Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[RefCath]

The Sabbath in Genesis was a promise of the Gospel. You can read about it in Hebrews 3&4.

I am not sure that this is what the writer of the Hebrews was saying, I can really recommend Richard Gaffin's A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God. I'd also check out Michael Horton's Lord and Servant in which he said:

one can recognize the features of a covenant: a historical prologue setting the stage (Genesis 1-2), stipulations (2:16-17) and the sanctions (2:17b)...Adam is created in a state of integrity with the ability to obey God completely, thus rendering a suitable human partner. Further, God commands such complete obedience and then promises, upon that condition, the right to eat from the tree of life. It was the prize awaiting the successful outcome of a trial. While creation itself is a gift, the entrance into God’s Sabbath rest was held out as the promise for loyal obedience in the period of testing. Just as YHWH the great king endured the “trial” of creation and came out at the other end pronouncing victory and entering his Sabbath enthronement, his earthly ectype-vassal was to follow the same course. Genesis 1-3…have an eschatological rather than simply existential orientation.
​

 

[Assyrian]

(I currently have the KJV out right now, so that is what I am working with on this post)

There are some good online resources available
Exodus 20 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
Exodus 20:11 (Biblos.com)
I also like NET bible but I find the older version better.
NETBible: Exodus 20:11

Genesis 2:5-7

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

This was day 2 of Creation directly above. We can see that Adam was created on the day He put water on Earth (explained below), connecting how Adam was already there when God produced all animals for Adam to name.

Adam wasn't created on the 6th day/day 5 when God said, And God said, Let us make man (Hebrew adam) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth Gen 1:26?

Genesis 1:6-10
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said,Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


This has to be followed very carefully. First, God made the firmament, which divided the waters from the waters. They were divided above and below it.
Then God let the waters below the firmament be gathered unto one place, and let dry land appear.

From this, we can see that water is taking on a entirely different meaning. It is being used to describe everything as a whole, besides the firmament itself, which makes a lot of sense when taking into account what the firmament actually is.

He is not explaining seas as oceans, but rather planets and stars as whole and separated.

The fact you have to give water a different meaning from normal shows you are being pretty speculative here, though I think I remember on of the older commentaries coming up with a similar idea, so you are not alone anyway. Weren't the sun moon and stars formed two days later? Unless you want to adopt the Day Age interpretation that they only appeared in the sky on the 4th day/day 3. Before that they were obscured by thick cloud (Job 38).

We see this a lot in the Bible. For example, it is commonly believed that the Beast from the Sea in Revelations is actually the Anti-Christ, the beast from the sea of people.

So you are interpreting Genesis like the highly symbolic Book of Revelation?

Genesis 2:6

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground

There was no water on Earth during the 1st and second day.

Gen 1:2 NET Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
Sorry, can't help thinking water probably means water.

Well, what I was implying was that there is no need to bless a day when all is already in grace. This means that Adam and Eve had already fell when this day came.

I think you may be reading too much into God blessing the seventh day. God blessed Adam too when he created him and named him.
Gen 5:2 male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. We find this in Gen 1:28 where God first gave Adam and Eve dominion over the earth and told them to be fruitful and multiply. We also see God blessing the sea creatures and bird when he created them Gen 1:22.

See, what I have constructed in my theology is a direct 'double instance' between the last few days of Creation and the story of Adam & Eve in Eden.
I gained this through direct study of the context itself, which is a great personal triumph for me because it provides a direct basing for many other things.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This does not contradict the days of Creation, because as I stated, the beginning was not a day. You can also see that He made the heavens, earth, the sea, and all that is in them. As in, not the seas, but the sea, as in the universe. Heaven and firmament is a constant in my theology that never once is synonymous with stars and space (waters), but rather the mount of God. The firmament is wholly parallel to everything, in between everything else (waters above and below). Exactly how we picture Heaven as not being of this realm.

This triplet of the heavens the earth and the sea (singular) comes up 10 times in the OT,
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (also Gen 1:28, Gen 9:2, Exodus 20:11, Psalm 96:11, Psalm 146:6, Ezek 38:20, Hos 4:3, Amos 9:6 and Haggai 2:6.)
Outside of Exodus 20:11 (and Psalm 146:6 which seems to be quoting Exodus), every time the three words are used together, it is clear that the sea refers to water and speaks about the fish of the sea, the sea roaring, the sea flooding the earth, or being placed in contrast to dry land. The sea here does refer to water. However together, the three terms, the heavens, the earth, and the sea, do refer to the entire universe.

 

[Assyrian]

I am not sure that this is what the writer of the Hebrews was saying, I can really recommend Richard Gaffin's A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God. I'd also check out Michael Horton's Lord and Servant in which he said:

one can recognize the features of a covenant: a historical prologue setting the stage (Genesis 1-2), stipulations (2:16-17) and the sanctions (2:17b)...Adam is created in a state of integrity with the ability to obey God completely, thus rendering a suitable human partner. Further, God commands such complete obedience and then promises, upon that condition, the right to eat from the tree of life. It was the prize awaiting the successful outcome of a trial. While creation itself is a gift, the entrance into God’s Sabbath rest was held out as the promise for loyal obedience in the period of testing. Just as YHWH the great king endured the “trial” of creation and came out at the other end pronouncing victory and entering his Sabbath enthronement, his earthly ectype-vassal was to follow the same course. Genesis 1-3…have an eschatological rather than simply existential orientation.
​

I agree it is about covenant, but I would put more emphasis on the eschatological meaning rather than seeing the promise of the tree of life and the Sabbath being a reward for obeying the law. God's plan from the beginning was never justification by works. The cross was God's plan from before the foundation of the world and the only tree that really does give eternal life is the cross of Christ who bore our sins in his body on the tree 1Pet 2:24. The Sabbath may have been part of old covenant, but for Paul and the writer of Hebrews, their true meaning was as a shadow of the reality we have in heaven through Christ. Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Adam wasn't created on the 6th day/day 5 when God said, And God said, Let us make man (Hebrew adam) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth Gen 1:26?

