It's time to stop being afraid of ridicule

[Diamond72]

So you are dividing the Body of Christ.

Paul tells us there are divisions so we can know who is approved by God and who does not have His approval.

 

[dwb001]

Paul tells us there are divisions so we can know who is approved by God and who does not have His approval.

And it appears as if you also have that ability to cause division and strife in the Body. If that is your calling. Enjoy.

 

[dwb001]

Paul tells us there are divisions so we can know who is approved by God and who does not have His approval.

And it appears as if you also have that ability to cause division and strife in the Body. If that is your calling. Enjoy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolution removes the need for Jesus.
That can be a bit of a sticking point for Christianity.

No, evolution does not remove the need for Jesus. It only means that we have to recenter the hermeneutical mode by which we interpret the Bible.

Besides, for the Jews, Genesis is not, and never has been, the prime crux of the Old Testament; rather, it's the Exodus.

It's the Exodus which entails the establishment of the Torah, by which we know "sin" theologically, with and through Moses and the people of Israel. All we need essentially is the Exodus as the theological center, with Jesus fulfilling all that God set in motion thereafter. Sin is still sin, and Jesus' death on the cross, along with His resurrection is still needed.

The only things that are sticking points are theological concepts which the various writers of both the Old Testament and the New Testament never referred to or utilized.

 

[dwb001]

No, evolution does not remove the need for Jesus. It only means that we have to recenter the hermeneutical mode by which we interpret the Bible.

If God used evolution then death and disease was part of His good plan.
Then death did not come into the world through one man(Adam).
Then life need not come from one man(Christ).
And is man created as Genesis says or is he evolved... then there is no Adam at all.
1 Cor 15:22 says Adam brought death and Christ brought life.

Besides, for the Jews, Genesis is not, and never has been, the prime crux of the Old Testament; rather, it's the Exodus.

No argument here.

It's the Exodus which entails the establishment of the Torah, by which we know "sin" theologically, with and through Moses and the people of Israel. All we need essentially is the Exodus as the theological center, with Jesus fulfilling all that God set in motion thereafter. Sin is still sin, and Jesus' death on the cross, along with His resurrection is still needed.

So you throw out a book of the Bible because it does not suit your theology?
I don't even do that with the RCC extras. I don't study them but I don't throw them out wholesale.
Exodus 20:11 restates the creation timeline.

The only things that are sticking points are theological concepts which the various writers of both the Old Testament and the New Testament never referred to or utilized.

What sticking points? This sentence is a mystery to me.
Romans 5:14 and Job 31:33 show that both the Old and New Testament writers lay sin at the feet of Adam.

I don't understand when you say the Bible writers never 'referenced or utilized' this idea.
Do a simple search of the Bible and you will find more references than what I have provided.
Why do you fight against the Bible? I would like to know why you argue against a simple truth? I really would like to know why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If God used evolution then death and disease was part of His good plan.

Do you think Adam and Eve were picking fruit from the Tree of Life and tossing it to the animals? I don't.

Then death did not come into the world through one man(Adam).
Then life need not come from one man(Christ).
And is man created as Genesis says or is he evolved... then there is no Adam at all.
1 Cor 15:22 says Adam brought death and Christ brought life.

Human writing, including the book of Genesis, is conceptually representational and does not provide that same quality of communication as does, say, a photograph. Those words, when used to form narratives, don't provide necessarily perfect nor comprehensive details and don't necessarily provide a literal reflection of the past. Moreover, Moses wrote everything from his point of view and from his experience; even he didn't know exactly how everything in the past happened before he, himself, lived. And that's ok.

No argument here.

So you throw out a book of the Bible because it does not suit your theology?
I don't even do that with the RCC extras. I don't study them but I don't throw them out wholesale.
Exodus 20:11 restates the creation timeline.

I didn't throw out the book of Genesis. I still see it as sacred, but I don't take it in an ultra literal way. I see it as an ancient theology presented in the form of a genealogical, historicized narrative. It is representational and secondary in nature. The Exodus narrative, although still representational as all human writing is, is primary in nature rather than secondary. It's also the pivotal point of the Torah.

But whatever the historiographical case for Genesis, it's still sacred, and if you want to interpret it in an ultra literal way, that's ok by me. I don't require that you agree with me.

What sticking points? This sentence is a mystery to me.
Romans 5:14 and Job 31:33 show that both the Old and New Testament writers lay sin at the feet of Adam.

Paul wrote what he wrote because he and the rest of the world mostly didn't surmise the earth could have been very, very, very old and that life could have evolved. No, he had to simply assume the Torah Tradition regarding Adam and Eve and their relation to sin in the Eden story. It was the Genesis narratives by which Paul had to reach his conclusions in relation to what Jesus had actually accomplished at that time in the 1st century AD.

I don't understand when you say the Bible writers never 'referenced or utilized' this idea.
Do a simple search of the Bible and you will find more references than what I have provided.
Why do you fight against the Bible? I would like to know why you argue against a simple truth? I really would like to know why?

You've misunderstood me. But that's ok. Just know that evolution isn't a theology killer...despite what some atheists might say,

 

[Diamond72]

It's hard to believe this guy is an actual judge.

The creationists did not present the evidence needed in a court of law. Jay Sekulow has taken a lot of cases to the Supreme court. He has lots of people willing to donate for that cause.

