Evolution

[Jase]

Not so much cherry-picking what they like, but cherry-picking what is taken literally and what is interpreted.

I'm not criticising that in itself - everyone does it when they read the Bible, just some actually acknowledge they do it. It's just a bit galling when some creationists whale on TEs for their stance on origins because they don't take Genesis 1 literally and yet they have their own unique, hard-to-justify conclusions of other parts of the Bible.

Yeah that's what I meant. I wouldn't criticize people for picking and choosing, as we all do that. It's the hypocrisy that goes along with it, where in one breath, creationists say the entire Bible must be literal because it's on par with God himself, and yet at the same time, they completely twist scripture to explain away contradictions or issues that have no explanation like the geneologies.

 

[1whirlwind]

Yup, that is always the excuse used to explain away the geneology conflict - one is legal, one is biological. And while it may be a possibility, there is absolutely no evidence that such is the case, so whether it's true it not, it's merely literalists trying to cherry pick what they like and what they don't.

It is what it is. What is your problem with it? What are you trying to say? What is your point? What does this have to do with evolution?

A question was asked. I answered. One is the lineage of Joseph and the other is of Mary. Why is Joseph's given? I don't know.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

I assume you are suggesting that there are not literal storehouses of hail and snow, like Job suggests there are. Why don't you believe what the bible is plainly saying here? And, if you feel you can apply some symbolic or otherwise non-literal meaning to that passage, why is it ok there and not in Genesis 1?

Storehouses? No. I don't think there are literal storehouses. It's weather...cold, heat, rain...weather. Why would it be stored?


I can apply the non-literal to Genesis. I do apply it. I mentioned the various levels previously. However, none of the levels suggests evolution.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Not so much cherry-picking what they like, but cherry-picking what is taken literally and what is interpreted.

I'm not criticising that in itself - everyone does it when they read the Bible, just some actually acknowledge they do it. It's just a bit galling when some creationists whale on TEs for their stance on origins because they don't take Genesis 1 literally and yet they have their own unique, hard-to-justify conclusions of other parts of the Bible.

It is literal for it happened. It is to also be seen spiritually for that is the deeper meaning. Both are true. Evolution is not.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Evolution is a 100% fact, sorry. And the Bible is not the Word - Jesus Christ is. Stop worshipping a book!

Perhaps in your mind evolution is true. You're very mistaken. Jesus is the Word...the Word is written in the Book. I don't worship the book but I do study the book for there we find Him. Nowhere in the Book is any form of evolution hinted at. Instead it is clearly against His written Word. But, we all make choices.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Actually, according to Rabbinical commentary and textual study, God created man and woman at the same time. Eve wasn't the first woman - Lilith was, until Adam opposed woman being equal to him and Lilith rebelled, forcing God to have to create Eve in Genesis 2.

Please read His word...the Rabbinical world doesn't believe in Jesus...why listen to them about some mythological creature?

No, Eve wasn't the first woman. There were many created before her as there were many men created before Adam. That is written.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

I mentioned this a few pages back, and I believe WW had claimed since Jesus is physical, so is God.

No. That isn't at all what I "claimed." We were discussing the "image of God" meaning appearance. I quoted a verse that gave the answer.


.

 

[Cabal]

It is literal for it happened.

Tautology much?

Anyway, it did not happen as the literal reading claims - the entire planet is riddled with evidence against it.

It is to also be seen spiritually for that is the deeper meaning. Both are true. Evolution is not.

Evidence to support such a claim would be great.

Also, you didn't really address the point of the post, which is the hypocrisy in judging TEs on their interpretations while interpreting other parts of the Bible against what the plain reading states.

 

[Achilles6129]

I'd just like to mention a few things here, even though I haven't read the entirety of this creation/evolution debate.

Firstly, as "symbolic" or "metaphorical" as you want the Bible to be, the 6 days of Genesis are still out of order with the way evolution says it happened. For example, the sun is created after the grass. So even if we view the days as "symbolic" they're still all out of order.

But there is another, more important point I'd like to make. Suppose you're a Christian who believes you can reconcile the six-day Genesis account with evolution. There is still a serious hurdle because of the Great Flood in the Bible. No matter what, as a Christian, you must admit to several possibilities:

1) The Great Flood of Noah happened as described and modern geology has misinterpreted much of the data. This would mean that many of the fossils that they're uncovering, which they believe are evidence for "evolution" did in fact die in the Great Flood.

2) You believe that the Great Flood was a "local" flood which essentially negates every description of Noah's Flood inside the Bible.

3) You believe that the Great Flood of Noah happened and left virtually no trace (impossible).

4) You believe that the Great Flood was a "parable" which also denies the words of Jesus Christ (Mt. 24, etc.) and Peter (2 Pet. 3). This interpretation is untenable.

The only possible conclusion that you, as a Christian, can come to is conclusion #1 - which still leaves you at odds with modern geology, even if you have managed to reconcile the theory of evolution with a "symbolic" six-day Genesis account.

