-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!
- Thread starter mhess13
- Start date
- Status
Maccie
Well-Known Member
kofhu2u said:
No. Some is "mystery" writing, but that was a generally recognised form of writing when it was written. Much is history, poetry, letters or straightforward accounts. None of it is intended to "go over the heads of the profane". To think that is gnosticism. When the Bible was put together, it was intended that all should be able to understand it. It may be difficult for some of us in the 21st century to get hold of the nuances of the 1st century, or earlier, writers, but a bit of study will soon reveal the meaning. And I don't mean years of study, under Professors of "mystery" writing. I mean ordinary thought by ordinary people.
I agree that some books, like Daniel or Zechariah can be difficult to understand, but we have to remember, like gluadys said, they were written at a particular time to a particular people to encourage, or warn them. But that doesn't mean that we cannot take meaning from them for ourselves today.
But none of this has to do with what Theistic Evolutionists believe.
I really can't follow your arguments.
Upvote
0
Hi gluadys,
The problem I have with these theological arguments---whether for or against creationism---is that they are only theological arguments.
But I have tried to base my arguments on Scripture which all Christians should put above everything else, including science. God knows how He created everything, and He doesn't lie. It is therefore, only logical to use arguments with the Bible as my basis.
The fact is that death occurred among all living species before any human ever existed. No theology can undo that fact. The only thing a theology can do is try to deal with it.
It's not a fact -- how can you prove it?
Personally, I think you can interpret the bible either way. But since one interpretation (no death before the fall) flies in the face of reality, it has to be wrong.
But as has been explained many times to TEs - the evidence doesn't speak for itself and must be interpreted by people's underlying beliefs. The evidence can be interpreted so that it fits with either theory. Btw, creation doesn't "fly in the face of reality" as it is impossible to prove events from the very distant past happened that no one observed.
That may make it harder to interpret some passages, like Paul in Romans (I don't really think it does) but no one said theology was supposed to be easy.
True, theology is a hard thing to study. For one, many of the words used in the Bible may have totally different meanings than today's meanings, while English has, I think it's 3 times or 30 times more words than the Hebrew language! I'm not sure which one.
The problem I have with these theological arguments---whether for or against creationism---is that they are only theological arguments.
But I have tried to base my arguments on Scripture which all Christians should put above everything else, including science. God knows how He created everything, and He doesn't lie. It is therefore, only logical to use arguments with the Bible as my basis.
The fact is that death occurred among all living species before any human ever existed. No theology can undo that fact. The only thing a theology can do is try to deal with it.
It's not a fact -- how can you prove it?
Personally, I think you can interpret the bible either way. But since one interpretation (no death before the fall) flies in the face of reality, it has to be wrong.
But as has been explained many times to TEs - the evidence doesn't speak for itself and must be interpreted by people's underlying beliefs. The evidence can be interpreted so that it fits with either theory. Btw, creation doesn't "fly in the face of reality" as it is impossible to prove events from the very distant past happened that no one observed.
That may make it harder to interpret some passages, like Paul in Romans (I don't really think it does) but no one said theology was supposed to be easy.
True, theology is a hard thing to study. For one, many of the words used in the Bible may have totally different meanings than today's meanings, while English has, I think it's 3 times or 30 times more words than the Hebrew language! I'm not sure which one.
Upvote
0
Biliskner
Active Member
kofh2u said:
how about this one, i want to know what your interpretation is:
Ro. 8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are Gods children.
Ro. 8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Ro. 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
Ro. 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Ro. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
Ro. 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Ro. 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Ro. 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Ro. 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
Ro. 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Upvote
0
Delta One said:
It is a fact that trilobites, pterodactyls, apatasauruses and many other species became extinct before the first human was born.
If it is not a fact, God's creation is lying to us.
The proof is in the evidence. And don't give me any nonsense about other possible interpretations. No "other interpretation" is a responsible interpretation that accounts for all the evidence in a consistent manner.
If you disagree we can start examining the evidence and see how well those other interpretations hold up.