Genesis 2:5-7
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streamscame up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Day 2:
Genesis 1:11-13
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

This shows that Adam was created on day 2. I mentioned earlier that he was already around on day 4 because of the animal connection, so this concretes it.

The fact you have to give water a different meaning from normal shows you are being pretty speculative here, though I think I remember on of the older commentaries coming up with a similar idea, so you are not alone anyway. Weren't the sun moon and stars formed two days later?

The sun and the moon were created. God had already created light in the beginning before the first day

Genesis 1:3
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
This is the Big Bang, and by extension, stars.

So you are interpreting Genesis like the highly symbolic Book of Revelation?

The Bible is all about symbolism. It is everywhere in it. A most common one would be light and darkness.
It is also very diverse in it's use of context. A given word does not always carry a constant meaning.

Gen 1:2 NET Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
Sorry, can't help thinking water probably means water.

How can the Earth be empty, and yet be filled with water?
Watery deep is meant to describe the bellowing emptiness.

And on further note, one has to except that water is being used in different ways just by looking at the context of these verses:

Genesis 1:6-8
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

In some verses, it is being used as a 'vast expanse' while in others it simply means 'water'. At other times, it implies it as being the universe itself as the waters or a sea.

Context is extremely important. One little assumption or skimming over or anything of the sort puts a theology at risk. I actually came to learn this when I put this altogether. You will start to notice many things in the Bible that you would have never thought to realize.

 

[RefCath]

I agree it is about covenant, but I would put more emphasis on the eschatological meaning rather than seeing the promise of the tree of life and the Sabbath being a reward for obeying the law. God's plan from the beginning was never justification by works. The cross was God's plan from before the foundation of the world and the only tree that really does give eternal life is the cross of Christ who bore our sins in his body on the tree 1Pet 2:24. The Sabbath may have been part of old covenant, but for Paul and the writer of Hebrews, their true meaning was as a shadow of the reality we have in heaven through Christ. Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

I don't want to derail this thread but...I think we need to differentiate between the covenant of creation which corresponds to law or imperative and the covenant of promise which corresponds to gospel or indicative. I would also suggest that we see in the Genesis account that there are creation ordinances, work, marriage and sabbath. These do not fluctuate with the redemptive periods in the unfolding of God's purpose, rather what Paul is refering to in Col. 2 are the temporary aspects of God's covenant with Israel which was national and typological or a pedagogical purpose. Indeed, John Frame in his The Doctrine of the Christian Life suggests that the sabbath will continue in the new creation. I am not convinced but he makes a good argument. The way I look at it is to think through marriage; so Paul saw marriage as a picture of how Christ relates to the Church, now when the reality of what marriage pictures (consummation) is real so marriage will not continue. Likewise, when we enter our sabbath-rest which is still yet future (consummation) so it will be our sabbath and no more will take place. To say that the sabbath no longer applies is to fall afoul of an over-realised eschatology rather than living in the alread/not-yet IMO.

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis 2:5-7
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streamscame up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Day 2:
Genesis 1:11-13
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

This shows that Adam was created on day 2. I mentioned earlier that he was already around on day 4 because of the animal connection, so this concretes it.

It certainly shows Adam was created when there were no plants in the second creation story, but this is different from the first creation story where Adam wasn't created until after all the plants and birds and animals, on the 6th day/day5. The two creation stories are different. It is not enough to say it happend at such and such a time in the second creation account it must have happened then in the first account too, when the first creation account say it happened at a completely different time.

The sun and the moon were created. God had already created light in the beginning before the first day

Genesis 1:3
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
This is the Big Bang, and by extension, stars.

Like I said, that is fine if you go along with Hugh Ross's Day Age interpretation, otherwise the obvious meaning of God creating two great lights to rule the day and the night, is God making the sun and moon.

The Bible is all about symbolism. It is everywhere in it. A most common one would be light and darkness.
It is also very diverse in it's use of context. A given word does not always carry a constant meaning.

And you have a problem with TE? As we have seen there is a wide range of ways to interpret the days of Genesis, and the Day Age can fit very well with the geological history of the earth. The only reasons I can think of to reject evolution is
(1) God making Adam and the animals from clay, but making people from dust or dust is a very common biblical metaphor.
Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
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.
There is no contradiction between the metaphor of the potter and God using normal reproductive biology or evolution to form us.
(2) The other main reason, and I think this is the most common, is simply a deep seated conviction evolution must be wrong.

How can the Earth be empty, and yet be filled with water?
Watery deep is meant to describe the bellowing emptiness.

Water was part of the chaotic desolation. If you look how the phrase is used elsewhere in the bible, it means a desolate wilderness devoid of life

Jer 5:23 NET ​​​​​​​“I looked at the land and saw that it was an empty wasteland (tohu wa-bohu same as Genesis 1:2).
I looked up at the sky, and its light had vanished.
24 ​​​​​​​I looked at the mountains and saw that they were shaking.
All the hills were swaying back and forth!
25 ​​​​​​​I looked and saw that there were no more people,
and that all the birds in the sky had flown away.
26 ​​​​​​​I looked and saw that the fruitful land had become a desert
and that all of the cities had been laid in ruins.

Genesis 1:2 may have been as watery desolation, but it was just as desolate.

