The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[theIdi0t]

Most, no check that...All of the TEs I am acquainted with attack creationism with no theological basis. In fact, I have never found one who had a theological basis for their point of view. As a matter of fact, I have never seen one embrace a supernatural New Testament as history.

Everytime I try to take you theology to task you squirm your way out of responding.

So let's see if you'll answer a few simple questions:

Are you saying there is no theological basis for evolution? or that there is no theological basis for a non-literal historical Genesis?

Is there any theological basis for your belief that if Adam didn't eat an apple, Jesus wouldn't have had to die on the cross, or come as the incarnate Word? What an insult to the savior, that you find his purpose so weak!

And Mr. Kennedy do you think that if Adam and Eve didn't do the deed, then Cain would have not killed Abel?

 

[mark kennedy]

Everytime I try to take you theology to task you squirm your way out of responding.

Bring it on idiot.

So let's see if you'll answer a few simple questions:

Let's see if we actually get a real question.

Are you saying there is no theological basis for evolution?

No, I am saying that Adam had no ancestors, Paul is saying there were no ancestors. In fact, the Scriptures say there were no ancestors.

or that there is no theological basis for a non-literal historical Genesis?

I wouldn't say that despite the fact that a typical Theistic Evolutionists wouldn't know the difference.

Is there any theological basis for your belief that if Adam didn't eat an apple, Jesus wouldn't have had to die on the cross, or come as the incarnate Word? What an insult to the savior, that you find his purpose so weak!

That was entirely incoherent.

And Mr. Kennedy do you think that if Adam and Eve didn't do the deed, then Cain would have not killed Abel?

No, I don't.

 

[Assyrian]

No, I am saying that Adam had no ancestors, Paul is saying there were no ancestors. In fact, the Scriptures say there were no ancestors.

Do you mean passages like The first man was from the earth a man of dust 1Cor 15:47? I suppose it you take that literally it could mean Adam was the first human being. The problem is Paul follows this with the second man is from heaven. So if we take this literally Adam was the first man ever, then Jesus was the next man born after him. That can't be literal, what about Abraham, Moses, David and everyone else in the OT?

 

[shernren]

You thought it would be that easy, you thought wrong.

Au contraire, I never expected you to concede your entire case so readily. Look at your replies:

The one who sins.



5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.​

The context says everyman, see bolded, every
man is tempted because they are sinners.

10:26-29 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:​

Yours! When you willfully sin there is not forgiveness.

2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.​

Believers who have repented and received Christ by faith. Sin cursed sons of Adam who repented of the sin they were born into.

3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.​

Those who repent make amends

3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.​

You have just agreed with five Scriptural passages that cite the individual's sin as the individual's reason for separation from God. When asked whether Adam's sin causes the individual's eternal death, you blindly answer

Yes

even though you have explicitly agreed that it is the individual's sin, in diverse passages of Scripture where Adam is nowhere to be found, that leads to the individual's death.

So let me ask again, just to give you a chance to properly defend yourself:

Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death, or Adam's sin?

I hope the issue is clear by now. If my sin leads to my death, then if I am convinced that I have sinned, then I will be able to appreciate Jesus' death on the cross for me. Adam's sin is therefore not ontologically necessary to understand my salvation. True, you may certainly believe that Adam's sin is causally precedent to my own. I have no qualms admitting that this hamartiological framework is entirely consistent with creationism. However, it does not require creationism; I am convinced of my sin, regardless of whether Adam sinned, and you agree with me that my recognition of my sin should be enough to convince me of my impending eternal death, whether or not I believe that sin comes from Adam or not.

Do you understand? I am not saying anything new. I am just repeating the words of Ezekiel, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and John - all I am telling you is really little farther from what can be found in Ezekiel 18. And as for your ending:

You directly contradict the Apostle Paul, Luke W.E. Vine and claim you would have me believe them over you. I think that is good advice and you need to consider whether you are coming from faith or a desire to be friends with world rather the God.

Stop it shernren, I'm not the enemy.

