One big problem with evolution I see

I'm wondering, if Adam and Eve weren't real, historical people but only "real" in a representative, symbolic sense, how do I know the entire bible isn't this way?

To illustrate my question, note the geneology in Luke ch3. At what point does it change from symbolic to real people?

I'd say right about the point where it starts to disagree with Matthew about who was the father of the man who married Mary (and was not the father of Jesus).

gluadys said:

So, if God tells a story and later refers to that story, it makes the story real even though God knows it is not?

Click to expand...

This is one of the best and most succint replies I've seen recently.

Silent Enigma said:

I'm wondering, if Adam and Eve weren't real, historical people but only "real" in a representative, symbolic sense, how do I know the entire bible isn't this way?

To illustrate my question, note the geneology in Luke ch3. At what point does it change from symbolic to real people?

Click to expand...

You're asking a question that shows you're still bogged down in the mindset that begs for the "infallible, inerrant word of God" interpretation. You want everything to be obvious and immediately comprehensible. It's not. Why? Because the Genesis mythology is from a couple millenia before Christ in the Ancient Near East. Acts is from the second half of the 1st century A.D. in the Hellenized Roman Empire. Do you see what I'm getting at? Hint: neither books are from 21st century America. Each individual book or passage must never be interpreted without all due recognition of the time and culture of the author and the original audience, as well as the particular genre of literature it is.

This leads us to believe that the creation account, as mythology from the ANE, has no concern at all for scientific history such as we see in the writings of Luke, who in the style of modern historians tells us that he gathered all he could from multiple sources to get at accurate "history" proper. The difference in genealogies is likely due to Matthew's Jewish procedure for accounting Jesus' ancestry through his earthly father, and Luke's reasoning that his ancestry should be reckoned from his only actual biological parent, Mary. Anyway, as I said before, we must take the pages of Scripture for what they were originally intended to be, and must regard them as the type of document they actually were.

gluadys said:

Adam's sin condemns Adam. Our sin condemns us. There is no need for Jesus to redeem us from Adam's sin.

Perhaps you are confusing first sin with original sin.

Click to expand...

The first sin is the Original Sin. I'm not confusing anything. Jesus came to reconcile the world that had fallen through Adam's sin, as St Paul explains.

As it says in the Gospel According to Elvis Costello (Revised Standard Version):

"There's no such thing as an original sin."​

Defens0rFidei said:

Jesus came to reconcile the world that had fallen through Adam's sin, as St Paul explains.

Click to expand...

That's much better. That's saying that the problem is that human sin not only severs humanity from God, but all the world which had been given into the dominion of humanity. Hence, Jesus comes to save the world (human and natural) from the grasp of sin.

Within that overall purpose He also redeems each of us from the guilt of our own sin; Adam from Adam's sin, you from yours and me from mine.


And this perspective is valid whether Paul is considering Adam as individual, archetype or both.

lucaspa said:

My only caveat is with "I don't suggest the average Christian who is unaware of the theological issues is jeopardizing his/her salvation by allegiance to this belief. Salvation is grounded in Christ, not in concepts about Eden and evolution." While true, I think Biblical literalists/creationists no longer have their grounding in Christ. Rather, they have made the Bible into a god to worship. This is what worries me about HappyPrincess when she advocates the literal reading as the ultimate authority in deciding any issue. This, IMO, is now worship of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the literal interpretation has become "God". This is false idol making and worship. And that is indeed a salvation issue.

So, yes, I do worry that the professional creationists and those Biblical literal pastors have created a salvation issue and are leading their flocks astray.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree very much with this point.

I belong to the Presbyterian Church in Canada. We have memberships in many ecumenical organizations such as the Canadian Council of Churches. Some of our more conservative members would like us also to become full members (rather than observers) with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

This was a matter of discussion on one of our web-site forums, and one perspective that was put forward as a reason for not joining the EFC was this very point.

The EFC has a statement of faith which members must subscribe to. The first article in that statement of faith is about scripture being inspired and authoritative. I don't know if it says inerrant. Probably does.

The person posting didn't suggest the statement on scripture was un-Presbyterian. But he was most emphatic that it was un-Presbyterian to put it first in a statement of faith. How could the heirs of Calvin subscribe to a statement of faith that puts the bible ahead of God?!

