Theistic Evolution?

[dies-l]

Hi all,

Listen friends, that fact that people don't understand the Scriptures does not have any bearing on the veracity thereof. Peter wrote to us about just such things as this. Here, speaking of those who misunderstood and distorted Paul's letters he writes to us:

His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Hopefully we can all grasp what this is saying. Dies, let me ask you. Can you understand and explain how God flooded the whole earth? Can you understand and explain how God parted a sea and allowed thousands upon thousands of people to pass on dry ground and then in nearly a moment in time allowed the deep water to return to drown an entire Egyptian army? Can you understand and explain how God caused a plague of flies to swarm all over the land of Egypt and yet not a single one was found in the part of the city known as Goshen. Can you understand and explain how God was able to kill only the firstborn of both man and cattle in all the land of Egypt and yet not a one was harmed in any home that had painted blood on the doorposts? Can you understand and explain how God caused the sun to stand still in the sky for nearly a full day? Can you understand and explain how a woman 2000 years ago in Judea who had never had sexual relations with a man came to be pregnant.

Friend, I don't know how wise you are, but I am positive that you cannot either explain a single one of these events, nor can any of them be made to logically fit within the confines of science. Yet, God's word says He did these things. Do you believe that He did and can you please send me your explanation of how He did them.

Why is it that so few 'christians' understand even something as simple as a miracle?

God has made it very plain to anyone who would care to just read the account that He created this realm in six days. He repeated it twice for us in the books of the law. He listed for us the geneologies. As I have explained many times, the 'facts' that evolutionists look at to claim that the earth must be old are exactly the same 'facts' that would have had any scientist claiming that it was impossible for Adam to be one day old, the day after he was created. Can you grasp that? Can you sit for a moment and just wrap your thoughts around Adam. A full grown and fully formed man with body hair, full set of teeth, 28 inch arm length, fully formed brain with all the knowledge of a grown man, full size heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. Yet, there was a day that he was only one day old and any scientist would have laughed at both you and him if you were to try and tell them that on that day. Can you possibly comprehend that?

When Adam was formed he was a full size man. Eve also. But every man or woman living since has begun this life as a baby. But Adam did not because he had to be made fully formed. Similarly the earth had to be made fully formed. It could not have sustained the life that God had created the earth to sustain if it had not been made fully formed. The universe was made fully formed. It had to be. It could not have sustained the earth in its courses and life upon this earth, if it had not been instantaeously fully formed.

God is God!!! He began on day one with the full and purposeful realization of creating a realm of existence in which flesh could live. He began by forming the earth and in a matter of mere hours He spoke and a perfect earth was suddenly spinning in space. He then spoke, in just a few more hours, all the water and clouds upon the earth. He then spoke in just a few more hours, and vegetation came up all over the dry land that he had caused to appear. He then spoke and the universe was filled with stars and the sun and the moon were created to provide the proper temperature and atmosphere for the soon coming magnum opus of this realm of creation. Then in just a few more short hours He spoke and all the land and the sea was filled with living animals, but there was still the greatest piece of this realm of creation to come. After all was ready, after 5 days of steady work to see that everything was good and perfect for His final creation, God, the God of love, stooped down and with His very hands formed Adam and Eve and blew into them His breath of life and He loved them and He nurtured them. It was a miracle, my friend. It was a miracle made by a loving, omniscient, all-powerful, merciful God that you and I and the thousands of generations that have preceeded us and the possibly thousands that may yet come, might have a place to live and to love and to know Him.

It was a miracle my friend. God did it!! It was for His good pleasure and through His power and wisdom that He created a place for man to live and that's what every star hanging in the universe was made for. It's what everything on the earth and under the earth was made for. This entire universe from edge to edge of the furthest galaxies was put in place by a God who loves you so that you might have life.

Oh, my friend, what an awesome God we have. He is a God who can step into our realm of existence and by the command of His voice cause a sea that may well be hundreds of feet deep, just to part right down the middle and show dry land with a wall of water on either side. He can just command that flies swarm over an entire nation and yet, withhold them from a small suburb of that nation. He is a God who can say, 'Sun stand still!' and it will stand still. He is a God who can gently and lovingly speak that a young woman's womb should be filled with the flutter of life without aid of any earthly man and it shall be so. That, my friend, is what miracles are all about. In His revelation to us He even warns us not to be swayed by the wisdom of men, those who have no understanding of who He is and the power that He has and the things that He can do that are beyond our most complex understanding or explanation.

That, is the God I serve. Love you Father.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Two questions are at play here:

(1) Could God have made the world in 144 hours approximately 6,000 years ago? Absolutely.

(2) Does the Bible make the historical claim that He did? I don't believe so.

It is not that I deny the ability of God to perform miracles. He turned water into wine. He raised the dead. He calmed the stormy sea. He brought sight to the blind. He spared Daniel, Meshach, Shadrach, and Abed-nego. And so on, and I believe that he did all these things. But, I believe that the Bible gives us ample evidence that the Creation narrative of Genesis 1 and the (seemingly contradictory) Creation narrative of Genesis 2-3 are allegorical, rather than historical narratives. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, but the contextual evidence of Scripture doesn't seem to suggest to me that I am.