And on further note, one has to except that water is being used in different ways just by looking at the context of these verses:

Genesis 1:6-8
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

In some verses, it is being used as a 'vast expanse' while in others it simply means 'water'. At other times, it implies it as being the universe itself as the waters or a sea.

Context is extremely important. One little assumption or skimming over or anything of the sort puts a theology at risk. I actually came to learn this when I put this altogether. You will start to notice many things in the Bible that you would have never thought to realize.

Isn't the expanse supposed to be between the two waters separating them? I don't think the bible says the expanse is the water. But it is really good you are wrestling with the text yourself. Keep it up. Just don't think you have got it all sorted out, none of us have, not before we meet the Lord face to face.

 

[shernren]

Give me an example of what you mean. If I am redundant,it is unavoidable,because I am asked redundant questions,as if I had not answered them before. You should think about whether my statements are true or reasonable,rather than just criticize me for repeating them. There's a limit to which one can repeatedly answer the question "how do you know?" with more specific answers,because knowing is not based upon a reductionist way of thinking. Sooner or later you have to think for yourself and decide whether a statement is reasonable in itself.

In other words, there eventually comes a statement of yours which I either have to accept or reject simply on faith? I don't think your argumentation has reached that point yet.

The same way we determine that any object or action cannot do something that is beyond it's power: by comparing the causal power with the effect.

That is entirely too nebulous a criterion to be of any use. For example, suppose I were to tell you that all around you are tiny corpuscles of negative charge that occupy such exceedingly small amounts of space that trillions of them could fit into the width of a human hair, and that have such minute charge that trillions of them would have to adhere to an object to even be measurable.

Now suppose I were to compare the "causal power" of such a corpuscle, minute and insignificant and immeasurable as it may be, to the effects it is purported to generate: it is said that the manipulation of such corpuscles is responsible for computation of vastly complicated sums, transportation of millions of tonnes of goods, lighting and heating and cooling the homes of billions of people, and even giant fighting robots that inexplicably masquerade as cars. (Okay, the last one is fictional.) Surely the causal power of something so intangible can hardly be compared with the effects that have revolutionized humanity!

And yet it is true that electricity is predicated on the control of electrons.

I could go on and on. The history of science is precisely about people discovering that the causal powers of things are far stranger and more wonderful than any sterile theorizing could conclude.

It is not reasonable to believe that chemical reactions create the continuously moving,purposeful order that we call a cell,because there is not a match between the former phenomenon and the latter phenomenon,which is an entirely different and higher level of reality. Accidents do not produce order.

Is there any process within the cell which does not have a currently-known chemical explanation?

Are you serious?

There does not seem to be much of a causal connection,unless
the motions of the planets have a gravitational effect upon earth.

But they do!

In fact, the planets affect the Earth's orbit to such a degree that the Earth's orbit is fairly chaotic: an error of as little as 15 meters in the Earth's current position would render the Earth's position completely unpredictable in about 100 million years, which sounds like a long time until you realize that by the same estimates the Solar System has been around for about 5 billion years, and 100 million years is only about 2% of that lifespan.

Now would you be so sure that the planets don't influence the course of your life?

Because there is no causal connection that can be reasonably assumed.

Except I just showed you one, right?

 

[shernren]

We see this a lot in the Bible. For example, it is commonly believed that the Beast from the Sea in Revelations is actually the Anti-Christ, the beast from the sea of people.

Actually, no. Nowhere in the Bible, as far as I can see (sea? heh), is sea used in metonymy for people. I don't know why you think it is "commonly believed"; I would love to see citations for it.

Indeed, there are two verses where such a usage (if it were ever possible) seems to have been very directly avoided:

For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. (Isa 10:22, ESV)

​Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God.” (Hos 1:10, ESV)
​

I mean, if God had wanted to use "sea" to describe "people", you couldn't imagine two verses which could have been more convenient for it. God could have said that Israel would be "as vast as the sea" instead of "as numerous as the sand of the sea" and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And yet He didn't.

The fact of the matter is that sea in the Bible is often a metaphor for chaos and supernatural evil. So, for example, the stilling of the sea is mentioned in relation to God's sovereignty over nature:

​​​​​​​​Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord;
awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago.
Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces,
who pierced the dragon?
Was it not you who dried up the sea,
the waters of the great deep,
who made the depths of the sea
a way for the redeemed to pass over?
(Isa 51:9-10, ESV)

​​​​​​​​O Lord God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O Lord,
with your faithfulness all around you?
You rule the raging of the sea;
when its waves rise, you still them.
You crushed Rahab like a carcass;
you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.
(Ps 89:8-10, ESV)

​​​​​​​​The pillars of heaven tremble
and are astounded at his rebuke.
​​​​​​​​By his power he stilled the sea;
by his understanding he shattered Rahab.
(Job 26:11-12, ESV)
​

The references to Rahab show that the sea is being treated not just as a dangerous part of nature but as a symbol of the dangerous parts of the spiritual realm, a symbol of evil spirits beyond man's power to imagine who have set their hearts on opposing the Creator God.

That is the significance of the Beast of the Sea in Revelations 13. You will notice that with one small exception (he makes war on the saints), most of his actions and descriptions are directly blaspheming against and challenging God. This beast comes out of the sea, out of the spiritual powers that have directly set themselves against God - and is it his job to deceive mankind?

Not directly. You will notice that by contrast, the beast of the earth is the one who deceives mankind - persuading them all to worship the beast of the sea, performing signs and wonders, enforcing marks of loyalty. And it even has "the number of a man" - that is, it has affinity with man, who (like this beast) was formed out of the earth.

