the soteriological hazards of theistic evolution

[Pete Harcoff]

not at all.

if one is going to criticize the bible, one must have sufficient knowledge of pertinent details, including the history of the bible, the authors, the supportive archaeological evidence, the various versions and their differences, the biblical scholars and their interpretations, etc.

This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. Do you apply the same scrutiny to such experts on Biblical matters as you do as those on scientific matters?

 

[Arikay]

So, your earlier statement,

"an active atheist (one who deliberately rejects God) is, by definition, incapable of understanding biblical revelation, because their hearts are far from God."​

Is false.

Since one can know Bible history, author history, archaeological evidence, version difference, scholars views and interpretation views, without having a "heart close to god."

not at all.

if one is going to criticize the bible, one must have sufficient knowledge of pertinent details, including the history of the bible, the authors, the supportive archaeological evidence, the various versions and their differences, the biblical scholars and their interpretations, etc.

 

[JohnCJ]

you are right to be offended by my post.

you're name-calling is merely justification of the power and effectiveness of simple biblical revelation, and the animosity that is aroused when one's worldview clashes with basic biblical instruction....

evolutionists are no different when their claim that man was not specially created, but instead, emerged (sic) from lower life forms is biblically refuted.

this too is refuted by the words of the biblical God, throughout the entire book.

theistic evolutionists attempt to harmonize the ways of God with the ways of man, as if evolution has trumped God's words in Isaiah 45:12, "It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it."

there are many warnings about adding and/or taking away from His words, and those warnings should be examined thoroughly.

however, I am afraid that since you have a vested financial, professional, and political interest in evolutionary theory, you will find it most difficult to face the painful truth, as revealed to us in the Source of truth.

most debates I have ever engaged in (both formally and informally) nearly always have deteriorated into ad hominems or name-calling by the evolutionists.

that is a good indication that their arguments are shallow at best, and when pressed for further details, usually incites verbal hostility, as you have confirmed.

If you believe there are atoms, cells, viruses, that stars are distant suns, DNA, and a myriad of other things that are accepted as fact then you are not different at all from theist evolutionists because none of these things are in the Bible (at least not literally) and they have all been proven to exist.

I am not going to add atoms to the Bible because the Bible is not a scientific text, its a text for the soul. If Adam and Eve didn't eat from the tree of life we wouldn't have seen any of these things and we would still be close to God. They decided to act independently from God so we are where we are today. Knowing this why ignore what we see, God didn't tell Adam and Eve to ignore it he pushed them into it in fact.

To demonstrare evolution of almost any living thing you would need every generation from millions of years which because the earth is so good at recycling does not exist now. We only have bits and pieces and the theories can change and some theories will become proven fact like genetics.

But you can go ahead and think God is simple I will always think he is complex.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

Ari, sorry to say but it appears that you don't understand the issue.

an active atheist (one who deliberately rejects God) is, by definition, incapable of understanding biblical revelation, because their hearts are far from God.

consequently, they may be better at understanding atheistic issues than I, but until they set apart Christ as Lord, they are in error, per Jesus.

Don't ignore an opportunity to learn.

Dont ignore the opportunity to learn from your christian brothers that.
Athiesm is a philosophy
evolution is physical science
evolution is not athiesm
evolution is a natural law by which God creates

 

[Scorpio]

Anyone else notice how biblical literalism treats the bible as god and themselves as Jesus (an infallible human) when it comes to reading the bible?

No.

 

[dnich163]

from direct biblical revelation, christians can confidently deduce two things....................................in soteriological terms, this would be sufficient enough to forfeit one's salvation.

You take the Genesis story out of context.
Remember when, how and for who it was written initially.
Genesis in the early part is a story to try and explain in terms they (the early Jewish race, early Israelites) could understand.
We don't teach our kids about quantum physics in primary 1......we teach them how to talk and communicate first.

This is more important than first reading because it acknowledges our being as "relational"......part of a community......that there is someone-something other than ourselves.

I believe that while we have free will on this earth in this life, we are destined to know God in the end days.
For me.....in that sense........ our salvation is already determined...we are saved.

Good news eh?

David

 

[Jet Black]

No.

well it's worth noticing.

 

[notto]

not at all.

if one is going to criticize the bible, one must have sufficient knowledge of pertinent details, including the history of the bible, the authors, the supportive archaeological evidence, the various versions and their differences, the biblical scholars and their interpretations, etc.

Perhaps you could share with us what biblical scholars and archeologists tell us about Genesis. Who, when, and under what context was it written? What writtings preceeded it? What can you tell us about the writer and the context of the time it was written?