The Discussion about the Debate

[GodSaves]

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.

Do you like putting words in my mouth? Or do you feel you have a better understanding of me then I do of myself?

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.

So your basic premise is that when the Bible says "sun rise sun set" that is read literally that the sun revolves around the earth?

In the same regard when we read "God created the heavens and the earth and all in them in six days" when read literally it means God created all things in six days.

Vance you are a smart guy, can you see the huge differences in two? Can you see how sun rise sun set literally does not say the sun revolves around the earth?

You seriously cannot tell me this is your "great" evidence to disprove my belief in what the Bible says "God created everything in six days."

Your thinking of what reading literal is:
sun rise sun set = the sun revolves around the earth

My thinking of what reading literal is:
God created everything in six days = God created everything in six days

Secondly, do you know where you find the sun rise sun set quotes? There are all in the writings of Solomon. Are you aware how Solomon wrote? If not read some of Proverbs. Solomon was a very wise man the writings of his in the Bible are poetry, songs, and proverbs. Sun rise sun set was not meant, as indicated by the text, to be taken literally but as a figure of speech.

No where in Genesis 1-2 does it indicate that one should read it as a figure of speech or allegorically.

Look at what I have underlined above and you tell me which one is read literally and which has been changed from the text to mean something else. Then tell me how evolution fits in with the Bible.

I have answered your questions Vance, you just don't like my answers. You have no Scriptural basis to accept evolution as a teaching from the Bible. You divert the discussion to geocentrism, by saying that reading sun rise sun set literally will make anyone come the conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth. You have ignored the writer and the context in which these quotes were written in. I believe you do so because you cannot give any Scriptural references that support evolution.

Vance, I don't care if you believe in evolution. I don't care if you think that is how God created. Just don't try and con people by telling them that the Bible teaches evolution too, because it does not. The Bible teaches a six day creation, that God spoke the universe into being, and that when God speaks it has already happened. If you think this is not how it is done, then Bless you. Just don't try and say that the Bible teaches evolution.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i do not like the polarization of hermeneutics into figurative and literal. things are not that simple.

for example:
that God spoke the universe into being,

that is an anthropomorphism, it is figurative, it is a metaphor.
God does not speak analogously to human beings, He does not have vocal cords, there was no matter to vibrate to sound.

however speech and the breath of life are very important metaphors in Scripture, yet that is what they are figurative metaphors. Teaching us something important about God by drawing analogies to what we know. Plus it is an accommodation to our fleshly nature. Speech is how we communicate, so it is a natural way to express how God communicates and creates. But all that said- it is figurative, not literal.

....

 

[GodSaves]

i do not like the polarization of hermeneutics into figurative and literal. things are not that simple.

for example:
that God spoke the universe into being,

that is an anthropomorphism, it is figurative, it is a metaphor.
God does not speak analogously to human beings, He does not have vocal cords, there was no matter to vibrate to sound.

How do you know God cannot speak? You said God does not have vocal cords, but didn't Jesus, who is God, have them? When it says God is a spirit, it means that God is not contained inside of anything. He can be, do, and say anything.



God Bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

How do you know God cannot speak? You said God does not have vocal cords, but didn't Jesus, who is God, have them? When it says God is a spirit, it means that God is not contained inside of anything. He can be, do, and say anything.



God Bless

are you arguing that 'God speaking' is not an anthropomorphism?

That the Scriptures as the Word of God is not a metaphor?

that Jesus being the Logos, the Word of God is not an accommodation to human ways of thinking, in particular, a Greek conception of logos? but rather arguing that Jesus is a word as in human speech, and not an extended metaphor?

are you genuinely arguing that Gen 1 teaches that God caused vibrations in matter in order to speak words before there was matter to vibrate?

are you really arguing that the form of the words, that the clothing for the thoughts, the metaphors etc are more important to be maintained as literal, historic, scientific then the ideas they propose to teach us?

if so then you are holding to the form and missing the substance.

....

 

[GodSaves]

Maybe I was not clear. How can you say God cannot speak? If God wants to speak He will. If God wants to use vocal cords, Jesus Did. Are you arguing that God cannot? That JEsus did not? Are you implying that Jesus Christ didn't speak using vocal cords? Are you implying Jesus Christ was not God? Are you implying God is limited and He could not create Himself some vocal cords and speak? Are you implying that God needs vocal cords in order to speak?

I am arguing that God can do anything, and anyone who says God cannot, is utterly and completely wrong. THe Bible says God is the Almighty and can do anything He wishes. That is what I am arguing.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[gluadys]

Maybe I was not clear. How can you say God cannot speak? If God wants to speak He will. If God wants to use vocal cords, Jesus Did. Are you arguing that God cannot? That JEsus did not? Are you implying that Jesus Christ didn't speak using vocal cords? Are you implying Jesus Christ was not God?

