Evolution

[1whirlwind]

They shouldn't conflict - but in the case of those whose "literal" interpretations led them to geocentrism, if they chose the Bible over science, they would have been wrong, as heliocentrism showed that the sun was the centre of the solar system; and even then reading it "literally" would be incorrect as Hubble showed that the sun is not the centre of the universe (if you want to go with the full definition of helio/geocentrism).

In this case, what science "wrongly" decided according to the geocentrists and heliocentrists turned out to be correct. So why should this be any different with evolution and the "literal" readings of Genesis 1?

What is between science and geocentrists and heliocentrist is...between them. What is between science and God is an entirely different matter.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

And you could not have done so purely from a literal reading of the text.

Of course I could...and did. A circle is round. I have never considered a circle to be flat. If asked, "please describe a circle in one word." My answer would be...round. Wouldn't yours?

No, I didn't say that God also thought the world was flat. This is about the fifth time now you've strawmanned my argument.

Then why do you continue to talk about this? Is the earth round? If yes then....the circle of the earth meant just that.

And it is perfectly relevant because it highlights your inconsistency of claiming that your personal "literal" reading is "the right one" because it is no better a criterion than the one used by those who "literally" claimed the earth is flat or the earth is immovable and at the centre of the universe, so it is completely valueless for distinguishing Biblical truth and reconciling it with the nature of the universe. Certainly it does not justify levelling the kind of accusations you have done at the beliefs of fellow-Christians.

If I don't see the earth as flat and you don't see the earth as flat and God doesn't see the earth is flat then...why are we still discussing this? The circle of the earth means the earth is round.

You are presuming that he did, without any justification.

WRONG. You only need believe the literal interpretation composed by fallible humans is inadequate.

False dichotomies, which you have just instituted here, are also lies. Perhaps that is where the evil is.

(not pleasant to be indirectly accused of such a thing, is it?)

Although I wouldn't recommend taking any advice on what is a wise decision from someone espousing such an inconsistent view of the Bible.

Okay 'ya got me. I'm wrong. The literal interpretation of the verse in question is that the earth is flat. God said it and it's so! Is that what you're looking for?

All forms of life were not formed in a day.

I agree. The earth was created long ago. Life, the life in this age, was created in six days, six thousand years.

I honestly didn't mean it as a snark at the company you choose, merely to point out that the fact that people you know hold equally untenable "literal" views of that verse doesn't really mean much if they are equally inept with science.

I am not asked to give a scientific dissertation on the theory of relativity which would be completely out of my realm. I am asked to speak His Word. I do. They have been quoted to you and now it is up to you to believe them...or not.

WW - To see that the circle of the earth means the earth is round doesn't take a scientist to explain. No one is making a scientific claim on it.

It is a scientific claim, as the shape of the Earth is determined scientifically, and is tied in with the laws of nature. At the very least, it is something that science is capable of addressing, and with more accuracy than someone's personal opinion of the Bible, so don't go complaining when people introduce it

I'm not complaining....I'm laughing. There are times, such as this, when simplicity is such a joy.

You believe that the circle of the earth needs interpretation?

​

When couched in such a vague term as "circle", absolutely.

Okay. I interpret the earth to be....round.

Not having scientific knowledge I would agree with. Biblical knowledge I have...still learning but I have some. At least enough to know a circle is round.

If that's the extent of your understanding - keep learning.

[/quote]


I try to...do you?

WW- I guess because He thought we were smart enough to understand...the earth is circular and the earth is round.

Didn't you just post a verse saying how much easier understanding is if you're dumber or whatever?

No. Stupidity and simplicity are different things. Simplicity is recognizing the roundness of a circle while stupidity is....well, let's just say it's something else entirely.

WW - Shoddy, illogical foundation. Genesis 1 and 2...shoddy and illogical?

Your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 =/= Genesis 1 and 2.

Your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 has a shoddy and illogical foundation.

At least I try to understand instead of tossing it.

Simples

Which is?
​

People obsess over the creation mechanism when that is not the point of Genesis 1. Instead they could be focusing on God's motivation, and not feeling threatened by the facts of God's nature also.

There is no need to obsess or feel threatened when it is written. What is, is. We accept it or we don't.

WW - I know...that is what worries me.

quote]Worry about providing better support for your stance then.

[/quote]



If He has provided...then what in the world could I possibly say to add to it?

WW - If you see it as flawed and I see yours as a lie then...what is the point? There is one truth on this...only one.

