Theistic Evolution makes Judgment and Sin feel distant and less real

[Cis.jd]

It's rotating..last time I checked.

Your argument still doesn't make any sense. I'm thinking you ought to abandon it.

Yes, the earth rotates at 24 hours which is why the planet could not experience the same day, hence a first day being only literally possible on a specific region of the world where the sun is hitting. You know it makes sense, it's just you don't want to admit how problematic your beliefs are because of these facts, that is why you are dodging (not abandoning) it.

 

[Cis.jd]

...as I said, you can't explain the fall. What happened, did God wave His hand over the earth and all the people began to sin at once? Was there a sin mutation???? What happened?

Sure, man sinned and lost the connection of God and therefore any form of imperfections or errors was either passed down hereditarily or taught/influenced.

You think sin entered because Adam and Eve literally ate a fruit?

 

[Jipsah]

Weird...I was at a RC church and what was being drinked wasn't blood.

I reckon Our Lord was wrong, then.

 

[Jipsah]

Sorry dude, I don't see Jesus holding ups slab of beef and saying...here's my meat....eat it.

I don't think that's what He had in mind.

A shame you weren't there to clarify things for Him.

 

[-57]

I reckon Our Lord was wrong, then.

No, the Lord was right....your interpretation is wrong.

Then again Jesus said of his followers...your sheep. Baaaaaaaaaa

 

[-57]

A shame you weren't there to clarify things for Him.

Jesus said He's a gate....is He made of wood and hanging on a gate post?

Is Peter really a rock?

 

[nolidad]

"Heavens" was also a universal term back then that people in those days described the sky, because they all had no concept of anything surpassing the sky.

You are also inserting theories based on what science has discovered (planets) just like we are doing with evolution.

Well remember Moses was the editor of Genesis 1 (not the author) and since the earlier days (exactly when I do no t know) Gods People knew of three heavens, the atmosphere, what we call space (2nd heaven) and Gods throne or the 3rd heaven.

Moses probably di dnot know of any planets existing, but God did and He created them in the first six days of creation!

 

[Cis.jd]

Well remember Moses was the editor of Genesis 1 (not the author) and since the earlier days (exactly when I do no t know) Gods People knew of three heavens, the atmosphere, what we call space (2nd heaven) and Gods throne or the 3rd heaven.

Moses probably di dnot know of any planets existing, but God did and He created them in the first six days of creation!

There is nothing you explained that gives any reason to support your excuses that the planets were knowledgeably generalized when talking about "the heavens". You are simply inserting your own assumptions and theories. I mean, if you can just state that "the creation of the heavens" includes planets, why can't someone use that to also include the creation of Aliens, Superman, or anything believed to be in space?


The Bible's books such as Genesis was written by man "Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". You are making up your own narrative and even by going by it, God still did not "author" the Bible to be about the cosmos but his relationship with man.

 

[nolidad]

There is nothing you explained that gives any reason to support your excuses that the planets were knowledgeably generalized when talking about "the heavens". You are simply inserting your own assumptions and theories. I mean, if you can just state that "the creation of the heavens" includes planets, why can't someone use that to also include the creation of Aliens, Superman, or anything believed to be in space?


The Bible's books such as Genesis was written by man "Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". You are making up your own narrative and even by going by it, God still did not "author" the Bible to be about the cosmos but his relationship with man.

No the Bible is about teh Revelation of God! and His relationship with man and the fact that He called into existence everything in six days about 6K years ago!

No the planets are not specifically mentioned. I could give possibilities as to why, but the safest reason is god chose not to reveal to Adam-Moses the existence of the planets. but as to God making the planets in the six days of creation?

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

So unless you are ready to empirically prove that teh planets are not part of the hosts of heaven- I think we can rest assured God made them.

By the Way we know the stars are innumerable. But God thought so much about the vast breadth of heaven and the massive amount of stars He spoke into existence?

Gen 1: 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Five Words to declare He spoke the vastness of the universe into existence!

 

[Cis.jd]

No the Bible is about teh Revelation of God! and His relationship with man and the fact that He called into existence everything in six days about 6K years ago!

Yes, it's about his revelation and relationship to man, not about the science in the universe he designed that is why you can't take any form of details in Gen as literate fact.

No the planets are not specifically mentioned. I could give possibilities as to why, but the safest reason is god chose not to reveal to Adam-Moses the existence of the planets. but as to God making the planets in the six days of creation?

