteries exist for adoration and inspiration, but Christianity goes off the rails when it tries to profane them by turning them into epistemological or political foundations.
If Jesus was not God, He would have been a lunatic if He didn't know whether He was or not. If He knew He wasn't God He would have been a liar.

If He was God and He knew it, He would have been true and correct.

There are places in the Gospels where Jesus made it quite clear that He was God, and it was as God that He endured the eternal wrath of the Father while suffering on the Cross, and it was as God that He raised Himself from the dead.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟172,998.00
Faith
Baptist
In the middle of Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew there is a small two letter group that wasn't translated. They are the first and last letters of the alphabet. It is a code to say that the first and last were involved in the creation of the world. In John 1:1, there is the same untranslated group of Greek letters (alpha and omega) that also stands for the first and last. Jesus is described as the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. He was the first Adam and the last Adam. This "code" in Genesis 1:1, linking with John 1:1, clearly validates that Jesus Christ is responsible for the creation of the world.
The Bible is not a toy to be played with or abused.

1.1 Gen. בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ ׃

The morpheme את is what is known in Hebrew syntax as an “accusative marker.” That is, it serves to alert the reader to the fact that the noun השׁמים (heavens) is in the accusative case being the direct object of the verb ברא (created). An accusative marker is not used in Greek because the accusative case is indicated by how the noun is declined. And of course, an accusative marker is not used in English because English is an analytical language rather than a highly inflected synthetic language. Therefore, accusative markers are not translatable.

John 1:1. ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

The last letter of the Greek alphabet (Ω) does not appear in John 1:1
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The Bible is not a toy to be played with or abused.

The last letter of the Greek alphabet (Ω) does not appear in John 1:1
I'll concede that the two letter group doesn't appear in John 1:1. I'm not sure what source Chuck Missler used. However, he included quite a number of items of valid evidence to show that the Bible is the product of design from a source outside of our physical universe. That is the point I am making - that the Bible is all about Jesus Christ and unless we see that, the Bible is basically meaningless.

Perhaps your initial remark about playing with and abusing the Bible needs to be directed toward those who try to say that Genesis 1-11 are just allegorical myths and not history of real events. Those are the ones who are not taking the Bible seriously.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟172,998.00
Faith
Baptist
I'll concede that the two letter group doesn't appear in John 1:1. I'm not sure what source Chuck Missler used. However, he included quite a number of items of valid evidence to show that the Bible is the product of design from a source outside of our physical universe. That is the point I am making - that the Bible is all about Jesus Christ and unless we see that, the Bible is basically meaningless.

Perhaps your initial remark about playing with and abusing the Bible needs to be directed toward those who try to say that Genesis 1-11 are just allegorical myths and not history of real events. Those are the ones who are not taking the Bible seriously.
How could a mature Christian possibly make such an obviously wrong mistake! And what did Chuck Missler have to do with any of this? He never earned any kind of a degree in any field of study having to do with the Bible, and he never wrote anything of sufficient quality or value to have it published by a Christian publishing house. Therefore, the junk that he wrote is published by a Christian ministry (Koinonia House) that he founded and led for many years.

As for allegorical myths, I have here in my study 27 commentaries on Genesis and none of them proposes that there are any allegorical myths in Genesis 1-11. And indeed, there are not any!

However, even Kenneth A. Mathews, a staunchly conservative evangelical Bible scholar, freely admits in his 960-page commentary on Genesis 1-11 that Genesis 1-11 is written in a very different genre of literature than the rest of Genesis, that is, the historical narrative. But what genre of literature is it written in? He refuses to answer that question because most staunchly conservative evangelical Christians are afraid of the answer and what it means for their concept of the inspiration of Scripture.

