How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[TasManOfGod]

I resolved the qustion when I met Jesus - when I finally got some sense

 

[Assyrian]

It doesn't fit the definition of an allegory. It doesn't use fictional characters to represent abstract ideas. The use of a few symbolic images in the creation story does not make an allegory. The images represent real things,not ideas.

I think you need to be careful trying to limit Hebrew thought to narrow definitions of allegory based on Greek literature. The OT talks of these non literal passages as riddles and dark sayings, allegory and parable are similar concepts in Greek, but you couldn't think OT was written according to Greek categories.

 

[theFijian]

It doesn't fit the definition of an allegory. It doesn't use fictional characters to represent abstract ideas.

Which is why Abraham appears in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus?

The use of a few symbolic images in the creation story does not make an allegory. The images represent real things,not ideas.

So the parables just address ideas and not real things?

 

[shernren]

It would be something of an intellectual contradiction to accept a naturalistic explanation for how lightning as adequate and to also believe that God acts upon it. If it was true that God makes it happen directly, as with conception, then natural causes would not be adequate to explain it.

But this is what the LORD says:

​​​​​​​​Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’? (Job 38:35, ESV)​

The problem with your argument is that the Bible itself makes no distinction between, say, "gravity and optics" and "life and order". It is all upheld by the word of the power of the Son (Hebrews 1:3). Do we have an adequate natural explanation for the night? And for how a lion captures its prey? The Psalmist gives glory to God for them both:

​​​​​​​​You make darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep about. ​​​​​​​​The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. (Ps 104:20-21, ESV)​

On one hand, according to you, it would be something of an intellectual contradiction to accept a naturalistic explanation for how night falls as adequate, and also to believe that God acts on it. But on the other hand the Bible indeed demands in its very words that God in fact brings night.

Do you believe that scientists do not have an adequate naturalistic explanation for how night falls?

 

[Old Seer]

Which is why Abraham appears in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus?



So the parables just address ideas and not real things?

And you are eggzackly correct. earth=soul, waters=mind/mentality, greater light=knowledge of what is human, lesser light=knowledge of what is animal/darkness within ones own nature. Waters above=animal mind- as being in a state of mind above others which originates from one's animal side, waters below=the human side-a state of mind that is equal and compatible with/to others, as in-all are created equal. Notice that man is created in the waters "under" the firmament. Stars=the things that are important to you and "highly" regarded, and what lights up you life (modern term). The Creeping thing=catlike-a predator/the predator within, proper man/Christian is not a predator-to remain cages as in ruled over or having dominion over rather then be one. Etc. Take it from there.

 

[Old Seer]

Parables are hypotheticals that relate to real events at a future time, or a personal event. In the case of the 10 talents there are grave consequeces for not doing according to one's abilities in concerns of improving their persons or propagating "the word". This parable is mostly for during the end times where Armageddon awaits non-doers and non-believers. It can also apply to individuals through history, such as Adolph Hitler and his gang. Their doings were so egregious that they cannot be forgiven. They have no prospect of physical resurrection. It is not punishment, but the world hereafter when all is settled cannot take the chance of having such individuals in society.

 

[ACKerr]

i am new to this site so i have not read everything here. has anyone shown creation from the difference between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2? it could help to explain the time gap in the evolution theory. if it has already been stated then i am sorry and you can disregard what is posted here. here are my thoughts.

this is how i look at creation. there are more scripture to point at this but here is about half that i have come up with.


if you look up the two words formless(empty waste-#8414 strongs) and void(emptiness and ruin-#922 strongs) you will see that tells us God created empty waste and ruin.

You have some good ideas here, but that will not stop me from picking at them while seeking the Truth. Could the words empty waste/ruin refer to coalescing star matter such as waste from an exploding star, collision, etc? That is prevailing theory.

no there was a happening that took place between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2. we need to understand this in order to get the big picture of things. now to my understanding everything Jesus talks about that is made by God is good. God is life. so if God created this then it is the first thing God created that was a ruin and empty waste. so i can only assume that God did not create it this way. is 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. vain(#8414 strongs) this shows that when God created the heavens and the earth that God did not create it empty or wasteful but created it to be inhabited. gen 1:2 and is 45:18 are a contradiction because gen 1:1 shows God created the heavens and the earth and then in gen 1:2 it says God created it as a empty waste/ruin but is 45:18 says it was not created an empty waste. so what happened?

