The Discussion about the Debate

[Vance]

I had to bring this discussion over here from the Creationist subforum, because I am sure it was about to be called "debate" and cut off.

Godsaves said:

“The real question is why Jesus Christ told us, commanded us to preach the Gospel. It is a question of who you choose to listen to who.”

Yes, Jesus says to preach the Gospel, and I am preaching the Gospel. And, in addition to that, I am trying to pave the way to make this Gospel more effective by removing a stumbling block. How can this possibly be wrong.

Are you going to go and tell all the Creationist ministries that they should shut down so they can concentrate on preaching the Gospel? After all, they are heavily engaged in this debate FULL TIME. They are not preaching the Gospel at all, according to your definition.

“I see you are more worried about a doctrine contradiction the teachings of Christians(man) then about a doctrine that contradicts the Bible.”

Begging the question. I am worried about a doctrine of Man (YEC’ism) which is very often an unnecessary stumbling block to the Cross.

“Why would one turn the other cheek, just because Jesus told us to? Why follow His commandments of loving our neighbor as ourselves?”

Who is not loving their neighbor? I am trying to undo a damaging doctrine, not attacking people. Yes, you want to say that any time I attack a doctrine you believe in, it is attacking you personally, but this is simply not true. Again, did Jesus just let the merchants continue to sell sacrificial animals and exchange money in the Temple? Did Paul just sit by and let the Judaizers teach that circumcision was essential to be a Christian? Of course not.

“It is much easier to to just say "Note to all YEC: RAMP!" or "YEC is damaging to Christianity." It is much easier to denounce people in public, then in private and in love.”

Of course, the debate has to be public since the Creationists are making it public. They are out there making these statements, writing these books, presenting these seminars and posting in these forums. That message, which I do find damaging, is being made PUBLICALLY. So, in order to undo the damage of that message, the response must be made publically as well. This is necessary to neutralize the damage where it has happened, in the hearts of the listeners. Telling a YEC in private that he make his presentation differently would not only fall on deaf ears, but would still leave the damaging message in the ears of the listener.

And I have always made it very clear that it is the doctrine, not the person presenting the doctrine that is wrong.

“ It is much easier to be rebellious then to follow God's Word.”

Begging the question again. Odd how anyone who presents views different than yours must be doing so in rebellion to God. Is that a "loving" statement?

“It is much easier to believe in what people show you then what you cannot see. So why believe what Paul said that faith is in what you cannot see?”

Another begging the question, and a bit ironic. You have simply believed all the YEC teaching you have been shown about the details of these issues. I think it is almost assured that you have not spent much time studying them from sources other than Creationist sources. I DO believe what I can not see. I did not see God creating, yet I believe He created. I did not see His Son die on the Cross, but I believe in this redemptive gift regardless. We all believe in a creation we can not see, we just differ in our belief about how and when that creation took place.

“Like I said, I am aware that this makes no sense to you. And I aware that you don't want it to make sense to you.”

Well, this is a bit presumptuous. And also a bit ironic, since it is you who insist on misrepresenting what I, and other TE’s say. We may disagree with your position and set out our reasons for that disagreement, but we never misrepresent what you are saying. So, who is it that is closing their ears to what the other is saying?

“Im sorry Vance, but I answer to a higher authority, and I will be faithful to what I have learned from the Holy Spirit.”

Me too.

And your statement is exactly the type of insinuation you keep denying that you ever make. You are insinuating that I do NOT answer to that same higher authority and that I have either not learned what I believe from the Holy Spirit or are not faithful to what I did learn. Unlike an attack on a doctrine, this is a direct attack on an individual. Again, "loving"?

“I do not answer to man therefore I need not be concerned with what man wants to try and prove.”

I also don’t answer to man (again notice your insinuation), and you are begging the question as to whether man “wants to try and prove” something. Those of us who accept an old earth and evolution do not do so to because it is popular, or easy, or “man’s way”. We do so for the very simple reason that it is what the evidence shows to be true, and it does not contradict the Scripture.

“I know what God has said, and don't completely understand how, but I know what He has said and I believe Him.”

Yes, me too. See how much we agree upon!

“And Vance, remember no where have I said you don't believe Him. I know your tactics of trying to accuse me of what I have not said.”

No, you never come out and say that. But even in this very post, you have insinuated many things. The following things are false witness, if you say them or insinuate them about those who accept a theistic evolution point of view:

- If you accept evolution, you are following Man’s ways over God’s Way

- If you accept evolution, you have less faith in God and/or His Holy Word than those who read it literally

- If you accept evolution, you are not truly being led by the Holy Spirit

Have you ever said, or insinuated any of these things?

“You have your mission to refute and denounce me and what I believe.”

Wrong, not you at all. Not even what you believe. Just how you present what you believe. There is a big difference.

“Please continue if that is what you feel you must do. Please feel free to use me as a public example, ridicule me, denounce me, whatever you feel necessary for your ramp”

We sing a song in our church called “it’s all about you, Lord”. Godsaves, this is not all about you. I have never used you as a public example, I have never ridiculed you, or denounced you. Those are all falsehoods. I have disagreed with what you have said, and have explained why. Just as I am here. That is all.. Your attempts to dramatize it does not work.

“Again, if you want to spend the majority of your time preaching the Gospel, let me know. I will be the first YEC to stand next to you.”

But I already DO that. I am not sure where you get this idea. On this forum, which is a discussion forum about the debate among Christians between two different views about Genesis 1 and 2, I debate the topic of the forum (why don’t you, btw, if you are on this forum?). I do this in order to facilitate not only my own witnessing, but those of others. Who knows which Christian may be the one to reap the harvest that has been sown in these forums? It may be you!

 

[GodSaves]

“Please continue if that is what you feel you must do. Please feel free to use me as a public example, ridicule me, denounce me, whatever you feel necessary for your ramp”

We sing a song in our church called “it’s all about you, Lord”. Godsaves, this is not all about you. I have never used you as a public example, I have never ridiculed you, or denounced you. Those are all falsehoods. I have disagreed with what you have said, and have explained why. Just as I am here. That is all.. Your attempts to dramatize it does not work.

Here you have done what I said feel free to do, use me as an example. If you wish to think that I believe that this is all about me, feel free to do so as you have. I am fine with you believing whatever you wish about me.

Vance, can I challenge you to present your verses that show Adam was not a real man, that evolution is God's process, that Moses could not understand evolution, that God plucked man up and put him into the Garden of Eden when he finally evolved, where it says pre-Adamic man, where it says physical death was the intended part of God's creation before the fall. Can you present your case for you belief from a purely Biblical stand point? Might I suggest you take a look at John 6:53-70.

I can understand if someone was arguing that day could mean ages. I just do not see scriptural support for evolution.

Present the verse please. Correct me using God's Word. And stop going back to geocentrism which you know is not taught within the Bible, but by man. The Bible does say 6 days God created everything. It is very specific. So show me otherwise with the Bible. You have a ministry to do, so start it off with scriptural reference that shows evolution is how God created.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

First, I am not using you as an example, I am continuing a discussion from another forum.

As for verses, we have had this very same discussion more than once, see the "Bible Verse Thread".

Every time you say "Bible" what you are saying is "my interpretation of Scripture". You say it is clear. To the modern geocentrist, you are wrong, absolutely wrong, when you say that it is not taught within the Bible. They point to chapter and verse, reading it very literally. To THEM it is also very specific, very clear. So, where is YOUR verse that proves that they are wrong? Where is your Scripture proving that the verses THEY cite are NOT correct and that the solar system really IS heliocentric? Use Scripture now. I challenge you.

