Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

Oops. The "you" there was YECism, collective. Sorry. My bad. But it did get the point across, right?

From Beetle Bloopers:



This gets interesting. Firstly, evolutionary theory requires some mutations to create bias in reproductional success. Mutations which we "observe to be genetically neutral" confer reproductional success bias (from no. 2 and, gee, the whole article). Therefore, evolution doesn't require mutations to add information. This directly contradicts no. 1. In no. 3 it is asserted that since mutations are either neutral or downhill, they are in the "wrong direction for evolution". However this "direction" is defined by no. 1, which was contradicted by no. 2, leaving no. 3 a non-issue.


From "Antibiotics" (since the cave fish one was pretty much in the same league as the beetles one)

Can you show rigorously that this is information gain? How do you decide that a bacterium is less complex than a man?


Here are two stones for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
*catch!*




Actually, most quantum theories are completely falsifiable: they do make falsifiable predictions, just that these predictions occur at insane physical conditions we are not yet able to recreate in the lab.

Oh well. I should have expected some of the same people would be debating here as well. Looking at the bright side, at least Ahhh-nold and Dark_Lite arn't here.

Anyway, could you please restate that in english? I'm slipping on my pig-latin so I didn't understand a word you said.

 

[kofh2u]

My point, is that, other than the rejection of a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis, TE interpretations vary. Some are very like a Day-Age theory, though I haven't seen any like the one

Oh, I didn't realize that the term had so many connotations.

On that other site, tweb, I read post by a George something or another claiming he failed to copyright the term.

He was on the defense for his own understanding of the terminology, and others who witnessed that they saw a compatibility of Evolution with scripture had different views.

My assumption was the term is generic. I had no idea that TE people had a written doctrine already.

Anyway, my own view is more Freudian, though the evolution of Human Consciousness is basic.

I don't know if I would agree with what every TE person might say. In fact, I have found they debate minutia among themselves. Are you saying there is already aTE priesthood authoritaticely setting down dogma, saying what TE is supported by scripture and what is not?

I would like to see this, very much. If you are directing me to some reference on the matter, thanks. Is there a Christian TE denomination meeting someplace besides here?

As a TE yourself, are you part if a group?

Or, as many webbers have recently dobe, are you hosting your own brand of TE at your site?

 

[gluadys]

My assumption was the term is generic. I had no idea that TE people had a written doctrine already.

They don't. That's my point. The only thing TEs have in common is that they accept the scientific theory of evolution as the way God created the diversity of species, including human.

Beyond that there is no shared theology or interpretation of scripture. For example, some believe Adam and Eve were real individuals, some don't. Some believe the flood was local, others say it is entirely mythological. Some are evangelicals, some are liberals. So, since there is no one TE way of interpreting scripture, it is best not to identify any interpretation of scripture as *the* TE interpretation. Better to say "this is *my* interpretation." Or "this is an intepretation *some* TEs have suggested.

Anyway, my own view is more Freudian, though the evolution of Human Consciousness is basic.

That is fine. I find it interesting, but I don't think it has much to do with biological evolution. That is why I would not identify it strongly with TE.

I don't know if I would agree with what every TE person might say.

I am sure you wouldn't. No more than I do.

In fact, I have found they debate minutia among themselves. Are you saying there is already aTE priesthood authoritaticely setting down dogma, saying what TE is supported by scripture and what is not?

Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. Unlike creationism, there are no funded TE ministries, no TE bible study groups or resources, no conferences or videos, nothing organized at all. Pretty much anything you find presenting a TE position is the personal opinion of an individual. Another good reason not to identify any approach to scripture as *the* TE approach.

I would like to see this, very much. If you are directing me to some reference on the matter, thanks. Is there a Christian TE denomination meeting someplace besides here?

I can give you references, but as I said, they are references to personal opinions. Many Christian churches have issued statements favoring TE and opposing the teaching of creationism as science, but they are not TE denominations as such.

As a TE yourself, are you part if a group?

Or, as many webbers have recently dobe, are you hosting your own brand of TE at your site?

No, I have never even heard of such a thing as a TE group. And I don't have a web site. What I present about TE here is my opinion, just as what Vance presents is his opinion, and the same goes for Glen, rmwilliamsll, notto, herev, Karl and others. I don't know a single one of them in person.

But if you read our posts you will get an fair idea of where we agree and disagree with each other, and where we all disagree with creationism.

 

[Maccie]

I don't know if I would agree with what every TE person might say. In fact, I have found they debate minutia among themselves. Are you saying there is already aTE priesthood authoritaticely setting down dogma, saying what TE is supported by scripture and what is not?

