Evolution?

[Archivist]

But I would hope that you'd be honest enough to admit that you don't believe it based on the plain sense of the scriptures. Rather you brought your preconceived beliefs about the truth of upward evolution and imposed them on the scriptures.

And, YES - I am charging you (and any other Christian evolutionist) with dishonesty if you will not do so.

But you have already said that you don’t accept the plain meaning of the words of Jesus, this is my body, this is my blood. It seems to me that if you were consistent you would accept all scripture for what is says.

And for the record, while I believe that the element of Holy Communion are the body and blood of our Lord, I understand the reasoning of those who see the elements as being symbolic.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think you are staying logically consistent then @Marvin Knox. But, as far as I am aware, you aren't a scientist, so i wouldn't necessarily assume that you would give the theory the credit that it is due.

Anyway, to be honest, from the beginning I had not asked for your opinion. But it was nice having this talk regardless. If you would like to talk about the theory of plate tectonics or the fossil succession, feel free to get back to me.

All the best,

 

[Marvin Knox]

But you have already said that you don’t accept the plain meaning of the words of Jesus, this is my body, this is my blood. It seems to me that if you were consistent you would accept all scripture for what is says.

And for the record, while I believe that the element of Holy Communion are the body and blood of our Lord, I understand the reasoning of those who see the elements as being symbolic.

Unlike those of the evolution persuasion - I look at the plain sense of the scripture as the context warrants.

In this case the context is Jesus in His once for all incarnate body handing real bread and wine to the disciples and saying do this in remembrance of me. The statement that "this is my body" etc. must be taken in context.

Concerning the evolution theory being seen in the scriptures in Genesis - the two cases are nothing like each other.

The context of the direct creation cannot in any way be twisted to allow for millions of years of evolution from some kind of supposed existing matter, to chemicals, to plants to lower animals, to higher animals to Adam all with death, pain and suffering paving the way.

I know you seem to have an axe to grind concerning our divergent view of the elements. But - really now - the two situations (God's use of evolution to create man and His institution of the communion celebration) are in no way comparable.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I don't think you are staying logically consistent then @Marvin Knox. But, as far as I am aware, you aren't a scientist, so i wouldn't necessarily assume that you would give the theory the credit that it is due.
Anyway, to be honest, from the beginning I had not asked for your opinion. But it was nice having this talk regardless. If you would like to talk about the theory of plate tectonics or the fossil succession, feel free to get back to me.
All the best,

I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look back. But did I first address you on this thread or was it the other way around? - not that it matters much.

All the best to you as well.

 

[sfs]

I disagree as do many good scientists.

A vanishingly small number of biologists agree with you. Of those, nearly all have religious reasons for rejecting common descent.

I have maintained here and continue to maintain that is no room in the plain words of the scriptures to "interpret" the idea of common decent and or macro evolution.

Yes, I know that you have maintained that. What I'm telling you is that you are wrong, plain and simple. Your idea of what the plain words of the scriptures mean is an interpretation, an interpretation that is very much a product of your culture and religious tradition. It has little to do with what the text was actually doing for its original audience, and your notion of permissible readings would exclude the approaches of Christians throughout history, including many church fathers and authors of the New Testament.

That's exactly the problem as I have maintained all along here.

They have "reconciled" what the scriptures clearly say and what much of science teaches. I.e. they bring their preconceived notions about the absolute fact of evolution with them in their study of the scriptures and impose that belief system on what the Holy Spirit has written for us.

And the problem as I see it is that you are bringing your preconceived notion that you have the one and only valid reading of the Bible and using it to reject the reality that God actually created.

It is never healthy for the church to compromise the plain truth of scripture with what the enemy says.

"Oh really? Has God really said?" is still the method of the enemy when it comes to assailing God's word.

It's also never healthy for Christians to confuse themselves with God, and to mistake their own ideas for God's very truth.

I have had no trouble with engaging you or anyone else here.

Seriously? You think insulting people on an internet forum and repeating the same couple of platitudes over and over is engagement? Lecturing people isn't engagement. How many theologians have you read that accept common descent? When have you asked a Christian who accepts common descent how he or she reconciles evolution with the Bible, or why they read the Bible they way they do? (Note: how I read the Bible has nothing whatever to do with evolution. Convince me tonight that evolution is false, and I'll still won't read the early chapters of Genesis as an historical account of anything. Other Christians, by contrast, do read Genesis as historically accurate, but also accept evolution.)

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that I really know common descent isn't a fact and am lying about it. You keep changing the subject, even while insisting that I really am dishonest. That hardly counts as engagement either.

 

[Archivist]

Unlike those of the evolution persuasion - I look at the plain sense of the scripture as the context warrants.

In this case the context is Jesus in His once for all incarnate body handing real bread and wine to the disciples and saying do this in remembrance of me. The statement that "this is my body" etc. must be taken in context.

Concerning the evolution theory being seen in the scriptures in Genesis - the two cases are nothing like each other.

The context of the direct creation cannot in any way be twisted to allow for millions of years of evolution from some kind of supposed existing matter, to chemicals, to plants to lower animals, to higher animals to Adam all with death, pain and suffering paving the way.