Really! You cannot argue from Jesus speaking that God speaking is the same thing. Jesus is the Word made flesh. He had vocal cords because he was incarnate in flesh. He spoke with auditory force because he was human, not because he was God.

Note: I am not denying he was God incarnate, but it is his incarnation as a human being, not his divinity, which gave him the power of vocal speech.

Are you implying God is limited and He could not create Himself some vocal cords and speak? Are you implying that God needs vocal cords in order to speak?

To create vocal cords God first has to create matter. If vocal cords are necessary to speech and speech is necessary to creation, how did he create the matter for the vocal cords before he could speak?

If vocal cords are not necessary to God speaking, then matter is still necessary to carry the sound waves, so how was God's voice be heard before matter existed? Can speech without the possibility of sound be speech?

I am arguing that God can do anything, and anyone who says God cannot, is utterly and completely wrong. THe Bible says God is the Almighty and can do anything He wishes. That is what I am arguing.

Take Care and God Bless

I do wish people who argue from omnipotence (or omniscience) would at least learn enough philosophy to understand what the terms mean.

Omnipotence does NOT and never has meant the ability to do anything whatsoever. It specifically excludes what is logically impossible. Note the verbal relationship between "omnipotence" and "impossible".

omni = all
potence (nominal form of "posse") = power, ability
im=not
possible (from "posse") =to be able, to have power/ability to do.

By definition no power in existence can do what by definition is impossible.

Omnipotence means the ability to do all that is possible. It does not include the capacity to do what is impossible.

We call God omnipotent because if God wishes to do something and that something is possible, then God can do it. There are no barriers to God's using his power to do anything within the realm of the possible.

By contrast, our power does not extend as far as our will. We are not omnipotent, because there is much we wish to do, and which is, in theory, possible, but yet we are incapable of doing it. We may want to lift a heavy box. The box can be lifted. But, because our muscles are limited in their capacity, we cannot lift the box. Our power does not match our will.

God's power matches God's will. There is nothing in the realm of possibility which God cannot do if God wills it. That is why we say God is omnipotent.

But if something is outside of even the theoretical limits of possibility (such as making a circle with four corners or a square with no corners) even omnipotence cannot do that.

So, if by speech, you mean "to make sound by the vibration of vocal cords", or even "to make sound vibrations by other means", then that is impossible without the existence of vocal cords or the existence of matter as the medium of vibration and/or as the substance of the vocal cords. But how can that matter be brought into existence by speech if it is a necessary pre-requisite for speech to be even possible?

It would seem then, that Jesus speaking as a human being using physical, fleshly vocal cords whose vibrations are carried by physical air, and God speaking as Creator without the use of vocal cords or air or any physical medium for sound waves to travel on are not the same modes of speaking.

We have to think of the phrase "And God said..." in Genesis 1 in a different way than ordinary physical audible speech. Because there is no way it could be that.

 

[GodSaves]

You know this is the first time I have heard of a Christian saying God can only do what is possible. Hmm. God cannot do the impossible, huh? God is limited then by your conclusions.


Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Luke 1:37
For nothing is impossible with God."

 

[gluadys]

You know this is the first time I have heard of a Christian saying God can only do what is possible. Hmm. God cannot do the impossible, huh? God is limited then by your conclusions.

So you never took Philosophy 101.

Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Luke 1:37
For nothing is impossible with God."

Both passages that fall within what I said. Lots of possible things are not humanly possible, but all such things are possible with God.

 

[Vance]

So your basic premise is that when the Bible says "sun rise sun set" that is read literally that the sun revolves around the earth?

No, I am not saying that, that is what the geocentrist says. I am sure you read what I wrote probably a dozen times: that I don't believe the Bible teaches geocentrism. So, why would you say this?

I do not believe the Bible teaches geocentrism anymore than I believe it teaches a six day creation.

You want to know why we are discussing geocentrism? Because you are taking the position that if evolution was true, there would be some reference to it in Scripture. This is simply not true, and the discussion of geocentrism explains why. You don't seem to get this, and keep getting confused about why we are discussing this.

Vance you are a smart guy, can you see the huge differences in two? Can you see how sun rise sun set literally does not say the sun revolves around the earth?

Of course, I can. But that is not the only verse they use, and they have a bunch of theological arguments to back it up as well. Did you bother to read what they have to say on the sites provided to you? If not, you can not really talk to what they say. Please go read those sites and if you want to address all their arguments and verses, feel free. The point is that they are AS CONVINCED as you are of a six day creation that the literal reading of not just that one Scripture, but the Creation story in Genesis, and other verses, indicate CLEARLY that the solar system is geocentric.

But the point is that I agree with you that they are being over-literal.

To me, the YEC's and the geocentrics fall into the same error of interepretation, just they are further down that path of error than YEC's are.

