Evolution

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[Assyrian]

No, the quote wasn't a mistake for it was applicable to the subject of narrow-mindedness.

You tried to show that accepting the bible as it is written is the narrow way, though we are save by faith through Jesus Christ not literalism. But Jesus own use of metaphor here, which is not to be taken as it is written but understood metaphorically, contradicts your insistence we take everything as it is written, which you don't even do yourself, because many of your interpretations are highly figurative.

To answer your question I would pose another....Would He, or you or I, use a metaphor when teaching to lead another from the truth, from what it is symbolic of?

No it doesn't answer my question. But to answer yours, do you mean could people misunderstand his metaphors? They did all the time, like the Jews who left him because he said they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He even said he used parables so only his disciples could understand and the rest of the people not see the meaning.

As an example, whether you envision a Hebrew flying out of Egypt on the wings of an eagle or I envision the Israelites being led by the pillar of fire....they still departed Egypt under God's leadership. There are just various examples telling the same thing, the same LITERAL event.
.

It wasn't a literal event, because the event itself involved people geography and God, not text. It was a real historical event, not a literal one. Some of the descriptions were literal, but the description of being carried by eagles' wasn't, it was a metaphor. I am starting to wonder if you are hiding behind your misunderstanding of literal to avoid the truth that God often speaks in metaphors and your creationism is built on the insistence we take Genesis 'as it is written', even though you usually don't.

 

[ThomasDa]

Eviloution is a fary tale, not even a very good one at that.
It is laughable at best and leads people away from the Great Creator God at worst.
Its soul reason for being is to claim there is no creator, and therefore no higher athority that we must obey, so we can choose for ourselves what is right and what is wrong just like our first parents did, i.e. Adam & Eve.
And we know where that has gotten us.
Its no more difficult than that.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[Assyrian]

No, I tried to show that truth, which is taught in either a literal or metaphorical way is....the narrow way.

You weren't arguing for a literal or a metaphorical understanding but that we should take scripture 'as it is written' which sounds like literal to me. And if we are to read scripture and try to understand whether it was meant literally or metaphorically, that is called interpretation. which you claim not to do. But I am glad you admit, again, that scripture can be either teaching us in a literal or metaphorical way. You seem to forget this every time I point out that metaphorical interpretations of Genesis does not contradict evolution.

Deception leads one away from Him. I don't insist you take anything literally.

Except when you insist we have to take creation as it is written.

I offer the literal to those that contiue to say "your interpretation." If someone doesn't approve of my interpretation then simply read the literal account. Both tell us that evolution isn't creation. I wrote....

You are assuming your interpretation is the only possible metaphorical reading?

No, that isn't what I meant. You implied that by using a metaphor someone could be telling us to take something literally when it has nothing to do with that. Whether we see literally or figuratively, in this instance of evolution vs creation....both teach the same thing for there is but one truth.

I have no idea what you are saying here, but Jesus never told us to take metaphors literally.

And, the use of a narrow way means just what He told us it meant.

Yes that Jesus is the only way of salvation, not that your interpretation of Genesis is the only one we should believe.

I hide behind nothing...there is no need to.

Ezekiel 3:4-6 And He said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with My words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel; Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.


3:10-11 Moreover He said unto me, Son of man, all My words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears. And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.
​

What the Lord God saith was...... "So God created man in His own image."
.

Of course, and it does not matter if God created us in his image from mud or with ape DNA, he still made us in his image.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[gluadys]

I am arguing that we should all take Scripture PERIOD over that of man. Whether we see the metaphorical, which many do not nor ever will, or see the literal....they will not conflict for truth is truth. When one sees a metaphorical meaning that conflicts with Scripture then...that person isn't properly seeing and needs to alter his/her thinking. Evolution does conflict with Scripture.

My perspective is almost identical. Here is the paragraph again with the few amendments I would make:

I am arguing that we should all take Scripture PERIOD over that of man. Whether we see the metaphorical, which many do not nor ever will, or see the literal....they will not conflict for truth is truth. When one sees a metaphorical or a literal meaning that conflicts with Scripture then...that person isn't properly seeing and needs to alter his/her thinking. Evolution does not conflict with Scripture.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[Assyrian]

I am arguing that we should all take Scripture PERIOD over that of man.

