• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Foundation

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Maybe that's because Cooper's quote is not a description of the real world--not even the real world of scripture. But evolution is a description of the reality of creation.
Gotta love it when a belief system is that is based on conjecture and speculation uses the word reality in its description.
Geocentrism was held to for thousands of years without being tested or confirmed, or even questioned. When it was questioned and tested it was disconfirmed. So, yes, it does matter.
It's funny to see people focus so much attention on a subject/belief that is hundreds of years old, never had any spiritual significance and then somehow take this same subject/belief and apply to the present. It wasn't significant then and it isn't now.
We have been over this several times before; testing his opinion by scripture shows that it is a poor guide to understanding scripture.
We are all free to express our opinions.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Scientific evidence is not mere conjecture or speculation.

Or do you think all the new drugs based on evolutionary biology that treat disease in the real world today are mere conjecture?
I don't have a problem with the term evolution or even many of the scientific 'evidences' that you believe originate from it. My problem is with common descent, it is here where you find all the conjecture and speculation.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I don't have a problem with the term evolution or even many of the scientific 'evidences' that you believe originate from it. My problem is with common descent, it is here where you find all the conjecture and speculation.
Out of curiosity, do you know why we infer common descent, vossler? Do you know what pattern in nature cries out for an explanation that only common descent can explain?
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Out of curiosity, do you know why we infer common descent, vossler? Do you know what pattern in nature cries out for an explanation that only common descent can explain?
I appreciate seeing someone use the word infer when describing common descent. Thank you! :thumbsup:

As for what pattern cries out for an explanation, well, I don't know what you will cite but for me its quite obviously, there is a pattern of God's hand in everything I see; His fingerprints are all over the place.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I appreciate seeing someone use the word infer when describing common descent. Thank you! :thumbsup:
I've honestly never met anyone who believes otherwise.

As for what pattern cries out for an explanation, well, I don't know what you will cite but for me its quite obviously, there is a pattern of God's hand in everything I see; His fingerprints are all over the place.
I ask because, in my experience, when a YEC says there's no evidence for common descent, they don't actually understand what the evidence for common descent is. Do you know what the evidence is? Do you know pattern in nature I'm referring to? If not, then why do you refer to common descent as nothing more than "conjecture and speculation"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,417
1,741
43
South Bend, IN
✟115,823.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As the OP, I got a little satisfaction from this thread toward the beginning, but not so much as it's gone on. I'm not asking for the thread to close down - it seems that others are getting something out of it and I don't want to spoil their fun - but I will be unsubscribing. If you need anything from me, feel free to PM me.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I really don't know what you are referring to, I was simply stating/acknowledging I used a broad brush to state all Christians held to a six day creation account and then comparing that statement to someone believing all who claim Christ to be Christians. You simply can't use absolutes when describing people, except when you say all are sinners.
Um no, you compared the church fathers' non literal interpretation of Genesis to people who claim to be Christians but weren't.
Sadly I can't even say all people who claim to be Christians believe He, Jesus, was the Son of God.​
You describe people claiming to be Christians but aren't, but no reference to people 'believing all who claim Christ to be Christians', not until you next post when you asked if that was what I thought. Anyway, maybe that is what you meant so let's leave it at that.

I'm glad that impresses you. :)
Only when they fall off the shelf

It has provided a safe escape from the truth, and yes that is sad.
So did heliocentrism and the mechanistic explanation of astronomy. As Laplace replied when Napoleon asked why there was no mention of a God in his book on Celestial Mechanics, "I have no need for such a hypothesis".

If using conjecture and speculation as the anchor to prove your facts then yes things are certainly well established.
You certainly start with conjecture and speculation... then you look for evidence to support or contradict and test it again and again in every way possible and the evidence stacks up in favour of the idea and it passes every test, then it is well established.