Anyway, my point in posting was to answer the OP's question, not to debate TE. I even thought about telling the OP to PM me if he wanted my rationale. Frankly, I tend to tire of TE/OEC/YEC debates, because I think that they tend to be distracting and unnecessarily divisive. Certainly, there are people on both sides of the debate that find it more compelling than I do, but I am not really looking to argue it out.

 

[Barefooter]

I've just read all the posts and I agree with those that say that God has the power to do anything. Nothing is too hard for God. But, is the world only 6000 years old? I don't think so. I'm one that believes that there is a huge gap between the first 2 verses of the bible. Why, and for what reason, and what happened during that period, I have no idea. But we will find out and I'm looking forward to finding out many things that our human minds can't possibly understand. We can understand an eternity that lasts forever, but a God that always was? That had no beginning? But I fully believe that. So why debate things that we can't know until we're with Him?

 

[SanctuaryoftheGnosis]

The way I see it, when creationists and evolutionists start arguing, I simply say "Why can't evolution be just another reason that God is great, and works in mysterious and wonderful ways?"

 

[JBMM]

Alright, thanks to everyone that responded! I love to hear peoples opinions / beliefs on these type of subjects!

Thanks again and God Bless!

 

[cavitebeliever]

It really gets down to one's Bibliology. If one believes in the innerent, infallible, verbal, pleanary inspiration of Scripture. Then, the word created in Genesis 1:1 is bara meaning without preexistent material. The other uses of the word created are yatzah meaning with preexistent material. Man from the dust and woman from the rib of the man would be examples. But the heavens and earth were exnihilo, out of nothing. He needed nothing.

No, God did not superintend the process of evolution. This is really a slippery silde into liberalism.

 

[Jase]

Hi, I'm doing a bit of personal research and was wondering if any non denom people support theistic evolution. If so, do you have any bible verses to back up your claims, if not, then what verses do you have to back up those claims also?

Thanks and God Bless!

I would argue most Christians in the world are theistic evolutionists. I'm not sure that any specific denomination favors if, although the more liberal ones probably do.

There is no Biblical verse to back up evolution, as the authors did not understand modern science. It would be like trying to find a Biblical reference to a Mercedes Benz.

 

[JCTats]

It really gets down to one's Bibliology. If one believes in the innerent, infallible, verbal, pleanary inspiration of Scripture. Then, the word created in Genesis 1:1 is bara meaning without preexistent material. The other uses of the word created are yatzah meaning with preexistent material. Man from the dust and woman from the rib of the man would be examples. But the heavens and earth were exnihilo, out of nothing. He needed nothing.

No, God did not superintend the process of evolution. This is really a slippery silde into liberalism.

I love how you said "This is really a slippery slope into liberalism.".. That's hilarious.

Oh no! Independent thought! Run away!

 

[cavitebeliever]

Embracing theistic evolution is hardly an example of independent thinking. It is the popular thinking. If every word is God breathed, then the plain sense of basic hermeneutics would be that God created the heavens and earth from merely speaking. Theistic Evolution says that God used the method of evolution to create. It is an oxymoron and contrary to Scripture.

 

[thesunisout]

If you believe in evolution you have to throw away the bible. Here's why:

God literally created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The word 'yom', which is the hebrew word for day is used in Genesis. The word is used over 400 times throughout the bible, and it always means one literal day.

Now the reason the Sabbath is part of the ten commandments is because God rested on the seventh day. Did the jews rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? No..they rested one day because that's how long the seventh day was.

Genesis 2: 3: “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made,”

So, if the Sabbath is wrong, the 10 commandments are wrong. If the 10 commandments are wrong, the old testament is wrong. If the old testament is wrong, the new testament is wrong. If the New Testament is wrong, you're no longer a Christian, game over.

That's the entire point of the theory of evolution, to undermine the Creation week, destroy the point of redemption, and undo the work of Christ. If we have millions of years of death leading to Adam and Eve, it collapses the notion of sin and redemption entirely.

Evolution is quite simply a lie, which calls God a liar. Who calls God a liar? Satan. Do not believe it for a second and have faith in Almighty God.

Hi, I'm doing a bit of personal research and was wondering if any non denom people support theistic evolution. If so, do you have any bible verses to back up your claims, if not, then what verses do you have to back up those claims also?

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[Z3AL0T]

Honestly I don't know whether the TOE or OEC is correct. People got to understand that God probably didn't intend for the old testament writers to comprehend scientific knowledge such as genetic mutations, radioactive decay, and molecular biology.

 

[Gozreht]

Were we as humans part of an accident waiting to happen? After the accident occurred were we as humans waiting for our existence to appear after billions of years of evolutionary change? Did we have to wait our turn to become the dominant species or were we always here, in one shape or form? With some exceptions, the following generalization should be pretty accurate. The pure Creationist will tell you that man has always been here since day 6 of God's creation. The Christian scientist may add that man has always been man but it did take billions of years for him to exist. The pure Scientist will tell you that man as we know today had to wait his turn but may have had ancestors being the dominant species for millions of years. The non-believer, non-scientist will not have any idea anyway. What was the beginning of man?


Could man just be an ape like creature that has developed into an intellectual monster over years of genetic change and mutations? Why is man and ape so similar to each other? There has to be a connection. Perhaps there is.