That is why we go back to scripture when human interpretations like geocentrism or creationism fail.

Whether we see the metaphorical, which many do not nor ever will, or see the literal....they will not conflict for truth is truth. When one sees a metaphorical meaning that conflicts with Scripture then...that person isn't properly seeing and needs to alter his/her thinking.

Exactly. Or if an interpretation conflicts with reality, like geocentrism or flat earth. Geocentric and flat earth interpretations did not conflict with scripture, but they did conflict with reality.

Evolution does conflict with Scripture.

It certainly conflicts with your interpretation, but seeing as evolution happened, you need to alter your interpretation, just like the geocentrists did.

Creation is written and whether you see that creation being explained with metaphorical terms or literal terms doesn't matter. It will remain CREATION and not evolution. One deepens understanding but it does not alter what is said.

So interpreting God the potter making Adam from clay as a metaphor, is still taking what is written? I don't see what you problem is then. It is not written that creation contradicts evolution, it is not written that God could not have used evolution to create Adam. You whole hatred for evolution is based on human opinion, not what is written in scripture.

No, that isn't what I wrote.

So you don't assume your metaphorical interpretation is the only one possible, that clears up most of the other arguments you use against evolution.

I am saying that how we interpret the literal, if it is truly a revelation, should enhance and not lead us away from truth. He would not write...I created...and then reveal, "oh, I meant I evolved instead of created."

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
​

No one ever said God meant evolved instead of created. Creation means God made it. It doesn't tell us what method he used, though we know he uses natural methods as well as supernatural. No one is claiming God should say, "oh, I meant I bred the smith and the Ammonites instead of creating them."

What I am saying is that a metaphor speaks of the truth. A metaphor gives a visual picture of the truth. A metaphor will not mislead us.
Did any of the Biblical metaphors teach us that the world was evolved instead of created? Do they teach man was taken from ape?

None of them says the earth goes around the sun either. God's metaphors certainly speak the truth, but they do not tell us everything, in fact usually they focus in one one aspect. God's metaphors do not tell us God used evolution and neither do they tell us God didn't, in fact they do not tell us anything about the method God used, so I don't see what you problem with evolution is.

Yes that Jesus is the only way of salvation, not that your interpretation of Genesis is the only one we should believe.

He is the Way and He is the Word...the Word is written. What we are to believe is.....

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Psalm 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth.

119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Proverbs 5:7 Hear Me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of My mouth.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God
​

So where does this say the narrow way of salvation includes believing your interpretation of Genesis, or your claim evolution is a lie?

If it didn't matter that we take man's teaching over that of the Lord and that it didn't matter what we believed...evolution or creation...why did He teach Creation? And why did He say.....

Mark 7:13-14 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. And when He had called all the people unto Him, He said unto them, Hearken unto Me every one of you, and understand:
.​

Perhaps this would be more relevant if I didn't believe God is the creator of everything, but I do. The only human tradition I see here is your belief evolution is a lie, ironically leaving you unable to see that God is the creator of evolution too.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[gluadys]

Well...that is what this thread pertains to. We are given choices on what and who we choose to believe. If one accepts Scripture PERIOD over that of man then one would discard evolution.


Did God create man in His image, after His likeness or did He evolve man over the millennia from an ancestral ape into what would eventually become a man?

Both. It is not an either-or choice.

I other words, I would answer your question this way:

I believe God created man in His image, after his likeness AND that He evolved man over the millennia from an ancestral ape into what would eventually become a man.

Note my signature.

 

[1whirlwind]

.


.

 

[Assyrian]

Creation is not an interpretation Assyrian. It is written.

Of course creation is not an interpretation, it is not written either, creation is God's act of creating everything. The creation accounts in the bible, Gen 1, Gen 2, Job 38, Psalm 104, Prov 6, are what is written. And it is your understanding of the creation accounts that is an interpretation. You really should stop mixing up you opinions with the work of God.

