Evolution eventually leads to....

[Critias]

The acceptance of evolution begins with asserting your own meaning in Genesis 1-11. This done by stating what is written, therein, is not a historical narrative but rather a mythological account of things that may or may not be true; the only thing that truly matters is Genesis 1:1, the rest is just extra words.

First off, this suggests that God has inspired holy men to write information that is redundant and unimportant.

There is the claim that the reason Genesis 1-2 exists is to back up the Fourth Commandment. This doesn't make sense in the light of the fact that Deut. leaves out the creation account and still is able to teach how to rest and praise God on the Sabbath. Also, this was the time that God brought the Israelites ought of Egypt and set up a nation for them governed by laws, God's laws. Traditionally, Jews believe that the Ten Commandments were given only to them, not the rest of mankind.

The wording of Exodus 20 suggests that Genesis 1 is being used as an example for the Jews to follow. The Hebrew in no way suggests that Genesis 1 was meant as myth for a later example.

Suggesting such a theory is much like stating that Christ's resurrection didn't really happen in history, it was written so that Paul and John could expound on it to teach us of the resurrection of dead on the day of judgement would happen.

After dismissing Genesis 1-11 as not being a historical narrative, but rather a myth, it spreads like a disease into the rest of the Bible.

Mark 10:6, Jesus teaches that at the beginning of creation God made them (Adam and Eve because He was speaking to the Jews so it was commonly understood) male and female. If at the beginning of creation God didn't make Adam and Eve, if they were not real literal people, then Jesus here has lied.

Luke 3:38, it gives the end of the geneological account of Jesus' line and ends with son of Adam, son of God. If there was no Adam, then this too is an error.

Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:27, Jesus speaks about the end times saying it will be like the days of Noah before the flood came, people unaware of what is about to come. If there was no global flood, then Jesus is in error here. In these same verses, if Noah wasn't a real person, Jesus is in error again and is being deceiving. He does not state anywhere, nor gives any indication that this is a parable.

Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul speaks of a literal Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then Paul is in error. If Adam was not the first man, Paul is in error; if Adam was not formed first, Paul is in error.

2 Corinthians 11:3, if there was no real Eve, Paul is in error.

Acts 17:26, if all mankind did not come from one man, then Paul is in error.

Jude 1:14, if there was no real Adam, then Jude is in error.

Hebrews 11:7, if there was no real Noah, the writer of Hebrews is in error. If there wasn't an ark built to save Noah and his family from the flood, this writer is in error.

1 Peter 3:30; 1 Peter 4:4; 2 Peter 2:5, if Noah didn't exist Peter is in error. If eight people only were not saved from the flood, Peter is in error. If God spared the ancient world from the flood, then Peter is in error. If the global flood did not take place, Peter is in error.

After accepting evolution and imposing your own meaning on Genesis 1-11, these are just some of the verses you must declare to be in error. This includes Peter, Paul, Jude, the writer of Hebrews, Luke, and Jesus Christ. All of these holy men of God, Apostles and our Lord and Savior are all wrong when taking this road of acceptance in the evolutionary theory.

I wanted to point out these verses so all can see what they must deny and declare in error by their belief in what men tell them about creation. Even Jesus Christ, God Himself is not free from error when accepting this belief. And if Jesus Christ is in error, being He is God, then Jesus Christ is not the Son of God.

This is the road that leads you to the slippery slope that one travels and ends up to eventually. Maybe not all, maybe not now, but as we can see in this forum, many are already there declaring Peter, Paul and Jesus to be in error.

How can one proclaim Christianity and hold the position that Jesus Christ did not speak error free in His teachings; that His teachings to contain errors within them? You really cannot effectively do so because Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The term Son of God was understood to mean God Himself in those days. And God cannot commit error and if Jesus did, Jesus was not God.

This is why this is such a dangerous theory and one that needs to be fought against. It is not evolution itself, it is the result of the acceptance of evolution that causes one to impose their own meaning into the Bible that suggests all these men and God Himself are in error.

 

[keyarch]

.....This is why this is such a dangerous theory and one that needs to be fought against. It is not evolution itself, it is the result of the acceptance of evolution that causes one to impose their own meaning into the Bible that suggests all these men and God Himself are in error.

Good post! I'm sure the TE will want to give a response, but will be restricted in this forum.

I often wonder why this trend for Christians accepting evolution is happening. Especially since some seem to have a lot of scientific knowledge and understand the complexity of life. I wonder if it's part of Satan’s spiritual warfare. At the same time, I think there are many Christians who reject evolution and yet haven't spent the time to do research on natural revelation (evidences in the natural world) to have defensible foundations for their worldview.