No I am plainly stating there is not a single scripture to support common ancestry.
Very true. But neither is there any scripture support for a round earth, heliocentrism, atomic theory, magnetism, DNA, germ theory, Australia. What you need is scriptural evidence to contradict it, and even then you simply place yourself in the position of people who argued against a round earth, heliocentrism or a southern continent from their interpretation of scripture. If the physical evidence shows us the earth is round, orbits the sun, has a southern continent or that life evolved from a common ancestor, then their scriptural arguments were simply wrong. But even looking at the scriptural argument against common ancestry, you do not have a case.

Oddly enough TEs line up a lot closer to traditional theological understanding of how God operates in his creation both by miracles and through natural processes.
Is this where we are now, TEs are more traditional than creationists? You'd make a good politician!

I have no idea what you are referring to, there are no natural processes I am aware of that exclude God.
Great. So why do so many creationist think if life evolved through natural process then God is excluded?

No different a place than we are today. As I said before, geocentrism has no spiritual significance.
Even if that were true, it is still irrelevant. If science shows us an interpretation is mistaken, then any spiritual significance you see in a mistaken interpretation is mistaken too. Catholics find deep spiritual significance in the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the eucharist. They interpreted Jesus' statement "This is my body" quite literally. With Aquinas this literal interpretation was given an explanation in terms of Aristotelean physics and Aristotle's understanding of the nature of matter in terms of accidents (it's outward appearance, in this case bread and wine) and substance (its real nature, Christ's body and blood). With the overthrow of Aristotle by early modern science this no longer made sense, at least to the emerging Protestant churches no longer bound by the traditional literal interpretation of "This is my body". A new understanding of science caused Christians to question the traditional literal interpretation. Should the fact people saw spiritual significance in the literal interpretation mean we should have kept it?

Yeah but I could drop it in a New York minute without it having any effect on how I see God and the world. You can't say the same about evolution.
Cooper stands between you and God telling your how to understand everything God says and keep you from searching scripture for yourself. You simply don't know how it would effect your understanding of the bible if you took off you Cooper tinted glasses. I know that my own literalism was being challenged by scripture itself long before I became a TE.

Does it matter how much men have tested and confirmed something to be true? You yourself stated geocentrism was held to be true for thousands of years.
So what scientific tests were done during those thousands of years to test if the sun went round the earth or the earth went round the sun? Heliocentrism was proposed by the Greek astronomer Aristarchus in the third century BC but it was wasn't tested, it was rejected on grounds of impiety.

As far as Cooper's quote, it is a theory that can be tested by the very thing it refers to.
Not if you mean it is tested by scripture. There is no basis for Cooper's claim in scripture. If you mean it backs up the interpretation of the bible you like, doesn't Paul warn people not to accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings 2Tim 4:3?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I've heard two different schools of thought (and there may be more) about the relationship between Genesis and the totality of the Christian faith, and I'm curious as to why you see things the way you do.

I don't follow the 'two camps' idea but I would be happy to elaborate a little on what I think the book of Genesis relationship with the totality of Scripture is. Genesis is first of all an historical narrative and has always been understood as redemptive history. It is the inaugural, special revelation of God to the children of Israel at Sinai. The covenant started with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is commemorated and extended to their descendants. Every essential doctrine of the Christian faith has it's foundation in the Mosaic law including it's history.

The New Testament is a continuation, in fact a Reformation, of the covenant at Sinai. John Locke even called it the only legitimate theocracy the world has ever known and I concur. God (the I AM THAT I AM) continued his revelation throughout human and Hebrew history and visited prophets and kings interjecting into human events divine guidance, provision and judgment. The fullest revelation being in the Incarnation and the final revelation being the soon return of Christ in power and glory.

The witness of Scripture is uniformly affirming of God's work in creation condemns those who reject God's revelation as fools:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:20, 21)​

What is more the New Testament does not only affirm the creation in no uncertain terms but identifies Christ as Creator:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:1-3)​

God will again create a new heavens and a new earth, only the next time the creation will be perfect. I don't know what camp that would put me in but the only two camps the New Testament recognizes is believers and unbelievers, those skeptical of the supernatural elements of Scripture I regard as belonging to the latter since, salvation itself, is a miracle. Apart from the power exercised in the original creation being manifest in the inner man you are still and your sins.