You will notice that, in Revelation 21:1, there is a new heaven and a new earth, but there is no more sea. This accords with what I have been saying: there is heaven (God and His angels) and there is a new earth (humanity, redeemed and freed from sin). But there is no more sea. Now maybe God just has a thing against the Aussies (who can't possibly imagine an eternity without surfing). But it's more likely that, in the rest of the Bible, the sea has been used as a symbol of the spiritual forces at work against God. What Revelation 21 is telling us is that the new order of things will be like the old in that there will be God and man to relate to God, but now there will be no enemy to worry about, because all enemies will have been destroyed - hence, heaven and earth, but no sea.

From this, we can see that water is taking on a entirely different meaning. It is being used to describe everything as a whole, besides the firmament itself, which makes a lot of sense when taking into account what the firmament actually is.

He is not explaining seas as oceans, but rather planets and stars as whole and separated.

So, if God was talking about stars instead of water, why not call them, y'know, stars? Instead of water? I mean, God doesn't have any problems using the word stars in verse 16. Did He forget in verse 6?

" 'And let it separate the waters from the' - hmm, what were they again? Those bright shiny things? I can't remember what to call them right now. Hmm, We'll just stick with 'waters' for the moment, shall We, and if the humans complain - well it's just too bad that I AM WHO I AM!"

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This does not contradict the days of Creation, because as I stated, the beginning was not a day. You can also see that He made the heavens, earth, the sea, and all that is in them. As in, not the seas, but the sea, as in the universe. Heaven and firmament is a constant in my theology that never once is synonymous with stars and space (waters), but rather the mount of God. The firmament is wholly parallel to everything, in between everything else (waters above and below). Exactly how we picture Heaven as not being of this realm.

If you're so hung up about plural vs singular, then what are the "heavens"? There's only really one heaven in your 'theology', namely the dwelling place of God, since the skies above are 'the sea' and not a heaven.

Be as innovative as you please in your theology, it's really not going to do you much good once you start ignoring the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually, no. Nowhere in the Bible, as far as I can see (sea? heh), is sea used in metonymy for people. I don't know why you think it is "commonly believed"; I would love to see citations for it.

I think it is a reference to Rev 17:15 And he said to me, "The waters that you saw, where the harlot is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Actually, no. Nowhere in the Bible, as far as I can see (sea? heh), is sea used in metonymy for people. I don't know why you think it is "commonly believed"; I would love to see citations for it.

Are you really going on a rant because I pointed out how symbolism is used in the Bible?
It is a common belief. That does not mean every person on Earth agrees.
I have an unwavering ability to read between the lines, I already know where your difference is coming from. TE requires much more than mere symbolism or personification to be plausible.
Revelations has yet to be deciphered to a point where anyone can tell someone else different. I was pointing out a popular idea, and was using it as an example off the subject at that, which you are attacking to try and downplay how Genesis hurts TE beyond, way beyond to a degree where you must assume it is false.

Have I not made a symmetry of the creation stories? I really just want to know because it seems like when all else fails, let's twist everything up and stone the blasphemer. It really doe snot surprise me the toll that the Bible has taken on modern Deistic approaches.
I think it's brilliant really. Both happening in unison, every detail accounted for., no contradiction period. But hey, I'm not the Pope, what do I know, right?

 

[shernren]

Are you really going on a rant because I pointed out how symbolism is used in the Bible?

No, I am going on a rant because your use of symbolism is wrong.

It is a common belief. That does not mean every person on Earth agrees.

Can you quote me even one person who does?

I have an unwavering ability to read between the lines, I already know where your difference is coming from. TE requires much more than mere symbolism or personification to be plausible.

Your amazing perceptiveness is matched only by your wondrous humility, Gruj; may you continue to develop those gifts to the glory of God.

But by all means, do tell me what this "difference" is which you "already know" is "coming from"? (For some reason, creationists are particularly given to claiming the power of clairvoyance.)

Revelations has yet to be deciphered to a point where anyone can tell someone else different.

Actually, there are fairly well-known dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist interpretations of Revelations which are standard starting points. May I humbly suggest the Left Behind series as a start.

I was pointing out a popular idea, and was using it as an example off the subject at that, which you are attacking to try and downplay how Genesis hurts TE beyond, way beyond to a degree where you must assume it is false.

You were not pointing out a popular idea, you were trying to promote an eccentric interpretation which (to my knowledge) nobody besides you understands or holds. Which doesn't make it wrong, per se, but it certainly disqualifies it from being a popular idea.

Have I not made a symmetry of the creation stories? I really just want to know because it seems like when all else fails, let's twist everything up and stone the blasphemer. It really doe snot surprise me the toll that the Bible has taken on modern Deistic approaches.

What on earth is a "symmetry of the creation stories", anyway, and why would any good reading of the Bible require that?

I think it's brilliant really. Both happening in unison, every detail accounted for., no contradiction period. But hey, I'm not the Pope, what do I know, right?

Yeah, I have no idea why you're not the Pope either, you certainly strike me as ten times more humble than him - any humbler and you'd have a halo already.

Assyrian: Ahh, there was a reference I was missing! Nevertheless I think the context (as I explained in my earlier post) indicates that "sea" is not being used in Revelations 13 in that way.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

No, I am going on a rant because your use of symbolism is wrong.

No., it isn't. Must I define symbolism, or perhaps personification? Let's not forget that my standing makes sense of the Creation story. Your idea would have one imply that the universe is one big bubbling ball of water.

Can you quote me even one person who does?

The Antichrist - The beast from the sea
Bible Prophecy Truth > The Antichrist > Beasts and Horns

Your amazing perceptiveness is matched only by your wondrous humility, Gruj; may you continue to develop those gifts to the glory of God.

But by all means, do tell me what this "difference" is which you "already know" is "coming from"? (For some reason, creationists are particularly given to claiming the power of clairvoyance.)

