Theisitic Evolution

[Willtor]

I don't think England is going to make any laws based upon a legendary British leader such as the make believe King Arthur..

This is incorrect in many ways.

* It isn't clear that Arthur is make-believe. He may have been an historical person or based on an historical person.
* England can make laws based on whatever they want. Historically, societies that placed a lot of value on mythology _did_ pass laws based on them.
* How is legislation related to what I said?

On the other hand I don't think Paul is going to instruct women in a letter to Timothy based upon a myth based legend that never happened.
13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression

Why not?

 

[-57]

This is incorrect in many ways.

* It isn't clear that Arthur is make-believe. He may have been an historical person or based on an historical person.
* England can make laws based on whatever they want. Historically, societies that placed a lot of value on mythology _did_ pass laws based on them.
* How is legislation related to what I said?



Why not?

Whether or not Arthur was real or not misses the point. The British arn't going to look at a myth and make a law according to it. Your point of argument is shallow at best....by the same token, why would Paul base instruction to women based upon a myth? "Why not" really isn't a reason. "Why not" tells me you can't answer the question.
Let the bible speak to you..not mans fallible science of evolutionism. You trust it literally for salvation why not for creation? Oh, you say, science has proven six day creation as wrong....so you drop kick the miracle of creation...and somehow cling onto the miracle of the resurrection despite the very same scientist saying that event was also impossible. Either your onboard or not.

 

[Willtor]

Whether or not Arthur was real or not misses the point. The British arn't going to look at a myth and make a law according to it. Your point of argument is shallow at best....by the same token, why would Paul base instruction to women based upon a myth? "Why not" really isn't a reason. "Why not" tells me you can't answer the question.
Let the bible speak to you..not mans fallible science of evolutionism. You trust it literally for salvation why not for creation? Oh, you say, science has proven six day creation as wrong....so you drop kick the miracle of creation...and somehow cling onto the miracle of the resurrection despite the very same scientist saying that event was also impossible. Either your onboard or not.

Forget about evolution. I'm talking about the Bible.

"Why not?" is a perfectly good reason. Lots of people do and have done this. Why shouldn't Paul?

 

[-57]

Forget about evolution. I'm talking about the Bible.

"Why not?" is a perfectly good reason. Lots of people do and have done this. Why shouldn't Paul?

My only answer is....you gotta be kidding?

 

[Willtor]

My only answer is....you gotta be kidding?

There can be no response to incredulity, of course.

 

[-57]

There can be no response to incredulity, of course.

Do you have an example from the bible where any other instruction was based upon a myth? Perhaps communion instructions?

 

[Willtor]

Do you have an example from the bible where any other instruction was based upon a myth? Perhaps communion instructions?

There are a number of places the creation account was referenced for the purpose of instruction or law-making in the Bible. For example, the Commandment regarding the Sabbath references creation in 6 days.

Re: Communion: The communion was not based on mythology.

 

[-57]

There are a number of places the creation account was referenced for the purpose of instruction or law-making in the Bible. For example, the Commandment regarding the Sabbath references creation in 6 days.

Re: Communion: The communion was not based on mythology.

Yes, a day presented as literal and historical.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, a day presented as literal and historical.

Six days, not one. Literal, yes. Historical, not necessary. That's the point of mythology.

 

[-57]

Six days, not one. Literal, yes. Historical, not necessary. That's the point of mythology.

I don't think God is going to establish a commandment based upon a myth...Nor do I think the inspired Paul is going to instruct women based upon a myth.

 

[Willtor]

I don't think God is going to establish a commandment based upon a myth...Nor do I think the inspired Paul is going to instruct women based upon a myth.

Why not? Today we read myths like storybooks, but when people were first writing mythology they were writing it for precisely that purpose. It exists so that people can use it as a basis for instruction, philosophical/theological and practical.

 

[-57]

Why not? Today we read myths like storybooks, but when people were first writing mythology they were writing it for precisely that purpose. It exists so that people can use it as a basis for instruction, philosophical/theological and practical.