You cannot be friends with someone who desires to be friends with the world, mark. If you think I have befriended the world, then you must consider me your enemy in faith and theology. 1 John says nothing less. Are you being wishy-washy in your associations, o defender of the faith?

 

[mark kennedy]

Au contraire, I never expected you to concede your entire case so readily. Look at your replies:

Like all evolutionists you start off with a victory dance and then fail to address a single point.

You have just agreed with five Scriptural passages that cite the individual's sin as the individual's reason for separation from God. When asked whether Adam's sin causes the individual's eternal death, you blindly answer

You quoted the passage in Ezekiel out of context and related it to nothing in the New Testament or Genesis. On the other hand I did extensive expositions of relevant texts with supporting Christian scholarship. You on the other hand lied and I called you on it. Instead of actually looking at the Scriptures I have again, provided in depth Scriptural support for the doctrinal position and you ignored every single one of them.

even though you have explicitly agreed that it is the individual's sin, in diverse passages of Scripture where Adam is nowhere to be found, that leads to the individual's death.

Romans 5 hardwires the original sin doctrine to Genesis 1. Luke clearly identifys Adam as the first man calling him the 'son of God', indicating he had no human lineage the proceeded him.

So let me ask again, just to give you a chance to properly defend yourself:

Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death, or Adam's sin?

Adam's sin was not eternal, you are just using sloppy rhetoric. Perdition is eternal, salvation is eternal, the Adamic nature is temporal. As usual you are oblivious to essential, stepwise logic.

You have a very serious problem but since you take no interest in theology it has not dawned on you. When Adam ate we did not fast, in Adam we all sinned. That Adamic nature is with us at birth, we have no choice about that. Whether we are slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness we do have a choice about.

I hope the issue is clear by now. If my sin leads to my death, then if I am convinced that I have sinned, then I will be able to appreciate Jesus' death on the cross for me.

You don't have a point, you just keep talking in circles. You position is that sin has to be an overt act and a conscious choice and for no apparent reason, you insert the word 'eternal'.

Adam's sin is therefore not ontologically necessary to understand my salvation. True, you may certainly believe that Adam's sin is causally precedent to my own. I have no qualms admitting that this hamartiological framework is entirely consistent with creationism. However, it does not require creationism; I am convinced of my sin, regardless of whether Adam sinned, and you agree with me that my recognition of my sin should be enough to convince me of my impending eternal death, whether or not I believe that sin comes from Adam or not.

Creationism is solid doctrinally, TEs cannot even address the issues involved. Creationism is based on a literal Genesis 1 and Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, affirms a literal Genesis. What is even more important you claimed I had nothing but a single verse taken out of context and you knew better.

Do you understand? I am not saying anything new. I am just repeating the words of Ezekiel, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and John - all I am telling you is really little farther from what can be found in Ezekiel 18. And as for your ending:

You directly contradict the Apostle Paul, Luke W.E. Vine and claim you would have me believe them over you. I think that is good advice and you need to consider whether you are coming from faith or a desire to be friends with world rather the God.

You have conflated temporal and eternal sin and completely ignored the New Testament wittiness. You skip the entire discussion including the definition and crucial proof texts. Then you quote Ezekiel out of context without making the slightest connection to the Pauline doctrine of original sin. You have hurled insults and made sweeping generalities in the desperate hope that no one will notice.

It is the evolutionist and not the creationist who is friends with the world. I admit that there are times I wonder if I alone can be right and the whole world be wrong. However, there is nothing but animosity toward my religious and scientific conclusions in the secular world. The only thing I have a real problem with in TOE is Adam having ancestors and that is essentially a doctrinal issue for me. That, along with my firm conviction regarding a personal and proactive, supernatural God alienates me from every secular scientist and academic professional. You on the other hand have only to blindly affirm the ape/human common ancestry and the world will side with you unconditionally.

If it's worth it to you to sacrifice doctrinal clarity for worldly support that is your choice but own up to it. It will catch up with you dude and you have been warned before you leap.