Clairvoyance, or simply intuition and depth?
The difference lies in that you are clearly an advocate for TE. Am I right or am I right? The way you attack Genesis at absolutely any idea supporting it concludes it.

Actually, there are fairly well-known dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist interpretations of Revelations which are standard starting points. May I humbly suggest the Left Behind series as a start.

Left Behind series.,
were novels with little comprehension on much of anything besides what appeals to the average Joe.
There is nothing standard about a book of symbols. You might as well tell all non-denominational Christians to pull out a pen and take notes on the real Mccoy.

What on earth is a "symmetry of the creation stories", anyway, and why would any good reading of the Bible require that?

The Bible requires that you look really close at the contexts in which it is describing things. That is, if you actually want deeper understanding.
Symmetry- as in I took the accounts of the days of Creation and the accounts of Adam & Eve- and unified them in a way that they do not contradict.

Yeah, I have no idea why you're not the Pope either, you certainly strike me as ten times more humble than him - any humbler and you'd have a halo already.

And you are humble? Please. I see you had just jumped the gun on everything that was being discussed and went straight for what you thought was going to instantly hurt my standing. Not working out too well though, you can bet that.

 

[shernren]

No., it isn't. Must I define symbolism, or perhaps personification? Let's not forget that my standing makes sense of the Creation story. Your idea would have one imply that the universe is one big bubbling ball of water.

And why shouldn't it be? After all, that's good enough for many creationists. Some believe in canopy theory, and others (notably Russell Humphreys) believe that there is a shell of ice at the edge of the observable universe.

It's better than twisting the text to say what it doesn't say, like turning "waters" into "stars".

The Antichrist - The beast from the sea
Bible Prophecy Truth > The Antichrist > Beasts and Horns

Good! Now we're talking facts and evidence.

But alas, the second link offers no support for your interpretation - even though it refers to "the sea" (which is not in doubt here), it makes no mention of the idea that the sea is a sea of nations.

And the first link simply states baldly:

Both Daniel and John also saw political systems and leaders that they described using the term "Beast". John sees this beast coming up "out of the sea." This beast is a gentile leader of a gentile system. John didn't call it a beast because it was a Gentile. He called it a beast because It comes up out of the sea of "nations".
In Daniel Chapter 7, the prophet records a dream that he had in which he saw the rise and fall of four gentile world empires. Each was characterized as a beast coming from the sea of nations. So the beast from the sea is the political part of the Antichrist's system. Satan is a counterfeiter. So he has an "unholy trinity" that consists of himself (Satan), the Antichrist (the political, religious beast), and the false prophet, (the religious, political beast).​

Again, there is no analysis or exegesis given to support this notion, and certainly nothing which answers the points I have made in my previous post.

So my objection to your interpretation still stands.

Clairvoyance, or simply intuition and depth?
The difference lies in that you are clearly an advocate for TE. Am I right or am I right? The way you attack Genesis at absolutely any idea supporting it concludes it.

Eh? I am not attacking Genesis. I am not attacking an idea supporting it. If anything, I am trying to get you to see that reading "waters" as "stars" is a most non-literal reading that does extreme violence to the text. (Which makes me wonder: why is it always the TEs trying to uphold proper exegesis around here?) And then I am trying to correct your interpretation of Revelation 13.

But there is a term for what you are trying to do in this argument: personal attack. I am quite capable of agreeing with creationists when they say what is right, and disagreeing with evolutionists when they say what is wrong, and I will do so based simply on what they are saying rather on what their personal position is. My being a TE has nothing to do with it: I was once a creationist who was perfectly willing again to criticize creationists where I disagreed with them and accept evolutionist arguments where I agreed with them, and that is precisely how I have gotten to where I am today.

Indeed, a person grows intellectually precisely by the measure to which he is able to objectively engage people who disagree with him. The more wrong I am, the more likely it is that someone who disagrees with me is right and therefore worth listening to: and the better I am at listening to people who disagree with me, the faster I will learn new things.

So, despite your addiction to unsustainable intellectual novelty, your intolerant castigation of people who disagree with you, your obstinate projection of stereotypes on those whom you claim to be dialoguing with, and your inability or unwillingness to deal with even the most basic of surface meanings of the Scriptural text, I will persist in dialogue, simply because if I am wrong, I stand to learn the most from those who are most opposed to my views.

Not that your bumbling replies have given me any confidence so far that my investment of time will pay off.

Left Behind series.,
were novels with little comprehension on much of anything besides what appeals to the average Joe.
There is nothing standard about a book of symbols. You might as well tell all non-denominational Christians to pull out a pen and take notes on the real Mccoy.

Hey, knowing what appeals to the average Joe is a really important skill. It's precisely what makes advertisers so powerful and rich in today's world.

But "there is nothing standard about a book of symbols"? Really? Fine then, in which case, your interpretation is no standard either, and you have no grounds on which to say I am wrong.

The Bible requires that you look really close at the contexts in which it is describing things. That is, if you actually want deeper understanding.
Symmetry- as in I took the accounts of the days of Creation and the accounts of Adam & Eve- and unified them in a way that they do not contradict.

Yes, the Bible rewards deep study, but not at the expense of clear meanings of the text. After all, if "waters" are actually stars, and "day six" is actually "day two" (since you conclude that that was the day on which Adam was created, completely ignoring Genesis 1:26-31), then maybe three is one (divide through by two - hey, it works), and all the Trinitarians don't have a leg to stand on, and we should all be pious Muslims instead.