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:3-4)​

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Um no, you compared the church fathers' non literal interpretation of Genesis to people who claim to be Christians but weren't.

Really? As far as I can tell none of them followed a 'non literal interpretation' of Adam.

  • Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
  • On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
  • IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22].
  • EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
  • Thus, just as IN ADAM ALL DID FORMERLY DIE, so again in Christ, who put on Adam, ALL ARE MADE TO LIVE [1 Cor 15:22]. (ST. METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI (c. 300 AD)
  • Moreover, among the SONS OF ADAM THERE IS NONE besides Him who might ENTER THE RACE [are born] WITHOUT BEING WOUNDED or swallowed up....For SIN has ruled from the time ADAM TRANSGRESSED THE COMMAND.
  • (APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE c. 340 AD)
  • Adam sinned and EARNED ALL SORROWS, AND THE WORLD, FOLLOWING HIS LEAD, ALL GUILT. (ST. EPHRAIM OF SYRIA c. 306 - 373 AD)
  • Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world....When Adam transgressed, SIN reached out TO ALL MEN. (ST. ATHANASIUS c. 360 AD)
  • ONE MAN'S SIN, THAT OF ADAM, HAD THE POWER TO BRING DEATH TO THE WORLD. (ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM c. 350 AD)
  • Little given, much gotten; by the donation of food the ORIGINAL SIN IS DISCHARGED [Greek given by Jurgens]. JUST AS ADAM TRANSMITTED THE SIN by his wicked eating, we destroy that treacherous food when we cure the need and hunger of our brother (ST. BASIL THE GREAT c. 379 AD)
  • If Christ had received His body from a marital union and not in another way it would be supposed that he too is liable to an accounting for that SIN, WHICH, INDEED, ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ADAM CONTRACT IN SUCCESSION. (DIDYMUS THE BLIND c. 313 - 398 AD)

Original Sin Explained and Defended

The meaning of 'Yom' (the Hebrew word for day) may have various interpretations but Adam is understood as literal, historical and foundational to our need for justification:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)​

When evolutionists cite peer reviewed scientific literature, I go to the source material. When theistic evolutionists cite Scripture, I go to the Word of God itself. When one of you try to tell someone what the early church fathers believed about Genesis I will go to their writings because you saying it does not make it so.

Have a nice day :wave:
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Really? As far as I can tell none of them followed a 'non literal interpretation' of Adam.

  • Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
  • On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
  • IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22].
  • EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
  • Thus, just as IN ADAM ALL DID FORMERLY DIE, so again in Christ, who put on Adam, ALL ARE MADE TO LIVE [1 Cor 15:22]. (ST. METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI (c. 300 AD)
  • Moreover, among the SONS OF ADAM THERE IS NONE besides Him who might ENTER THE RACE [are born] WITHOUT BEING WOUNDED or swallowed up....For SIN has ruled from the time ADAM TRANSGRESSED THE COMMAND.
  • (APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE c. 340 AD)
  • Adam sinned and EARNED ALL SORROWS, AND THE WORLD, FOLLOWING HIS LEAD, ALL GUILT. (ST. EPHRAIM OF SYRIA c. 306 - 373 AD)
  • Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world....When Adam transgressed, SIN reached out TO ALL MEN. (ST. ATHANASIUS c. 360 AD)
  • ONE MAN'S SIN, THAT OF ADAM, HAD THE POWER TO BRING DEATH TO THE WORLD. (ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM c. 350 AD)
  • Little given, much gotten; by the donation of food the ORIGINAL SIN IS DISCHARGED [Greek given by Jurgens]. JUST AS ADAM TRANSMITTED THE SIN by his wicked eating, we destroy that treacherous food when we cure the need and hunger of our brother (ST. BASIL THE GREAT c. 379 AD)
  • If Christ had received His body from a marital union and not in another way it would be supposed that he too is liable to an accounting for that SIN, WHICH, INDEED, ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ADAM CONTRACT IN SUCCESSION. (DIDYMUS THE BLIND c. 313 - 398 AD)

