i need help with scripture

[philadiddle]

As a TE i believe some of the bible to be allegory, and not all literal. since i'm not a theology scholar there are some things i can't explain. how would a Christian TE explain a verse like this:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

thx for your responses.

 

[linssue55]

As a TE i believe some of the bible to be allegory, and not all literal. since i'm not a theology scholar there are some things i can't explain. how would a Christian TE explain a verse like this:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

thx for your responses.

This verse is litteral.

 

[shernren]

As far as I remember, the Greek for this "arche ktisis" means the beginning of creation. Not beginning as in "the start", but beginning as in "the process / act by which someone begins something", or to be simple "begin-ing". The period of time in which God began creation lasted a few billion years, according to evolutionists, and so there is no problem between an old creation and that verse. Besides, the human species from the time when it was human - whether it evolved into humanity or was directly, supernaturally created - had always been male and female.

It is helpful to note that in a YEC viewpoint man was created on the 6th day, which is not exactly "the beginning" of creation either.

Here's another explanation of it, this time from an OEC viewpoint:

http://www.heritagebbc.com/archive2/0110.html

What does the Scripture mean by the “beginning of the creation”? Does it mean from Genesis 1:1 or does it mean from the creation of Adam and Eve, i.e the human race? The word “creation” is “ktisis” in the Greek, “the act of founding, establishing, building, etc.” What God is talking about here is the foundation, or establishing of the human race, “male and female”. The word “beginning” in both verses comes from the Greek word “arche” or “the beginning, origin, the first person that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader...” In other words, the first people in the human race, Adam and Eve.

Christ is simply saying that from the beginning of the human race, God did not intend for men and women, once married, to divorce. Then he quotes Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

This is not a proof that the earth is only 6,000 years old.The Bible is an inspired record of God’s dealings with man. It begins with man and ends with man. It is not a history of the planet!

 

[Critias]

As a TE i believe some of the bible to be allegory, and not all literal. since i'm not a theology scholar there are some things i can't explain. how would a Christian TE explain a verse like this:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

thx for your responses.

Jesus is directly refering to Genesis. The Jews knew what He was speaking about and believed the accounts given in Genesis. This is not a YEC, OEC, or whatever belief, it is simply the truth.

Beginning of creation is a phrase talking about the beginning of the world. Creation in the New Testament often talks about the world, not just man or grass, or animals, etc. If you look to what Paul says in Romans that all creation is groaning, he isn't speaking of only man, or animals, but all that has been created. That is what ought to be understood about creation.

Creation = all that was created. So the phrase, beginning of creation, is the beginning of all that has been created. The word beginning, or arche in Greek, doesn't refer to a specific time period such as day one. But rather to a period in time, such as when God created.

So, from whatever perspective one takes, this phrase, "beginning of creation" means in the beginning of all that was created. The beginning not being day 1 or day 2, but that whole process of creating which, according to Genesis is six days and a seventh day of rest.

Now, tie all of this together, and you have Jesus referring to Genesis in a way that the Jews understood it, as a historical narrative. YECs recognize this Jesus who is God giving validity to Genesis as a true account of Creation.

The male and female are understood has human, not as animals in the Greek.

 

[Knowledge3]

As a TE i believe some of the bible to be allegory, and not all literal. since i'm not a theology scholar there are some things i can't explain. how would a Christian TE explain a verse like this:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

thx for your responses.

What are your specific reasons being TE?

That verse was said by Jesus in the NT when He preached His Gospel...And is a literal verse. As a TE, You would have a hard time explaining that verse in TE theology because it asserts Creation by pointing to the Creator.

My stance on TE, since that it exists and there is surmountable evidence for it, I would not insert TE into by belief system without a first thought. Because TE seems to be a blatant "middle" compromise of the two diametrically-opposed belief systems...

~k3

 

[linssue55]

As a TE i believe some of the bible to be allegory, and not all literal. since i'm not a theology scholar there are some things i can't explain. how would a Christian TE explain a verse like this:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

thx for your responses.

Corrected translation......