So far I don't find your argument very convincing. To move on a bit...
Jesus mentioned the days of Noah. Jesus presented it as literal and not myth.

Luke 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.

I don't think Jesus is going to present the days of the Son of Man based upon a myth.

Even Peter brings up the flood and presents it as literal...2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

The accounts presented in Genesis were presented as literal and historical. Whenever the authors God used to pen the NT refer to Genesis it is always literal and historical. You have failed to demonstrate where they are myth other than you need it to be myth for your evolutionism to work.

 

[Willtor]

So far I don't find your argument very convincing. To move on a bit...
Jesus mentioned the days of Noah. Jesus presented it as literal and not myth.

Luke 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.

I don't think Jesus is going to present the days of the Son of Man based upon a myth.

Even Peter brings up the flood and presents it as literal...2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

The accounts presented in Genesis were presented as literal and historical. Whenever the authors God used to pen the NT refer to Genesis it is always literal and historical. You have failed to demonstrate where they are myth other than you need it to be myth for your evolutionism to work.

No, this is not what I've presented. I said forget about evolution in an earlier post. Notice that you are the only one who has brought up evolution with respect to this topic in our discussion. I'll concede that evolution is bogus, for the purpose of this thread (we can discuss that another time):

Evolution is bogus. The creation account is still mythological. That's the form of literature that it is. It was intended to be the mythology of the Hebrew people to help them reason about their relationship with God and with one another, and to establish their position among the nations. All of these passages that you cite that reference it: that's what it's for. That's why mythology was made, back when people made mythologies. It's also worth observing that in some (not all) of your examples, it serves purely for its figurative value, anyway. So even a work of fiction could serve that purpose, though Genesis is not fiction.

When you hear the word, "mythology," you probably think of the Greek myths and remember reading them in school as stories that entertain. You were taught wrong. So was I. That isn't what mythologies are. The stories actually have deeper meanings that the Greeks used as a basis for thinking about who they were and what they valued. They aren't intended to be read like Harry Potter. They were producing work of fiction, too, but those works were recognized as distinct from their mythology.

Genesis filled the same role for the Hebrew people. Only, we recognize it as inspired by God. When we interpret it as it was intended, and don't impose our modern notions and categories on it, it illuminates our lives. It's the same with the rest of the Law. Most Christians ignore it. But it's useful for teaching if we understand it.

 

[-57]

No, this is not what I've presented. I said forget about evolution in an earlier post. Notice that you are the only one who has brought up evolution with respect to this topic in our discussion. I'll concede that evolution is bogus, for the purpose of this thread (we can discuss that another time):

Evolution is bogus. The creation account is still mythological. That's the form of literature that it is. It was intended to be the mythology of the Hebrew people to help them reason about their relationship with God and with one another, and to establish their position among the nations. All of these passages that you cite that reference it: that's what it's for. That's why mythology was made, back when people made mythologies. It's also worth observing that in some (not all) of your examples, it serves purely for its figurative value, anyway. So even a work of fiction could serve that purpose, though Genesis is not fiction.

When you hear the word, "mythology," you probably think of the Greek myths and remember reading them in school as stories that entertain. You were taught wrong. So was I. That isn't what mythologies are. The stories actually have deeper meanings that the Greeks used as a basis for thinking about who they were and what they valued. They aren't intended to be read like Harry Potter. They were producing work of fiction, too, but those works were recognized as distinct from their mythology.

Genesis filled the same role for the Hebrew people. Only, we recognize it as inspired by God. When we interpret it as it was intended, and don't impose our modern notions and categories on it, it illuminates our lives. It's the same with the rest of the Law. Most Christians ignore it. But it's useful for teaching if we understand it.

You can call it mythical all you want. You haven't even come close to demonstrating it was mythical. On the other hand I have presented verse after verse where Genesis is presented as literal and historical.

 

[Willtor]

You can call it mythical all you want. You haven't even come close to demonstrating it was mythical. On the other hand I have presented verse after verse where Genesis is presented as literal and historical.