Man is animal-like. But by scientific definition, man is an animal. He belongs to the animal kingdom. He belongs to the primate family. But he does not belong to the same genus and species as with other primates. Here, he is on his own. There must be a reason why we are not closer to each other. Even science claims there is a difference at this point.


Evolutionists claim that we have many ancestors but can not really find that "missing link". Each new find they will use as part of their evolutionary thought process which they will claim makes them right. But with each new discovery there usually is something just not making the complete connection. Evolution means small changes over a long period of time. Most species that have been found are still too far apart in their genetic make up from each other to be that last link. Why? Probably because there is no final link. Usually, when they find a "link" they only find one of its kind. Maybe this one just happened to be the malformed creature of its genus. Sometimes there have been more than one of that link found in one place or even spread out in the world but if you look at the species they claim to be humanoid, homind, or man-like you can judge for yourselves. The following website has concept drawings of what some feel these creatures would look like: archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm. Perhaps they are just apes that have been extinct. We have killed off many of species of primates already. The mountain gorilla could be one of the next ones to go.


Man may be animal but only because God made man from the same material that he made animals; flesh. But there is a huge difference. Man may be the same on the outside but on the inside, not organs and things but deeper than that, man is completely different.


Life itself varies from its makeup from life forms to life forms. Plants are alive. They reproduce. They have "blood" in them. They "breathe". But they can not think. They do not reason. They are not animals. Fish, birds, Amphibians and reptiles are alive. They are animals but they are cold blooded animals. Their instincts rely on their environment. They migrate due to weather patterns. They feed off each other. They do not reason and therefore are dependent upon their surroundings for survival. Mammals are alive. They are warm blooded. Many can reason and can survive outside their environmental settings. Their brains are larger than the rest and therefore can not only react in a flight or fight mode but can investigate the situation. Man however is beyond all of this. Plants are monochotomous. They have physical reaction but that is it. Animals besides man are dichotomous. They react physically and mentally to its surroundings. But man is trichotomous. We not only have physical bodies for reaction to our environment and mental capabilities to reason and investigate but we have a spirit within us given by God. We have compassion, we can predict outcomes because we have a conscience and can learn from our mistakes. We have a morality system. The problem is many think we are just animals and so we act like animals. We act on instinct instead of values. When we fall on desperate times we act like animals. We fight or fly. When we rely upon God we remain different from the rest of creation. We are not animals in this instance. We are spirits with flesh. Our beginning came from a Creator. Our beginning starts with our Creator. The beginning of man is in God's image.

So, to answer the original question...No. I will post some more reasons.

 

[Gozreht]

Thought #2, We had to come from somewhere.

Close your eyes for 5 seconds and reopen them. Go ahead, no one is watching. What did you see? Nothing right? But was there really nothing there? No. There was something. There was still a thought going through your mind somehow. There may have been a memory flashing in. There may have been sound on the outside that you could hear. The wind was blowing somewhere. Electricity was flowing from one place to another. Your blood was still pumping. There is more than just darkness. Even though you shut your eyes and saw nothing there were things still going on around because in this universe there is no such thing as nothing!


Have you ever thought about what nothing (real nothing) is? It is void of all known things. Time, space, dimensions, laws are all void in a real nothing. It is something we really can not comprehend because we are in existence. But where did we come from? How did we come into existence? You know the answer. Just say it. God. What did He create us (the universe) out of? Nothing!!

But, some who read this may answer about where we come from as:

1. primordial soup
2. from something else
3. it doesn't matter, it is nonsensical
4. i don't know

Well, there are some problems with these answer. Let's take them one by one:

1. Primordial soup-Everything that was made is a huge accident. The laws of the universe just by happen chance formed into consistency and never contradict each other. Out of chaos came harmony. We are here because for some reason an accident happened and we are now caught in this vast experience of existence created by...nothing. How can something so extensive in time, distance, and mass come out of nothing? It can't. There had to be something before something. Of course the atheist will cry foul here. Wait and listen for it. "who then made God?", "infinite regression", "the chicken or the egg?" To understand where the designer came from is not in the capability of the creation itself. A car can not understand the mechanic. A piece of art can not understand the artist. They are two totally different dimensional beings. Convenient isn't it, atheists, non-theists? But it is the truth. God was never designed. Again he is in a higher dimension we can not know until we are with him (or not). Time is a figment of man's imagination. It was made by man to separate days and nights, years and decades, to count his own days. God does not have time. He was always here and always will be. That is why he is called the great "I AM". Time does not really exist. We made it up.
2. From something else-Humans came from a lower form of primate which came from a lower form of mammal which came from reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish...the amoeba. With each new species of development cam a higher form of intelligence and complexity. If we are so advanced then why all of the mutations that destroy people? Is that a higher form of species? No. Where is the newest form of primate? The only thing we keep finding are primates of the past. When will we see that next evolutionary process starting to take place? Plus, even if evolutionary process is accurate, then where did the first species come from? Oh yeah...see point #1.
3. It doesn't matter. It is nonsensical. There was a big bang and that is it. Everything before this bang is irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? The beginning of our existence answers all the questions we have. If there is a God that created then we can trust the Bible and what it says. Jesus is LORD, Savior and will return. If there isn't a God then our whole lives are nonsensical. Why are we here? And if there isn't a God, how did we get here? Oh yeah...see point #2.
4. I don't know. The best answer out of the four. At least it's something to work with and not argue about. It has no wrong conclusion and perhaps has an open ended process of learning about all of it.