In other words, (1) if there was a global flood, there should be evidences left behind from that event and we should be able to point them out and have some logical explanation for the source of all the water needed to cover the planet.

(2) If one believes in a six day creation period some 6,000 years ago, then how would the apparent distances of stellar bodies and the time for the light to reach earth be explained?

These and other scientific type issues are a stumbling block to a person who may otherwise have accepted a literal interpretation of the creation account and the flood.

They do have answers.

1. www.genesistruth.org/documents/floodsource.pdf

2. www.genesistruth.org/documents/Young Biological Creation.pdf

 

[Critias]

I put this here so that it remains without argument. If a TE wishes to argue the above post of mine, let them do so in the open forum. They have the ability to create a new thread there and refute what I have presented.

My point for this, as well as the other thread "Church Fathers" is to give other creationists resources and verses that are applicable to this subject. Instead of just debating, a presentation of where the evolutionary view point leads, I believe, is more beneficial for those who are unsure of where they stand.

I prefer the presentation of the Bible over science because I know, without doubt, that the Bible is God's Word given in written form and is true, innerrant and infallible. I do not have this faith in science because there are many who have deceived purposely within to push their own agenda. There are men who deny the existence of God and push their evolutionary theories and doctrines to be accepted as fact, even without grounds. Men are fallible, God is not.

God does not deceive but speaks truthfully. God also wants us to understand His basic teachings, His Word was not given to confuse, deceive, or not be understood. Man, over time, has complicated God's Word, not believing that what it is saying is what it is meant to say.

I trust Jesus Christ with what He has said about earthly matters and I can trust what He has said about heavenly matters. The Gospel does not begin in Matthew, it begins in Genesis going straight through to Revelations.

 

[shernren]

I will only say that there are answers and resolutions to the issues you have posted. Your post sounds like an assumption that all evolutionists are half-baked Christians who unthinkingly sign off half the Bible by rejecting YECism. That is not true. I would believe that most, if not all, evolutionists have grappled with and thought over these apparent problems and found satisfactory resolutions to uphold the sanctity and importance of the Bible. The only issue is that our varoius approaches seem satisfactory to us and not to you. I'm just pointing out that your post makes it sound a lot like evolutionists simply blanko half the Bible without trying to work the problems out. Not that "there are unsatisfactory resolutions", but "there are no resolutions". This is what I have problems with:

I wanted to point out these verses so all can see what they must deny and declare in error by their belief in what men tell them about creation. Even Jesus Christ, God Himself is not free from error when accepting this belief. And if Jesus Christ is in error, being He is God, then Jesus Christ is not the Son of God.

(emphasis added) I think this is simply an unfair characterisation and generalisation of us evolutionists. But I do respect your maturity in separating this theological argument from a scientific argument, since we are dealing with a theological and not a scientific dispute.

I often wonder why this trend for Christians accepting evolution is happening. Especially since some seem to have a lot of scientific knowledge and understand the complexity of life. I wonder if it's part of Satan’s spiritual warfare. At the same time, I think there are many Christians who reject evolution and yet haven't spent the time to do research on natural revelation (evidences in the natural world) to have defensible foundations for their worldview.

Actually, the trend is more for US Christians to reject evolution and accept creationism, and for non-US Christians to accept evolution and have no problem with it. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say YECism is Manufactured in USA, which of course makes it suspicious to a not-so-fond-of-America bigot like me. And evolution has little or nothing to do with spiritual warfare. The church everywhere has to settle the issues of:

-consumerism and materialism
-resolving the artificial evangelism / social justice dichotomy
-cultural relevance
-emerging Zen Buddhist ontology of quantum science
-ethicality of homosexuality
-Gospel relevance to oppressed, underprivileged and poor

These problems are like cancer in the church, and compared to them the problem of atheistic evolution is more like the common cold.

 

[United]

The acceptance of evolution begins with asserting your own meaning in Genesis 1-11. This done by stating what is written, therein, is not a historical narrative but rather a mythological account of things that may or may not be true; the only thing that truly matters is Genesis 1:1, the rest is just extra words.

Hi there Critias,

I have no problems with evolution, yet I still hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. There is no need to assume a mythological account to believe in evolution, although I still respect those who do.

 

[shernren]

Now that's new, United! Just what do you mean? Elaborate? Doesn't a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 mean six literal days, and how does evolution work over such timescales?

 

[United]

Now that's new, United! Just what do you mean? Elaborate? Doesn't a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 mean six literal days, and how does evolution work over such timescales?

Hi There shernren,

You obviously haven't heard of the new "Rapid Evolution" theory! But seriously, what you are referring to is the "YEC" literal interpretation. There are a number of different literal interpretations which do not require a 6 earth day creation period (the six indefinite periods, the 6 days of proclamation & the six days of explaination theories).