You can see that this is not a proper challenge. If what TE's are saying is correct, that the Genesis account was meant to be read non-literally, then there would be no additional verses to specifically explain His use of evolution and how long ago he created or any of the other things you ask for, since He had no intention of providing the historic and scientific details. Any more than there are specific verses which show the heliocentric nature of the solar system. (or explain any other scientific principle).

As the Pope and Billy Graham (arguably Christianities two most respected figures, from two very different backgrounds) have argued, we are wrong to think that Genesis was meant to be a scientific treatise of the creation.

We have provided the scientific, interpretive and theological position of our theistic evolution position over and over on this forum. You can scan the threads to find them. What is sorely lacking is any scientific argument of the various YEC theories for how it all could have happened in accordance with their literalist interpretation.

 

[GodSaves]

Every time you say "Bible" what you are saying is "my interpretation of Scripture".

Words put in my mouth.

You say it is clear. To the modern geocentrist, you are wrong, absolutely wrong, when you say that it is not taught within the Bible. They point to chapter and verse, reading it very literally. To THEM it is also very specific, very clear. So, where is YOUR verse that proves that they are wrong? Where is your Scripture proving that the verses THEY cite are NOT correct and that the solar system really IS heliocentric? Use Scripture now. I challenge you.

Well what is the specific verse you would like to discuss.

You can see that this is not a proper challenge. If what TE's are saying is correct, that the Genesis account was meant to be read non-literally, then there would be no additional verses to specifically explain His use of evolution and how long ago he created or any of the other things you ask for, since He had no intention of providing the historic and scientific details. Any more than there are specific verses which show the heliocentric nature of the solar system. (or explain any other scientific principle).

So you admit that evolution is not scriptural.

As the Pope and Billy Graham (arguably Christianities two most respected figures, from two very different backgrounds) have argued, we are wrong to think that Genesis was meant to be a scientific treatise of the creation.

And yet at the same time Billy Graham, unlike the Pope, believes the Bible does not teach evolution. Billy Graham does not believe in evolution.

We have provided the scientific, interpretive and theological position of our theistic evolution position over and over on this forum. You can scan the threads to find them. What is sorely lacking is any scientific argument of the various YEC theories for how it all could have happened in accordance with their literalist interpretation.

Yes, you have provided scientific data, but have failed to provide an scriptural support for your belief. You have even admitted that your belief in evolution is unscriptural.

At least we got down to the truth.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

Well what is the specific verse you would like to discuss.

Those verses you can find that specifically support the position that the solar system is heliocentric, rather than geocentric. Just as specific as you seem to expect verses about evolution to be.

So you admit that evolution is not scriptural.

No, since that implies that it is "anti-Scriptural", which it is not. Again, is heliocentricism NOT Scriptural? You are avoiding this issue.

And yet at the same time Billy Graham, unlike the Pope, believes the Bible does not teach evolution. Billy Graham does not believe in evolution.

Billy Graham said that he does not know whether God created by evolution or not, which leaves the door open for the possibility that He did. I have heard he is a gap theorist, but he is smart enough to avoid the dangerous statement that it is impossible, due to Scripture, that God created via evolution. He is one who creates no stumbling block. Even though I disagree with his ultimate position, I agree completely with his method of presenting his belief. So you can see that it is not the message of Creationism that I oppose, only the dangerous method that so many YEC's use in presenting it.

Yes, you have provided scientific data, but have failed to provide an scriptural support for your belief. You have even admitted that your belief in evolution is unscriptural.

At least we got down to the truth.

Um, no, I did not admit that it is unscriptural. You said that. It is the type of thing for which there would be no verse describing it. The point is that it is not contrary to Scripture.

Again, is heliocentrism unscriptural? You can't keep dodging this issue forever.

 

[GodSaves]

Those verses you can find that specifically support the position that the solar system is heliocentric, rather than geocentric. Just as specific as you seem to expect verses about evolution to be.

You want this debate, on this subject, so present the verses. I have present verses for my beliefs in creationism. Since you brought this subject up, then I ask kindly that you present the verses you are referring to and we can discuss them.

No, since that implies that it is "anti-Scriptural", which it is not. Again, is heliocentricism NOT Scriptural? You are avoiding this issue.

Well Vance, you said you cannot provide scriptures for your belief in evolution because they are not in the Bible. That to me sounds like evolution is not supported by the Bible thus being unscriptural.

I don't see how I am avoiding the issue of heliocentrism. I asked you kindly to present the verses so we can discuss them. It is you who hasn't provided them for the discussion. I thought it only fair that since you brought it up, you present the verses. That way we are on the same page.

Billy Graham said that he does not know whether God created by evolution or not, which leaves the door open for the possibility that He did. I have heard he is a gap theorist, but he is smart enough to avoid the dangerous statement that it is impossible, due to Scripture, that God created via evolution. He is one who creates no stumbling block. Even though I disagree with his ultimate position, I agree completely with his method of presenting his belief. So you can see that it is not the message of Creationism that I oppose, only the dangerous method that so many YEC's use in presenting it.

I have never said God could not have used evolution. God could have used anything He wishes. I have said that evolution is not supported by the Bible. You have basically agreed to this by saying you cannot present verses that support evolution because there are none.

Um, no, I did not admit that it is unscriptural. You said that. It is the type of thing for which there would be no verse describing it. The point is that it is not contrary to Scripture.

Again, is heliocentrism unscriptural? You can't keep dodging this issue forever.

Well I apologize. It sure looked like you admitted it because you said you cannot provide scriptures to support evolution because there are none. Sounds unscriptural to me.

There is no support from the Bible that evolution is the process God used. There is support from the Bible that God spoke everything into being, in a six day period. Now, once again I can see the debate being that it could have been six ages instead of six days. That is a very good point. But the Bible does not lend support to evolution.

Let me ask you something since you have used this same analogy. You have said you worship Jesus Christ, but I have not heard you say you don't worship Satan. Can I be free to believe that you worship Satan because you have not said you that you don't? Of course not. You have said you worship Jesus Christ, and one who worships Jesus Christ does not worship Satan. Same is said about creation. The Bible says God spoke everything into being. The Bible says when God speaks it has already happened. The Bible says God created in six days. The Bible says Adam was the first man and sin and death came into the world through Adam. Evolution teaches differently than this, therefore it is not in accordance with the Bible. Since, the Bible also does not lend support for evolution, as even you have said, then we are safe to believe that God created as indicated by the Bible. Hence, creationsim.

I didn't say you can't believe in evolution, but don't try to say it is scriptural because you know it is not. Even if you do believe in evolution, but stick with everything else God has said, you can still receive salvation. Salvation is through the blood of Jesus Christ, not through the dirt of the earth.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

You want this debate, on this subject, so present the verses. I have present verses for my beliefs in creationism. Since you brought this subject up, then I ask kindly that you present the verses you are referring to and we can discuss them.

No, you are missing the point. You have asked that I provide the verses that specifically endorse evolution. I have asked you to provide the verses that specifically endorse heliocentrism. My point is that there are no such verses, but that this does not make heliocentrism unscriptural.

If you can not find Scripture which specifically endorses heliocentrism, and yet still believe in heliocentrism and do not find it contrary to Scripture, despite what the geocentists say, how is that different than me believing in evolution even if there are no verses which set it out in detail . . .