Gen 1:1 In eternity past, God (Elohim= trinity) created the heavens and the earth ( Manufactured something out of nothing).

Between verses 1 and 2......the heavens and the earth were already formed, (from eternity past) the dinosaur age for millions of years?....then the ice age. God packed the earth in ice 1,000 miles deep for 1,000 years.............Then started Gen. verse 2.

 

[Critias]

Corrected translation......

Gen 1:1 In eternity past, God (Elohim= trinity) created the heavens and the earth ( Manufactured something out of nothing).

Between verses 1 and 2......the heavens and the earth were already formed, (from eternity past) the dinosaur age for millions of years?....then the ice age. God packed the earth in ice 1,000 miles deep for 1,000 years.............Then started Gen. verse 2.

1. He didn't ask about Genesis 1:1

2. That is not a correct translation. A literal translation from the 1866 Masoretic text states: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'

3. Elohim does not equal Trinity. Elohim is plural, but its meaning in Hebrew does not mean Trinity.

4. A dinosaur age and ice age is not Biblically supported between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That is a human assertion. No rendering of the Hebrew suggests this in the OT.

 

[philadiddle]

Beginning of creation is a phrase talking about the beginning of the world. Creation in the New Testament often talks about the world, not just man or grass, or animals, etc.

the NT may talk OFTEN about the world, but in this verse it's just talking about mankind.

So, from whatever perspective one takes, this phrase, "beginning of creation" means in the beginning of all that was created. The beginning not being day 1 or day 2, but that whole process of creating which, according to Genesis is six days and a seventh day of rest.

or it could mean the whole process of creating which would have been billions of years. i thank you for showing me this is not a YEC supportive verse.

The male and female are understood has human, not as animals in the Greek.

man and women are separate from the animals, God just used evolution as a mechanism to create them. the Greek at that time had no understanding of DNA similarities or taxonomy of species.

 

[philadiddle]

What are your specific reasons being TE?

emperical evidence

That verse was said by Jesus in the NT when He preached His Gospel...And is a literal verse. As a TE, You would have a hard time explaining that verse in TE theology because it asserts Creation by pointing to the Creator.

???? what do you mean it talks about "the creator"? of course TEs believe in the creator. that doesn't give me a hard time. TE means Theistic Evolution. Theistic refers to God or the supernatural. You must not understand other ppls points of view.

My stance on TE, since that it exists and there is surmountable evidence for it, I would not insert TE into by belief system without a first thought. Because TE seems to be a blatant "middle" compromise of the two diametrically-opposed belief systems...

what two dramatically opposed beliefs? you don't know what you're talking about. read the first post on this linked thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t842473-the-full-spectrum-of-christian-belief-on-origins-where-are-you.html

 

[Critias]

Actually, Theistic Evolution is simply a belief in the Evolutionary Theory that includes a god or gods.

Theistic in no way implies the God of the Bible. One can be a theist, but not a Christian.

 

[Critias]

the NT may talk OFTEN about the world, but in this verse it's just talking about mankind.

Beginning of Creation is not translated as the beginning of mankind. It is translated as the beginning of all that is created. To suggest that it only means mankind is not to understand what is written.

or it could mean the whole process of creating which would have been billions of years. i thank you for showing me this is not a YEC supportive verse.

Actually, the context is within the understanding of Genesis. That is what Jesus meant when He said, haven't you read, refering to the OT and Genesis specifically.

man and women are separate from the animals, God just used evolution as a mechanism to create them. the Greek at that time had no understanding of DNA similarities or taxonomy of species.

Well, the Bible teaches differently. The Greek needs not to understand taxonomy or DNA to say that mankind is distinctly different from animals.

I suppose, by your wording, that all mankind, before the knowledge of DNA and taxonomy, didn't understand the difference between mankind and animals.

 

[philadiddle]

Beginning of Creation is not translated as the beginning of mankind. It is translated as the beginning of all that is created. To suggest that it only means mankind is not to understand what is written.

so the beginning of creation isn't the end of creation. this means it wasn't the 5th,6th, or 7th day. isn't that when man was created? oh yes, man was created at the end of creation. you have fallen victim to the point shenren made earlier. "It is helpful to note that in a YEC viewpoint man was created on the 6th day, which is not exactly "the beginning" of creation either."