This gap issue. While much may have happened during this period as you suggest, could not a timeless God create in a manner that it slowly came to pass through a process within created time. For example, could God have created all the stars that will ever exist on a forth day along with the processes of formation by His laws of nature? I refer to the fourth day in the broadest sense whether a day, a sequence, or an allegory. In this timeless act, the end product of his will also was created at the beginning.

jer 4 shows jeremiah having a vision of what will happen if isreal does not turn back to him. verse 23 says I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. we have the same words(without form and void)being used here as in gen 1:2. so jeremiah is seeing the same picture that was in gen 1:2. so what happened and what is this all about? if you know the character of God you know something is wrong to say God created something a waste, ruin, uninhabitable. God is the God of life and what you see in Gen 1:2 is death which is totally contrary to the character of God. so something happened between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2.
this is when satan fell. gen 1:1 was created before lucifer sinned. the original earth was created for lucifer and in gen 1:2 it is destroyed. gen 1:3 is not the creation but the recreation for man. scriptural references for proof are: gen 1:28 says And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. now how can you replenish something that has never been plenished in the first place? right here he shows that there was an original life on the earth and that they were to reestablish a new life on this earth. is 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! what nations is he talking about? there had to be nations affected by his fall. is 14:13 says For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven(this part tells us that he was not in heaven when this all dawned on him), I will exalt my throne above the stars of God(this shows us that there were stars already in heaven at this time): I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds(so there were clouds in heaven too); I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. ez 28 is a prophesy against the king of tyrus but is also talking about lucifer because of verse 12 forward because no human being can fulfill that. a double prophesy is taking place here. verse 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty(no human being outside of adam and eve can fit this description and this verse is not talking of adam). 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God(only one person outside of adam and eve was in the garden and that was lucifer); every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub(no human being has ever been a cherub) that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God(no human has ever been on god's holy mountain so it is easy to say that this was lucifer); thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise(where did he get trade) they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings(what kings?), that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people(what people?) shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. matt 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. the word foundation is a poor meaning of the greek word katbole which speaks of overthrow and casting down. so if the translators had translated the word correctly Jesus then referred to gen 1:1 and gen 1:2 as an overthrow or casting down of the world system at some point.

Since there appears to be no evidence of this first creation to which you refer, can one assume that in your model, all existing sedimentary deposits and fossils are from a re-creation and the old stuff was completely melted, such as in molten lava. However, since the age of the earth, sun, and most everything in the solar system appears to be roughly 5 billion years old, your model may require a redo of the entire solar system.

one last point gen 1:2 the word was is used many times in scripture and means to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out. it does not talk about what was but what transpired to be. so if read like this: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. so when was becomes became then the verse makes sense.


this could also explain the time difference of how dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. no scripture to back it up but it makes sense.


hope this helped

See bold entries above within your text.

 

[theFijian]

And you are eggzackly correct. earth=soul, waters=mind/mentality, greater light=knowledge of what is human, lesser light=knowledge of what is animal/darkness within ones own nature. Waters above=animal mind- as being in a state of mind above others which originates from one's animal side, waters below=the human side-a state of mind that is equal and compatible with/to others, as in-all are created equal. Notice that man is created in the waters "under" the firmament. Stars=the things that are important to you and "highly" regarded, and what lights up you life (modern term). The Creeping thing=catlike-a predator/the predator within, proper man/Christian is not a predator-to remain cages as in ruled over or having dominion over rather then be one. Etc. Take it from there.

My questions were rhetorical, don't assume that I believe the same as you

 

[Old Seer]

None of these disqualifies a tree or any other thing from having a spiritual essence as well as a material form.