Let me also say that there is a ton of evidence for the Flood that evolutionists seek to minimize and are quite prejudiced against. If you go to websites such as www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org you will find many strong arguments for the Flood and for creationism from extremely intelligent, credentialed scientists.

As a Christian, I know that the Bible is true and the Flood of Noah really did happen. I also do not for a second believe in the theory of evolution, and think that the people who do believe in the theory of evolution are quite deceived and are in for quite a shock. However, that being said, believing in evolution does not affect salvation. There is a way you can know that the Bible is true, and not believe, or think, or "imagine" that it is:

"16Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn. 7:16-17

The entire NT has verses in it like this. You can know, and you can know for a fact, whether the Bible is true or whether it's a lie.

 

[1whirlwind]

Tautology much?

Anyway, it did not happen as the literal reading claims - the entire planet is riddled with evidence against it.

What part didn't happen as written?

Evidence to support such a claim would be great.

Evidence of what?

Also, you didn't really address the point of the post, which is the hypocrisy in judging TEs on their interpretations while interpreting other parts of the Bible against what the plain reading states.

I don't judge anyone. I judge evolution as a lie misleading people.

Correct interpretations do not ever contradict the plain meaning. They enhance, they explain but they don't contradict.


.

 

[crawfish]

Storehouses? No. I don't think there are literal storehouses. It's weather...cold, heat, rain...weather. Why would it be stored?


I can apply the non-literal to Genesis. I do apply it. I mentioned the various levels previously. However, none of the levels suggests evolution.



.

None of us believe that evolution is suggested in scripture. What we believe is that the proper way to read the bible is silent on the subject, and when taken as intended do not preclude it.

 

[crawfish]

I'd just like to mention a few things here, even though I haven't read the entirety of this creation/evolution debate.

Firstly, as "symbolic" or "metaphorical" as you want the Bible to be, the 6 days of Genesis are still out of order with the way evolution says it happened. For example, the sun is created after the grass. So even if we view the days as "symbolic" they're still all out of order.

Look up "framework hypothesis" on google. Order doesn't matter as much as you think it does.

But there is another, more important point I'd like to make. Suppose you're a Christian who believes you can reconcile the six-day Genesis account with evolution. There is still a serious hurdle because of the Great Flood in the Bible. No matter what, as a Christian, you must admit to several possibilities:

1) The Great Flood of Noah happened as described and modern geology has misinterpreted much of the data. This would mean that many of the fossils that they're uncovering, which they believe are evidence for "evolution" did in fact die in the Great Flood.

2) You believe that the Great Flood was a "local" flood which essentially negates every description of Noah's Flood inside the Bible.

3) You believe that the Great Flood of Noah happened and left virtually no trace (impossible).

4) You believe that the Great Flood was a "parable" which also denies the words of Jesus Christ (Mt. 24, etc.) and Peter (2 Pet. 3). This interpretation is untenable.

The only possible conclusion that you, as a Christian, can come to is conclusion #1 - which still leaves you at odds with modern geology, even if you have managed to reconcile the theory of evolution with a "symbolic" six-day Genesis account.

The bolded part is absolutely wrong, and this is because you're completely wrong about #2-3.

2. A local flood fits in very well with the account - a reading of "all the earth" in the original language and context can very easily mean the known earth, or just the land around them.

3. Are you limiting God? There are plenty of things that God doesn't tell us in scripture, and miraculously filling the earth with water with no trace is completely possible for Him. It is certainly a possible explanation.

4. This view does not deny Christ, as Jesus & Peter are not affirming Noah as a historical character but using the story to make a point. Their points does not change nor lose their power if the event did not actually happen.

Let me also say that there is a ton of evidence for the Flood that evolutionists seek to minimize and are quite prejudiced against. If you go to websites such as www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org you will find many strong arguments for the Flood and for creationism from extremely intelligent, credentialed scientists.

There are far stronger arguments against a global flood. Not unsurprisingly, the strongest evidence of any option we have is of a major local flood in the Mesopotamian area.

"16Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn. 7:16-17

The entire NT has verses in it like this. You can know, and you can know for a fact, whether the Bible is true or whether it's a lie.

Question here - are you suggesting any and all differences we have with our fellow Christians on doctrinal issues are only because once side (or both) is not doing His will?

 

[1whirlwind]

None of us believe that evolution is suggested in scripture. What we believe is that the proper way to read the bible is silent on the subject, and when taken as intended do not preclude it.

But it is NOT silent on the subject. That is what I have been saying Crawfish. Were it silent then it is a possibility. However, it is against what is written.


.

 

[crawfish]

But it is NOT silent on the subject. That is what I have been saying Crawfish. Were it silent then it is a possibility. However, it is against what is written.


.

I understand what you've been saying, but I patently do not agree. The bible doesn't teach evolution, but it is most correctly interpreted in a way that makes the entire creation/evolution argument moot. It's truth or falseness has absolutely no bearing on scripture, no more than heliocentrisism and a spherical earth do.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Look up "framework hypothesis" on google. Order doesn't matter as much as you think it does.