It's a bit slapstick but do you get the point? The more your interpretation emends the surface meaning of the text, the better your justification had better be. When the writer of Hebrews was making a point about the obsolescence of the Levitical priesthood, he (/she?) didn't just say "Oh, by the way, Jesus is Melchizedek, hallelujah!" and leave it at that - he made a detailed argument with reference to multiple Scripture passages that on their surface pointed to a deep significance in the Melchizedek figure. Again, when heused the Sabbath day as an image of our eschatological rest in Jesus' salvation, he could refer to other texts which on their surface made creative use of "day" to refer to an extended period of time. (And this is directly relevant to interpreting Genesis 1 in a TE fashion.)

Again, my reference to the sea as an image of spiritual powers directly opposed to God (rather than a reference to a multitude of peoples, which may well be the resonances elsewhere) came backed up with texts which on their surface made connections between the sea and primeval chaos / evil, in the figures of Rahab and Leviathan (I omitted these references for brevity). You, on the other hand, have shown no Scriptural texts to back up your strange assertions that:

• There was no water on Earth during the first and second day, in contradiction to Genesis 1:2 and 6, because
• the "waters" of the first half of Genesis 1 actually refer to stars.
• The creative activity on the second day actually refers to the creation of Adam ...
• ... and the creation of man and woman on the sixth day is [fill in the blank], not the creation of Adam.
• The singular "sea" in Exodus 20:11 is significant, but not the plural "heavens"
• and just what "heavens" would you have anyway, since the rest of the universe falls under "sea"?

Your "theology" (really just a cosmogony - you have said nothing important or new about God) is innovative and creative, for sure, but it really has almost nothing to do with Genesis 1 and 2.

And you are humble? Please. I see you had just jumped the gun on everything that was being discussed and went straight for what you thought was going to instantly hurt my standing. Not working out too well though, you can bet that.

And that's a tu quoque fallacy. (Go learn what that is yourself, I can't be doing all the homework around here.)

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And why shouldn't it be? After all, that's good enough for many creationists. Some believe in canopy theory, and others (notably Russell Humphreys) believe that there is a shell of ice at the edge of the observable universe.

That's just ridiculous. I hope you weren't meaning this to actually be taken seriously, did you?
Do you not realize the breakdown of the context I have shown, or are you just thinking and hoping I will not take the time to issue that entire theology over again.
Well, I won't. So you do not have to worry. You are just a straw man:

It's better than twisting the text to say what it doesn't say, like turning "waters" into "stars".

Good! Now we're talking facts and evidence.

But alas, the second link offers no support for your interpretation - even though it refers to "the sea" (which is not in doubt here), it makes no mention of the idea that the sea is a sea of nations.

So you are going to present a white lie straight to my face?
The sea is the nations from which he arises.

So my objection to your interpretation still stands.

No it doesn't, as it never did. I'm actually debating on whether or not I should just put you on my ignore list because this is quite stupid.

Eh? I am not attacking Genesis. I am not attacking an idea supporting it. If anything, I am trying to get you to see that reading "waters" as "stars" is a most non-literal reading that does extreme violence to the text. (Which makes me wonder: why is it always the TEs trying to uphold proper exegesis around here?) And then I am trying to correct your interpretation of Revelation 13.

You cannot correct somebody on something you did not write. Are you prophetic? Are you experiencing visions from God?
The universe is a big ball of water. You solved it. Way to go

Your "theology" (really just a cosmogony - you have said nothing important or new about God) is innovative and creative, for sure, but it really has almost nothing to do with Genesis 1 and 2.

And how is that? Did you know that if there is a symmetry from these stories that one would find it very hard to dismiss them as myth?
It's extremely important, as the stories are not taken as seriously as they should. It is directly part of my theology. I'm glad you pointed out that it is cosmology so I can point out the redundancy of arguing with you.

What was your initial agenda upon coming to this thread anyway? How did 'Theistic-Evolution' translate to 'symbolism'? Out of this entire thread, you singled in on a short example that really has no bearing to the subject anyways and made a huge rant about it.
So what do you think I translate that to? Seriously, I'm getting tired of insufferable people spamming threads with straw mans and trying to insult others intelligence. It's a cheap way of insulting someone without technically breaking the rules, and is ridiculous. Especially when it is a fallacy to begin with.

 

[shernren]

That's just ridiculous. I hope you weren't meaning this to actually be taken seriously, did you?

Hey, don't take it up with me, take it up with this guy:

New creation cosmology

​

At least in his reading of Genesis, "waters" mean waters and "stars" mean stars, instead of "waters" meaning stars and "stars" meaning ... ?

Do you not realize the breakdown of the context I have shown, or are you just thinking and hoping I will not take the time to issue that entire theology over again.
Well, I won't. So you do not have to worry. You are just a straw man:

Fair enough. Should I suppose that #260 and #264 contain enough of your "theology" for me to reasonably interact with?

So you are going to present a white lie straight to my face?
The sea is the nations from which he arises.

Simply repeating something does not an argument make. The points I made in #268 stand.

No it doesn't, as it never did. I'm actually debating on whether or not I should just put you on my ignore list because this is quite stupid.

Well, do whatever you please, it's not like I can or should force you to respond to me.

Some personal advice, though: whenever I've tried to put someone on the ignore list, it's almost always backfired. I see other people responding to the ignored person on the thread and I become more and more curious until I cave in and un-ignore the person. It's a bit of a Romans 7 effect, if you get my drift. It's often better to leave the person off the ignore list, but skim through any posts they make and silently laugh at how silly they are, which leaves you satisfied with your current position without having to spend any time actually engaging with them.

You cannot correct somebody on something you did not write. Are you prophetic? Are you experiencing visions from God?
The universe is a big ball of water. You solved it. Way to go

I don't have visions from God but I sure know how to read the Bible.