I have just reposted, in a new thread, some information on geocentrism, including a link to a page which discusses the Scriptural and theological reasons why geocentrism must be true. Here is the link, so you don't even have to look at another thread. I would ask that you read the whole of this page:

http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm

In which they go into great detail why Genesis 1 teaches geocentrism. They also cite the sun standing still (how could it stand still if it is not the one moving?), and I Chronicles 16:30, which states that the Earth is fixed and shall not be moved (and Psalms 93:1, saying the same). Now for those of us (you and me) willing to read this a bit less literally, we can see that they are misreading these passages.

Here is a great quote from them, since it is EXACTLY what you are saying to me about evolution:

"When all is said that can be said on this matter, the fact remains that the Bible--from start to finish--teaches a non-moving earth. There are no heliocentricity verses in the Bible. None. All efforts to find Scriptural support for heliocentricity are vain attempts to make the Bible conform with long age Copernicanism and all that rests upon it, and thus justify a "Theistic Copernicanism" position that cannot be justified."

To them, you are a "Theistic Copernicanist". You have compromised the true reading of Scripture in order to accomodate modern scientific thought. Sound familiar?

So, do you think heliocentrism is unscriptural because it is not mentioned specifically in Scripture?

No where in Genesis 1-2 does it indicate that one should read it as a figure of speech or allegorically.

Did you read the article I cited you to which shows that it does, indeed, indicate that? The language used, the structure, the images, all scream out "non-literal" to me as a Christian and as a historian. As I have mentioned many times, I came to this belief long before I came to accept evolution.

And, again, you act as if a literal reading is the norm within Christianity.

I have answered your questions Vance, you just don't like my answers.

Really? Where did you answer the two simple questions I asked? Where did you answer the question of whether heliocentrism is unscriptural?

You have no Scriptural basis to accept evolution as a teaching from the Bible.

Of course, it is not a teaching "of the Bible". I have said that many times over. The point is that there are many, many true things that are not taught in the Bible. As long as it does not contradict the Bible, it makes no difference. Again, is heliocentrism a "teaching of the Bible"? Do you still believe it?

These are still questions you have not answered.

You divert the discussion to geocentrism, by saying that reading sun rise sun set literally will make anyone come the conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth. You have ignored the writer and the context in which these quotes were written in. I believe you do so because you cannot give any Scriptural references that support evolution.

No, just the opposite, I have said specifically that those verses (and why do you just talk about this one, btw?) do NOT teach geocentrism. But what I think does not matter. The simple fact is that those verses, including Genesis 1, was read by every Christian before 1500 to indicate a geocentric solar system, and this conformed with the current scientific models as well. Science came along and showed that this was not true. The Church threw a fit, acting much as YEC's do now. And just as now, most Christians came to accept the new science and simply realized that they had read those verses wrong all along. Some Christians, however, have stubbornly clung to the hyper-literal view of all these Scriptures, and stand firm for geocentrism against Man's science. And, YEC's are doing the same now.

Vance, I don't care if you believe in evolution. I don't care if you think that is how God created. Just don't try and con people by telling them that the Bible teaches evolution too, because it does not. The Bible teaches a six day creation, that God spoke the universe into being, and that when God speaks it has already happened. If you think this is not how it is done, then Bless you. Just don't try and say that the Bible teaches evolution.

I never said the Bible teaches evolution. When have I ever said this?

But, no, the Bible does not teach a six day creation, either.

Only the literalists believe that.

 

[GodSaves]

Does the Bible teach heliocentrism? No.
Does the Bible teach geocentrism? No.

The Bible teaches neither, your point is moot.

Does the Bible teach man evolving? No.
Does the Bible teach God creating man in His image? Yes.
Does the Bible teach a six day creation? Yes.
Does the Bible teach that God spoke creation into being? Yes.
Does the Bible teach that when God speaks it has already happened? Yes.
Does the Bible teach that God had man evolve then He plucked man and put Him into the Garden of Eden? No.
Does the Bible teach a literal Adam? Yes.
Does the Bible teach sin coming into the world through one man, Adam? Yes.


Joshua 10
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Where does it say the sun revolves around the earth?

Ecclesiastes 1
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

Where does it say the sun revolves around the earth?

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.

Does it say the LORD created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days?

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.' "

Does it say the LORD made the heavens and the earth in six days?

Genesis 1
And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.


How many days are given in Genesis 1 for creation?
What does 'there was evening, and there was morning' mean?
Do we understand a day today as having a morning and evening?

Genesis 1
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Was man created in God's image?

Genesis 2
...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Did God actually form Adam from the dust of the ground?
Did God breathe into his nostrils the breath of life?
And then did man become a living being?

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Did sin enter the world through one man?
How did death come to all man?

