Theistic Evolution

[lesliedellow]

I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.

"The Bible was written for us, but not to us," to quote one biblical scholar.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.

1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

 

[-57]

I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.

By who's standards should we up-date the bible?

 

[-57]

I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.

So then, whats the point of the bible?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So then, whats the point of the bible?

The answer to that question involves a willingness to learn the history of the biblical canon. That the canon of Scripture developed within the context of the Church's liturgical life, through the reception of the historic Christian Church to guide her in her faith and practice and remind her of her place in Christ.

Alternatively one could stick their head in the sand and not bother to learn anything about the Bible.

Your choice really.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Creationism and Theistic evolution are not scientific, but neither are maths and logic, and neither is ones preliminary axiom that experiences are reliable ndicators of an external world. But, IIRC, the smart guys say keep the axioms to a minimum. Ok, science runs on axioms, but adding God is one step too far, its superfluous to the projects needs...

 

[Doveaman]

DNA can also determine the common ancestor you and your 5th cousin share. Observing a birth of a child does not determine who the father is. If there is a dispute, you can use DNA.

My point is that we can make the DNA connection with our ancestors because we are observed to have ancestors.

This same connection does not apply to the first man who had no ancestors with whom we can make a connection.

“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground” – (Genesis 2:7).

No ancestors.

There was no 'first man'.

Yes, there was.

You keep ignoring the historical evidence.

“From one man He (God) made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this…” – (Acts 17:26-27).

Evolution takes places in POPULATIONS, not in individuals. Another example that demonstrates that you don't know what evolution states.

Total rubbish. Humans did not evolve form a population of apes.

You keep ignoring the evidence of human history and instead prefer to speculate on the DNA of apes. Rubbish.

DNA evidence is more reliable than eye witness testimony. As has been shown by the many inmates who have later been released after the discovery of DNA and the advancements it's made.

Sure, but DNA tells us nothing about were the first man came from. You can only speculate.

How do you know? Because the bible says so? That is circular reasoning and makes the claim easy to reject. Would you care to try again.

Sure, why not.

One aspect of the scientific method is the predictive ability of a theory. The success of the prediction is an indication of the accuracy of the theory.

God’s word also makes predictions and the consistent success of those predictions, when God’s word is put to the test, is an indication of the accuracy of God’s word.

This is why billions of people live by God's word and stake their lives on it. God's word is never wrong.

The ability for science to change it's stance based on new evidence is a strength not a weakness. It cares about what is true and can admit when they are wrong.

So we agree that scientific theories can be wrong. Great.

Then we can also agree that Evolution theory can be wrong, even if you presently have no reason to think it is.

Religion is the guilty party that denies facts until it's so overwhelming, they have to accept it.

You don’t see me accepting evolution theory, do you?

Like when Galileo was put on trial for heresy for proposing heliocentric theory but now it is accepted that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. The majority of Christians now accept the theory of evolution because the evidence is so overwhelming. Science wins because it works.

Science only works when God does not intervene by miracles which alter the laws of physics.

Science did not work in regards to the virgin birth of Jesus or His resurrection. In such events science had to take a hike.

Those same “majority of Christians” who accept evolution theory also accept the virgin birth and resurrection because they recognize that science does not always work. So there is a bit of double standard there in my opinion.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains those facts.

No it doesn’t.

An explanation of facts does not require a whole set of hypothetical assumptions and speculations like evolution theory does. A huge part of evolution theory is science fiction and not facts.

Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? It's a fact that germs cause disease. The germ theory of disease explains those facts.

Germ theory is not saturated with a whole set of hypothetical assumptions and speculations.

Gravity is a fact. The general theory of relativity explains those facts.

Your rubber sheet explanation of gravity is complete nonsense.

According to your explanation, the earth is relying on gravity to create the gravity-dent, and then the gravity-dent becomes the earth’s gravity.

According to you, gravity is gravity creating gravity.

An explanation of gravity that relies on gravity as its own explanation is complete nonsense.

Evolution is indeed a fact. We can observe it in the nature and in the lab. Facts don't care what you believe.

And evolution theory doesn’t care what the facts indicate.

It's falsified by the many lines of study that demonstrate the facts of evolution.

The facts of evolution are what we presently observe to be occurring in nature. If it is not observed to be occurring in nature, it is not evolution, it is speculation.

That brings us back to the Gospels. They are written DECADES after the alleged events with no contemporary, independent, eyewitness writings to back up the claims in the gospels. The only way you should use the bible is if you go back to compare any contemporary, independent accounts. Can you provide just ONE source that is contemporary to the stories in the gospels? Yes or no?

Yes.

We call Him Jesus. Jesus is not dead. Just ask any Christian, even the "majority" who believes in evolution theory.

This is a positive claim. The burden of proof belongs to you.

No. The burden of proof belongs to God.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Historical evidence:

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – (Romans 1:20).

It is not God’s fault or my fault that you don’t recognize the God revealed through nature. That’s your fault.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Also known as the bandwagon fallacy.

It is not a bandwagon, it is an actual life experience. Every Christian experience the presence of God in their lives, even if you don’t.

Demonstrably false.

Yes you are indeed wrong.

The authors of the gospels are not named. They are anonymous. We don't know who wrote them.

You don’t, but we do.

They don't claim to be eye witnesses.

How would you know what they did not claim if you don’t even know who they were?

We know they were written DECADES after the alleged events.

They were written by God through the human instruments.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” – (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

They were also educated Greek writers. They were not Aramaic speaking peasants.

Rubbish.

“They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues…the crowd came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.” – (Acts 2:4-8).

Secondly, Paul admits to not being an eyewitness. He is writing earlier than the gospels, yet he knows nothing about the alleged life of Jesus. This is supposed to be after a somewhat recent event (20 years or so), yet nobody tells him about the life of Jesus.

Jesus told him.

*As he (Paul) journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground...Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."* - (Acts 9:3-6).

Your problem is that you are reasoning like an atheist who continually ignores the historical evidence of Scripture.

So God decided that Jesus (himself) is not going to write anything down? There also will be no contemporary accounts. Instead it won't be written down until DECADES later? This is not a reliable way to get your word across to those who are skeptical. It makes it all the more obvious that this is a myth.

Again, God is the author of scriptures. The humans were just the instruments God used to do the writing.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped” – (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Because you don't care about what is likely true or not.

Nope.

Because I know what is true.

You'd rather believe what you want to be true.

Nope.

I’d rather believe what I know to be true.

If you're so confident that what you believe is indeed true. Use the historical method and get back to me with what you find.

I already told you that your myopic method can take a hike

Jesus is the contemporary source.

There may be some historical truths that you can pick out. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The miracle claims in the bible are extraordinary. This means you'll need some independent and contemporary accounts in order to confirm these claims. Otherwise you're just going in circles. "It says it in the bible, therefore it's true" and around and around you go.

You have no reason to believe those miracles, but many of us do, and that is good enough for us. The truth doesn’t care whether or not you believe it.

A verse telling me to be intellectually dishonest, haha. I don't know how you can be comfortable accepting a verse that basically says "Don't believe things that you can see but believe things you can't see" That's a dangerous way of thinking and a good way to get things wrong.

We don’t see with our eyes, we see through our eyes, but we see with our brain. We form conclusions based on interpretations and not based on what we actually see. This is why scientists don’t always agree even though they see the same thing.

God is telling us not to be like scientists who rely on their eyes but then can’t agree on what they see.

So it's a conspiracy theory?

No. It is human ego being expressed through human biases.

Papers get rejected all the time. It is the job of the reviewer to be highly critical and to attempt to prove the research wrong. A study in 2012 showed that 80,000 papers submitted to several biology journals, 25% of them were rejected by the first journal they were submitted to.

I am not referring to the rejected papers. I am referring to the papers that should be rejected but are accepted.

This is the same exact thing.

No it isn’t.

You are assuming your conclusion and then seeking out things that you think confirm your assumptions.

Nope.

I am acknowledging the historical facts and I am seeking conclusions that are supported by those facts.

Evolution theory is a conclusion that is not supported by the historical facts.

It is arrogant to think you have a monopoly on the truth.

I don’t think I do. I am simply acknowledging that truth is not limited to science. You have chosen to bury your head in the sand of science. I have not.

I prefer to be honest with myself and understand I could be wrong. I then follow the evidence to see what conclusions arise.

Good for you.

I prefer to be honest with myself and understand that God cannot be wrong. I then follow God’s truth to see what conclusions arise.

The majority of Christians have no problem with evolution. Evolution is a fact. It's observed and been repeatedly tested. It's a fact. Would you like me to post some of the evidence?

No thanks. I already saw the “evidence” along with all the assumptions and speculations required to make sense of it. Evolution theory is overwhelmingly speculative.

You should open a thread and post your paper. I'm sure many here would enjoy reading it.

I already did. This is not the first time I am debating re-creation theory here.

Are you going to try to get it into the science classroom like creationism and intelligent design did?

Nope. It is not a scientific theory. It is a Theo-scientific theory where the science must support the theology or the science must take a hike.

You commit two logical fallacies here.

1. Argument from personal experience

Putting Gods' word to the test is the personal experience of all Christians, not just me.

2. Argumentum ad populum

Putting God’s word to the test is popular with all Christians because it works for all.

My personal experience, and that of many others of being abducted by aliens proves that aliens exist, they visit Earth and abduct it's inhabitants.

Now you are being ridiculous.

See how ridiculous that type of argument is?

Yes I do.

Are you dizzy from all the circles you've been going in?

Yes I am. Debating with you is just going in circles. You just don’t get it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

My point is that we can make the DNA connection with our ancestors because we are observed to have ancestors.

Exactly. Studying the human genome demonstrates that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, along with every other living species on Earth.

“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground” – (Genesis 2:7).

So you're going to choose a claim that says we were poofed into existence by an invisible man over a natural phenomenon that we can observe?

You keep ignoring the historical evidence.

“From one man He (God) made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this…” – (Acts 17:26-27).

Going back in circles again huh? "It's true because the bible tells me it's true". Do you have an independent and contemporary account that agrees with the above verse? If not, that claim is easily dismissed. Can you demonstrate your claim to be true by using other sources? That's kind of how honest research is done.

Total rubbish. Humans did not evolve form a population of apes.

We have to add another one in there. Homo Naledi was discovered in 2013

You keep ignoring the evidence of human history and instead prefer to speculate on the DNA of apes.

Human and chimpanzee genomes are 98% similar. Why do you have to do mental gymnastics to dance around that fact?

Sure, but DNA tells us nothing about were the first man came from. You can only speculate.

Or do science. Genetics studies are crazy huh? It probably terrifies you. http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

One aspect of the scientific method is the predictive ability of a theory. The success of the prediction is an indication of the accuracy of the theory.

Good thing we have an excellent example of this thanks to Dr. Shubin and his team. They made an accurate prediction in regards to the transition between fish and tetrapod. (Predictions being: What layer of rock, where this rock is exposed and what features this species would have). Meet Tiktaalik Roseae: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
What kind of mental gymnastics will you do this time to avoid this evidence?

God’s word also makes predictions and the consistent success of those predictions, when God’s word is put to the test, is an indication of the accuracy of God’s word.

What predictions can you make and what is the test you run for this prediction?

This is why billions of people live by God's word and stake their lives on it.

Argumentum ad populum. You committed this fallacy in your last post. Why go back to it again?

So we agree that scientific theories can be wrong. Great.
Then we can also agree that Evolution theory can be wrong, even if you presently have no reason to think it is.

Of course it could be wrong. I highly doubt it though. Considering we've directly observed it in nature and in the lab. Science is a self correcting process. It doesn't ignore new information because they want to hold onto a certain belief. That would be religion. Science takes the intellectual honest road.

Science only works when God does not intervene by miracles which alter the laws of physics.

Have you directly observed the laws of physics being suspended? Or did you just read about them in a book and accept that it was true without any skepticism?

Those same “majority of Christians” who accept evolution theory also accept the virgin birth and resurrection because they recognize that science does not always work.

I would have a disagreement with them over the miraculous claims. So what? The point was that people that deny evolution are in the minority. Evolution is demonstrably true.

A huge part of evolution theory is science fiction and not facts.

An observable fact in nature and in the lab is science fiction? Experimentation that demonstrates evolution is science fiction? The accurate predictions the theory makes is science fiction? This is nothing more then you plugging your ears and closing your eyes going "lalalalalala i can't hear you"

Germ theory is not saturated with a whole set of hypothetical assumptions and speculations.

Translation "Germ theory of disease does not threaten my fundamentalist beliefs,therefore I can accept it"

Your rubber sheet explanation of gravity is complete nonsense.

EINSTEIN WAS WRONG!? Dude, totally write that paper right now! Do you know how rich and famous you'd be!?!?!?!

According to your explanation, the earth is relying on gravity to create the gravity-dent, and then the gravity-dent becomes the earth’s gravity.

No where in my post did I explain gravity. The rest of this is a strawman. If you want to argue against the theory of general relativity, open a new thread.

The facts of evolution are what we presently observe to be occurring in nature. If it is not observed to be occurring in nature

We do observe it in nature. You can do experiments yourself. Go down to a university and observe a first year biology student in a lab class.

No. The burden of proof belongs to God.

Moving the goal posts. You're making the positive claim. The burden belongs to you.

Historical evidence:
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – (Romans 1:20).

The bible is the claim not the evidence. Try again.

It is not a bandwagon, it is an actual life experience.

Argument from personal experience is also a logical fallacy. I have no way of verifying what it was you experienced just like you have no way of verifying my experience of being abducted by aliens. You have no reason to believe my claim to be accurate, and I don't have a reason to believe yours. Personal experience is not evidence.

You don’t, but we do.

Cite one biblical scholar who claims to know the authors of the Gospels.

How would you know what they did not claim if you don’t even know who they were?

Why would it matter if I know who wrote it or not? They don't make a single claim throughout the entire gospels that they were witnesses. It sounds like you need to go read your bible again.....or from the sounds of it read it for the first time.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” – (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Back to "it's true because it says it's true" circular argument. You know that the Koran states that it is an inspiration from God too, right? The same Abrahamic God you believe in. So by your reasoning, the Koran is the truth as well.

*As he (Paul) journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground...Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."* - (Acts 9:3-6).

So you will deny observable science but you have no problem believing someone had a vision? Why won't you believe my alien abduction story!?!?!?!?!

Your problem is that you are reasoning like an atheist who continually ignores the historical evidence of Scripture.

I'm still waiting on you to provide an independent and contemporary source for the claims made in the bible, specifically the Gospels.

Again, God is the author of scriptures. The humans were just the instruments God used to do the writing.

Special pleading. You have to concede that men are fallible and that they could easily have made mistakes when writing what they thought to be true.

Because I know what is true.

I’d rather believe what I know to be true.

It's the height of arrogance to claim you KNOW what is true and have a monopoly on it. If you know, then demonstrate that your claims are accurate. You have failed to do so. Citing bible verses, which have been explained to you are the claim and not evidence is not impressive.

I already told you that your myopic method can take a hike

The definition of myopic is lacking of intellectual insight. Aren't you the one who only wants to ramble off bible verses and call it true? Use the historic method as well.....unless you're afraid of what you'll find or not find. Which I suspect you are.

Jesus is the contemporary source.

Jesus never wrote anything down, therefore he is not a source but rather just apart of the story. What are your contemporary and independent sources that can confirm these stories?

I am referring to the papers that should be rejected but are accepted.

Care to cite a scientific peer reviewed paper that you feel should have been rejected? Be sure to explain in detail why it should have been rejected.

Now you are being ridiculous.

I know. That's the point I was making. I asked if you agreed how ridiculous that "personal experience" argument was and you responded with:

Yes I do.

I'm glad you can see how absurd arguing from personal experience is and calling it evidence. Why do you do it then? What makes your claim any less absurd than mine? I think we're finally getting somewhere.

 

[Doveaman]

Exactly. Studying the human genome demonstrates that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, along with every other living species on Earth.

It also demonstrates that we share a common Creator.

So you're going to choose a claim that says we were poofed into existence by an invisible man over a natural phenomenon that we can observe?

Yes.

Going back in circles again huh? "It's true because the bible tells me it's true". Do you have an independent and contemporary account that agrees with the above verse? If not, that claim is easily dismissed. Can you demonstrate your claim to be true by using other sources? That's kind of how honest research is done.

Yes, I have Jesus.

We have to add another one in there. Homo Naledi was discovered in 2013

Common Creator.

Human and chimpanzee genomes are 98% similar.

Common Creator.

God re-created humans and chimps from the same DNA.

Re-creation with modification.

Why do you have to do mental gymnastics to dance around that fact?

No mental gymnastics. I am simply choosing not to cherry-pick the evidence like you are.

History is evidence.

Or do science. Genetics studies are crazy huh? It probably terrifies you. http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

I have no reason to be terrified by mere speculations.

Good thing we have an excellent example of this thanks to Dr. Shubin and his team. They made an accurate prediction in regards to the transition between fish and tetrapod. (Predictions being: What layer of rock, where this rock is exposed and what features this species would have). Meet Tiktaalik Roseae: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
What kind of mental gymnastics will you do this time to avoid this evidence?

I will simply dismiss it as more nonsense.

What predictions can you make and what is the test you run for this prediction?

Prediction:
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Test:
JonFromMinnesota

Argumentum ad populum. You committed this fallacy in your last post. Why go back to it again?

It is not Argumentum ad populum. It is an argument from human experience.

Humans actually experience the presence of God in their lives, even if you don't, and we are able to share our experiences with each other to verify that we are experiencing the same thing.

Of course it could be wrong. I highly doubt it though. Considering we've directly observed it in nature and in the lab. Science is a self correcting process. It doesn't ignore new information because they want to hold onto a certain belief. That would be religion. Science takes the intellectual honest road.

You do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors. That's speculation.

Have you directly observed the laws of physics being suspended? Or did you just read about them in a book and accept that it was true without any skepticism?

Have you directly observed humans evolving from ape ancestors ? Or did you just read about that in a book and accept that it was true without any skepticism?

All the pictures and links you are posting on evolution theory are accepted by you because of what you read in a book on the subject. Humans evolving from ape ancestors is not an observation. It never was and it never will be. It is only found in a book.

I would have a disagreement with them over the miraculous claims. So what? The point was that people that deny evolution are in the minority.

Argumentum ad populum.

Atheism is in the minority. So what?

Evolution is demonstrably true.

Evolution theory is demonstrable false.

An observable fact in nature and in the lab is science fiction?

Nope.

Experimentation that demonstrates evolution is science fiction?

Nope.

The accurate predictions the theory makes is science fiction?

Possibly. A scientific prediction is only a measurement.

This is nothing more then you plugging your ears and closing your eyes going "lalalalalala i can't hear you"

Nope.

This is nothing more than you plugging your ears and closing your eyes to the fact that evolution theory is held together by a whole host of speculations and assumptions.

Translation "Germ theory of disease does not threaten my fundamentalist beliefs,therefore I can accept it"

Nope.

I accept Germ theory because it is good for my health. Evolution theory does nothing for me.

EINSTEIN WAS WRONG!?

Not only wrong, but his rubber-sheet theory is also stupid.

"Gravity is gravity creating gravity" is a stupid idea.

Dude, totally write that paper right now! Do you know how rich and famous you'd be!?!?!?!

Not with peer-review being so bias.

No where in my post did I explain gravity. The rest of this is a strawman. If you want to argue against the theory of general relativity, open a new thread.

You mentioned gravity in relation to Einstein's theory of relativity. I am simply responding to your post:

Gravity is a fact. The general theory of relativity explains those facts.

If you don't want to talk about Einstein's theory of gravity, then don't bring it up.

We do observe it in nature.

We do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors.

You can do experiments yourself.

Now you are being silly again.

Go down to a university and observe a first year biology student in a lab class.

Will I observe the student evolving from an ape ancestor?

Moving the goal posts. You're making the positive claim. The burden belongs to you.

Nope.

The burden belongs to God: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God..." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).

This prediction is confirmed by your response as an atheist.

The bible is the claim not the evidence. Try again.

The Bible is a record of history. History is evidence.

It's not complicated.

Argument from personal experience is also a logical fallacy. I have no way of verifying what it was you experienced just like you have no way of verifying my experience of being abducted by aliens. You have no reason to believe my claim to be accurate, and I don't have a reason to believe yours. Personal experience is not evidence.

You would have a point if I was the only person who share the experience. Just because you do not share an experience does not mean it is not real.

Cite one biblical scholar who claims to know the authors of the Gospels.

Doveaman.

Why would it matter if I know who wrote it or not? They don't make a single claim throughout the entire gospels that they were witnesses. It sounds like you need to go read your bible again.....or from the sounds of it read it for the first time.

Or maybe you are reading the wrong bible.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we have seen His glory, the glory of as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." -- (John 1:1-14).

Sounds like witnesses to me.

Back to "it's true because it says it's true" circular argument.

The Bible is true because of its predictive power. It is never wrong.

You know that the Koran states that it is an inspiration from God too, right? The same Abrahamic God you believe in. So by your reasoning, the Koran is the truth as well.

Nope.

The Koran does not accept the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."* -- (John 14:6).

To reject the Son of God is to reject God.

So you will deny observable science but you have no problem believing someone had a vision?

Yes.

Why won't you believe my alien abduction story!?!?!?!?!

Because you were not being serious, you were being silly.

I'm still waiting on you to provide an independent and contemporary source for the claims made in the bible, specifically the Gospels.

I already gave one -- Jesus.

Good luck finding Him.

Special pleading.

Nope. Humans are indeed instruments of God.

"In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy and useful to the Master." -- (2 Timothy 2:20-21).

You have to concede that men are fallible and that they could easily have made mistakes when writing what they thought to be true.

The creation narrative was not a mistake. It was confirmed thousands of years later by Jesus Himself:

*Jesus answered..."at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife'"* -- (Mark 10:5-7).

It's the height of arrogance to claim you KNOW what is true and have a monopoly on it. If you know, then demonstrate that your claims are accurate. You have failed to do so. Citing bible verses, which have been explained to you are the claim and not evidence is not impressive.

The Bible is a record of history, and history is evidence.

The definition of myopic is lacking of intellectual insight. Aren't you the one who only wants to ramble off bible verses and call it true? Use the historic method as well.....unless you're afraid of what you'll find or not find. Which I suspect you are.

The definition of myopic is also short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness, both of which you are.

There is more to reality than just the visible and material.

Jesus never wrote anything down, therefore he is not a source but rather just apart of the story. What are your contemporary and independent sources that can confirm these stories?

Jesus inspired what was written, and He is alive and present today. It is not my fault that you cannot find Him. That's your fault.

Care to cite a scientific peer reviewed paper that you feel should have been rejected? Be sure to explain in detail why it should have been rejected.

Any paper on the Big Bang.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

I know. That's the point I was making. I asked if you agreed how ridiculous that "personal experience" argument was and you responded with:

My personal experience of God is real, a personal experience that is also shared by many others.

Yours was not real. You were just being silly.

I'm glad you can see how absurd arguing from personal experience is and calling it evidence. Why do you do it then? What makes your claim any less absurd than mine?

Because you were being silly, and I was not.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It also demonstrates that we share a common Creator.

It does not. It's something you made up in your head. You don't have a verifiable test for that hypothesis except twisting bible verses to say what you want them to say. It's just nonsensical rubbish where you start with your conclusion and work backwards.

Yes, I have Jesus.

I'll take that is a no, you can't provide a contemporary source. You're operating on faith. I define faith as believing something you hope to be true and without evidence.

God re-created humans and chimps from the same DNA.

So Genesis 1:27 is wrong? Let me guess, you're going to grab another verse and then try to reconcile the contradiction by twisting it into what you want it to mean? Does it ever get tiresome doing all these back flips to get things to mean what you want them to mean?

I have no reason to be terrified by mere speculations.

So you deny the results of verifiable tests? If it doesn't conform to your beliefs, you just disregard it because it doesn't agree with your beliefs? Do you do this in all your life experiences? What if a private investigator demonstrated to you that your significant other was cheating on you? Do you just disregard the evidence because her behavior towards you suggests that she loves you and only you? When is it appropriate to be intellectually dishonest and not?

I will simply dismiss it as more nonsense.

You just said earlier that if a scientific theory with predictive capabilities is an indication of it's accuracy. Then, I show you one and you call it nonsense. You're intellectually bankrupt.

Prediction:
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Test:
JonFromMinnesota

The bible is the claim not the evidence but if you want to use this as a test, it is easily falsified.
1. This verse is suggesting that the Spirit of God is not omnipotent. "He cannot understand them" If God exists, he should understand me quite well.

2. If God exists and he wants me to receive his message, he has the ability to do so in a way he would know would be convincing to me. He has not.

3. I used to be a Christian and asked for this and didn't receive it. Absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

Humans actually experience the presence of God in their lives, even if you don't, and we are able to share our experiences with each other to verify that we are experiencing the same thing.

Humans actually experience the presence of aliens in their lives, even if you don't. And we are able to share our experiences with each other to verify that we are experiencing the same thing. http://alien-abduction.meetup.com/

Once again, demonstrating how absurd an argument from personal experience is.

You do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors. That's speculation.

I can observe the fossil record which demonstrably shows the transition in hominid evolution. So it's not speculation, it's observed. Have your DNA analyzed. If you're Caucasian, you likely have up to 2% Homo Neanderthalenis DNA. But with how intellectually dishonest you are, you'd probably dismiss that as nonsense.

Have you directly observed humans evolving from ape ancestors?

I can look at several different lines of evidence to come to that logical conclusion. If you didn't observe a murder, would you not be able to determine who committed the crime because you weren't there? It took you a while to resort to the tiresome "were you there" creationist drivel.

All the pictures and links you are posting on evolution theory are accepted by you because of what you read in a book on the subject.

I can actually go to a natural history museum and see them for myself.

Possibly. A scientific prediction is only a measurement.

Not according to what you said in an earlier post.

The success of the prediction is an indication of the accuracy of the theory.

You have contradicted yourself. I gave you an example and you dismissed it as nonsense. I don't think even you know what you're talking about anymore.

I accept Germ theory because it is good for my health. Evolution theory does nothing for me.

Except that it also is good for your heath. Next time you get a flu shot, ask your doctor why you always need a new flu shot and what the process is for producing a new vaccine. You won't like the answer.
The understanding of evolution is vital for medical research. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01
It's the foundation of modern biology.

We do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors.

Because it's already happened. You think that this takes place in an individual suddenly. So you're strawmaning the point I want to make. Stop with the logically fallacious dishonesty.

Now you are being silly again.

Saying something sounds silly is not an argument.
Are you saying you can't do experiments to test the validity of evolution by natural selection? A simple google search will show how wrong you are.

Will I observe the student evolving from an ape ancestor?

Another strawman. Do you have any arguments that aren't logically fallacious?

The burden belongs to God: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God..." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).

So I have to believe in him without evidence before he will present that evidence? This is a good way to get kicked off a jury in a trial. So, basically you are being told that you are a fool if you don't believe things without evidence. Sorry, not all of us are that dishonest with ourselves.

You would have a point if I was the only person who share the experience. Just because you do not share an experience does not mean it is not real.

There are tons of people who have had an alien abduction experience. By your reasoning, alien abduction stories are real. Just because you didn't have an alien abduction experience, doesn't mean it's not real.

Doveaman.

You're a biblical scholar? Cite your work. Or are you being dishonest again?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we have seen His glory, the glory of as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." -- (John 1:1-14).

Sounds like witnesses to me.

"Those who wrote the Gospels did not know Jesus personally. None of them were eye witnesses: they did not wander around with Jesus with pens and paper writing down everything he said and did! Instead, they came to believe in Jesus through hearing others speak about him. So, when they came to write down what they had come to believe, they used the oral stories they had heard".
http://www.thebibledoctor.com/about-the-gospel-writers.html

Ever played the game "Telephone" sometimes called "Chinese Whispers"? What happens to stories when they are told over and over and over again? They change significantly in a short amount of time. The first gospel wasn't written until 40 YEARS after the alleged events. Does this sound like an efficient way to get a message across or a good way for a myth to get started? I argue it's the latter.

The Bible is true because of its predictive power. It is never wrong.

So you believe that stars are just tiny points of light much less than the sun and that they can fall out of the sky and land on earth?

Do you believe that the moon is a light source?
Whoever wrote that doesn't know what those things are. They have no concept of what the universe actually is.

Nope.

"And We bestowed upon him Isaac and Jacob; each of them We guided; and Noah did We guide aforetime; and of his seed (We guided) David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus do We reward the good.
And Zachariah and John and Jesus and Elias. Each one (of them) was of the righteous.
And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot. Each one of them did We prefer above (Our) creatures"
Qur'an 6:84-86

They just don't believe in the trinity (Which by the way the word trinity is not mentioned one single time in the bible.

I already gave one -- Jesus.

A contemporary source of history would be a record written during the same time the stories of the gospels were taking place. You have failed to provide one and instead resort to dishonest deflecting. If you can't name one just say you don't know instead of doing gymnastics. It's already been explained to you that bible verses will NOT be accepted unless you can provide other sources.

The definition of myopic is also short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness, both of which you are.

I've read both the Bible and the Qur'an. I've also searched for contemporary accounts and other historical writings. You have resorted to one source and failed attempting to verify it. Who's the myopic one. You're doing nothing but changing the definition to "Someone who doesn't agree with me and I am too lazy to do the same research"

My personal experience of God is real, a personal experience that is also shared by many others.

My personal experience of alien abduction is real, a personal experience that is also shared by many others.

Yours was not real. You were just being silly.

I wasn't being silly. How can you prove mine wasn't real? Can you get inside my head? Do you have a way to verify what I am saying? No? You don't? The burden of proof is on me? The same is applied to your experience.

 

[Doveaman]

Have your DNA analyzed. If you're Caucasian, you likely have up to 2% Homo Neanderthalenis DNA. But with how intellectually dishonest you are, you'd probably dismiss that as nonsense.

If it contradicts the historical evidence, it is nonsense.

Our debate has obviously been exhausted, and this is because we are debating from two completely different views of reality.

You are of the view that reality is nothing more than the visible and material.

I am of the view that reality is far more than just the visible and material.

Your view of reality is shaped by your reliance on the scientific evidence explained in science papers.

My view of reality is shaped by my reliance on the historical evidence explained in the papers of Scripture.

According to the historical evidence, Adam and Eve were the original ancestors of all humans existing today.

Adam was created before Eve, but Adam and Eve shared the same DNA.

This was not because Eve descended from Adam, instead it was because Eve was re-created from Adam.

Eve is the re-creation of Man into the form of a Wo-Man -- Re-creation with modification.

Adam is the re-creation of an ape-like species into the form of a Man -- Re-creation with modification.

The only way to deny re-creation with modification is to ignore the historical evidence, and you have not given me a single reason to do that.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If it contradicts the historical evidence, it is nonsense.

Translation "If it doesn't say it in the bible, it's not true" This is not an effective way to discovering what is likely true. You have to look at independent sources. You don't do this. You confine yourself to one book.

I am of the view that reality is far more than just the visible and material.

Explain how imaginary= reality.

Your view of reality is shaped by your reliance on the scientific evidence explained in science papers.

Yes, I follow evidence to it's logical conclusion. There are several different lines of evidence that all come to the same conclusion in regards to evolution. The evidence is literally mountains high. You have to reject any evidence that threaten your beliefs.

My view of reality is shaped by my reliance on the historical evidence explained in the papers of Scripture.

Yep. You're locked in to "if the bible says it, it's true and that's the end of it" You don't think there is any possibility that you could be wrong about anything, even if the evidence suggests that you are.

According to the historical evidence, Adam and Eve were the original ancestors of all humans existing today

Falsified by modern DNA and genetics.

Adam is the re-creation of an ape-like species into the form of a Man -- Re-creation with modification.

The only way to deny re-creation with modification is to ignore the historical evidence, and you have not given me a single reason to do that.

I can use your bible to falsify your idea.
Which account of Genesis do you subscribe to? The one where man was made before the animals or after the animals?

In Genesis 1:25-27 animals are made first and then man. But in Genesis 2:7 man is made first and then in verses 18-22, animals are made. So in order for you to try to makes sense of this "recreation with modification" you'd have to subscribe to Genesis 1 and concede that Genesis 2 is a contradiction. So which one is it Doveman? Is Genesis 1 correct and Genesis 2 wrong?

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't agree with you Doveman. You automatically assume that Scripture is inerrant. That is a dangerous way to go about a serious scholarly study of Scripture. The inerrancy theory is just that, a human-made, human-fabricated theory about how God may be related to Scripture. Like any theory it needs checked out. When you go to Scripture, you should go with an open mind. Maybe it is inerrant, maybe not. Let's see. Now, I submit that when you carefully examine the hared evidence, the texts, that this theory fails, as there are any one of a number of major contradictions in Scripture. A prime example, as noted above, is the fact that Genesis provides two contradictory chronologies and therefore is an incoherent account. All attempts to reconcile these contradictions have failed. I can send you an itemized list if you want. And then if God is content with an errant Scripture, so should I be. Indeed, there could be very good reasons why God is content. Recognizing that Scripture is errant prevents one from making a false idol out of Scripture and falling into bibliolatry. That is why Karl Barth, a major 20-centruy theologian, said he rejoiced in finding errors on every page of Scripture.

 

[Doveaman]

There are several different lines of evidence that all come to the same conclusion in regards to evolution.

If a myopic view of reality works for you, great!

I can use your bible to falsify your idea.
Which account of Genesis do you subscribe to? The one where man was made before the animals or after the animals?

In Genesis 1:25-27 animals are made first and then man. But in Genesis 2:7 man is made first and then in verses 18-22, animals are made. So in order for you to try to makes sense of this "recreation with modification" you'd have to subscribe to Genesis 1 and concede that Genesis 2 is a contradiction. So which one is it Doveman? Is Genesis 1 correct and Genesis 2 wrong?

Genesis 1 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each day of creation week.

Genesis 2 then gives us a recapping of what God had already done earlier in the week before He created man.

The NIV translates it better:

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there He put the man He had formed." -- (Genesis 2:8).

"God had planted" -- past tense.

Vegetation had already been planted before the creation of man.

Animals had already been formed before the creation of man.

You should stop making a mockery of the text and leave it to those who actually understand it.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't agree with you Doveman. You automatically assume that Scripture is inerrant.

I don't agree with you Hoghead1. You automatically assume that Scripture isn't inerrant.

Even if Scripture is not inerrant (it is), the creation events described in Genesis 1 was still not a mistake. It was an intentional account of events, an account that is also supported by Jesus and His apostles.

*Jesus replies, “Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?”* – (Matthew 19:4-5).

*“For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man…For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”* -- (1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

If you want to delude yourself into believing the Genesis account was a mistake, then go right ahead.

Now, I submit that when you carefully examine the hared evidence, the texts, that this theory fails, as there are any one of a number of major contradictions in Scripture. A prime example, as noted above, is the fact that Genesis provides two contradictory chronologies and therefore is an incoherent account. All attempts to reconcile these contradictions have failed.

See above.

Also:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens — and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground — the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"-- (Gen 2:4-7).

The reason why there was no vegetation initially was because the ground was not yet watered. The ground then became watered indicating that vegetation could now grow. The man was then formed after the vegetation grew on the now watered ground.

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there He put the man He had formed." -- (Genesis 2:8).

"God had planted" -- past tense.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it contradicts the historical evidence, it is nonsense.

Stories in books are not evidence.

You are of the view that reality is nothing more than the visible and material.

I am of the view that reality is far more than just the visible and material.

Then demonstrate it.

 

[Doveaman]

Stories in books are not evidence.

The history recorded in the books is evidence.

Then demonstrate it.

It has been demonstrated, but:

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[Hoghead1]

1. 
   
   
   
   Sorry, Doveaman, but your approach to resolving the contradictions in Genesis simply does not work. Here's why:

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

1. When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[AV1611VET]

P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

Problem for whom?

QV please:

I think we're talking two completely different paradigms here.

Do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?

And if so, can you take Genesis 1 ... and Genesis 1 alone ... and separate the creation events into two lists:

One list marked EX NIHILO and the other list marked EX MATERIA?

(Note: You don't have to believe it; I'm just asking if you can do it.)

SOURCE

 

[Loudmouth]

The history recorded in the books is evidence.

You haven't shown that it is history.

It has been demonstrated, but:

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).

That is a claim. Where is the evidence?