Question about Evolution and Heaven ~PLEASE ANSWER!!!~

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

I was talking about mirco-evolution.

The basis of my rejection of macro-evolution comes from the Bible stating that before sin, there was no death. To uphold theistic evolution is to uphold death before sin. That undermines the victory over death that Christ accomplished with his death and resurrection from the dead.

daveleau · Apr 13, 2004

Research the Hebrew surrounding the story. It is difficult for most to say that the Hebrew was not telling a literal account.

Short answer is: you can be saved and believe that a comet crashed on earth and started life or that aliens created us. It IS trivial (to some). To me, it was a major roadblock in my growth for a long time. All you truly have to believe is that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins according to Scripture, was buried and rose from the dead according to Scripture.

I too took the path of TE for a while after seeing the evolutionary side of things. I had an opened mind to all possible theories, such as the functional earth theory and the old earth theory as well. Deeper study led me to believe that only the Gap Theory can adequately describe the origins of the earth. And it too is flawed. But, it accounts for all of the evolutionary evidence while also taking into account the literal nature of the Hebrew wording in Genesis. I do not believe that it is God's Will for us to know this until we meet Him. It fosters the whole free will issue. (ok, so it wasn't such a short answer )

What do you think is meant when God says that an animal or fruit yields its own kind? I ask, because this is a major player in causing me to abandon the TE theory (I do not mean to be rude by calling it a theory- all are theories because we simply do not know without a reasonable doubt).

Biarien · Apr 13, 2004

All I was saying is that you were wrong in your statement that TEs 'refute' parts of the Bible.

If you cannot simply accept that and stop throwing up arguments that have nothing to do with what I was talking about, that's fine, but in the future, I ask that you do not make such statements, as they are simply not true.

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

I was a TE until I realized that there could not have been death before sin(eg. man). TE, unknowingly, does refute that there was no death before sin. That is contrary to what it says in Genesis. So TEs, whether they know it or not, do refute parts of the Bible.

Biarien · Apr 13, 2004

Breetai said:
I was a TE until I realized that there could not have been death before sin(eg. man). TE, unknowingly, does refute that there was no death before sin. That is contrary to what it says in Genesis. So TEs, whether they know it or not, do refute parts of the Bible.

No...that's still your interpretation of what 'death' refers to. Look at the second point lucaspa makes here.

I hope you can see the difference between the validity of the interpretation and the validity of the Bible, and which is in question. It seems many people here cannot make that disctinction, and perhaps I'm just wasting my time. If you (Breetai, Curt, others) refuse to consider what I'm saying, I would appreciate you telling me so I can stop wasting my time trying to show you that even TEs consider God's word to be true.

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

No...that's still your interpretation of what 'death' refers to.

It is the Bible's interpretation. Have you ever heard of Paul? He wrote just a few major Biblical letters.

The Bible is extremely clear that death, literal death, entered mankind through Adam.

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 men, because all sinned.

There was no death before Adam. If you deny that, you are getting it wrong and misinterpreting the Bible. How can I misinterpret Paul when he is so clear??? I considered the same thing that you currently believe for many years. It is wrong. Genesis tells us that there was no death before Adam, and it is confirmed again and again throughout the Bible. If you have that wrong, then you are throwing out a lot of the New Testament. Anyone that says that there was death before sin has to read their Bible again. In fact, I would question if they have been through the Bible in the first place.

I do believe that TEs can be Christians and be saved. That's not in dispute at all, but they have it wrong.

I don't mean to accuse you of not reading the Bible or anything, but I am firm in where I stand right now concerning there being no death before sin.

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

that even TEs consider God's word to be true.

I don't dispute that for a second. I just believe that they are in err.

Biarien · Apr 13, 2004

Breetai said:
It is the Bible's interpretation. Have you ever heard of Paul? He wrote just a few major Biblical letters.

Your condescending attitude is noted with regret.

How can I misinterpret Paul when he is so clear???

A question: Have you heard of transubstiation of the host? That is, that the bread and wine of communion are literally Christ's body and blood? This is an issue that is 'clear' to both sides, yet there are two interpretations. I would imagine both sides would say "How can I misinterpret communion when Christ is so clear?," yet the very fact that there are two interpretations show that perhaps the issue is not as clear as both sides think it is.

I considered the same thing that you currently believe for many years.

I have not said anything regarding my belief. I have only said that TEs do not believe the Bible is errant.

