Theisitic Evolution

[BobRyan]

(emphasis mine)

I don't think you understand the TE point of view, so it's kind of strange to be commenting on it.

wrong. As it turns out I can "read" and there is no "Secret knowledge" in TE. It is much more transparent than the T.E. group likes to imagine to themselves. So also its gaffs, gaps and flaws -- transparent.

So the points raised - are much more obvious than you may have at first imagined. I don't say this to change your mind, you have free will and can ignore all the details that you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

The topic of this thread is the historicity of Adam and Eve (and how to think about the Fall, if they were not historical), not how to go to Heaven. That's a question for a different sub-forum.

The OP was about reconciling the blind faith evolutionist religion of T.E. to the Bible and the fact that the one writing that post had some difficulty in marrying the two together.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you accept any explanation in violation of what we are told to do?

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Adam and Eve were the first Humans, made with a superior intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22 Until Noah, a direct descendant of Adam, came to our Planet, there were NO Humans here since prehistoric people did NOT descend from the ONLY man

Fortunately - none of that is in the Bible

 

[BobRyan]

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

Saltations where brute hominid morphs into Einstein or Moses or Solomon in a single generation are not "likely". More like "Big whopping miracle goes here". And if science were all about "big whopping miracles" - then the 7 day creation account of the Bible - would not be the problem for atheists that it is today.

 

[Willtor]

wrong. As it turns out I can "read" and there is no "Secret knowledge" in TE. It is much more transparent than the T.E. group likes to imagine to themselves. So also its gaffs, gaps and flaws -- transparent.

So the points raised - are much more obvious than you may have at first imagined. I don't say this to change your mind, you have free will and can ignore all the details that you wish.

Oh, I'm not saying that there's anything opaque about T.E. I'm just saying that you don't understand it. Otherwise, your criticisms would be different.

 

[Willtor]

The OP was about reconciling the blind faith evolutionist religion of T.E. to the Bible and the fact that the one writing that post had some difficulty in marrying the two together.

No, no difficulty.

 

[BobRyan]

those blind faith assertions - comforting to see that the T.E. model is not advancing. So then back to the OP and the "real issues" raised.

=====================

There is no bridge for TE to the Bible as it reads or to the Gospel as it reads.

1. Notice that the NT text affirms "the very details" in the Bible that the TE POV insists are "most untrue".

2. Do you "believe in" the unscientific facts of the literal virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, literal bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ, the 2nd coming, the miracles of the NT... the prophetic statements in the NT where NT authors claim God speaks to people and they write what God said... and the literal 7 day creation week... and the literal world wide flood?

Pretty hard to do that and be TE.

===============

And so notwithstanding the snarky remarks of recent - "the point remains" ... because as it turns out "substance not snark" is the only thing that will "address the point".

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
Do you accept any explanation in violation of what we are told to do?

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Adam and Eve were the first Humans, made with a superior intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22 Until Noah, a direct descendant of Adam, came to our Planet, there were NO Humans here since prehistoric people did NOT descend from theONLY man

Fortunately - none of that is in the Bible

Correction: It's not in your Bible but it is in God's Holy Word. Here it is.

Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 with an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22
The sons of God (prehistoric people) were made on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 from the water because they "moveth" and they were alive. Lucy was the first one of them to walk upright 4 million years ago UNLESS you can explain her bones just popping up by themselves, and which agrees with Scripture. I don't think you can. Amen?

BTW, I will be happy to list the individual verses with my comments IF you would like.

 

[Willtor]

those blind faith assertions - comforting to see that the T.E. model is not advancing. So then back to the OP and the "real issues" raised.

=====================

There is no bridge for TE to the Bible as it reads or to the Gospel as it reads.

1. Notice that the NT text affirms "the very details" in the Bible that the TE POV insists are "most untrue".

2. Do you "believe in" the unscientific facts of the literal virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, literal bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ, the 2nd coming, the miracles of the NT... the prophetic statements in the NT where NT authors claim God speaks to people and they write what God said... and the literal 7 day creation week... and the literal world wide flood?

Pretty hard to do that and be TE.