Original Sin Explained and Defended

The meaning of 'Yom' (the Hebrew word for day) may have various interpretations
And I think you answered you first point with that. I never denied the church fathers took Adam literally. When I talk of the church fathers interpreting Genesis figuratively, it is referring to the Genesis days being interpreted figuratively by people like Origen and Augustine. But I thought you knew this?

but Adam is understood as literal, historical and foundational to our need for justification:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)​
When evolutionists cite peer reviewed scientific literature, I go to the source material. When theistic evolutionists cite Scripture, I go to the Word of God itself. When one of you try to tell someone what the early church fathers believed about Genesis I will go to their writings because you saying it does not make it so.

Have a nice day :wave:
Mark
And going back to to the word of God itself...
...Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come Rom 5:14.
While church fathers interpreted Adam and Eve literally, you do find them being interpreted figuratively by 1st century Jews like Josephus, Philo and Paul.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And I think you answered you first point with that. I never denied the church fathers took Adam literally. When I talk of the church fathers interpreting Genesis figuratively, it is referring to the Genesis days being interpreted figuratively by people like Origen and Augustine. But I thought you knew this?

Parts of Genesis can be taken figuratively, parts cannot, Adam is one of the features that cannot. I know you knew that.

And going back to to the word of God itself...
...Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come Rom 5:14.

I wonder how many times this false interpretation of Romans 5 has to be refuted:

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπος) as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)​

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​

This is how the word is used in other passages:

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.​


tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.

tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.

tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.​

Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)​

While church fathers interpreted Adam and Eve literally, you do find them being interpreted figuratively by 1st century Jews like Josephus, Philo and Paul.

Show me the quotes
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I've honestly never met anyone who believes otherwise.
Yet then from inference you establish facts that are contrary to the Bible. Is it any wonder I don't understand TEs?
I ask because, in my experience, when a YEC says there's no evidence for common descent, they don't actually understand what the evidence for common descent is. Do you know what the evidence is? Do you know pattern in nature I'm referring to? If not, then why do you refer to common descent as nothing more than "conjecture and speculation"?
I am sure I can't quote all the 'evidence' you can but I can tell you the evidence I've seen is hardly convincing. As far as your statement as to whether I know the pattern in nature you are referring to, well, given that you haven't stated what it is I it would be difficult for me to comment.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Yet then from inference you establish facts that are contrary to the Bible. Is it any wonder I don't understand TEs?
The facts are only in contradiction to one interpretation of the Bible. One of many.
Luther believed that Copernicus' inferences about the earth revolving around the sun were contrary to the Bible. Do you believe we should remain steadfast to the geocentric science of Luther? Or do you believe that we were right to reexamine the interpretation he held to in light of the facts Copernicus gleaned from God's creation? The analogy to creationism/evolution is the same.

