Theistic Evolution

It appears, Doveaman, that you wish to invalidate your opponents, on the grounds that they are not sufficiently moved by the Spirit. This, however, , is an absolutely bogus argument in a serious theological discussion group. You have to offer a rational rebuttal to what they have said, not attack their character.

I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You are in no position to sit in judgment on the spirituality of others. The rules in any solid discussion group are that you attack your opponent's ideas, not his or her character. If you can't abide by that rule, you should not be here. Had you really any education in theology, you would already know this. So I suggest you do more study before you comment.

Doveaman said:

I did. But you are unable to make sense of it. That's not my fault, that's your fault.

Click to expand...

Where did you demonstrate that it was history?

It's a statement of fact, as demonstrated by your inability to recognize the evidence.

"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).

Click to expand...

It is a claim. Facts are demonstrable, and you haven't demonstrated anything.

Doveaman said:

Can you demonstrate history to a monkey?

Click to expand...

If all you can do is call people monkeys, then we are done here.

Look, Doveaman, we shouldn't be pointing the finger at others and accusing them of spiritual blindness. We are not God and we are not in a position to accurately judge how moved they may or may not be by the Spirit. If your character is blinding you to new ideas? Well, that certainly would address every creationist here, as they are sticking to very traditional, pre-evolutionary ideas. Irregardless, the focus of your comments should be a rational rebuttal of your opponent's position and not an attack on his or her character. Otherwise, you are going to end up just insulting someone or putting them on the defensive.

Doveaman said:

Yes I am. And so are you. How else can we make sense of spiritual blindness.
If your character is blinding you to new ideas, then your character needs to be addressed.

"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).

This quote is a character assessment.

Click to expand...

Not here you are not..I suggest you read the Site Rules.

elopez said:

"The period of time during which the Earth completes one rotation with respect to the Sun is called a solar day."

You would say that the earth rotated around the "light" in Genesis 1:3, yet that "light" would have to have the equivalent mass, energy, gravitational fields, etc, as the sun for the earth to rotate around it in the time of 24 hours. Now, either you're going to add something to the passage of Genesis 1:3 to justify this light, or use some obscure definition of "day". Let us see which, if not maybe both.

Click to expand...

I've just noticed this comment, although I have seen similar criticism elsewhere in an attempt to discredit the Genesis account of creation. Now it occurs to me that there are a couple of things which have not been considered in this statement - 1) God was still creating, so the physical laws that exist today would almost certainly have been different to those that operate today and 2) Don't you think that if someone were going to make up a story about creation, they would have thought to have put the sun at the beginning if they were going to refer to normal "solar" days? The fact that this story makes no sense to you or others who have criticised it just adds weight to its credibility in my view.

-57 said:

God was teaching us how He formed man from dust then Eve from his rib. God blows traditional science apart....especially when the dead Jesus rose to life on day 3 despite what the scientist have to say

Click to expand...

Critics seem to forget that God can violate normal laws of physics/biology/cosmology or whatever and since creation week was clearly a time of miracles (even time itself being created by our Lord Jesus), then everything recorded in Genesis is entirely possible. And you are right, Jesus's resurrection and many of the other things recorded in the New Testament are clearly miracles as well. I wonder what the scientific explanation of Jesus walking on the water would be?

-57 said:

I think you should say "The reason why I and other Christians do not take the bible literally is more than the fact it clashes with evolution

Click to expand...

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Here's another passage to add to your list:-
Exo 20:11 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. [my emphasis]

-57 said:

I have never seen a contradiction that didn't have a possible answer.

Click to expand...

Some have tried to use this type of argument to discredit the Bible in other ways (Do you remember it being doubted that Jesus ever existed and that Pontius Pilate was a figment of someone's imagination or there was no evidence for crucifixion at that time?). Some have gone to great lengths, for instance, to try to show that the Exodus never really happened, because there is supposedly no archaeological evidence to support it. Well, there is tons of evidence to support it, if one looks in the right places (Just get your hand on this video and you will see what I mean). But to accept that, would mean that a whole load of "experts" would have to admit that they have been wrong and that all their work over many decades has been based on false assumptions. They aren't going to do that are they?

I have reviewed the evidence and I agree that there is no hared evidence to support the Exodus. That does not mean it didn't happen, just that we have yet to find any definite evidence that it did happen, that it is still up for grabs what the dates are for it, as well as the places, rotate, etc. There are any one of a number of sensational seekers that come along and claim that they found the route, just like there eall all sorts of claims for wereh the ark is.

Sorry, computer glitch. Last line should read:" sort of unsupported claims for where the ark is, etc. I have studied archaeology and the Bible, and I am inclined to agree with the experts.

Why would God bother to create laws of nature, if every time he goes to interact with the world, they stand in the way and so he has to break them? And what , then, would stop you from assuming that God can also break all his moral laws, whenever he goes to interact with us?

I don't think the Genesis account is a accurate geophysical witness to creation and I don't think it was ever indented to be. My case is as follows:

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.