Theistic Evolution

[-57]

A lot of people read the bible, the fact they don't interpret like you, seems to be something you can't accept.

You might want to try reading John Walton.

So, Johnny teaches this...at the right time God conferred His image to all people.(43:33) This idenity and function made humanity distinct from its genetic predecessors. Hmmmmmm, just where does the bible teach this?

Where does the bible say God did this to the evolving human population?

 

[Hoghead1]

Whether of not, one sees evolution as true or untrue depends on a number of underlying key factors. One is according to what standards do you interpret Scripture. The Reformers stressed a dogmatic literalism. The plain meaning of the text is it. What the plain meanings says is absolutely inerrant. However, at the risk of contradicting themselves, they had a doctrine of accommodation, arguing God sometimes talks "baby talk" to us because we are too feeble to grasp the real truth of the matter. The Reformers took this to be the case with the geophysical witness of Scripture. Hence, Calvin made a point of emphasizing God was not trying to teach us astronomy. he flat earth, etc., were God's way of talking baby talk to us, like we use the story to explain where babies come from.

Another factor is were you stand on the inerrancy issue. Those stressing inerrancy are apt to find a conflict between evolution and the bible, given, of course, that the don't accept the doctrine of accommodations. Other Christians, such as myself, argue that the inerrancy theory is just that: human-made theory or collection of speculations about, but that is not the only game in town. Like any theory, it should be tested out, and I find when it is, it proves no t hold any water. For example, there're about 100 or so major contradictions in Scripture. One prime example is the Genesis account. It actually breaks down into two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together, whereas in Gen.2, it is fist man, then, animals, then woman. Furthermore, careful linguistic analysis shows these texts were written in very different literary styles and very different points in time. I can go into more detail if you wish. I, fr one, have no trouble with the fct Scripture is not inerrant. The Holy Spirit de not cause a miracle by wehch we ae no onger human and subject to error. Insired as the scribes might have bee, they left their fingerprints all over thetext.

 

[-57]

That's cool, but I was a Christian for 40 years and actually it was a thorough investigation into the NT, that was one reason I am no longer a Christian.

But anyway, the majority of Christians agree with evolution and they don't feel the bible is useless. So, you stating the bible is useless with evolution, likely rings hollow with these majority of Christians, who accept evolution.

Would I be wrong to suggest you never were a christian...but rather just playing church?

 

[justlookinla]

Would I be wrong to suggest you never were a christian...but rather just playing church?

I don't understand how someone can say they knew Jesus and later become an unbeliever. One cannot 'unknow' someone, once you've met them, you can't deny their existence.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, a computer glitch interrupted my above email. Let me continue here. If God can rest content with an errant text, so can I.

Another key factor is how you view God as he is in his or her own nature. The classical Christian model of God is nowhere as biblical as it is a produce of certain schools of Hellenic philosophy which stressed the unreaity of the world of time and change. Hence, God was assumed to be wholly immutable. And if God doesn't change, then neither does the world, and so there cam be no evolution, period. However, this Hellenic model of God is not the only viable one. Modern theologians have provided an alternative model that dos allow for change in God and therefore major change in the world. I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere personality into consciousness and self-actuality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would I be wrong to suggest you never were a christian...but rather just playing church?

I like to ask people who claim they were Christians, but no longer are:

Do you mean to tell me you ...

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... and gave all that up for [whatever reason]?

 

[lesliedellow]

You might want to try reading the Bible.

Oh I do, and so does John Walton; only he has been earning his living as an Old Testament scholar for the past thirty odd years.

 

[lesliedellow]

So, Johnny teaches this...at the right time God conferred His image to all people.(43:33) This idenity and function made humanity distinct from its genetic predecessors. Hmmmmmm, just where does the bible teach this?

Where does the bible say God did this to the evolving human population?

One of John Walton's points is that the Bible says nothing about biological origins, and therefore it cannot come into conflict with the sciences which do address that question.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good question, Justalook. The truth of the matter is that such does in fact happen. If you have ever read anything in the Christian mystic traction, they will readily warn you that you can have some wondrous encounter with God and then later loose all faith, etc. Why? Because the intensity of this experience starts fading away in you memory, from the moment you had such a transcendental experience.

 

[-57]

Sorry, a computer glitch interrupted my above email. Let me continue here. If God can rest content with an errant text, so can I.

Another key factor is how you view God as he is in his or her own nature. The classical Christian model of God is nowhere as biblical as it is a produce of certain schools of Hellenic philosophy which stressed the unreaity of the world of time and change. Hence, God was assumed to be wholly immutable. And if God doesn't change, then neither does the world, and so there cam be no evolution, period. However, this Hellenic model of God is not the only viable one. Modern theologians have provided an alternative model that dos allow for change in God and therefore major change in the world. I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere personality into consciousness and self-actuality.

Those are interesting thoughts...but can they be biblically supported or is it your speculation?

 

[-57]

One of John Walton's points is that the Bible says nothing about biological origins, and therefore it cannot come into conflict with the sciences which do address that question.

Huh? Nothing about biological origins? You completely lost me there pal. Genesis 1 is all about biological origins.