I am sure I can't quote all the 'evidence' you can but I can tell you the evidence I've seen is hardly convincing. As far as your statement as to whether I know the pattern in nature you are referring to, well, given that you haven't stated what it is I it would be difficult for me to comment.
So what you are telling me is that you are not familiar with even the most basic evidence that supports the common descent model. If that's the case, then how can you say there is no evidence for common descent??? Surely this is an argument from ignorance, no? Simply because you don't know what the evidence is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
So did heliocentrism and the mechanistic explanation of astronomy. As Laplace replied when Napoleon asked why there was no mention of a God in his book on Celestial Mechanics, "I have no need for such a hypothesis".
Once again these subjects have no spiritual significance and are not worthy of a theological discussion.
You certainly start with conjecture and speculation... then you look for evidence to support or contradict and test it again and again in every way possible and the evidence stacks up in favour of the idea and it passes every test, then it is well established.
I agree, the process you described has worked for almost all scientific discoveries. The issue isn't whether you start with conjecture and speculation, it is whether you finish there.
Very true. But neither is there any scripture support for a round earth, heliocentrism, atomic theory, magnetism, DNA, germ theory, Australia. What you need is scriptural evidence to contradict it, and even then you simply place yourself in the position of people who argued against a round earth, heliocentrism or a southern continent from their interpretation of scripture. If the physical evidence shows us the earth is round, orbits the sun, has a southern continent or that life evolved from a common ancestor, then their scriptural arguments were simply wrong. But even looking at the scriptural argument against common ancestry, you do not have a case.
Yes you are right that scripture doesn't support the items you listed (although an argument for a round earth could be made), however none of those contradict scripture either, common descent certainly does. You may not think there is a scriptural case against common descent but I think that not only is there a case, it is air tight.
Great. So why do so many creationist think if life evolved through natural process then God is excluded?
I don't deal well with speculative words like if in reference to life. God spells out how life occurred and I believe Him, not man's speculation.
Even if that were true, it is still irrelevant. If science shows us an interpretation is mistaken, then any spiritual significance you see in a mistaken interpretation is mistaken too.
Science has never shown us that a widely held interpretation of scripture, one that held any spiritual signficance, has ever been changed in order to align with the scientific finding, nor will it ever be so.
Catholics find deep spiritual significance in the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the eucharist. They interpreted Jesus' statement "This is my body" quite literally.
A major reason why I am not Catholic. There have always been groups who have found deep spiritual significance to various subjects, that doesn't mean they are worthy of such.
A new understanding of science caused Christians to question the traditional literal interpretation. Should the fact people saw spiritual significance in the literal interpretation mean we should have kept it?
I don't believe science had a thing to do with it.
Cooper stands between you and God telling your how to understand everything God says and keep you from searching scripture for yourself. You simply don't know how it would effect your understanding of the bible if you took off you Cooper tinted glasses. I know that my own literalism was being challenged by scripture itself long before I became a TE.
lol, I am intrigued by your fascination of the Cooper statement. Trust me when I say that I don't ever give it a second thought as I read Scripture, it is the Holy Spirit working through the words and into my own spirit that I lean on, certainly not a man-made phrase. The phrase is just a simple and succinct way of summarizing an approach to interpretation.
So what scientific tests were done during those thousands of years to test if the sun went round the earth or the earth went round the sun? Heliocentrism was proposed by the Greek astronomer Aristarchus in the third century BC but it was wasn't tested, it was rejected on grounds of impiety.
I don't know, nor do I really care, what scientific tests were done to support heliocentrism, like I've said many times it has no spiritual significance and therefore isn't worthy of investigation.
Not if you mean it is tested by scripture. There is no basis for Cooper's claim in scripture. If you mean it backs up the interpretation of the bible you like, doesn't Paul warn people not to accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings 2Tim 4:3?
You can test the claim through the study of scripture to test its validity, if it aligns with it then it is useful.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Luther believed that Copernicus' inferences about the earth revolving around the sun were contrary to the Bible. Do you believe we should remain steadfast to the geocentric science of Luther? Or do you believe that we were right to reexamine the interpretation he held to in light of the facts Copernicus gleaned from God's creation? The analogy to creationism/evolution is the same.
Once again, what Luther believed regarding this subject is of no spiritual significance to me or anyone else and therefore not worthy of a theological discussion.
So what you are telling me is that you are not familiar with even the most basic evidence that supports the common descent model. If that's the case, then how can you say there is no evidence for common descent??? Surely this is an argument from ignorance, no? Simply because you don't know what the evidence is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!
There are countless reams of 'evidence' and if you wish to claim I am ignorant of them that is your prerogative. You asked me to comment on a pattern you reference without ever actually referencing it. I am sorry, but I am not into playing guessing games, certainly not with a subject I find unproductive.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Once again, what Luther believed regarding this subject is of no spiritual significance to me or anyone else and therefore not worthy of a theological discussion.
Whether there was any theological significance attached to Luther's geocentrist interpretation is besides the point. The fact is that, for a long time, the Church interpreted the Bible to mean that the sun revolves around the earth, and this was only overturned in light of new findings about God's creation. Just saying "well, that's of no theological significance to me" doesn't change the fact that erroneous interpretations of the Bible can be and have been overturned with respect to evidence from God's creation. Surely, you must admit that.
And by the way, there was major theological significance attached to geocentrism. The people of Luther's day (and before) believed that, if man was the pinnacle of Creation, God ought to have placed us at the centre of the universe He created. One of the reasons why some people had such a hard time letting go of geocentrism was its theological implications for man's place in God's creation. We were no longer at the centre of it all.