Here I will make it real easy:

Your situation:
Geocentrists have verses which they believe are clear, positive statements that the solar system is geocentric. You believe these verses do NOT say that, and accept the heliocentric model. They ask you to provide verses, then, which specifically support heliocentrism, and say that if you can't, heliocentrism is unscriptural.

My situation:
YEC's have verses which they believe are clear, positive statements that the universe was created in six literal days. I believe that these verses do NOT say that, and accept an old earth and an evolutionary model. You ask me to provide verses, then, which specifically support evolution, and say that if I can not, evolution is unscriptural.

Exactly the same. So, unless you are willing to say that heliocentrism is unscriptural simply by virtue of being "undescribed", you can not say that evolution is unscriptural simply because it is "undescribed".

Well Vance, you said you cannot provide scriptures for your belief in evolution because they are not in the Bible. That to me sounds like evolution is not supported by the Bible thus being unscriptural.

No, that is not a true statement at all. Are you saying that everything that is not in the Bible is unscriptural? If that means "not specifically discussed in Scripture", then this would apply to almost every scientific truth we know about. If you mean is opposed to Scripture in any way, then I would say absolutely not, evolution is not unscriptural.

I don't see how I am avoiding the issue of heliocentrism. I asked you kindly to present the verses so we can discuss them. It is you who hasn't provided them for the discussion. I thought it only fair that since you brought it up, you present the verses. That way we are on the same page.

What? You are not getting it. I will go over it again. Geocentrists have lots of verses which they believe make a clear statement of geocentrism. Those have been provided elsewhere, but I am not asking you to refute those verses, so those verses are not relevent. I am asking the same thing you are asking: please provide the specific verses, if there are any, that directly support the concept of heliocentrism. Anywhere in the Bible. You seem to think that if evolution were true, there should be verses which describe it, rather than just explaining why the verses YOU cite for a six day creation should not be read that way.

So, I ask you the same thing. Rather than just explaining why the verses cited by geocentrists are being read incorrectly, please provide those verses which indicate a heliocentric solar system.

I have never said God could not have used evolution. God could have used anything He wishes. I have said that evolution is not supported by the Bible. You have basically agreed to this by saying you cannot present verses that support evolution because there are none.

Well, other than the fact that God makes it clear that he created "from the earth" and man "from the dust" which shows that He used a process and did not just wave them into existence, there are no specific verses which describe the scientific details. But this is meaningless because we would not expect there to be any such detailed discussion of these processes. If this was a grounds for DISbelieving evolution, then you would equally have to DISbelieve heliocentrism since there are no specific verses which describe it.

Do you disbelieve in heliocentrism?

So, anyone can see that your point is moot. A nice straw man, but meaningless.

There are tons of things you accept as completely true that are not specifically described in Scripture.

And since evolution is not contrary to Scripture unless you insist on a literal reading, there is no reason NOT to believe it if the evidence supports it.

Which brings us back to that evidence . . .

Well I apologize. It sure looked like you admitted it because you said you cannot provide scriptures to support evolution because there are none. Sounds unscriptural to me.

No, since you seem to define "unscriptural" as contrary to Scripture. If it just means "not found in Scripture", then it is a meaningless point, since there are tons of true things not mentioned in Scripture.

There is no support from the Bible that evolution is the process God used. There is support from the Bible that God spoke everything into being, in a six day period. Now, once again I can see the debate being that it could have been six ages instead of six days. That is a very good point. But the Bible does not lend support to evolution.

There is ONLY support for a six day creation IF you read it literally. If you do not read it literally, there is no support for that concept at all. So, the question still comes down to whether the literal reading is correct or not. You are still begging the question. Remember, people were reading it non-literally long before they even knew about the concept of evolution or an old earth.

Let me ask you something since you have used this same analogy. You have said you worship Jesus Christ, but I have not heard you say you don't worship Satan. Can I be free to believe that you worship Satan because you have not said you that you don't? Of course not. You have said you worship Jesus Christ, and one who worships Jesus Christ does not worship Satan. Same is said about creation. The Bible says God spoke everything into being. The Bible says when God speaks it has already happened. The Bible says God created in six days. The Bible says Adam was the first man and sin and death came into the world through Adam

No, it does not say all of that if you read it non-literally. Every "the Bible says" in that paragraph depends on a literal reading. I don't think it says those things at all. Anymore than I think the poetic language in some of the Psalms is literal either. To me, and to lots of other Christians, Genesis says something very different, as I have stated elsewhere.

Evolution teaches differently than this, therefore it is not in accordance with the Bible. Since, the Bible also does not lend support for evolution, as even you have said, then we are safe to believe that God created as indicated by the Bible. Hence, creationsim.

But, since I don't believe that the Bible teaches any of those things you mention earlier, but something very different, and evolution does not contradict what I believe Scripture says in the least, then it means nothing that it is not specifically mentioned any more than any other scientific process is not mentioned.

I didn't say you can't believe in evolution, but don't try to say it is scriptural because you know it is not. Even if you do believe in evolution, but stick with everything else God has said, you can still receive salvation. Salvation is through the blood of Jesus Christ, not through the dirt of the earth.

Evolution is consistent with Scripture, just as heliocentrism is consistent with Scripture, even though Scripture doesn't mention either one specifically.

The bottom line is that you can not accept that a Christian can sincerely read the Genesis account non-literally with as much reverence as you read it literally. Every single proposition you have made is entirely and 100% dependent on the literal reading being the correct one. If it is NOT the correct interpretation, then nothing you have said holds any water at all.

 

[GodSaves]

No, you are missing the point. You have asked that I provide the verses that specifically endorse evolution. I have asked you to provide the verses that specifically endorse heliocentrism. My point is that there are no such verses, but that this does not make heliocentrism unscriptural.

If you can not find Scripture which specifically endorses heliocentrism, and yet still believe in heliocentrism and do not find it contrary to Scripture, despite what the geocentists say, how is that different than me believing in evolution even if there are no verses which set it out in detail . . .

Here I will make it real easy:

Your situation:
Geocentrists have verses which they believe are clear, positive statements that the solar system is geocentric. You believe these verses do NOT say that, and accept the heliocentric model. They ask you to provide verses, then, which specifically support heliocentrism, and say that if you can't, heliocentrism is unscriptural.

Ok. Then provide the verses that says the sun revolves around the earth. I have not yet seen the Bible saying this. This would be my argument against those who believe this. The Bible nowhere says this, but mind you the Bible does say God spoke the universe into existence and the Bible says that when God speaks it has already happened. The Bible says the universe was created in six days.

My situation:
YEC's have verses which they believe are clear, positive statements that the universe was created in six literal days. I believe that these verses do NOT say that, and accept an old earth and an evolutionary model. You ask me to provide verses, then, which specifically support evolution, and say that if I can not, evolution is unscriptural.

1. Can I ask you, do you believe the Bible when it says God spoke the universe into being? (Gen.)

2. Do you believe the Bible when it says that when God speaks it has already happened? (Hebrews & Romans)

3. Do you think the Bible really didn't mean when God speaks it has already happened? Do you think it means that when God speaks it will happen a million or billion years later?

Exactly the same. So, unless you are willing to say that heliocentrism is unscriptural simply by virtue of being "undescribed", you can not say that evolution is unscriptural simply because it is "undescribed".

Really? You see those as exactly the same. Hmm. I see your view and geocentrists view as the same, both are making the Bible say something it isn't.

No, that is not a true statement at all. Are you saying that everything that is not in the Bible is unscriptural? If that means "not specifically discussed in Scripture", then this would apply to almost every scientific truth we know about. If you mean is opposed to Scripture in any way, then I would say absolutely not, evolution is not unscriptural.