I would like to see this, very much. If you are directing me to some reference on the matter, thanks. Is there a Christian TE denomination meeting someplace besides here?

kofh2u, you will probably be astonished when I say that until I came to these Forums I had no idea that Creationists were so numerous, that there were sites like AiG, ministries for the promotion of Creationism, exhibitions and I could scarcely believe the vehemence with which I saw the arguments presented!

OK, I knew that in England there were a few people who believed in Creationism, and some in a young earth, but they were very much in a minority, and even in the fundamental churches I attended YEC was never, ever, a subject for sermons, or even overt statements on belief. All the Christians I spoke to, with literally 2 or 3 exceptions, did NOT believe in YECism.

YECism is very much an American phenomonen (maybe Canada as well, I am sure gluadys will enlighten me!), And as a proportion of world Christianity, a very small proportion. But, I have to say, YEC's do have a loud voice!

I find it almost impossible to understand why anyone should be a YEC. Yes, I can see alll the arguments, but I sit here at my computer shaking my head in disbelief sometimes.

So the idea of a TE priesthood, or a denomination, or even a group, had me falling off my seat with mirth!

However, thought I'd better add, in view of some of the remarks throughout these threads (nothing personal) that I have no doubt about the fact that whatever people believe on the creation front, they are all my sisters and brothers in Christ. As I am theirs.

 

[Delta One]

Milla,

Whatever. All theistic evolution says is that God created macroevolution, too.

Your evasion of the opening argument is noted...

What the opening argument was talking about is the theological consequences if one rejects Genesis and accepts evolution.

 

[Delta One]

Hi kofh2u,

Gluadys stated: They don't. That's my point. The only thing TEs have in common is that they accept the scientific theory of evolution as the way God created the diversity of species, including human.

Nor do they accept the theological issues related to TE. They just ignore or purposefully misinterpret what you are saying, seldom have I ever seen a TE that argues logically and authoratively that TE is compatable with the Bible.

Added onto this, they do not understand that evolutionism is not "science" as Gluadys illustrated for me. It's a belief system about the past based on the naturalistic world-view. True, they do use science to help provide evidence for evolutionism - but then again, so do creationists. I have shown this many times that evolutionism is just the naturalistic alternative to special creation. It's almost getting to the stage where TEs say that "evolution is science" should be added to a Creationary PEATT list (Points Explained A Thousand Times).

God Bless kofh2u. IMO, you bring up some good points. I'll briefly read over the responses and may reply to some of them.

 

[Delta One]

Maccie,

I find it almost impossible to understand why anyone should be a YEC. Yes, I can see alll the arguments, but I sit here at my computer shaking my head in disbelief sometimes.

Why do you say that? What arguments do you observe and shake your head at? That is, please list a few.

 

[Maccie]

Why do you say that? What arguments do you observe and shake your head at? That is, please list a few.

No, I haven't the time, energy or inclination. You can see, or you already know what arguments YEC's have for being YEC. I find them....... well, it isn't that words fail me, its just that I don't want to be reported for strong language!

Let's just say that I don't believe the Bible is a scientific text book, nor is it meant to be. I don't go to the Bible to find out about soil chemistry, photosynthesis or neurosurgery. Or any other science. The Bible is the story, in imaginative language, in historical events, in oral tradition, poetry etc. of the progressive revelation of God to his people, culminating in the incarnation of Christ, and the (albeit incomplete) history of Christianity up to approx the end of the 1st century.

 

[Delta One]

Hi rmwilliamsll,

The first is AiG's swan song of 'no death before the fall' which has been refuted here several times. The other, more important issue is theodicy, or the origin of evil in the world. Don't confuse the two. AiG's intention with it's concentration on 'no death before the fall' is to confuse this issue with theodicy so that the problem of theodicy appears to be particular to TE, it is not. It is perhaps the most important argument against a personal, powerful, all knowing God and drives several of the more important current varieties of not-Christian thought posing as Christian like open theology. (but that is for another forum).

I don't see how you say that AiG's intention is to confuse the two issues you talked about -- evil in the world however is directly related to the Fall of man. You have provided no evidence to back up your just-so claims. May we assume that these are just simply your personal bias?

To dismiss the false notion of no death before the fall you have several important things to look at:

1-how would Adam have known what the curse meant if he didn't see death? it would be simply an empty hollow word.

Your argument is nonsense. Adam was not a stupid man, indeed he would have been quite smart being created in God's Image. Let's read about God's warning:
"You may eat the fruit of any tree in the Garden, except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will surely die."

God warned Adam of what would happen if he ate from the forbidden fruit. In fact, if death had been around before Adam - what kind of punishment is that?? Even though you'll die if you don't eat the fruit, you'll still die if you eat the fruit. That makes no sense and makes God out to be a jackass.