Genesis 1 places the stars inside the firmament between the waters, which means that there are waters below the firmament (the oceans) and then there are waters above the firmament (either a shell of ice outside the observable universe, or canopy theory, or a metaphorical description of the fact that the sky is blue).

None of these interpretations require the arbitrary and pointless leap of making "waters" directly equal to the stars themselves.

And how is that? Did you know that if there is a symmetry from these stories that one would find it very hard to dismiss them as myth?
It's extremely important, as the stories are not taken as seriously as they should. It is directly part of my theology. I'm glad you pointed out that it is cosmology so I can point out the redundancy of arguing with you.

There's no point reading a "symmetry" into Genesis 1 and 2 if you are going to shred the text to do so.

Okay, so the stars were created on day 2, and Adam and Eve were created on day 3? Whatever happens to day 4 and day 6 then? Do Genesis 1:14-19 and 1:26-31 have a place in your theology, cosmology, whatever-ology - or did you just cut them out of your Bible with a pair of scissors?

Fact is, I am not convinced that you are actually taking the Bible seriously. If you were taking the Bible seriously, you would engage with all of it - not just the parts that tickle your fancy imagination - and you would try to find out what it actually says - instead of giving me an interpretation where the stuff flowing from my tap goes twinkle in the night sky.

What was your initial agenda upon coming to this thread anyway? How did 'Theistic-Evolution' translate to 'symbolism'? Out of this entire thread, you singled in on a short example that really has no bearing to the subject anyways and made a huge rant about it.
So what do you think I translate that to? Seriously, I'm getting tired of insufferable people spamming threads with straw mans and trying to insult others intelligence. It's a cheap way of insulting someone without technically breaking the rules, and is ridiculous. Especially when it is a fallacy to begin with.

I'm tired of insufferable people spamming threads with strawmen and trying to insult others' intelligence, too! Especially when they make basic grammatical mistakes while doing so. ^^

But the reason I decided to engage you was simply because you are misinterpreting the Bible. Simple as that. I'm a little different from my fellow TEs, in that I don't consider it particularly important to push people into understanding the scientific evidence for evolution. Scientific evidence is difficult to integrate and understand, even for scientifically-educated people like me, so I tend to be gracious about scientific error and ignorance.

But even though not every Christian should expect to understand science, every Christian should expect to understand the Bible. That's why I get really picky about misinterpretations of the Bible, like yours, and that's why I really prefer talking at length about various images and metaphors in the Bible to talking at length about genetics and physics and whatnot.

And what would I gain from trying to arguing for TE with you, anyway? Look - about half a dozen posters have said in various ways on multiple threads for the past two weeks that TE is not deistic, with many arguments and evidences, and all you've done each time is just shake your head and go "Nu-uh. TE is deistic. Obviously I'm right, and you poor deists are just too deluded to know it." So why should I bother?

As far as I'm concerned, you can go on believing that all TEs are brainwashed deistic baby-eating wife-beaters from Kenya, or whatever you happen to implacably believe about us. No skin off my back - you can get in line after the atheists who think I'm a brainwashed soft-headed numskull for even believing in God at all. But I will expect you to interpret and use the Bible responsibly, and I will speak out for it, whether to creationists or evolutionists.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Hey, don't take it up with me, take it up with this guy:

So if someone else believes something or makes a theory I should heed it?
I can't rightfully call some people over-thinkers, but you can because., you think your theology exceeds others out of your unwavering idea that ToE is true?
Your whole post was pretty much a mass of you flattering yourself and downplaying everything I have stated into some ridiculous summary that can truly only be put together by someone equally ridiculous.

At least in his reading of Genesis, "waters" mean waters and "stars" mean stars, instead of "waters" meaning stars and "stars" meaning ... ?

Exactly. Downplaying it. It's stupid. You really think that a book full of metaphors and symbolic intrigue just decided to go literal on the days of Creation? Fine. That is your own undoing. Just know that your idea of Creation contradicts every word and phrase in it.

And it's not as if I didn't construct something beautiful and intelligent. You are just mocking it with false presentation.
​

Simply repeating something does not an argument make. The points I made in #268 stand.

The Anti-Christ is the Beast from the Sea. Whatever else is explained is neither here nor there. What peeves me is that you would actually call me out to be wrong instead of just adding your extra little bit and being done with it. I was never wrong to begin with. And above all, it was an example in an entirely different discussion.
So just because your moot points are acceptable doesn't mean they stood in the first place.

Fact is, I am not convinced that you are actually taking the Bible seriously.

What? Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? I'm not a TE who rejects half the Pentateuch.
You guys don't even respect it. It is not something you should contend creationists with. It's really something you should just keep to yourselves. It holds no more bearing then anything else, marked by the idea that the Bible does not support it period. If my idea in this thread did anything, it showed that outright as far as Creation. Not to mention in Timothy when it straight up tells you to your face that scientific oppositions are going to be wrong.
You want to talk about taking the Bible seriously, then take off the evo hat, grab a Bible, pen, and paper, and get started on a real theology, because TE is just a poor excuse for not wanting to think critically.
Mixing Deism with a personal god is just plain ridiculous, and make no mistake, that is the finishing idea at the bottom of TE logic. So do not ever try to tell me where I stand with the Bible.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

there is no indication that he accepts the "scientific account" of origins as true.
.......He never claimed that he agrees with the scientific account of origins,
...he approved the final text.
And his approval of the text does not amount to an agreement with the scientific account of origins.

Sure it does. The scientific account is the bare facts. His document we are talking about supports that, expanding on it to support theistic evolution, which adds what we know by faith to the bare facts of the scientific account.

so
you are saying that the Church has endorsed the theory of evolution. No honest person would say that.

