Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[gluadys]

Hi gluads,

He, too, is a phyicsist. Strange. So many physicists in TE.

Glennmorton www....
My discussions with glenn have focused on two major points.

Yes, Glenn has a unique interpretation, just as you have a unique interpretation. Go ahead and dispute. I am not taking sides between you, as I don't agree with either of you.

2) As I bring to your attention now, glenn also is impeded in proseltyzing TE ideas because he has no complete Bible exegesis of TE throughout.

Other than the Freudian Bible Interpretation (not yet available) which I am editing, and which is a complete synergy of TE and how it reads in scripture, there does not seem to be a ready response to Fundamentalist quotes.

As you, yourself, who inquire here, "As for the biblical passages, could you please provide complete references i.e. chapter and verse(s)?"

ANSWER:
I mean the whole Bible.

snip

TE needs a similar paradigm, one that can be demonstrated to be cast over all of scripture.

IMO, you don't need a "complete Bible exegesis of TE throughout." TE acknowledges the role of evolution in generating the diversity of species. It seeks to understand the doctrine of creation in light of the scientific understanding of nature. So, it only needs to touch on those passages of scripture which relate to the creation of nature and humanity.

In this regard, at your request, I say, give me another TE interpretation BESIDES those I have posted. Not a verse, but for all of Romans, Chapter 5 and all of Chapter 8, and all of Chapter 9, and so on. For the whole of scripture, demonstrate that TE as a paradigm, is appropriate, possible, and demonstrably a guide to other TE advocates.

First, I will not interpret a whole chapter, but only sections which are often raised as problematical for theistic evolution.

Second I will not give a “TE interpretation” as there really is no such thing. I will give my interpretation as a TE in the knowledge that other TEs will come to their own conclusions and offer different interpretations.

For me, the key passages in Romans 5 are as follows.


12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

And for me, the key to the interpretation is in verse 14 where it says “… Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come (i.e. Jesus)” This tells me that Paul is not intending a literal interpretation here that would demand Adam be a literal person, but a typological interpretation in which “Adam” should be interpreted as “humanity” or “type of humanity”. Jesus then represents a new type of humanity.

12: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one [type of human being] and death came through sin, etc.
18. Therefore just as one [type of human’s] trespass led to condemnation for all, so one [type of human’s] act of righteousness led to justification and life for all.

Finally, note that although Paul speaks of condemnation for all and justification and life for all, the context tells us that he is referring to all human beings, not all living beings. So this has no application to any life form except humanity. Hence it does not preclude the death of other life forms, including the nearest ancestors of humans, before the fall.

From Romans 8

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Paul, here, is referring to the role of humanity in relation to created nature. As you know, God gave humanity a mandate to rule and a task to care for the earth and its creatures. When humanity’s communion with God was broken by the fall, so was humanity’s connection with nature. But nature is still under the rule of humanity. Hence Paul speaks of it as being subjected to futility and bondage to decay. The revealing of the children of God will end this futility and bondage to decay, for as a right relationship between humanity and God is restored through Jesus Christ, so is the right relationship between humanity and the creation which has been made subject to it.

Now as to the word “decay” does it refer to ordinary biological decay that is part of the cycle of life? That cannot be, precisely because it is part of the cycle of life, so this decay is never permanent or accumulative.

Rather the decay referred to is the degradation of the environment under a human dominion that does not care for it e.g. the degradation due to over-exploitation of resources, deforestation, desertification, pollution, loss of habitat, etc. This kind of decay can be permanent and accumulative, one decay building on another until the whole earth is laid waste.

I don’t see anything in Chapter 9 that requires a specifically TE interpretation.

 

[kofh2u]

oops. serves me right for using the keypad.

what i mean is Romans 8, the last passage i quoted you.

how do you (RE)interpret the passage when Paul talks about God subjecting the whole of creation to bondage and decay and that in the New Creation it will be liberated from this bondage and decay.

... since TEs (i don't even know if you are one) say that death and decay + disease have been around BEFORE Adam Sinned etc.

cheers.

Ok, so I'm not so smart because I still am not certain what you see as a problem here.