Now with "sola scriptura" being a Calvinist watchword, this is not at all to denigrate scripture. But God is still God and God properly comes first.

gluadys said:

Now with "sola scriptura" being a Calvinist watchword, this is not at all to denigrate scripture. But God is still God and God properly comes first.

Click to expand...

I sometimes call the idea of an inerrant, infallible Bible "sola scriptura on steroids". Calvin's point (and Luther's) was that scripture alone was needed as a means of finding out about God. That is, you didn't need a priest or bishop or Pope as an intermediary to lead you to God. Simply reading scripture would provide the means. That original sola scriptura never said the Bible was inerrant or infallible. In fact, Calvin noted places where the literal reading was in errror! All the Bible had to be was sufficiently accurate in theology to allow people to find God. Somehow since Calvin and Luther's time, steroids have been pumped into sola scriptura to give us the monstrosity we see now.

Curt said:

Prov 14:12
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
(KJV)

Eccl 12:11-13
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
(KJV)

Prov 3:5-8
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
(KJV)

Isa 2:11-17
11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,
14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,
15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
(KJV)

Click to expand...

Great, Curt. You can quote the Bible. But can you tell us what these mean?

Remember, the TEs here are arguing for exalting God. Our claim is that Creation Science and Biblical literalism is no longer exalting God. It is exalting a literal reading of the Bible -- something literalists have made out of their 'wisdom'. Also, literalists don't trust God. They don't really believe that God created and that we can trust what God is telling us in His Creation. Instead, we are just supposed to trust their human, fallible, literal interpretation of the Bible.

So, the quotes you have here support TEs much more than they do creationism. I hope that was your point.

Curt said:

Gen 1:1-31
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 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.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 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.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
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.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(KJV)

Click to expand...

Now let's go to Genesis 2:4 in KJV: "These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," So, after just telling us it took 6 days, now you have God telling us it took one day! Just how much of a neon sign do you need for God to put up telling you not to take the stories literally?

Also, look when birds are created. Day 5. Animals and humans are created after that. Yet in Genesis 2:16-18 we have a man created first, then animals and birds. Another huge neon sign that you are reading the Bible wrong. Look, if you won't pay attention to what God is saying, there's nothing we can do to help you.

Exod 20:10-11
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: (KJV)

Click to expand...

In verse 10, God commanding the sabbath should be enough. But the human authors of Genesis 1 wanted a justification. So they constructed creation to be 6 days. Then when the editor put the Pentateuch together he inserted verse 11 above to complete the justification.

Exod 31:15-17
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (KJV)

Lev 25:3-4
3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. (KJV)

Click to expand...

You forgot the verse in Leviticus like the above, where the editor has put the unnecessary justification. BTW, how many Judeo-Christian farmers do you know who keep a field fallow in the seventh year? Why not?

Job 40:15
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
(KJV)

Job 41:1
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? (KJV)

Click to expand...

No mention of how God created these two. Why can't it be by evolution?

Pretty definite that God didn't have time for much of that evolutions gobledy goop.

Click to expand...

Not clear at all. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict so much that it is clear that God is telling us not to read them literally. So, since they are not literal accounts, why could not God have created by evolution?

Don't have to be no rocket scientist to see that God didn't have a bit of trouble writting what was a day, and what was a year.

Click to expand...

God didn't write the Bible. Even Jesus in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 says Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not God. Not nice to give false witness, especially just after you quoted us a verse to keep the commandments!

You seem to be under the impression that you are dealing with Old Earth Creationists using the "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord". You are not. No one on this thread has claimed that. Please pay attention to what people say. Discussion goes a lot better that way.

lucaspa,

I try to stay out of these topics for specific reason. I would like to point out one issue that you raise in a remote way that is very valid. God is not bound by the context of time. This is shown through the simple fact that God makes statements like "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you." We (on the other hand) are bound to a context of time. I will support the underlying probability that a day could have been a billion years in our frame of reference, but our plane of existence and God's do not cross until we stand before him, at which point we will see things as he does and finally understand infinite existence from first hand experience. Therefore it is illogical to assume any time requirements for creation or any element therein.

I do find it curious though that you willingly claim biblical contradiction to support theory on how God did everything.

Genesis 2:4 uses the word day as you state and Strongs would define the word day in that context as follows...

