Evolution

[shernren]

A different seven to the website you quoted, though as you include Wycliffe being refined by Tyndale. But seriously, it is one thing to look at the use of sevens in the bible where the symbolism is divinely inspired. It is quite another to catalogue sevens outside the bible and think that is God inspired too. Don't you realise if the list had seven other translation instead of six he would be claiming the AV as the eighth, the number of resurrection, or if he couldn't play with that number he would have picked his own list of seven translations?

Or if I include the NIV, ESV, GNB, Holman Christian Standard, and The Message, I can claim that there are twelve holy English translations, just as there were twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles!

In fact, each of those have probably been reprinted about twelve times each. Voila! That's what the twelve times twelve thousand in Revelations represent, editions of the Bible which have been preserved from the world's evil influence.

I suppose I could find twenty-eight more translations, and make up a set of forty. So just as the Israelites had to wander forty years to get to the Promised Land, and the apostles had to wait forty days to get the Holy Spirit, so the English-speaking world had to wait forty editions to get the perfect English Bible. (Or did the apostles have to wait fifty days, if one counts from the Crucifixion? I suppose that gives us another ten slots in the papal succession of Bibles.)

All we have to do now is identify a hundred and fifty translations or commentaries of the Torah, too, and we can make the connection to Noah's Flood: just as the rainwaters spoke of God's punishment for a hundred and fifty days, and their recession spoke of God's grace for another forty, so also God spoke of punishment through a hundred and fifty editions of the Law, and of grace through forty editions of the English Bible.

Isn't numerology a wonderful thing? Many wonderful things in the Bible I see - some put there by you, some put there by me!

 

[Assyrian]

Many wonderful things in the Bible I see - some put there by you, some put there by me!

I am so glad they're put there by me,
put there by you,
put there by me,
I am so glad they're put there by me,
put there by you and me!

 

[Papias]

Sorry I was out for a while. I'll try to pick up where WW and I left off.

WW wrote:

I do agree with you....the conversation should be honest and respectful...and you have been. I thank you.

You are welcome. I'll try to live up to that.

Yes...mankind was created male and female....all at the same time so they could multiple and replenish the earth.

Ok, but I asked you this question: 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?

The two options are different. Responding with "yes" doesn't tell me which of the two you are agreeing with.

• 
  

  • 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

  But you haven't pointed it out. You aren't rightly dividing the Word if you see evil spirits being the cause of sickness. They are shown separately. There is demonic possession...evil spirits that cause terrible things in a body but there is also illness.

The "and" in there is like "the plane lost an engine and crashed to the ground". It's clear that one is the cause of the other, especially when it is confirmed in plenty of other verses.

​

I don't know why you term germs as being a theory when they are fact. Getting back to evolution...I don't see it as a theory at all. I see it as a lie.

The point was that you apparently think "theory" means "hypothesis". A hypothesis is an uproven guess, a "theory" is an overarching idea that explains a lot of evidence. I know that many people misuse these terms, so a lot of peole misunderstand them. I'm suggesting that you learn about what a "theory" is, so you can see that the theory of germs, of atoms, of evolution, and of gravity, are all theories. You could look here (Scientific Laws and Theories), or google it yourself. Consistent misuse of the term makes it look like Christians don't know what a theory is.

I do have questions about the genealogies...even more than you have written of. But, what does this have to do with evolution?

It's being discussed because creationists on this thread (was it you?) brought them up as a literal thing that contradicted theistic evolution. We are pointing out that they are contradictory to each other to show that they can't be literal, hence are not a problem to theistic evolution. If you concede that they are figurative and as such fit with theistic evolution, then we can drop them.
​

Papias



​

 

[Polycarp1]

Perhaps even better might be to say that a theory is a proven hypothesis, to the extent that the scientific method proves anything. That is, it accounts for all relevant observed data, is contradicted by no such datum, fits conformably with other relevant theory, stands up under expert peer review.... Because popular usage equates 'theory' with 'hypothesis' amd 'WAG', and because it does not have the absolute nigh-onto-tautological certitude of a syllogistic deductive proof from well-formed premisses, people tend to regard it as 'unproven' -- which is very far from the truth.

 

[Marbro]

I personally believe evolution is real however I think that doesn't take any credibility away from Jesus or the bible. God is obviously very intelligent and made things work in complicated ways. I don't believe everything in the bible is as black and white as people make it out to be. Yes Adam and Eve were the first humans but that doesn't mean evolution isn't real.

 

[1whirlwind]

I personally believe evolution is real however I think that doesn't take any credibility away from Jesus or the bible. God is obviously very intelligent and made things work in complicated ways. I don't believe everything in the bible is as black and white as people make it out to be. Yes Adam and Eve were the first humans but that doesn't mean evolution isn't real.