You cannot be friends with someone who desires to be friends with the world, mark. If you think I have befriended the world, then you must consider me your enemy in faith and theology. 1 John says nothing less. Are you being wishy-washy in your associations, o defender of the faith?

If challenged to defend the Gospel against error I take my stand on the Scriptures. If it becomes necessary to defend my worldview based on the latest scientific research and evidence I happily take my stand in that context. When witnessing to the cults, and I have, I take on that task based on the context I find myself. Still, I want to give a person the benefit of a doubt and you are slowly but surely removing all doubt.

I addressed your false accusation of a single passage supporting my position. You addressed none of the argument because it is you who have taken an isolated verse out of context. Your error has been exposed and the doctrinal issues have been identified, addressed and defended. That is the goal of Christian apologetics whether defending the historicity of Scripture against secular science or false doctrine.

I sometimes have my doubts about evidential apologetics but I have no doubt about Creationism on doctrinal grounds. You on the other hand have failed to defend you convictions on both levels but I will not let your baseless accusations go unanswered. You have been taken in by the spirit of the age and I leave room for a shred of doubt whether you have been deceived or maybe deceiver. One thing is obvious though, you have a distinctly divisive and contentious point of view.

I don't know if you are an enemy of the faith but you are clearly a friend of the world. You are arguing Origins Theology without a theology. There are consequences for the epistemological trap you have fallen into.

However, if you are willing to revise your position at some point I'll leave that door open. I say again, I am not the enemy. Walk away and I will have no problem with you but if you keep slandering me this will get messy.

Your choice.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

TO CREATE

bârâ' (baw-raw' 1254 בּרא ), “to create, make.” This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can “create” in the sense implied by bârâ'.​

The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. ​

bârâ' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as ‛âśâh, “to make” (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yâtsar, “to form” (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, “to establish.” A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa. 45:18: “For thus saith the Lord that created [bârâ'] the heavens; God himself that formed [yâtsar] the earth and made [‛âśâh] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bârâ'] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.” The technical meaning of bârâ' (to “create out of nothing”) may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym. ​

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17) man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10) ​

A careful study of the passages where bârâ' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. ​

Especially striking is the use of bârâ' in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God’s past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: “I have made [‛âśâh] the earth, and created [bârâ'] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa. 44:12-20; 46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (43:16-21; 65:17-25). (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)​

II Corinthians and I Timothy

2 Cor. 15: 45 'The first man Adam was a living soul, the second Adam a living giving spirit'​

1 Tim. 2:13—'For Adam was first formed, then Eve'​

The Scriptures teach Adam was created (bara-out of nothing). Who would you have me believe; Moses, Luke and Paul, W.E. Vine or you?

I though literalist believed Adam was made out of dust, not created ex nihilo?

Vines argument is interesting, the only way to find the technical meaning of bara is to exclude the vast majority of times bara is used. Sound a bit selective to me.

Apparently it is because these are in poetic passages where it often occurs in parallel to other words for make or form and may be being used as a synonym. Of course you then have to assume Genesis is a literal historical account and ignore the fact that Genesis uses bara in parallel with other words to form or make just like the poetic passage that are being excluded.

The heavens and the earth:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created bara the heavens and the earth.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done asah, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
Gen 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Man
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed yatsar the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made banah (build)into a woman and brought her to the man.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.

Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

What is really interesting in this passage is God is talking about wiping out man whom he had created, literally the man he had created or the Adam he had created. But the people who died in the flood were not an ex nihilo creation, they all had parents and grandparents they were descended from, yet God calls them the man whom I have created.

So, what is left if we exclude all the poetic or parallel uses of bara and just stick to historical narratives?

Num 16:30 But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."

Hardly ex nihilo here, because the ground existed before the fissure opened up.

Josh 17:15 And Joshua said to them, "If you are a numerous people, go up by yourselves to the forest, and there clear ground for yourselves in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaim, since the hill country of Ephraim is too narrow for you."
Josh 17:18 but the hill country shall be yours, for though it is a forest, you shall clear it and possess it to its farthest borders. For you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong."

1Sam 2:29 Why do you kick at my sacrifice and at my offering, which I have commanded in my habitation, and honor your sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel my people?