Yes, you can give possibilities as to why and doing so shows that you are making assumptions and theories because of revealed facts from Science. What you don't realize is that by doing so, you are indirectly showing that Genesis can't be taken as literally because you don't take the term "heavens" as a literate heaven but an old term that represents space and all it's contents. In short or in other words, a metaphor.

 

[nolidad]

Yes, it's about his revelation and relationship to man, not about the science in the universe he designed that is why you can't take any form of details in Gen as literate fact.


Yes, you can give possibilities as to why and doing so shows that you are making assumptions and theories because of revealed facts from Science. What you don't realize is that by doing so, you are indirectly showing that Genesis can't be taken as literally because you don't take the term "heavens" as a literate heaven but an old term that represents space and all it's contents. In short or in other words, a metaphor.

So because they don't have the terminology of just the past few centuries you believe we shouldn't take it literally?

Science (namely the big bang) is not science but scientists assumptions! Teh dating methods used to date things in space and earth are hopelessly flawed, the evolution of the universe is filled with untestable unknowable assumptions.

No, the Bible does not give the hows of how God spoke everything into existence, just that He spoke and it was so!

Teh Big Bang and evolution are flawed fantasies.

 

[Cis.jd]

So because they don't have the terminology of just the past few centuries you believe we shouldn't take it literally?

No, we shouldn't and you yourself have shown why we shouldn't. You are explaining that the word "heavens" isn't literal but a term that includes all in space.

Science (namely the big bang) is not science but scientists assumptions! Teh dating methods used to date things in space and earth are hopelessly flawed, the evolution of the universe is filled with untestable unknowable assumptions.

Yet most of it has been proven and discovered. For example: If someone came up to you saying: "none of the planets existed because the Bible never said anything about them being created", you know they are wrong regardless.

No, the Bible does not give the hows of how God spoke everything into existence, just that He spoke and it was so!

Yes, he did not give the hows or anything in depth, or even in any form that we should take as exact. The Bible is written by men under the inspiration of God, they did not receive any IQ boosts or any scientific revelations.

 

[stevevw]

Something I've been pondering lately. I'm now fairly confident that most Christians who believe in Evolution, do so because they have a problem with the idea of the supernatural in general. They tend to reject accounts of miracles in the NT (unrelated to Evolution) just as readily as they reject a Genesis worldview of earth history.

But why? I think perhaps we have a hidden motivation to "de-realize" (make the Bible more unreal) because this in turn makes ideas of accountability and God's judgment more unreal. It makes SIN feel less real... Our personal lives, our desires and agendas, get a lot more flexible the more we push the Bible into the realm of symbolic unreal-ness...

"All those stories about God wiping out people who turned away from his commandment? Ehh... that didn't really happen. It's just a moral lesson to help us live better lives..."

If our Creator God really takes judgment and accountability as seriously as he says he does.. then the party down here in the world is over, and we better get a whole lot more serious about taking up our cross and following him. I think a lot of us have one foot planted comfortably in this world, and going along with the secular world's creation story (Evolution) makes it a lot easier to maintain that lifestyle and reap the social benefits of being a "reasonable Christian" ... and not one of those kooks who actually believe all that problematic stuff in scripture about miracles and judgments and stuff.

We assure ourselves that we are just following the "evidence" of Evolution that God left for us, when in reality we are just putting on the goggles of philosophical naturalism, where everything we look at *must* be attributed to a natural process. The result is a weird contradictory blend of professing to believe in the Resurrection, while systematically cleansing all other supernatural accounts out of the Bible.


For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

- John 5:46-47

I think its an assumption to say that anyone who supports evolution must also believe that life and existence only came about as a result of a naturalistic and materialistic process. It may well be that the big bang and evolution are supernatural events. It just depends on the philosophical position one takes. It also depends on what a person thinks evolution is as people have different views of how evolution works and the role it plays.

Even the most traditional understanding of evolution cannot account for certain stages of evolution where a large amount of information is needed. Evolution is still a pretty amazing process that needs a lot of info and orchestration to produce the complexity and variety of life. For me, it is also about mechanisms God may have included in evolution that produce certain outcomes that don't totally rely on blind and random processes.

The same with the Big Bang. Even most scientists acknowledge that there had to be a lot of fine-tuning even in the initial stages of the Big bang to create what we see today. So maybe the supernatural is not necessarily creating a physical outcome in one go but installing codes, language, laws, and instructions that led to what we have. Without this, we would not have what we have. Just as the gospel of John mentions in John 1:1-3
In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him, all things were made, and without Him, nothing was made that has been made.