THe RCC has repeatedly said that theistic evolution, including the bare facts of the scientific account, is an acceptable view of our origins, as long as it is clear that what is known by faith is added, making it theistic evoluiton. That's what Pope Benedict is saying in the commissions report.

or even that he wrote section 63. That is your own wishful thinking.

As we've agreed, it doesn't matter if he personally wrote all of the section 63 or simply agreed with it as president of the commission.


You are contradicting yourself. On on hand, you are saying that the document doesn't support theistic evolution, and only mentions the scientific account without agreeing with it. Then on the other hand, you argue that Pope Benedict didn't agree with the document, because it supports theistic evolution. Well, which is it?

​

If he (Obama) spelled out the conservative philosophy on natural law,limited government,individual liberties
and free market enterprise,would you think he agreed with it?

First of all, yes, since he'd be saying it. Secondly, you know that's an inappropriate analyogy, because he has plenty of other statements that contradict that, while Pope Benedict has no statements anywhere that contradict theistic evolution.

What do you mean by "he has it right in there"? Where in the document does the pope speak his own opinion on the theory of evolution?

Well, I happen to think that Pope Benedict is a man of integrity, and would not help craft and submit a document he thought was wrong. Do you think Pope Benedict would not help craft and submit a document he thought was wrong? Is that an honest thing to do?

Cardinal Schonborn denied your interpretation.

No, he didn't. Everything Cardinal Schonborn says is consistent with the Pope's theistic evolution and of course with my position. Cardinal Schonborn sees no problem with belief in common descent, and says so in the statement you referenced. I've asked you several times if you agree with Cardinal Schonborn about Common Descent. Do you? That's theistic evolution.

Does that mean he supports the use of methodological naturalism to explain how God works in the world?

You'll have be more clear here about the details. Of course he supports the using the results of science as part of theistic evolution. Are you thinking of a particular example of something he said?

< It wasn't the business of the commission to approve or disapprove the scientific account. >


​

Section 53 says : The origins of man are to be found in Christ: for he is created "through him and in him" (Col 1:16), "the Word [who is] the life&#8230;and the light of every man who is coming into the world" (John 1:3-4, 9).

That is the correct view of origins.

Of course, that's perfectly consistent with theistic evolution. After all, it is Christ who supports the process of evolution.

Where does the commission approve the scientific account?

Sections 63 through 70, as we've seen, use the bare facts supplied the scientific account, and expand on them using the knowledge gained by faith, to give us the theistic evolution of the whole document.

I said "scientific theory". Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory,it is a theistic spin on a naturalistic history of organisms.

Call it what you want, the scientific theory gives us the bare facts which we can complete with faith to give theistic evolution, just as the Pope and Cardinal Schonborn do.

​

Then prove it. Show me how this naturalistic theory,which has natural processes alone producing organisms, allows for God to be working in nature?

Because God sustains all those natural processes, thus God is creating through evolution. For proof, simply refer to Scripture, such as Hebrews 1:3:

The Son is the radiance of God&#8217;s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

What natural process? The narrative of evolution theory? It can't be proven to have happened,so it is presumptuous to say that God made it happen. Stick with natural processes we do know happen,like conception and reproduction.

The bare facts of the theory of evolution are fully supported by data, and are as certain as the theories of gravity, atoms, and germs. The Pope supports that realization in the document we are discussing. That document says that common descent is "virtually certain"

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

To deny that is to deny scripture and to endorse a deistic God who doesn't do anything except through things like poofism.

You mean like the idea that God called the universe into existence out of nothing? Or miracles? Or acts of conception?

Yes. As I stated, God acts both ways. Right?

​

God does not empower natural selection and random mutations to produce species.

It just does not happen that way. It is not the proper means. Conception and reproduction are the proper means through which God creates species from prior species.

You are telling us (and God) what are the "proper means" for Him to create? Do you ever accuse anyone of hubris?

Papias

​

 

[Assyrian]

So do not ever try to tell me where I stand with the Bible.

But you can tell shernren where he stands?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

But you can tell shernren where he stands?

Don't start a fight you cannot win, it's that simple. The real question is, why do you take his side when he was the one who started the ridiculous montage? Do not insult my intelligence.

TE's are inherently setup for such because their theology is not validated by anything except a reassurance by the Church that it may be remotely plausible.


Here's something I do not understand about TE's: how is it that they can even use, in defense, that God maintains all. How is it that God is maintaining a universe that, according to TE standards whether they themselves accept it or not, works by itself? Is God making two things collide, or is it God throwing an object to something else being of it's own accord? What is the practicality of God personally maintaining a universe that is wholly cause and effect?

Think about that. It's a meaningless defense. It's like tipping over a domino in a line of dominoes, and yet guiding them anyways.

 

[Assyrian]

Don't start a fight you cannot win, it's that simple. The real question is, why do you take his side when he was the one who started the ridiculous montage? Do not insult my intelligence.

I though he was wrong about waters, at least in thinking there was no basis for the interpretation, and I pointed it out, even though it was just a minor point on a side issue in the discussion. I am taking his side here because you are trying to attack shernren's views without the slightest indication you understand what his views are. You can't even tell where shernren is discussing other creationists views or his own. Why don't you try to learn what TEs believe before you rant against them? Deal with the points shernren is making rather than assume you understand his motivation in making them, and further assume that his supposed motivation invalidates his point.

Remember you sig? It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it ~Aristotle That goes for understanding TE too. How can you try to come up with a coherent aregument if you do not even understand what you are arguing against?

TE's are inherently setup for such because their theology is not validated by anything except a reassurance by the Church that it may be remotely plausible.

TEs are set up for what? Just because you have read some discussion about the Catholic Church's stance on evolution, doesn't mean mean that is the only basis for TE.