For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[Papias]

I don't need to answer your questions because there is lots of information about these sorts of topics on the Internet, e.g., .....

hint- not everything on the internet is correct. In this case, looking at it shows problems with common answers to those.

For instance, "where did Cain get his wife? " The answer to that is usually unscriptural, consisting of making up stuff and putting it in Genesis, like "Adam and Eve had more kids that strangely aren't mentioned, even though I insist on interpreting genesis literally..... well, except when I don't want to, in which case I make up stuff."

The problems with the idea of a flood have not been answered in any way that makes sense. The DNA evidence alone is enough to show that the Noah story is myth, and we can discuss any of the other answers if you think they hold water (pun intended).

I will answer your question about the flat earth. I presume you are referring to passages such as Isa 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,". No, I don't believe the earth is flat, but next time you look at the moon in the night sky, does it not look flat, even though we now know it isn't? The same would apply to the earth from a distant observer in space.

It's a lot more clear than just a verse here or there. It's a constant, clear description from Genesis to Revelation, often showing it in ways that go beyond just appearances.

How can we deal with the clear description of a flat earth in the Bible as Christians? It seems pretty clear to me that God often meets us at our level. That's why Jesus told parables, and so on. So of course God would talk to people back then in language they could understand - words that are consistent with the world they thought they knew the lived in. How could it be any other way?

Yes, the Bibles are clear - a literal reading depicts a flat earth, in dozens of verses. Bible scholars have long recognized this too - that's why it's often taught in seminary. Just ask your minister - many of them are well aware of the fact that the Bible describe a flat earth. In fact, this jumps out often when you are aware of it - for instance, just read the birth narrative in Mt with the perspective of the stars as little lights attached to the dome - it makes sense. The star of bethlehem makes no sense otherwise - an actual star hovering a few hundred feet (or even miles) above a house would literally incinerate the whole earth, of course.

Here are some additional verses.

(Ibid)
Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

You are aware that Biblical scholars have known this for a long, long time, and routinely explain it, with refenence to the original Hebrew, right?

As far as taking the Bible literally, I only do that when it is patently obvious that it is meant to be understood in that way, such as the creation account and the great global flood of Noah's day.

To the contrary, it's quite obvious that Genesis is symbolic. Heck, it starts with a classic Hebrew poetic structure, and makes no sense literally, as described earlier.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

For instance, "where did Cain get his wife? " The answer to that is usually unscriptural, consisting of making up stuff and putting it in Genesis, like "Adam and Eve had more kids that strangely aren't mentioned, even though I insist on interpreting genesis literally..... well, except when I don't want to, in which case I make up stuff."

Gen 5:4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

 

[-57]

The star of bethlehem makes no sense otherwise - an actual star hovering a few hundred feet (or even miles) above a house would literally incinerate the whole earth, of course.

The star..light..could have been an angel or even the shekinah glory of God hovering above the house.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Just a few observations on what you have written as I don't have time to go through all the points.

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14)

Not necessarily. I have heard another explanation for this - that it tells us that the motion of the earth around the sun is similar to a seal that is rolled across the clay to impart its image. That would have made no sense at the time, but of course it does now as we now know that the earth (the seal) rotates as it orbits around the sun.
Consider other passages in Job such as Job 38:31 "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" it has apparently only been recently discovered what this verse meant, so how could Job have known unless God revealed it to him?

its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk.

Question - how far could you see on a clear day if the earth were flat? A few miles at best, so this wouldn't make sense whether the earth were round or flat. It's clearly a vision of some kind.

It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12

No, it just tells us that God was using supernatural means to temporarily suspend the normal laws of physics. That's obvious when we read the account of the Star of Bethlehem - people weren't that stupid that they wouldn't have noticed that when you walk around, the stars appear to move with you, relative to the ground, so an ordinary star would not have been able to lead anyone to a precise spot on the land. It must have been something that looked like a star but was in fact much closer to the earth's surface, but in any case, it would have been a supernatural event.

You see, when you rule out the supernatural (like those people who try to explain how God could have parted the Red Sea), or put too much faith in what men think they know from their scientific studies, you try to put limits on God's infinite power and His ability to control his own creation, which ends up in all the perceived difficulties that you have alluded to.

To the contrary, it's quite obvious that Genesis is symbolic.