3117 - Hebrew

3117 yowm yome

from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

You probably meant Genesis 2:16-19

Gen 2:16 And the LORD 3068 God 430 commanded 6680 the man 120, saying 559, Of every tree 6086 of the garden 1588 thou mayest freely 398 eat 398: thou...: Heb. eating thou shalt eat
Gen 2:17 But of the tree 6086 of the knowledge 1847 of good 2896 and evil 7451, thou shalt not eat 398 of it: for in the day 3117 that thou eatest 398 thereof thou shalt surely 4191 die 4191. thou shalt surely...: Heb. dying thou shalt die
Gen 2:18 And the LORD 3068 God 430 said 559, It is not good 2896 that the man 120 should be 1961 alone; I will make 6213 him an help meet 5828 for him. (meet...: Heb. as before him)
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground 127 the LORD 3068 God 430 formed 3335 every beast 2416 of the field 7704, and every fowl 5775 of the air 8064; and brought 935 them unto Adam 120 to see 7200 what he would call 7121 them: and whatsoever Adam 120 called 7121 every living 2416 creature 5315, that 1931 was the name thereof 8034. (Adam: or, the man)

Once again, we cannot know the time reference based on these scriptures due to the fact that we are not infinite like God. This may very well simply display this fact, back to the old illogical to assume any time requirements for creation or any element therein. The writer is clearly stating God’s thought process in this event. Don’t forget that God’s time line would equal a single event that always was and will always be, or no time at all. Therefore the sequence of events that we need to understand creation is totally invalid and not applicable in God’s plane of existence.

I should add that Genesis is written in a very anti-sequential order where the writer eludes to an event in time and then later in the writings returns to that same event with greater detail. This happens throughout the whole book, not just in this specific case.

rmills said:

God is not bound by the context of time. This is shown through the simple fact that God makes statements like "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."

Click to expand...

Many Christians have advanced the idea that God is outside of time. That may well be, but your verse doesn't show that. It shows that God was around a long time before we were born and it may show that souls existed before we got into bodies, but within the universe God is bound to time. He cannot know the future. He created a universe that limited Him in knowing the future.

I will support the underlying probability that a day could have been a billion years in our frame of reference, but our plane of existence and God's do not cross until we stand before him, at which point we will see things as he does and finally understand infinite existence from first hand experience. Therefore it is illogical to assume any time requirements for creation or any element therein.

Click to expand...

While "yom" can mean a period longer than a day, the context of Genesis 1 is specific that the authors meant a day. They did so to justify the Sabbath -- work 6 days and rest on the 7th. God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th. If this is a billion years, it destroys the justification.

I do find it curious though that you willingly claim biblical contradiction to support theory on how God did everything.

Click to expand...

What I did was not use the contradiction as support of evolution, but as evidence refuting a literal reading of the text. The contradiction between the two creation stories was first noted in 1680, long before evolution came along.

Genesis 2:4 uses the word day as you state and Strongs would define the word day in that context as follows...

Click to expand...

In this case, Strong's misses the word. If you look at Hebrew transliterations of Genesis 2, you find that the word is not simply "yom". Rather, it is beyom. And that prefix "be" turns the word into something different. Strong's acknowledges this is the translation of "in the day". Which is correct, because "be" does mean "in the". It converts "yom" into a period shorter than a 24 hour day.

Once again, we cannot know the time reference based on these scriptures due to the fact that we are not infinite like God.

Click to expand...

However, we are not trying to find out God's time. We are trying to determine whether the scriptures are to be read literally. God didn't write this directly, remember? Humans did. The two creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 contradict. Since they do, what it means is that they were not meant to be read literally. If they were, we wouldn't have the contradictions. So now we have to figure out what they were really trying to say and not use them as the basis of a scientific theory.

The writer is clearly stating God’s thought process in this event.

Click to expand...

Which thought process? Or rather, thoughts about what? About the sequence and timing and method of creation? Or God's thought processes on polytheism, the relationship of man and God, etc.?

Here, this gives a more detailed discussion of how I think we ought to read the creation stories. http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1037

lucaspa said:

Many Christians have advanced the idea that God is outside of time. That may well be, but your verse doesn't show that. It shows that God was around a long time before we were born and it may show that souls existed before we got into bodies, but within the universe God is bound to time. He cannot know the future. He created a universe that limited Him in knowing the future.