 

[John Helpher]

Just know that evolution isn't a theology killer.

But, it IS a theology confuser. Even if you believe God caused us to be the way we are through many small, gradual steps, that is still intelligent design, not evolutionary theory.

 

[John Helpher]

The creationists did not present the evidence needed in a court of law.

There is a lot of confusion happening with regard to titles like creationist and intelligent design.. Intelligent design does not purport to say which God is the creator or even the method through which he did it, but rather that there is a creator of some kind.

 

[Diamond72]

If God used evolution then death and disease was part of His good plan.
Then death did not come into the world through one man(Adam)

We need to take a close look at what the Bible says: Romans 5 12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" Death through sin is the key here. Even the Bible tells us that there was death in the world before Adam and Eve. Cain says: Genesis 4:14 "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Science clearly shows us there was death before Adam. Although they were cut down in their prime which would indicate to me that they did live to be 1,000 years old. If we look at Kennewick Man or Cheddar man they both appeared to be around 30 years of age. Everything I can find shows the cause of death to be murder. Just as Cain feared.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But, it IS a theology confuser. Even if you believe God caused us to be the way we are through many small, gradual steps, that is still intelligent design, not evolutionary theory.

Evolution only becomes a theology confuser for those who expect the entire Bible to be nothing but an ultra-literal, singular, inerrant work of God's own writing.

 

[FaithT]

Evolution only becomes a theology confuser for those who expect the entire Bible to be nothing but an ultra-literal, singular, inerrant work of God's own writing.

But you believe the Bibleis Gods word, correct?

 

[Diamond72]

intelligent design

We are talking Michael J Behe.

"As he took the witness stand in a packed courtroom, ready to dissect Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, biochemist Michael J. Behe looked confident and relaxed. Then he learned what it felt like to be under a microscope.

Isn’t it true, an attorney asked, that Behe’s critique of Darwin and support for intelligent design, a rival belief about the origins of life, have little scientific support?

Yes, Behe conceded."

My brother makes $500 an hour for being a expert witness. He said it is rough to stand up to the cross examination. Science stands in a court of law because they provide the evidence the court wants. Behe failed to do that.

The Case of Behe vs. Darwin

An unassuming biochemist who became the lead witness for intelligent design is unfazed by criticism but glad he has tenure.

www.latimes.com

 

[Diamond72]

There is a lot of confusion happening with regard to titles like creationist and intelligent design.. Intelligent design does not purport to say which God is the creator or even the method through which he did it, but rather that there is a creator of some kind.

Like God, the laws of Science are invisible. We can only study the effect they have. In the same way they do not know where or how memory is stored. Only that there are areas of the brain that process different kinds of memory. Science can not say there is no God. Even evolution can not say there is no God. Although Theistic Evolution is not well designed. Other than to say whatever evolution is, this is how God did what He did.

 

[Diamond72]

And it appears as if you also have that ability to cause division and strife in the Body. If that is your calling. Enjoy.

God is calling me to serve Him not man's traditions. I do not think I would be alive if I were not doing what He wants me to do. I took four teacher training classes at the Bible college to improve my teaching and communication skills.

 

[dwb001]

God is calling me to serve Him not man's traditions. I do not think I would be alive if I were not doing what He wants me to do. I took four teacher training classes at the Bible college to improve my teaching and communication skills.

Get you money back.

 

[dwb001]

We need to take a close look at what the Bible says: Romans 5 12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" Death through sin is the key here. Even the Bible tells us that there was death in the world before Adam and Eve. Cain says: Genesis 4:14 "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Science clearly shows us there was death before Adam. Although they were cut down in their prime which would indicate to me that they did live to be 1,000 years old. If we look at Kennewick Man or Cheddar man they both appeared to be around 30 years of age. Everything I can find shows the cause of death to be murder. Just as Cain feared.

You missed the first part of the verse.
Death came by sin but sin came by man.
Your own reference condemns your interpretation.

Science shows death before Adam you say... so you are placing science as an authority abowlve the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But you believe the Bibleis Gods word, correct?

Yes, I do, BUT only after taking into full acount the applications of critical, scholarly studies from various angles.

Needles to say, my understanding about what the Bible is, how it works, and what it means is a bit different in some regards than is that of fundamentalist Christians. My understanding allows for affirming the Theory of Evolution while also, at the same time, taking seriously the contents of the Scriptures.

And if other, fellow Christians want to understand the Bible in a more literalist way, then for the most part, I don't mind too much if they do. What I get tired of is the constant harrassing I get that I'm somehow "less" of a Christian because I understand the Bible a little differently, even though I too believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God, lived, died for our sins on the cross and rose again.

 

[FaithT]

Get you money back.

Yeah, bc you’re right and everybody else is wrong.

 

[FaithT]

Yes, I do, BUT only after taking into full acount the applications of critical, scholarly studies from various angles.

Needles to say, my understanding about what the Bible is, how it works, and what it means is a bit different in some regards than is that of fundamentalist Christians. My understanding allows for affirming the Theory of Evolution while also, at the same time, taking seriously the contents of the Scriptures.

And if other, fellow Christians want to understand the Bible in a more literalist way, then for the most part, I don't mind too much if they do. What I get tired of is the constant harrassing I get that I'm somehow "less" of a Christian because I understand the Bible a little differently, even though I too believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God, lived, died for our sins on the cross and rose again.

Well, I think I agree with you.