Upvote
0
Biliskner said:
Not really. But creationists like to think they are a stumbling block for TE.
Upvote
0
gluadys,
It is a fact that trilobites, pterodactyls, apatasauruses and many other species became extinct before the first human was born.
I overhead my physics lecturer talking to a theology student while I waited outside his door to get some help on some physics questions for one of the weekly assignments we are given. Anway, they were talking about creation/evolution, and he is a staunch creationist. He was saying that there are level's of death that may not have moral consequences. These typically were cells in the brain, according to him, if I heard him right, the brain cells that die during our birth or before (I think) determine our characteristics such as smartness.
Also, the "death" of plan cells when animals ate them obviously was not considered by God "moral death" because he said that all animals were to eat plants only. He still called His creation "very good". And since we know that God is a God of Love, we know that He couldn't have created:
a. using death.
b. with death as a part of the original creation.
as these two points directly contradict the characteristics that we generally ascribe (and God Himself ascribes to Himself) to God, namely mercy, love, compassion. To suggest other wise makes God out to be a sadistic ogre and a liar.
Also, these cells would not have survived for the 900 years that Adam lived for. Which is fairly intutitive. Also, Adam's carcass should not have been fossilized as it should have been eaten by wild animals. I'm not convinced that the fossil record is as clear cut as what the evolutionists claim, but then again, I'm no geologist and have no real interest in it, as opposed to astronomy and astrophysics to which I have a pretty big interest in.
If you disagree we can start examining the evidence and see how well those other interpretations hold up.
Let's deal with the Biblical evidence first. Obviously, if the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, which Christians should believe, then it is infallible. Then we concentrate on the scientific evidence if you wish. In any case, at least you're starting to understand the idea of different interpretations! Woohoo!
It is a fact that trilobites, pterodactyls, apatasauruses and many other species became extinct before the first human was born.
I overhead my physics lecturer talking to a theology student while I waited outside his door to get some help on some physics questions for one of the weekly assignments we are given. Anway, they were talking about creation/evolution, and he is a staunch creationist. He was saying that there are level's of death that may not have moral consequences. These typically were cells in the brain, according to him, if I heard him right, the brain cells that die during our birth or before (I think) determine our characteristics such as smartness.
Also, the "death" of plan cells when animals ate them obviously was not considered by God "moral death" because he said that all animals were to eat plants only. He still called His creation "very good". And since we know that God is a God of Love, we know that He couldn't have created:
a. using death.
b. with death as a part of the original creation.
as these two points directly contradict the characteristics that we generally ascribe (and God Himself ascribes to Himself) to God, namely mercy, love, compassion. To suggest other wise makes God out to be a sadistic ogre and a liar.
Also, these cells would not have survived for the 900 years that Adam lived for. Which is fairly intutitive. Also, Adam's carcass should not have been fossilized as it should have been eaten by wild animals. I'm not convinced that the fossil record is as clear cut as what the evolutionists claim, but then again, I'm no geologist and have no real interest in it, as opposed to astronomy and astrophysics to which I have a pretty big interest in.
If you disagree we can start examining the evidence and see how well those other interpretations hold up.
Let's deal with the Biblical evidence first. Obviously, if the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, which Christians should believe, then it is infallible. Then we concentrate on the scientific evidence if you wish. In any case, at least you're starting to understand the idea of different interpretations! Woohoo!
Upvote
0
Biliskner
Active Member
gluadys said:
yes really.
Genesis is "poetry" when in reality it is literal.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm
Noah's flood was "local" when in reality it was global.
Adam's Sin was some sort of weird "representation" of a sin inherited not by birth but by... who knows, even all old-agers disagree.