Leave out the poetic passages that use bara and you are left with verses that talk about making a hole in the ground, clearing forests and putting on weight by snaffling the altar sacrifices.

What is the point of this argument? You are trying to say Adam was created out of nothing, when even a literal interpetation says he was made out of dust. And even if you established a technical meaning of creation ex nihilo for bara, it is no use to you argument when the bible so often used it in a sense that is not ex nihilo, God creating Israel, or a blacksmith, who all have human ancestry too.

 

[Assyrian]

Romans 5 hardwires the original sin doctrine to Genesis 1.

You mean the way it sets the context for the discussion by telling us how this death spread to all men, because all sinned, or how Paul explains the comparison he is using between Adam and Jesus in the chapters by sayign Adam is a figure of Christ. All the great doctrines you think you are getting from this chapter ignores the fact Paul is talking about Adam figuratively.

Luke clearly identifys Adam as the first man calling him the 'son of God', indicating he had no human lineage the proceeded him.

Adam as 'son of God' can hardly be taken literally can it? That is ignoring the fact Luke describes this genealogy as 'supposed'.

Shernren: So let me ask again, just to give you a chance to properly defend yourself:

Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death, or Adam's sin?

Adam's sin was not eternal, you are just using sloppy rhetoric. Perdition is eternal, salvation is eternal, the Adamic nature is temporal. As usual you are oblivious to essential, stepwise logic.

Good grief Mark, read what Shernren said.

You have a very serious problem but since you take no interest in theology it has not dawned on you. When Adam ate we did not fast, in Adam we all sinned. That Adamic nature is with us at birth, we have no choice about that. Whether we are slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness we do have a choice about.

There's that line again: in Adam we all sinned. You keep bringing it up and it seems to be the basis of your whole theology but as I have asked you before, where do you get this in scripture?

You don't have a point, you just keep talking in circles. You position is that sin has to be an overt act and a conscious choice and for no apparent reason, you insert the word 'eternal'

.

He was talking about perdition which you agree is eternal.
shernren: Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death
markkennedy: Perdition is eternal,

Ah I get it. shernren says, Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death, or Adam's sin? Are you interpreting the question as

Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death,
or does the individual's sin lead to Adam's sin?

instead of

Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death,
or does Adam's sin lead to the individual's eternal death?

This should be clear from shernren's previous statement of the question: whether Adam's sin causes the individual's eternal death...

It still doesn't explain the fuss you make about his use of eternal to refer to eternal death.

 

[mark kennedy]

Everytime I try to take you theology to task you squirm your way out of responding.

You 'try to take you theology', baloney!

So let's see if you'll answer a few simple questions:

Simple is an understatement but let's see what you pop off with.

Are you saying there is no theological basis for evolution?

I am saying that the New Testament witness affirms a literal, historical and specially created Adam. I have seen no arguments to the contrary and if you think this is insignificant you have no theological basis for your position.

or that there is no theological basis for a non-literal historical Genesis?

The historicity of Scripture is unavoidable. The New Testament is the anchor and you will never come to terms with that because you have been trained to ignore it.

Is there any theological basis for your belief that if Adam didn't eat an apple, Jesus wouldn't have had to die on the cross, or come as the incarnate Word? What an insult to the savior, that you find his purpose so weak!

No original sin then it is possible to be righteous by your own efforts and choice. You have no choice, you have an inherited Adamic nature and if it is not true that we can be righteous by works then Christ died for nothing.

And Mr. Kennedy do you think that if Adam and Eve didn't do the deed, then Cain would have not killed Abel?

Yes

 

[mark kennedy]

I though literalist believed Adam was made out of dust, not created ex nihilo?

Get into the semantics and stop talking in generalities.

Vines argument is interesting, the only way to find the technical meaning of bara is to exclude the vast majority of times bara is used. Sound a bit selective to me.

It's not an argument, it's a definition. If you have an alternative then stop ignoring the one you have right in front of you.