You haven't presented a single verse that distinguishes between historical and mythical. In fact, some of the verses you cited only use it for figurative purposes!

When I say it's mythology, I say that because I've read other mythologies and I know what a mythology looks like. If somebody who had never seen poetry told you that the Psalms were literal, you'd have a hard time convincing them, too.

 

[-57]

You haven't presented a single verse that distinguishes between historical and mythical. In fact, some of the verses you cited only use it for figurative purposes!

When I say it's mythology, I say that because I've read other mythologies and I know what a mythology looks like. If somebody who had never seen poetry told you that the Psalms were literal, you'd have a hard time convincing them, too.

You posted "You haven't presented a single verse that distinguishes between historical and mythical"
That's where you're mistaken. I have presented the following verses that show Adam (Genesis) to be very literal and not mythical.

Jude 1:14 presents Adam as a real literal historical person...It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

The linage of Jesus is presented in Luke 3:23 as very literal

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Heli,Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph,Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai,Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda,Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim,Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon,Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah,Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan,Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

....when will you present a verse that shows Genesis to be a myth? All you have presented is your unsupported feelings. What you think.

 

[Willtor]

You posted "You haven't presented a single verse that distinguishes between historical and mythical"
That's where you're mistaken. I have presented the following verses that show Adam (Genesis) to be very literal and not mythical.

Jude 1:14 presents Adam as a real literal historical person...It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

The linage of Jesus is presented in Luke 3:23 as very literal

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Heli,Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph,Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai,Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda,Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim,Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon,Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah,Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan,Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

....when will you present a verse that shows Genesis to be a myth? All you have presented is your unsupported feelings. What you think.

Given that you cite these verses and that you think they present a deciding argument between a history (of the modern variety) and mythology, I'm thinking you don't know what a myth is. Is this correct?

 

[Percivale]

I don't think science can say just how gradual the transition was from prehumans to humans. Perhaps a couple hundred thousand years ago God rearranged the DNA in a prehuman womb so that Adam (Eve likewise) was born with fully human intelligence while his parents had no real language and intelligence as close to that of chimps as to humans. I think what you believe about that has more to do with your view of miracles than of science. All humans descended from them, though at times some people interbred with pre-humans (could the passage about the Nephilim refer to that?)

 

[Willtor]

I don't think science can say just how gradual the transition was from prehumans to humans. Perhaps a couple hundred thousand years ago God rearranged the DNA in a prehuman womb so that Adam (Eve likewise) was born with fully human intelligence while his parents had no real language and intelligence as close to that of chimps as to humans. I think what you believe about that has more to do with your view of miracles than of science. All humans descended from them, though at times some people interbred with pre-humans (could the passage about the Nephilim refer to that?)

This is a possibility. It isn't one to which I hold, though, for a couple of reasons:

1. I don't see a special reason to think there was a giant leap in intelligence or linguistic ability from one generation to the next. Genetics may eventually answer this question, so either or both views could be shown wrong.

2. It treats the biblical account as being a one-to-one metaphor for historical events. That isn't how mythology was organized, so, although it might be so -- God _could_ have done that, of course -- it would be surprising to me.

 

[Percivale]

This is a possibility. It isn't one to which I hold, though, for a couple of reasons:

1. I don't see a special reason to think there was a giant leap in intelligence or linguistic ability from one generation to the next. Genetics may eventually answer this question, so either or both views could be shown wrong.

2. It treats the biblical account as being a one-to-one metaphor for historical events. That isn't how mythology was organized, so, although it might be so -- God _could_ have done that, of course -- it would be surprising to me.

I read the creation story the way other allegories in the Bible read; Ezekiel for instance has several concerning Israel's history and relationship to God, in which there is a general correspondence between allegory and fact.

We can't know either way how gradual evolution was and if God made significant miraculous changes at key places or not. I believe that God has intervened miraculously throughout history (and know He does today), so would lean to a more miraculous view of origins, and think it fits NT theology better too. If any new genetic evidence shows up I'll adjust my views as necessary, but remain critical of naturalistic assumptions.