To counter your just-so argument, we will once again return to the Scripture. In Genesis 3:3, Eve tells the snake that they were not allowed to touch or eat the forbidden fruit because "if we do, we will die." The snake replied, "That's not true; you will not die". (Genesis 3:4). They're talking about this thing called death like they know what it is. If Eve didn't know what death was, why not ask God or the snake? The fact that she didn't implies strongly that she knew what it was.

2-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical death then why isn't my pet dog saved? he has the breath of life, is a vertebrate, etc etc.

It doesn't undo physical death at all in this life time until He returns. When He returns, because He defeated physcial death, He has the power to rise His followers up when He returns. God's curse on creation is the reason why everything continues to die. The Bible makes it very clear that when Jesus returns He will do away with this creation and create a new heaven and new earth where there will be no more suffering and no more death. Why is that? Because, there will be no more curse. When was that curse placed on creation? In Genesis. Christians call this event of Jesus creating a new heaven and a new earth as the "restoration of all things". Why would Jesus have to restore all things if there's nothing wrong with this world? If this world has always had death and it is now just like it was in the beginning, why is there a need to restore it back to it's original state? This is makes no sense when interpreted through a TE world-view. The reason for the resortation is because of Adam's Fall and sin that dramatically changed God's creation by introducing death and suffering.

It's interesting, did you know that when Jesus returns He will raise all those dead in Christ? That is, His followers who died will be physically brought alive. Spirtually, people are alive the moment that they accept Jesus as their LORD and Saviour. But Romans 5 and 6 are not talking about spirtual death as the TEs claim, it is talking about physical death.

Listen to what Paul says in Romans 6:3-5 and Romans 6:8-11:
For surely you know that when we were baptized into union with Christ Jesus, we were baptized into union with His death [physical death]. By our baptism, then, we were buried with Him and shared His death [once again physical death; the term buried tells us this], in order that, just as Christ was raised from death [physical death - you can't be "raised" from spirtual death] by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life. For since we have become one with Him in dying as He did, in the same way we shall be one with Him by being raised to life as He was. .... Since we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. For we know that Christ has been raised from death and will never die [physically] again - death will no longer rule over Him [physical death - fairly intutitive]. And so, because He died, sin has no power over Him; and now He lives His life in fellowship with God. In the same way you are to think of yourselves as dead, so far as sin is concerned, but living in fellowship with God through Christ.

As you can see by the [] that I have included points with specific verses that implies strongly that the death refered to was indeed physical. Much of the verses should be very intitutive as to which type of death Paul is refering to.

3-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical human death then why did all the apostles die and all Christians since then?

Once again, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't "undo" physical human death at all. His death paid the price for our rebellion against God and His death taught us that He has the power over physical death so that He will raise the "dead in Christ" physically when He returns to restore everything to how it was and to do away will evil and death. Things still die because the curse still exists in this creation. It is not until the Jesus restores this creation to what it once was in the beginning when death will be defeated. Jesus died on the cross to allow us to personally come to God and pray to Him (the end of spirtual death if you will) - see Matthew 27:51 for evidence of this.

If you know much about the old ways, back then only the priests were allowed into this room where they would occassionally come before God in prayer and offer sacrifices and ask for forgiveness of people's sins. This room was blocked by a curtain. The destruction of this curtain symbolizes the fact that because of Jesus' sacrifice, all those who believe in Him will be able to come to God in prayer. As soon as one accepts Jesus, He is no longer "spirtually dead". I believe that those who are "spirtually dead" just can't communicate with God - their soul is eternal and thus, can't "die".The term spirtual death just refers to the disconnection of the relationship between man and God. Jesus is the bridge to restoring this connection. It is through only Jesus that we now a days can communicate with God.

Jesus also died on the cross for our sins, hence paying the ultimate price for sin - death (as defined in Genesis). Jesus rose three days after physically dying to show that He had the power over physical death, to show to all that those who believe in Him shall also conquer physical death and live forever with Him.

It takes some time and effort to work through the issues, but i expect that a close examination of AiG's no death before the fall will convince anyone that the curse means the separation of body and soul which is just one symptom of physical death in human beings alone, being the only creature in the image of God and possessing a soul. It the final resurrection body and soul will be knit back together again and human beings will rise from the dead, not the animals. So the parallel stills follows of pre lapsarian and post-judgement, it is not destroyed as you are contending, just limited to human beings and not some subset of the animal kingdom.

I don't believe that there is much, if any, Biblical evidence that man's soul is separated from his body. I've always thought that we communicate with God through our soul. The main part of us that are made in God's image is our eternal soul.

Romans 5 and 6 clearly show that the death that the death that Paul is refering to is physical, not spirtual -- all of this is just by letting taking the words at face value and applying logic when possible.

I don't think that I've worded this exactly as I would have liked to, but oh well. Must leave for tea.