They weren't the first humans. They were the beginning of the geneological line leading to Christ but Adam wasn't the first man on earth.

Evolution is a man-made idea and it is against what is written.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Sorry I was out for a while. I'll try to pick up where WW and I left off.

WW wrote:



You are welcome. I'll try to live up to that.



Ok, but I asked you this question: 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?

The two options are different. Responding with "yes" doesn't tell me which of the two you are agreeing with.

We were created both male and female, as Jesus said. We return to that same state when we physically die. The question is....When were we created?


Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The "and" in there is like "the plane lost an engine and crashed to the ground". It's clear that one is the cause of the other, especially when it is confirmed in plenty of other verses.

​

Actually, I don't see any confirmation of that. The "and" is showing a difference in the two. They were given power over evil spirits AND over illness both of which caused sickness.

The point was that you apparently think "theory" means "hypothesis". A hypothesis is an uproven guess, a "theory" is an overarching idea that explains a lot of evidence. I know that many people misuse these terms, so a lot of peole misunderstand them. I'm suggesting that you learn about what a "theory" is, so you can see that the theory of germs, of atoms, of evolution, and of gravity, are all theories. You could look here (Scientific Laws and Theories), or google it yourself. Consistent misuse of the term makes it look like Christians don't know what a theory is.

It isn't necessary. Germs, atoms and gravity do not conflict with any of God's teachings. Evolution does.

It's being discussed because creationists on this thread (was it you?) brought them up as a literal thing that contradicted theistic evolution. We are pointing out that they are contradictory to each other to show that they can't be literal, hence are not a problem to theistic evolution. If you concede that they are figurative and as such fit with theistic evolution, then we can drop them.

Papias



​

No, I didn't bring it up. No, I don't see the genealogies as being figurative. And, I don't see it as having anything to do with evolution. I think it was one of the things in the Bible evolutionists bring up as they attempt to prove the Bible is filled with lies so evolution can be accepted by a Christian. It's right beside the circle of the earth can't possibly mean round.


.

 

[Smidlee]

No, I didn't bring it up. No, I don't see the genealogies as being figurative. And, I don't see it as having anything to do with evolution. I think it was one of the things in the Bible evolutionists bring up as they attempt to prove the Bible is filled with lies so evolution can be accepted by a Christian. It's right beside the circle of the earth can't possible mean round.


.

I don't think TE is claiming the Bible is filled with lies but that many verses are not to be taken literal. Yet even if that true this doesn't mean you can twist this verses around the way you want just so it fits your theory like evolution. (I find some scientist do the same thing with science , twisting the facts to fit their worldview then trying to hide their faith under the name of science.)
Even if everything in Genesis is figuratively, there are still some very strong teaching found in them. For example, Man as a special creation apart from a beast.

It's the same as some has claimed there is no literal fire in hell. If fire is used as a symbol then this means there is something worst than fire since symbols are never as strong as the thing they represent. So claiming there is not a literal fire doesn't help make hell any cooler.

 

[gluadys]

Even if everything in Genesis is figuratively, there are still some very strong teaching found in them. For example, Man as a special creation apart from a beast.

But who decides this is an essential teaching? For example, I would agree that humanity is a special creation--in that only humans were created in the image of God, but not that humanity was created differently or apart from other animals. In fact, both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 say animals were created from the earth, just like humans and became living beings, just like humans.

So I would see this symbolism (if that is what it is) as saying the opposite of what you claim it teaches about the creation of humans as compared to other animals.

 

[Papias]

Marbro wrote:

I personally believe evolution is real however I think that doesn't take any credibility away from Jesus or the bible. God is obviously very intelligent and made things work in complicated ways. I don't believe everything in the bible is as black and white as people make it out to be. Yes Adam and Eve were the first humans but that doesn't mean evolution isn't real.

Yes, I feel the same way. In fact, it's clear to me that evolution not only supports the core doctrines of Christianity, but greatly increases the glory of God. It gives a more vast, powerful, wonderful God, not just a tinkerer who makes shoddy designs.

Papias (more later, for WW)

 

[1whirlwind]

I don't think TE is claiming the Bible is filled with lies but that many verses are not to be taken literal. Yet even if that true this doesn't mean you can twist this verses around the way you want just so it fits your theory like evolution. (I find some scientist do the same thing with science , twisting the facts to fit their worldview then trying to hide their faith under the name of science.)
Even if everything in Genesis is figuratively, there are still some very strong teaching found in them. For example, Man as a special creation apart from a beast.

It's the same as some has claimed there is no literal fire in hell. If fire is used as a symbol then this means there is something worst than fire since symbols are never as strong as the thing they represent. So claiming there is not a literal fire doesn't help make hell any cooler.