Yes, they are physical since they are made of physical atoms. And their atoms do move, just as all atoms do. They also have internal transport systems for moving water, nutrients and energy from one place to another, so I would hardly say they lack self-movement just because they are rooted in one spot. Plenty of animals root themselves in one spot during most of their lives as well.

They can't move about in an environment. A tree has no free will. It determines nothing for itself. It is a life form that has no human and/or animal entity.

 

[Old Seer]

My questions were rhetorical, don't assume that I believe the same as you

I posted anything in your regard, anyway, I can't find it. I make no assumption that you believe as I. I know you don't. Like-wise, make no assumptions that I'm assuming what anyone believes, I know know basics of what others believe, everybody does.

 

[Old Seer]

See bold entries above within your text.

God created the a spirit and a soul, and the soul was without form( Non-human) and darkness was upon the face of the mind. And God said, let them be enlightened and they became so. A God saw that they formed by his knowledge, and God saw the produce of their enlightenment and saw that they were good. The knowledge of good and evil O(greater and lesser light)was the first day.

 

[lismore]

After careful consideration YEC!

 

[theFijian]

I posted anything in your regard, anyway, I can't find it. I make no assumption that you believe as I. I know you don't. Like-wise, make no assumptions that I'm assuming what anyone believes, I know know basics of what others believe, everybody does.

I do apologise, I did indeed assume that when you said I was 'eggzackly correct' that you were in agreement with me. I did also assume that english was your native language

 

[Old Seer]

I do apologise, I did indeed assume that when you said I was 'eggzackly correct' that you were in agreement with me. I did also assume that english was your native language

I found it. I am agreeing with at least some of you input.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I think you need to be careful trying to limit Hebrew thought to narrow definitions of allegory based on Greek literature. The OT talks of these non literal passages as riddles and dark sayings, allegory and parable are similar concepts in Greek, but you couldn't think OT was written according to Greek categories.

I wasn't defining allegory according to Greek categories,but according to dictionary definitions.

Where does scripture refer to the figures and symbols of Genesis as riddles and dark sayings?

In any case,the figures and symbols are are not allegories or parables in themselves,and they do not make the creation story an allegory or parable.

 

[gluadys]

Lewontin was more honest about the implications of the "scientific" view of nature. To view nature scientifically has come to mean viewing it as if only natural mechanisms and processes exist or are involved.

Why would you say that? This is what I continually come up against when speaking to Christians who object to evolution. They actually agree that atheism makes more sense of science than theism does. Why do you give a pass to Lewontin that you don't to Gould? What makes the atheist Lewontin "more honest" than the agnostic Gould? What makes either of them more believable than fellow Christians who support evolutionary science (e.g. Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Denis Lamoureux, etc.)?

If you really find the atheistic position more acceptable, why do you not take that position personally?

But neither does Gould's opinion come from the methods of science. The methods do not say that science cannot comment on God's involvement in nature.

Yes, they do. Science uses a limited number of methods that all boil down to an empirical observation. Show me how you would test for God's interaction in nature (aside from supernatural intervention that contravenes ordinary processes).

That opinion is used as a justification for the commitment to the naturalistic view in science. The only difference is that Gould limits his commitment to naturalism to scientific explanations. But the belief in natural causes alone does not become justifiable in the context of science,as if science has a right to exclude the truth about divine power in nature.

Well Gould is not saying that belief in natural causes alone is justifiable in the context of science. Even in scientific matters, science simply cannot adjudicate God's possible superintendence of nature; science can neither affirm or deny the role God plays in any natural event or process; science cannot comment on this one way or another.

What science can do, it does: describe the physical facts. It can do no more even if there is more. And it cannot make a judgment call on whether or not there is more.

If we accept a scientific explanation for something as true and adequate,then we are inclined to believe that natural causes alone make it happen.

Obviously some people do; I don't and I don't think Christians should, generally, take that attitude. That excludes God from nature and that is the last thing we should be doing or accepting.