In other words, if you believe that scripture says a certain thing then everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but we can ignore the plain meaning of the words of Jesus.

I know you seem to have an axe to grind concerning our divergent view of the elements. But - really now - the two situations (God's use of evolution to create man and His institution of the communion celebration) are in no way comparable.

Where is this “ax to grind” accusation is coming from when I clearly said that I understand the reasoning of those who see the elements as being symbolic.

 

[Marvin Knox]

In other words, if you believe that scripture says a certain thing then everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but we can ignore the plain meaning of the words of Jesus.
Where is this “ax to grind” accusation is coming from when I clearly said that I understand the reasoning of those who see the elements as being symbolic.

Forget the "axe to grind" metaphor if you find it offensive. It was not meant that way.

You have a real interest in seeing a parallel between my taking the context of the institution of the last supper by our Lord while in the flesh and my maintaining that there is no context whatsoever which can make evolution a viable Biblical concept.

If the scriptures say a certain thing (like there was no suitable mate for Adam) then they say that - plain and simple.

People are only wrong if they say or insinuate that Adam was from a line of animals with appropriate genes for procreation with him. The scripture says otherwise.

Evolution is wrong and the scriptures are right.

If saying that make me a flaming fundamentalist denier of generally recognized science in your eyes - I can live with that.

If you believe that the real incarnate, flesh and blood Jesus literally handed His body and blood to the disciples while His heart was still beating - I can live with that also.

But, as I see things, you are wrong just are the evolutionists who say they believe the scriptures.

 

[Job 33:6]

Forget the "axe to grind" metaphor if you find it offensive. It was not meant that way.

You have a real interest in seeing a parallel between my taking the context of the institution of the last supper by our Lord while in the flesh and my maintaining that there is no context whatsoever which can make evolution a viable Biblical concept.

If the scriptures say a certain thing (like there was no suitable mate for Adam) then they say that - plain and simple.

People are only wrong if they say or insinuate that Adam was from a line of animals with appropriate genes for procreation with him. The scripture says otherwise.

Evolution is wrong and the scriptures are right.

If saying that make me a flaming fundamentalist denier of generally recognized science in your eyes - I can live with that.

If you believe that the real incarnate, flesh and blood Jesus literally handed His body and blood to the disciples while His heart was still beating - I can live with that also.

But, as I see things, you are wrong just are the evolutionists who say they believe the scriptures.

I have to entertain this idea.

Lets say hypothetically you were in our shoes. Maybe you became a biologist or geologist, and could see things such as...the fossil succession or biological occurances, as we describe them to be.

And just as the sun is located in the center of our solar system (or roughly at this location), you also saw that evolution were just as straight forward as heliocentrism or plate tectonics or other well understood concepts and theories.

What would you do? Would you abandon faith? Would you ignore heliocentrism? Or would you find something in between?

Would you deny reality before your eyes? Would you deny your original perception of scripture?

Of course you wouldnt agree with this hypothetical, but what if it happened? What would you do?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Lets say hypothetically you were in our shoes. Maybe you became a biologist or geologist, and could see things such as...the fossil succession or biological occurances, as we describe them to be..............What would you do? Would you abandon faith? ......................Would you deny reality before your eyes? Would you deny your original perception of scripture? Of course you wouldnt agree with this hypothetical, but what if it happened? What would you do?

The first thing I would do is make darn sure that the fossil succession and biological occurrences really did prove evolution or at least make anything but evolution impossible.

Only then would I consider finding some way of imposing my findings on what appears in the scripture to be something quite impossible to reconcile with macro evolution.

I believe that the Christian evolutionists among us (including those with training as scientists) have jumped the gun in the matter without really considering ways to look at things which could make traditional creationism seem viable.

I believe they have done this more from society and pier pressure than purely scientific reasoning. I'm quite sure they would take exception to that statement and I would find myself calling them dishonest even more often than I already have.

This outside pressured compromise is the way of the theological liberals among us in various other Biblical areas of study as well (including most prominently in those areas of study having to do with salvation).

Christian evolutionists have abandoned the faith in this area and become what can only be called a theological "liberals" (and that - quite unnecessarily as I see it).

What is really dangerous, as I have observed time and time again over my many decades of studying and observing theology, is that - once a theological compromise is yielded to and made - another is almost assured to follow in time.

There is a reason IMO why born again evangelicals are much less likely to embrace evolution than people from mainline Christianity. Look back at the profiles of those taking each of the two basic sides in this thread and see if it doesn't seem to be true.

But that's a much wider concept and it is quite likely to get me on the outs with many more here than with which I already am.

 

[Marvin Knox]

By the way all you macro evolutionists:

"Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:20-25

Every genus brings forth offspring after it's own kind. This has always been so and no amount of experimental manipulation has or can make it be otherwise. Macro evolution is simply genetically impossible - as any true scientist knows or at the least should know.

And, also by he way, the directly created by God man, Adam, did not have a suitable corresponding mate until God fashioned one so that he could also reproduce like the plants and animals could. I.e. - just like God's other living creatures on the earth could - "after their kind".

There is no way that the scriptures can be twisted to accommodate the theory of evolution as it has been taught in the past or is currently being taught.