There are countless reams of 'evidence' and if you wish to claim I am ignorant of them that is your prerogative. You asked me to comment on a pattern you reference without ever actually referencing it. I am sorry, but I am not into playing guessing games, certainly not with a subject I find unproductive.
I didn't ask you to comment on the pattern; I asked if you even knew what it was. I figured that for someone to say that no evidence exists for common descent, you would at least be familiar with what the claimed evidence is and have good reason to reject it. I think it's fair to say that isn't the case.

BTW, the pattern is that of a nested hierarchy, which only common descent predicts.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Parts of Genesis can be taken figuratively, parts cannot, Adam is one of the features that cannot. I know you knew that.
Sure I know that. What I am wondering is why you tried to suggest I was being dishonest talking about church fathers interpreting Genesis figuratively when you knew there were church fathers who interpreted the days of Genesis figuratively. I have discussed their interpretation of the Genesis days with Vossler before. Mallon even linked to a page describing the interpretation of the days of Genesis throughout church history. So why would you quote church fathers about talking about Adam as if that contradicted what I said?

I wonder how many times this false interpretation of Romans 5 has to be refuted:

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπος) as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.
What 'folks' are these who think Adam is a figure of speech? You used to keep claiming I said that, though I told you again and again that I didn't. You accused GratiaCorpusChristi of the same thing and he told you in no uncertain terms that he didn't. Now it is a vague 'some folks' who think it. Who are they Mark? As far as I can tell this whole 'Adam is a figure of speech' claim is a figment of your imagination.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)​
This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:
From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​
Strong's is much too brief to understand the wide range of uses of tupos. Here are some of the explanation given by Gingrich & Danker

attachment.php


The most common translation is type, though that gets confused by much later rules of 'typology'. The second most common translation is figure which expresses the non literal way Paul is interpreting Adam without suggest Paul was talking about rules of typology thought up by scholars centuries later.

This is how the word is used in other passages:

tupoi
1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.​
tupon
John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.
tupoV
Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.
tupouV
Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.​
We discussed the same list in the thread Adam and Eve-> to creationists
Your supposed refutation of Romans 5:14 didn't stand up to scrutiny then.
Lets look at my reply and how you responded.

Assyrian I think you are mixing up a wide range of different meanings of the word tupos, nail prints, stamped out metal idols, forms of teaching and Christians being good examples are hardly typological interpretations. For that you need to look at passages like 1Pet 3:21 where Noah's Ark is seen as a symbolic picture of baptism, or Hebrews 8:5 and 9:24 where the OT law and the tabernacle's real meaning was as a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ his sacrifice and high priesthood in heaven. Hebrews uses terms like type, antitype, shadow, and parable (Heb 9:9) to describe how the OT law was a symbolic picture of Christ. Of course this is a theme that runs throughout the NT whether the word type is used or not, we see it in John the Baptist's description of Jesus as the lamb of God, or Paul describing the sabbaths and festivals as shadows whose reality is in Christ.