Maybe you don't see what I am getting at.

1. Does the Bible speak of the beginnings of the universe?
2. Does the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution speak of the beginnings of the universe?

If you answer yes to both, then you understand that now we must take the theories provided by the scientists and test them against scripture. Now I see where scripture talks of:

1. God creates the universe in six days.
2. God speaks the universe into being.
3. When God speaks it has already happen.

I have yet to see where scripture talks of evolution. I have yet to see 1 theistic evolutionists present or attest to their being scriptures that support evolution.

Since there is no support in the scriptures of evolution, and we are talking about something written in the Bible, I will have to believe what the Bible says.

Like I said, I believe one can make a case that days is not a 24 hour day but an age. I also see where one can make the case that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I don't think these are correct, but I can completely understand the thinking. Both rely on the written Word, solely. Evolution though does not draw any support from the Bible. If it did, then you would have some verses that you could present for us to talk about.

What? You are not getting it. I will go over it again. Geocentrists have lots of verses which they believe make a clear statement of geocentrism. Those have been provided elsewhere, but I am not asking you to refute those verses, so those verses are not relevent. I am asking the same thing you are asking: please provide the specific verses, if there are any, that directly support the concept of heliocentrism. Anywhere in the Bible. You seem to think that if evolution were true, there should be verses which describe it, rather than just explaining why the verses YOU cite for a six day creation should not be read that way.

Again, lets see these verses. You have brought this up as your arguement for support of evolution, so present the verses. If you cannot or will not then lets let this discussion of geocentrism die.

So, I ask you the same thing. Rather than just explaining why the verses cited by geocentrists are being read incorrectly, please provide those verses which indicate a heliocentric solar system.

I am sorry Vance, but I am not using geocentrism as my evidence to believe in evolution, you are. So the burden of presenting these verses for support is on you. I am fine if you would like to present these verses for discussion. I am willing to discuss them so please, present them.

Well, other than the fact that God makes it clear that he created "from the earth" and man "from the dust" which shows that He used a process and did not just wave them into existence, there are no specific verses which describe the scientific details. But this is meaningless because we would not expect there to be any such detailed discussion of these processes. If this was a grounds for DISbelieving evolution, then you would equally have to DISbelieve heliocentrism since there are no specific verses which describe it.

You don't even need to present scientific details, Vance. Just present verses that say God through some stuff together and then everything evolved. Surely evolved is not that technically of a term, since it is proven by history to have been around in the ancient Egyptian days, the days Moses lived in.

Notice:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

God formed man and then man became a living being. I just don't see where man evolved. I don't even see a hint that would suggest some sort of evolution here.

Do you disbelieve in heliocentrism?

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center and all planets revolve around it?
It clearly doesn't, so therefore your point is moot, unless you have some verses to share that say differently??

So, anyone can see that your point is moot. A nice straw man, but meaningless.

There are tons of things you accept as completely true that are not specifically described in Scripture.

But yet these things do exist in scripture:

1. God created in six days.
2. God spoke the universe and everything in it into being.
3. When God speaks it has already happened.
4. God created the universe out of nothing.

The Bible does not even hint evolution. If I am wrong, present the verses. The Bible does speak of the above 4 points.

And since evolution is not contrary to Scripture unless you insist on a literal reading, there is no reason NOT to believe it if the evidence supports it.



Which brings us back to that evidence . . .

Well you want to believe evolution is not contrary to Scripture, but Scripture does not mention evolution, but rather creating in six days, by God's Word, which when spoke has already happened. Doesn't quite sound like evolution to me, but I can be wrong.

I agree, lets get back to the evidence, still waiting for the verses that suggest evolution.

No, since you seem to define "unscriptural" as contrary to Scripture. If it just means "not found in Scripture", then it is a meaningless point, since there are tons of true things not mentioned in Scripture.

If I may, can I correct.... The Scriptures teach of creation in six days, God spoke everything into being, when God speaks it has already happened. Evolution says it took billions of years, sounds contrary to me, what do you think?

There is ONLY support for a six day creation IF you read it literally. If you do not read it literally, there is no support for that concept at all. So, the question still comes down to whether the literal reading is correct or not. You are still begging the question. Remember, people were reading it non-literally long before they even knew about the concept of evolution or an old earth.

Ok. Do you believe God spoke the universe and everything in it into being? Do you believe when God speaks it has already happened?

No, it does not say all of that if you read it non-literally. Every "the Bible says" in that paragraph depends on a literal reading. I don't think it says those things at all. Anymore than I think the poetic language in some of the Psalms is literal either. To me, and to lots of other Christians, Genesis says something very different, as I have stated elsewhere.

Are you trying to say that because I would read Genesis literally, that I would then have to read the whole Bible literally?

Just in case you didn't know: I read the Bible literally until it suggests from the wording that I should not. You say Genesis' creation account is poetic, but yet the Bible throughout speaks the same about creation as does Genesis.
Mind you Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, Pauls letters, Peters letters and Johns writings.

But, since I don't believe that the Bible teaches any of those things you mention earlier, but something very different, and evolution does not contradict what I believe Scripture says in the least, then it means nothing that it is not specifically mentioned any more than any other scientific process is not mentioned.

Evolution is consistent with Scripture, just as heliocentrism is consistent with Scripture, even though Scripture doesn't mention either one specifically.

The bottom line is that you can not accept that a Christian can sincerely read the Genesis account non-literally with as much reverence as you read it literally. Every single proposition you have made is entirely and 100% dependent on the literal reading being the correct one. If it is NOT the correct interpretation, then nothing you have said holds any water at all.

How is evolution consistent with Scripture when Scripture teachings that God spoke the universe and everything in it into being and when God speaks it has already happened? Evolution teaches that everything took billions of years. I don't see how that is consistent.

Maybe you can tell me your thoughts on Romans 5:12-15.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

there are a few rather interesting geocentric sites:
http://www.midclyth.supanet.com/index.htm
http://www.geocentricity.com/
http://www.fixedearth.com/


they list dozens if not a hundred verses that imply, to them at least, geocentricism. just a little reading or googling will convince most people that geocentrics believe that the Bible requires belief in their system and excludes the heliocentric system.

i could offer the same kind of list to support slavery as found in the 19thC American south, which is my interest. But the big point to be made is that the collision of geocentricism and heliocentricism is not made on the level of the words of Scripture but rather is a much higher level of analysis then the text itself. There exist verses which appear to support both sides of the issue, the question exists and must be answer further up the pyramid of analysis and theorizing. It will not be answered by listing and counting verses, anymore than the issues of slavery were/are.

It is a collusion of high order principles of whether the Scriptures are teaching a particular astronomy or are using a then-common astronomy in order to communicate with it. Perhaps the first half of H.Van Til's _the fourth day_ is the best directed reading on this issue.

I think it apparent to anyone who studies the issues, that Moses believed the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that heaven existed above and hell below their feet. All in the same matter, and at the same level as he believed the earth was 6K years old. The issue is not if the Bible uses such beliefs, it certainly does, but rather if God requires as a matter of faith that we believe them as did Moses. Or if they are the accommodation to communication that Calvin describes when he says God stoops to our level, lisping as a nursemaid to children.

 

[Vance]

Ok. Then provide the verses that says the sun revolves around the earth. I have not yet seen the Bible saying this. This would be my argument against those who believe this. The Bible nowhere says this, but mind you the Bible does say God spoke the universe into existence and the Bible says that when God speaks it has already happened. The Bible says the universe was created in six days.

