• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Formal debate proposal: accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by shernren, Oct 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. busterdog

    busterdog Senior Veteran

    +177
    Christian
    Married
    Ch. 38 talks about behemoth and leviathan. I think the standard view is hippo and croc, which dont makes sense to me.

    Dating dino bones is based upon false assumptions about the strata. Radiocarbon dating is assumed to be inapplicable.
     
  2. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? (Job 41: 1-10)​

    Seems kind of like figurative language to me...I'm just saying...;)
     
  3. CraigBaugher

    CraigBaugher Member

    301
    +36
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Behemoth is a Hippopotamus, and a Leviathan is a Whale, so no dinosaurs.

    So we are back to square one. Homo Sapiens were not on the earth at the same time as any dinosaur, so?
     
  4. Melethiel

    Melethiel Miserere mei, Domine Supporter

    +826
    Lutheran
    Married
    longer than that...he was throwing darts at TEs as far back as 2006
     
  5. Melethiel

    Melethiel Miserere mei, Domine Supporter

    +826
    Lutheran
    Married
    Several times. Not in this thread, but in others, going as far as flat out stating I'm not a Christian.
     
  6. busterdog

    busterdog Senior Veteran

    +177
    Christian
    Married
    Behemoth: dinosaur. Leviathan: pleiosaur

    Pleiosaurs were not on the earth along with homo sapiens -- for about 24 hours (day 5).

    Not sure why you keep asking the question. Go to Answers in Genesis. There are plenty of well educated nuts like me who believe the same thing.
     
  7. busterdog

    busterdog Senior Veteran

    +177
    Christian
    Married
    It is possible by that time there were no more. But man seems to have a very good memory of dragons.
     
  8. Melethiel

    Melethiel Miserere mei, Domine Supporter

    +826
    Lutheran
    Married
    That look nothing like dinosaurs, except in modern fantasy.
     
  9. CraigBaugher

    CraigBaugher Member

    301
    +36
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Sorry... a behemoth is definitely a hippopotamus, and a Leviathan is definitely a whale. Although the word Leviathan has been used to describe sea monsters as long as 300-miles long in some Babylonian tales. But in most documents, it is basically describing a Narwhal - which is an artic whale that does migrate to warmer waters to nurse. Other stories describe a gaint porpoise or orc.

    But... I just spent the last 5-hours reading commentaries: Jewish and Christian. Seems this is the most disputed topic in the bible. Theologians and Christian experts have a wide array of theories and philosophies. Some, say it is what it say it is - plain and simple. Some talk about the theory of tme being relative. Some spend a great deal of time weaving scripture throughout the bible to support their various theories, which again, do not agree. Some use a more philosophical approach, and say the creation is metaphoric, that the darkness and void represents evil -- all evil, because God was not present. But then God spoke and there was light - representing good, and God sperated the darkness from light. Thus pointing out that God is so powerful that one word from Him and everything in the universe responds. It got quite detailed, but it was fun reading. (oh please don't ask me the source, do a google search on Creation, for I was reading and jumping, and jumping from within documents to even other sites.)

    The only thing everyone can agree upon is, God created heaven and earth, and all that is seen and unseen. That God created man after his own image (spiritually) and that He breathed life into him. That God created woman from man and that is the natural unity.

    But how long it took, in no way is there any consensus - far from it!!!

    So I will stay with my own belief, that a time is relative and the speed of God is such, that God did in one 24-hour day that which is equal to 750,000,000 years.
     
  10. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    I don't know of too many whales that spit fire from their several heads (nor dinosaurs, for that matter).
     
  11. busterdog

    busterdog Senior Veteran

    +177
    Christian
    Married

    So says ye.... But there be a white devil of a whale, took this leg 'o mine he did, could burn to yer bulkhead with the very fires of hell .... A figger of speech says ye... A burning white mountain of pitiless brimstone, says I.
     
  12. Assyrian

    Assyrian Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

    +874
    Christian
    Married
    ^_^
     
  13. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I don't know if the imagery came from the Antediluvian period, it certainly seems possible. Years ago when I attended Bible college, almost as a joke I suggested that there should be a special field of study, Leviathanology. The Serpent, the Leviathan and the Red Dragon all sound like images that represent Satan. Job refers to rousing the Leviathan which sounds like a curse (Job 3:8). This sounds like a reference to some kind of an occultist curse, at least to me.

