Evolution

[1whirlwind]

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.

No. It doesn't teach evolution but neither does it teach math or reading. However, when one thing is clearly stated and man teaches something that totally refutes what is written then...it is a lie.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

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?

That is a rather silly thing to point out but...whatever makes you happy. Now, try to comment on the statement I made, which is, "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."

WW - 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".

You overlook the word AND. He gave them power over spirits AND He gave them power to heal sickness and disease.


.

 

[crawfish]

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

This has nothing to do with TE. It is an attempt to remove our modern bias and culture from the reading to see scriptures as the ancient Israelites would have. By not giving such matters the proper respect and consideration, you are guilty of adding to the text what is not there.

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

I suggest you do a word study sometime. The original Hebrew, and their ideas of such terms as erets and shamayim definitely leaves the idea open of a local flood.

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.

Is bringing a man from the dead possible? Is a man living in a fish 3 days possible? It dividing the Red Sea possible? Why do you think God can do such amazing things with creation and then not be able do something as simple as receding a flood without a trace?

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

Was Christ referring to Jonah in a way to acknowledge his historicity, or did he refer to the story to make a theological point?

What I really believe, I'm not addressing here. I'm addressing possibilities based on ambiguities within scripture. Certainly, isn't it adding to scripture's meaning when you try and flesh out ambiguities and call it truth?

 

[crawfish]

No. It doesn't teach evolution but neither does it teach math or reading. However, when one thing is clearly stated and man teaches something that totally refutes what is written then...it is a lie.

.

You're missing out on the fact that we're not teaching something that totally refutes what is written in scripture. We (I) fully believe in the inspiration of scripture and its inerrancy. However, "inerrancy" means that it is absolutely true for the purpose for which it was written; there is no guarantee that it will keep its truth in the case of misuse.

 

[1whirlwind]

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.

Then please provide where He told us about evolution. Saying creation did isn't correct for I see male/female as they have always been. I see dogs remaining dogs and people remaining people and, and, and.

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

11 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

​

Where is it written? Where is what is told us in the very beginning corrected as being evolution? Where?

WW - 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.

I capitalize what I LIKE sO why Does iT boTHeR you SO mUch? What do you think I'm "pulling?" hIs wORd is Scripture and...it is written.

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.

Yes, I agree...many things are not hinted at but...He explained creation. He told us how it happened. To then say..."oh no, it happened like this instead" is against His Word! It is A LIE.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

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?

Yes I believe He is male and female. Spirits are not without form or a body.

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.

The bible is written for all of us for all time. To relegate it to just meaning something of "that time," is wrong.

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.

I did indeed notice that. Did you notice what He said, what this thread concerns? "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." [Rom.1:22-23]

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.

No, no....He isn't like us...we are in His image, not He in ours. I assume that you consider Christ and the Father as One? Going on that assumption.....

Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks One like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

​

There is the Son of man speaking to John from heaven. As He is being described John notes His being "girt about the paps." That is only used four times in the Bible and the other three times it can only be associated with females. He is male and female. He is One as we will be.

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.

I hope not. I certainly try to never lose sight of His message. However, I'm not giving you any interpretation of Scripture on the subject of man being created. I am quoting His Words as given. You aren't. You aren't quoting anything except what I see as vain imaginations of man.


.

 

[UpperEschelon]

This has nothing to do with TE. It is an attempt to remove our modern bias and culture from the reading to see scriptures as the ancient Israelites would have. By not giving such matters the proper respect and consideration, you are guilty of adding to the text what is not there.

Forgive me, but you are the only guilty party here. You are evading the text clearly.

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.

Every single living thing on the ground died --> inescapably implies that the waters covered all the ground of the earth. In fact, it even goes to say that every bird of the "air" had died as well, and that every hill which could be found "under the heavens" (meaning the atmosphere/skies of earth), were covered.

Evade, evade, evade.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I do speak in an absolute sense ...

LOL.

Yeah, I see that Whirlwind.

I see you're committed to the cause, so I won't attempt to rebut most points, but I do feel compelled to comment on a few things.

And, what is the Biblical evidence for any form of evolution. There are many things I don't yet understand but for this to be true there has to be some evidence given in His Word that clarifies what is written in Genesis. Where is it?

LOL, and I mean no disrespect, Whirlwind, but ...