If I am properly understanding your post...You're preaching to the choir Smidlee. Evolution isn't my theory....I detest it.



.

 

[crawfish]

I don't think TE is claiming the Bible is filled with lies but that many verses are not to be taken literal. Yet even if that true this doesn't mean you can twist this verses around the way you want just so it fits your theory like evolution. (I find some scientist do the same thing with science , twisting the facts to fit their worldview then trying to hide their faith under the name of science.)
Even if everything in Genesis is figuratively, there are still some very strong teaching found in them. For example, Man as a special creation apart from a beast.

It's the same as some has claimed there is no literal fire in hell. If fire is used as a symbol then this means there is something worst than fire since symbols are never as strong as the thing they represent. So claiming there is not a literal fire doesn't help make hell any cooler.

If you twist just to twist, then it's bad bible hermeneutics and it's wrong. I certainly don't believe you can willy-nilly call passages "symbolic" to overcome natural theory; you need to have good, solid reasons for doing so. I would not accept evolution if I did not believe that solid bible hermeneutics would not allow it.

 

[Jase]

If I am properly understanding your post...You're preaching to the choir Smidlee. Evolution isn't my theory....I detest it.



.

I'm guessing you refuse to see the doctor or take antibiotics then right?

 

[Papias]

WW wrote:

We were created both male and female, as Jesus said. We return to that same state when we physically die. The question is....When were we created?


Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

OK. That's consistent with evolution, and Genesis 1, but contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 2. Many Christians resolve this by seeing Genesis 2 as figurative, but you resolve it by instead claiming that Adam was not the first man, that humans were created in Genesis 1, and had a breeding population before Adam was created, right? Q1

It isn't necessary.

So then do you agree that "theory" doesn't mean "unproven"? Q2 Do you agree to stop using the term "theory" when you mean "hypothesis"? You might also read Polycarp's good post, where he explains this too.

Germs, atoms and gravity do not conflict with any of God's teachings. Evolution does.

As has been pointed out, they are all in conflict with a literal reading of whichever Bible you choose (yours or mine). Heliocentric theory is in conflict with many verses in the Bible, such as Ps 19. The same verse is in conflict with gravitational theory, which states that it is gravity maintains our position relative to the sun, not the tent that has been pitched for the sun. In fact, if you look at the bottom of my .sig, you can see a section from a recent post in the "not teaching" thread that shows a Christian who rejects gravitational theory because it isn't Biblical.

As we saw, none of the Bibles ever mentions germs, or says any disease is caused by small living things that invade the body. When any cause is given, the Bibles always say it is due to evil spirits. I'll drop the idea that germ theory is in conflict with the Bible if you mention even just one Bible verse that says that even one disease is caused by small living things that invade the body. As you mentioned:

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.

So if evolution is evil because it contradicts a literal reading, then why are Heliocentric theory, germ theory, Gravitational theory not evil, even though they too contradict a literal reading? Q3

No, I didn't bring it up. No, I don't see the genealogies as being figurative. And, I don't see it as having anything to do with evolution. I think it was one of the things in the Bible evolutionists bring up as they attempt to prove the Bible is filled with lies so evolution can be accepted by a Christian.

I checked. In this thread the genealogies were first brought up by a creationist (Ivebeenshown) as evidence that genesis is literal in post #48 on Oct. 18th. You picked that up, claiming the genealogies were literal in post 65 and others after that. Around post 78 you claimed that Heli was Joseph’s step father, not his father as Luke writes. As I mentioned in my last post, the geneologies are something that Creationists bring up to say that Genesis must be literal. They rarely seem to have actually taken the time to read them, because they don't realize that they contradict each other (or they know it and hide that fact).

No, I don't see the genealogies as being figurative.

OK, then why do they contradict each other? In addition to Luke contradicting Matthew, why does Matthew contradict 1 Chr? Because you still claim that the geneologies are literal, these questions are still unresolved:


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? Q4

Do you agree that there are three mutually contradictory geneologies given for Jesus in most Bibles, if interpreted literally? Q5



Thanks, and have a good day-


Papias (wow, goofy fonts. Sorry about that)

 

[1whirlwind]

WW wrote:



OK. That's consistent with evolution, and Genesis 1, but contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 2. Many Christians resolve this by seeing Genesis 2 as figurative, but you resolve it by instead claiming that Adam was not the first man, that humans were created in Genesis 1, and had a breeding population before Adam was created, right? Q1

Yes. The beginnings of the various races of mankind were placed here on the sixth day.

It isn't consistent with evolution for they were male and female and able to be fruitful and multiply from that time forward.

So then do you agree that "theory" doesn't mean "unproven"? Q2 Do you agree to stop using the term "theory" when you mean "hypothesis"? You might also read Polycarp's good post, where he explains this too.