Mark The literal tabernacle was used as a typology for Christ, the literal Flood for the baptism that now saves us, the literal priesthood and the other allusions find their meaning in the person and work of Christ. Moses, Melchizedek, David and Abraham are all figures like Christ, that does not make them figures of speech. Your insistence on twisting the originally intended meaning of vital texts is staggering.

Assyrian: There are two issues you are mixing up here. The comparison of the tabernacle, the flood, passover lamb with the NT are figurative. Your hiding behind 'figure of speech' to ignore the highly symbolic and allegorical way these OT pictures are being interpreted in the NT only shows how shallow your argument is.
The second issue is the historicity of the OT pictures. I have no problem saying a historical flood or a historical passover lamb are used as figurative pictures of baptism and Christ. But that doesn't say all types in the NT have to be historical. There is nothing in the NT, or in the 1st and 2nd century use of type to suggest that.
You are conflating the two issues with your 'figure of speech' rhetoric.


Mark... no reply
Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)​
If Paul is describing Adam as a historical figure, why do you think he uses the present tense 'all die'? Surely if we died in a historical individual it happened in the past?

I get why you might think 'the first man Adam' means Paul is talking about the very first man. But if you read on just two verses you find Paul describing Jesus as 'the second man' 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Wasn't the second man Cain? Interpreting Genesis literally anyway? Paul is not talking literal history here, any more than he was when he describe how we all die in Adam. What he is doing is comparing Adam and Christ and we know from Romans that Paul saw Adam as a figurative picture of Christ. Do you really need Paul to spell it out again for you? The very fact Paul is comparing Adam and Christ here should have you looking to see if he is talking figuratively.

Show me the quotes
Philo of Alexandria

Allegorical Interpretation 2.7.19
"'And God brought a trance upon Adam, and he fell asleep; and He took one of his sides' (Genesis 2:21) and what follows. These words in their literal sense are of the nature of a myth [mythodes]. For how could anyone admit that a woman, or a human being at all, came into existence out of a man's side?"
Allegorical Interpretation I Part 2.31.97
And the recommendations that he addresses to him are as follows: "Of every tree that is in the Paradise thou mayest freely Eat." He exhorts the soul of man to derive advantage not from one tree alone nor from one single virtue, but from all the virtues; for eating is a symbol of the nourishment of the soul, and the soul is nourished by the reception of good things, and by the doing of praiseworthy actions.
On the Creation 56.154
And these statements appear to me to be dictated by a philosophy which is symbolical rather than strictly accurate. For no trees of life or of knowledge have ever at any previous time appeared upon the earth, nor is it likely that any will appear hereafter. But I rather conceive that Moses was speaking in an allegorical spirit, intending by his paradise to intimate the dominant character of the soul, which is full of innumerable opinions as this figurative paradise was of trees. And by the tree of life he was shadowing out the greatest of the virtues namely, piety towards the gods, by means of which the soul is made immortal; and by the tree which had the knowledge of good an evil, he was intimating that wisdom and moderation, by means of which things, contrary in their nature to one another, are distinguished.
Josephus
Antiquities of the Jews Preface 4
I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator [Moses] speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.

Antiquities of the Jews Book 1.1.2
Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: : That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.​
 

Attachments

  • G&D tupos.jpg
    G&D tupos.jpg
    54.1 KB · Views: 146
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Mark wrote:

Really? As far as I can tell none of them followed a 'non literal interpretation' of Adam.

Hey, imagine that - someone points out that early Christians knew that parts of Genesis can be interpreted figuratively, and a creationist jumps in to defend a literal Adam, even though a literal Adam wasn't in need of being defended. Go figure.

Mark, you remember that a literal, single, real, historical Adam is fully consistent with theistic evolution and the evolution of humans from ancient apes, right? I mean, you and I have discussed this ad naseum, in entire threads. Even the Pope can see that, and I'm sure you've got a decent ability to understand too.

Papias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Once again these subjects have no spiritual significance and are not worthy of a theological discussion.
You brought up the idea that evolution “has provided a safe escape from the truth” are you now saying your argument is of no spiritual significance? Or are you just using ‘spiritual significance’ to stick you fingers in your ears and ignore the problem?