Romans 5
14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.


Is Adam a real man?
Is Moses a real man?
Did death reign before Adam or after?
What happened even to those who did not sin, did death reign over them?

Psalm 78:50
He prepared a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death but gave them over to the plague.


So God created death before the fall of man. Everything God created, before the fall(according to TE's this includes death) was good in God's eyes. Yet here God, in His anger, lets death take them.

1 Corinthians 15:21
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

Did sin come into this world through a man(Adam)?
Does the resurrection of the dead come through a man(Jesus Christ) also?

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Why conquer death, it was apart of God's original creation before the fall of man?
Is death an enemy?

1 Corinthians 15:54
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Death swallowed up in victory?

1 Corinthians 15:55
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Revelation 6:8
I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Revelations 20
14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

Is death thrown into the second death?
If death is apart of Gods creation before sin, why is cast into the second death?


Romans 8:21-22
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

What has been happening to God's creation since sin entered the world?

Did man live for hundreds of years in the Old Testament?
Has man been aging faster as time goes on due to sin(without the help of medical drugs)?
Do you think the earth has been aging faster as time goes on due to sin?


Take Care and God Bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I appreciate the argument that Vance is making comparing geocentricism-to-helio and creation-to-evolution as patterns of how science has modified hermeneutics and traditional Biblical interpretation. I think it is both an illuminating and persuasive example, actually i am rather surprised that everyone doesn't see his point and move on to subsequent analysis.

I think there is an important issue after this analysis that has not been brought up. the difference between Scripture using metaphors/motifs/cultural ideas and Scripture teaching that those things are binding on subsequent readers/believers. The issue is usually wording in terms like transcultural or transcendent .

Here is how the argument goes.
The human writers of Scripture believed certain things. Say geocentric universe. God uses them(the ideas) in the process of inspiration to write Scripture, He does not overpower their cultural beliefs but adapts them to the purposes of revelation. If God wishes to tell us X, and a cultural belief Y has nothing to do with X, God does not modify that Y simply because it is wrong. for example, the ancient Hebrews believed in a geocentric universe, God uses this belief to communicate to us, stating as i quoted before that the earth stood still so Israel could win the battle. The point is God's superintendence of the universe, not that the earth actually goes around the sun and not vice versa. God allows us to discover that centuries later, but never in history can mankind discover God's fatherhood or providence in the physical universe, that is only known via revelation. That is the point of the episode, God's power, this is transcultural, to be taught through all cultures and all times, the issue of the sun stopping in the sky is the packaging material necessary to tell the story. Just as words are needed, so are culture bound motifs/metaphors/etc, these motifs are not being TAUGHT but are being USED.

Perhaps the best way to understand this is H.Van Til's analogy of a delivery truck and a package. UPS pulls up to your door and delivers a package. It is the contents that are important, not the truck, not the packaging, but without both the delivery is impossible. How the truck works, how the package is labelled and wrapped is not the issue, but to understand how the package got to you it is essential to understand those things. but the contents, the message is not the packing material. (Essentially YECist want to fight over whether the return address ought to be in the upper left hand corner or not, a young earth is part of the parcel)

the packing material is the cultural situation of both the ANE in the OT and the Greco-Roman world of the 1st C for the NT. it is essential to understand these things to be able to separate the packing from the message. The UPS van is like the language, the words, very important structurally but not part of the message, rather they are how we get the message, or better yet how God gets the message to us. This is textual criticism.

Going back to the issue of geo vs helio centricism.
The OT USES the motifs of the day, from a naive human perspective, to cloth the ideas of the OT in a geocentric manner. The earth is considered stationary with the spheres of the universe rotating around. IF you don't understand that, then it is foolish to continue with the discussion. What happened historically is that science caught up with the culturally determined motifs and metaphors of Scripture and the church discovered that it had incorporated cultural elements into theology in a universal manner. Science causes the church to modify both beliefs about the world and more importantly the basic hermeneutics that we use to interpret Scripture. The distinction between things used and things taught, between cultural artifices used to communicate and transcultural elements that God wishs for us to understand and to believe authoritatively, emerges from this debate.

Analogously the evolution-creation debate emerges as a point not just of the content of beliefs about the world but the very structure of the hermeneutics that we use to interpret Scripture.
---
there is another example of when this is particularly important. not just in hermeneutical studies but in missionary work. for:

If Scripture comes to us with authority and reliability, then we need to understand how to separate the form from the function, the structure from the content, the message from the packaging material. To do otherwise is to miss God's point. essentially this is the Judaizer argument from Galatians, you must become a Jew to be a Christian, you must adopt the clothing of the Savior to adopt the Savior, you must be circumsized.