Here is the point: those who do not believe in the existence of God are saying whether they admit it or not that this "something" we know as our entire existence, i.e.; time, life, space, etc., came out of nothing. Not the concept we know as nothing with our eyes shut but out of complete nothing, void of all things possible. Some will say that is not what they believe but there will not be another answer given. Now how is that saner than believing in a loving Creator who wanted us to love for Him and gave us a free will.

 

[Gozreht]

Thought #3- Why Evolution is not a real option.

A thesis is a statement that needs to be proven. An antithesis is a word or phrase that shows a negative connection between two things, to err is human. A theory is an explanation that has been tested and has shown a connection between facts and guesses. If these are all true then that means evolution is an antitheory; an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact. Now this (antitheory) of course is not a real word (anti theory of something though is real) but nevertheless is a real concept.



Here is a little math lesson for you to help explain the whole concept.

• 1+1=2 and 2+1=3 and 3+1=4 and 4+1=5 and 5+1=6

And so on. One should get the picture. There is a progression, a natural progression, to get from one number to the next by adding the same element. You can not get from 1 to 6 in progression by going straight from 1 to 6. There are steps in between. Evolutionists find 1 and they find 6 very easily. They may even find 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well with research and artifacts. But they forget there may be infinite rational numbers in between 1 and 2, such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3678, and 1.976544324565. All fall in between the two whole numbers of 1 and 2. Evolutionists find the whole numbers only and say that the theory of evolution is the only reliable collection of facts there are.

In other words, they have been searching for the "missing link" or should we say "links" since the study began. They think they have found all they need because they have 1-6.

Here is the problem in reality: they may have found different species that look like they were once related, but they didn't. They have only found the "whole numbers". For evolution to work and become a law of nature each stage of evolution has to be found. Each and every minute mutation has to be found. And they are not. There are only bits and pieces of one species and bits and pieces of another completely different species and then they try and connect them.

If evolution was real here is what it means. Two species have an offspring. The offspring either picks up a recessive gene or for some unknown reason has a brand new gene, a mutation, that no other specie has had before. Now this offspring will find a mate and have an offspring of its own. Somehow this recessive/mutated gene gets passed on to where it eventually becomes the dominant gene or the mutation becomes the norm, not only in its own family line but apparently other family lines. This single mutation, which is now a common characteristic, makes a new species and the process starts all over.

Over after millions of years and mutations do we finally get modern man. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. But where is the 3.2? Evolutionists have only found the "complete" stages of the process. They have not found all the intermediate stages to fill the gaps. Oh, some will say they have by claiming they have transitional fossils with the truth etched in them. Or they will state that they have found groups of species with the same mutation to prove that communities of these species flourished and not just a fluke, thereby proving the evolution process. They will usually tend to leave out that there are still way too many gaps. Donald Prothero, professor of Geology at Occidental College, said that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species. 95% is of unknown origin. (evolutionnews website) and by the theory of Darwinism, as defined by talkorigins, Multiply by "budding" into new species. Budding of course meaning one species splitting into a new species by retaining as many characteristics as the original species while developing something different to make a new species (1, 1.1, 1.2...). However, is there evidence that shows how an amoeba became a man with every step of mutation/evolution accounted for by budding? No. Why? Because it isn't the answer.

I have more but I will stop for now.

 

[Andy Pandy]

I believe that logic can show God created the big bang

If we give ourselves 2 choices

a. There was nothing
b. There was something

I go for a

a. Physical cause ( would need something)
b. Metaphysical cause ( would need nothing)

I go for b.

a. personal
b. non personal ( physics)

I go for a.

Therefore I believe a personal metaphysical being created from nothing.
I learned that way and I am reasonably satisfied with it.

 

[dies-l]

If you believe in evolution you have to throw away the bible.

I do? I am not allowed to have a Bible if I accept evolution? Really?

Here's why:

God literally created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The word 'yom', which is the hebrew word for day is used in Genesis. The word is used over 400 times throughout the bible, and it always means one literal day.

Now the reason the Sabbath is part of the ten commandments is because God rested on the seventh day. Did the jews rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? No..they rested one day because that's how long the seventh day was.

Genesis 2: 3: “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made,”

So, if the Sabbath is wrong, the 10 commandments are wrong. If the 10 commandments are wrong, the old testament is wrong. If the old testament is wrong, the new testament is wrong. If the New Testament is wrong, you're no longer a Christian, game over.

That's the entire point of the theory of evolution, to undermine the Creation week, destroy the point of redemption, and undo the work of Christ. If we have millions of years of death leading to Adam and Eve, it collapses the notion of sin and redemption entirely.

Evolution is quite simply a lie, which calls God a liar. Who calls God a liar? Satan. Do not believe it for a second and have faith in Almighty God.