First, not TE's, but all rational people assume that things have pretty much been life followed by death, in the clasical sense. With exception of you, speaking for Christians, I believe all other religions also think living organisms died, long before your time table for the sixth yom, when Adam was created.

So, I guess its not exactly a defense of TE you want, but a response to your understanding of death, right? Apparently, you are saying you understand the Bible tells us, "Before original sin, all living things lived eternally."

You want something like an explanation of Paul, in Roman 8? Because it supports you assumotion that "Before original sin, all living things lived eternally."

Like I said, I am not sure that is what you are saying the Bible tells.

I want to repond to the right question, if I can.

Is this what you ar saying?

 

[kofh2u]

gluadys:
Yes, Glenn has a unique interpretation, just as you have a unique interpretation. Go ahead and dispute. I am not taking sides between you, as I don't agree with either of you.

KOFHY:
I do not want a dispute, just mutual presentations.

One of my theories about s rioture is that it is reporting human intranscience in predisposition. And, it is demonstrating that this fixation and characteristuc stubborn mind setting results in @ a dozen mainstream denominational, Christian Bible interpretations.

This illustrates how prophecy is possible, since human behavior is predetermined and innate, i.e., genetically rooted.

I susoect that you, I, and gmorton are now developing just the beginning of such a distinction in this new paradigm of TE.
But, this is another issue.

gluadys:
IMO, you don't need a "complete Bible exegesis of TE throughout." TE acknowledges the role of evolution in generating the diversity of species. It seeks to understand the doctrine of creation in light of the scientific understanding of nature. So, it only needs to touch on those passages of scripture which relate to the creation of nature and humanity.

KOFHY:
IMO, TE touches on every subject of scripture and is concerned with the preparation, development, and announcement of the next evolution, the sons of God, to be called Homoiousian sapiens.

IMO, in order not to go into the coming extinction of Modern Homo sapiens, believers must accept the way modelled by Christ into a new psychological attitude.

gluadys:
First, I will not interpret a whole chapter, but only sections which are often raised as problematical for theistic evolution.

KOFHY:
Well, that would be so many, IMO. Practically speaking, might as wll go the whole 9 yrds.

What about humands living 930 years? Is that compatible with TE?

gluadys:
Second I will not give a “TE interpretation” as there really is no such thing. I will give my interpretation as a TE in the knowledge that other TEs will come to their own conclusions and offer different interpretations.

For me, the key passages in Romans 5 are as follows.


12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

KOFHY:
What was that sin and how does the garden of eden chapters complement the rational understanding of Genesis 1.

I mean, if we are so TE about Creationism, insisting we oppose traditional church metaphysics, how can we follow by accepting the "apple" story as literal?

gluadys:
14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

KOFHY:
See, here you DO agree with me, basically...
"...scripture... is concerned with the preparation, development, and announcement of the next evolution, the sons of God, to be called Homoiousian sapiens."


gluadys:
18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

KOFHY:
Can you see the seeds of evolution in this, genetic predetermination?


gluadys:
And for me, the key to the interpretation is in verse 14 where it says “… Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come (i.e. Jesus)” This tells me that Paul is not intending a literal interpretation here that would demand Adam be a literal person, but a typological interpretation in which “Adam” should be interpreted as “humanity” or “type of humanity”. Jesus then represents a new type of humanity.

KOFHY:
We are on the same wave length.

gluadys:
12: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one [type of human being] and death came through sin, etc.

KOFHY:
Here I have to focus on the mention of death and sin, and how this relates to what you have said so far, here.

Remember, in Revelation 21, death is no more. So, is this extinct, death of a species? Or, is this genetics, recreation of our psyche in new physical "houses," but genetically coded interneural memories?

gluadys:
18. Therefore just as one [type of human’s] trespass led to condemnation for all,...

KOFHY:
Condemnation? Mutation? Genes altered, or genetic dispositions integrated into the genome?

gluadys:
.. so one [type of human’s] act of righteousness led to justification and life for all.