This issue arises in missionary work with a surprising power. Exactly what is it that a missionary is responsible to transmit to a new convert? First, he needs to be sensitive that he doesn't confuse the Gospel with his own culture. The problem of mumus in Hawaii. Second, he needs to make these teaching and using distinctions in Scripture clear enough that converts can begin to apply the issues to their culture. It is not a simply, nor even a straightforward issue and has in fact really screwed up the witness of the Gospel in new cultures.

so what you have is the cultural context of the Scriptures, being absorbed and then transmitted by the mission culture
to a new culture. At each stage this contextualization occurs, sometimes consciously but more often unconsciously.

So when the YECist contends that God teaches us that the world is 6K years old, and furthermore we must believe it over the evidence of our eyes in science, the response of the TE is that this is a cultural element in the transmission of the Gospel, a necessary motif in order for us to understand the message, but not an authoritative teaching that we are to believe and in turn transmit onward (via missionary or evangelism work). It is a culturally conditioned temporary piece of the puzzle, it is not the take home message we are to incorporate into our hearts. simply put, it is how the Christmas present from God to us is labelled, but not the present within.

Jesus was both a man and a Jew, to be a Christian is to become like Him, but that does not imply that we become either Jewish or male.

 

[Vance]

Does the Bible teach heliocentrism? No.
Does the Bible teach geocentrism? No.

The Bible teaches neither, your point is moot.

No, it is not moot. The question is whether heliocentrism is "unscriptural" because the Bible does not teach it.

Do you believe in heliocentrism even though it is not taught in the Bible?

These are still two questions you have not answered.

Also, here again are the two simple questions I asked earlier you have not answered:

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?

Does the Bible teach man evolving? No.
Does the Bible teach God creating man in His image? Yes.
Does the Bible teach a six day creation? Yes.
Does the Bible teach that God spoke creation into being? Yes.
Does the Bible teach that when God speaks it has already happened? Yes.
Does the Bible teach that God had man evolve then He plucked man and put Him into the Garden of Eden? No.
Does the Bible teach a literal Adam? Yes.
Does the Bible teach sin coming into the world through one man, Adam? Yes.

Yes, I know you believe all these to be true, but what about the questions I raise above?

Joshua 10
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Where does it say the sun revolves around the earth?

Ask the geocentrist. Did you read the site I linked you to so you could see why they argue this? They believe that the literal reading is that the SUN STOPPED, not the Earth stopped to make it look as if the sun stopped. In other words, it must be read with the plain, literal reading. The Sun stopped. Now, if the sun stopped, that means it had to be moving, not the earth. Thus, it is the sun moving around the earth, not the other way around. Plain as day.

Personally, I am with you, this idea of reading it so literally can get you in trouble with interpretation. But remember, this is exactly how the entire Church read this verse for 1500 years.

Again, did you read that page I linked you to? I notice you have not talked about any of their issues other than these couple of verse. They also have those "fixity of the earth" verses and they even cite Genesis 1! What about those?

Again, they are wrong to read those Scriptures so literally, I would agree with you there. But they illustrate the point about the danger of literalism.

Ecclesiastes 1
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

Where does it say the sun revolves around the earth?

Again, you need to take up this argument with the geocentrist. I am with you on this one. WAY too literal.

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.

Does it say the LORD created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days?

No, not literally.

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.' "

Does it say the LORD made the heavens and the earth in six days?

No, not literally.

Genesis 1
And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.


How many days are given in Genesis 1 for creation?
What does 'there was evening, and there was morning' mean?
Do we understand a day today as having a morning and evening?

Sure, which is why it makes sense as figurative language for us. God has to use analogies and types of speech which we can relate to. I think He did a great job in conveying His message.

Genesis 1
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Was man created in God's image?

Yes, although what this means exactly is debated.

Genesis 2
...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Did God actually form Adam from the dust of the ground?
Did God breathe into his nostrils the breath of life?
And then did man become a living being?

"From the dust of the ground" could very well be God's figurative way of saying that Man was developed out of His creation, the earth, which would be a VERY good way of describing evolution.

Actually breath the way we breathe? I doubt it. God does not have a human body with breath (except in those cases where He specifically takes on human form, and we only have one described instance of that). So, this shows that God is speaking metaphorically. Since God almost assuredly did not take on a human form just to be able to "breathe" life in, He must be using that phrase to MEAN SOMETHING ELSE! Thus, you have just shown two very potent reasons why we should not be reading Genesis 1 and 2 literally. So, what DID God mean by this verse? I think it means that God DID take some action to bring spiritual life to mankind, which could not be understood in all its miraculousness, so it is described as "breathing".

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Did sin enter the world through one man?
How did death come to all man?

I believe Paul is using the standard metaphor given by God in Genesis one which all his readers knew well, which contains the truth of Man being in sin, to relate to the very real Jesus. No problem there.

Romans 5
14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.