<insert other "historical evidence of evolution which has disproven Scripture's historicity" here>
Upvote
0
Biliskner
Active Member
Delta One said:
of course it's not.
i asked a TE this:
"if you died now and was buried and in 200 years some moron digs you up and says: "hey this guy has a lower cranial capacity and is of lower intelligence than us <whoever "us" is>", is his/her claim valid? can he actually say "he is of a lower cranial capacity and is of lower intelligence?"?"
of course not. what an absurd speculation. size of brain means nothing. and while evolutionists might try and assert it as "scientifically proven" that neanderthals were "stupid-er" than humans today, they have absolutely no proof. neither can they say "this is 6MYO" and be 0.000000000001% more accurate than creationists who say "this is 1000 years old".
oh yeah, i didn't get a reply whether he agreed or not that it was valid or not for the archaeologist to make such a purely speculative unscientific claim.
Upvote
0
Maccie
Well-Known Member
Delta one said:
What are you trying to say here? That some of us are smarter than others because fewer of our brain cells died before birth? Is that a dig at anyone here?
And what are "levels of death"? Either a cell dies or it doesn't. If I remember rightly, all cells have a determined life span. those that go on reproducing an infinitum are called cancerous.
And I still can't see why it all matters! I believe the Bible is the word of God. You believe the Bible is the word of God. I use 'science' every day, you use 'science' every day. I am a Christian. You are a Christian. Gluadys, Vance and all the other TE's are Christians. So are all the YEC's. What's the problem????????
Upvote
0
Biliskner
Active Member
Maccie said:
The problem is that the devil is at work and he causes division in the church when there needs to be none.
The problem is that people re-interpret Scripture to fit their agenda.
The problem is that as Colossians says:
"Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Col. 2:9 For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form, Col. 2:10 and you have been given fulness in Christ, who is the Head over every power and authority."
And I (and probably most YECs) see evolution as a deceptive philosophy, thus this thread: on TE being unbiblical.
The problem is "what should we teach at schools - evol. or creation?"
... and many more ...
even though you might get persecuted, jailed and beaten in China for being a Christian and preaching him as Lord and God and Savior, sometimes it seems more inviting to go and live in that culture where their unity and truth is so strong that it puts us all in the western church to shame.
Upvote
0
Biliskner
Active Member
SBG said:As for your last question 'will our relationship mirror that of abraham and sarah's relationship,' first thing that came to mind was, are you going to marry your half-sister?
Oh, wait, I forgot, we really cannot know for certain if Abraham is even a real person, let alone Sarah.
LOL!!! I was searching for all the Q's I've put out on the interpretation (or rather, re-interpretation) of Scripture (which have had zero replies) and found this... what a crack up!
I'm glad i have no half-sister. But having said that I'm not sure what I'd do, I mean, if she was hot what's a guy to do?? LOL
(ok I'm know I'm treading the grey line here.... LOL.)
Upvote
0
Maccie
Well-Known Member
I know of no church in the UK that has been split over the question of creation. There are bigger problems to worry about.
All Scripture is interpreted. You are suggesting that there is one and only one true interpretation that has existed from.....well, from when?? Re-interpretation takes place all the time as scholars learn more and more about ancient languages, and ancient societies, archaeology, etc.
The passage in Colossians refers to gnosticism, and to false teachers who said that there were certain authorities that Christians should worship, not just the Godhead, and to Judaizers who wanted Christians to be circumcised and follow Levitical laws.
As far as I can see from posts in the Origins forum, most YEC's consider evolution a deceptive philosophy because they have absolutely no idea on how evolution works.
Why should a State School want to teach a religious understanding of science? In the UK we have a National Curriculum, which all State schools must follow. There are, of course private schools, some run by Christians, and they can, as far as I know, teach what they like. But the pupils are going to be disadvantaged when they come to taking public exmainations.
I quite agree about the unity of persecuted churches. It does put us to shame. But I very much doubt they are worrying too much about creationism v evolution. If you think they are all creationists then I would like to see some references to that. and not from biassed sites like AiG.
It just seems so silly to me, when there are far more important problems to worry about, like poverty, lack of clean drinking water, HIV/AIDS, exploitation, child soldiers, slavery.
All Scripture is interpreted. You are suggesting that there is one and only one true interpretation that has existed from.....well, from when?? Re-interpretation takes place all the time as scholars learn more and more about ancient languages, and ancient societies, archaeology, etc.