Enough! I'm not following you in circles. If you are interested in the way 'bara' is used then we can take that one verse at a time. If you are interested in a serious exposition of the related text with reference to the original then I'm willing and able to discuss this on that level. On the other hand I am not going to waste my time running in circles after a point you can't nail down.

Start with Genesis 1 and a working definition for 'bara'. Since I obviously don't accept your opinion about what the word means I expect real scholarship.

It's on you, exposition is not a random process. These are the 53 times 'bara' is used , let's start with Genesis 1 and go from there:

bârâ' H1254 בּרא

Translated created, 33 times in the KJV Gen1:1, Gen1:21, Gen1:27 (3), Gen2:3-4 (2), Gen5:1-2 (3), Gen6:7, Deu4:32, Psa89:12, Psa102:18, Psa104:30, Psa148:5, Isa40:26, Isa41:20, Isa42:5, Isa43:1, Isa45:7-8 (2), Isa45:12, Isa45:18 (2), Isa48:7, Isa54:16 (2), Jer31:22, Eze21:30, Eze28:13, Eze28:15, Mal2:10

Translated 'create' 8 times: Psa51:10 (2), Isa4:5, Isa45:7 (2), Isa57:19, Isa65:17-18 (3)

Translated creator, 3 times; Ecc12:1, Isa40:28, Isa43:15​

And otherwise translated elsewhere but this will give us a start if your up to it.

 

[mark kennedy]

You mean the way it sets the context for the discussion by telling us how this death spread to all men, because all sinned, or how Paul explains the comparison he is using between Adam and Jesus in the chapters by sayign Adam is a figure of Christ. All the great doctrines you think you are getting from this chapter ignores the fact Paul is talking about Adam figuratively.

Adam as a figure of Christ does not make him a figure of speech.

Adam as 'son of God' can hardly be taken literally can it? That is ignoring the fact Luke describes this genealogy as 'supposed'.

I'll need the chapter and verse or at least some basis for that statement.

Good grief Mark, read what Shernren said.

You have a very serious problem but since you take no interest in theology it has not dawned on you. When Adam ate we did not fast, in Adam we all sinned. That Adamic nature is with us at birth, we have no choice about that. Whether we are slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness we do have a choice about.​

Dude...I said that!

There's that line again: in Adam we all sinned You keep bringing it up and it seems to be the basis of your whole theology but as I have asked you before, where do you get this in scripture?

From the passages I have quoted, cited and did expositions on repeatedly.

He was talking about perdition which you agree is eternal.
shernren: Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death
markkennedy: Perdition is eternal,

Ah I get it. shernren says, Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death, or Adam's sin? Are you interpreting the question as

Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death,
or does the individual's sin lead to Adam's sin?

instead of

Does the individual's sin lead to the individual's eternal death,
or does Adam's sin lead to the individual's eternal death?

This should be clear from shernren's previous statement of the question: whether Adam's sin causes the individual's eternal death...

It still doesn't explain the fuss you make about his use of eternal to refer to eternal death.

What should be clear is that you are talking in circles. We inherit the sin of Adam and still have a choice whether or not we go on to perdition. The is a difference between temporal and eternal sin and you have done nothing but reinforce his error. You might think you helped him but you just gave him enough encouragement to hang himself.

 

[Mallon]

Most, no check that...All of the TEs I am acquainted with attack creationism with no theological basis.

You need to read more.

 

[Melethiel]

What, burning strawmen again?

What of TEs who do believe in an actual Adam & Eve, original sin, reliability and historicity of the NT, etc?

 

[mark kennedy]

You need to read more.

What on earth does that blog have to do with anything? There is no theology in there and they simply don't have Scriptural authority for anything said. An interesting discussion but aside from that a meaningless link to an unrelated tangent.

 

[mark kennedy]

What, burning strawmen again?

No strawman just answering a libelous claim that I have one text out of context. That's a lie and I am more then willing and able to defend my views Scripturally.

What of TEs who do believe in an actual Adam & Eve, original sin, reliability and historicity of the NT, etc?