Evolution is an interpretation and no-where will you find it written or hinted at, or at least...I haven't yet seen it.

If it is not hinted at in scripture, and no one is claiming it is hinted at in scripture, then it isn't an interpretation of the bible.

But they DO conflict with Scripture as well as reality. A flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth are NOT written. They are what man dreamed up just as man dreamed up evolution.

Flat earth and geocentrism were as much interpretations of scripture as your creationism. Flat earth and geocentrism did not conflict with scripture, unless you can show me scripture saying the earth is spherical and orbits the sun. And all three, flat earth, geocentrism and your anti evolution creationism make claims about the physical universe that can be tested by science, and all three are are shown to conflict with reality, which mean they cannot be a proper understanding of God's word. But after all they are just fallible human interpretations not the word of God.

This is not my interpretation Assyrian. From the beginning to the end He speaks of creation, not evolution....

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

Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
​

Creation is not evolution. As words have meaning would He not have chosen another to explain the event? Not only is evolution not written but words carrying that meaning are not given in connection to the beginning. I went to the thesaurus for synonyms of evolution.

Change, enlargement, evolvement, expansion, flowering, growth, increase, maturation, natural process, progression, transformation, unfolding, working out
​

None were used to describe the beginning of heavens, earth, plants, animals or man. If that was the way of things then should we not ask...Why?

Where does the bible say God did not use evolution? Why should God tell us the methods he used to create when he doesn't tell us how he used gravity to keep the earth and planets in heliocentric orbits when he created them. It is kind of arrogant of you to demand God explain evolution in the bible because you misunderstand creation, when he didn't explain the shape of the earth or heliocentism for the flat earthers and geocentrists.

So interpreting God the potter making Adam from clay as a metaphor, is still taking what is written? I don't see what you problem is then. It is not written that creation contradicts evolution, it is not written that God could not have used evolution to create Adam. You whole hatred for evolution is based on human opinion, not what is written in scripture.

As creation IS written then that does contradict evolution. It isn't written that God could or could not have used evolution but it IS written that man was created. Human opinion would be something not written...that would be evolution.

Why not explain how a metaphorical understanding of God the potter forming Adam contradicts God using evolution instead of reverting to the mantra of creation being written. You have already said that what is written can being interpreted metaphorically. Show us why a metaphorical interpretation contradicts evolution.

So you don't assume your metaphorical interpretation is the only one possible, that clears up most of the other arguments you use against evolution.

I have asked you to overlook all interpretations if they don't agree with you and simply accept what is written.

I not only accept what is written, I accept there are many way to interpret it literal and metaphorical, which you seem to realise too. Of course some of the interpretations are mistaken and we should abandon the interpretation that contradict reality, just as the church did when science showed them the geocentric interpretations are wrong.

But that is exactly what you are saying. You are replacing creation with evolution as the means with which He created. They are diametrically opposed.

Creation is the means by which God created? Does that make sense or is it just a tautology? The bible doesn't say how God created, but if science tells us how something came about, like our knowledge of human reproductive biology telling us where Mr Smith came from, then that is not replacing creation with human reproductive biology as the means with which He created, that is how God created Mr and Mrs Smith's son. Learning how God created is not replacing creation, it is simply learning more about this wonderful universe God created.

The problem is acceptance of His account of the Creation or acceptance of man's account of evolution. Metaphors don't tell us everything but they do tell us of the CREATION.

They certainly do, they just don't tell us how he did it, a literal interpretation would, if we were meant to take it literally instead of metaphorically, it would mean God really did get a lump of mud and start squeezing it into shape. But if we interpret it metaphorically, then it doesn't tell us about the process God used to create, and more than bearing the Israelites from Egypt on eagles' wing tell us about the process of the Exodus. And if the metaphor of a potter tells us God CREATED but does not tell the process, then there is not reason to think God could not have used evolution. Or at least, you haven't come up with one yet.

Constantly using "my interpretation of Genesis" isn't working Assyrian. I have quoted His words, not my interpretation.

And the word don't say what you want them to say. It is you interpretation that contradicts evolution not scripture.