 

[gluadys]

Hi rmwilliamsll,


To dismiss the false notion of no death before the fall you have several important things to look at:

1-how would Adam have known what the curse meant if he didn't see death? it would be simply an empty hollow word.

Your argument is nonsense. Adam was not a stupid man, indeed he would have been quite smart being created in God's Image.

snip

2-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical death then why isn't my pet dog saved? he has the breath of life, is a vertebrate, etc etc.

It doesn't undo physical death at all in this life time until He returns. When He returns, because He defeated physcial death, He has the power to rise His followers up when He returns.

snip

3-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical human death then why did all the apostles die and all Christians since then?

Once again, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't "undo" physical human death at all.

The problem I have with these theological arguments---whether for or against creationism---is that they are only theological arguments.

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.

Any theology which tries to paper it over is simply not one that is taking the real world into account. One must start with the fact that death preceded the existence of humanity or retreat into la la land.

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.

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.

 

[kofh2u]

They don't. That's my point. The only thing TEs have in common is that they accept the scientific theory of evolution as the way God created the diversity of species, including human.

Beyond that there is no shared theology or interpretation of scripture. For example, some believe Adam and Eve were real individuals, some don't. Some believe the flood was local, others say it is entirely mythological. Some are evangelicals, some are liberals. So, since there is no one TE way of interpreting scripture, it is best not to identify any interpretation of scripture as *the* TE interpretation. Better to say "this is *my* interpretation." Or "this is an intepretation *some* TEs have suggested.



That is fine. I find it interesting, but I don't think it has much to do with biological evolution. That is why I would not identify it strongly with TE.



I am sure you wouldn't. No more than I do.




Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. Unlike creationism, there are no funded TE ministries, no TE bible study groups or resources, no conferences or videos, nothing organized at all. Pretty much anything you find presenting a TE position is the personal opinion of an individual. Another good reason not to identify any approach to scripture as *the* TE approach.



I can give you references, but as I said, they are references to personal opinions. Many Christian churches have issued statements favoring TE and opposing the teaching of creationism as science, but they are not TE denominations as such.



No, I have never even heard of such a thing as a TE group. And I don't have a web site. What I present about TE here is my opinion, just as what Vance presents is his opinion, and the same goes for Glen, rmwilliamsll, notto, herev, Karl and others. I don't know a single one of them in person.

But if you read our posts you will get an fair idea of where we agree and disagree with each other, and where we all disagree with creationism.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Its the "THE" that is the problem.

Yes, there are "partial Theisic Evolutionary" advocates.

That is mostly because they are without a complete exegesis of TE, integrated into every book of scripture.

On the other side, the Medievil metaphysical paradigm, that has long been cast over scripture, allows for direct answers 0n all issues, albeit preposterous as they are to scientist.

Full Gospel TE proponents sorely need a full Bible exegesis. One which synthesizes scripture with the paradigm of our own times, a secular academic paradigm, in general. This thread is so imporant in pointing out just this problem.

This thread challanges TE on the grounds that it is unbiblical.

My point here has been that TE is attacked as UNSCIENTIFIC by the YEC's in particular, but even by the "Ole Time Religion Community" in general.

That is NOT their "business."

They are not scientists.

And, the few who are, that debate against TE, do not speak for science. Science accepts Evolution.

The real issue is whether the Bible "accepts" secular knowledge in general, or is itself diametrically opposed.

We can discover that the Bible actually supports such modern ideas as truth, in fact, has long anticipated their discovery!

So, Science/Bible exegesis is the real issue.

Ask a preacher of a denominational church about those seemingly inexplicable "sons of God," those in Genesis 6, who took as many daughters of men as "wives" as they would.

Just how do they explain "sons of God" and "daughters of men?" Especially noting that we hioe to become sons of Gid, ourselces.

How does the medievil paradigm apply full bible exegesis to these IMPORTANT passages?

Only with invention of surrealistic domains, the espousing of other spiritual worlds, ideas that defy ANY logical modern examination, that's how they do it.

Yet, the Full Gospel Theistic Evolutionary, FGTE, approach would take the developmentalism of Genesis one more (academically supported) step further:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


See what I mean?
Its the whole Bible or else for TE.

T
ere has got to be "A" TE, "The TE Bible Exegesis."

So, yes, you are correct, but you pount not to the validitt of many TE's, but to the vulnerability of all TE proponents unless they are full TE people with access to the Freudian Bible Interpretation.

 

[kofh2u]

kofh2u, you will probably be astonished when I say that until I came to these Forums I had no idea that Creationists were so numerous, that there were sites like AiG, ministries for the promotion of Creationism, exhibitions and I could scarcely believe the vehemence with which I saw the arguments presented!