    Whatever the source of the imagery it's from an ancient mythical sea monster. My guess is it originated with seafarers who exaggerated and embellished their sea stories much as sailors still do today. It's dramatic imagery I think but if you can't convince TEs that it's a dinosaur imagine their reaction if you tried to argue that it's the Devil. You can't win you know. ;)

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  14. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    For the most part I have no idea, even though those espousing a Tillich type theology are espousing Christianized atheism . I do know that the philosophy that is defended in here is not a Christian one. I certainly believe you are religious and may well know Christ, I'm not saying you don't. I think you have been taken in my a secular philosophy I finally realize is just another form of Liberal Theology.

    I was astonished to find I have more in common with Catholic theology then I do with pro-evolution apologists on here. There is an alternative to this constant bickering, instead of bashing Creationism try emphasizing sound doctrine. That is my only real concern btw and I assure you if I were a TE, and I very nearly was, I know for a fact I could do a much better job defending it biblically.

    I know you probably don't care but it's actually a lot simpler and potentially less contentious and divisive then you guys are making it.
     
  15. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    Actually, several TEs here have said something akin to the latter. Ask shernren what he thinks the Leviathan is.
     
  16. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    How would you defend evolutionary creationism biblically, mark?
     
  17. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,240
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I'll give you the brief form and then if you want to pursue it I wouldn't mind if I did. Genesis 1 is in absolutes which can be literal but the focus is on theology. God does not elaborate on creation beyond that. The only real problem is Adam, he had to be specially created and the New Testament is explicit with that. You could easily affirm a progressive evolution from the primordial sea and never stray from sound doctrine, Genesis one is just not an obstacle.

    The only thing you would have to compromise is one moment in natural history as it is interjected with special creation. You do that and the conflict fades away tomorrow. As far as elaborate debate and discussion of the hominid record you could even dodge that if you were serious enough.

    This is what you do Mallon, establish and defend the New Testament and vital events in the Old Testament (Exodus, Sinai...etc). The trick is to put the fulcrum emphasis is on the reliability of the Bible based on central events. Then you start to look at some pretty puzzling problems like the fact that Old Testament writers really didn't expect God in human flesh. When the Law came it was perpetual but in the New Testament grace both nailed the written code to the cross and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law. Just as evolution is progressive so is revelation.

    At any rate, your only real obstacle is Adam all the rest is negotiable. Even if you don't take Adam as being literal in Genesis or Romans 5 you just simply concede that both views are valid but incomplete, both from the scientific and theological end. It's kind of like solving an equation, identify what you do know and isolate what you don't. Then when you get to Adam isolated you simply choose to defer to future discoveries and revelation since our knowledge of both is incomplete.

    The point is that you don't deconstruct Creationism, you build your theological reasoning from the New Testament. It's kind of like dealing with speaking in tongues, you deal with the handful of verses briefly and instead of turning into a quarrel emphasis central doctrine.

    That's the gist of it, just remember the Fundamentalist isn't emphasizing historicity and evangelical thinking is focused on the Gospel. All you really would have to do is de-emphasis certain things as unknown, incomplete and subject to further discovery and fuller revelation.

    I know I could pull it off without disturbing a single central doctrine, that is if I believed it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2008
  18. RobertByers

    RobertByers Regular Member

    714
    +9
    Christian
    Single
    Thanks and Grace/peace to you.

    I don't see evolution having merits on transitions.
    In fact i would say there is no evidence of a single transition that I know of.
    I believe in variety of kind or variety of species within kind and its evidence in the fossil record.
    Yet the fossil record does not show transitions but only creatures living together in variety.
    I do see sea mammals , like whales etc as originally land creatures who adapted post flood. Yet no evolution but quick triggered adaptatoion.
    What is a transition you recognize as such.?
     
  19. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    Thanks for the reply, mark. In the end, I guess I just don't agree with your assessment of Adam as an insurmountable problem for evolutionary creationism. It's a problem, to be sure, but I don't think it's the show-stopper you think it is. Many of the conversations we've had here over the years attest to that.
    On a related note, there's a lengthy discussion we're about to enter into over at the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution blog about evolution and original sin: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/evolution-and-original-sin-series.html
    It's going to involve many of today's top proponents of evolutionary creationism and will be a worthwhile read. You should check it out and submit some questions when given the chance, mark.
     
  20. gluadys

    gluadys Legend

    +631
    Protestant
    CA-NDP
    There are many fossils considered to be transitional. Perhaps you have some special criteria you expect of a transitional. What do you expect to see in a transitional fossil that you don't see in examples such as Archeopteryx, Basiliosaurus or Tiktaalik?



    This seems to contradict your earlier statement. Why do you consider they were originally land creatures? Because of transitional fossils?

    And what's the difference between evolution and adaptation?

    I already named three examples I recognize as transitional.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...