The only problem with this analysis is that it presupposes a literal-historical hermeneutic. To apply this hermenutic to the first 3 chapters of Genesis and arguably to the first 11 chapters brings to light several problems of its own. For example, a literal-historical hermeneutic is inconsistent with the genre and writing style of this portion of Scripture. Furthermore, it is impossible to develop a coherent and consistent understanding of this portion of Genesis if one insists on this hermeneutic approach. Like any writing, ancient or modern, the proper approach to biblical interpretation looks not only to the text, but also to context, genre, and other factors. This is something that would be mentioned on the first day of any hermeneutics class in any accredited seminary (liberal or conservative), even those that insist upon a YEC view of creation.

 

[miamited]

hi Dies,

You responded: The only problem with this analysis is that it presupposes a literal-historical hermeneutic.

If one sees that as a problem then I'm thinking there are deeper issues to be resolved in that person's life of faith.

Let me ask you a question if I may. Paul wrote to many of the beginning churches that were being established in the various towns and cities. One of his encouragements, and in fact he seems to speak in a nature of rebuke, was directed towards those new believers who were not maturing in their faith.

Now, let's kind of get the picture here. Let's put on our thinking caps and see if we can sort of imagine ourselves standing over Paul's shoulder as he wrote this letter. Do we agree that he was writing to people who claimed faith in the basic message of the gospel? That Jesus is the Son of God and died for the sins of the sinner that God's judgment might be righteous. Do we agree that probably most of the people that Paul intended this letter to be received by had that basic, begnning seed of faith? They had surely already claimed Jesus as Lord and believed him to have been risen from the dead by the power of God, and if the book of Acts is any indication, they had been baptized. So, we have people, just like you or I would have been early on in our faith. Believing the basics, but, according to Paul's rebuke still having much to learn about the Scriptures, God, His Spirit, His Son.

Let me encourage you to sit down and make a list of all the things that you think Paul would have been referring to that the new believers needed to learn as they 'matured' in their faith. Going from the pablum milk of the gospel to the meatier truths of God's word, which I believe is kind of how Paul put it. What do you think that Paul might have been referring to?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hello again Dies,

I wanted to separate these two posts so that hopefully you would not forget the question of the first as you continued to read the following:

I have written on other threads, and in fact just today, the question of what God calls 'faith'. I'm not much interested in what I think God might mean or what you or anyone else thinks that God might see as real 'faith'. Therefore, this post will not end with any definitive understanding, but is merely intended to cause each one to stop for a moment and ask themselves some very deep questions.

You contend that God has not given us any definitive understanding regarding the time span of the creation. I disagree. God wrote to us of each day and concluded each day with the time constraints of an evening and a morning which is still to this day exactly how we define a literal day. No one says, 'I have spent a thousand years making this mouse trap and there was an evening and morning.' I don't believe that you will be able to find a single piece of evidence in either God's word or the writings of men that describe a period of several days, years, decades or centuries where the descriptive of 'evening and morning' was applied to mean a period of time longer than a literal day.

Secondly, we are told that on the sixth day God created Adam and then we are given geneologies that carry us by specific years from the sixth day of the creation to a man by the name of Abram. Thirdly, we find that twice in the law God repeated that He created all things in six days.

In Exodus 21 we find God said, and yes, it is accounted that God spoke these words, they weren't written by ignorant men without scientific backgrounds, but the words were spoken by the God who knows all things:
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Then again in Exodus 31 we find:
"It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

Now, I've got to say that I have a hard time understanding someone who says, "well, the Scriptures aren't really clear on this issue of the time of the creation event." Frankly, I find it to be wilfull rebellion on the part of the reader who might claim that, and I find that that wifull rebellion is often there because they have come to the same point that Eve was when the devil caused her to question God's truth.

Eve knew that she wasn't supposed to mess with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, but Satan caused her to doubt that truth. Similarly, God has given all of us plenty of evidence that the account of the days in Genesis should be considered six literal days at the end of which He created man and woman and this realm of creation began. But, worldly wisdom, otherwise known as 'brilliant scientists' have stood adamant against such an understanding and because we don't want to look 'stupid' to them, we hem and haw and make allowance that 'Well, God didn't really make it clear and these guys know what they are talking about so there's just got to be someway that God's word is right and the scientists are right, but just in case I can't resolve the delimma, then I'm going to go with the 'brilliant scientists'.

Now here is the plain and simple truth and you may test this in any way that you find acceptable to you. Either God created all things in this realm in six literal days or He didn't. You can take that to the bank that one or the other option is the absolute truth. However, just so you know where I stand. When I read that God spoke to Moses and clearly told him from His very own mouth 1500 years after the fact, 'Listen, Moses, I created all things in six days.' I don't find that any reasonable doubt could possibly remain as to what God believes is the truth.

Now, the question is: Do you believe in a God who wants you to know the truth about who you are; why you are here; how you got here and is powerful, mighty, wise enough to, as He has accounted, just speak into existence out of absolutely nothing at all, from the most distant star of the most distant galaxy, all that is in this realm of creation? Is your faith in the same God who just one day covered the planet earth with all kinds of vegetation and then the next covered it with all kinds of various and different and amazing and colorful and beautiful animals and creatures of all kinds and then once all of that was prepared scooped down and made Adam and Eve to enjoy all that He had created for them to live? Are you brave enough and as so many might accuse you, 'stupid' enough to believe in that God? Or, are you convinced that God hasn't made it clear and 'brilliant scientists' have absolutely blown away the six day creation model with their great and hallowed wisdom and therefore you aren't buying any of this?