OK, I knew that in England there were a few people who believed in Creationism, and some in a young earth, but they were very much in a minority, and even in the fundamental churches I attended YEC was never, ever, a subject for sermons, or even overt statements on belief. All the Christians I spoke to, with literally 2 or 3 exceptions, did NOT believe in YECism.

YECism is very much an American phenomonen (maybe Canada as well, I am sure gluadys will enlighten me!), And as a proportion of world Christianity, a very small proportion. But, I have to say, YEC's do have a loud voice!

I find it almost impossible to understand why anyone should be a YEC. Yes, I can see alll the arguments, but I sit here at my computer shaking my head in disbelief sometimes.

So the idea of a TE priesthood, or a denomination, or even a group, had me falling off my seat with mirth!

However, thought I'd better add, in view of some of the remarks throughout these threads (nothing personal) that I have no doubt about the fact that whatever people believe on the creation front, they are all my sisters and brothers in Christ. As I am theirs.

1) hello

2) Thanks.
Thanks for the over view on both TE's and YECISM.

3) Yes, I appeeciate the sincere and warm respect for Christians in general, and your easy accomodation of all interpretations of scripture which essentially end at the Cross... errrrr... begin at the Cross.

4) A historical overview will confirm that our living Bible has grown and develeped, throughout human history, right beside the ever changing and advancing paradigm of each moment and Age. This is a miraculous expression of the divine Word, its ability to speak to all men in all times.

5) Your point about embracing the community, in spite of rather strong expression of erronous interpretation, is admirable and a good perspective. One appropriate to all Bible students. I always remember, the Bible might not be here without the strong insistence upon its validity, even in those days when the "insistors" had this a little wrong as far as ality is concerned.

The metaphysics of Plato had/has accomodated the entire Middle Ages, and though the Newtonian/Galilleoean Enlightenment caused much division, 1600 years of the previous Christianity still had gone forward into every subsequent generation, ultimately reaching us.

6) Nevertheless, Full Gospel Theistic Evolutionary Interpretation is an essential next step. Because, the secular academic community us without answers to questions important to the proseltyzing of the next generation.

The academic community is gradually finding humor and ridicule appropriate to Christian theology, hence, disbelief and disrespect for Christianity.
'Noah, the Ark, all animals in transport, Creationism, Life after death, the end of death, itself, heaven, hell, and such matters are not explained satisfactorily by the archaic ideas of medievil metaphysics. Those ancient interpretations are still with the church.
'They MUST be deliniated in terms of our present knowledge.

That is NOT to say, they are to be dismissed. They are to be explicitly described, such that the secular academic world kniws what these things mean, and how our present secular understandings support their existence.

The Truth merely needs to be verbalized in the jargon of our times.

7) Is 32:4 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.

Is 32:3 Then at last the eyes of Israel will open wide to God and his
people will listen to his voice.

Is 32:5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes!
Wealthy cheaters will not be spoken of as generous, outstanding men!

 

[shernren]

Pig Latin, chicken? I'm insulted! Here's a wild analogy that to me fits perfectly what the creationists are trying to say:

(1. Diverse speciation requires increase in information.)
To move a car, you need fuel.

(2. Mutations don't increase information. Only special creation does.)
You don't find fuel in a car if you just push it. You don't find fuel in a car until you put fuel into it.

(3. Therefore, there is no diverse speciation without special creation.)
Therefore, you cannot move a car unless you put in fuel.

Ok. That's rock solid. However, the creationists admit that:

(4. Mutations do create beneficial differences in traits.)
When you push a car, you do move it a bit.

And put in the evolutionists' contribution:

(5. Beneficial differences in traits, that make a difference to a population's reproductive success, are the basis of evolution.)
If you can move the car a bit, you can move the car.

So what does that do to no. 3? Obviously it renders no. 3 invalid, because by 4 and 5 we have found a way to move the car without fuel (we have evolution without an increase in information). So the modified version is:

It is possible to move a car without putting in fuel.
i.e., it is possible to have diverse speciation (from common descent) without an increase in information!

There you go, no pig latin, right?

Delta: No-one disregards Genesis. In fact, we are trying to figure out how to keep Genesis 1 when God has created an entire world with the evidence of a few billion years of history.

 

[kofh2u]

yes it is (it is ONLY MY opinion).

i asked about 4 weeks ago to a TE about how they interpreted ROMANS 5, and the Scriptural authority of that. still waiting on that answer...

Huh?
You did?

In this threadm you "asked about 4 weeks ago to a TE about how they interpreted ROMANS 5?"

Well, it is a pretty ling chapter, but here's the general Full Gospel Theistic Evolution take on Roman 5:

Rom. 9:1 I say the truth (that is) in (the mind of) Christ, I lie not, my conscience (that Christ recommended to us is my guide) also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, (my Good Shepherd),

Rom. 9:2 That I have great heaviness (in realizing the loss of the main stream Jewish community), and continual sorrow in my heart (that it must be so).