KOFHY:
Justification? Genetic based behavioral change, evolution?

gluadys:
Finally, note that although Paul speaks of condemnation for all and justification and life for all, the context tells us that he is referring to all human beings, not all living beings. So this has no application to any life form except humanity. Hence it does not preclude the death of other life forms, including the nearest ancestors of humans, before the fall.

KOFHY:
Are you responding to the YEC inte pretation that death did not exist prior to the "fall?"

gluadys:
From Romans 8

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Paul, here, is referring to the role of humanity in relation to created nature. As you know, God gave humanity a mandate to rule and a task to care for the earth and its creatures.

When humanity’s communion with God was broken by the fall,...

KOFHY:
See, here you are recognizing the traditional paradigm which incorporates opportunity for magic and metaphysical explanation. Why insist on science in Gen 1, then?

gluadys:
But nature is still under the rule of humanity. Hence Paul speaks of it as being subjected to futility and bondage to decay. The revealing of the children of God will end this futility and bondage to decay, for as a right relationship between humanity and God is restored through Jesus Christ, so is the right relationship between humanity and the creation which has been made subject to it.

KOFHY:
So, you see environmental issues here as tge meaning.

gluadys:
Now as to the word “decay” does it refer to ordinary biological decay that is part of the cycle of life? That cannot be, precisely because it is part of the cycle of life, so this decay is never permanent or accumulative.

Rather the decay referred to is the degradation of the environment under a human dominion that does not care for it e.g. the degradation due to over-exploitation of resources, deforestation, desertification, pollution, loss of habitat, etc. This kind of decay can be permanent and accumulative, one decay building on another until the whole earth is laid waste.

KOFHY:
Well, I see the evil consequences of Homo behavior related to this, but not exactly as you say.

gluadys:
I don’t see anything in Chapter 9 that requires a specifically TE interpretation.

KOFHY:
Well, the WHOLE chapter either supports TE as the most useful overview to Scripture, or convers ly, TE supports some very difficult verses in this chapter.

TE also adds wer ul rational and meaningful insight into most of this chapter.

I particularly like this, for example:

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

 

[shernren]

100% as i mean in the sciences when we say we know something for certain. Like F=MA is 99% certain, not 100, but very close etc. Gravity is 99% certain, you can test it with experiments; the wave pressure of sound is 99% certain etc. i always leave 1% uncertainty because in physics you can always get so close but there are always "anomolous" results which make it not-100%.

so the question is more: is historical dating the same as physics? 99%? or is it more like 20%, 30% accurate?

You are talking about experimental errors. Firstly, physicists assume a range of uncertainty in results, firstly as a result of uncertainty in measuring fundamental constants, and also as a result of imperfect experimental procedures.

For the first, most scientific constants are known to about 10-20 significant figures, and within this range most experimental results can be explained in terms of experimental error. Of the constants, though, one sticks out like a sore thumb: (surprise, surprise) Newton's gravitational constant G, currently known to about 4 s.f., but even that's not a lot of uncertainty. The difference between 0.0001 and 0.0002 (4 s.f. accuracy) is about 0.01%. Nowhere as big as the 1% you mentioned.

But let's say I play your game. Let's assume that historical dating is 20%-30% accurate. Now, there have been rocks dated to, say, 4 million years old. Assuming that the dating used on those rocks was only 20% accurate, guess what it's new age is? 800,000 years. That's still 794,000 years to go. And remember that there are rocks that have been dated to 5 billion years old.

If you want to make 5 billion years into 5 thousand years, you'd have to say that dating science is 99.99999999999999% (approximately) incorrect. These are the same sciences that are giving you X-rays and miniature electronics. If the person doing your dental X-ray was anywhere near 80% inaccurate you'd likely be having jaw cancer right now.

The problem with hypothesising that the decay rates change is that the decay rates are bound to how the whole universe works. And that is a present, observable hypothesis. If the decay rates had changed at any time in the past, the sun would either have gone cold or blown up in the face of the Earth. Neither has happened, right?

Well, what have you to show that theistic evolution is unbiblical?

 

[invisible trousers]

Regarding accuracy of constants, on my lap I have University Physics 11th Ed., which has accuracy values for some fundamentical physical constants...