Since when does the Bible have to refute anything for it to be false? Like you said though, there are many things we simply do not understand and maybe never will. Not just God's laws for man, but many of the natural laws of the universe are immensely beyond man's grasp. Astronomers make wild guesses about the edges of the universe and then argue about the details. Then, a few years later while they're still arguing, a new theory comes out which changes things drastically and folks argue about those for a while. It's not at all evil to do that. At least, not that I see.

It causes consternation as it is a lie.

Sorry. I don't see it that way, Whirlwind. Just more people searching for truth. Why wouldn't God want us to do that?

In other words, I did NOT vilify any person. Unless evolution has suddenly become an "other" of one of "those."

Just Charles Darwin and everyone who believes in evolution ...

Seriously. It's one thing to disagree with evolution. It's another to vilify it. The first I have no issue with and wouldn't have even responded to.

Vilifying evolution and calling it evil is entirely different. Just remember that the behavior of "creationists" who have vilified evolution is much closer to the witch-hunting Puritans than is the behavior of those who believe in evolution.

You would be mistaken...on three counts. No one pushed a button, it is contrary to His Word and because it is....if you see lying as evil, as do I, then...

And that's why it pushed one of your buttons.

I doubt that you believe me, but we've got much bigger problems to deal with. Evolution will resolve itself. The "science" behind evolution is one of TRUTH. Because of that alone, it is not anti-God.

.

 

[crawfish]

Evade, evade, evade.

Earth (erets) can (and most often does) refer to a single locality. If you do a word study (BlueLetterBible.com is a great resource for this, you can not only get the possibly definitions of the word but also its use throughout scripture), this becomes very obvious. Heaven (shamayim) is also a somewhat nebulous term, as there is no official "cut-off point" where erets ends and it begins. This is why the flood could be considered "to the heavens" at a mere 22 feet (15 cubits).

It seems that I'm not the one evading, you're the one who has decided to stop at the English translation with our cultural bias without trying to dig deeper.

 

[juvenissun]

By your obvious smugness, I assume you believe that all Creationists agree among themselves?

Nah. Everyone has a slightly different idea toward the understanding of God. That is the beauty of God's truth. We are supposed to be different.

Agree or not has to be on specific issue, but not within any labelled group of Christian.

 

[juvenissun]

Do the people that constantly bring up the "In His Image" think God has a internal Digestive Track, and other Body parts(Like us humans), or do they forget that God is a Spirit?

This is a very interesting question. I think we must think that it is both. Spiritual part is easy to understand. But the physical part should also be considered. What is the shape of angel? I believe it is human like. What will be your shape when you go up to Him? I think the future you will be very similar to what you are now.

If you think God creates all those shapes of animals, you should wonder why does He create us in our shape. Have you seen those imaginary sketches on possible shapes of aliens in the universe? Why does He not make us look like those strange forms?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The evidence? Where? What scripture is skewed?

Please provide scripture with any hint of an evolutionary process of man.


.

Bible=/=science handbook. But I'm sure we all knew that bronze age goat herders and the like would understand modern biology. God made reality. Reality seems to indicate that organisms evolve. Theists who deny evolution deny God.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Please provide scripture with any hint of an evolutionary process of man.


.

First, you need to define "evolution". One succinct definition that would be consistent with Darwin's theory comes from biologist Douglas Futuyma's 2005 book "Evolution":

"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

O.K. so now a Bible verse:

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And so my first question to you is:

Were Adam and Eve White folk, Indian folk, Chinese folk, Black folk, etc.?

And my second question then is:

So how did all the other human beings with their unique and inherited characteristics come to be, except through evolution?

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Don't get me wrong- I'm not denying that God created the Universe and all that is within it. But his mechanism for creating that Universe is not described in any detail in the Bible.

Maybe He created all species, fully formed, during the first 6 days of creation described in Genesis. Maybe he created some living species and then let the rest evolve to produce the multitude of species that we see today.

A biologist who claims that human beings evolved from inanimate matter that accidentally was given the breathe of life and, at exactly the same moment of its inception, was also given the ability to reproduce itself is really stretching the limits of credibility. But a human being who doesn't believe that with God, all things are possible, is also not being credible.

.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Don't get me wrong- I'm not denying that God created the Universe and all that is within it. But his mechanism for creating that Universe is not described in any detail in the Bible.

Maybe He created all species, fully formed, during the first 6 days of creation described in Genesis. Maybe he created some living species and then let the rest evolve to produce the multitude of species that we see today.