Genesis tells us that there was no death before Adam, and it is confirmed again and again throughout the Bible. If you have that wrong, then you are throwing out a lot of the New Testament. Anyone that says that there was death before sin has to read their Bible again. In fact, I would question if they have been through the Bible in the first place.

Judging by this response, I would question whether you read the relevant portion of the link I provided. It clearly stated that death can be taken to refer to spiritual death, even by those that (*gasp*) have read the Bible!

I don't mean to accuse you of not reading the Bible or anything, but I am firm in where I stand right now concerning there being no death before sin.

I'm glad you've found a stance you're firm in, but you have accused TEs (and since you find me to be one, me as well) of not reading the Bible. You did this indirectly, but you still made that accusation. I find it to be an insult to faithful Christians with differing opinions that you would impose your interpretation of scripture as the only valid one and then go so far as to suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise has not even read the Bible. This attitude is saddening.

PaladinValer · Apr 13, 2004

The Bible is talking about spiritual death, not biological death. Even if you want to take the Bible literally in its first Creation story, there are some species that were then created before humanity yet would have died before Adam and Eve ever got there.

Therefore, it cannot mean biological death; even Jesus died and He lived a sinless life. Since He did not inherit original sin, then He shouldn't have died according to a literalist viewpoint, yet he still died. And there is nothing given in the Bible that gives "terms of death," like willing sacrifice of oneself in Jesus' case. True, He was resurrected, but for three days, He was in Sheol, dead; just like Adam, just like Cain, just like Noah, just like Saul, just like everyone; Jew or Gentile. That was the belief. So unless folks want to say Jesus sinned, then a logical conclusion was that sin caused folks spiritual death. What does this mean? It mean their souls are broken; Adam and Eve no longer were whole. They were sinners now, and would be for ever. They would reclaim (supposedly; it never says it outright) their spiritual life by following the Will of God, but it would be broken again every time they'd sin.

In addition, any statement that goes like "if the Creation is a myth therefore the resurrection (etc) is false" is the logical fallacy of composition.

daveleau · Apr 13, 2004

Why would some of the species have already died? I think you might be placing today's reality on Eden. Until sin came into the world, there was no death. That includes the animals of short lifespan in today's world. While this is hard to understand by some because of our "understanding" of biology, chemistry and physics, we must remember the omnipotent power of God Almighty.

A-Bomb · Apr 13, 2004

This is exactly the division and strife I was referring to. This is a trivial issue.

PaladinValer · Apr 13, 2004

daveleau said:
Why would some of the species have already died? I think you might be placing today's reality on Eden.

A misinterpretation on your part based on some really cruddy grammar on my part.

Some species of animals, etc; do not live for more than 24 hours, if not less, let alone lower life forms like bacteria. If you take a literal 6-day Creation, some members of these species would have indeed died before Adam and Eve were even "made."

daveleau said:
That includes the animals of short lifespan in today's world.

That's rationalizing. There is no verse that says or implies this.

daveleau said:
While this is hard to understand by some because of our "understanding" of biology, chemistry and physics, we must remember the omnipotent power of God Almighty.

And we also need to remember that it is impossible to comprehend anything of God's doing or purpose in its fullest sense (see Job). In addition, omnipotence doesn't discount evolution; it simply means all-powerful. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. Furthermore, tell us why God couldn't have used evolution?

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

A question: Have you heard of transubstiation of the host? That is, that the bread and wine of communion are literally Christ's body and blood? This is an issue that is 'clear' to both sides, yet there are two interpretations. I would imagine both sides would say "How can I misinterpret communion when Christ is so clear?," yet the very fact that there are two interpretations show that perhaps the issue is not as clear as both sides think it is.

There's actually three different interpretations.

I have not said anything regarding my belief. I have only said that TEs do not believe the Bible is errant.

Then why do you argue for it?

you have accused TEs (and since you find me to be one, me as well) of not reading the Bible. You did this indirectly, but you still made that accusation. I find it to be an insult to faithful Christians with differing opinions that you would impose your interpretation of scripture as the only valid one and then go so far as to suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise has not even read the Bible. This attitude is saddening.

Sorry, I should re-phrase that. TEs do not read that part of the Bible correctly.

The death being talked about is both spiritual and physical. Mortal death and the second death. Man was originally meant to physically live forever; not to die a mortal death. If that were not so, then why is there a need for a physical resurrection? Why would Jesus physically rise from the dead if we could not? If we were not meant to live forever, then all Jesus would've had to do was rise from His spiritual, or second, death. But Jesus rose from both deaths, physical and spiritual. We, as believers in Him, will do the same. This is because Jesus freed us from our sin, which is what caused us to die in every way possible.

tell us why God couldn't have used evolution?