In this case, Strong's misses the word. If you look at Hebrew transliterations of Genesis 2...

God didn't write this directly, remember? Humans did...

Which thought process? Or rather, thoughts about what? About the sequence and timing and method of creation? Or God's thought processes on polytheism, the relationship of man and God, etc.?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, it takes me longer than most to formulate an understanding of a person and their specific beliefs. I try to listen to people from an unbiased position. I try, LOL, but quite often fail!

If one discredits the source and purposes of God's word, one may quite literally define it as whatever one chooses. Truth does not change, and you still state that "He created a universe that limited Him in knowing the future." You cannot know that. There is no logical or biblically founded spiritual reason for that statement. You imply with clarity that God cannot know the future therefore a vast portion of the Bible is speculation rather than prophesy, or man made dreams based loosley on history seen through ones individual perception rather than devine intervention, the hand of God or spirit breathed and so on.

How do you create space and time from the confines of space and time? Dont bother to answer because I allready heard the best response anyone has ever come up with out of the however many.

Now that I understand your position on Predest. vs. Free Will, I can clearly see where you are coming from. You obviously base alot of theory on this belief process, as it accounts for your ability to discredit scripture and skip the reasoning with "...but as evidence refuting a literal reading of the text." It will be futile for me to continue with 1001 reasons why Strongs this or 1001 reasons why KJV that when you believe that at the core of scripture, all there is is a bunch of cool stories. This is where I respectfully have to bow out of the discussion because I believe that the word of God is something entirly different from what you believe it to be. This is all in fact a theological debate at its core rather than a scientific debate. This once again shows that 96% of the "christian" folks believe that there are no absolute truths.

I will just be hoppin' back onto the short bus now.

But thanks for the link, I do appreciate that.

rmills said:

I'm sorry, it takes me longer than most to formulate an understanding of a person and their specific beliefs. I try to listen to people from an unbiased position. I try, LOL, but quite often fail!

If one discredits the source and purposes of God's word, one may quite literally define it as whatever one chooses. Truth does not change, and you still state that "He created a universe that limited Him in knowing the future." You cannot know that. There is no logical or biblically founded spiritual reason for that statement.

Click to expand...

1. No one is discrediting "the source and purposes of God's word". Instead, we are discussing particular human interpretations of that word and what the purposes of the word really is. IOW, it's not "God's word" being discussed, but how humans interpret it. And, if you will look thru the discussions, the liberal TEs here are much more strict about literal definitions and not defining word's as one chooses. For instance, I don't think you can choose to define "beyom" as anything else than a period of time shorter than a 24 hour day. Yet lots of people want to get a different definition because of the consequences.
2. Truth does not change. But there are different types of truth.
3. Which brings us to your real complaint, that God created a universe such that He is limited in knowing the future. There is, however, God's Creation. God created an indeterminant universe. That is, God created a universe where the future is not determined by what happens in the past. When Heisenberg discovered the Uncertainty Principle, he found that certain aspects of the universe cannot be known. It isn't a matter of having greater knowledge or more measuring power; those aspects simply can't be known. By anyone or anything, including God. For instance, you cannot know precisely the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. You can't know which atom of a group radioactive atoms will decay next.

The universe appears regular and determinant because, on the macro scale that we live at, the probabilities are regular. Thus, if you have 100 atoms of Sulfur 35, you know that 50 of them will decay in 90 days. But you can't know which 50. Nor can you know which one will decay next.

God reveals that He is very powerful and knowlegdable. Humans have taken this and extrapolated that God is all powerful and all knowing. Some Christians have even gone so far as to say that God must be omnipotent and omniscient. This has gotten Christianity into a lot of trouble. But the question is: how powerful and knowing does an entity have to be to qualify as God?

You imply with clarity that God cannot know the future therefore a vast portion of the Bible is speculation rather than prophesy, or man made dreams based loosley on history seen through ones individual perception rather than devine intervention, the hand of God or spirit breathed and so on.

Click to expand...