A biologist who claims that human beings evolved from inanimate matter that accidentally was given the breathe of life and, at exactly the same moment of its inception, was also given the ability to reproduce itself is really stretching the limits of credibility. But a human being who doesn't believe that with God, all things are possible, is also not being credible.

.

I really wish people would use proper language when making certain claims.

A biologist who claims that human beings evolved from inanimate matter

The basic building blocks of life are rather......basic. There have been numerous experiments that have shown how simulating the early earth's conditions lead to the formation of these building blocks. And nothing says that such isn't how "Goddidit."

that accidentally was given the breathe of life and, at exactly the same moment of its inception,

Accident implies intent which claims intelligence. Which would mean that if a person is attempting to debunk the idea of a universe without God then please use proper language. Otherwise we're sort of implying here that God went oops!

Edit: Almost forgot. That would be arguing with abiogenesis. Which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[Jase]

11 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

​

Where is it written? Where is what is told us in the very beginning corrected as being evolution? Where?

Why am I not surprised you haven't any idea what Timothy is referring to (hint: "All-scripture" doesn't include the majority of the modern day Bible).

It's amazing to me that fundies continue to quote that verse as evidence of a perfect Bible when 1) it says nothing about perfection and 2) there was no Bible when that was written.

 

[vossler]

Why am I not surprised you haven't any idea what Timothy is referring to (hint: "All-scripture" doesn't include the majority of the modern day Bible).

So if all Scripture doesn't include the majority of the Bible, just what does it include?

It's amazing to me that fundies continue to quote that verse as evidence of a perfect Bible when 1) it says nothing about perfection and 2) there was no Bible when that was written.

That's an interesting assessment, if Scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" and was given by God, you would think it should be perfect. Are you saying or implying that God's inspiration is flawed and not trustworthy?

 

[sfs]

profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [/i]and was given by God, you would think it should be perfect. Are you saying or implying that God's inspiration is flawed and not trustworthy?

Are you sure you want to make that argument? After all, according to Paul, God also gave the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, and for very similar reasons: "for the perfecting of the saints..., for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ". I don't know about the ones you know, but the pastors and teachers I've known have been flawed and not fully trustworthy, even though they are a gift from God and are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Papias]

WW wrote:

No. Mankind was created male and female....Adam was formed male. Eve came later, and then the problems arose.

That's exactly the point you seem to be missing. Jesus said "they were created male and female", which confirms evolution (where male and female evovled concurrently), and contradicts your literal reading of Genesis 2, where God didn't make them male and female from the start, but rather made the male first and the female later.

So which is it? Was mankind created male and female, as Jesus said, which is consistent with the evolution of male and female concurrently through evolution, OR, was man made only as a male first, by mouth to nose recusitation on a mudpie, as a literal interpretation (only) of Genesis says?

Jesus himself is telling you your interpretation is wrong, and that genesis uses metaphor.

You ignored these points:

• Germ theory is in contradiction to the Bible, and as Lucaspa and I both pointed out, the very section from Mt that you provided shows this. Yet you aren't out there saying that Germ theory is evil

• Germ theory is a theory, could you please explain what a theory is, to show us that you now understand that many theories are facts?

• Do you agree that the idea that Heli was Joseph's father in law contradicts the clear text of Luke, which states that Heli was Joseph's father?

• Do you agree that there are three mutually contradictory geneologies given for Jesus in most Bibles, if interpreted literally?

If you agreed on these bulleted points or otherwise responded on a post I missed, I apologize in advance. I mention them because dropping a point without agreeing on it should not be done if the conversation is to be honest & respectful.

Have a blessed day-

Papias

Also-

Achillies wrote:

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.

Do you really think that scientists in the relevant fields are somehow unaware of that so called "evidence"? They've looked at it (and many of them are Christian), and it's bogus - often simple fraud, nearly always distorted. They've even bothered to respond, see Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition.

 

[callmeMurph]

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Why am I not surprised you haven't any idea what Timothy is referring to (hint: "All-scripture" doesn't include the majority of the modern day Bible).

It's amazing to me that fundies continue to quote that verse as evidence of a perfect Bible when 1) it says nothing about perfection and 2) there was no Bible when that was written.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the fact that it doesn't include the majority of the modern day Bible.

However, I do not see where it says all scripture is profitable for science. All scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.