Really, godsaves, I do not believe you are really as incapable of getting this point as it seems. I think you MUST be dodging. You say your response to geocentrist would be to show that the verses which they claim speak clearly about geocentrism do NOT say that. Fine. Then why do you not accept the same from TE's? We have explained to you why we believe the verses you say speak of a six day creation do NOT say that. But you want more. You want specific verses that SUPPORT evolution. So, why would the geocentrist not expect you to provide specific verses that SUPPORT heliocentrism?

You are exhibiting very obvious double standard here. If your refutation of their over-literal reading is sufficient to believe in heliocentrism WITHOUT additional verses which set out heliocentrism, then you must accept that the same is true of evolution. It is sufficient to beleve in evolution WITHOUT additional verses which specifically set out evolution.

1. Can I ask you, do you believe the Bible when it says God spoke the universe into being? (Gen.)

I believe what the Bible says. I do not believe that it is speaking literally when it describes the creation process.

2. Do you believe the Bible when it says that when God speaks it has already happened? (Hebrews & Romans)

This is a metaphysical statement, not a linear historical concept. Time means nothing to God, so where things happen in time is of no consequence from His point of view. This applies to the Calvinist arguments as well. The fact that God predestined does not mean that He made a choice about something in the future. It means that He already knew what would happen from the beginning.

3. Do you think the Bible really didn't mean when God speaks it has already happened? Do you think it means that when God speaks it will happen a million or billion years later?

See above. I don't think this analysis applies to Genesis at all, since the reference to "speaking" was non-literal.

1. Does the Bible speak of the beginnings of the universe?

Yes, in figurative, non-literal language designed to present greater truths.

2. Does the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution speak of the beginnings of the universe?

Yes, in very specific, historical and mechanical ways, entirely unlike Genesis. So, the two are attempting to accomplish VERY different things and will explain things using different methods. The scientific theories explain how things could have happened in historical and mechanical processes, the Bible providing great truths about God and Man necessary for the salvation message.

If you answer yes to both, then you understand that now we must take the theories provided by the scientists and test them against scripture.

Wrong, for the reasons stated.

Now I see where scripture talks of:

1. God creates the universe in six days.
2. God speaks the universe into being.
3. When God speaks it has already happen.

But ONLY if you read it literally. You still are begging the question of whether a literal reading is the correct one. Again, everything you are saying is entirely dependent upon a literal reading. Since I do not read it literally, none of your conclusions hold true.

I have yet to see where scripture talks of evolution. I have yet to see 1 theistic evolutionists present or attest to their being scriptures that support evolution.

Well, besides the fact that you are ignoring the interpretation of the Creation account regarding the text describe God using a process rather than just creating by a wave of the hand. Regardless, the Bible would not speak of evolution any more than heliocentrism. This means nothing to the validity of either natural reality.

Since there is no support in the scriptures of evolution, and we are talking about something written in the Bible, I will have to believe what the Bible says.

But, see, that is where your argument entirely falls apart. Your entire argument is based on the idea that Genesis MUST be read literally. Unless, you think the Bible talks about those things in a literal way, none of your conclusions are correct.

Like I said, I believe one can make a case that days is not a 24 hour day but an age. I also see where one can make the case that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I don't think these are correct, but I can completely understand the thinking. Both rely on the written Word, solely. Evolution though does not draw any support from the Bible. If it did, then you would have some verses that you could present for us to talk about.

Again, other than those provided, the fact of whether Scripture exists to support evolution is entirely irrelevant since there WOULDN'T be Scripture to support it, any more than there would be Scripture to specifically support heliocentrism.

You say your response to the geocentrist would NOT be to provide them with Scripture to show heliocentrism is correct, but to argue that their literal reading of Scripture is NOT correct. This is the SAME approach TE's have used, we have argued why your literal interepretation of Scripture is incorrect, entirely within the context of Scripture. Many times. But you are still asking for something that you would not, yourself, provide to the geocentrist.

Bad logic and double standard.

Again, lets see these verses. You have brought this up as your arguement for support of evolution, so present the verses. If you cannot or will not then lets let this discussion of geocentrism die.

No, you are being very evasive here (I choose to believe that than to assume you are just incapable of understanding the point). The verses supporing geocentrism are not relevent. You argue you would show that they should not be taken literally. Fine. This is the same thing we have done with your verses for a six day creation. You ask for something BEYOND this refutation, you ask for some specific scripture supporting evolution. So, I ask for something BEYOND a mere refutation of their Scripture, I ask for some specific Scripture supporting heliocentrism. You have not come up with them.

Until you come up with them, why should you believe in heliocentrism? If you believe in heliocentrism without Scriptural support, why should I not believe in evolution?

You keep dodging this issue.

I am sorry Vance, but I am not using geocentrism as my evidence to believe in evolution, you are. So the burden of presenting these verses for support is on you. I am fine if you would like to present these verses for discussion. I am willing to discuss them so please, present them.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe that you are continuing to evade this point. We are not talking about the verses supporting geocentrism. We are NOT talking about whether geocentrism is true. We are talking about verses which would specifically support heliocentrism instead. I propose that THERE ARE NO SUCH VERSES, just as there are no verses that specifically support evolution.

So, there are no verses for me to present. If you expect me to present verses in support of evolution for it to be "Scriptural", then you MUST present verses to support heliocentrism for IT to be "Scriptural".

So far, you have not provided any such verses.

You don't even need to present scientific details, Vance. Just present verses that say God through some stuff together and then everything evolved. Surely evolved is not that technically of a term, since it is proven by history to have been around in the ancient Egyptian days, the days Moses lived in.

Notice:

God formed man and then man became a living being. I just don't see where man evolved. I don't even see a hint that would suggest some sort of evolution here.

There would only be a reference to evolutionary development if God had any intention of providing a historically and scientifically accurate depiction of the events of Creation. If He instead chose to discuss things in figurative terms best designed to further the salvation message, he would have written exactly as He did, even if He used evolution over billions of years.

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center and all planets revolve around it?
It clearly doesn't, so therefore your point is moot, unless you have some verses to share that say differently??

But that is the point. There are geocentrists who believe that it "clearly" does. They read the Bible very literally, more literally than you do. You think they are wrong in this over-literalism, and so do I. You believe that they are wrong in their interpretation, just as I believe you are wrong in your interpretation.

The geocentrist is to your position as your position is to mine.

But yet these things do exist in scripture:

1. God created in six days.
2. God spoke the universe and everything in it into being.
3. When God speaks it has already happened.
4. God created the universe out of nothing.

No, not in the literal sense, they don't. The geocentrist really does accept his Scripture as being as obvious as you do yours. I think you are both wrong.

The Bible does not even hint evolution. If I am wrong, present the verses. The Bible does speak of the above 4 points.

Again, no it doesn't, not in a literal sense. Just as the Bible may refer to a fixed earth, but not in a literal sense.

Well you want to believe evolution is not contrary to Scripture, but Scripture does not mention evolution, but rather creating in six days, by God's Word, which when spoke has already happened. Doesn't quite sound like evolution to me, but I can be wrong.

Again, begging the question that it DOES speak of a literal six days.

I agree, lets get back to the evidence, still waiting for the verses that suggest evolution.

Asked and answered. But how about the evidence from God's Creation itself?

If I may, can I correct.... The Scriptures teach of creation in six days, God spoke everything into being, when God speaks it has already happened. Evolution says it took billions of years, sounds contrary to me, what do you think?

I think you are wrong. Scriptures do NOT teach of a creation is six literal days.