If we are talking about a specially created Adam without ape ancestry I have no problem. If you affirm the supernatural events in the NT including the many miracles as history, again, no problem.

If on the other hand you are going to ignore or dismiss the NT witness as a basis for Creationism as doctrine there is a problem. That problem is doctrinal and theological and I will address those issues on that basis.

 

[Mallon]

What on earth does that blog have to do with anything? There is no theology in there and they simply don't have Scriptural authority for anything said. An interesting discussion but aside from that a meaningless link to an unrelated tangent.

Just saying that evolutionary creationists are unwilling to discuss theology doesn't make it so, mark. If you had even bothered to read any of the posts in the blog I linked you to, you would have noticed that the blog is dedicated to the theology, rather than the science, of evolution. So is this site. And most of the sites listed here. Heck, even a cursory glance of this very forum shows you are wrong. People like shernren, gluadys, metherion, Assyrian, and Melethiel often have well-grounded theological insights into the creation/evolution (non-)debate. You don't have to agree with them, but it's ignorant to pretend they're unwilling to discuss theology. Don't let your personal incredulity get in the way of reality.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just saying that evolutionary creationists are unwilling to discuss theology doesn't make it so, mark.

They don't and I am not new to this discussion. Before you discuss theology you have to discuss God and He is getting lost in the avalanche of pseudo-theological ramblings.

If you had even bothered to read any of the posts in the blog I linked you to, you would have noticed that the blog is dedicated to the theology, rather than the science, of evolution.

They are talking in circles around theology.

So is this site. And most of the sites listed here. Heck, even a cursory glance of this very forum shows you are wrong. People like shernren, gluadys, metherion, Assyrian, and Melethiel often have well-grounded theological insights into the creation/evolution (non-)debate.

I don't know much about the blogs but I have debated TEs for a while now. They have no theology that I am aware of and I have engaged them on that very issue. Transforming your philosophy into vaguely theological terms is not Biblical Christianity.

You don't have to agree with them, but it's ignorant to pretend they're unwilling to discuss theology. Don't let your personal incredulity get in the way of reality.

I'm not incredulous, I am convinced based on the testimony of Scripture and the interactions I have had with TEs that the two are unrelated. Don't kid yourself, a link is not an argument and as a matter of fact that idols and false notions have taken deep root. I don't have a real problem with it until they start making obviously false statements about the Christian faith.

 

[Mallon]

I have little interest in trying to change mark's mind, but for those who, like mark, question whether evolotionary creationism addresses theology, I thought I would point out the following link that lists well over a hundred sermons and articles, written by clergy, on this very subject:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_resources.htm

I should think the abovementioned clergy members offer more than the "pseudo-theological ramblings" that mark says he's familiar with.

 

[Assyrian]

Get into the semantics and stop talking in generalities.

You claim bara means Adam was created from nothing, and accuse us of not believing Moses Luke or Paul, as if they ever said Adam was created from nothing. You throw out this baseless accusation at us when YECs believe Adam was made from dust, and you probably believe it too.

It's not an argument, it's a definition. If you have an alternative then stop ignoring the one you have right in front of you.

Enough! I'm not following you in circles. If you are interested in the way 'bara' is used then we can take that one verse at a time. If you are interested in a serious exposition of the related text with reference to the original then I'm willing and able to discuss this on that level. On the other hand I am not going to waste my time running in circles after a point you can't nail down.

What to nail down? bara means to create. If you want to claim it means create ex nihilo, provide some evidence, preferably something stronger than finding ways to exclude all the non ex nihilo uses. Then you have to explain why the creation of Adam is an ex nililo meaning rather than simply another of those non ex nihilo uses.

Start with Genesis 1 and a working definition for 'bara'. Since I obviously don't accept your opinion about what the word means I expect real scholarship.