And merely insisting that you have the truth over and over again is not going to convince anyone.

Have I insisted that I have it or that it is written?



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Not at all.

It is one's understanding of and respect for scripture that hangs in the balance. I can respect a God who accommodates his revelation to the non-scientific worldview of his chosen prophets.

Exactly. It is about understanding and respect for His Words. You are saying that God misrepresented the beginning in order for the silly little non-scientific folks to "get it." Or.....He lied, He fabricated, He just didn't explain it enough but...you respect Him for that. All the prophets must have said, "If I only had a brain." Oh wait...that was the tin man.

Respect Him enough to know that what is written is truth.

I have no such respect for people who choose not to understand scripture in its original context and therefore 1) reject part of the reality we have come to know through science by insisting on a literal reading of what cannot be literally true and 2) equally insist that so much of the scientific view of reality they agree with must be found in scripture by giving it ad hoc non-literal interpretations.

Understanding scripture is not understanding man's concept.

There is no consistency in or respect for either God or the biblical authors in forcing the text to agree with your own views on science.

There is ONE AUTHOR. Those forcing text to agree with evolution are those tossing His teaching out. They are man's views...not His.

That is a misrepresentation of what people are trying to tell you and it has been pointed out to you enough times that continuing to assert it amounts to speaking falsely.

You are greatly mistaken.

.

 

[Mallon]

1whirlwind is right, guys. God would NEVER use imagery to convey a message with deeper meaning. You guys just need to RESPECT that fact.

 

[crawfish]

Of course I could...and did. A circle is round. I have never considered a circle to be flat. If asked, "please describe a circle in one word." My answer would be...round. Wouldn't yours?

Here is a test:

Choose the circle.

A:

B:

Would you choose A or B? Both are round. One is round in two dimensions, the other in three dimensions. "Chuwg" is the Hebrew term for "circle". If the question was "Choose the ball-shaped object", which one would you choose? "Duwr" is the Hebrew term for ball (or sphere). Note that the passage in question uses "chuwg" and not "duwr".

Here is an alternate way to look at this verse, tho:

Imagine yourself in a large, empty field. Look around you - you can see to the horizon in all directions, and in all directions equally (a circle). The sky in all horizons appears to dip down and meet the earth at all points around it. Now imagine a middle eastern tent - a circular tent which "curtains" off at the far end to provide as much inner room as possible.

Ultimately, this is what the passage is referring to. The author's perspective of creation, viewed like a circle of earth and the sky raised like a tent around it. It's not a statement proclaiming a flat earth or declaring a spherical earth - it's a statement used to paint the human author's awe of creation from his limited perspective.

 

[1whirlwind]

1whirlwind is right, guys. God would NEVER use imagery to convey a message with deeper meaning. You guys just need to RESPECT that fact.

I understand that He conveys messages through imagery. I also understand that He would never lie in order to convey a message...now would He? Please respect that.


.

 

[Mallon]

I understand that He conveys messages through imagery. I also understand that He would never lie in order to convey a message...now would He? Please respect that.


.

Do you believe using imagery equates to lying?

 

[1whirlwind]

Here is a test:

Choose the circle.

A:

B:

Would you choose A or B? Both are round. One is round in two dimensions, the other in three dimensions. "Chuwg" is the Hebrew term for "circle". If the question was "Choose the ball-shaped object", which one would you choose? "Duwr" is the Hebrew term for ball (or sphere). Note that the passage in question uses "chuwg" and not "duwr".

Here is an alternate way to look at this verse, tho:

Imagine yourself in a large, empty field. Look around you - you can see to the horizon in all directions, and in all directions equally (a circle). The sky in all horizons appears to dip down and meet the earth at all points around it. Now imagine a middle eastern tent - a circular tent which "curtains" off at the far end to provide as much inner room as possible.

Ultimately, this is what the passage is referring to. The author's perspective of creation, viewed like a circle of earth and the sky raised like a tent around it. It's not a statement proclaiming a flat earth or declaring a spherical earth - it's a statement used to paint the human author's awe of creation from his limited perspective.

Crawfish....the Author didn't have a limited perspective. You are looking at the verse through your eyes seeing it as you believe an old man from long ago would see and write it.

God either inspired Isaiah to write of things that would be just as relevant today as then or....He didn't. God either inspired Moses to write of the creation account as happened or...He lied and it was instead evolution.

Truly, I don't see how there is room for anything else.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Do you believe using imagery equates to lying?