There was divine intervention. Intervention in the Exodus and intervention in God becoming human. Those two at least, with other events in history interpreted as being interventions by God. I've never been hung up on Biblical prophecy and have never needed or used such "prophecy" as part of the "proof" of God. Standards of scholarship were different then. It was common in all cultures to take an event that had already happened and then have it "prophesied". IOW, you retrodicted the prophecy back in time, already knowing what had happened. To us, that is wrong. To them, it wasn't.

How do you create space and time from the confines of space and time?

Click to expand...

That's not the issue, anyway. The issue is the character of the spacetime that was created. That spacetime is constructed such that God can't know the future. I think God did it that way deliberately and for a purpose. And I personally approve of the purpose and am thankful that God did it that way.

Now that I understand your position on Predest. vs. Free Will,

Click to expand...

You understand nothing of my position on that, because I haven't commented. You are extrapolating from what I have said to that issue.

You obviously base alot of theory on this belief process, as it accounts for your ability to discredit scripture and skip the reasoning with "...but as evidence refuting a literal reading of the text." It will be futile for me to continue with 1001 reasons why Strongs this or 1001 reasons why KJV that when you believe that at the core of scripture, all there is is a bunch of cool stories.

Click to expand...

You can use Strong's. After all, I do so a lot. I just did so with Gander to refute his contention that Luke 2:1 meant only the Roman world from the text alone instead of "the whole world". It's just that in this particular instance Strong's doesn't help because it doesn't do the entire Hebrew word. It only does "yom" and ignores the "be" prefix. Thus, reading Strong's, you get the impression that the "in the" is just something the English translators threw in and doesn't have a basis in the Hebrew.

It's just that I believe that God cannot contradict God. And, since Christians agree that Creation is the second book of God, that Creation and the Bible have to agree. I agree with the the evangelical Christians who wrote the first quote in my signature: when the book of Creation disagrees with our interpretation of the Bible, then our interpretation of the Bible is faulty.

This is where I respectfully have to bow out of the discussion because I believe that the word of God is something entirly different from what you believe it to be. This is all in fact a theological debate at its core rather than a scientific debate.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a theological debate. It's about whether you worship God or you worship the false idol you call "the word of God".

This once again shows that 96% of the "christian" folks believe that there are no absolute truths.

Click to expand...

And where do you get that idea? It's an absolute truth that the earth is not flat. It's an absolute truth that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Any argument about those truths? Most people don't. I think it's an absolute truth that you should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." All the major religions I can think of have that truth in them. I think where you find disagreement is among other areas where you think you have an absolute truth that isn't.

lucaspa said:

God reveals that He is very powerful and knowlegdable. Humans have taken this and extrapolated that God is all powerful and all knowing. Some Christians have even gone so far as to say that God must be omnipotent and omniscient. This has gotten Christianity into a lot of trouble. But the question is: how powerful and knowing does an entity have to be to qualify as God?

Click to expand...

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;

Jos 1:9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and brave. Do not be afraid or discouraged, for Jehovah your God is with you in all places where you go.

2Ch 2:5 And the house which I am building shall be great, for our God is greater than all gods.
2Ch 2:6 But who has strength to enclose a house for Him, since the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him? And who am I that I should build Him a house, except to offer before Him?

Act 15:18 All His works are known to God from eternity.

Job 33:12 Behold, you are not right in this. I will answer you, for God is greater than man.
Job 33:13 Why do you contend against Him, since He does not give account to you for any of His matters?
Job 33:14 For in one way God may speak, and in a second, but one does not regard it.

Job 36:22 Behold, God is exalted in His power. Who is a teacher like Him?
Job 36:23 Who has appointed Him His way; or who can say, You have done wrong?
Job 36:24 Remember that you magnify His work, of which men have sung;
Job 36:25 every man has seen it; man beholds it from afar.
Job 36:26 Behold, God is great, and we do not know; the number of His years cannot be searched out.
Job 36:27 For He draws up the drops of water; they distill rain into mist,
Job 36:28 which the clouds drip down, and drop upon men plentifully.
Job 36:29 Also can any understand the spreading of the clouds, the crashing of His canopy?
Job 36:30 Behold, He spreads His light about Him, and He covers the bottom of the sea.
Job 36:31 For He judges the people by them; He gives plenty of food.
Job 36:32 He covers His hands with the lightning, and commands it to strike the mark;
Job 36:33 its thunder tells about Him; also the cattle, as to what is coming.