Not to me it isn't. It's only symbolic if you reject the Word of God and replace it with man's ideas. Silly ideas like the Big Bang, which is not just bad science because it doesn't explain anything but actually self-refuting because it fails to explain what it is supposed to explain. I'll stick with God's word in Genesis.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show that the Noah story is myth

The story of Noah is NOT a myth. We just need to properly understand the story and have a proper interpretation using what is known today from history and science. The Bible remains true even as we grow in our understanding.

 

[Papias]

Gen 5:4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

So you didn't read the whole account, did you? Cain gets his wife in chapter 4. After that, Seth is born. Then, later in chapter 5 (as you mention) there are these other sons and daughters. Unless you are going to claim that we can just arbitrarily change the order of scripture willy-nilly, it doesn't work. In fact, I've very often seen creationists take the approach that they can just re-write scripture as they wish.

The star..light..could have been an angel or even the shekinah glory of God hovering above the house.

Which it doesn't say. It reads "star" over and over in the scripture. Again we see that creationists have no problem re-writing scripture as they like - and then act like hypocrites saying that other people aren't going by the word of God!

Not necessarily. I have heard another explanation for this - that it tells us that the motion of the earth around the sun is similar to a seal that is rolled across the clay to impart its image.

That's not what it says. Seals are most often stamped, and in any case, the clay underneath is pressed flat.

Consider other passages in Job such as Job 38:31 "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" it has apparently only been recently discovered what this verse meant, so how could Job have known unless God revealed it to him?

What are you talking about? If you have evidence of something that couldn't be known at time, post it. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the fact that the Bibles describe a flat earth over and over.

Question - how far could you see on a clear day if the earth were flat? A few miles at best, so this wouldn't make sense whether the earth were round or flat.

At least hundreds of miles if up high on a flat earth. It makes a huge difference in the line of sight, as anyone with an elementary school understanding of geometry can see.

It must have been something that looked like a star but was in fact much closer to the earth's surface, but in any case, it would have been a supernatural event.

unscriptural. The scriptures read "star". Again we see an example of a creationist who's quite happy to re-write scripture, substituting his own words for God's words.

And all the verses clearly showing a flat earth under a hard dome still stand.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

So you didn't read the whole account, did you? Cain gets his wife in chapter 4. After that, Seth is born. Then, later in chapter 5 (as you mention) there are these other sons and daughters. Unless you are going to claim that we can just arbitrarily change the order of scripture willy-nilly, it doesn't work. In fact, I've very often seen creationists take the approach that they can just re-write scripture as they wish.

Your desperatin shines brightly.....we don't just just arbitrarily change the order of scripture....Those other sons and daughters simply explain just what it says....besides those children mentioned previously..Seth, Cain, Abel...Adam had other sons and daughters. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which it doesn't say. It reads "star" over and over in the scripture. Again we see that creationists have no problem re-writing scripture as they like - and then act like hypocrites saying that other people aren't going by the word of God!

So, just what do you think the "star" was? I can guarantee that anyway you present it will show you to be a hypocrite...so, tell us what the star was.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Your desperatin shines brightly.....we don't just just arbitrarily change the order of scripture....Those other sons and daughters simply explain just what it says....besides those children mentioned previously..Seth, Cain, Abel...Adam had other sons and daughters. Nothing more, nothing less.



So, just what do you think the "star" was? I can guarantee that anyway you present it will show you to be a hypocrite...so, tell us what the star was.

I don't think whatever you say is going to be accepted by those who wish to deny the plain teaching of scripture. They will just twist it around like when Papias said that you could see for hundreds of miles if high up on a mountain. I don't think you would see much at that distance with all the haze and humidity in the atmosphere, so that's a distortion of reality.

 

[-57]

I don't think whatever you say is going to be accepted by those who wish to deny the plain teaching of scripture. They will just twist it around like when Papias said that you could see for hundreds of miles if high up on a mountain. I don't think you would see much at that distance with all the haze and humidity in the atmosphere, so that's a distortion of reality.

The whole idea is to force the bible into accepting evolutionism

 

[Papias]

They will just twist it around like when Papias said that you could see for hundreds of miles if high up on a mountain. I don't think you would see much at that distance with all the haze and humidity in the atmosphere, so that's a distortion of reality.