Is Adam a real man?
Is Moses a real man?
Did death reign before Adam or after?
What happened even to those who did not sin, did death reign over them?

Adam real? Don't really know, but doesn't really matter.
Moses real? Yes, as an historian, I believe he was.
Death before Adam? Well, sure, physical death. But not spiritual death, which came after God granted spiritual life.
I have no idea what God did with those beings who lived before God "breathed" and granted the possibility of spiritual life. What happened to all those around the world who lived and died never having heard the Gospel?

Psalm 78:50

He prepared a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death but gave them over to the plague.


So God created death before the fall of man. Everything God created, before the fall(according to TE's this includes death) was good in God's eyes. Yet here God, in His anger, lets death take them.

Sure, death is still no fun, and if a person dies physically while still spiritually dead, they are in big trouble. But physical death is not the result of sin and is not evil in itself. It can not be, as we have discussed in full elsewhere.

1 Corinthians 15:21

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

Did sin come into this world through a man(Adam)?
Does the resurrection of the dead come through a man(Jesus Christ) also?

See my note above about Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:26

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Why conquer death, it was apart of God's original creation before the fall of man?
Is death an enemy?

Spiritual death is, sure. And physical death is a cut off which prevents the possibility of gaining spiritual life if you do not already have it. Think of it as kind of "OK, class, pencils down." So, yes, it can definitely be an enemy of those who are not in Christ. But, again, we have gone over all this before, and you never did answer how Christ's redemptive gift was effective if it was meant to redeem us from the result of sin, and that result was physical death. We should discuss this in another thread, really.

1 Corinthians 15:54

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Death swallowed up in victory?

See above.

1 Corinthians 15:55

"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Revelation 6:8
I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Revelations 20
14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

Is death thrown into the second death?
If death is apart of Gods creation before sin, why is cast into the second death?

We have covered all this before. Since you know my full exegesis of these issues, why derail this thread with a full discussion of this side issue? Trying to avoid the real problem in your argument?

Romans 8:21

-22
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

What has been happening to God's creation since sin entered the world?

Did man live for hundreds of years in the Old Testament?
Has man been aging faster as time goes on due to sin(without the help of medical drugs)?
Do you think the earth has been aging faster as time goes on due to sin?

I am not sure whether man lived for hundreds of years in the Old Testament times. Possibly. No, man has not been aging faster as time goes on due to sin. No, the earth definitely has not been aging faster as time goes on due to sin. There is no evidence of this at all, and lots of evidence that it hasn't.

But again, these issues have all been discussed elsewhere. Why not answer those specific question I have asked?

 

[Ben_Hur]

Does the Bible teach a six day creation? Yes.

Define the word "day" when for the first two "days" there was no sun/earth to define a "day".

Does the Bible teach that God spoke creation into being? Yes.

Directly in some cases, and in others, he authorized created things to perpetuate themselves (e.g. the "Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation..."). And my memory is a little hazy, but I'm pretty sure I self perpetuated when I "placed the order" for my children.

Does the Bible teach that when God speaks it has already happened? Yes.

If course. He is outside of time-space. From his POV, it's all over. Irrelevent to the discussion IMO.

Does the Bible teach that God had man evolve then He plucked man and put Him into the Garden of Eden? No.

Not known for sure by anyone. But the evidence that He left in HIS creation indicates that "making" him from the "dust" could be a process that appears to be evolutionary.

Does the Bible teach sin coming into the world through one man, Adam? Yes.

But it doesn't teach animals sin.

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.

Does it say the LORD created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days?

Yeah. Whatever "day" means.

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.' "

Does it say the LORD made the heavens and the earth in six days?

Yeah. Whatever "day" means.

Genesis 1
And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

Well, that is about 12 hours; evening (6pm) to morning (6am).

And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

12 hours

And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.

12 hours

And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.

12 hours

And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.

12 hours

And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

12 hours

How many days are given in Genesis 1 for creation?

Six 12 hour days.

Or

THREE 24 hour days.

Apparently we have an INTERPRETATION problem here.

What does 'there was evening, and there was morning' mean?

Good question. If you take evening to morning literally, you must say 12 hours. But then you take one day to equal 24 hours. You are picking and choosing what you take literally and what you take figuratively and with no basis for the picking and choosing. The evidence that GOD left us in HIS creation clarifies this for us.

Do we understand a day today as having a morning and evening?

And an afternoon. What happened to afternoon? Is that an extended morning? Or is does evening start at noon? The only source you have for such an interpretation is the jews, who also came up with the Mishnu (sp?) (laws for keeping the Sabbath) which were all screwed up, and who think Isaiah 53 isn't about Jesus. So they've lost their credibility.

Genesis 2
...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Did God actually form Adam from the dust of the ground?