 

[shernren]

You obviously haven't heard of the new "Rapid Evolution" theory! But seriously, what you are referring to is the "YEC" literal interpretation.

Well, I think the YEC literal interpretation is the most respectable literal interpretation to take on Genesis 1.

six indefinite periods

The normal argument that is forwarded is that "yom" preceded by an ordinal number, and reinforced by "evening and morning", can only refer to a 24-hour day whether literal or mythical. Has it been rebutted?

the 6 days of proclamation & the six days of explaination theories

I'm not sure about 6 days of explanation, but from what I see the "6 days of proclamation" theory sounds to be a bit forced. Might as well just say it's a myth and be a full-fledged TE. You aren't afraid of myths, are you?

 

[Remus]

The normal argument that is forwarded is that "yom" preceded by an ordinal number, and reinforced by "evening and morning", can only refer to a 24-hour day whether literal or mythical. Has it been rebutted?

Actually, I believe that the arguement is that every place that 'yom' is used with some limiting number, it means a literal 24-hour day. It's not that it can only refer to this, it's that it doesn't. The only weakness of this arguement that I can see (and it's not much of one) is that there could always be an exception. I like CRI's perspective on this one:
http://www.equip.org/free/DA060.htm

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark 10:6, Jesus teaches that at the beginning of creation God made them (Adam and Eve because He was speaking to the Jews so it was commonly understood) male and female. If at the beginning of creation God didn't make Adam and Eve, if they were not real literal people, then Jesus here has lied.

Luke 3:38, it gives the end of the geneological account of Jesus' line and ends with son of Adam, son of God. If there was no Adam, then this too is an error.

Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:27, Jesus speaks about the end times saying it will be like the days of Noah before the flood came, people unaware of what is about to come. If there was no global flood, then Jesus is in error here. In these same verses, if Noah wasn't a real person, Jesus is in error again and is being deceiving. He does not state anywhere, nor gives any indication that this is a parable.

Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul speaks of a literal Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then Paul is in error. If Adam was not the first man, Paul is in error; if Adam was not formed first, Paul is in error.

2 Corinthians 11:3, if there was no real Eve, Paul is in error.

Acts 17:26, if all mankind did not come from one man, then Paul is in error.

Jude 1:14, if there was no real Adam, then Jude is in error.

Hebrews 11:7, if there was no real Noah, the writer of Hebrews is in error. If there wasn't an ark built to save Noah and his family from the flood, this writer is in error.

1 Peter 3:30; 1 Peter 4:4; 2 Peter 2:5, if Noah didn't exist Peter is in error. If eight people only were not saved from the flood, Peter is in error. If God spared the ancient world from the flood, then Peter is in error. If the global flood did not take place, Peter is in error.

This makes a very imortant point, how do we square this with natural science. Genesis one is a little vauge but Genesis two is not. Adam was made in a single day and this did not require a chimpanzee. When we talk about what we know to be true, the literal meaning of science by the way, we are talking about things we can experience independantly. Most of what we experience with regards to salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit who tells us that we are the Children of God. Is that scientific? No, of course its not. Can you know it for a fact, the New Testament is clear that we can know for sure on a personal level.

Great post! It is refreshing to find something as lucid and tangable that goes directly to the Scriptures. TE does not go to the Scriptures and I think that discredits them in a big way. Don't get me wrong, I believe that living things evolve and adapt on a regular basis. However, human beings descending from apes is an impossible scenerio and eventually scientists will have to come to terms with this.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Great post! It is refreshing to find something as lucid and tangable that goes directly to the Scriptures. TE does not go to the Scriptures and I think that discredits them in a big way. Don't get me wrong, I believe that living things evolve and adapt on a regular basis. However, human beings descending from apes is an impossible scenerio and eventually scientists will have to come to terms with this.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Go on, believe whatever you want about us. I'm not surprised. After all, AiG thinks we don't even have a reason to wear clothes.

 

[vossler]

Great Post, Critias. Well presented and thought out. Backed up with with Scripture, wow, what a concept.

I often wonder why this trend for Christians accepting evolution is happening. Especially since some seem to have a lot of scientific knowledge and understand the complexity of life. I wonder if it's part of Satan’s spiritual warfare. At the same time, I think there are many Christians who reject evolution and yet haven't spent the time to do research on natural revelation (evidences in the natural world) to have defensible foundations for their worldview.

I believe the answer is that we humans want our cake and eat it too. What I mean is that if we can reinterpret Genesis to our liking, then other Scriptures are open to interpretation also. Evolution is most certainly an idea straight from the pit of hell and Satan, the great deceiver, is using it to full extent.

It all comes down to pride, if we weren't so darn prideful and just trusted God at His Word, we'd all be so much better off.