===============

And so notwithstanding the snarky remarks of recent - "the point remains" ... because as it turns out "substance not snark" is the only thing that will "address the point".

I rest my case.

 

[BobRyan]

You have done well Wiltor presenting the best possible case for T.E. - no doubt the best you could.

 

[BobRyan]

Of the many gaps in logic to be had in the effort to marry T.E. to the Bible - here is a good one.

OK - what if, hypothetically, I called that first creature to conceive of deities, "Adam"? I don't have to put a finger on exactly when - I can say that whenever it happened, I'll call that person "Adam".

IF God punished all mankind - and Christ had to be tortured on the cross - because "some hominid bashing in his daily ration of monkey brains - happened upon a bad thought one day" - then the atheist's mocking of the gospel is amplified 1000 fold and it is all nonsense.

The idea that all mankind must burn in hell because of some dunderhead barely-able-to-imagine-deity-exists "Adam" ate an apple or "had a bad thought" or "Bashed in the monkey's head the wrong way" -- is the most cruel and unjust unGod-like action thinkable for dooming the entire planet. Which fits the TE paradigm perfectly!

TE makes a mockery of the Bible, of God, of the Gospel - and logic.

This is irrefutable.

And what does TE gain by such a horrific sacrifice? They claim they are gaining friendship with the atheist's "religion" of blind faith evolutionism.

James 4 says "friendship with the world is hostility toward God".

I believe the Bible.

 

[Willtor]

You have done well Wiltor presenting the best possible case for T.E. - no doubt the best you could.

I didn't even try. You made my case for me -- not the case for T.E., but the case that you don't know what T.E. is.

 

[BobRyan]

I love that as 'the answer to everything' - for T.E. whenever the T.E. guys have no answer.

i think T.E. only survives because the T.E. guys never ask the question in the OP expecting a "real" answer.

 

[Willtor]

I love that as 'the answer to everything' - for T.E. whenever the T.E. guys have no answer.

i think T.E. only survives because the T.E. guys never ask the question in the OP expecting a "real" answer.

Maybe, if you hear it from lots of different people, it means that you _actually_ don't understand TE... or maybe we're all conspiring together to give you that answer.

 

[BobRyan]

Your every post ignores the details in the thread discussion so far.

It is confirming examples that you are far more transparent than you seem to be imagining.

As already noted - T.E. itself only survives by using that model - of ignoring the points raised in the OP and the details we see in the discussion posts - that are not simple snipe-and-snark.

So then the details ---
Today at 3:39 PM #71
Today at 12:03 PM #67
Today at 10:52 AM #64
Today at 10:36 AM #62

All the snipe-and-snark in the world is not going to make those details "vanish" .. which is a problem for T.E. survival

No wonder the question in that OP -- they get nothing from their fellow T.E. to support them.

 

[Willtor]

Your every post ignores the details in the thread discussion so far.

It is confirming examples that you are far more transparent than you seem to be imagining.

As already noted - T.E. itself only survives by using that model - of ignoring the points raised in the OP and the details we see in the discussion posts - that are not simple snipe-and-snark.

So then the details ---
Today at 3:39 PM #71
Today at 12:03 PM #67
Today at 10:52 AM #64
Today at 10:36 AM #62

All the snipe-and-snark in the world is not going to make those details "vanish" .. which is a problem for T.E. survival

No wonder the question in that OP -- they get nothing from their fellow T.E. to support them.

Okay, let's analyze one of the "details":

those blind faith assertions - comforting to see that the T.E. model is not advancing. So then back to the OP and the "real issues" raised.

=====================

There is no bridge for TE to the Bible as it reads or to the Gospel as it reads.

1. Notice that the NT text affirms "the very details" in the Bible that the TE POV insists are "most untrue".

2. Do you "believe in" the unscientific facts of the literal virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, literal bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ, the 2nd coming, the miracles of the NT... the prophetic statements in the NT where NT authors claim God speaks to people and they write what God said... and the literal 7 day creation week... and the literal world wide flood?

Pretty hard to do that and be TE.