That's what it says and that is what HIS creation says. That is also what BIOLOGY says. You are what you eat. Your food comes from dirt. You are made of your food and your body changes itself out every 7 years. Hmm.. Seven. Sounds like something God would do.....

Did God breathe into his nostrils the breath of life?

That is what it says. Breath of life is Spirit. Of the rest of life on earth, we are the only ones that God has informed us has Spirit. And spirit is the only thing God seems to care about preserving for eternity.

And then did man become a living being?

What is "living" to God? In John, Jesus indicates that those that are not believing are "walking dead." Certainly they are not physically dead, because they are walking. Obviously, He refers to their spiritual condition.

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Did sin enter the world through one man?
How did death come to all man?

Sin certainly came to "all men," but not animals if that is what you are getting at.

Romans 5
14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.


Is Adam a real man?
Is Moses a real man?
Did death reign before Adam or after?
What happened even to those who did not sin, did death reign over them?

Animals don't have the "spirit" of life from God. Anything before Adam, was an animal, whether it looked like a man, or not. The "image" of God is certainly more than the visage of a homo sapian (sp?).

Psalm 78:50
He prepared a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death but gave them over to the plague.


So God created death before the fall of man. Everything God created, before the fall(according to TE's this includes death) was good in God's eyes. Yet here God, in His anger, lets death take them.

Do not confuse "perfection" with "good." Do not presume to define, for God, what "good" is. To God, the death of at LEAST one man (Jesus) was a "good" thing.

1 Corinthians 15:21
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

Did sin come into this world through a man(Adam)?
Does the resurrection of the dead come through a man(Jesus Christ) also?

Yes, and Yes. Absolutely. Only us Adamites contain God's breath/spirit of life.

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Why conquer death, it was apart of God's original creation before the fall of man?
Is death an enemy?

For those created in God's image, it is. We don't really know how or IF animals have an opinion of it.

For some Godless humans (radical muslims), it is NOT an enemy, BTW.

Is death thrown into the second death?
If death is apart of Gods creation before sin, why is cast into the second death?

Pretty sure animals do not get a second death. One is probably enough for them. But then, the Bible is silent on the fate of animals in this regard. God's CREATION, on the otherhand, is NOT silent on this issue. Animals, human-looking or not, before Adam, died.

Romans 8:21-22
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

What has been happening to God's creation since sin entered the world?

Did man live for hundreds of years in the Old Testament?
Has man been aging faster as time goes on due to sin(without the help of medical drugs)?
Do you think the earth has been aging faster as time goes on due to sin?


Take Care and God Bless

There is nothing saying God created the universe to NOT decay until Adam spoiled it. The evidence that GOD left us in HIS creation indicates that he brought Adam into an already decaying universe. As HE is the ulitmate engineer, THAT is ok! He knows how long he needs to complete the fall and salvation of man. There is apparently more than enough time left in this universe for that to happen. God was very generous in creating a universe that would be robust for a time longer than WE need it to be.

 

[Vance]

Rmwilliams, that is VERY good analysis. Too bad I can't give you more reputation!

 

[Ben_Hur]

Jesus was both a man and a Jew, to be a Christian is to become like Him, but that does not imply that we become either Jewish or male.

Or in otherwords, a Judaiser or a Gnostic. Great analogy and analysis Mr. Williams

 

[GodSaves]

No, it is not moot. The question is whether heliocentrism is "unscriptural" because the Bible does not teach it.

These are still two questions you have not answered.

Also, here again are the two simple questions I asked earlier you have not answered:

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?

Heliocentrism doesn't even come into question. There is not a need to test it against the Bible. The Bible does not teach about what is revolving around what. Man has perverted God's Word to say this.

Man has taken:
Sun rise, sun set = sun revolves around the earth

Man has taken:
God created everything in six days = God used evolution

Both examples above are mankind saying something God's Word does not say.


1. If the Bible never taught how the universe began. If it never taught that God created in six days. If it never said God spoke everything into being. If it never said that when God speaks it has already happened. If the Bible gave no mention what so ever about the origins of everything, then evolution would not be an issue.

2. Read my answer to question 1.

A few things seem obvious to me:

1. There are two chapters in Genesis that describe how everything came into being. It describes what came first, what God did for it to come to life, what came to life, and drives home a six day creation. It seems to me that many just want to read Genesis 1:1 and then stop. In fact many TE's have said that that is all we need to read about Genesis.

2. I have hard time remember where each TE stands. I have talked with ones that believe:
1. Adam is not real.
2. Adam is real.
3. Genesis is a myth.
4. Moses is not real.
5. Old Testament as a whole is a myth.
6. Flood never happened.
7. Flood is only local.
8. God is limited.
9. God is not limited.
10. Mary was not a virgin.
11. Jesus was not God.
12. Jesus could not have been both a man and God, he gave up being God when He became a man.
13. Jesus was God, even here on earth.
14. Creation is a miracle.
15. Creation is not a miracle.
16. God cannot speak.
17. God can speak.

