evolution vs. Evolution

[sfs]

No, because they're not "small." I don't know where you're living, but if it's anywhere in the United States, you would know that movement is anything but "small." Over 70% (I believe) of pastors in the U.S. believe in a literal creation of less than 6000 years ago.

The United States contains 11% of the world's Christians, and has one of the world's highest concentrations of creationists. (And even in the U.S., only two-thirds of Christians are protestants.)

When you start to examine what Christian culture actually is, then we'll talk.

I'm quite familiar with Christian culture, especially with evangelical Christian culture in the U.S. I've been immersed in it my entire life, and have read extensively about its history.

To add one thing, if you knew anything about pentecostals, you'd know they are as Creationist as one could get. I would know, thanks. I belonged to different pentecostal churches for years. They vehemently hate all forms of evolution and would rather die than admit man came from a "monkey". Being a pile of dirt is so much better. : /

Yes, I know that pentecostals are usually creationists. How does that justify your assumption that the ones Bakker has preached to are unaware of his scientific positions?

Whom do they co-exist for? Non-fanatical Christians? So a small, subset of normal people who just happen to believe in God? Where do I find these people? The majority of Christians do not fit the bill for that. If you actually looked around this forum, you would know I'm right.

If you'd spent the roughly two seconds it takes to look at my posting history, you'd see that I've been posting here for more than ten years, so I'm likely to know more about it than you do. Or you might have noticed that you're arguing that Christianity can never coexist with science against multiple people on this forum who accept both Christianity and science. Sheesh.

Your claim wasn't that most Christians don't accept science; it was that the two are utterly incompatible and can never coexist. That claim is trivially false, and your current arguments actually concede its falsity. If you want to make some other claim, fine, but first withdraw this one.

 

[frogman2x]

This is response toan email you sent me aksing when I thought hisory in the Bible started. This is an attempt to get the discussion b act into the fourm instead of privately.

IMO Biblical history starts in Genesis 1:1.

If I missed any othe question, post them again and I will give you my opinion.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Try this for a starter.
Open Yale Courses | Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

I did no see where she even menioned Genesis. Anyone who teache the Bible a yYale, will be one with a liberal theology and the liberals always try to make Genesis, not literal and thee is no evidence that it is.

Then you can check out other major religious studies and divinity schools across the country. This course is typical of introductory courses on the Hebrew scriptures in schools that train the majority of pastors, ministers, priests and rabbis in North America (and also globally)

Did you check them all out and that is why you made that statement. Any way it is not worth quibbing over, Majority does not detemine truth. If there is an omniopetnent God, He could do iit in 6 seconds if He chose to. If you don't think it is literal that's fine with me.

btw can you please start putting the backslash in front of the word "quote" in your end-quote tags? Look at the example when you bring up a message to reply to. At the end of the post you are replying to is the word QUOTE in square brackets with a backslash in front of the Q. You don't need to use all caps, but you do need the backslash to make the quote function work correctly.

I will if I can remember to. I like using >>messge<< to show what the other person said.

kermit

 

[gluadys]

Try this for a starter.
Open Yale Courses | Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

I did no see where she even menioned Genesis.

I am sure you did not watch all 26 lessons in one day.

Anyone who teache the Bible a yYale, will be one with a liberal theology and the liberals always try to make Genesis, not literal and thee is no evidence that it is.

That's right. There is no evidence that it is, and lots that it is not literal.

Did you check them all out and that is why you made that statement.

Sure, I have worked in the national office of a major denomination and with top-notch theologians from other denominations. That includes a range of beliefs from Roman Catholic to Baptist. None of them teach that the creation accounts are describing actual historical events. (Of course, there are Baptists and Baptists and they disagree with each other on this matter, but the ones I had contact with have the largest colleges and train more pastors than the others combined.)

I will if I can remember to. I like using >>messge<< to show what the other person said.

kermit

The other thing you can do is use the quote icon in the menu above the message pane. It is just to the right of the insert picture icon and looks like the sort of message balloon that is used in a cartoon. Just highlight the section of the other person's message you want to cite and click on the icon. It will insert the quote tags automatically and correctly.

 

[frogman2x]

Try this for a starter.
Open Yale Courses | Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

I am sure you did not watch all 26 lessons in one day.

Right. I consider reading most of what liberal theologians say a waste of time.

That's right. There is no evidence that it is, and lots that it is not literal.

What evidence do you have that Genesis is not literal?

Sure, I have worked in the national office of a major denomination and with top-notch theologians from other denominations. That includes a range of beliefs from Roman Catholic to Baptist. None of them teach that the creation accounts are describing actual historical events. (Of course, there are Baptists and Baptists and they disagree with each other on this matter, but the ones I had contact with have the largest colleges and train more pastors than the others combined.) <<

Wonderful, what evidence did they offer to convince you that Genesis is not literal?