Certainly not if it doesn't negate what is written. May I ask, can you provide any Biblical imagery He used to depict evolution?


.

 

[Mallon]

Certainly not if it doesn't negate what is written.

I don't understand what you mean by this. How can using imagery negate what is written? Can you please explain? I'll ask again: Do you believe using imagery equates to lying?

May I ask, can you provide any Biblical imagery He used to depict evolution?

Nope. I also can't provide any biblical imagery that depicts germs, atoms, heliocentrism, or epigenesis. Then again, rejecting something simply because the Bible doesn't mention it is silly. The Bible wasn't written to provide scientific insight, so we shouldn't look for it there.

 

[1whirlwind]

I don't understand what you mean by this. How can using imagery negate what is written? Can you please explain? I'll ask again: Do you believe using imagery equates to lying?

I say again...no, if it doesn't tell a false story. Imagery can mislead just as does a lie. It can depict a truth or a fabrication.

Nope. I also can't provide any biblical imagery that depicts germs, atoms, heliocentrism, or epigenesis. Then again, rejecting something simply because the Bible doesn't mention it is silly. The Bible wasn't written to provide scientific insight, so we shouldn't look for it there.

Then, why did you bring this up? You do understand we have been discussing what is written. In other words, the Bible does mention it. When He tells us one thing and Darwin teaches another then one isn't truthful.


.

 

[Mallon]

I say again...no, if it doesn't tell a false story. Imagery can mislead just as does a lie. It can depict a truth or a fabrication.

So how does one determine whether the imagery is telling a false story?

I'm just confused because you seem to be saying that interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as imagery equivalent saying that God is a liar, yet you say you have no problem with God using imagery.

Then, why did you bring this up? You do understand we have been discussing what is written. In other words, the Bible does mention it. When He tells us one thing and Darwin teaches another then one isn't truthful.

So what if the Genesis creation accounts are imagery, rather than a depiction of history? Does that still make the theory of evolution a lie?

 

[1whirlwind]

So how does one determine whether the imagery is telling a false story?

Is it God's imagery or man's?

I'm just confused because you seem to be saying that interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as imagery equivalent saying that God is a liar, yet you say you have no problem with God using imagery.

No Mallon, that isn't at all what I'm saying.

So what if the Genesis creation accounts are imagery, rather than a depiction of history? Does that still make the theory of evolution a lie?

Evolution is a lie as it directly opposes His account...whether the account is literal or figurative.


.

 

[Mallon]

o Mallon, that isn't at all what I'm saying.

Then what did you mean when you said the following to gluadys?

Exactly. It is about understanding and respect for His Words. You are saying that God misrepresented the beginning in order for the silly little non-scientific folks to "get it." Or.....He lied, He fabricated, He just didn't explain it enough but...you respect Him for that. All the prophets must have said, "If I only had a brain." Oh wait...that was the tin man.

Respect Him enough to know that what is written is truth.

You seem to be equating the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as imagery with God lying or misrepresenting how He created. But if you have no problem with God using imagery to convey spiritual truths, then I don't understand your problem.

Evolution is a lie as it directly opposes His account...whether the account is literal or figurative.

But why?
I mean, the Bible uses preformatism to describe human development, when we know today that humans develop epigenetically. Are we to reject epigenesis today simply because the writers of the Bible didn't know what it was back then, and so used the common imagery of preformatism instead? Does the fact that God creates us in our mothers' wombs really hinge on the fact that we develop from homonculi?

 

[crawfish]

Crawfish....the Author didn't have a limited persepctive. You are looking at the verse through your eyes seeing it as you believe an old man from long ago would see and write it.

God either inspired Isaiah to write of things that would be just as relevant today as then or....He didn't. God either inspired Moses to write of the creation account as happened or...He lied and it was instead evolution.

Truly, I don't see how there is room for anything else.
.

What is inspiration? Is it divine dictation, or is it God leading someone to write their own understanding down with His stamp of approval?

Think about it. If all the words were divinely dictated and the human author did not understand the full extent of them, then what does Luke 1 mean?

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Why did Luke bother to carefully research all the stories he was telling? If these are God's words, then he'd hardly need to do that.

The books in the bible are written by humans, writing styles, cultural views and perspectives. They are inspired by God which means God has marked them as representative of what He wants to say. But outside of the ten commandments, there is no evidence that God is putting the words in the mouths of men, and lots of evidence to the contrary.