Magnitude of charge of electron: 0.00000000063 E-19 C
Planck's constant: 0.0000000052 E-34 J.s
Boltzmann constant: 0.000000024 E-23 J/K
Mass of electron: 0.0000000072 E-31 Kg
Mass of proton: 0.00000000013 E-27 Kg
Mass of neutron: 0.00000000013 E-27 Kg

Assuming decay rates to be changing requires fundamental physical constants--like the mass of a neutron to change as well. When that happens, our universe completely falls apart and ceases to exist, which is probably an unlikely scenario.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys:
Yes, Glenn has a unique interpretation, just as you have a unique interpretation. Go ahead and dispute. I am not taking sides between you, as I don't agree with either of you.

KOFHY:
I do not want a dispute, just mutual presentations.

That is fine. All I am asking is that you characterize your presentations as your presentations, not as TE presentations. You may be incorporating some TE ideas, but the interpretation is still uniquely yours.

One of my theories about s rioture is that it is reporting human intranscience in predisposition. And, it is demonstrating that this fixation and characteristuc stubborn mind setting results in @ a dozen mainstream denominational, Christian Bible interpretations.[/quoted]

This illustrates how prophecy is possible, since human behavior is predetermined and innate, i.e., genetically rooted.

This reflects a misunderstanding of how genetics affects behaviour. A genetically rooted behaviour is not necessarily predetermined. I have just read a study on that subject.
Genetic Differences and Human Identities

KOFHY:
IMO, TE touches on every subject of scripture and is concerned with the preparation, development, and announcement of the next evolution, the sons of God, to be called Homoiousian sapiens.

IMO, in order not to go into the coming extinction of Modern Homo sapiens, believers must accept the way modelled by Christ into a new psychological attitude.

I see that part of the problem is that you do not understand evolution. You are assuming first that our species will become extinct. But there is no reason we should not last as long as the Coelacanth.

Then you are assuming (given our extinction) that our immediate descendants would be in a whole different genus (Homoiousian). Sorry, evolution does not work like that. Any immediate descendant of ours will be in the same genus (Homo) but will have a different species designation. H. _____? instead of H. sapiens.

Finally, evolution has nothing to do with salvation. You are treading on very dangerous ground here. Salvation does not depend on our genes. Any suggestion that evolution or genetics or psychology factors into who is and is not saved flies in the face of the biblical teaching that salvation is grounded in the work of Christ and that it is by God's grace alone, as revealed in Christ and received by faith, that we are saved from our sins.

What about humands living 930 years? Is that compatible with TE?

Not based on current evidence, no.

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

KOFHY:
What was that sin and how does the garden of eden chapters complement the rational understanding of Genesis 1.

I mean, if we are so TE about Creationism, insisting we oppose traditional church metaphysics, how can we follow by accepting the "apple" story as literal?

You asked me to comment on Romans, so I didn't go into Genesis. In any case, TEs don't agree on whether Adam & Eve, the garden, snake and tree were literal or not. Some say they were and some say they were not.

gluadys:
14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

KOFHY:
See, here you DO agree with me, basically...
"...scripture... is concerned with the preparation, development, and announcement of the next evolution, the sons of God, to be called Homoiousian sapiens."

I am citing scripture here, not commenting on it. No, I don't agree with you for reasons given above.

gluadys:
18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

KOFHY:
Can you see the seeds of evolution in this, genetic predetermination?

No. see the article in the link. The complexity of genetic/behavioural relationships, especially when you factor in environmental impacts is far from a picture of predetermination.

gluadys:
And for me, the key to the interpretation is in verse 14 where it says “… Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come (i.e. Jesus)” This tells me that Paul is not intending a literal interpretation here that would demand Adam be a literal person, but a typological interpretation in which “Adam” should be interpreted as “humanity” or “type of humanity”. Jesus then represents a new type of humanity.

KOFHY:
We are on the same wave length.

Given what I said above, I doubt it. Also remember this is my interpretation. Many TEs believe Adam and Eve were literal historical people and would interpret this passage differently because of that.