Many of the Baptist seminaries 30-40 years ago had become liberal, the conservative Baptist stopped supporting them and some they even fired some of the professors. You seem to think bigger guarentees they are right. It does not.

]The other thing you can do is use the quote icon in the menu above the message pane. It is just to the right of the insert picture icon and looks like the sort of message balloon that is used in a cartoon. Just highlight the section of the other person's message you want to cite and click on the icon. It will insert the quote tags automatically and correctly.

Thanks. That was be real help.

kermit

 

[TheBeardedDude]

It is ironic that those who do not believe in evolution choose to capitalize it. Clearly they put far more into it than do the people who actually believe in it.

The Right views science as a liberal ideology, that is what is going on. It is ridiculous, science is not an ideology, but since conservative Protestants in particular are profoundly lacking in things like college degrees in Science, their arguments become more and more puerile.

Is it from a misunderstanding of science, or is it an attempt to equate science with faith as a way of trying to make religion relevant and contemporary with science?

 

[gluadys]

What evidence do you have that Genesis is not literal?

Genesis

Wonderful, what evidence did they offer to convince you that Genesis is not literal?

Actually, I was convinced that much of Genesis (and the rest of the bible) is not literal long before them. What convinced me was a book called Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. That is where I first learned the concept of "true myth".

You seem to think bigger guarentees they are right.

That wasn't my point. My point was that most pastors, rabbis, priests and ministers are taught that the creation accounts are not actual history. That is because most future religious leaders get their education at the largest theological colleges supported by the largest mainstream denominations.

Thanks. That was be real help.

kermit

No problem.

 

[frogman2x]

Genesis

Great evidence. That clearx it all up.

Actually, I was convinced that much of Genesis (and the rest of the bible) is not literal long before them. What convinced me was a book called Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. That is where I first learned the concept of "true myth".

I doubt very much if C.S. Lewis considers Genesis to be figiurative. I have a copy of "Mere Christianity," what did he say in the book that convinced you?

That wasn't my point. My point was that most pastors, rabbis, priests and ministers are taught that the creation accounts are not actual history. That is because most future religious leaders get their education at the largest theological colleges supported by the largest mainstream denominations.

Where is your evidnec that most pastors etc are taught Genesis is not actual history? It realy doesn matter. Majority does not detemine truth. You have no evidence that is not literal.

Suppose it is figurative, how did all of the matter we see in the unvierse come into being and how did the first life form come into being? If you can ansswer those 2 question, you opinion might seem more valid.

No problem.

I have another problem. Sometimes I get a popup that says your message is is to short, add one character. I add a characte but it does ot good. I get the same message.





kermit

 

[sfs]

I doubt very much if C.S. Lewis considers Genesis to be figiurative. I have a copy of "Mere Christianity," what did he say in the book that convinced you?

Here is a summary of Lewis's views on Genesis and the Old Testament generally, taken from here; it quotes extensively from Lewis's writings:

The following statement would seem to categorize Lewis as neo-orthodox in his understanding of the Bible: "Naivete, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed [from the pages of the Bible]. The total result is not ‘the Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God…"

In his books Lewis amplified on his understanding of the Bible’s inspiration: "The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical…things like Noah’s Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon," while in the New Testament "history reigns supreme." Elsewhere he wrote, "The first chapters of Genesis, no doubt, give the story in the form of a folktale…" Referring to the notion that "every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth," Lewis admitted: "This I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation ‘after the manner of a popular poet’ (as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction." Again, Lewis penned: "The Old Testament contains fabulous elements" which would include "Jonah and the Whale, Noah and his Ark,…but the Court history of King David is probably as reliable [historically] as the Court history of Louis XIV."

 

[gluadys]

I doubt very much if C.S. Lewis considers Genesis to be figiurative. I have a copy of "Mere Christianity," what did he say in the book that convinced you?

Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of Mere Christianity so I cannot point you to that specific reference. But check out sfs' excellent post on the views of C. S. Lewis.

how did all of the matter we see in the unvierse come into being and how did the first life form come into being? If you can ansswer those 2 question, you opinion might seem more valid.

What do those questions have to do with the genres of biblical texts? I think we have other threads for them.

I have another problem. Sometimes I get a popup that says your message is is to short, add one character. I add a characte but it doe snot good. I get the same message.

kermit

Look at the message pane when you first bring it up, before you have typed anything at all.

The very last word is QUOTE in square brackets with a backslash in front of it (because it is an end-quote tag.]

If you don't type in anything at all after that automatic end-quote tag, you will get the pop-up saying your message is too short, no matter how much you put in before it. The system thinks all you have added is part of the original quoted message you are replying to.

It only recognizes new material you type in after the end-quote tag.

 

[frogman2x]

Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of Mere Christianity so I cannot point you to that specific reference. But check out sfs' excellent post on the views of C. S. Lewis.

Will do.