Ok. Do you believe God spoke the universe and everything in it into being? Do you believe when God speaks it has already happened?

Asked and answered above.

Are you trying to say that because I would read Genesis literally, that I would then have to read the whole Bible literally?

No, I am sure you read some literally, some non-literally, just like me. Just different Scripture.

Just in case you didn't know: I read the Bible literally until it suggests from the wording that I should not. You say Genesis' creation account is poetic, but yet the Bible throughout speaks the same about creation as does Genesis.
Mind you Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, Pauls letters, Peters letters and Johns writings.

Right, and all of those can be equally read as referring to a non-literal reading. We have been over all this before.

How is evolution consistent with Scripture when Scripture teachings that God spoke the universe and everything in it into being and when God speaks it has already happened? Evolution teaches that everything took billions of years. I don't see how that is consistent.

See above.

Maybe you can tell me your thoughts on Romans 5:12-15.

Sure, Paul is referring to a figurative past typology to discuss a great truth, and how it applies to a current literal Jesus. No problem there at all. He need not even have known, or cared, whether that past reference was historical or figurative, it would have been the same to him, being a man of his age. The truth of the statement holds true regardless.

 

[GodSaves]

I would like to see where in the Bible - being as specific in saying God created in six days, God spoke everything into being, when God speaks it has already happened - that you see support for geocentrism, a flat earth, and where the Bible says we should have slaves.

If this is your support for evolution then let us bring this up by you presenting the verses, since it is you who are using this as evidence for evolution.

You have yet to show where in the Bible evolution is talked about. You have read that God created in 6 days, God spoke the universe into being, when God speaks it has already happened. Show me where the Bible speaks contrary and in support of evolution. If there are no verses that support evolution, but yet there are verses that support creationism, then evolution is unscriptural. Unless you can provide scriptures that tell otherwise, the Bible does not support evolution, thus it is unscriptural.

Please feel free to bring in how the Bible promotes slavery, flat earth, and geocentrism as your support for evolution and we can discuss it here.

If you don't think the Bible supports the above, then maybe you might realize that evolutionists are falling in the same thinking as those people who believed the Bible promotes slaves, flat earth, and geocentrism. Evolution and the latter three groups are all trying to make the Bible say something it is not. That is unless you have some verses from the Bible that support evolution?

Take Care and God Bless

 

[GodSaves]

I have an office meeting to attend. I will happy to answer your questions later today or tomorrow, Vance.

In the meantime, take care and God Bless.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I would like to see where in the Bible - being as specific in saying God created in six days, God spoke everything into being, when God speaks it has already happened - that you see support for geocentrism, a flat earth, and where the Bible says we should have slaves.

the big point is hermeneutics.
the question you continue to pose is "give me verses to support evolution"
the reply is consistently, we are unable to do such a thing because the issues are not on the textual/verse level. rather the issues are in the theorizing we do about collections of verses. those large issues that we build out of Scripture.

if this is not a satisfactory answer then look at a major issue like the Trinity and realize that it is not possible to prove it at the textual level beyond dispute either , for you have only to look at the Unitarian writings to see that. All issues can not be resolved at the textual level, but many, in fact, many important issues are resolved by what the westminster confession aptly terms "good and necessary consequence".

as an alternative issue to creation evolution design debate. Vance has proposed that you look to your rightwing-the geocentrics. They use exactly the same arguments posed at your heliocentric position as you use to the TE to your left, just in another discussion. It is the parallelness, the symmetry of the arguments that we wish you to see, the geocentrics call heliocentrics--compromisers to the world's foolish knowledge because they(HC) accept the world's science over the clear teaching of Scripture.

the obvious verse level example is:

Then Joshua spoke to Yahweh,

On the day when Yahweh delivered the Amorites

unto the children of Israel, saying:

"In the sight of the Israelites,

let the sun stand still in Gibeon

and the Moon in the valley of Ajalon."

And the sun stood still and the Moon stayed

Until the people had avenged themselves of the enemies,

Indeed, it is all written in the Book of Jashar;

The sun stood still in the midst of the skies

And it hastened not to go down

about a whole day.

Scholars have struggled for generations with this tale in Chapter 10 of the Book of Joshua

from: http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/text/sitchday.htm

it says the sun stood still. period. unequivocally. literal etc. etc.

that is why Vance is using the example of geocentricism.
to try to broaden the discussion to see that it is a hermeneutical issue, not an issue of arranging verses and counting noses to see who is right.

If you read the geocentric sites you will certainly see the parallels to the CED debate. it is a very good example.

i am sorry now to even have mentioned slavery, it is my current intensive study and as a result bleeds into everything i read....i'd rather stick to Vance's geocentric parallel to CED and not sidetrack the thread. besides it is perhaps one of the truely interesting parallels that require understanding and as a result really illuminate the hermeneutical issues at stake.

You have yet to show where in the Bible evolution is talked about. You have read that God created in 6 days, God spoke the universe into being, when God speaks it has already happened. Show me where the Bible speaks contrary and in support of evolution. If there are no verses that support evolution, but yet there are verses that support creationism, then evolution is unscriptural. Unless you can provide scriptures that tell otherwise, the Bible does not support evolution, thus it is unscriptural.

you seem to have this radical dichomotous/polarization that either creation or evolution. no. evolution is merely a mechanism. creation is from nothing, by God, utterly contingent, God is separate from creation etc etc, the great theological consequences of creation that have been argued for millennium, these have nothing to do with TofE which is a scientific, not a theological theory. AFAIK the only traditional conservative orthodox doctrine that must be reworked if evolution is accepted as mechanism within a God-as-Creator framework is Adam as genetic father of all mankind, and there are TE's that don't even think this is a problem. nothing else must change, contrary to the loud protestation of the YECist community. not federal headship, not original sin, etc.

 

[gluadys]

1. Can I ask you, do you believe the Bible when it says God spoke the universe into being? (Gen.)

2. Do you believe the Bible when it says that when God speaks it has already happened? (Hebrews & Romans)

3. Do you think the Bible really didn't mean when God speaks it has already happened? Do you think it means that when God speaks it will happen a million or billion years later?

1. Yes, I do.

2. Yes, I do.

3a. No, I don't.
3b. Yes, it may.

 

[GodSaves]

Really, godsaves, I do not believe you are really as incapable of getting this point as it seems. I think you MUST be dodging. You say your response to geocentrist would be to show that the verses which they claim speak clearly about geocentrism do NOT say that. Fine. Then why do you not accept the same from TE's? We have explained to you why we believe the verses you say speak of a six day creation do NOT say that. But you want more. You want specific verses that SUPPORT evolution. So, why would the geocentrist not expect you to provide specific verses that SUPPORT heliocentrism?

Ok Vance show me where it says the sun revolves around the earth. If it does not then you have no proof that the Bible teaches this. Let me ask, does the sun move? Does it rotate with the galaxy? Have you ever said sun rise, sun set? If you have then you also have said that the sun revolves around the earth. That is if you want to try and use this argument.

You are a history person. You should know that the ancient Egyptians had charted the nine planets and talked about them rotating around the earth. You should know that Babylonia also had the same teachings then, which they adopted from anciet Egypt. Archaeology has shown this through the finding of both civilizations teachings of science.

So if ancient Egypt could talk about astrology, why couldn't it be understood about evolving? Not that hard of a concept to be added to the Bible.

You are exhibiting very obvious double standard here. If your refutation of their over-literal reading is sufficient to believe in heliocentrism WITHOUT additional verses which set out heliocentrism, then you must accept that the same is true of evolution. It is sufficient to beleve in evolution WITHOUT additional verses which specifically set out evolution.