He could have, but he didn't. Why couldn't have God used a literal creation? Is that so hard to believe?

Biarien · Apr 13, 2004

Breetai said:
There's actually three different interpretations.

Then all the more proof for my point.

Then why do you argue for it?

Because it's wrong and insulting to say that TEs consider the Bible to be flawed or wrong. If I hated cats and someone said cats, by nature, clawed babies to death, I would still defend cats. It's the same thing here. My personal views do not come into play in the fact that you and Curt have said something that is blatantly wrong regarding Christians that interpret creation differently than you do.

Sorry, I should re-phrase that. TEs do not read that part of the Bible correctly.

It's not a rephrasing. It's an entirely different point. That's what I've been trying to get across the whole time.

The death being talked about is both spiritual and physical. Mortal death and the second death. Man was originally meant to physically live forever; not to die a mortal death. If that were not so, then why is there a need for a physical resurrection? Why would Jesus physically rise from the dead if we could not? If we were not meant to live forever, then all Jesus would've had to do was rise from His spiritual, or second, death. But Jesus rose from both deaths, physical and spiritual. We, as believers in Him, will do the same. This is because Jesus freed us from our sin, which is what caused us to die in every way possible.

This is not a new idea, but yet there are still TEs. If you can prove that you authoritatively know scripture more than anyone, that you are the final say, then I'm sure no reasonable Christian will believe otherwise. Until then, you either must accept that other people have come to different conclusions that may be correct (again, unless you know everything there is to know), or you must live in denial of the possibility that you are wrong, something that is very very dangerous.

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

The only reason that those passages concerning death are interpreted as only spiritual death by some people is so that they will fit in with evolutionary theory. I can't think of any other reason why they would be interpreted only that way by anyone else. As far as I know, death in Romans 12:5 refers to both kinds of death. Only one interpretation can be correct. Taking physical death out of the word death seems to be textual masochism. Why would the word thanatos(death) be used alone in Romans 5:12 when, in talking about the second death, in Revelation, deuteros thanatos(second death) was used? It seems to be a very weak argument that Paul was only talking about the second death in Romans 5 when he uses death in the same context as when someone is talking about actually dying.

Biarien · Apr 13, 2004

I'm not saying you're wrong. All I'm saying is that you cannot state that TEs are wrong as a fact unless you have all knowledge, which as a person (I'm assuming you're a person from that avatar of yours ) you do not have.

Language is a powerful tool, and must be used with that power in mind. The difference between "X is wrong" and "I believe X is wrong" is a large one. Many people will say that the former is obviously an opinion because it comes from a person, but so does every word, yet there are facts. "There is gravity" is not an opinion no matter who says it (of course, I suppose there could be some doubt, but that's in a philosophical realm that's silly to go into). However, in matters of interpretation, the difference between "X is wrong" and "I believe X is wrong" can be very important.

Your analysis of scripture is not really in question here, but rather, the words with which you express your analysis. On a related note, I find your analysis quite well-thought-out, and if you would care to linger over to the CS & TE forum, I'm sure you could find apt TEs to have a good discussion with.

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

Your analysis of scripture is not really in question here, but rather, the words with which you express your analysis.

You mean my condensending attitude? I've yet to hear a good argument against what I've been saying, so when someone continually argues against it, and I don't find their argument at all convincing(no offence), I get a little emotional.

I'm going back to studying for finals, so I have no desire to go to the CS & TE forum. Besides, I'm a Biblical scholar, not a scientific one. I don't think I could come up with a convincing argument from a scientific point of view.

Jaywalk · Apr 13, 2004

ChristianRocker33 said:
if he accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, even though he believes in Evolution, would he go to Heaven?

Brother, if we have to be right about every point of doctrine, we're all in trouble. I believe the Bible only mentions one "unforgiveable sin" and misinterpreting Scripture wasn't it.

Jaywalk

Breetai · Apr 13, 2004

Amen.

helpmee · Apr 15, 2004

the finches are not micro evolution they cannot interbreed. Many of the modern day geneticists and biologist christians agree with creationism through the complexity and structure of the human body and genetic data.

Question about Evolution and Heaven ~~~PLEASE ANSWER!!!~~~

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind

Dúnadan

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Dúnadan

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Dúnadan

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind

Active Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Dúnadan

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Dúnadan

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Regular Member

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Question about Evolution and Heaven ~PLEASE ANSWER!!!~