Rain and The Creation

[PotLuck]

If there is no theory of evolution there is no theistic evolution and the belief falls.

If the theory of literal creationism is fact then the Word of God stands and the christian belief also stands.
If the theory of literal creationism is not fact then the Word of God stands and the christian belief also stands.

 

[herev]

If there is no theory of evolution there is no theistic evolution and the belief falls.

If the theory of literal creationism is fact then the Word of God stands and the christian belief also stands.
If the theory of literal creationism is not fact then the Word of God stands and the christian belief also stands.

that's what some of us have been saying all along

 

[theFijian]

If there is no theory of evolution there is no theistic evolution and the belief falls.

If the theory of literal creationism is fact then the Word of God stands and the christian belief also stands.
If the theory of literal creationism is not fact then the Word of God stands and the christian belief also stands.

Can't argue with that. But allow me to add the one you missed out:

If Evolution is fact then Creationism is falsified. The Word of God still stands and Christian belief also still stands.

 

[PotLuck]

Speaking of Eve by the way...
If evolution is true and the verse is a myth then God would have created her from the ground also.

But he tells us He created her in a different manner then He did with Adam. Even if the Word is myth He STILL created Eve in a different way.
Evolution teaches BOTH man and woman came about in the SAME manner. Either way, myth or literal evolution goes against God's Word.

 

[PotLuck]

|v8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
|v9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
(NewT:1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

 

[herev]

PotLuck:Speaking of Eve by the way...
If evolution is true and the verse is a myth then God would have created her from the ground also.

But he tells us He created her in a different manner then He did with Adam. Even if the Word is myth He STILL created Eve in a different way.
Evolution teaches BOTH man and woman came about in the SAME manner.


Either way, myth or literal evolution goes against God's Word


And yet, if it is alegorical, then how does it go against God's word--it is God's word?

 

[gluadys]

Speaking of Eve by the way...
If evolution is true and the verse is a myth then God would have created her from the ground also.

But he tells us He created her in a different manner then He did with Adam. Even if the Word is myth He STILL created Eve in a different way.
Evolution teaches BOTH man and woman came about in the SAME manner. Either way, myth or literal evolution goes against God's Word.

So evolution agrees with Gen. 1:26-27 instead of with the second creation story. In Genesis 1 man and woman are created together in the SAME manner.

 

[herev]

So evolution agrees with Gen. 1:26-27 instead of with the second creation story. In Genesis 1 man and woman are created together in the SAME manner.

I forgot to ask which creation account in Genesis--Good catch Gluadys! I was watching the Brady Bunch--must have been distracted.

 

[adam149]

In the first case it may be more logical to opt for selection (a) than in the second case.
God didn't say He formed man from an animal but from the dust of the ground. If so it should have read:

|v7 And the LORD God formed man from an animal, and man became a living soul.
(OldT:Genesis 2:7)

This is contradictory. First you say "God didn't say He formed man from an animal but from the dust of the ground" and then proceed to retranslate a verse of scripture which indicates the opposite of what you had just said.

In the second place, you might consider checking your translation with lexicons. The verse is translated fine from the Hebrew as is. The word

עפר​

translated as "dust" means dust (powdered or grey), as in clay, earth, or mud, according to both the Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strong's Hebrew, Greek Dictionary and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament lexicons.

The word

אדמה​

translated as "ground" means "ground" as in soil, according to all three of the aformentioned lexicons. Thus the verse is properly translated as follows:

(Gen 2:7)And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[PotLuck]

But he tells us He created her in a different manner then He did with Adam. Even if the Word is myth He STILL created Eve in a different way.
Evolution teaches BOTH man and woman came about in the SAME manner.

Why would God depict two ways of creating "mankind" instead of only one way as taught by evolution? If evolution is true and God can not lie then scripture would also have to depict only one way whether it's alegonical or not. Also why is it conveyed, literal or alegonical that Adam was alone for a time? There had to be a purpose that God wants us to understand that Adam was alone for a while. And that purpose is shown in the New Testament. It gives Paul's doctrines of the acceptable behavior between man and woman substance.

 

[PotLuck]

This is contradictory. First you say "God didn't say He formed man from an animal but from the dust of the ground" and then proceed to retranslate a verse of scripture which indicates the opposite of what you had just said.

In the second place, you might consider checking your translation with lexicons. The verse is translated fine from the Hebrew as is. The word

עפר​

translated as "dust" means dust (powdered or grey), as in clay, earth, or mud, according to both the Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strong's Hebrew, Greek Dictionary and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament lexicons.

The word

אדמה​

translated as "ground" means "ground" as in soil, according to all three of the aformentioned lexicons. Thus the verse is properly translated as follows:

(Gen 2:7)And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Of course that second verse isn't true. It's for illustration ONLY to make a point that IF man came from animal that that's how it SHOULD or COULD have been written.
That is not an actual verse by any stretch of the imagination.
Sorry for not being clear on that one. My bad.