Well, of course it depends on the conditions. On a foggy day, one can't see 30 feet. On a clear day, yes, one would be able to see hundreds of miles from a mountain on a flat earth. You can see this yourself in at least two ways. First, we've been on airplanes (which are still in the atmosphere, of course), and we can routinely see things clearly 50 miles away, until the curvature of the earth takes them out of view. With such clear views of 50 miles, 200 miles is not a problem. Secondly, we can see stars near the horizon. Simple math shows that looking at something near the horizon involves hundreds of miles of atmosphere (even straight up is dozens of miles of atmosphere).

So yes, one could see hundreds of miles, on a clear day, from a tall mountain on a flat earth.

we don't just just arbitrarily change the order of scripture....Those other sons and daughters simply explain just what it says....besides those children mentioned previously..Seth, Cain, Abel...Adam had other sons and daughters. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, you are arbitrarily changing the order of scripture. You can see that in the fact that Abel's descendants aren't listed - because he had none. If there were "other kids" that weren't being mentioned, then some of them would have been Abel's, and when later lists of descendants were given, they would have been listed.

The whole idea is to force the bible into accepting evolutionism

Like you change scripture and add things to scripture to force the bible into accepting heliocentrism, germism, and spherical earthism?

In Christ -
Papias

 

[-57]

Yes, you are arbitrarily changing the order of scripture. You can see that in the fact that Abel's descendants aren't listed - because he had none. If there were "other kids" that weren't being mentioned, then some of them would have been Abel's, and when later lists of descendants were given, they would have been listed.



In Christ -
Papias

The bible is simply telling us Adam had other sons and daughters. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[stevevw]

If you take Genesis at face value as I do, then there weren't any pre-Adam "soulless" beings and remember Jesus, who would know about these things as the creator, said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them [humans] male and female.'" Mark 10:6 [my emphasis]. The bottleneck you refer to obviously came when the worldwide flood wiped out all but Noah and his immediate family.

I don't think we have to massage the Bible to account for Cain's wife but it's pretty obvious that the Biblical accounts couldn't have covered every person's life at the time. But theistic evolution has massive implications for the reliability of the scriptures because it is allowing man's ideas to influence what God has revealed to us in his account of history as laid out in the Bible.

Regarding the links - I would do yourself a favour and get your hands on those DVDs. If you do, you may find things are not what you have been led to believe and that when you have that knowledge, your faith will be strengthened. They have helped me enormously.

I think the links you gave are a bit dated. It talks about the evolutionary model of how the universe came to be based on the solar nebula model whereas the most common theory is now the big bang theory and inflation based on findings from quantum physics. Though I dont necessarily support the big bang theory it does have some support and gives our universe a beginning which fits in with there being a creator behind things.

The bible talks about in the beginning their being light and this seems to fit with quantum physics which is basically about light, photons. But this field of science is hard to understand. For me it is how its how the quantum world seems to defy how classical physics works where a particle can be in more than one place at the same time and how it points to consciousness. This points to their being a mind behind what we see and that is basically what creation is about.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are mountains of evidence for evolution.

But most insist it is random. Nothing is "random". The word "random" is fake news.

 

[loveofourlord]

But most insist it is random. Nothing is "random". The word "random" is fake news.

Evolution is random, and not random. The mutations themselves are random from our point of view, but the forces that determine which mutations and such are good or bad arn't.

 

[rjs330]

hint- not everything on the internet is correct. In this case, looking at it shows problems with common answers to those.

For instance, "where did Cain get his wife? " The answer to that is usually unscriptural, consisting of making up stuff and putting it in Genesis, like "Adam and Eve had more kids that strangely aren't mentioned, even though I insist on interpreting genesis literally..... well, except when I don't want to, in which case I make up stuff."

The problems with the idea of a flood have not been answered in any way that makes sense. The DNA evidence alone is enough to show that the Noah story is myth, and we can discuss any of the other answers if you think they hold water (pun intended).



It's a lot more clear than just a verse here or there. It's a constant, clear description from Genesis to Revelation, often showing it in ways that go beyond just appearances.

How can we deal with the clear description of a flat earth in the Bible as Christians? It seems pretty clear to me that God often meets us at our level. That's why Jesus told parables, and so on. So of course God would talk to people back then in language they could understand - words that are consistent with the world they thought they knew the lived in. How could it be any other way?