It has not always been like that, however, because at least as early as the third century, Christians were noticing and writing that it is impossible to reconcile what Genesis 1-11 says with what they could plainly see with their own eyes. And there was another problem—more and more Christians were accepting the fact that the earth is not flat, as the Bible “teaches” in Genesis (and even in the New Testament), but nearly spherical. Literary analysis shows us that Genesis 1-11 is a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. God Himself gave the Bible to us in genres of literature that help us differentiate between accurate accounts of historic events and epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
How could a mature Christian possibly make such an obviously wrong mistake! And what did Chuck Missler have to do with any of this? He never earned any kind of a degree in any field of study having to do with the Bible, and he never wrote anything of sufficient quality or value to have it published by a Christian publishing house. Therefore, the junk that he wrote is published by a Christian ministry (Koinonia House) that he founded and led for many years.

As for allegorical myths, I have here in my study 27 commentaries on Genesis and none of them proposes that there are any allegorical myths in Genesis 1-11. And indeed, there are not any!

However, even Kenneth A. Mathews, a staunchly conservative evangelical Bible scholar, freely admits in his 960-page commentary on Genesis 1-11 that Genesis 1-11 is written in a very different genre of literature than the rest of Genesis, that is, the historical narrative. But what genre of literature is it written in? He refuses to answer that question because most staunchly conservative evangelical Christians are afraid of the answer and what it means for their concept of the inspiration of Scripture.

It has not always been like that, however, because at least as early as the third century, Christians were noticing and writing that it is impossible to reconcile what Genesis 1-11 says with what they could plainly see with their own eyes. And there was another problem—more and more Christians were accepting the fact that the earth is not flat, as the Bible “teaches” in Genesis (and even in the New Testament), but nearly spherical. Literary analysis shows us that Genesis 1-11 is a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. God Himself gave the Bible to us in genres of literature that help us differentiate between accurate accounts of historic events and epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends.
I have an MA in literature, so know about the different genres of literature. My view of Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative. It does not have the characteristic of epic tales, sagas, myths or legends. In fact the whole of Genesis is a complete stream of historical narrative, describing real people and events. Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve as real people. There are genealogies that clearly show when definite people were born and died, right up to Noah. These were all real people in history. myth and legend does not describe people and events in that way.

I also have an M.Div. I see that Chuck Missler has done very comprehensive research based on Scripture. His views make logical sense and recognises other scholarship which may not agree with him, but he puts his view, but encourages his listeners to adopt a Berean attitude and search the Scriptures for themselves to confirm that what he teaches is consistent with Scripture or not.

My view is that God says that he created the universe and the world in six 24 hour days, and anyone who says that He didn't is calling Him a liar. The Hebrew word for the 24 hour day is reflected all the way through the Old Testament, and the Hebrew word for "day" is no different in Genesis 1-3. There is only one meaning for the Hebrew word, and that is "day". There is no other meaning for it. God related the book of Genesis to Moses, telling him to write it all down as a record.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟172,998.00
Faith
Baptist
I have an MA in literature, so know about the different genres of literature. My view of Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative. It does not have the characteristic of epic tales, sagas, myths or legends. In fact the whole of Genesis is a complete stream of historical narrative, describing real people and events. Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve as real people. There are genealogies that clearly show when definite people were born and died, right up to Noah. These were all real people in history. myth and legend does not describe people and events in that way.

I also have an M.Div. I see that Chuck Missler has done very comprehensive research based on Scripture. His views make logical sense and recognises other scholarship which may not agree with him, but he puts his view, but encourages his listeners to adopt a Berean attitude and search the Scriptures for themselves to confirm that what he teaches is consistent with Scripture or not.

My view is that God says that he created the universe and the world in six 24 hour days, and anyone who says that He didn't is calling Him a liar. The Hebrew word for the 24 hour day is reflected all the way through the Old Testament, and the Hebrew word for "day" is no different in Genesis 1-3. There is only one meaning for the Hebrew word, and that is "day". There is no other meaning for it. God related the book of Genesis to Moses, telling him to write it all down as a record.
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.
 
Upvote 0