The verses I chose tell us that it is His Word that is truth, is right, and have been from the beginning. We are not to depart from that Word. Evolution isn't in His Word and is directly contradicted.

Yet you have admitted the bible does not say evolution is wrong and that it isn't written that God could or could not have used evolution. Where is the direct contradiction? Only in you imagination. How is departing from your imagination departing from God's word?

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

No mention of evolution.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth.

No mention of evolution.

119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

No mention of evolution.

Proverbs 5:7 Hear Me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of My mouth.

No mention of evolution.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

And no mention of evolution.

By all means lets hold on tight to God's word. But we should abandon our mistaken interpretations when we are shown they are wrong, otherwise we will let our pride bring the gospel into disrepute as the churches did when they first opposed heliocentrism.

Man evolving from ape is a lie or God's account of creation is a lie.
.

What part of God's creation account?

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[mark kennedy]

Creation is not an interpretation Assyrian. It is written. Evolution is an interpretation and no-where will you find it written or hinted at, or at least...I haven't yet seen it.

It is flatly contradicted in Romans 5, I Corinthians 15 and the genealogy of Luke. That's the thing, they chant interpretation but they practice selective, private interpretation when they find a passage that doesn't suit them. The way these academic and intellectual types treat the Scriptures is down right profane and yet they preach tolerance and open mindedness.

I take the Scriptures literally because that is the original intent of the writers, confirmed by the New Testament in no uncertain terms.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

It is flatly contradicted in Romans 5, I Corinthians 15 and the genealogy of Luke. That's the thing, they chant interpretation but they practice selective, private interpretation when they find a passage that doesn't suit them. The way these academic and intellectual types treat the Scriptures is down right profane and yet they preach tolerance and open mindedness.

I take the Scriptures literally because that is the original intent of the writers, confirmed by the New Testament in no uncertain terms.

Grace and peace,
Mark

So when Paul described Adam as a figure of Christ in Romans 5:14 he was teaching literal interpretation in no uncertain terms? Hi Mark welcome back

Whirlwind is actually much more aware of how scripture often speaks metaphorically, it is how God often speaks to us in scripture and it is how Jesus spoke so often in his time of ministry here on earth, in parables and metaphors that literalists listening to him so often misunderstood.

 

[Assyrian]

Creation is written...quite often. What is written isn't opinion and has nothing to do my interpretation or yours. Yes, creation is the act of "creating" not evolving. Again, the words He has chosen were specifically chosen for a reason.

You mean the word creation is written? It needs to be in a sentence to make sense, then it is talking about creation, it isn't creation itself. and we need to understand what is being said, especially when the bible so often uses metaphors and parables. That is called interpretation

I agree, it "isn't an interpretation of the Bible." It is an interpretation of man, an incorrect interpretation.

It is a scientific theory that has been well tested and established. Christians have not done too well in the past when they argued against established science on the basis of their interpretation of scripture.

I see no need for me to provide scriptures about that when they don't concern evolution. What is written about the Creation is written so it is you that should provide a counter argument for evolution should it be true...a Scriptural argument. However....

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Psalm 50:1 The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.
​

So where does this say the earth is spherical and the earth goes round the sun? And if there are no passages to correct the flat earth and geocentrism, why do you think God has to teach you evolution in scripture? The problem is not what is written but your interpretation of what is written, just like it was with the flat earthers and geocentrists.

I don't demand God tell us...I just ask you to provide what He has said. As He specifically told us of Creation then it is up to you to show where that isn't correct. Creation is NOT evolution.

What you are saying is that if God used evolution, he would have to show you in scripture. Otherwise why ask me to provide it. I didn't write the bible.

When I work in pottery I create something...I don't evolve it. Should God have evolved us different words would have been chosen to describe the event. They weren't.

And an artist creates using paint, a sculptor creates using stone and a chisel, Shakespeare created using a quill pen. God as we have seen creates using human reproductive biology. Yet we could all chant
Creation is NOT a pen
Creation is NOT a potters wheel
Creation is NOT sex
Creation is NOT a chisel and hammer
They would be just as relevant as your refrain Creation is NOT evolution. No creation is NOT evolution. It doesn't mean God couldn't use biological evolution just as he used biological reproduction.