Mat 22:29 And answering, Jesus said to them, You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Ecc 3:10 I have seen the task which God has given to the sons of men, to be humbled by it.
Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, He has set eternity in their heart, without which man cannot find out the work that God makes from the beginning even to the end.

Pro 8:22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from that which was before the earth.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no springs heavy with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth;
Pro 8:26 before He had made the earth and the fields, or the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle on the face of the deep,
Pro 8:28 when He formed the clouds above, when He made the strong fountains of the deep,
Pro 8:29 when He gave to the sea its limit, that the waters should not pass beyond His command; when He decreed the foundations of the earth,
Pro 8:30 then I was at His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before Him at every time;
Pro 8:31 rejoicing in the world, His earth; and my delight was with the sons of men.

Isaiah 40 To long to post.


Rev 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty.

Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last.

Isa 45:18 For so says Jehovah, Creator of the heavens; He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, not creating it empty, but forming it to be lived in. I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Rom 1:21 Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became foolish
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

I really could not even begin to understand where people get these lunatic ideas. You take from the words of God what you want, you discard all else as man's depiction of events that they could not begin to understand, but you can? Why? Because science that would not even exist without God's creation says so?

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, in order to prove by you what is the good and pleasing and perfect will of God.
Rom 12:3 For through the grace which is given to me, I say to everyone being among you, not to have high thoughts beyond what is right to think. But set your mind to be right-minded, even as God divided a measure of faith to each.

1Co 2:4 And my word and my preaching was not in enticing words of human wisdom, but in proof of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 But we speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, those being brought to nothing.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, having been hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory,

rmills said:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; ...
1Co 2:4 And my word and my preaching was not in enticing words of human wisdom, but in proof of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 But we speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, those being brought to nothing.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, having been hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory,

Click to expand...

Lots of Biblical verses here. What was the purpose in putting them here? Are you trying to show how powerful an entity has to be in order to qualify as God, but be less than omnipotent? Or do you think these verses say God is omnipotent?

lucaspa said:

Lots of Biblical verses here. What was the purpose in putting them here? Are you trying to show how powerful an entity has to be in order to qualify as God, but be less than omnipotent? Or do you think these verses say God is omnipotent?

Click to expand...

I can safely assume that you will take what you will from them.

Honestly, I have 10 times the respect for an Evolutionist than a Theistic Evolutionist. An Evolutionist will disregard the Bible and its account of creation all together. A Theistic Evolutionist contorts the Word Of God with statements like, "Do you need a neon sign?" while totally missing the points stated in simplicity throughout scripture.

Here is the bottom line, same for your friend that you quote in your sign-off. Regardless of what you think science proves, the bottom line is that you cannot see the forest for the trees. Posting more verses to you will be fruitless because you have a breakdown in your theology that dictates that the Word of God is some mysterious allegorical perspective from people who didn’t know any better.

You would not read a history book full of lies and decide that your understanding must be flawed so its time for a change of perspective! But you accept the Bible as the foundation for your belief and claim openly that God is not who he says he is and the Word of God contradicts itself? Dont even try to side step that acusation.

Like I said, the issue here is not Theistic Evolution but rather a theological debate at its core.

rmills said:

I can safely assume that you will take what you will from them.

Click to expand...

That wasn't my question. My question was: what was your point? What do you think the verses mean in the context or our conversation.

Honestly, I have 10 times the respect for an Evolutionist than a Theistic Evolutionist.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean an atheistic evolutionist.

An Evolutionist will disregard the Bible and its account of creation all together.

Click to expand...

Well, since an atheist believes deity does not exist, of course an atheist will disregard any evidence of deity. Duh!

A Theistic Evolutionist contorts the Word Of God with statements like, "Do you need a neon sign?" while totally missing the points stated in simplicity throughout scripture.

Click to expand...

I was reading the text literally. Just like you tell me to do. The problem is that you don't want me to read the text literally here. Why? Because a literal reading blows your theory about how God created. I would submit that it is Biblical literalists contorting the words to get an agreement between the stories that they want, but simply isn't there in the text. You distort the "Word of God" to fit the "word of man". I will also remind you that I am not the only one to see the neon sign. Virtually every commentary outside the narrow circle of Biblical literalists acknowledges that there are two creation stories. The conclusion that there are two creation stories is based on the contradictions between them if you read them literally.
http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/eden/taketwo.html

Here is the bottom line, same for your friend that you quote in your sign-off. Regardless of what you think science proves, the bottom line is that you cannot see the forest for the trees. Posting more verses to you will be fruitless because you have a breakdown in your theology that dictates that the Word of God is some mysterious allegorical perspective from people who didn’t know any better.