No.
No.
I have read it.

As has been pointed out, they are all in conflict with a literal reading of whichever Bible you choose (yours or mine). Heliocentric theory is in conflict with many verses in the Bible, such as Ps 19. The same verse is in conflict with gravitational theory, which states that it is gravity maintains our position relative to the sun, not the tent that has been pitched for the sun. In fact, if you look at the bottom of my .sig, you can see a section from a recent post in the "not teaching" thread that shows a Christian who rejects gravitational theory because it isn't Biblical.

No they aren't in conflict for they aren't discussed. Creation is in direct conflict with evolution. Your understanding of Psalm 19 isn't my understanding at all.

As we saw, none of the Bibles ever mentions germs, or says any disease is caused by small living things that invade the body. When any cause is given, the Bibles always say it is due to evil spirits. I'll drop the idea that germ theory is in conflict with the Bible if you mention even just one Bible verse that says that even one disease is caused by small living things that invade the body. As you mentioned:

It doesn't mention many things. That has no bearing on this at all. Creation IS mentioned and evolution tells us it is a lie.

The Bible DOES NOT ALWAYS say it is due to evil spirits. There is no need for a verse to tell us if an illness was caused by bacteria, germs, or whatever. Whatever the illness was they were given power to cure it AND they were ALSO given power over evil spirits.


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.


They healed sickness and they CAST OUT evil spirits.

So if evolution is evil because it contradicts a literal reading, then why are Heliocentric theory, germ theory, Gravitational theory not evil, even though they too contradict a literal reading? Q3

Because germs and gravity are NOT mentioned. Creation is.

I checked. In this thread the genealogies were first brought up by a creationist (Ivebeenshown) as evidence that genesis is literal in post #48 on Oct. 18th. You picked that up, claiming the genealogies were literal in post 65 and others after that. Around post 78 you claimed that Heli was Joseph’s step father, not his father as Luke writes. As I mentioned in my last post, the geneologies are something that Creationists bring up to say that Genesis must be literal. They rarely seem to have actually taken the time to read them, because they don't realize that they contradict each other (or they know it and hide that fact).

The genealogies are literal....I never said they weren't. Genesis is also literal and the literal should also be seen figuratively for the literal tells of the spirital.

OK, then why do they contradict each other? In addition to Luke contradicting Matthew, why does Matthew contradict 1 Chr? Because you still claim that the geneologies are literal, these questions are still unresolved:

First...this should be added to the list with germs, circle of the earth, of things that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

The geneologies are literal. I previously wrote that when there is an apparent conflict it means we need to dig in for it contains a lesson or it is a mistranslation. I don't feel compelled to do so at this time but I do think that using it to give the go-ahead for evolution to trump creation as is being attempted....is not a good thing.

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? Q4

Do you agree that there are three mutually contradictory geneologies given for Jesus in most Bibles, if interpreted literally? Q5

What I see is that Joseph was the son of Heli. Jesus was (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. That gives the legal line. I also see in Matthew that Joseph was not just the husband of Mary but her father too was named Joseph. (count the generations for the key) It appears to me to be a mistranslation of husband and father.

Thanks, and have a good day-


Papias (wow, goofy fonts. Sorry about that)

You too,

 

[Smidlee]

I'm guessing you refuse to see the doctor or take antibiotics then right?

There is a big difference between asexual and sexual creatures. asexual basicly clone themselves while my children are not my clones.
Lab studies so far has shown fruit flies are resisting evolution (so they must be creationist) :

Experimental evolution reveals resistance to change : Nature

These small steps that evolution badly need are very rare and if they do appear, they get lost in all the neutral mutations in the sea of genetic drift. Evolution seems to have to a very serious sex problem.
That's one of the problems with evolution thinkers, they believe antibiotic resistance is on the same level as growing wings and fly.

P.S If war against bacteria (as well bacteria fighting back) and taking antibiotics and medicine= evolution then I'm an evolutionist. If giving out presents on Christmas day = Santa then I'm Santa. Now flying reindeers is a different story.

 

[1whirlwind]

I'm guessing you refuse to see the doctor or take antibiotics then right?

 

[Smidlee]

If I am properly understanding your post...You're preaching to the choir Smidlee. Evolution isn't my theory....I detest it.



.

I was referring "you" in a general sense and not directly at you except for the first sentence.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

If I am properly understanding your post...You're preaching to the choir Smidlee. Evolution isn't my theory....I detest it.

Sorry- maybe you've already done this- but what exactly is your definition of evolution? I know you don't like the textbook definitions- but how do you define evolution?

.

 

[Jase]

It's a valid question. The foundation of Medicine is based on the theory of evolution. Without it, antibiotics would not exist.