What do those questions have to do with the genres of biblical texts? I think we have other threads for them.

Yes, I am participating in them also.

Look at the message pane when you first bring it up, before you have typed anything at all.

The very last word is QUOTE in square brackets with a backslash in front of it (because it is an end-quote tag.]

If you don't type in anything at all after that automatic end-quote tag, you will get the pop-up saying your message is too short, no matter how much you put in before it. The system thinks all you have added is part of the original quoted message you are replying to.

It only recognizes new material you type in after the end-quote tag.

Thanks again. The other forum I am in has a much simpler format than this one.

kermi

 

[frogman2x]

Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of Mere Christianity so I cannot point you to that specific reference. But check out sfs' excellent post on the views of C. S. Lewis.

Will do.

]Look at the message pane when you first bring it up, before you have typed anything at all.

The very last word is QUOTE in square brackets with a backslash in front of it (because it is an end-quote tag.]

If you don't type in anything at all after that automatic end-quote tag, you will get the pop-up saying your message is too short, no matter how much you put in before it. The system thinks all you have added is part of the original quoted message you are replying to.

It only recognizes new material you type in after the end-quote tag.

Here is a summary of Lewis's views on Genesis and the Old Testament generally, taken from here; it quotes extensively from Lewis's writings:

Thanks

 

[ChetSinger]

I expect you are quite right about the beliefs of the author of Hebrews. That doesn't mean he or she had any valid documentation of their existence.

Hey, you surprised me! I wasn't expecting that, and I like being surprised. Thanks for your thoughts.

And since the only stories preserved about them are clearly legendary and all have parallels in the legends of other nations in the ANE culture, there is virtually nothing to connect them with history. We should read these stories, as Peter says, because they are examples to us.

This brings up an interesting subject. If Genesis is history, then events such as the flood and the dispersion should have parallels in other cultures, shouldn't they? I get hounded occasionally by atheists who claim our faith is false because ancient Judaism contains elements shared with other and sometimes older cultures. But I respond that if we're all descended from the same stock, that should be expected.

Like many ancient writers Josephus is a mixed bag of real and not so real history. To take another example, Clement, a well respected leader in the first-century church whose letters were seriously considered for inclusion in the New Testament wrote in one of them about the phoenix as if it were a real bird. I suppose if that letter had made it into the New Testament, literalists would be insisting that such a bird really does exist.

But what did Josephus consider it? In chapter 6 of Antiquities he goes to great effort to reconcile the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 with the histories of the existing nations around him. I think his intent is clear: he's making a case to non-Jews for the veracity of Genesis 10. Aside from that, in the preface he calls his work a history, comparing it to his earlier history of the Jewish-Roman war.

 

[frogman2x]

Here is a summary of Lewis's views on Genesis and the Old Testament generally, taken from here; it quotes extensively from Lewis's writings:

Thanks. I stand corrected and disappointed.

However we must remember that Lewis is not a theologian and there are many good theologians who say Genesis is literal.

If we say it is figuratiave, how do we account for the origin or life, both plant, animal and human?

kermit

 

[gluadys]

If we say [Genesis] is figuratiave, how do we account for the origin or life, both plant, animal and human?

kermit

With science. That is what the Genesis accounts are a figure of.

 

[frogman2x]

With science. That is what the Genesis accounts are a figure of.

Science can't explain the orfigin of life any more than it can explain the origin of the universe. It is all unsciedntific guess work.

Tell me how does science explain the origin of life?

kermit

 

[gluadys]

It is all unsciedntific guess work.

No, it is scientific guesswork. That means researchers formulate hypotheses (guesses), make logical inferences (predictions) as to what can and cannot happen if the hypothesis is true, and then test those inferences with actual observation and, where possible, experiments.

Evolution denialists omit everything that comes after "guess" and assume scientists do as well.

Tell me how does science explain the origin of life?

That's still a work in progress. I'm sure they will let us know when they have figured it out more fully than they have now.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Science can't explain the orfigin of life any more than it can explain the origin of the universe. It is all unsciedntific guess work.

Tell me how does science explain the origin of life?

kermit

Contrary to prior opinion, human DNA encodes RNA 98% of the time and only 2% of DNA encodes proteins. So the obvious conclusion is that early life consisted of self-replicating RNA and that DNA only formed later. So there are some clear signs of how life developed from simple RNA nucleotides.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Maybe he did his own homework and research, like a true seeker of truth, rather than expecting someone else to do everything for him, like a child? Just a thought.

Yes, I checked and you are right. I'm not one to dig my heels in when I see evidence to the contrary.

I believe atheists have a strongly irrational "faith" that God does not exist. But Geology, Astronomy and Physics are not majority atheist, so I don't think the rightful condemnation of Biologists supports Creationism in light of these other fields.

 

[sfs]

But Geology, Astronomy and Physics are not majority atheist

Evidence?