 

[1whirlwind]

Then what did you mean when you said the following to gluadys?

Gluadys wrote....

It is one's understanding of and respect for scripture that hangs in the balance. I can respect a God who accommodates his revelation to the non-scientific worldview of his chosen prophets.

​

My reply....

Exactly. It is about understanding and respect for His Words. You are saying that God misrepresented the beginning in order for the silly little non-scientific folks to "get it." Or.....He lied, He fabricated, He just didn't explain it enough but...you respect Him for that. All the prophets must have said, "If I only had a brain." Oh wait...that was the tin man.

Respect Him enough to know that what is written is truth.

​

In other words, the erroneous implication is evolution has to be true but God didn't write it as such for it would be too much for those of that time to understand. Difficult scientific principles for such an uneducated person to comprehend, so instead, our Father told a big one. Instead of describing an evolutionary process of creation He just skipped over that and said....I created them.

You seem to be equating the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as imagery with God lying or misrepresenting how He created. But if you have no problem with God using imagery to convey spiritual truths, then I don't understand your problem.

No Mallon, that isn't at all what I am saying. Whether God uses literal or figurative language it is truth. For someone to teach a principle that dismisses His truth and asks us to instead accept their thought...is a lie. Evolution is the lie being discussed.

But why?
I mean, the Bible uses preformatism to describe human development, when we know today that humans develop epigenetically. Are we to reject epigenesis today simply because the writers of the Bible didn't know what it was back then, and so used the common imagery of preformatism instead? Does the fact that God creates us in our mothers' wombs really hinge on the fact that we develop from homonculi?

God does not "create" us in our mother's womb. He forms us there meaning, our souls. It has nothing to do with our flesh bodies. You may accept whatever theory of development you wish. The rejection you must make, if faced with choice of His account or a theory, is either His Words or the theory. Such is with evolution.

He tells us that He created us male and female and we were to multiply.
He tells us that we are created in His image.
He tells us that we are to produce offspring after our own kind.
​

All of those must be rejected if you accept evolution.


.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...

He tells us that He created us male and female and we were to multiply.
He tells us that we are created in His image.
He tells us that we are to produce offspring after our own kind.
​

All of those must be rejected if you accept evolution.


.

No, none of those have to be rejected if one accepts evolution.

 

[Mallon]

In other words, the erroneous implication is evolution has to be true but God didn't write it as such for it would be too much for those of that time to understand. Difficult scientific principles for such an uneducated person to comprehend, so instead, our Father told a big one. Instead of describing an evolutionary process of creation He just skipped over that and said....I created them.

Is that not what God does? Accommodate His infinite understanding to our limited, human perspective? When God talks about our development in the womb, He speaks of "knitting" us together -- not of replicating DNA, migrating neural crest cells, etc. What meaning would that have for His original Hebrew audience? They didn't even know what a cell was.
The Bible regularly uses accommodated language so that we might understand its teachings. Its geocentric language is a prime example of this, which you don't seem to want to address. Jesus' parables are another excellent example. Heck, Jesus Christ himself was an accommodation to human experience. I don't know what you have against conceptual accommodation -- the Bible is rife with it.

 

[1whirlwind]

What is inspiration? Is it divine dictation, or is it God leading someone to write their own understanding down with His stamp of approval?

Think about it. If all the words were divinely dictated and the human author did not understand the full extent of them, then what does Luke 1 mean?

Why did Luke bother to carefully research all the stories he was telling? If these are God's words, then he'd hardly need to do that.​

The two translations are a little different:

King James

Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

​

Yours

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
​

I don't understand it as Luke "carefully researching all the stories," but that many folks were telling various stories. Luke, who knew from the beginning, and "had a perfect understanding," decided to write it so the truth would be known. So that Theophilus, and all readers, would be certain "of these things."

The books in the bible are written by humans, writing styles, cultural views and perspectives. They are inspired by God which means God has marked them as representative of what He wants to say. But outside of the ten commandments, there is no evidence that God is putting the words in the mouths of men, and lots of evidence to the contrary.

I would have to disagree Crawfish. One example would be Daniel who didn't understand what he was writing. The angel told him to close the book until the time of the end. To have all the books of the Bible be so compatible with the theme, the examples, the law, the same story repeated throughout when written by many different men, in different areas, different walks of life, over many generations....leaves no doubt as to the Author.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

No, none of those have to be rejected if one accepts evolution.

I disagree.


.