Remember, in Revelation 21, death is no more. So, is this extinct, death of a species? Or, is this genetics, recreation of our psyche in new physical "houses," but genetically coded interneural memories?

It has nothing to do with species or biology at all. Revelation is an apocalypse filled with symbolism about the Roman Empire and God's coming Empire written to encourage Christians under Roman oppression to remain faithful witnesses to Christ.

KOFHY:
Condemnation? Mutation? Genes altered, or genetic dispositions integrated into the genome?

No. WE are talking salvation here. Nothing to do with evolution or genetics. This is about humanity's fall from grace, not about its genome.

KOFHY:
Justification? Genetic based behavioral change, evolution?

No. Justification grounded in the atoning work of Christ. Nothing to do with evolution.

KOFHY:
Are you responding to the YEC inte pretation that death did not exist prior to the "fall?"

Yes

Romans 8

KOFHY:
See, here you are recognizing the traditional paradigm which incorporates opportunity for magic and metaphysical explanation. Why insist on science in Gen 1, then?

What do you mean by this question?

KOFHY:
So, you see environmental issues here as tge meaning.

Makes the most sense to me. Environmental issues are traceable to human sinfulness.

KOFHY:
Well, the WHOLE chapter either supports TE as the most useful overview to Scripture, or convers ly, TE supports some very difficult verses in this chapter.

TE is not intended to be an overview of all scripture. It only says that certain interpretations of certain passages of scripture must be wrong, and suggests alternatives.

I particularly like this, for example:

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

No. From an evolutionary point of view it says that individuals evolve and this is contrary to science, which says that species, not individuals, evolve.

And from a theological point of view it denies that Christ's atoning work is the sole ground of our salvation and so is IMHO heresy.

So your version of theistic evolution is unscientific and IMO unChristian. If I were to accept this interpretation of scripture as TE, I would have to agree with the OP suggestion that TE is unbiblical, and I don't agree with that.

Therefore, I would strongly suggest that you cease applying the label TE to it until:
1. You learn more about evolution so that you are getting the science right, and
2. Consider where you are headed theologically so that you restore the work of Christ to its rightful place in God's plan of salvation.

 

[kofh2u]

Biliskner said:

"the whole assumption is that today's observation is the same as Noah's day. how is that good science?"

Relativity?
Are you suggesting that "Time" itself is not constant, or "Times" and conditions in other "times" did not necessarily/ do not necessarily conform to our understanding of physics now.

Are you saying, big dinosaur bones dug up today might have been way smaller in Noah's time, that those animals were little and easily fit on the Ark?

That would be bad Science either to suggest such a possibility without anything but speculation, and bad science if such evidence could be examined.

But, regardless, IT IS BAD BIBLE.
It is bad interpretation, because the Bible SAYS all will bethe same as in the Day of Noah at the end of days.

 

[kofh2u]

Hello glauds,
I better understand your limitations now after reading you last post.

I see that you misinterpret much of what I said and proceed to posture authi=oritatively behind arguments unrelated to my comments and irrelevent to the basic points expressed.

Certainly, you have not looked up the dictionary definition of the next step in human development, i.e., Homoiousian man.


Nor have you recognized that this next step is prophecy supported by scripture.

And, you compound the matter by lecturing on Evolution which is unnecessary.

Plus, you are factual wrong in that all previous links to Modern Homo sapiens have, de facto, gone the way of Neanderthal, Extinct.

Based upon that scientificand observable fact, plus St Paul's prophecy... yoi seem merely grasping at threads to disagree and pretend to a scientific look at scripture, especially in regard to Evolution.

With such motive as this implies I hardly think it appropriate to argue these points.

If, as you say, one;s Christian salvation deoendsupon the f=veracity of their intellectual literary criticism of scripture, IMHO, you ought apply your personal remarks to yourself.

But, surely, as a Partial TE that you take yourself for in espousing that point of view, and mys lf, going completely through the entire Bible, finding much support, as a Full Gospel TE proponent not only do we differ...

...but our differences confirm, again, the hypothesis that scripture is about HumanBehavior, and this behavior is strongly linked to genetic predisposition.