 

[KerrMetric]

Or, if we relied on Scripture alone we'd be unable to solve real world problems that involve science. Despite the seeming hatrd for evolution around here the fact is that it is a model that produces results. Blindly quoting Genesis does not.

 

[Brilliand]

There are a number of different literal interpretations which do not require a 6 earth day creation period (the six indefinite periods, the 6 days of proclamation & the six days of explaination theories).

The definition of the word "literal" is "the primary meaning of a term or expression," so there is only one literal translation of anything. In Genesis, the literal translation is that it really happened. Theistic Evolutionists think Genesis is not literal.

 

[KerrMetric]

The definition of the word "literal" is "the primary meaning of a term or expression," so there is only one literal translation of anything. In Genesis, the literal translation is that it really happened. Theistic Evolutionists think Genesis is not literal.

Oh dear, you give an acceptable definition of 'literal' and then you mischaracterise how to apply that to Genesis.

 

[Smidlee]

Or, if we relied on Scripture alone we'd be unable to solve real world problems that involve science. Despite the seeming hatrd for evolution around here the fact is that it is a model that produces results. Blindly quoting Genesis does not.

What results? like this?

 

[mixin machine]

Or, if we relied on Scripture alone we'd be unable to solve real world problems that involve science.

You don't need to count on sciptures alone, God is still with us today . I don't think that Noah was a trained engineer with the experiece to build an ark in the magnitude he built it. Sure enough it made it through the flood, I believe God gave Noah the insight on how to build the ark .
Now there is a prime example of God helping solve real world problems that involve science .

Andrew

 

[KerrMetric]

You don't need to count on sciptures alone, God is still with us today . I don't think that Noah was a trained engineer with the experiece to build an ark in the magnitude he built it. Sure enough it made it through the flood, I believe God gave Noah the insight on how to build the ark .
Now there is a prime example of God helping solve real world problems that involve science .

Andrew

Well since most people on this planet don't believe the global flood myth as a fact then it isn't an example of a real world problem.

 

[Critias]

Or, if we relied on Scripture alone we'd be unable to solve real world problems that involve science. Despite the seeming hatrd for evolution around here the fact is that it is a model that produces results. Blindly quoting Genesis does not.

I don't post here much, if at all, because of the attitudes that are displayed here and the fact that many want others to change before they will. This became quite evident when I posted a thread about following Jesus Christ.

Anyways, people before us, 1000's of years ago lived fine. They didn't need today's technology or science to have a relationship with God or to live their own lives.

From your post, I get the impression that God alone is not sufficient; that we need science, technology, advancement in order to live and solve our problems. That troubles me, and maybe that is something many TEs share, or I just misunderstood you.

As much as people on here would like to call what I wrote in the OP as demeaning or whatever, they are my views. This is what I see it leading to. You are more then welcome to disagree or agree. But... it wasn't an intention of telling you how it is, but rather how I see it.

So, if you want to mischaracterize me and say I am saying something about TEs being less Christian, you are more then welcome to do so, but you will be wrong in understanding my intentions. After much time here, I have talked with TEs who say Jesus wasn't born of the Holy Spirit, but rather Mary was raped, thus Jesus was born in sin. This doesn't have anything to do with evolution, but the after effects of it: changing one's reading to suit ones desire to believe science.

Anyways, it is my wish that people here could just stop attacking personally and stick to the issues at hand. The Scriptures I presented here in the OP are the issues at hand, as I see it. These are Scriptures that TEs must deal with in one way or another. They cannot be accepted literally and still be consistent with interpretation.

As I said, make of it as you wish; call my actions as however you want to interpret them. As many here talk about interpretation being wrong, so can ones interpretation be, of any posts here. If YECs can not have a correct interpretation, so can TEs have the wrong interpretation of many people's posts here.

Do we really need someone else to do something first in order for us to act as we should, commanded by Jesus Christ, God Himself?

 

[KerrMetric]

From your post, I get the impression that God alone is not sufficient; that we need science, technology, advancement in order to live and solve our problems. That troubles me, and maybe that is something many TEs share, or I just misunderstood you.

I am utterly puzzled how you inferred this from my post. There is a day to day practicality that the spiritual side is not of much use for. If I am to solve a problem in say superconductivity then getting out Genesis or Acts is of zero use.

Yet you are typing away on a computer that would not exist if your ideals were practised. That may be all and well and good but my guess is that when you need a need mitral valve in your heart or a teflon knee or a new CPU then you'll want people who don't open Exodus to get their knowledge.

All I rail against is the scientific silliness by people who don't mind using its fruit yet they lambast it for not being of the Bible. If it was all of the Bible we'd be still in the Bronze Age.