Now, considering you never answered my question...I'll present it again:

So, Johnny teaches this...at the right time God conferred His image to all people.(43:33) This idenity and function made humanity distinct from its genetic predecessors. Hmmmmmm, just where does the bible teach this?

Where does the bible say God did this to the evolving human population?

 

[juvenissun]

Not being a biologist myself, I tend to think twice about telling somebody who is a biologist that he doesn't know what he is talking, about when it comes to biology. I know creationists have no such compunction.

I am not a biologist either and I am not trying to tell any biologist what he knows or doesn't know.
All I want is answers to my questions.
Obviously, NO biologist can satisfy me on any of my question yet.

Have you asked a question about evolution recently? Or you are trying to cheat yourself?

 

[lesliedellow]

Huh? Nothing about biological origins? You completely lost me there pal. Genesis 1 is all about biological origins.

No, Genesis 1 is nötig about biological origins; not even close.

So, Johnny teaches this...at the right time God conferred His image to all people.(43:33) This idenity and function made humanity distinct from its genetic predecessors. Hmmmmmm, just where does the bible teach this?

Where does the bible say God did this to the evolving human population?

Where in the Bible does it say anything about nuclear physics? It doesn't, but is that supposed to prove? That nuclear reactors don't exist?

 

[-57]

No, Genesis 1 is nötig about biological origins; not even close.




Where in the Bible does it say anything about nuclear physics? It doesn't, but is that supposed to prove? That nuclear reactors don't exist?

True, the bible doesn't talk about nuclear reactors...BUT IT DOES TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION. Perhaps your version says something different..but my version says Adam was formed from the dust the Eve from Adams rib. There isn't much room for evolutionism in there.

 

[juvenissun]

You need to add extra Biblical explanations to justify a literal interpretation.

As science has it, a day is:

"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.
.

No. I do not need to add anything to the Bible. I simply talk about science based on what the Scripture says.

The sun came after the earth is completely understandable. There is NO reason that our sun should be formed before the earth. All you have is the obsolete nebula hypothesis. (Are you a scientist? I need to know what you can understand to talk to you efficiently on this matter. For example, the "light" in Gen 1:3 should not be the sunlight.)

 

[lesliedellow]

I am not a biologist either and I am not trying to tell any biologist what he knows or doesn't know.
All I want is answers to my questions.
Obviously, NO biologist can satisfy me on any of my question yet.

Have you asked a question about evolution recently? Or you are trying to cheat yourself?

As a maths graduate I am more inclined to find physics interesting, rather than biology, and, since I do not feel there to be a conflict between biology and Christianity, I have no reason to give biology much attention on that ground.

True, the bible doesn't talk about nuclear reactors...BUT IT DOES TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION. Perhaps your version says something different..but my version says Adam was formed from the dust the Eve from Adams rib. There isn't much room for evolutionism in there.

Assuming you watched it at all, you certainly did not pay much attention to the talk given by that conservative OT scholar of 30 years standing.

 

[Hoghead1]

My answer is a complicated yes and no. Fist off, we have to respect the fact that the Bible is not a work in metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is build. Is God material r immaterial being? It tells us very little about the basic building blocks of reality. Is it sprit and matter? Just spirit? What? However, the Bible does at least suggest some answers here. In about 100 passages, God is spoken of as changing, for example, Hoses 11:9 and Gen. 6:6. The Bible attributers just about every body part to God, including his [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. the Bible ascribes emotion to God. The NT is a witness that the Incarnation is a revelation of God's MO with the world, And that suggests the notion that the universe is the body of God. In some passages, the universe appears as part of the being God, for example, 2 Cor. 15:28, Jer. 23:23. So far, all this suggests that the Bible views God as a changing, material being. The prohibition against making images fits well in here. If the universe is the body of God, then no image is right, because no one can see the whole universe. The biblical predication of God is relativistic prediction. It's hard to be a creator without a creation, a lover with nothing to love, a father without chidden, etc. In brief, that is why I said yes and no.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know Walton, but do know about the bible and the Genesis account. For example, one of the major Reformers, Calvin, adopted an accommodation principle for interpreting Scripture. Accordingly, because we are so fallen and infantile, God has to use "baby talk" to explain things to us. Hence, Calvin argued that God was not here to teach us astronomy, that the passages dealing with geophysical issues were ones in which God was using "baby talk" and therefore he no actual bearing on the real world.

 

[juvenissun]

As a maths graduate I am more inclined to find physics interesting than biology, and, since I do not feel there to be a conflict between biology and Christianity, I have no reason to give biology much attention on that ground.

You DO have reason, very critical reason, which is your faith to Christianity. Unless you do not care about it so much either.

There are may false theories around. It they do not interfere with the Christian doctrine, I don't either have the mind to consider them.

 

[-57]

As a maths graduate I am more inclined to find physics interesting, rather than biology, and, since I do not feel there to be a conflict between biology and Christianity, I have no reason to give biology much attention on that ground.



Assuming you watched it at all, you certainly did not pay much attention to the talk given by that conservative OT scholar of 30 years standing.

Bottom line...you have no answer. thanks for playing.

NEXT