This may be alright in regard to some phenomena,such as the effects of gravity or optics,

No, I disagree. It is NEVER acceptable to exclude God from any part of nature. It is never alright to think that "we have a natural explanation" means in the slightest way that "God has no role in this natural process".

We need to be as forceful as Lewontin but in the opposite direction. He insists that we "not let a Divine Foot in the door" anywhere. We should be just as adamant in refusing to yield a single natural process to "nature alone".

I don't mean by this that the scientific explanations are not adequate. Look as much as you like, you will not find anything to add to the scientific explanation. But the scientific explanation is not an alternative to God; it does not exclude God. It is a description of what God is doing in nature.

No,this isn't about the methods of science,it is about MN,which is not a physical method but a way of interpreting natural phenomena.

If it is not about the methods, then it is not about methodological naturalism. Interpreting natural phenomena to exclude God is not part of MN; it is a distinctive philosophical view quite separate from methods.

 

[gluadys]

They can't move about in an environment. A tree has no free will. It determines nothing for itself. It is a life form that has no human and/or animal entity.

If by "physical" you mean "animate" why not say "animate" in the first place and avoid the confusion.

Interestingly "animate" (from which we get the word "animal") comes from the Latin for "soul" (anima), so by definition an animal is an ensouled being.

But Aristotle also spoke of the "vegetative soul" of plants.

And, in any case we were speaking of "spirit" which is not really the same as "soul".

Personally, I hold that nothing exists physically which does not also and simultaneously exist spiritually. That includes not only all life forms (animal or not) but all non-living entities as well.

I think it misleading to associate "spirit" with categories such as mobility or self-determination. Spirit is a mode of being, not of particular abilities.

 

[Assyrian]

I wasn't defining allegory according to Greek categories,but according to dictionary definitions.

And the categories in English, the ones you read in a dictionary, come down through traditional classical education from Greek and Roman categories.

Where does scripture refer to the figures and symbols of Genesis as riddles and dark sayings?

Does it need to? Did the ancient Hebrew think riddles and dark sayings always had to come with a label saying 'this is a riddle'? Look at Jacob's description of his children Gen 49:27 Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil... or read about the talking trees in Judges 9. There is no introduction saying by the way I am not speaking literally, this is a riddle and a dark saying.

In any case,the figures and symbols are are not allegories or parables in themselves,and they do not make the creation story an allegory or parable.

No they are just a pretty good indication that it might be, like Benjamin turning into a wolf or trees discussing politics. You could approach it from the angle doesn't God not have the power to turn Benjamin into a wolf and give trees the ability to talk? But that would miss the point.

 

[Old Seer]

If by "physical" you mean "animate" why not say "animate" in the first place and avoid the confusion.

Interestingly "animate" (from which we get the word "animal") comes from the Latin for "soul" (anima), so by definition an animal is an ensouled being.

But Aristotle also spoke of the "vegetative soul" of plants.

And, in any case we were speaking of "spirit" which is not really the same as "soul".

Personally, I hold that nothing exists physically which does not also and simultaneously exist spiritually. That includes not only all life forms (animal or not) but all non-living entities as well.

I think it misleading to associate "spirit" with categories such as mobility or self-determination. Spirit is a mode of being, not of particular abilities.

You don't understand me:
Spiritual things are spiritual things, material things are material things. The spiritual is your person not the body. You need to look up the usages for animal, animate etc. There's "animal" that referes to a state of mind and "animal" that referesd to the physical. The Apostles refer to the same, but in their case it's a State of mind/being/spiritual. Soul is spiritual---it is one's emotional structure.

 

[Mikecpking]

You don't understand me:
Spiritual things are spiritual things, material things are material things. The spiritual is your person not the body. You need to look up the usages for animal, animate etc. There's "animal" that referes to a state of mind and "animal" that referesd to the physical. The Apostles refer to the same, but in their case it's a State of mind/being/spiritual. Soul is spiritual---it is one's emotional structure.

'Soul' is indeed connected with one's emotions, but its primary meaning is life bound up in the body, or the person (creature) themselves.