Or..."we should abandon the interpretation" just as I did when I realized what I had been taught, evolution, was a lie and contradicted in the Bible.

Seeing as the bible doesn't say evolution is a lie, it must have been your interpretation of the bible that said that. Apparently you haven't abandoned this interpretation, instead you built on it. Of course you may have abandoned some of your older interpretations, but you are one of the busiest bible interpreters I have come across.

I understand that you see evolution as His means of creation but it cannot be for we would continue to evolve....apes into men continually with the fossil records showing the transition. Lots and lots of them. And, I don't at all believe the reason we don't see them is that they weren't preserved but dinosaur bones were.

Did you forget all the hominid fossils I showed you?

1 Corinthians 15:38-39 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Of course fish and birds animals and people all have different type of flesh, ask a zoologist or a cook. But where does Paul say they didn't evolve? Incidentally, Paul is talking about the resurrection here, not teaching on biology. He is certainly not teaching astronomy 1Cor 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. The sun is a star.

They certainly do, they just don't tell us how he did it, a literal interpretation would, if we were meant to take it literally instead of metaphorically, it would mean God really did get a lump of mud and start squeezing it into shape. But if we interpret it metaphorically, then it doesn't tell us about the process God used to create, and more than bearing the Israelites from Egypt on eagles' wing tell us about the process of the Exodus. And if the metaphor of a potter tells us God CREATED but does not tell the process, then there is not reason to think God could not have used evolution. Or at least, you haven't come up with one yet.

The word creation itself tells us Assyrian. It tells us it wasn't evolution.

No it doesn't. Now why don't you address my point?

Did I write the word "creation?"

You certainly did, frequently in the form creation is NOT evolution, which is your interpretation, not what the bible says.

Yet you have admitted the bible does not say evolution is wrong and that it isn't written that God could or could not have used evolution. Where is the direct contradiction? Only in you imagination. How is departing from your imagination departing from God's word?

I admitted nothing of the sort.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

1whirlwind Do the scriptures write out....evolution is a lie....literally, in a verse? No.
​

1whirlwind It isn't written that God could or could not have used evolution
​

Were evolution to be correct then it would be written, or something hinting at it.

Where does the bible tell you that, or is it just your idea?

Were I to be interpreting creation instead of seeing it then it could well be pride. If I were to be interpreting evolution and it not be there then perhaps it is again pride rearing it's ugly head?

Same ugly pride the church showed when they accepted heliocentrism, or when the church rejected the claims of flat earthers because they accepted the scientific evidence the earth was spherical. Bit different from mistaking your own opinions is the word of God though.

The part that tells us we were created in His image, in His likeness.

Where does that say God didn't use evolution? You are gleaning an aweful lot of interpretation out of a short phrase that says nothing about what you are claiming.

Assyrian, we're just going round and round here and not much is being accomplished. Truly, I have enjoyed discussing this with you but I don't know what else to say. I see evolution as a damnable lie and you see it as meaning creation.
.

Umm, no evolution does not mean creation either Anyway it has been good to chat to you. Keep well and be blessed.

 

[gluadys]

It is either-or Gluadys. We were created OR we evolved. Both can't represent the same event.

I don't see it that way.

Creation is NOT evolution.


The word creation itself tells us Assyrian. It tells us it wasn't evolution.

Well, you are defining/interpreting the word "creation" to exclude evolution. I define/interpret the word "creation" to include evolution.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

It is either-or Gluadys. We were created OR we evolved. Both can't represent the same event. Note His Word on the subject.

First, Adam, and only Adam, was created from the dust of the Earth; no mankind, no other human being was there at the beginning. Only when Eve came along was there viable genetic material (gametes) available for them to reproduce and produce offspring.

At some later time, the offspring evolved to produce the multitude of human races that we see today.

Creation then evolution. Completely consistent with the Bible- even the King James version. Easy. Logical. Inclusive. Allows all Christians to feel good about what they believe and have confidence in their salvation.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.