I agree, the process you described has worked for almost all scientific discoveries. The issue isn't whether you start with conjecture and speculation, it is whether you finish there.
That's alright then because evolution is very well tested and supported.

Yes you are right that scripture doesn't support the items you listed (although an argument for a round earth could be made), however none of those contradict scripture either, common descent certainly does. You may not think there is a scriptural case against common descent but I think that not only is there a case, it is air tight.
People have thought scripture contradicted a round earth, the existence of a southern continent and heliocentrism but they were still wrong. I looked at the argument against common ancestry back in post 77 but you sidestepped it. Here is what I said again.
Yet very little in the bible to contradict it, and only if you think it is literal. Main thing I can think of is the really common biblical metaphor of God the potter making people from clay. Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay. Now if you take that literally in Genesis, then of course it does contradict common ancestry. But why should we want to take a common biblical metaphor literally when science shows us that is mistaken? This is of course the church father's approach that there can be different interpretations of a passage but if one is shown to be wrong by science is wasn't what scripture meant.
Great. So why do so many creationist think if life evolved through natural process then God is excluded?
I don't deal well with speculative words like if in reference to life. God spells out how life occurred and I believe Him, not man's speculation.
OK I will state it without the word if. Creationists claim the natural process of evolution exclude God. We are not looking at the creationist view of how God created life here, but rather the creationist view of how God operates in the universe, and how this is at odds with the traditional Christian understanding that God operates both through supernatural miracles and through natural processes. Honestly vossler, you seem to spend most of your time avoiding the discussion.

A major reason why I am not Catholic. There have always been groups who have found deep spiritual significance to various subjects, that doesn't mean they are worthy of such.
Like creationists see spiritual significance in their literal interpretation of Genesis? That is what I said to you earlier, if you think you see spiritual significance in a misinterpretation of scripture, that simply means the spiritual significance is as mistaken as your misinterpretation.

It also means you cannot hide behind spiritual significance to try to distance yourself from the heliocentric controversy, because there is no spiritual significance in a misinterpretation. It also empties any meaning from your claim

Science has never shown us that a widely held interpretation of scripture, one that held any spiritual signficance, has ever been changed in order to align with the scientific finding, nor will it ever be so.
Well of course, because if
And it tells us this claim is true but meaningless, because by definition there isn't real significance in a wrong interpretation. What is true is that science has shown widely held interpretation to be wrong.

A new understanding of science caused Christians to question the traditional literal interpretation. Should the fact people saw spiritual significance in the literal interpretation mean we should have kept it?
I don't believe science had a thing to do with it.
So if it wasn't the rise of scienne telling us if bread still looks and tastes like bread it really is bread not Jesus' real flesh, what do you think led protestants to reject the literal interpretation of Jesus' words that had been unchallenged for 15 centuries?

lol, I am intrigued by your fascination of the Cooper statement. Trust me when I say that I don't ever give it a second thought as I read Scripture, it is the Holy Spirit working through the words and into my own spirit that I lean on, certainly not a man-made phrase. The phrase is just a simple and succinct way of summarizing an approach to interpretation.
So do you rely on the Holy Spirit or on Cooper's approach to interpretation? The reason I am interested in Cooper's rule is that man made rules like this stops Creationists from really searching the scripture. If you have this Rule telling you that you have to interpret Genesis literally, you are not going look and see if God can speak to us differently in his word.

I don't know, nor do I really care, what scientific tests were done to support heliocentrism, like I've said many times it has no spiritual significance and therefore isn't worthy of investigation.
You brought it up.

You can test the claim through the study of scripture to test its validity, if it aligns with it then it is useful.
What does that mean? Scripture interpreted with Cooper's rule lines up with you literal interpretation of scripture? Or that we can study scripture and find that it teaches us "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." Because scripture teaches us no such thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFijian
Upvote 0