However, the questions still remain. What is the truth? Does God find faithful those who don't believe His, certainly to me, repeated claim to have made all things in six literal days? I don't care what you think and I don't quite frankly care what I think. The one who is going to judge the quick and the dead is the one who must see you as faithful. Now, let's go just a step further. If, God did create this realm of existence in six literal days like He has repeatedly said, what do you think He thinks of someone who claims to know Him; who claims to love Him; yet goes around teaching lies about Him. Sure, you may console yourself with your faith that He didn't make it clear, but what if God thinks He made it perfectly clear?

What if that all wise and knowing God that you claim to know, when causing His word to be written by the hands of men, thought to Himself. 'Well, I know there's going to come a time down the road when men will not understand my power and glory through what I have created. They'll be telling all kinds of tales about 'how' things got to be the way they are. I know that even many who claim to love me will be tempted to believe these lies and so here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to close out the account of each day that I spend creating with the phrase evening and morning because I know that even 6,000 years from now men will still think of days in that term. I'm going to write down all the years of the first geneologies just so they will be able to account for nearly the exact 'day' of my creating all this realm. I'm also going to repeat it to them several times so that, for those who really do love me, there won't be any excuse not to understand the power and glory of what I have done that they might have life on earth and life eternal.

What if....

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[dies-l]

hi Dies,

You responded: The only problem with this analysis is that it presupposes a literal-historical hermeneutic.

If one sees that as a problem then I'm thinking there are deeper issues to be resolved in that person's life of faith.

Let me ask you a question if I may. Paul wrote to many of the beginning churches that were being established in the various towns and cities. One of his encouragements, and in fact he seems to speak in a nature of rebuke, was directed towards those new believers who were not maturing in their faith.

Do you think Paul's notion of spiritual maturity was linked to their hermeneutical approach?

Now, let's kind of get the picture here. Let's put on our thinking caps and see if we can sort of imagine ourselves standing over Paul's shoulder as he wrote this letter. Do we agree that he was writing to people who claimed faith in the basic message of the gospel? That Jesus is the Son of God and died for the sins of the sinner that God's judgment might be righteous. Do we agree that probably most of the people that Paul intended this letter to be received by had that basic, begnning seed of faith? They had surely already claimed Jesus as Lord and believed him to have been risen from the dead by the power of God, and if the book of Acts is any indication, they had been baptized. So, we have people, just like you or I would have been early on in our faith. Believing the basics, but, according to Paul's rebuke still having much to learn about the Scriptures, God, His Spirit, His Son.

Or, do you believe that Paul's primary concern was doctrinal statements or specific theological knowledge? Don't get me wrong; these things are important, but Jesus never said "they will know you are my disciples by your theology". Paul never said, "the fruit of the Spirit is proper fundamentalist doctrine". In other words, our maturity as Christians is not measured nearly as much by our hermenutics, theology, or doctrine; it is measured by our discipleship, most specifically, our love for one another. Is there room in a loving community of Christ followers for disagreement? Certainly. Can sound doctrine and proper hermeneutics enhance our understanding of love and thus our ability to love? Definitely, but let's not confuse the two concepts.

But, ultimately, none of this goes to the point of whether the opening chapters of Genesis are best interpreted by a literal-historical hermeneutic. You say yes; I say no. From a purely academic standpoint, I disagree with you wholeheartedly,. From a fellowship standpoint, it is not all that important to me to hash out that agreement.

Let me encourage you to sit down and make a list of all the things that you think Paul would have been referring to that the new believers needed to learn as they 'matured' in their faith. Going from the pablum milk of the gospel to the meatier truths of God's word, which I believe is kind of how Paul put it. What do you think that Paul might have been referring to?

I highly doubt that the TE/YEC debate was at the forefront of Paul's concern.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[dies-l]

Hello again Dies,

I wanted to separate these two posts so that hopefully you would not forget the question of the first as you continued to read the following:

I have written on other threads, and in fact just today, the question of what God calls 'faith'. I'm not much interested in what I think God might mean or what you or anyone else thinks that God might see as real 'faith'. Therefore, this post will not end with any definitive understanding, but is merely intended to cause each one to stop for a moment and ask themselves some very deep questions.

You contend that God has not given us any definitive understanding regarding the time span of the creation. I disagree. God wrote to us of each day and concluded each day with the time constraints of an evening and a morning which is still to this day exactly how we define a literal day. No one says, 'I have spent a thousand years making this mouse trap and there was an evening and morning.' I don't believe that you will be able to find a single piece of evidence in either God's word or the writings of men that describe a period of several days, years, decades or centuries where the descriptive of 'evening and morning' was applied to mean a period of time longer than a literal day.

Keep in mind that this thread is about TE, not about OEC. Make sure you don't presume that I would agree with OEC arguments or that an OEC proponent would agree with mine. This is not about whether or not "yom" means "24 hour period" or whether the Genesis 1 creation narrative reads as a week. The better question is whether the story is intended as an historical account of what actually happened or an allegorical account describing God's majesty and sovereignty over Creation.