Rom. 9:3 For I could, (but I certainly do not), wish that (I), myself, were accursed from Christ for my brethren (sake), my kinsmen according to the flesh, (for I feel a continued camaraderie with them):

Rom. 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Rom. 9:5 Whose (forefathers) are the (patriarchs), fathers, and of
whom, (genetically), as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all (Jews), God blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom. 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they, (my brethern), are not all (of) Israel which are of Israel (which remains blind and deaf):

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children (of the Promise): but, In Isaac, (only), shall thy seed,
(Abraham), be called.

Rom. 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, (genetically linked), these are not (necessarily to evolve further, becoming) the children of God: but the children of the promise are (those which are to be) counted for the seed (of Abraham to which God was referring).

Rom. 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come,
and Sarah shall have a son.

Rom. 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

Rom. 9:11 For the children being not (even) yet born, neither having done any good (of unselfish altruism) or evil (of the original sin of selfish disposition), that the purpose of God, (the purification in the evolutionary furnace of time), according to election (that some would evolve further beyond Modern Homo sapiens) might stand, not of works (in adaptations to the environment), but of him that calleth (them to survive by genetic mutation and alteration);

Rom. 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Rom. 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved (and shall cause to
evolve further), but Esau (whose pre-set innate psychological
disposition of self centeredness) have I hated.

Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then, (how can I explain this in this
day)? Is there unrighteousness with God (as must seem without the knowledge of the creative process of evolution available to us now)? God forbid (that the dross of the furnace of evolution that is cast aside seem unmerciful).

Rom. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy (because the ends will be justified by the means of evolution), and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (because it is I, YHVH, who is becoming and shall dwell with men, and immanently in the mental kingdom within).

Rom. 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth (to live as a species
forever), nor of him that runneth (the good race, adapting to the
physical environment), but of God that showeth mercy (in everlasting
life to a species).

Rom. 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same
purpose, (the purification of Modern Homo sapiens), have I raised thee up, (one step in the maturation process), that I might show my power in thee, and that my name, (ultimately) might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom. 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy, on whom he, (letting those fit to survive), will have mercy, (shall survive, indeed), and whom he will (pass into extinction) he hardeneth (to the process).

Rom. 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he (in the reality of his creation) yet find fault, (is it a personal matter)? For who hath resisted his will (in that we are here because of past adaptations in our phylogenetic chain)?

Rom. 9:20 Nay but, O man, (transformed from earlier humanoids), who art thou (so uninformed) that repliest against God (whose refining fire of evolution has promise of life on earth forever)? Shall the thing formed (by the designing force of the environment) say to him, (the omnipotent reality) that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus (unknowing that without change in the creature we must fail before change in the environment)?

Rom. 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom. 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath,
(previous humanoid stages of evolution), fitted to destruction (and to be discarded in extinction):

Rom. 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory (to be bestowed) on the vessels of (his) mercy, (we who are sons evolving as Homoiousian sapiens), which he had afore prepared unto glory (of eternal life in this new species to come),

Rom. 9:24 (Show) even (to) us, (Homoiousian sapiens, new creatures in God), whom he hath called (to change), not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Rom. 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them, (the saved of
the Gentile nations), my people, which were not my people, (the Jews); and her, (Christianity), beloved, which was not beloved, (in former paganism).

Rom. 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in (Israel), the place where it was said unto them, "Ye are not my people;" there shall they be called (Christian Hebrews), the children, (Homoiousian sapiens), of the living God.

Rom. 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though, (the Jews, as a people, long among the nations), the number of the children of Israel (ought) be as the sand of the sea, (too), (but only) a remnant shall be saved (from total Holocaust):

Rom. 9:28 For he will finish the work (of changing the innate selfish philosophical disposition in man), and cut it, (self centerness), short in righteousness: because a short work (of a few thousand years of social education) will the Lord make upon the earth.

Rom. 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed (from Holocaust), we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

Rom. 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles (understood first), (those people) which followed not after righteousness (in their selfish paganisms), have attained to righteousness (of attitude), even the righteousness which is of faith (that Christ exemplified in the great truth of men serving one another).

Rom. 9:31 But Israel (long preaching salvation in Torah), which followed after the law of righteousness (in ritual practice), hath not attained to the law of righteousness, (which is Altruism).

Rom. 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith (that
unselfish behavior and altruistic interest in team play actually works), but as it were by the works (of talk that pretend to the actual practice) of the law. For they stumbled, (and talked the talk), at that stumblingstone (of walking the walk exemplified by Jesus);

Rom. 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone, (an example of the right behavior, even unto sacrifice of one's life), and rock (that will focus on the error) of offence, (which is selfish personal interests): and whosoever believeth on him, (in his example set before us), shall not be ashamed (of his behavior among other men).