Actually, the context is within the understanding of Genesis. That is what Jesus meant when He said, haven't you read, refering to the OT and Genesis specifically.

this argument only supports itself if Genesis chapter 1 is literal, which it's not.

Well, the Bible teaches differently. The Greek needs not to understand taxonomy or DNA to say that mankind is distinctly different from animals.

so are beavers, they are different from other life in distict ways. your defintions seem to be vague to make your beliefs and interpretations work. when someone starts talking science and specific defintions you need to go back to vague definitions to prove a point.

I suppose, by your wording, that all mankind, before the knowledge of DNA and taxonomy, didn't understand the difference between mankind and animals.

on a genetic level no, they didn't. do you think they understood how beavers were different from animals? beavers of course are not part of the animal kingdom, they are separate, you can see for yourself, no other animal is like them. they build dams as houses, you can't get any more unique then that.

 

[linssue55]

1. He didn't ask about Genesis 1:1

2. That is not a correct translation. A literal translation from the 1866 Masoretic text states: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'

3. Elohim does not equal Trinity. Elohim is plural, but its meaning in Hebrew does not mean Trinity.

4. A dinosaur age and ice age is not Biblically supported between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That is a human assertion. No rendering of the Hebrew suggests this in the OT.

1. Yes she did....stated "from the beginning male and female".

2. This IS the corrected translation from the Hebrew. Exergetics, Isosgogics.

3. Yes again. Elohim in the Hebrew means, all 3 person's of the Godhead participated in the creation. Exergetics, Isosgogics.

4. Yes it is. Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox". Irrefutable proof also from all of the bones found throughout the centuries of pre-historic animals.

 

[artybloke]

As a TE i believe some of the bible to be allegory, and not all literal. since i'm not a theology scholar there are some things i can't explain. how would a Christian TE explain a verse like this:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

thx for your responses.

He was using a literary device known as "exageration."

 

[Knowledge3]

emperical evidence
???? what do you mean it talks about "the creator"? of course TEs believe in the creator. that doesn't give me a hard time. TE means Theistic Evolution. Theistic refers to God or the supernatural. You must not understand other ppls points of view.

Say what??..I forgive you already, but you are way off base bro.I do, in fact, understand TE. Don't put the cart before the horse, it makes the rear-end of that horse reflect your erroneous post.

Theistic Evolution is the the biblical belief that God has a hand or is involved the process of evolution in a theological compromise of scriptural creationism. TE includes the scientific evolutionary process in support of the Christian TE based belief.

what two dramatically opposed beliefs?

Biblical Creationism VS Atheistic Evolution.

you don't know what you're talking about.

read the first post on this linked thread <
http://www.christianforums.com/t842473-the-full-spectrum-of-christian-belief-on-origins-where-are-you.html[/QUOTE]<

Say what?? (chuckles)

you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1655407-which-is-the-more-honest-and-probable-position.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532183-why-is-it-so-hard-for-one-to-believe-in-creation.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t197...mon-conclusion-evolution-aint-going-away.html

If you need help with specific theological problems in explaining & exegeting your respected TE belief with Scripture...Just ask ~k3

 

[gluadys]

Theistic Evolution is the the biblical belief that God has a hand or is involved the process of evolution in a theological compromise of scriptural creationism. TE includes the scientific evolutionary process in support of the Christian TE based belief.

Clear evidence that you do not understand theistic evolution.

TE does not suppose that God "has a hand" in evolution. God is everywhere in the process of evolution as God is everywhere in all of nature. Nothing in nature happens without God. God does not just intervene from time to time, but is constantly present and active in all of creation, including evolution.

Nor does TE use evolutionary process to bolster its beliefs. Christian TE beliefs are Christian beliefs, Muslim TE beliefs are Muslim beliefs, Jewish TE beliefs are Jewish beliefs. It is on the basis of Christian beliefs that Christian TEs accept the truths discovered by science about the properties of nature. That includes evolution. So you have it backwards about. TEs do not use evolution to support Christian belief. They use Christian beliefs to interpret evolution as part of the creative work of God.