Bexausem in our strong divergence and typical name calling and tagging, we demonstrate just this point, there are twelce basic "tribes" or types of human preceptions or predispositions among us.

In this, your recent reading has guven you information about genetics that is either not complete or one sided, ignoring, sadly, the whole body of evidence to the contrary.

In regard to the end point of the gradually emerging replacement of Modern Homo sapiens, and the soon to arrive Homoiousians, I emphasize that St Paul say, "ALL"... all will be changed:

Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep (in total unconsciousness), but we shall all be changed.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in ever re-manufacured, genetically preserved brain of each new born), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve in Total Consciousness and phylogenetic memories to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings).
1Cor. 15:51-2

 

[gluadys]

Hello glauds,
I better understand your limitations now after reading you last post.

I see that you misinterpret much of what I said and proceed to posture authi=oritatively behind arguments unrelated to my comments and irrelevent to the basic points expressed.

Please show where I have misinterpreted you, or made irrelevant comments.

Certainly, you have not looked up the dictionary definition of the next step in human development, i.e., Homoiousian man.

Homoiousian: a member of a 4th century church party that maintained that the essence of the Son is similar to but not the same as that of the Father. ~~Unabridged Random House Dictionary 2nd edition, 1993​

The church party in question was led by Arius, and this doctrine was rejected by the orthodox church at the Council of Nicea and is considered heresy by most churches today.

The dictionary did not contain an entry for “homoiousian man”.

Nor have you recognized that this next step is prophecy supported by scripture.

Show me—without adding in your personal interpretations of the scripture.

And, you compound the matter by lecturing on Evolution which is unnecessary.

You are the one who wants to call yourself a theistic evolutionist without knowing the first thing about evolution. So it is necessary.

Plus, you are factual wrong in that all previous links to Modern Homo sapiens have, de facto, gone the way of Neanderthal, Extinct.

But they were also the same genus as us. Have you never noticed that all their biological names begin with Homo? That was my point.

Should we go extinct, any new species descended from us will also be in this same genus Homo, not in a different genus like Homoiousios. The pattern of evolution would not permit a species so closely related to us as an immediate descendant to be of a different genus.

Based upon that scientificand observable fact, plus St Paul's prophecy... yoi seem merely grasping at threads to disagree and pretend to a scientific look at scripture, especially in regard to Evolution.

Sorry, but it is clear that you have no knowledge of biological evolution and no basis on which to bring a scientific perspective to scripture.

If, as you say, one;s Christian salvation deoendsupon the f=veracity of their intellectual literary criticism of scripture, IMHO, you ought apply your personal remarks to yourself.

Please don’t lie about what I said:

Salvation does not depend on our genes. Any suggestion that evolution or genetics or psychology factors into who is and is not saved flies in the face of the biblical teaching that salvation is grounded in the work of Christ and that it is by God's grace alone, as revealed in Christ and received by faith, that we are saved from our sins.

Justification grounded in the atoning work of Christ.

Christ's atoning work is the sole ground of our salvation

Where do you see “intellectual literary criticism” in my statements?

But, surely, as a Partial TE that you take yourself for in espousing that point of view, and mys lf, going completely through the entire Bible, finding much support, as a Full Gospel TE proponent not only do we differ...

I was willing to give you some slack earlier, because I did not understand where you were coming from. But it is now clear that you are only masquerading as a theistic evolutionist. You are trying to slide an agenda that has nothing to do with evolution into this conversation. In doing so, you confuse people about what theistic evolution really is.

I am not suggesting you are a creationist, but what you are promoting is not theistic evolution. Have you even read any of the links on theistic evolution which I gave you?

In this, your recent reading has guven you information about genetics that is either not complete or one sided, ignoring, sadly, the whole body of evidence to the contrary.

Did you read the article on genetics and human identities?
Are you insinuating that the scientific study of genetics is one-sided?
Can you give an example of the evidence to the contrary that is being ignored?