 

[Cis.jd]

Most of these christians don't even understand how evolution is arguably a valid form of evidence of the existence of God. It is completely inconceivable to suggest that species evolving just to adapt to the changes in this planet so that life continues and grows is just an accident. Evolution, when studied, is just too much of a brilliant occurrence that so convenient that it just makes sense that it is an element of design.

Rejecting evolution all because of narrow views and a prejudice towards knowledge is eliminating a good case to present to the skeptic as to why life didn't just happen.

 

[nolidad]

No, we shouldn't and you yourself have shown why we shouldn't. You are explaining that the word "heavens" isn't literal but a term that includes all in space.


Yet most of it has been proven and discovered. For example: If someone came up to you saying: "none of the planets existed because the Bible never said anything about them being created", you know they are wrong regardless.


Yes, he did not give the hows or anything in depth, or even in any form that we should take as exact. The Bible is written by men under the inspiration of God, they did not receive any IQ boosts or any scientific revelations.

Your first line misquotes me.

I did not say that "heavens" included all the stars and planets! It includes "space"! "All the host of them" in the heavens refers to all the stars and planets and moons etc.

As to your second line, you are just being nit picky! YOu are having a hissy fit because teh Bible didn't say how many planets, call their names or call the name of the satrs (though Job does which is considered the oldest book of the OT).

YOu are correct they did not get an IQ boost or a look at future big basng/evoluionistic false science!

But as God did inspire them and God reconfirmed 6 literal days in Exodus and Jesus reconfirmed it in trhe gospels (God in human flesh) we can rest assured that the millions and biollions of years is wrong. And now scientists have shown empirically why those massive date are wrong!

 

[Cis.jd]

Your first line misquotes me.

I did not say that "heavens" included all the stars and planets! It includes "space"! "All the host of them" in the heavens refers to all the stars and planets and moons etc.

I am not misquoting, you even clarified it here in your last sentence: "Heavens" refers to all space and it's contents, as you said. You are still explaining that word to have a meaning that isn't what it is normally interpreted as. So you yourself are refuting your own argument.

Also, to challenge the reasoning behind this argument, I've asked (which you didn't answer) what if someone tells you "the planets never existed, because the Bible never said God created them", why would you think that guy is wrong?

As to your second line, you are just being nit picky! YOu are having a hissy fit because teh Bible didn't say how many planets, call their names or call the name of the satrs (though Job does which is considered the oldest book of the OT).

The creation story had no problems referencing the sun, moon, and stars (things that they knew about because of it being observable to them) so why would planets just be left out?

Here is an additional thing. Does the moon omit it's own light, or is it just light reflecting from the sun?

But as God did inspire them and God reconfirmed 6 literal days in Exodus and Jesus reconfirmed it in trhe gospels (God in human flesh) we can rest assured that the millions and billions of years is wrong. And now scientists have shown empirically why those massive date are wrong!

Jesus never made any exact statements, the verses being used to support this bad theology is very misrepresenting.Your last sentence is you making things up.

 

[nolidad]

I am not misquoting, you even clarified it here in your last sentence: "Heavens" refers to all space and it's contents, as you said. You are still explaining that word to have a meaning that isn't what it is normally interpreted as. So you yourself are refuting your own argument.

Also, to challenge the reasoning behind this argument, I've asked (which you didn't answer) what if someone tells you "the planets never existed, because the Bible never said God created them", why would you think that guy is wrong?


The creation story had no problems referencing the sun, moon, and stars (things that they knew about because of it being observable to them) so why would planets just be left out?

Here is an additional thing. Does the moon omit it's own light, or is it just light reflecting from the sun?


Jesus never made any exact statements, the verses being used to support this bad theology is very misrepresenting.Your last sentence is you making things up.

Well once again let us look at Scripture:

Genesis 2
King James Version
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


If you cannot understand that "all the host of them" means the sun, moon, stars and planets, then there is no point in discussing further. YOu have an agenda that I do not wish to pursue! The second grade sunday school kids in my church knows this means that the planets are included!

Also, to challenge the reasoning behind this argument, I've asked (which you didn't answer) what if someone tells you "the planets never existed, because the Bible never said God created them", why would you think that guy is wrong?

That is as silly as saying- planes don't exist because they are not specifically mentioned ini the Bible! Once again you are straining at gnats. YOu want to argue because the Bible doesn't use the word "planets".

The creation story had no problems referencing the sun, moon, and stars (things that they knew about because of it being observable to them) so why would planets just be left out?