3. I sometimes ask myself where is the faith of a child. Where is the belief that my Father can do anything. Where is natural belief without question to what God has said.

I really don't blame people for believing in evolution. It is really much easier to believe in because you can look at fossils and postulate that hey this must be our ancestor. No one can prove you wrong because no has seen a fossil like this one before. Most everyone believes in evolution, so no conflict, no persecution. And one can see something so they can believe, even if the 'thing' is not real proof. Acceptance through vision is much easier then acceptance through faith. It doesn't mean one has lost their faith or salvation in Jesus Christ, it just means that the road is little wider.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Ben_Hur]

[/font]
I sometimes ask myself where is the faith of a child.

You refer to this statement by Jesus:
Mat 18:3 and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So again, you continually question the salvation - or at least the faith - of those who do not interpret the Bible the way you do.

I caution you:
Mat 7:2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

 

[GodSaves]

Well for one I did not judge your faith or salvation. I believe I even said that.
Two, I just happen to be dumb, by this worlds standard, because when I read the Word of God I simply believe it because God said it. Even when science says otherwise.

But may I remind you:

II Timothy 3:
16Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action),

 

[Ben_Hur]

But may I remind you:

II Timothy 3:
16Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action),

I agree. Is this supposed to mean that I am to believe everything litterally as written? Sorry, but no. The best example, as Vance pointed out, is that the sun does not revolve around the earth, which is what the Bible "teaches."

 

[Vance]

[/font]

Heliocentrism doesn't even come into question. There is not a need to test it against the Bible. The Bible does not teach about what is revolving around what. Man has perverted God's Word to say this.

But see, this is where you are making a distinction without a difference.

YOU say that the Bible does not teach the details of this issue, the geocentrists read the Scripture very literally and think it definitely does speak to this issue.

I say the Bible does not teach the details of the creation, and you read the Scripture very literally and think it definitely does speak to the issue.

In short, you think the geocentrist has perverted the Scripture by reading it too literally. I think you also read it too literally, but I would not use the term "perverted".

So, you say since the Bible does not teach this issue directly, there is no need to test it against Scripture, and thus heliocentrism is not "unscriptural". Correct?

I say that since the Bible does not teach the issue of the development of species directly, there is no need to test it against Scripture, and thus evolution is not "unscriptural".

Now, regarding your answers below, here is what I asked:

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?

1. If the Bible never taught how the universe began. If it never taught that God created in six days. If it never said God spoke everything into being. If it never said that when God speaks it has already happened. If the Bible gave no mention what so ever about the origins of everything, then evolution would not be an issue.

2. Read my answer to question 1.

Ah, but you are not answering the direct questions. You are adding in a bunch of "ifs" that change the question. The questions as asked are simple "yes" or "no" questions. By adding that "if the Bible did not mention origins at all" you are making your answer non-responsive.

Just answer the questions as written.

A few things seem obvious to me:

1. There are two chapters in Genesis that describe how everything came into being. It describes what came first, what God did for it to come to life, what came to life, and drives home a six day creation. It seems to me that many just want to read Genesis 1:1 and then stop. In fact many TE's have said that that is all we need to read about Genesis.

Who has said that? God has a very specific message to convey in the overall description. How could God establish the frameworks He wants Man to see and use, how could He set out the centrality of Man to His creation? How could He establish that Man, by his selfish nature, is in a state of spiritual death and in need of redemption? No, it is all God's holy Word. Did you read the analysis by the anti-evolutionist as to why Genesis 1 should be read non-literally? Here is that link again:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bibl...f%20Genesis%201

2. I have hard time remember where each TE stands. I have talked with ones that believe: [clip].

Right, it is about the same as Christians on so many other doctrinal issues.

3. I sometimes ask myself where is the faith of a child. Where is the belief that my Father can do anything. Where is natural belief without question to what God has said.

Right here! I have that exact attitude. You keep assuming that when I read Genesis 1 and 2 I see a literal text, but choose not to just accept it, but to read it some other way. When I read Genesis 1 and 2, I see it as a non-literal message from God. So, I DON'T question what God has said.

I really don't blame people for believing in evolution. It is really much easier to believe in because you can look at fossils and postulate that hey this must be our ancestor. No one can prove you wrong because no has seen a fossil like this one before. Most everyone believes in evolution, so no conflict, no persecution. And one can see something so they can believe, even if the 'thing' is not real proof. Acceptance through vision is much easier then acceptance through faith. It doesn't mean one has lost their faith or salvation in Jesus Christ, it just means that the road is little wider.

And this entire attitude about where the Theistic Evolutionist is spiritually is NOT persecution?