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Its the "THE" that is the problem.

Full Gospel TE proponents sorely need a full Bible exegesis.

So you want to call your version of TE the "Full Gospel TE"?

Ok. As long as you call it FGTE and not just TE. Fine by me.

But why do you speak of "proponents" of FGTE in the plural. Do you know anyone besides yourself who is a proponent of FGTE?

I still think it would be best to represent your personal opinion as your personal opinion, until you have organized a group of fellow proponents of your theology. Talking about it as if it were a recognized academic option with theologians and published books and web sites, etc. just obfuscates the matter, when really there is you and you all alone promoting this point of view.

We can discover that the Bible actually supports such modern ideas as truth, in fact, has long anticipated their discovery!

Here, for example, is one point on which I strongly disagree with you. I hold that all biblical writers were people of their time writing within the theological, philosophical and scientific understanding of their time. We should not read what they say as anticipating the scientific and technological discoveries of later times.

We say again and again that the bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook. That applies to the science of their time and also to the science of our time.

So, Science/Bible exegesis is the real issue.

Right. But not in terms of the bible ever being a scientific text.

Just how do they explain "sons of God" and "daughters of men?" Especially noting that we hioe to become sons of Gid, ourselces.

How does the medievil paradigm apply full bible exegesis to these IMPORTANT passages?

You honestly consider this to be an IMPORTANT passage!?!? Sheesh. I don't agree with those priorities at all.

Yet, the Full Gospel Theistic Evolutionary, FGTE, approach would take the developmentalism of Genesis one more (academically supported) step further:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


See what I mean?

I see that you have no concept whatever of what "academically supported" means. Can you cite one journal (theological or scientific) which has published this hypothesis?

Sorry, but you spouting off from your personal soap box does not make your ideas "academically supported".

 

[kofh2u]

gluads:
Here, for example, is one point on which I strongly disagree with you. I hold that all biblical writers were people of their time writing within the theological, philosophical and scientific understanding of their time. We should not read what they say as anticipating the scientific and technological discoveries of later times.

KOFHY:
I believe the Bible writers were under the influence of divine inspiration.

They actually had much to say which they could not directly communicate. Their audience was not prepared for the futuristic nature of many of their insights.

But, even more important to their subtle, cryptic literary style was, first, their real audience was well into the future.

Namely us.

The Book of Daniel is useful exegesis for such interpretation:

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament), and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell), even to (2K25AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased.


In other words, the Bible is sealed and unreadable by YOUR intended audience. The actual audience is that readership in the future, as I said.

Second, the bible writers clearly understood that the societal forces who have weilded all the power throughout the ages, even until now, would burn their writings, and pervert their meanings.

Stalin and Hitler were not anomalies unique to our times. mBook burners, both.

For instance, Nostradamos was a Hebrew-Christian and Jewish convert to Christianity. He also was a student/expert/practioner of the respected Jewish Kabbalah.

He wrote his prophecies in cryptic Quatrains just for the reasons state
above.

Whereas I do not fault you for failure to recognize the Divine Inspiration in the scriptures, which supercedes your assumption that these writers simply were communicating their own religious beliefs and understandings,... I do, however, criticize your lack of appreciation for the very literary genre of Scripture.

Scripture is written in the ancient style of the Mysteries. Much is intend to go over the heads of the "profane."

Again, exegesis:

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism: Rev 3:14) the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of human Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of mind), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERY of God, (the hidden manna: [Rev 2:17]), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture: [Dan 12:4).

 

[kofh2u]

Theistic Evolutionary interpretation of Genesis 6:1-9, may have been a report verbal transmitted for 40,000 years.

It seems true that based upon recent speculation on hybrid sexual relationships between co-existing species of humanoids, that Genesis 6:1-9 concerns this Evolutionary varible in the equation of our own development as a species:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Glauds:
I see that you have no concept whatever of what "academically supported" means. Can you cite one journal (theological or scientific) which has published this hypothesis?

KOFHY:
There has been much academic speculation on this hybriding. I believe if you search a little you will find a lot.

The idea of co-habitation, and sexual hybriding between Neanderthal and our own species, has even found popular expression on the Discovery Channel.

Nevertheless, you are correct in noting that I made no notation of any theological paper synergizing Genesis with academic ideas about paleonotogy. Nor has any Academic stated that the recent paleonotology is found in the Bible.

You missed my point about support.


What we understand secularly and academically is compatible with statements in scripture.. THAT IS SUPPORTIVE.