It's on you, exposition is not a random process. These are the 53 times 'bara' is used , let's start with Genesis 1 and go from there:

bârâ' H1254 בּרא​

Translated created, 33 times in the KJV Gen1:1, Gen1:21, Gen1:27 (3), Gen2:3-4 (2), Gen5:1-2 (3), Gen6:7, Deu4:32, Psa89:12, Psa102:18, Psa104:30, Psa148:5, Isa40:26, Isa41:20, Isa42:5, Isa43:1, Isa45:7-8 (2), Isa45:12, Isa45:18 (2), Isa48:7, Isa54:16 (2), Jer31:22, Eze21:30, Eze28:13, Eze28:15, Mal2:10​

Translated 'create' 8 times: Psa51:10 (2), Isa4:5, Isa45:7 (2), Isa57:19, Isa65:17-18 (3)​

Translated creator, 3 times; Ecc12:1, Isa40:28, Isa43:15​

And otherwise translated elsewhere but this will give us a start if your up to it.

Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions

H1254
בּרא
bârâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Strong's
H1254
בּרא
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God created the birds, did he create them ex nihilo?

Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.


No, not ex nihilo here, even if you take it literally, God formed them out of the ground like Adam.

Man and woman are described as being created bara in Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. As we have seen Genesis 2 describes Adam being formed out of dust and Eve from Adam's rib, none of the three occurrences of bara in Gen 1:27 are ex nihilo.

Of course bara doesn't exclude the ex nihilo. The universe was created ex nihilo Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. bara simply tells us that God created it, ex nihilo can be understood because it is talking about the beginning, and the beginning starts off with creation. The verb bara itself is used for both the ex nihilo creation and things being created from what went before.

 

[mark kennedy]

You claim bara means Adam was created from nothing, and accuse us of not believing Moses Luke or Paul, as if they ever said Adam was created from nothing. You throw out this baseless accusation at us when YECs believe Adam was made from dust, and you probably believe it too.

Like I said, if it's a choice between believing Moses and Paul or you it's no contest. The term 'bara' is applied only to God and it means from God alone. From the dust is still a creatio ex nihilo event. By the way it's not 'probably' it's definitely what I believe.

What to nail down? bara means to create. If you want to claim it means create ex nihilo, provide some evidence, preferably something stronger than finding ways to exclude all the non ex nihilo uses. Then you have to explain why the creation of Adam is an ex nililo meaning rather than simply another of those non ex nihilo uses.

You mean other then the extensive treatment of the New Testament witness?


Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions

H1254
בּרא
bârâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Strong's
H1254
בּרא
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

Which you will find is identical to the definition in Vine's and Thayers. Ok, you are going to play with the formating as if you could make a point by changing colors.

[Gen 1:1In the beginning, God created (את 'êth ayth - Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.) and bara-BDBH1a (Qal) to shape, fashion, create 'always with God as subject') the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:21So God created (the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God created the birds, did he create them ex nihilo?[/quote]

Of course he created them ex nihilo.

Gen 2:19So out of the ground the LORD God every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

No, not ex nihilo here, even if you take it literally, God formed them out of the ground like Adam.

It's still ex nihilo dude, why are you wasting my time?

Man and woman are described as being created bara in Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. As we have seen Genesis 2 describes Adam being formed out of dust and Eve from Adam's rib, none of the three occurrences of bara in Gen 1:27 are ex nihilo.

Of course bara doesn't exclude the ex nihilo. The universe was created ex nihilo Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. bara simply tells us that God created it, ex nihilo can be understood because it is talking about the beginning, and the beginning starts off with creation. The verb bara itself is used for both the ex nihilo creation and things being created from what went before.

It's special creation and it's affirmed by the Apostle Paul. I don't know what it means to you to talk in circles like this but I'm getting dizzy watching you do this. It's still ex nihilo, even if it's from the ground and only used of God, never of nature.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have little interest in trying to change mark's mind, but for those who, like mark, question whether evolotionary creationism addresses theology, I thought I would point out the following link that lists well over a hundred sermons and articles, written by clergy, on this very subject:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_resources.htm

I should think the abovementioned clergy members offer more than the "pseudo-theological ramblings" that mark says he's familiar with.

So instead of addressing me directly you speak of me in the third person. That confirms what I have thought for some time, you guys perform in the theater of the mind and the idols and false notions have taken deep root.