===============

And so notwithstanding the snarky remarks of recent - "the point remains" ... because as it turns out "substance not snark" is the only thing that will "address the point".

Point 1: I have not said that I thought anything in Scripture is untrue. This represents your misunderstanding of TE.

Point 2: I have no trouble believing that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he is God, and that he was bodily raised from the dead. The fact that (after all this time) you still believe I don't says more about you than about me.

It's all based on your lack of knowledge. If there are inconsistencies or other problems in the TE position, you can't find them because you don't understand it well enough.

 

[Percivale]

Saltations where brute hominid morphs into Einstein or Moses or Solomon in a single generation are not "likely". More like "Big whopping miracle goes here". And if science were all about "big whopping miracles" - then the 7 day creation account of the Bible - would not be the problem for atheists that it is today.

Clearly you can't fathom someone believing in miracles AND in evolution. Well, I do, simply because of the evidence. The fossil record, biology today, and the universe are not consistent with a young earth. If you are willing to discuss science I can go into more detail; but I tend to find that YECs don't want to discuss the science in detail.
While to many of us the Bible seems on its most straightforward reading to teach a young earth, it is likely that that is because of our cultural prejudices. The original audience was much more likely to understand Genesis in a more metaphorical fashion.
Since God cannot lie, either in his word or in his creation, we should not accept an interpretation of one that contradicts the other. The creation definitely teaches an old earth, and the Bible can be interpreted either way, so we should accept old-earth interpretations that harmonize with science. (though not with atheistic assumptions)

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, but evolution is "miraculous" or "wondrous" in the sense of providing new forms of life. Evoluti0on is the rise of true creativity, the birth of the totally unexpected. The universe is starting to play God. The universe, with its profusion of complex interrelationships, is seen as far more aesthetically fascinating that the classical image of God as a one-dimensional being, void of body, parts, passions, etc.

 

[Hoghead1]

BobRyan, I don't think you at all understand TE. First, the notion of original sin is well entrenched in Christian orthodoxy, which is where it originated. Secondly, all this reference to "monkey brains" is way, way off. It is common for people to say that evolution claims we arose from monkeys. But that is not at all the case. So, saying that or implying that strongly indicates you have not done your homework. The evolutionary position is that both apes and humans share a common ancestor, a description of which has been provided by Japanese scientists in about 2007.
Next, I could easily be identified as a TE, though I would prefer to use another label. But that is neither here nor there. My point is that I do not believe at all in original sin. I do not consider it a biblical concept at all. I do not assume the Bible is an accurate geophysical witness or that it was ever intended to be. As Calvin once pointed out, God did not write Scripture to give us an astronomy lesson. I am a biblical scholar and I do not hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. The latter is simply a human-made, possibly fallible theory about how God may be related to Scripture. Like any theory, it should be tested out. On the basis of the numerous contradictions found in Scripture alone, it fails to hold water. I do not see this as an attack on either the Bible or God, just on those who hold with this outmoded theory.
I, doer one, do not believe in Hell. I view God as a loving God. And when you love someone, you do not seek to coerce them with threats of horrible punishments.
So, bottom line: I don't know where you got all this stuff about TE people saying Adam bashed out his monkey brains and that led to the total corruption of our nature, etc.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, again much of your material on TE is way, way off base. For example, I hold that God was incarnate in Christ. Christ is a revelation of God's general MO with the world and that means God is incarnate throughout creation. I think the best metaphor for describing God's intimate relationship with creation is to say that the universe is the body of God. The Virgin Birth has always been a problem for theologians, TE or otherwise. Does it literally mean, no sex. Not all biblical scholars would agree with that. They would take the term "virgin" to mean that Mary had no sex prior to being married. After that, no, it is not claiming Christ was somehow sexlessly produced in Mary. Also, the Virgin Birth is not in Mark, which suggests that it is a later addition to Christian thinking. What about the Resurrection? I think that God is the guarantor of the meaning of life, because God preserves and enjoys all our experiences in detail, throughout eternity, his or her infinite imagination. And our feelings cannot be preserved without our egos, us. Hence, the Resurrection is powerful testimony to the fact that we are all preserved and enjoyed in God.