----
NOT TRUE. Not a verse Only illustration.
|v7 And the LORD God formed man from an animal, and man became a living soul.
(OldT:Genesis 2:7)

 

[gluadys]

If it were not for the efforts of scientists (regardless of what each of us thinks about the evidence) then what would you beleive? You couldnt really know what to believe other than a literal interpretation of Genesis and a real Adam and Eve so it obviously cant be harmful to the faith by YEC's believing this.

Right, obviously, the question does not come up without a reason, and scientific research has provided a reason. Nevertheless, children relate to the biblical stories as stories first. Often they do not distinguish between a biblical story and a Mother Goose story. They have to be taught to interpret scripture as history. So with or without the scientific backdrop, it is possible to relate to scripture as story rather than as history.

The YEC version of creation doesnt require one to have a DEEP understanding of the Scriptures to be able to read into it Gap theory or to look at science and have more than high school level of maths to understand it as TE's do.

Simply as a matter of reading scripture and using it as a basis of relating to God, TE doesn't require a deep knowledge of scripture or science either. The deeper levels of knowledge are required for more in-depth theology.

The YEC version require plain faith in God and the infallible Word of God and that Genesis is read literally because if we didnt know the alternative theories then we couldnt read it any other way anyhow.

Even if we have no knowledge of an alternative, we can still read Genesis as story rather than history. And if we were to apply that principle to all of the bible, we would not re-interpret concepts such as the foundations of the earth or the windows of heaven to agree with modern science either. For until there was a scientific alternative, these were also considered to be literal descriptions of nature, and were read as such.

 

[herev]

to Potluck:

You said:
But he tells us He created her in a different manner then He did with Adam. Even if the Word is myth He STILL created Eve in a different way.
Evolution teaches BOTH man and woman came about in the SAME manner.

Why would God depict two ways of creating "mankind" instead of only one way as taught by evolution? If evolution is true and God can not lie then scripture would also have to depict only one way whether it's alegonical or not. Also why is it conveyed, literal or alegonical that Adam was alone for a time?

Admittedly, maybe I'm thick, but I fail to understand the question. if it is a myth or an allegory, then it would not be necessary for it to be factual, which is the point in TE, so what's the point of the question?

 

[PotLuck]

to Potluck:

Admittedly, maybe I'm thick, but I fail to understand the question. if it is a myth or an allegory, then it would not be necessary for it to be factual, which is the point in TE, so what's the point of the question?

God shows there was a time when woman was not on earth as yet. That Adam was alone.
Why would God make it nessesary for man to know that Adam was alone for a while? There had to be a purpose for God telling us that. If Adam were not alone God would not have said that in the first place.
God doesn't give unnecessary information. So why does God give us information that Adam was alone for a period of time? If adam was never alone, either literally or allegorically, then god lied to us.

 

[gluadys]

But it appears from this statement that one does need to be well grounded in science or well educated to understand a TE position.

Not really. Not to accept it. To engage in discussions about it intelligibly, yes, one does need to study some science. But most people don't engage in discussions like these.

Even someone who has a mental handicap (as I went to school with some children in this category) should be able to understand the Gospel of Christ in many of the cases because it is so simple.

Right, but the gospel is not affected by what one believes about the method of creation. In fact, the basics of the gospel don't require knowing anything more than that God created and loves us.

The creation story would be simplistic as well and just as easy to understand from a young age.

And that is why I was reading the biblical story to my children when they were pre-schoolers. But I also read simple science to them as well. I let them ask questions about the relation of science and scripture as they were ready.

TE's would have to teach their children for years for them to understand why they follow this theory.

I did not find this to be the case. When they began asking questions, they quickly understood that the biblical stories were stories told long ago and used the science of the time to reveal God as creator. We have a different idea about science today, but we still believe in God as creator.

Now, they would not be able to describe either the science side or the theological side of TE, even as adults, because their interests did not lead them into this discussion. But the basic concept was not difficult for them to grasp.

 

[herev]

God shows there was a time when woman was not on earth as yet. That Adam was alone.
Why would God make it nessesary for man to know that Adam was alone for a while? There had to be a purpose for God telling us that. If Adam were not alone God would not have said that in the first place.
God doesn't give unnecessary information. So why does God give us information that Adam was alone for a period of time? If adam was never alone, either literally or allegorically, then god lied to us.

Well, one of the creation accounts says he was alone for a while, the other doesn't. I am not sure what God may or may not be telling us in this--I have never looked for each individual verse in the creation accounts to contain a special revelation--I look the creation accounts together and in their entirety, including contradictions and seek God's lessons from there

 

[PotLuck]

The synoptic gospels don't all give the same info either.

 

[herev]

God doesn't give unnecessary information.

And I don't even know what to make of that statement, either.

 

[herev]

The synoptic gospels don't all give the same info either.

AND?

 

[PotLuck]

So how do you handle Mathew, Mark, Luke and John?
Is the info in some not true or can be ignored simply because each doesn't contain the same info but testifys to the same account, the life of Jesus?