I am sorry, but does the Bible say these things?

1. God created the universe in six days.
2. God spoke the universe into being.
3. When God speaks it has already happened.

Does the Bible say these things?

1. The sun revolves around the earth.
2. The earth is flat, not round.

You are aware that this a verse that says the earth is a sphere? You are aware what it means when I tell you I watched the sun set last night? You are aware that even way back then they used figures of speech?

Can you explain how the first three above are figures of speech? That is what you believe it to be, in the basic sense right?

I believe what the Bible says. I do not believe that it is speaking literally when it describes the creation process.

Do you believe God spoke the universe into being?
Do you believe when God speaks it has already happened?

This is a metaphysical statement, not a linear historical concept. Time means nothing to God, so where things happen in time is of no consequence from His point of view. This applies to the Calvinist arguments as well. The fact that God predestined does not mean that He made a choice about something in the future. It means that He already knew what would happen from the beginning.

Of course time means nothing to God. But God choose to tell of creation in the matter of time, hence six days. God also choose to tell us that when He speaks it has already happened. And God has told us that He spoke the universe into being. It doesn't take a genius to understand what happens when God speaks, and when God spoke how fast it happened.

See above. I don't think this analysis applies to Genesis at all, since the reference to "speaking" was non-literal.

Ok, so what does it mean when it says:

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light,"

Do you think God was speaking here?

Yes, in figurative, non-literal language designed to present greater truths.

Yes, in very specific, historical and mechanical ways, entirely unlike Genesis. So, the two are attempting to accomplish VERY different things and will explain things using different methods. The scientific theories explain how things could have happened in historical and mechanical processes, the Bible providing great truths about God and Man necessary for the salvation message.

Wrong, for the reasons stated.

But ONLY if you read it literally. You still are begging the question of whether a literal reading is the correct one. Again, everything you are saying is entirely dependent upon a literal reading. Since I do not read it literally, none of your conclusions hold true.

Well, besides the fact that you are ignoring the interpretation of the Creation account regarding the text describe God using a process rather than just creating by a wave of the hand. Regardless, the Bible would not speak of evolution any more than heliocentrism. This means nothing to the validity of either natural reality.

But, see, that is where your argument entirely falls apart. Your entire argument is based on the idea that Genesis MUST be read literally. Unless, you think the Bible talks about those things in a literal way, none of your conclusions are correct.

Again, other than those provided, the fact of whether Scripture exists to support evolution is entirely irrelevant since there WOULDN'T be Scripture to support it, any more than there would be Scripture to specifically support heliocentrism.

You say your response to the geocentrist would NOT be to provide them with Scripture to show heliocentrism is correct, but to argue that their literal reading of Scripture is NOT correct. This is the SAME approach TE's have used, we have argued why your literal interepretation of Scripture is incorrect, entirely within the context of Scripture. Many times. But you are still asking for something that you would not, yourself, provide to the geocentrist.

Bad logic and double standard.

No, you are being very evasive here (I choose to believe that than to assume you are just incapable of understanding the point). The verses supporing geocentrism are not relevent. You argue you would show that they should not be taken literally. Fine. This is the same thing we have done with your verses for a six day creation. You ask for something BEYOND this refutation, you ask for some specific scripture supporting evolution. So, I ask for something BEYOND a mere refutation of their Scripture, I ask for some specific Scripture supporting heliocentrism. You have not come up with them.

Until you come up with them, why should you believe in heliocentrism? If you believe in heliocentrism without Scriptural support, why should I not believe in evolution?

You keep dodging this issue.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe that you are continuing to evade this point. We are not talking about the verses supporting geocentrism. We are NOT talking about whether geocentrism is true. We are talking about verses which would specifically support heliocentrism instead. I propose that THERE ARE NO SUCH VERSES, just as there are no verses that specifically support evolution.

So, there are no verses for me to present. If you expect me to present verses in support of evolution for it to be "Scriptural", then you MUST present verses to support heliocentrism for IT to be "Scriptural".

So far, you have not provided any such verses.

There would only be a reference to evolutionary development if God had any intention of providing a historically and scientifically accurate depiction of the events of Creation. If He instead chose to discuss things in figurative terms best designed to further the salvation message, he would have written exactly as He did, even if He used evolution over billions of years.

But that is the point. There are geocentrists who believe that it "clearly" does. They read the Bible very literally, more literally than you do. You think they are wrong in this over-literalism, and so do I. You believe that they are wrong in their interpretation, just as I believe you are wrong in your interpretation.

The geocentrist is to your position as your position is to mine.

No, not in the literal sense, they don't. The geocentrist really does accept his Scripture as being as obvious as you do yours. I think you are both wrong.

Again, no it doesn't, not in a literal sense. Just as the Bible may refer to a fixed earth, but not in a literal sense.

Again, begging the question that it DOES speak of a literal six days.

Asked and answered. But how about the evidence from God's Creation itself?

I think you are wrong. Scriptures do NOT teach of a creation is six literal days.

Asked and answered above.


No, I am sure you read some literally, some non-literally, just like me. Just different Scripture.

Right, and all of those can be equally read as referring to a non-literal reading. We have been over all this before.

See above.

Sure, Paul is referring to a figurative past typology to discuss a great truth, and how it applies to a current literal Jesus. No problem there at all. He need not even have known, or cared, whether that past reference was historical or figurative, it would have been the same to him, being a man of his age. The truth of the statement holds true regardless.

My apologies but I am just going to sum up. You brought up geocentrism. You need to bring the verses in to support your posistion of evolution. This is a debate on whether or not evolution is Scriptural. You, yourself have said evolution is not in the Bible, therefore agree it is unScriptural. For if it is not supported by the Bible and the Bible teaches something differently then evolution, then it is unScriptural.

You want to make this a comparison of how others have tried to make the Bible say something it doesn't. When read literally the Bible does not say the earth is flat (literally), nor does it say eveything revolves around the earth(literally). But it literally says God created in six days. It literally says God spoke the universe into being. It literally says when God speaks it has already happened. All of which you disagree with.

This is a round robin discussion. I have asked for your Scriptural support of evolution, you have conceded saying there is none. Then you bring up something completely different to divert the issue. When you want to talk about Scriptures that actually support evolution, please PM me and we can talk. But it takes too much time to keep going back to your geocentrism idea's when it is clearly making the Bible say something it does not. And further more the Bible does not literally teach of these things. It does not literally say the earth is flat, or the planets/sun revolves around the earth. Man has made it say this as man is making the Bible say evolution when it says God spoke everything into being, in six days, and when God speaks it has already happened. That is what the Bible says literally. One which you clearly know and know that the Bible does not teach evolution.

So, PM me when you want to take about real verses giving real support for evolution, instead of sidetracking the issue with geocentrism.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

Godsaves, I really am having a quandry here. One of two things is happening, either you are simply not understanding what is being said even though it is not complicated and is in plain English, or you are stubbornly avoiding the issue. I honestly don't know which it is. The fact that you could say that I believe the Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth shows a complete and utter lack of comprehension on your part of everything I have written. Either that or complete dishonesty. I prefer to think it is the former.

I will try this one more time, and if you still can not comprehend it, or you just refuse to deal with it, then I am done and can rest assured that everyone on this forum realizes that the fault does not lay with me. Now, please, read what I am saying.