 

[Knowledge3]

(PSI have no problem being incorrect or wrong on any subject: I consider myself to know nothing in my personal philosophy..

Clear evidence that you do not understand theistic evolution.

Which is? Theorizing evolution to fit and conform into Christian belief(s)?

It is on the basis of Christian beliefs that Christian TEs accept the truths discovered by science about the properties of nature. That includes evolution. So you have it backwards about.

Maybe so, maybe not. So your conclusion and analysis of the said truths about evolution are the primary motivations as to why one would choose to be a TE? Or is it faith in science and strict & logical & substantial evidence?? Instead of biblical faith the unknown and unseen?

Where is that handy Scripture verse again?

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:7[/bible]

TEs do not use evolution to support Christian belief.

Then TE's use what?,exactly? besides evolution to support the said Christian belief?

They use Christian beliefs to interpret evolution as part of the creative work of God.

That is reasonable. I have no problem with that, what are some good examples or presentations of a TE using his/her Christian belief as part of the Creative work of God? I would love to read them.

 

[Plan 9]

Perhaps I'm a bit dim, but what I don't comprehend is why this issue should divide Christians who all believe in common that God actively created the universe and all life in it. Can someone please explain?

 

[Critias]

so the beginning of creation isn't the end of creation. this means it wasn't the 5th,6th, or 7th day. isn't that when man was created? oh yes, man was created at the end of creation. you have fallen victim to the point shenren made earlier. "It is helpful to note that in a YEC viewpoint man was created on the 6th day, which is not exactly "the beginning" of creation either."

You have either failed to read what I said previously or have failed to comprehend it.

this argument only supports itself if Genesis chapter 1 is literal, which it's not.

It is a historical narrative. The Apostles, the Church Fathers and theologians before the rise of Darwin believed and taught that Genesis is a historical narrative. Since the rise of the evolution, people have claimed that Genesis is not a historical narrative.

Drop the term literal, it does not correctly describe any YECs views of Genesis or the Bible. It is the TE assertion and lie that YECs are literalists, even when YECs recognize poetry, symbolism, prophecy, etc in the Bible. To call a YECs by this term, shows ones lack of understanding of the word literalist.

so are beavers, they are different from other life in distict ways. your defintions seem to be vague to make your beliefs and interpretations work. when someone starts talking science and specific defintions you need to go back to vague definitions to prove a point.

You don't need to understand science in order to know that a lion is a lion and a man is man and be able to see the difference. Are you incapable of seeing the difference between a lion and man without science?

on a genetic level no, they didn't. do you think they understood how beavers were different from animals? beavers of course are not part of the animal kingdom, they are separate, you can see for yourself, no other animal is like them. they build dams as houses, you can't get any more unique then that.

I see. So, are you suggesting that, say, Paul didn't know the difference between a donkey and man?

 

[Knowledge3]

Perhaps I'm a bit dim, but what I don't comprehend is why this issue should divide Christians who all believe in common that God actively created the universe and all life in it. Can someone please explain?

Sure Plan 9...

There are variety of factors and a myriad of external reasons that influence the general belief of any human person. We are all individuals created by God, and we inhabit the Earth. <>Now take the underlined statement and apply it to the atheistic evolutionist perspective. Which is basically summed up by the godless conviction that Life as we know it evolved and spotaneously generated from nothing <aka> primordial soup... hence the Universe sprang forth by randomness and chance. Evolutionists hate the words -random- and -chance-.

As the for the TE perspective, I will have to await gluadys reply to make sure I have the correct facts straight on this newfound "belief" of Theistic evolution.

Just the way it goes...Division and schism among Christians is the bad fruit of pride and arrogance and basic lack of knowledge or understanding of the Holy One. And is usually the byproduct of man choosing to his own will under his own wisdom and understanding. Choosing to be morally evil, whether it be voluntary or involuntary.

Hope that helps? If not, I will be glad to explain further.