Jesus told parables that were fictional stories designed to teach a spiritual concept. The Psalms and Proverbs are full of poetic readings that convey truth through an exaggerated poetic style. Many scholars believe that the entire book of Job is a narrative poem to explain God's sovereignty in the midst of human suffering. This does not make the parables, Psalms, Proverbs, or Job any less meaningful. Nor does a similar literary-allegorical hermenutic of Genesis 1-3 make it any less meaningful.

Secondly, we are told that on the sixth day God created Adam and then we are given geneologies that carry us by specific years from the sixth day of the creation to a man by the name of Abram. Thirdly, we find that twice in the law God repeated that He created all things in six days.

From a modern viewpoint, this presents a problem. From the viewpoint of the ancient authors of the biblical text, this would be consistent with a literary-allegorical hermeneutic.

In Exodus 21 we find God said, and yes, it is accounted that God spoke these words, they weren't written by ignorant men without scientific backgrounds, but the words were spoken by the God who knows all things:
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Then again in Exodus 31 we find:
"It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

2 Timothy tells us that all Scripture is "God breathed". Better minds than us have debated what that means. However, it is pretty clear that God did not take pen to papyrus and write out Scripture. Most scholars don't even believe that God dictated Scripture the same way as the Muslim tradition claims of the Koran. Nonetheless, we can agree that God is directly behind the ideas in Scripture, whether He audibly spoke them to the writers, inspired the writer's thoughts, or otherwise directed the Scriptures.

But, none of that deals with the underlying question of whether God might have inspired an allegorical work, whether God thought that it was all that important for us to understand the precise mechanism of Creation. I look at the opening chapters of Genesis and see plenty of evidence that He did inspire a work of allegory and that His purpose was not to identify an historical or scientific process. You apparently disagree.

Now, I've got to say that I have a hard time understanding someone who says, "well, the Scriptures aren't really clear on this issue of the time of the creation event." Frankly, I find it to be wilfull rebellion on the part of the reader who might claim that, and I find that that wifull rebellion is often there because they have come to the same point that Eve was when the devil caused her to question God's truth.

To be honest, it is statements like this that make me wonder if a civil discussion can be had on the topic. I'd really rather not try to impute ulterior motives to people who disagree with me. Let's try to to discuss principles and not personalities or motives.

Now here is the plain and simple truth and you may test this in any way that you find acceptable to you. Either God created all things in this realm in six literal days or He didn't.

Fair enough. And, some of us don't pretend to know that answer with absolute certainty.

You can take that to the bank that one or the other option is the absolute truth. However, just so you know where I stand. When I read that God spoke to Moses and clearly told him from His very own mouth 1500 years after the fact, 'Listen, Moses, I created all things in six days.' I don't find that any reasonable doubt could possibly remain as to what God believes is the truth.

And, if you believe that God would never tell an allegorical tale, then that is a sound argument. But, that is a presupposition that you bring to the table that I don't accept. I believe that the Scripture is clear that God uses allegory, along with other literary genres, including historical narrative, to convey Truth.

Now, the question is: Do you believe in a God who wants you to know the truth about who you are; why you are here; how you got here and is powerful, mighty, wise enough to, as He has accounted, just speak into existence out of absolutely nothing at all, from the most distant star of the most distant galaxy, all that is in this realm of creation? Is your faith in the same God who just one day covered the planet earth with all kinds of vegetation and then the next covered it with all kinds of various and different and amazing and colorful and beautiful animals and creatures of all kinds and then once all of that was prepared scooped down and made Adam and Eve to enjoy all that He had created for them to live? Are you brave enough and as so many might accuse you, 'stupid' enough to believe in that God? Or, are you convinced that God hasn't made it clear and 'brilliant scientists' have absolutely blown away the six day creation model with their great and hallowed wisdom and therefore you aren't buying any of this?

This isn't about "bravery". It is about what I believe that the Scripture teaches. Let's focus on the questions at stake, rather than trying to besmirch one another's character.

However, the questions still remain. What is the truth? Does God find faithful those who don't believe His, certainly to me, repeated claim to have made all things in six literal days? I don't care what you think and I don't quite frankly care what I think. The one who is going to judge the quick and the dead is the one who must see you as faithful. Now, let's go just a step further. If, God did create this realm of existence in six literal days like He has repeatedly said, what do you think He thinks of someone who claims to know Him; who claims to love Him; yet goes around teaching lies about Him. Sure, you may console yourself with your faith that He didn't make it clear, but what if God thinks He made it perfectly clear?

Yet, I am unaware of a single place in Scripture where it is even hinted at that we are judged according to our doctrine on any matter other than the lordship of the resurrected Christ.

What if that all wise and knowing God that you claim to know, when causing His word to be written by the hands of men, thought to Himself. 'Well, I know there's going to come a time down the road when men will not understand my power and glory through what I have created. They'll be telling all kinds of tales about 'how' things got to be the way they are. I know that even many who claim to love me will be tempted to believe these lies and so here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to close out the account of each day that I spend creating with the phrase evening and morning because I know that even 6,000 years from now men will still think of days in that term. I'm going to write down all the years of the first geneologies just so they will be able to account for nearly the exact 'day' of my creating all this realm. I'm also going to repeat it to them several times so that, for those who really do love me, there won't be any excuse not to understand the power and glory of what I have done that they might have life on earth and life eternal

.