Click to expand...

I don't think the creation stories are mysterious. Not-literal but not mysterious. Genesis 2-3 is allegorical. I think that you are taking the stories out of their context in history and culture and twisting them to be something they were never intended to be: accurate science and history. In the process I contend that you are missing all the really important messages in them. There are some very profound theological truths in Genesis 1, for instance. Can you list them? Do you even understand that there are theological messages there?

You would not read a history book full of lies and decide that your understanding must be flawed so its time for a change of perspective!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't? Let's take this outside the Bible for a bit. Hopefully, that means your emotions won't be so engaged. Shakespeare's Macbeth is a history "full of lies". The history in Macbeth never happened. However, I do read Macbeth and enjoy it because it is filled with truths. Truths about the human condition: lust for power, greed, corruption by power, guilt, and justice. The history of Macbeth doesn't have to be true in order for those truths to be true. There are differnt types of truth.

Genesis 1-3 isn't history. But it doesn't need to be. God left us His Creation to tell us how He created. Genesis 1-3 serves a different purpose. It tells us first who created. Genesis 1 is structured to eliminate all the polytheistic gods, all the animistic spirits, and all magic. Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, created. No other gods exist. I think that's an important message, but you may disagree. We also get told why God created. Because He wanted to and because the material universe is good. We are also told why He created humans. Not to be slaves, playthings, or even worshippers. But for their own sakes. Again, I think this is an important message and something that needs to be told. In Genesis 2-3 we get told why humans are so cut off from God. It's because we disobey Him. I think that's also important to know.

But you accept the Bible as the foundation for your belief and claim openly that God is not who he says he is and the Word of God contradicts itself? Dont even try to side step that acusation.

Click to expand...

1. A Christian's belief is not founded in the Bible. It's founded in the Living Word, Jesus Christ. That you say this shows that you are very close to falling over the theological cliff. You are very close to bibliolatry.
2. The Bible helps us understand who the Living Word is. In 1 Timothy Paul talks about scripture (by which he means the OT, since the NT hadn't been written yet) and says that the OT, even tho it doesn't talk about Jesus, is still useful for instruction in righteousness. But the Bible is not the "Word of God". The Word is Jesus.
3. Yes, a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 does contradict itself. I think that contradiction in a literal interpretation was deliberate. As I said, it's a neon sign for us not to read them literally. That you ignore such a clear message from God strikes me as very strange from someone who says the Bible is the Word of God. Because as soon as you stop reading Genesis 1-3 as literal, the contradictions disappear. Instead of contradictions, you have two different stories telling separate but complementary theological truths. Contradiction solved. It is the literal reading that makes the contradiction!
4. People say a lot of things about who God is. I can openly say that some of those ideas don't match what God reveals in His second book. Since God can't contradict God, I conclude that what people say God is isn't really what He is. Yes, God created a universe in which the future is indeterminant. I am thankful for that. Without that, our lives have no meaning. We are simply puppets to the past. So I am thankful that God so loved people that He created a universe such that their lives could have the full measure of meaning, even tho that meant limiting Himself. That was a noble and loving sacrifice for Him to make. I take it you don't agree. You would rather have the god you want to have, rather than the God that is.

Like I said, the issue here is not Theistic Evolution but rather a theological debate at its core.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. It's partly a debate of what is God. Is God a literal reading of the Bible, or is God something beyond that? I say God is much, much bigger than the little box human Biblical literalists try to put Him into. I also say that God is God and that Biblical literalism is false idol worship. Is Christianity going to lose itself in false idol worship, like the Hebrews did in the desert, or will Christianity cast off the false idol, remember that God wrote two books, and actually listen to God in both?

I personally find much more meaning and closeness to God when we try to put ourselves in the shoes of the original audience of Genesis 1-11 and understand what were the messages they were hearing rather than try to impose our 21st century viewpoint that the text must be literal. Try it:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1037