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in ever re-manufacured, genetically preserved brain of each new born), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve in Total Consciousness and phylogenetic memories to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings).
1Cor. 15:51-2[/QUOTE]

The first bolded section is not supported by either scripture or science.
The second indicates that you treat evolution as a mechanism of progress toward a superior condition. This is not what evolution is.

 

[kofh2u]

You are talking about experimental errors. Firstly, physicists assume a range of uncertainty in results, firstly as a result of uncertainty in measuring fundamental constants, and also as a result of imperfect experimental procedures.

For the first, most scientific constants are known to about 10-20 significant figures, and within this range most experimental results can be explained in terms of experimental error. Of the constants, though, one sticks out like a sore thumb: (surprise, surprise) Newton's gravitational constant G, currently known to about 4 s.f., but even that's not a lot of uncertainty. The difference between 0.0001 and 0.0002 (4 s.f. accuracy) is about 0.01%. Nowhere as big as the 1% you mentioned.

But let's say I play your game. Let's assume that historical dating is 20%-30% accurate. Now, there have been rocks dated to, say, 4 million years old. Assuming that the dating used on those rocks was only 20% accurate, guess what it's new age is? 800,000 years. That's still 794,000 years to go. And remember that there are rocks that have been dated to 5 billion years old.

If you want to make 5 billion years into 5 thousand years, you'd have to say that dating science is 99.99999999999999% (approximately) incorrect. These are the same sciences that are giving you X-rays and miniature electronics. If the person doing your dental X-ray was anywhere near 80% inaccurate you'd likely be having jaw cancer right now.

The problem with hypothesising that the decay rates change is that the decay rates are bound to how the whole universe works. And that is a present, observable hypothesis. If the decay rates had changed at any time in the past, the sun would either have gone cold or blown up in the face of the Earth. Neither has happened, right?

Well, what have you to show that theistic evolution is unbiblical?

Mr shermie,
That was an excellent way to validate the results of rock date in relationship to criticism concerning margins of error.

I would point out that the semantical problem remains as an impediment to convincing all participating here.

We have two fundamentally different paradigms at work. I mean mental paradigms, or world-views.

There are people with pre-set psychological overviews about what the Bible says and means as a whole. Justification, saved, salvation, life hereafter, eternal life, grace, and other CONCEPTS frame what they will understand in the actual reading of scripture.

As a postulate to these already pre-set psychologies, the world-view incorporates the right to invent surrealistic and imaginative explanations for ANY rationally contradictions, either in alternative bible interpretations or scientific real world observations.

The second group of people refuse to create a world first, then find these surrealistic explanatiins for problems inherent in that imaginatve construction.

My point is this.

Your science is great if you apply it consistently throughout the entirity of scripture. This would imply the bible is compatible with intelligent, rational, educated analysis. It would suppose the Bible can now be logically understood, and all the early Middle Age metaphysics can now go the way of Plato. It would insist that what Galilleo, Kepler, Newton, et al, did to a Platonic secular world paradigm, Sviencean now do for Religion, giving logical explanations for previous weak dusce nment and irrational interpretations.

BUT... to do that, you can not just challange Genesis with rocks. If the rest of the Bible requires the same metaphysics, either apply science and make that also logical, or call the whole debate off.

Genesis reduces to a traditional, cultural socially accepted way to acknowledge the foundations of life. It becomes the Western Culture Epic, and as such, is immune to conforming logically to real, concrete physical Truth founded upon Empiricism.

This was a point I tried to make for Glausy, who I quote below:

"IMO, you don't need a "complete Bible exegesis of TE throughout." TE acknowledges the role of evolution in generating the diversity of species. It seeks to understand the doctrine of creation in light of the scientific understanding of nature. So, it only needs to touch on those passages of scripture which relate to the creation of nature and humanity."

What he really is saying is Genesis is subject to scientific criticism, but the equally unbelievable interpretations that follow Genesis One, can be ignored.

Is the Bible simply a metaphysical "story" about a metaphysical spiritual world. Is it basically no different than the Greek Myth or the Roman Myth, a cultural paradigm that those people supposed as true, also?

Or, can science people understand this entire book from that relatively new paradigm? Totally half way doesn't cut out the other unbelievable metaphysics.