Yes, the Bibles are clear - a literal reading depicts a flat earth, in dozens of verses. Bible scholars have long recognized this too - that's why it's often taught in seminary. Just ask your minister - many of them are well aware of the fact that the Bible describe a flat earth. In fact, this jumps out often when you are aware of it - for instance, just read the birth narrative in Mt with the perspective of the stars as little lights attached to the dome - it makes sense. The star of bethlehem makes no sense otherwise - an actual star hovering a few hundred feet (or even miles) above a house would literally incinerate the whole earth, of course.

Here are some additional verses.

(Ibid)
Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

You are aware that Biblical scholars have known this for a long, long time, and routinely explain it, with refenence to the original Hebrew, right?




To the contrary, it's quite obvious that Genesis is symbolic. Heck, it starts with a classic Hebrew poetic structure, and makes no sense literally, as described earlier.

In Christ-

Papias

Oh for heavens sake. The Bible doesn't teach a flat Earth. Literalists like me understand perfectly language and how it's used. We understand that God doesn't have feathers and is not shaped like a door. Please give some credit. We take the Bible literally unless the language and context makes it plain it's not.

 

[lismore]

Doesn't the bible say through one man sin and death came about? One man?

This contradicts the evolutionary concept that populations evolved and created man...who fell by means the Theo-evos can't explain

Hello Friend. Yes Romans chapter 5. Sin came through one man, salvation through one man.

The obvious question then if the first man, the one who brought sin and death is not literal then why should the second, the one who brings salvation be any more literal?

If God used death to create through 'theistic evolution' then why does the bible describe death as an enemy?

If God used 'theistic evolution' then how many human beings killed one another so adam and eve could evolve?

Created by a mountain of skulls. What a cruel, wasteful horrid process.

The more you think about it, evolution is a horrid, shocking idea, to see it married to the gospel is nothing less than nauseating. God Bless

 

[lismore]

The story of Noah is NOT a myth. We just need to properly understand the story and have a proper interpretation using what is known today from history and science. The Bible remains true even as we grow in our understanding.

Jews and Christians were in the dark about Noah for 4,000 years until you enlightened us!

 

[sfs]

The obvious question then if the first man, the one who brought sin and death is not literal then why should the second, the one who brings salvation be any more literal?

Adam is serving a typological role, and he can serve that whether or not he was historical. Alternatively, he could indeed be a historical figure, just one that arose by evolution. Alternatively, Paul was simply wrong about the historicity of Adam. There are a variety of possible views.

If God used death to create through 'theistic evolution' then why does the bible describe death as an enemy?

God uses all kinds of things to achieve his purposes according to the Bible. The betrayal of Judas, the man born blind.

If God used 'theistic evolution' then how many human beings killed one another so adam and eve could evolve?

Evolution has very little to do with humans killing each other.

Created by a mountain of skulls. What a cruel, wasteful horrid process.

The more you think about it, evolution is a horrid, shocking idea, to see it married to the gospel is nothing less than nauseating.

Well, you've got a lot gumption, I'll give you that, telling God that his world is horrid and nauseating. Others disagree, however.

 

[rjs330]

Adam is serving a typological role, and he can serve that whether or not he was historical. Alternatively, he could indeed be a historical figure, just one that arose by evolution. Alternatively, Paul was simply wrong about the historicity of Adam. There are a variety of possible views.

God uses all kinds of things to achieve his purposes according to the Bible. The betrayal of Judas, the man born blind.

Evolution has very little to do with humans killing each other.

Well, you've got a lot gumption, I'll give you that, telling God that his world is horrid and nauseating. Others disagree, however.

Hmm... What else was Paul wrong about I wonder. If someone who is writing under the inspiration of the HS was wrong then how much of the NT is wrong? Perhaps, much if what Paul taught was wrong. Same with Peter. I am wondering if we can believe anything they wrote under the inspiration.

 

[sfs]

Hmm... What else was Paul wrong about I wonder. If someone who is writing under the inspiration of the HS was wrong then how much of the NT is wrong? Perhaps, much if what Paul taught was wrong. Same with Peter. I am wondering if we can believe anything they wrote under the inspiration.

So if it's very important to you that Paul never have made a mistake, choose a solution that includes a historical Adam. That's why I gave multiple options. (As for Paul never being wrong... He was wrong when he wrote that he hadn't baptized anyone in Corinth besides Crispus and Gaius. We know he was wrong because he corrected himself in the next sentence. Did his inspiration switch off for a minute there?)