Here is an additional thing. Does the moon omit it's own light, or is it just light reflecting from the sun?

So take it upi with God. YOu are mad at him because he didn't say the word planets or you have some other thing that is up your craw!

No the moon reflects the light of teh sun, that is why it is defined as the lesser light . They did not have the technical language we do nor the depth of knowledge we have now! We have no writings that say yes or no that teh chosen lines knew or not know whether the moon gave its own light!

Jesus never made any exact statements, the verses being used to support this bad theology is very misrepresenting.Your last sentence is you making things up.

Well when you read the gospels, keep an eye open and you will see for yourself! Jesus made some very exact statements about Creation and the flood! I cannot help it if you haven't read them or read them and are a sloppy reader.

 

[Cis.jd]

Well once again let us look at Scripture:

Genesis 2
King James Version
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


If you cannot understand that "all the host of them" means the sun, moon, stars and planets, then there is no point in discussing further. YOu have an agenda that I do not wish to pursue! The second grade sunday school kids in my church knows this means that the planets are included!

Again, you are refuting your own arguments. The reason why you say "all of the hosts" includes planets is because they must have been due to them being scientifically discovered to exist! You are inserting scientific knowledge and expanding upon what scripture doesn't tell you. That is the point I am making.

That is as silly as saying- planes don't exist because they are not specifically mentioned ini the Bible! Once again you are straining at gnats. YOu want to argue because the Bible doesn't use the word "planets".

How is it silly? You've been saying science is flawed yet here you are telling me that planets are just lopped up in "all the hosts". From where do you conclude that?

No the moon reflects the light of teh sun, that is why it is defined as the lesser light . They did not have the technical language we do nor the depth of knowledge we have now! We have no writings that say yes or no that teh chosen lines knew or not know whether the moon gave its own light!

But you were arguing about the creation story being literal (the 6 days), so you have to accept the moon to be a literal a harborer of light, especially when other verses like Isaiah 13:10 and Ezekiel describe the moon to "shine her light.

This last paragraph is everything i've been saying to. Yes, they did not have the technical language nor knowledge we have now that is why you can not take Genesis literally nor look to the Bible as a source for anything scientific. Thank you.

 

[nolidad]

Again, you are refuting your own arguments. The reason why you say "all of the hosts" includes planets is because they must have been due to them being scientifically discovered to exist! You are inserting scientific knowledge and expanding upon what scripture doesn't tell you. That is the point I am making.

You are putting the cart before the horse! We discovered them because God created them in the six days of creation c. 6000 years ago!

How is it silly? You've been saying science is flawed yet here you are telling me that planets are just lopped up in "all the hosts". From where do you conclude that?

I have not been saying science is flawed! I have been saying evolutionary/big bang hypotheses are flawed and bad science based on what is empirical and proven science!

But you were arguing about the creation story being literal (the 6 days), so you have to accept the moon to be a literal a harborer of light, especially when other verses like Isaiah 13:10 and Ezekiel describe the moon to "shine her light.

This last paragraph is everything i've been saying to. Yes, they did not have the technical language nor knowledge we have now that is why you can not take Genesis literally nor look to the Bible as a source for anything scientific. Thank you.

So now you are rejecting the Truth of God as Creator because they did not have the technical language of science we now have? That is foolish! It is an inferior light that rules the night! It just took time to find out why God called it an inferior light! I am not going to apologize for God that He did not imbue Adam with the more modern scientific terms that took millenia for us to create!

 

[Cis.jd]

You are putting the cart before the horse! We discovered them because God created them in the six days of creation c. 6000 years ago!

And you are dodging the point again.

I have been saying evolutionary/big bang hypotheses are flawed and bad science based on what is empirical and proven science!

What empirical and proven science shows this as invalid? You are throwing guesses out of your head, you are being completely dishonest in your arguments.

So now you are rejecting the Truth of God as Creator because they did not have the technical language of science we now have? That is foolish! It is an inferior light that rules the night! It just took time to find out why God called it an inferior light! I am not going to apologize for God that He did not imbue Adam with the more modern scientific terms that took millenia for us to create!

I'm not rejecting the truth of God, i'm rejecting such bad theology. Your theology is not representing God, because if it did it would not be so refutable and much more that narrow minded. As I said before, this specific part of the quote is you self-refuting yourself. You are right that they did not have the technical language of science that is why we can't take the creation story literally. You yourself don't with some of them, such the moon.