The passage in Colossians refers to gnosticism, and to false teachers who said that there were certain authorities that Christians should worship, not just the Godhead, and to Judaizers who wanted Christians to be circumcised and follow Levitical laws.
As far as I can see from posts in the Origins forum, most YEC's consider evolution a deceptive philosophy because they have absolutely no idea on how evolution works.
Why should a State School want to teach a religious understanding of science? In the UK we have a National Curriculum, which all State schools must follow. There are, of course private schools, some run by Christians, and they can, as far as I know, teach what they like. But the pupils are going to be disadvantaged when they come to taking public exmainations.
I quite agree about the unity of persecuted churches. It does put us to shame. But I very much doubt they are worrying too much about creationism v evolution. If you think they are all creationists then I would like to see some references to that. and not from biassed sites like AiG.
It just seems so silly to me, when there are far more important problems to worry about, like poverty, lack of clean drinking water, HIV/AIDS, exploitation, child soldiers, slavery.
Upvote
0
Biliskner
Active Member
Maccie said:
my church isn't split on this issue. who's is? raise your hand
Maccie said:
your historicity is true. but if you look at the house churches in China constantly running from the government 'cos they're being beaten and put in jail for preaching Christ crucified, you'll see that they are united, not just in creation doctrine but also in women in ministry and other taboo issues. why? because they read the Scriptures for what IT IS. they have NO information towards ancient languages, ancient societies, culture etc. etc. it does make one wonder HOW we are skewing the Scriptures by using "oh it is from a different culture" to justify our own agenda; which is a load of croc. our Lord God is immutable. His Word is trans-cultural. His Word will even sustain into the new Creation while everything else passes away.
Maccie said:
it also refers to philosophy, because the actual text says "philosophy"
(note how i don't even need to go back to the Greek to understand the text properly - it clearly says "philosophy")
Maccie said:
Maccie said:
if you think they're evolutionists, i would like to see some references to that.
Maccie said:
the roots of deceptive philosophy spread far and wide. don't stop it now, and your grandchildren's grandchildren will suffer the consequences. and that is a promise.
(if Christ does not return by that time.)
Upvote
0
Biliskner
Active Member
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
this has got to be the single most waste of time website i've ever read.
why pose problems that no one can understand?
the whole assumption is that today's observation is the same as Noah's day. how is that good science? i have said it once and i will say it again: "uniformitarianism has gaping holes the size of the Andromeda galaxy."
this has got to be the single most waste of time website i've ever read.
why pose problems that no one can understand?
the whole assumption is that today's observation is the same as Noah's day. how is that good science? i have said it once and i will say it again: "uniformitarianism has gaping holes the size of the Andromeda galaxy."
Biliskner; [url="http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15002106#post15002106%5D" said:
Upvote
0
Maccie
Well-Known Member
biliskner said:
Not quite sure what your point is, but all of those things could be discovered by means of testing soil samples (like core samples), osteoarchaelogy, the radioactivity of various places, studying the nutritional history of bodies, etc. etc. There are many scientific methods for finding out all these things.
Upvote
0
Delta One said:
But as soon as you distinguish between different kinds of death you are agreeing that some form of death did occur before the fall. Hence, the death which came about through eating from the tree of knowledge was only one kind of death.
That is all TEs have been saying. That the death associated with the fall is death of a specific kind (i.e. "moral/spiritual" death), and that natural physical death did occur before the fall.
Cells don't even survive for seventy years. The cells you die with are not the same cells as those you were born with.
I think you mean biblical testimony. The bible is not a source of evidence for science, even when it gets the science right.
But that says nothing about interpretation. We can both agree on this principle and still be miles apart on interpretation.
Then we concentrate on the scientific evidence if you wish. In any case, at least you're starting to understand the idea of different interpretations! Woohoo!
The only way to deal with scientific claims is to look at the scientific evidence. Then one can consider how to understand the science theologically. My point is that doing theology and/or hermeneutics without reference to reality is a sheer waste of time. So one must begin with what is real and how we know it is real.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