Yes, let us now rearrange the entire Genesis creation account so it can make "comfortable" sense to us.

The bolded part is absolutely wrong, and this is because you're completely wrong about #2-3.

2. A local flood fits in very well with the account - a reading of "all the earth" in the original language and context can very easily mean the known earth, or just the land around them.

Trying to fit in theistic evolution usually goes hand in hand with attempts at redefining the scriptures themselves, no coincidence.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[k] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

A local flood is out of the question, your rationalizations really do not matter here.

3. Are you limiting God? There are plenty of things that God doesn't tell us in scripture, and miraculously filling the earth with water with no trace is completely possible for Him. It is certainly a possible explanation.

Despite the fact that such an idea is flat out far fetched and simply not possible, it only becomes "possible" on the basis that it is a convenient way to explain away unwanted outcomes.

4. This view does not deny Christ, as Jesus & Peter are not affirming Noah as a historical character but using the story to make a point. Their points does not change nor lose their power if the event did not actually happen.

Christ referred to Jonah several times, I guess he was just referring to a "story" that must not have really happened, because you know, that's not "logically" possible. Does holding a TE view really skew your perspective of scripture that much? Noah didn't exist ey

 

[lucaspa]

I'm not saying evolution is evil because it isn't mentioned....I say it is evil as it is in direct conflict with His Word.

Well, this statement is evil because it is in direct conflict with scripture. In the Bible, "Word" is capitalized only a few times, and never when it refers to scripture. In those cases scripture says "word of God" or "God's word". Small "w". We see capital "Word" only when referring to what or who?

Germs, as we know....cause sickness and disease. Is knowledge of germs in conflict with His Word? No.

According to the scripture you provided, yes.

"Matthew 10:1 And when He had called unto Him His twelve disciples, He gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."

It is in casting out unclean spirites that all manner of sickness or diseases are healed. But germ theory says that many diseases are caused by bacteria, and those can be cured by antibiotics. And no one gave them "power against unclean spirits".

 

[Mallon]

I am reminded of the words of Luther, who insisted on a concordist/literalist interpretation of Scripture to promote geocentrism:

"So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."

Yaaay proof texting.

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps in your mind evolution is true.

In God's mind. After all, it is God's Creation that tells us evolution is true. You are ignoring God. Nay, you are denying Him.

You're very mistaken. Jesus is the Word...the Word is written in the Book.

Sorry, but you are too late to pull that. You have already said "His Word" when referring to scripture. What's more, why do you capitalize "Book"? Book isn't normally capitalized. The only place where we capitalize normal words like "him" is when we refer to God. That's why we say "Him" instead of "him". So yes, you do worship a book.

Nowhere in the Book is any form of evolution hinted at.

There are so many things not hinted at in the Bible. Electricity, semi-conductors, Boyle's law, heliocentrism, planets beyond Uranus, the Andromeda galaxy, atoms, quarks, DNA, transuranic elements. Shoot, elements period. Why are you using this criteria to reject only evolution and not all the other things? Do you know what Special Pleading is? You might want to look up "logical fallacies" and find it.

 

[lucaspa]

And I guess if we were a tiny little organism I would care...we aren't, I don't. We are made IN HIS IMAGE. And we were created as such IN THE BEGINNING..MALE AND FEMALE.

C'mon, do you actually think God is male and female? God isn't even material, much less a gender! God is a Burning Bush. What gender did the Bush have?

Find a scriptural reference to refute that, which hasn't been done,

You mean "in his image"? Not refute, but understand better. You are not using the phrase as it was used then. In this case, we have lost an important colloquialism over time. "In his image" had a definite meaning in that time. Because communication was so poor, an ambassador or representative of a merchant would be given power to negotiate binding treaties or contracts without referring back to the king or merchant. Such an ambassador would be said to be "in the image" or "in his image" of the king or merchant. So the phrase "in his image" in Genesis 1 doesn't really refer to either physical or spiritual appearance, but empowerment. God is telling humans that they are free to act on the environment. That what they do they do "in the image" of God, or with God's full backing. This is seen in the juxtaposition in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..." We tend to separate the image from the dominion, but it appears that those were two ways of saying the same thing. To be "in his image" was also to be given plenipoteniary powers and have dominion.

Romans 1:21-23 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things..

Paul was referring to the pagan worship in Rome. Did you notice "changed the glory of ... God into an image made like ..." The pagans were making images to worship.

Of course, you are doing the same thing! After all, you think God is like "corruptible man" and has a gender! Congratulations, you have become "vain in your imaginations" and done exactly what Paul warned against.

God created us male and female, but He did so by evolution. Notice that the religious significance of what Jesus said is the same whether God poofed us into existence in our present form or God created us by evolution. In defending your interpretation of scripture, you lost sight of the real message of Jesus.

 

[UpperEschelon]

In God's mind. After all, it is God's Creation that tells us evolution is true. You are ignoring God. Nay, you are denying Him.

Yes, and nature attests indisputably to the fact that the vast plethora of biological life hailed from a single, macroscopic common ancestor evolving through billions of years.