This would be a fair argument if it could be concluded that God never spoke in allegory, fictional narrative, poetry, hyperbole, or any non-historical literary genre. Scripture demonstrates to me that the presupposition is flawed. But, I respect that fact that you disagree.

 

[miamited]

hi Dies,

You asked: Do you think Paul's notion of spiritual maturity was linked to their hermeneutical approach?

I don't think Paul knew anything about 'hermeneutics'. That's one of the 'new' words of the language that is much newer than Paul. Do I think that Paul's notion of spiritual maturity meant that once we begin that journey of life 'with' Christ rather than apart from him, did he not mean that we should grow in our faith and understanding of God's truths, yes. As I explained, I'm quite certain that the people that Paul was directing his instructions towards were people who had already made that beginning claim of faith in Jesus. They already believed the very basics. That Jesus is the Son of the living God and he died in our place for our sins. I'm fairly convinced that his notion of maturity was that now we begin to study and to pore over the truths of God's word and believe them and incorporate them into a new worldview. One whose center is God, His Son, His Spirit and His word. That yes, they should begin to see how the creation is a miracle of God that He just spoke into near sudden existence for the very purpose that we have a place to live. You see, friend, the creation without man is useless. It isn't as if God created all the universe to sit back on His throne and go, "Oh goody, goody look at what I've done. OOOOh,ooooh look at that great nebula over there, man am I something else. Hey all you angels look at what's going on over there." No, the creation was made for nothing more than to provide a place where flesh could live. We were made lower than the angels. We need air and water and food to sustain us and so God began with the earth and put all that here for us. Then He turned His attention to the entire black space of nothingness around the earth and said, "Ok, now if this planet, this home for man, is going to exist through the ages and they will be able to mark off seasons and times they'll need a bunch of stars and this galaxy will have to be huge to hold all that and other galaxies will be needed to keep the whole thing just perpetually moving for all of eternity. That is, after all, the plan. That we live on the earth for all eternity. It will be a new heaven and a new earth, but earth just the same. So many people say, 'oh, I'll live forever in heaven with God.' No you won't! Read the last chapter of the Revelation. The part of God's word that clearly spells out exactly where we are headed from this life.

We are going to be given new bodies of flesh and we will live upon a new earth for all of eternity and God will be our God and we will be His people. It's absolutely crystal clear that no one is going to live forever in heaven. These are the things that we are to mature to. The deeper, meatier things of God's truths. Yes, Jesus died for our sins; yes, he is the Son of the living God; yes, he was born of a virgin and lived a sinless life, but now that we have believed those basics, we are to learn, believe and trust in the deeper things of God.

That all of this creation is not some random act of natural processes. No!!!! It was all made near instantaneously as a home where we could live by a God who is so powerful, so awesome, so wise and loving that He just one day said, 'Let it be....' and so it became into existence.

You wrote: Or, do you believe that Paul's primary concern was doctrinal statements or specific theological knowledge? Don't get me wrong; these things are important, but Jesus never said "they will know you are my disciples by your theology". Paul never said, "the fruit of the Spirit is proper fundamentalist doctrine". In other words, our maturity as Christians is not measured nearly as much by our hermenutics, theology, or doctrine; it is measured by our discipleship, most specifically, our love for one another.

Ah, and now you mock. You throw around ten cent words as if that makes you appear to others as wise. No, none of those things were what Paul or Jesus was referring to. Both Jesus and Paul wanted us to grow in our knowledge of the 'truth'! The 'truth', my friend. Jesus wants us to believe the truth. He doesn't care that we couch our wisdom in fine fifty dollar words. He isn't interested in us mocking one another about some word called 'hermeneutics' or 'theology'. He only wants us to study and pore over God's word so that we may know the truth. So that we can understand what God's purpose was in creating this entire realm. So that we will see that there is none of this billions of years of natural evolutionary 'theory' that caused you to be standing where you are right this moment. NO!!! He wants you to know the truth. That his Father spoke all of this entire realm of existence in to being so that you could stand where you stand right this moment. That it is by the spoken word of his Father that you even have air molecules surrounding your head that contain enough oxygen to sustain your life. And that it all came into being nearly instantaneously in the six days that his Father has repeatedly told you is that 'truth'.

Then you wrote: I highly doubt that the TE/YEC debate was at the forefront of Paul's concern.

Of course not. It wasn't just that. It was our growing and maturing in our understanding of all the deeper truths of God and who He is and what He has done. It's a whole package of truths.

Finally, I ask again. Let's just for a moment play that you are God. You spoke an entire existence into being in a mere matter of hours and days for the express purpose of creating men and women a place to live and to love you. They don't believe it. In fact, many who claim to know you deny this power of yours. They just out right deny that what you have repeated to them in your revelation to them is just not the truth. Do you find them faithful?

And friend, all you have to do is throw up your hand and just sit back and let it soak in. Wow!!!! How awesome is that? That, my friend, is an entirely different God who loves you so much that He created this entire realm just so that you would have a place to exist. Created it all near instantaneously with every good and perfect thing that you need to live your existence and then, as if all of that just isn't absolutely awesome enough, He made a way that your sin could be forgiven and you could live in His creation for all eternity. Wow!!!! How awesome is that God. It's the God I serve.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted