I've been working a YEC (mostly) forum for a while.

[ObbiQuiet]

I'm trying to get some of the YECs to start to see the truth of evolution. I don't want to make them think Christianity is wrong, but I've found it incredibly difficult to get them to accept a non-literal interpritation of Gensis on up. They pose questions about the liniage in the Bible from Adam up to Jesus, that why would they bother writing that if it wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

What just dissappoints me is I think I've lost them. They are now convinced that evolution and the Bible cannot mix without extreme leniency to the interpritation. Personally, that's the way I feel also - which is probably one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

I was just hoping I could be a sort of 'miracle-worker' and cure some ignorance.

 

[armed2010]

link?

 

[ObbiQuiet]

No.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Kidding: http://www.theconsecrated.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?,v=mindex,b=ch

Edit: You have to sign up I think.

 

[Arikay]

It was supposed to be taken literally. its the adam part that wasn't.

Two interpretations,

1) if adam and eve represents the very first humans, and the first animals with a soul, then they most likely represent a group, but its a group we all are linked too, you, me, jesus, etc. We can still be linked to them like this and not have them be 2 literal people that lived 6000 years ago. The genealogies link us to these 2 symbolic people instead of explaining our full linkage through the years because its trying to get accross a spiritual point and not give us data.

2) If Adam and Eve represent every human that ever lived (as a symbol of our souls and our nature) then we are all linked to this symbolic Adam and Eve. They are born in all of us, and pick the fruit in all of us. So the genealogies link us to them, because they are symbols for every mans fall. Jesus was linked to them because even though he was perfect, he was still a man, and thus still connected to them.

So, as you can see the genealogies can be correct without the need of a literal reading of Adam and Eve.

 

[napajohn]

It was supposed to be taken literally. its the adam part that wasn't.

Two interpretations,

1) if adam and eve represents the very first humans, and the first animals with a soul, then they most likely represent a group, but its a group we all are linked too, you, me, jesus, etc. We can still be linked to them like this and not have them be 2 literal people that lived 6000 years ago. The genealogies link us to these 2 symbolic people instead of explaining our full linkage through the years because its trying to get accross a spiritual point and not give us data.

2) If Adam and Eve represent every human that ever lived (as a symbol of our souls and our nature) then we are all linked to this symbolic Adam and Eve. They are born in all of us, and pick the fruit in all of us. So the genealogies link us to them, because they are symbols for every mans fall. Jesus was linked to them because even though he was perfect, he was still a man, and thus still connected to them.

So, as you can see the genealogies can be correct without the need of a literal reading of Adam and Eve.

wow an atheist (I think) giving me a version of how to read the Bible ..whats next : Jesus really represents sacrifice...each man must sacrifice his XXXX
to God to attain heaven..great job Arikay..can you do Revelations and the Gospels for us?

 

[Arikay]

LoL. I was just repeating what christians have told me and they understood the bible pretty well, so I think I trust them.

All though I think its funny that you dont trust it because im an atheist, hmm, a little prejudice maybe?

 

[napajohn]

LoL. I was just repeating what christians have told me and they understood the bible pretty well, so I think I trust them.

All though I think its funny that you dont trust it because im an atheist, hmm, a little prejudice maybe?

Did those Christians tell you of salvation and redemption? So why not trust them about it..that is if they even mentioned it..Arikay, read the Bible for yourself and see what it says...

 

[Arikay]

Wether I believe it, is seperate from how they have explained it. I can still not believe in it, yet understand it.

I understand the book "1984" pretty well, yet I dont believe its real and that all of that happend in the past. Just like I can understand the bible, without believing it.

I have been reading the bible, and many other things, and I do agree with them, that genesis could be taken to mean both of what I listed.

Just like in 1984 I believe that the ministry of peace was both a real place in the books universe (a fictional one) and a symbol and message about our world or our actions.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

But then of course Arikay cannot actually understand the Bible since he's not saved. He doesn't see the secret meaning behind everything.

 

[Mike Flynn]

What just dissappoints me is I think I've lost them. They are now convinced that evolution and the Bible cannot mix without extreme leniency to the interpritation. Personally, that's the way I feel also - which is probably one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

The trouble is this: they will never listen to what they percieve as 'extra biblical' ideas. But they will, in general, take notice if someone is willing to debate from a strictly biblical perspective.

I would guess that this is not your strong suit since you say you are not a Christian. (If only I cound convince people that being a Christian has very little to do with understanding that you 'are one')

Anyway, there are lots of biblical reasons to question a literal interpretation of the Bible. The big ones come from Jesus himself and the way he treats the pharisees and the way he defines what real life and death are.

The second thing is that in order to interpret scriptures correctly, we have to understand who wrote them down...how did they understand the world, etc. Like science, most literalists consider this data irrelevant as well. God dictated the scriptures, etc. Of course, he dictated them in ways that they could understand.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm trying to get some of the YECs to start to see the truth of evolution. I don't want to make them think Christianity is wrong, but I've found it incredibly difficult to get them to accept a non-literal interpritation of Gensis on up. They pose questions about the liniage in the Bible from Adam up to Jesus, that why would they bother writing that if it wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

What just dissappoints me is I think I've lost them. They are now convinced that evolution and the Bible cannot mix without extreme leniency to the interpritation. Personally, that's the way I feel also - which is probably one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

I was just hoping I could be a sort of 'miracle-worker' and cure some ignorance.

Well, you started off right. You tried to reassure them that accepting evolution did not mean giving up Christianity.

Now, remember, it's only Genesis 1-8 that's not literal. The references to Adam in Jesus' lineages (which are themselves not literal) is simply literary. Those lineages have nothing to do with Jesus' theological status.

Not only that, but every reference Jesus makes to Genesis 1-8 is the the theology, not to literal history.

But yes, some people are so entrenched in worshipping their false idol of Biblical literalism that they will not change. I got kicked off a Baptist board because I was too reasonable and persuasive! Remember, when you challenge a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8, you are committing blasphemy against their god.

 

[lucaspa]

The second thing is that in order to interpret scriptures correctly, we have to understand who wrote them down...how did they understand the world, etc. Like science, most literalists consider this data irrelevant as well. God dictated the scriptures, etc. Of course, he dictated them in ways that they could understand.

Excellent point, Mike. This one needs to be hammered again and again. You have to interpret within the time the document was written. Obbi, even Christian apologetic sites emphasize this.

http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

"Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation. "

Creationists violate all three of these rules. Especially the last one.

 

[lucaspa]

Not fair, Obbi. You got me involved with my "The Real issue post"

 

[TrueCreation]

What just dissappoints me is I think I've lost them. They are now convinced that evolution and the Bible cannot mix without extreme leniency to the interpritation. Personally, that's the way I feel also - which is probably one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

--I recommend discussing this with Glenn Morton on the theologyweb forum, he seems to have some intelligent incite on this theological paradigm:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=64

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[lucaspa]

What just dissappoints me is I think I've lost them. They are now convinced that evolution and the Bible cannot mix without extreme leniency to the interpritation.

You've lost them in more than that. They have shut discussion of evolution down entirely. Even to the point that two topics I started Dec. 25th on just science have been deleted but the personal attack responses are still there. And now there is a sticky saying that there will be no more discussion of evolution on the board at all!

1. You need to work at your tact a little.
2. I think their god was being threatened.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

You've lost them in more than that. They have shut discussion of evolution down entirely. Even to the point that two topics I started Dec. 25th on just science have been deleted but the personal attack responses are still there. And now there is a sticky saying that there will be no more discussion of evolution on the board at all!

1. You need to work at your tact a little.

Yeah, I brutally murdered that. Well, at least it was a learning experiance.

It was a pitiful failure.

2. I think their god was being threatened.

I don't see what I could have done more to make sure he wasn't. Perhaps I could even move to capitalizing the personal pronouns, and say it is out of respect (which it would be).

 

[Arikay]

Unfortunatly sometimes tact is not enough (allthough I dont know what happend on the other board). Sometimes they will find attacks in the most inoccent things, often because they are expecting it, so if it doesn't exist they will create it in their mind. At least thats been my experience with some of the more hardcore creationists.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Unfortunatly sometimes tact is not enough (allthough I dont know what happend on the other board). Sometimes they will find attacks in the most inoccent things, often because they are expecting it, so if it doesn't exist they will create it in their mind. At least thats been my experience with some of the more hardcore creationists.

Which is exactly what happened (or what they were waiting to happen), and I felt I started getting control. Then Ikester showed up, saying I hate Christians - he gave them a reason.

 

[Arikay]

Unfortunatly Ikester seems to be good at that, and cant quite seperate creationism and christianity, according to him I would think that the majority of christians hate christianity.

One of the best things that ive found to do is to just come right out and anounce you are an atheist, that evolution does not equal atheism, that you do not want to convert anyone to atheism and that you would like them to stay christian. As its the truth for many atheists I have met here, and it can sometimes catch those that want to vilify you off guard.