 

[shernren]

To be honest, kofh, I must be too stupid to understand what you're trying to say. Honestly.

But religion by definition must at some point cease to be completely rational and understandable, no? At some point it engages the individual's experience, which cannot be defined to anyone outside the experience. Religion is so transcendent precisely because it is experiential.

Did I answer your question?

 

[kofh2u]

Gluasy,

Yes, that is correct... about the dictionary meaning of Homoiousios.

We will become Homoiousios.

The Arians did not understand this to be the case.

But, they mistook Jesus for Homoiousios, when Christ was Homooiusios.

It was all prophecy, ever the outcome of Nicaea, and even the conversion of Constantine. He saw a giant sign in the sky, conveeted and proclaimed Christ Homooiusios.

THE PROPHECY:

Rev. 3:12 Him that overcometh (who sublimates beyond the common scriptural misunderstandings) will I make a pillar, (a Homoiousian new
creature) in temple of my God, (Universal Reality), and he shall go out (to proselytze) no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, (The Father, Reality), and the name of the city of my God, (Total
Consciousness), which is the New Jerusalem, (a new socio-theological
paradigm), which cometh down out of the heaven (of contemplation) of my God (as imaged in abstract thoughts): and I will write upon him my new name, (Christ, Homoousiosian sapiens)


The Arians were trying to understand Jesus in these same terms, Homoiousios, and they were wrong. It is/was deemed heresy by Constantine.

Jesus is Homooiusios man.

This is very much different from Homoiousios, which we hope to evolve into, being saved because we are justified by our rebirth in the spirit of our thinking, taking on the essence of Christ in similitude but not in .

Look up Homooiusios to see how misled the Arians were, and how we, Homoiousians, who will find eternal, phylogenetic salvation in life ever lasting being justified by adapting in the essence of the Spirit, holy in Christ, as required by the Father's environment.

(Compare this Full Gospel Theistic Evokutiin to gmorton's Partial TE, and your own Convenient TE.

You will begin to see how Genesis the First of the Word is consistent with Revelation, the Omega.)

 

[gluadys]

(Compare this Full Gospel Theistic Evokutiin to gmorton's Partial TE, and your own Convenient TE.

You will begin to see how Genesis the First of the Word is consistent with Revelation, the Omega.)

None of what you say has anything to do with evolution. Salvation is not a matter of how evolved you are---biologically or spiritually. The latter is a Gnostic belief not a Christian belief

 

[kofh2u]

To be honest, kofh, I must be too stupid to understand what you're trying to say. Honestly.

But religion by definition must at some point cease to be completely rational and understandable, no? At some point it engages the individual's experience, which cannot be defined to anyone outside the experience. Religion is so transcendent precisely because it is experiential.

Did I answer your question?

Religion was/is the defining quality that differentiated Neanderthals from non-humanoids.

The distinction between humanoids and lower life forms was made in the observation that Neanderthal buried their dead with ritual, to included provisions and personal possessions, indicating a sense of a "hereafter."

Paleonotolgists consider this the hallmark of Religion, burial rites.

What has followed, in the evolution of Modern Homo sapiens, has been basically an Animism.
This is a belief in an external dimension, one not observable through the empiricism of the senses, more like a dream world, spiritualism.

What you say here, about religion to date, that it is "transcendent precisely because it is experiential," well, this is the perspective that represents Religion, and will continue to do so, should such animism be allowed to forever dominate.

As we read scripture and come to know the Lord within ourselves, the truth emerges, that there is no animistic spiritual domain, except it eminate from us, collectively, defined by the seven archetypal manifestations of our psyche.

This "spiritual" aspect of our species is transcendent, in that a we die, and then, our children add to the loss, replacing our psychic inputs. Our kids replace us. Their collective psychic inputs perpetuate the effective and institutionalized behaviors that are precipitated by that thinking. (se Carl Jung, Synchronocity)

It will be by our personal experiential acknowledgement that scripture, the Word, and the son's example and sacrifice shall set us free from "Religion" by force of rationally understanding it.