1. The verses which set out the concepts of geocentrism do not matter. We both agree that they are being read incorrectly and do NOT really say that sun revolves around the earth. Again, for clarity's sake: the verses which geocentrists point to are being read over-literally. While on their surface, with a plain reading, they SEEM to say that, the Scriptures do not REALLY say that. We both agree on that point, so there is no need to derail this discussion by hashing that out. We are in agreement there. Got it?

2. However, there are geocentrists out there who believe it does, based on a literal reading of that Scripture. No matter how wrong they are, that is what they say. And it is what the ENTIRE CHURCH said before Galileo, that those verses state clearly that the solar system is heliocentric. They were ALL wrong, that is not the point. The point is that they believe it is the correct, plain reading of Scripture. With me so far?

3. Now, if they said to you the following "Now, godsaves, since the plain, simple Scripture states that the solar system is geocentric, do you have any verses that say heliocentrism is true? huh? If not, then heliocentrism is unscriptural!" What would be your response?

4. My guess is that your response would be that the Scripture does NOT say the solar system is geocentric. They would respond "That is what you say, but where is your scripture that the solar system is heliocentric? It sounds as if you are conceding that it is unscriptural, no?" What would your response be?

5. Again, my guess would be that you would say that since they are wrong about the Scripture insisting on a geocentric solar system, there is no need for a specific reference to heliocentrism. They respond "ah, then you admit it, heliocentrism is unscriptural, since you can provide no Scripture to support it!" What would your response be?

Can you see my point now? If not, then there is simply no use in continuing this conversation.

1. The Bible does not SAY spefically that God created through evolution.

2. The Bible does not SAY specifically that God created in six days.

3. The Bible does not SAY specifically that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

4. The Bible does not SAY specifically that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Now, you would disagree with 2 and the geocentrist would disagree with 4, and I would disagree with both of you on those points since I believe all of those are true statements.

The point is that there is no need for a specific Scriptural reference to evolution any more than there is the need for specific Scriptural reference to heliocentrism.

 

[GodSaves]

1. The Bible does not SAY spefically that God created through evolution.

2. The Bible does not SAY specifically that God created in six days.

You really think the Bible does not say specifically that God created in six days?

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

Maybe you haven't noticed a common theme of God doing things in six days?

Exodus 16:5
On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days."

Exodus 16:26
Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any."

Exodus 24:16
and the glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the LORD called to Moses from within the cloud.

Leviticus 23:3
" 'There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD .

Deuteronomy 16:8
For six days eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day hold an assembly to the LORD your God and do no work.

Joshua 6:3
March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days.

Ezekiel 46:1
" 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: The gate of the inner court facing east is to be shut on the six working days, but on the Sabbath day and on the day of the New Moon it is to be opened.

Matthew 17:1
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.

Maybe you don't think Genesis 1-2 is significant?

Genesis 1
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.
Genesis 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

Do you think this means anything that God created everything in six days?

Since you cannot present verses to even give a bit of support for evolution, explain each one of these verses above.

1. Show the figures of speech.
2. Explain how that what is written is not really saying what its words lead us to believe but rather something else.
3. Explain why the Bible uses the common theme of six days. Notice these are actual days, not ages.
4. Explain how evolution works into all of this.

Vance is there any way we can actual discuss this, or do we need to keep talking about geocentrism so you do not have to discuss why the Bible does not lend support for evolution, but overwhelmingly gives support for a six day creation? I am getting the idea that you rather keep bringing up another subject so that you can derail this conversation because you are aware there is not one verse that will support evolution, but many verses that will support a six day creation.

If you cannot stay on this topic, and rather keep changing topics, then your answer is clear; evolution is unscriptural and you rather change the subject so as to not admit it.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

We have discussed WHY we believe Genesis 1 and 2 is meant to be read non-literally in many other threads, which I know you have read, so there is no need to re-hash all of that again. Your point early on in THIS thread was that there were no verses which indicate evolution. I have shown, by the comparison with YOUR view on heliocentrism, that we would not EXPECT there to be any reference to evolution. This is not derailing the discussion, it is providing the reason why your request for Scripture for evolution is a straw man.

Now, answer a couple of very simple questions, and we might be able to cut to the chase:

1. Would you not agree that IF evolution did NOT contradict Scripture in any way, that it would not be "unscriptural", but only "extra-scriptural", the same way heliocentrism, germ theory, and other scientific theories are not contained in Scripture, but could still be true?

2. Would you not agree that IF Genesis 1 and 2 was NOT meant to be read to literally and was not meant to provide a scientific or historical account of creation, then evolution would not contradict it?

 

[GodSaves]

Now, answer a couple of very simple questions, and we might be able to cut to the chase:

1. Would you not agree that IF evolution did NOT contradict Scripture in any way, that it would not be "unscriptural", but only "extra-scriptural", the same way heliocentrism, germ theory, and other scientific theories are not contained in Scripture, but could still be true?

2. Would you not agree that IF Genesis 1 and 2 was NOT meant to be read to literally and was not meant to provide a scientific or historical account of creation, then evolution would not contradict it?

You want me to answer your questions and yet you have not answered mine.

If evolution was talked about in the Bible as the way God created I would be the biggest evolutionists you ever did know. But the Bible teaches God created in six days, God spoke the universe into being and when God speaks it has already happened.

If Genesis 1 and 2 was written like Psalms then I would see it as written with figures of speech. Since it is not written like Psalms, e.g. figures of speech, I read it how I believe it is meant to be read, literally.

Unfortunately, I cannot ask you the same questions because we don't play on the same field. You will take sentence structures, word phrasings that are the same in one area as they are where it speaks literally and say it is allegorical. Your view, I believe, lacks consistency. You take what part you want to take, instead of looking at the text, allegorically.

You have not even shown me where figures of speech is used in Genesis 1-2. You have not provided Scriptures that give hints to man evolving.

Does the Bible have verses to support your "man evolving from primative ape" thinking? If not, is it Scriptural? Especially when it talks how God created man and what God did with man.

Still waiting for you to talk about your beliefs using the Bible......

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

But that is the point, I have answered all your questions, here and elsewhere. In great detail. All of us who read Genesis 1 and 2 non-literally have explained why we believe this is the best reading. You may not agree, but then you go and insist on the types of proofs that make no sense unless one accepted a literal reading, which you know we don't. That is just ridiculous.

Basically, you are just avoiding dealing with the issue I am raising because you know it reveals a basic weakness in your position. You realize that everything you are saying hinges on a literal reading. If that literal reading turns out to be incorrect, then it all comes down like a house of cards. That is why you dodge away from the comparison to geocentrism. That is why you refuse to deal with this issue straight up. This is why you refuse to answer two simple questions.

Instead, you keep asking whether a scientific theory is "Scriptural". I have answered this in great detail. While there are some Scriptures which allude to evolution (see Glen Morton's thread on this), there is no detailed description. But this does not mean in any way that it is "unscriptural" in the sense of being opposed to Scripture. It is not opposed to Scripture unless you read it literally, which I don't.

I asked you whether heliocentrism is "unscriptural" because it also lacks specific Biblical support, but you refuse to answer.

I ask you two very simple questions, but you refuse to answer.

Now, here is something you might read. It is written by someone who is opposed to evolution, but after doing some intensive research, has concluded that Genesis 1 must be read non-literally:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html#Making%20Sense%20of%20Genesis%201

This is just a single analysis regarding a non-literal Genesis among many, but one written by an anti-evolutionist, so you can't write it off as simple justification for accepting evolution.

What is odd is that you discuss a literal reading as if this is the norm, the accepted interpretation by most Christians.

Now, I have answered every question you have asked, now answer mine.