While it may be an understandable working hypothesis for non Bible believers - it obviously can have no place in the belief system of those who believe what the scriptures teach.

"“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"
Luke 24:25

 

[JackRT]

But they affirm we are a brain only, try talk to an evolutionist about souls. So i don't know why we are discussing.

An evolutionist speaking as an evolutionist can say nothing about souls or God or anything supernatural. However if you speak to an evolutionist as a human person they can voice their opinions and beliefs about the supernatural --- they can be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostic or atheist etc., etc. So, I would advice that you stop trying to tell evolutionists what they think and actually listen to what they say.

 

[NBB]

Lets give all the credit to God the creator, not to evolution... it is just an anecdote if God did things through evolution.

 

[Archivist]

Forget the "axe to grind" metaphor if you find it offensive. It was not meant that way.

It certainly came accossed that way given that I had said nothing indicating that I had an ax to grind, but if this is an apology I will accept it

You have a real interest in seeing a parallel between my taking the context of the institution of the last supper by our Lord while in the flesh and my maintaining that there is no context whatsoever which can make evolution a viable Biblical concept.

If the scriptures say a certain thing (like there was no suitable mate for Adam) then they say that - plain and simple.

People are only wrong if they say or insinuate that Adam was from a line of animals with appropriate genes for procreation with him. The scripture says otherwise.

Evolution is wrong and the scriptures are right.

If saying that make me a flaming fundamentalist denier of generally recognized science in your eyes - I can live with that.

If you believe that the real incarnate, flesh and blood Jesus literally handed His body and blood to the disciples while His heart was still beating - I can live with that also.

But, as I see things, you are wrong just are the evolutionists who say they believe the scriptures.

You wrote that if the scriptures say a certain thing “they say that - plain and simple.” Then you deny the plain waning of the words of Jesus—this is my body, this is my blood. I fail to understand how you cannt see the inconsistency in your position.

We all have our own interpretation of scripture. The difference between you and i is that while I disagree with you I do not regard you position on creation as being wrong. It is simply your interpretation, just as my view that God used evolution as a tool is my interpretation.

 

[Marvin Knox]

We all have our own interpretation of scripture. The difference between you and i is that while I disagree with you I do not regard you position on creation as being wrong. It is simply your interpretation, just as my view that God used evolution as a tool is my interpretation.

Spoken like a true liberal.

 

[Archivist]

Spoken like a true liberal.

Spoken like someone who has no credible argument.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Spoken like someone who has no credible argument.

I have presented credible arguments up the gazoo. But because, as I have charged you with, you are a liberal - you simply want to say when confronted with them that there is no right or wrong between us.

 

[Archivist]

I have presented credible arguments up the gazoo. But because, as I have charged you with, you are a liberal - you simply want to say when confronted with them that there is no right or wrong between us.

Don’t think I said that, and in fact I have directly addressed your comments for which I was falsely accussed of having an ax to grind. I have said I believe that you are wrong by denying the plain words of Jesus—this is my body, this is my blood. But I have also said that you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture just as I am entitled to my interpretation of scripture. That isn’t a liberal position, it is a simple statement of fact unless you believe that everyone must hold to your position.

 

[sfs]

I have presented credible arguments up the gazoo

Not in this thread you haven't. All you've done is repeat your claim that you're following the plain meaning of scripture and everyone else isn't. In other words, "I'm right and you're wrong." It's neither credible nor an argument.

Take this passage of scripture:
"At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead."

Suppose a Christian reads that and says, "That's unjust -- the innocent children are being punished for the sins of their parents. A just God wouldn't do that. This must be meant as some kind of allegory." How would you respond to him? Would you say he was a liberal Christian? A compromising Christian?

 

[JackRT]

Suppose a Christian reads that and says, "That's unjust -- the innocent children are being punished for the sins of their parents. A just God wouldn't do that. This must be meant as some kind of allegory." How would you respond to him? Would you say he was a liberal Christian? A compromising Christian?

I would say that person was an open minded compassionate Christian. There are quite a few liberal Christians like that.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Not in this thread you haven't. All you've done is repeat your claim that you're following the plain meaning of scripture and everyone else isn't. In other words, "I'm right and you're wrong." It's neither credible nor an argument.

I have constantly referred to the Biblical concept that genus reproduce after their own kind.

I have stressed several times in this thread that macro evolution from one genus into another is impossible both according to the scriptures and scientifically.

Do you have scripture which allows for plants or animals reproducing in any way outside of "according their kind" as we are told they do in Genesis?

Do you have any scientific evidence for it happening either in the natural world or with a situation like a million generations of fruit flies or bacteria being bombarded with radiation?

If so produce either one or both.

If you can't - then I will continue to maintain that scripture does not allow for macro evolution and that those who believe in it do so in spite of what the scriptures clearly teach.

Take this passage of scripture:.............Suppose a Christian reads that and says, "That's unjust -- the innocent children are being punished for the sins of their parents. A just God wouldn't do that. This must be meant as some kind of allegory." How would you respond to him? Would you say he was a liberal Christian? A compromising Christian?

Yes.