Supportive of a Theistc Evolution Interpretation, the theology of Genesis and the paleonotology of academia..

Academics are supported by the papers of Academia.

Theology is supported by the theolgical writings.

The point is that what academics support as true IS demonstrable in the scripture quoted as easily compatible with what theologians say is true.

And, I am supported by both of their stated views in saying that they demonstratably are both saying the same thing, i.e., Genesis 6:1-4:

Gen. 6:3 And the LORD said, My (panentheistic) spirit (of Natural Law) shall not always strive with (lower forms of) man, for that (more than just a mental reflection of Myself), he also is flesh (and must adapt to my Reality, or go into extinction): yet, (Neanderthal), his days shall be an hundred and twenty (thousand) years.

Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when (the line of humanity that would ultimately lead to Christ), the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus), came in unto the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids preceeding the advent of Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.

 

[gluadys]

Here, for example, is one point on which I strongly disagree with you. I hold that all biblical writers were people of their time writing within the theological, philosophical and scientific understanding of their time. We should not read what they say as anticipating the scientific and technological discoveries of later times.

KOFHY:
I believe the Bible writers were under the influence of divine inspiration.

So do I. That doesn't change my earlier statement one whit.

But, even more important to their subtle, cryptic literary style was, first, their real audience was well into the future.

Namely us.

The Book of Daniel is useful exegesis for such interpretation

Not at all. No biblical writing was directed to us---though it is still (as Paul says) useful to us. Every one was written for the contemporaries of the writer.

Daniel was written during the Antiochean oppression of the Jews which led to the Maccabean rebellion in the 2nd century BCE. And it was written to those experiencing that oppression.

The book is called "Daniel" not because Daniel wrote it, but because the writer used the experience of Daniel and his companions under Babylonian oppression to inspire his contemporaries to resist the oppression of Antiochus.

Of course, we can also read it today and be inspired to resist the oppression of dictators in our time. But that does not mean it was written specifically to or for us.

 

[gluadys]

I see that you have no concept whatever of what "academically supported" means. Can you cite one journal (theological or scientific) which has published this hypothesis?

KOFHY:
There has been much academic speculation on this hybriding. I believe if you search a little you will find a lot.

There has been speculation on whether H. sapiensinterbred with H. neanderthalensis but that has died down since the analysis of H. neanderthalensis mitochondrial DNA seems to indicate that there was no cross-species hybridization.

I expect you will agree that not a single paper on this issue mentioned the bible.

So can you cite a theological paper that relates the bible to possible neaderthal-sapiens inter-breeding?

You missed my point about support.

What we understand secularly and academically is compatible with statements in scripture.. THAT IS SUPPORTIVE.

You don't have a point because you don't understand what support is. Compatibility is not support. Only evidence can support a theory or thesis.

That is why, for example, that evolution never appeals to the bible for support. Evolution is compatible with the bible, but only the evidence can be used for support. The bible is not evidence for evolution in spite of being compatible with evolution.

Academics are supported by the papers of Academia.

Theology is supported by the theolgical writings.

Theologians are academics. Theological writing is academic writing. Theology is a department of academia.

The point is that what academics support as true IS demonstrable in the scripture quoted as easily compatible with what theologians say is true.

But I am not talking about what academics are saying. I am talking about what YOU are saying. It is not that I have a problem with the content.

What I have a problem with is you presenting it as if it was an accepted theological and/or scientific point of view.

If that were true you should be able to show that Dr. (name of author) published an article to this effect in the (month & year) issue of (name of journal)

You can't do that, can you?

So, ---please-- present it for what it is----your own personal intepretation and don't pretend it is anything more than that.

Is it really so hard to say "This is the way I interpret this passage" instead of presenting it as dogma?

 

[kofh2u]

So do I. That doesn't change my earlier statement one whit.



Not at all. No biblical writing was directed to us---though it is still (as Paul says) useful to us. Every one was written for the contemporaries of the writer.

Daniel was written during the Antiochean oppression of the Jews which led to the Maccabean rebellion in the 2nd century BCE. And it was written to those experiencing that oppression.

The book is called "Daniel" not because Daniel wrote it, but because the writer used the experience of Daniel and his companions under Babylonian oppression to inspire his contemporaries to resist the oppression of Antiochus.




THAKXZ FOR THE UNRELATED INFO... all true, no doubt.









IN REGARD TO THIS STATEMENT BY YOU, BELOW HERE, THE BIBLE STRONGLY AND CLEARLY DISAGREES WITH YOUR INTRANSCIENT POSITION.

Of course, we can also read it today and be inspired to resist the oppression of dictators in our time.

But that does not mean it was written specifically to or for us.

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel,... shut... up... the... words,...

.. and seal... the... book,...


... even.... to the time of the end: