Theological perspective for the impossiblity for evolution

[bullietdodger]

So I was looking at the poll thread on if you accept evolution as a valid theory. In poster had the following quote in that thread. Since it was not touched upon by one person who believes in TE I decided to start this new thread. What is the responce of the TE to this theological truth.

When discussion this thread please use exact scripture passages when defending you points. If you use the "EXCUSS" that the scriptures are not the WORD of God then don't bother posting. Please leave science out of this discussion. This is a Scriptural and theological discussion only. Thanks.

Remembering that this is a theology board and theology requires the use of Scripture. Therefore, here is the theological and Scriptural base for the Genesis account to be true and evolution false. In this post I am giving the scriptural bases for Scripture to being true. Then I give Scriptural bases for the creation account. Finally I give a list of passages which refer to Adam or the creation of Adam.



On the Word of God, Scripture

1. Truth comes from God (Job 38-40:1; Ps 25:4-5; 26:2-3; Dan 9:13) and that He is the only source where truth originates (Jn 1:14,17; 16:13; 2 Tim 3:16).

2. We can know the truth about God based upon what He has revealed of Himself through his Word, the Bible (Gen 1:26; 2 Tim 3:16).

3. God discloses Himself through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Jn 1:1,14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 4:12).

4. The Scriptures were fully inspired and originated by God, hence being named, “The Word of God” (2 Pet 1:19-21).

5. Old Testament claims to be Scripture (Jer 30:4).

6. The New Testament claims the Old Testament to be Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; Lk 3:17-21; Lk 4:4,8,12).

7. The New Testament claims to be Scripture (Lk 4:17-21; Jn 1:1; 1 Th 4:2,8; Eph 2:20).

8. The Scriptures have a divine purpose and are useful for answers and guidance to God as He has revealed Himself (2 Tim 3:16).

9. The Scriptures are inerrant (2 Sam 22:31; Pr 30:5).

10. The Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority in faith and in practice (Is 40:8; Jn 10:35).

11. The understanding of Scripture is dependant upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12).

12. The Scriptures are unified and will not contradict itself in any way or form (Pr 30:5; 2 Tim 3:16).

13. The Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures so that we might be able to understand the things of God and without His illuminating the Scriptures we would not have any understanding of what God meant in His Word (1 Cor 2:10,12-14).



On Creation

14. God is the only one who created the universe out of nothing (Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3; Rev 4:11).

15. God is continually in the act of creation (Gen 4:1; Ps 139:13; Eph 2:10; Rev 4:11).

16. Creation by God was a one stage act (Gen 1:1-2:2).

17. God is the originator of all humankind by creating the first male (Adam) out of the dust and female (Eve) out of the rib of the male (Gen1:26-27; 2:7,21-23).

18. God has created humankind uniquely to the rest of His creation (1 Cor 15:39; Eph 2:10).

19. The creation of Adam and Eve was an immediate act of God (Gen 1:26; 2:7)



Here are some passages regarding Adam. This is evidence that the belief of Christians and Judaism was that the Genesis is true and literal. Note that Luke 3:38 is the end of the genealogy of Jesus.

Hos 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Jud 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,



20. To deny any of the above not only denies Scripture, God’s very Word, but also denies about 2000 years of Church history.

 

[depthdeception]

Remembering that this is a theology board and theology requires the use of Scripture.

Wrong. Theology, as a general discipline, does not require Scripture. I would argue that even Christian theology does not necessarily require the use of Scripture, even though one will be severely limited in range of discussion if Scripture is not used, whether explicitly or implicitly...

Therefore, here is the theological and Scriptural base for the Genesis account to be true and evolution false.

If one is not allowed to talk about "science," then how is one able to overthrown the scientific theory of evolution? You cannot simply disprove something by establishing something else. In order to actually prove something to be false, you have to encounter it on the basis of its own merits.

In this post I am giving the scriptural bases for Scripture to being true.

Circularity, anyone?

Then I give Scriptural bases for the creation account.

What other basis is there? Since one is not allowed, in the context of this thread, to discuss science, what is the point of even doing this?

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

depth,

While I may accept your right to disagree about YEC, I find it a very valid stance to discuss Bible verses as it pertains to Origin.

This is a Christian only forum. I don't know if your a Christian or not, but I find the Bible a critical reason as to why we are in this particular forum. We can discuss the Bible in here and should. Scientific facts will not contradict the Bible, including a literal adam and eve.

Saying that, I am starting to lean more to the fact that the Bible is not concrete on a young earth, in our defintion of time. But I also don't know that I believe in the whole evolutionary process either.

 

[depthdeception]

depth,

While I may accept your right to disagree about YEC, I find it a very valid stance to discuss Bible verses as it pertains to Origin.

I'm not saying that discussing the Scriptures in relation to origins is invalid. I was only making the point that the approach of the OP (to bifurcate the Scriptures and science) is misguided.

This is a Christian only forum. I don't know if your a Christian or not,

I am.

but I find the Bible a critical reason as to why we are in this particular forum. We can discuss the Bible in here and should. Scientific facts will not contradict the Bible, including a literal adam and eve.

Well, no one has shown that scientific facts do contradict the Scriptures, only that they contradict certain interpretations of the Scriptures.

Saying that, I am starting to lean more to the fact that the Bible is not concrete on a young earth, in our defintion of time. But I also don't know that I believe in the whole evolutionary process either.

Have you honestly researched the "whole evolutionary process?"

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

not completely. I'm still learning. But this discussion is on what the bible says and can yec or oec be valid with what the bible says.

 

[depthdeception]

not completely. I'm still learning. But this discussion is on what the bible says and can yec or oec be valid with what the bible says.

Of course they can. If one believes in OEC or YEC, then one's interpretation of the Scriptures will corroborate this fact.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I believe both are valid arguments. I think the Bible leaves it open enough for both views. For instance, Romans 5:12 says, "death came through sin, and so death spread to all men".

It doesn't say death spread to all men and animals. The bible doesn't imply anywhere that animals didn't die before adam sinned. It does imply that adam's sin caused man's death.

 

[ebia]

So I was looking at the poll thread on if you accept evolution as a valid theory. In poster had the following quote in that thread. Since it was not touched upon by one person who believes in TE I decided to start this new thread. What is the responce of the TE to this theological truth.

When discussion this thread please use exact scripture passages when defending you points. If you use the "EXCUSS" that the scriptures are not the WORD of God then don't bother posting. Please leave science out of this discussion. This is a Scriptural and theological discussion only. Thanks.

So exactly what in your post is open to discussion?

 

[gluadys]

So I was looking at the poll thread on if you accept evolution as a valid theory. In poster had the following quote in that thread. Since it was not touched upon by one person who believes in TE I decided to start this new thread. What is the responce of the TE to this theological truth.

When discussion this thread please use exact scripture passages when defending you points. If you use the "EXCUSS" that the scriptures are not the WORD of God then don't bother posting. Please leave science out of this discussion. This is a Scriptural and theological discussion only. Thanks.

Whether or not evolution is valid science can only be determined by science. Scripture does not enter into that discussion.

If evolution is not valid science, then there is nothing to discuss when it comes to scripture. Scripture is true and invalid science is not.

If it is valid science, then we can have a theological discussion about the interpretation of scripture in light of the fact that evolution is valid science.

We cannot entertain the idea that scripture can render a scientific theory invalid. Scripture no more comments on the validity of science than science comments on the correctness of theology or the inspiration of scripture.

Valid science must necessarily agree with scriptural truth since both are God's truth. By the same token scripture must necessarily agree with valid scientific truth.

If it appears not to, the problem is in our heads, not in either scripture or science. It is up to us to seek how both are true, not to reject either truth.

 

[gluadys]

Some comments on the assertions made.

On the Word of God, Scripture

The Word of God is not to be identified only with scripture. It is not only the written word that is the Word of God, but every word of God and first and foremost the Word of God made flesh, from whom all other forms of the Word are derived.

1. Truth comes from God (Job 38-40:1; Ps 25:4-5; 26:2-3; Dan 9:13) and that He is the only source where truth originates (Jn 1:14,17; 16:13; 2 Tim 3:16).

Agreed. Therefore if evolution is valid science and true, it comes from God.

2. We can know the truth about God based upon what He has revealed of Himself through his Word, the Bible (Gen 1:26; 2 Tim 3:16).

The bible is the most comprehensive source of truth about God accessible to us in objective form. But we can also know the truth about God from other sources. Notably the witness of the Holy Spirit, whose assistance we need even to understand the bible.

3. God discloses Himself through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Jn 1:1,14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 4:12).

Yes, and in other ways as well.

4. The Scriptures were fully inspired and originated by God, hence being named, “The Word of God” (2 Pet 1:19-21).

Inspired yes. I don't know what the term "originated" means here. The biblical authors wrote the text, and they were not taking dictation.

5. Old Testament claims to be Scripture (Jer 30:4).

This is not a claim to the OT being scripture. Jeremiah knew nothing about the OT. It did not exist until half a millennium after his death. This claim is only about the words the LORD has told Jeremiah to write in a book. (Jer. 30:2)

6. The New Testament claims the Old Testament to be Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; Lk 3:17-21; Lk 4:4,8,12).

The reference to Luke 3 must be incorrect as it refers to no scripture. The passages in Luke 4 are not to the OT asa whole but only to the Torah. In fact all the references are specifically to Deuteronomy. Only the verse in 2 Timothy refers generally to the "scripture" i.e. the OT.

7. The New Testament claims to be Scripture (Lk 4:17-21; Jn 1:1; 1 Th 4:2,8; Eph 2:20).

Again, this is impossible since the NT did not exist until two-three centuries after the death of the apostles. The passage in Luke refers to the fulfillment of an OT prophecy, not to the NT or even to Luke's gospel. The passage from 1 Thessalonians refers to verbal instructions Paul gave to the Thessalonians, not to scripture at all. The passage in Ephesians refers to prophets and apostles, not scripture.

The most egregious error is the reference to John 1:1 which is clearly a reference to the second person of the Trinity, not to scripture. This passage refers to the Word as eternal "in the beginning was the Word" as divine "the Word was God" and later on as incarnate "the Word became flesh".

None of these qualities can apply to scripture which is certainly not eternal, nor divine, nor was ever incarnate. The entitlement of scripture to the appellation "Word of God" is entirely dependant on the fact that it witnesses to the eternal and divine Word made flesh that John speaks of. That entitlement does not include identification with Christ as deity.

8. The Scriptures have a divine purpose and are useful for answers and guidance to God as He has revealed Himself (2 Tim 3:16).

And none of those purposes are relevant to the scientific validity of evolution.

9. The Scriptures are inerrant (2 Sam 22:31; Pr 30:5).

Again the references are not to scripture. The first is to a promise made verbally to David through the prophet Samuel and not written down until at least a century later. The second is to every word of God, not to scripture alone.

10. The Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority in faith and in practice (Is 40:8; Jn 10:35).

Faith and practice do not include judging the validity of science.

11. The understanding of Scripture is dependant upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12).

Whereas science is objective and can be understood by sense and reason without additional illumination.

12. The Scriptures are unified and will not contradict itself in any way or form (Pr 30:5; 2 Tim 3:16).

Neither verse states this.

Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures so that we might be able to understand the things of God and without His illuminating the Scriptures we would not have any understanding of what God meant in His Word (1 Cor 2:10,12-14).

Hence no one should presume their personal understanding of scripture is more right than another's.



Nothing above is relevant to evolution in any way.

On Creation

14. God is the only one who created the universe out of nothing (Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3; Rev 4:11).

Agreed. This does not contradict the validity of evolutionary theory.

15. God is continually in the act of creation (Gen 4:1; Ps 139:13; Eph 2:10; Rev 4:11).

Agreed. This is consistent with evolutionary theory.

16. Creation by God was a one stage act (Gen 1:1-2:2).

This is open to interpretation. Some would say this statement is contradicted by the scripture cited which refers to creation in at least 6 stages. And gap theorists would certainly disagree.

Depending on how "one-stage" is interpreted, it could be consistent with evolutionary theory.

17. God is the originator of all humankind by creating the first male (Adam) out of the dust and female (Eve) out of the rib of the male (Gen1:26-27; 2:7,21-23).

18. God has created humankind uniquely to the rest of His creation (1 Cor 15:39; Eph 2:10).

19. The creation of Adam and Eve was an immediate act of God (Gen 1:26; 2:7)

All the above are consistent with the theory of evolution.

Here are some passages regarding Adam. This is evidence that the belief of Christians and Judaism was that the Genesis is true and literal. Note that Luke 3:38 is the end of the genealogy of Jesus.

Hos 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Jud 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,



20. To deny any of the above not only denies Scripture, God’s very Word, but also denies about 2000 years of Church history.

Theistic evolution does not require denying any of the above scriptural passages.

 

[chaoschristian]

So I was looking at the poll thread on if you accept evolution as a valid theory. In poster had the following quote in that thread. Since it was not touched upon by one person who believes in TE I decided to start this new thread. What is the responce of the TE to this theological truth.

When discussion this thread please use exact scripture passages when defending you points. If you use the "EXCUSS" that the scriptures are not the WORD of God then don't bother posting. Please leave science out of this discussion. This is a Scriptural and theological discussion only. Thanks.

The burden of proof is on you, or anyone else, who claims that the ONLY PROPER AND ALLOWABLE interpretation of the verses provided is an indicative one. Simply saying that such and such verses supports a particular point of view and then providing references to verses outside of context begs the question. You need to show how these verses support your claim.

Frankly, I tire of the practice of providing out of context Bible quotes as support of a claim without the necessary accompanying analysis of the text.

You claim a theological truth has been established, yet you have failed utterly at actually establishing it as a theological truth. You take for granted that everyone holds exactly that same view and interpretation of scripture as you do without demonstrating why it is necessary.

Do the work. Put forth an argument to which one can actually respond in a reasonable manner.

 

[shernren]

Others have commented on the methodology of the OP which seems questionable. I shall go on to deal with individual points.

1. Truth comes from God (Job 38-40:1; Ps 25:4-5; 26:2-3; Dan 9:13) and that He is the only source where truth originates (Jn 1:14,17; 16:13; 2 Tim 3:16).

We have no dispute with this. And yet the hidden agenda of this innocuous beginning argument is to link Scripture in a complete identification with God - Scripture is the totality of what God says, no more and no less, as is evident in the next few points. While I believe that the Scripture is in totality said by God (with all the usual qualifications e.g. about things said by Satan and quoted in the Bible not representing God's view), it is quite different to say that besides the Scriptures God said nothing else.

Therefore I will not argue the point itself, but rather anticipate the bent that Scripture is God's exclusive revelation. From the very passages given:

Job 38-40: How does God demonstrate His majesty? Not by quoting Scripture, but by expounding from nature His majesty. In fact if one interprets Job as a historical character, then there would have been no "Scriptures" during his time. This lends credence to the fact that the Scriptures are not God's exclusive revelation, and that nature also reveals God.

Neither of the Psalms passages talks about Scripture explicitly. In Daniel, Daniel is referring to a fulfilled prophecy, which is not entirely relevant to the issue at hand.

John 1: Note that the "Word" there is Jesus Christ, not the Bible. This is an important point.

2. We can know the truth about God based upon what He has revealed of Himself through his Word, the Bible (Gen 1:26; 2 Tim 3:16).

Again, I have no issue with this, but I anticipate the argument or unsaid statement that we can only know the truth about God through the Bible. What does Genesis 1:26 have to do with this? Also note that in 2 Timothy 3:16 it does not explicitly say that the Bible tells us about God; it merely equips the man of God. Thus the second point has not been supported directly by Scripture even though it is accepted to be true. This is a dangerous tendency: reading into Scripture something and then finding that Scripture supports something because "I read it there!"

3. God discloses Himself through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Jn 1:1,14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 4:12).

John 1 talks about Jesus Christ, not the Bible; 2 Timothy 3:16-17 talks about the man of God being equipped, not directly about him knowing God, and Hebrews 4:12 says that the word of God can penetrate men and not that it is a disclosure of God to men. Again, there is no direct Scriptural proof of the point given.

4. The Scriptures were fully inspired and originated by God, hence being named, “The Word of God” (2 Pet 1:19-21).

2 Peter 1:19-21 doesn't even contain the phrase "the word of God". Furthermore, this passage clearly ties with Peter's mentioning his personal witness to the Transfiguration, indicating that the "prophetic word confirmed" refers to the prophetic word given concerning Jesus Christ, who is the true Word of God.

5. Old Testament claims to be Scripture (Jer 30:4).

Not the whole Old Testament is "the words that the Lord spoke concerning Israel and Judah", and therefore not the whole Old Testament comes under this statement. I agree that Old Testament is Scripture, but again this is not directly and clearly demonstrated.

6. The New Testament claims the Old Testament to be Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; Lk 3:17-21; Lk 4:4,8,12).

2 Timothy 3:16 does not explicitly tell you that "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, ..., Malachi, Matthew, Mark, ..., Revelation is given ... "; it just tells you "All Scripture" and thus you only believe that it supports your point if you have believed that Old Testament is Scripture even before you came to the verse to prove it.

In Luke 3:17-21 John does not say that he is quoting Scripture. Paul quoted Greek poets in Acts 17 but nobody says they are Scripture. In Luke 4 Jesus does indeed say that He is quoting Scripture and we finally have the first substantial direct proof of a statement in a long while here.

7. The New Testament claims to be Scripture (Lk 4:17-21; Jn 1:1; 1 Th 4:2,8; Eph 2:20).

Luke 4:17-21 talks about Isaiah being Scripture, and as I recall Isaiah is not part of the New Testament.

In what way is the Bible God, as your use of John 1:1 implies? The Word of John 1:1 is Jesus Christ. Even if John 1:1's "Word" is the NT, it does not say that the NT is Scripture, but in fact that the NT is God, which proves something far stronger than you intend to say

Again, the 1 Thessalonians passage merely says that the NT is to be followed, not that it is Scripture. I can tell someone to do something under instruction from God (essentially 1 Th 4:2) without suffering any pretensions that I am adding to the canon of Scripture.

What does Ephesians 2:20 have to do with NT being Scripture?

8. The Scriptures have a divine purpose and are useful for answers and guidance to God as He has revealed Himself (2 Tim 3:16).

Note yet once again that 2 Tim 3:16 never says that the Scriptures reveal God to us. Note also that 2 Tim 3:16 does not say that "All Scripture is the only thing given by inspiration of God and is profitable for every area of life from cosmology to quantum mechanics." In fact the preceding verse (almost never quoted in such "proofs") gives a specific domain for Scriptural use: making people "wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus". Again, a point not clearly shown.

9. The Scriptures are inerrant (2 Sam 22:31; Pr 30:5).

In 2 Sam 22:31 the word / phrase used is "proven". This is not a test of truth, but a test of applicability. Note that both the original and its derivative in Psalm 18 continue by expressing what God does for His servants, the implication being that through the word of God His servants are availed of His mighty power. This points to a "utilitarian" truth of God's word, not an "absolute" truth. We have an indirect proof at best.

Alright, Proverbs 30:5 does somewhat prove the point. But remember that Proverbs is descriptive and not prescriptive. Not every child brought up in the way he should go since young continues along it (Proverbs 22:6).

10. The Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority in faith and in practice (Is 40:8; Jn 10:35).

Isaiah 40:8 only says that God's word of Scripture stands forever. It does not say that it stands with authority over every sphere of life. In our country we have a constitutional monarchy which is assumed under constitution to continue indefinitely. Yet this indefinite continuity does not guarantee that it is above the law. Ditto John 10:35.

11. The understanding of Scripture is dependant upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12).

Of course within the context of the crevo debate and the "20 points" this alludes to the idea that creationists are somehow more guided by the Holy Spirit than evolutionists. Watch that idea.

In John 14:26, Jesus does not promise them that the Holy Spirit will teach them only Scripture: the Holy Spirit will teach them all things. This does prove the point, but more importantly this goes against any idea of the "monopoly of Scripture" in God's revelation. Similarly John 16 has the Holy Spirit guiding us into "all truth".

Similarly in 2 Corinthians 2:10-12, the Holy Spirit helps us know the things that have been freely given to us by God. That includes not just the Bible but the world around us. Which points to the idea that nature has something to say about God and that Scripture cannot be identified simply with "the Word of God".

12. The Scriptures are unified and will not contradict itself in any way or form (Pr 30:5; 2 Tim 3:16).

Once again 2 Tim 3:16 is being dragged out of place. It only says that the Bible is useful, not that it is entirely self-consistent. Proverbs 30:5 does the job and I acknowledge that.

13. The Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures so that we might be able to understand the things of God and without His illuminating the Scriptures we would not have any understanding of what God meant in His Word (1 Cor 2:10,12-14).

Why limit that to the Bible? Can you show me that "all things" (vv 10, 15) and "the things that have been freely given to us by God" (v 12) can only be applied to the Bible and nothing else?

======================

After all this typing, I have one thing to add:

I agree fully with those 13 points.

So why did I take the bother to examine the Biblical "proof"?

Because ... if you can't convince me of something I believe "from the Scripture", how are you going to convince me of something I don't believe "from the Scripture"? I await reply.

 

[WAB]

Obviously there are many opinions as to whether or not one should trust the Bible as being truthful on any one subject. 2 Timothy 3:16..... "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."(NKJV).

The word "inspiration" as most who read these posts would know, is equivalent to "breathed out" and in the ESV is phrased... "...breathed out by God..."

So.. what is it that has been "breathed out" by God? "All Scripture..."

So man's opinion as to just what portion of the Scriptures to accept or reject really comes down to whether or not you believe what is so plainly presented in 2 Tim. 3:16. All means all. As posted elsewhere in this forum, renowned scholars in the Hebrew language have stated that the "days" (yowm) mentioned in Genesis chap. 1 are to be understood as literal 24 hour days.

There is absolutely no room in Scripture for evolution.

 

[chaoschristian]

Obviously there are many opinions as to whether or not one should trust the Bible as being truthful on any one subject. 2 Timothy 3:16..... "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."(NKJV).

The word "inspiration" as most who read these posts would know, is equivalent to "breathed out" and in the ESV is phrased... "...breathed out by God..."

So.. what is it that has been "breathed out" by God? "All Scripture..."

So man's opinion as to just what portion of the Scriptures to accept or reject really comes down to whether or not you believe what is so plainly presented in 2 Tim. 3:16. All means all. As posted elsewhere in this forum, renowned scholars in the Hebrew language have stated that the "days" (yowm) mentioned in Genesis chap. 1 are to be understood as literal 24 hour days.

There is absolutely no room in Scripture for evolution.

That all scripture is inspired by God does not necessarily mean that all of scripture is to be viewed only through an indicative lense.

It is also not a matter of accepting or rejecting scripture. I, for one, accept all of scripture, but I also do not accept that all of scripture is to be viewed the same way. Each part of the Bible has a different context, was written for a different audience, has a different literary tradition, and has its own unique difficulties in being translated from one language to the next.

Given that, unless you categorically reject it, then how one reads parts of Matthew will be different from how reads parts of Psalms, will be different from how one reads parts of Genesis.

Now, back to 2 Timothy 3:16. What part of that are you saying validates the concept of the Bible as a definitive source and authority of science? What part of it are you claiming instructs all Christians to read the scripture only in an indicative manner? What part of its says that the Bible is the ONLY source 'for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness'? What part of this says that the Bible (compiled well after this piece of scripture was originally written - which begs the question 'what scripture is this scripture referring to?') is the only source of revelation of God to mankind? What part denies God's Creation as a source of revelation?

Is not that there is no room in scripture for evolution, it is that scripture is silent about evolution in particular and science in general since scripture is not intended for that purpose.

 

[Willtor]

Obviously there are many opinions as to whether or not one should trust the Bible as being truthful on any one subject. 2 Timothy 3:16..... "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."(NKJV).

The word "inspiration" as most who read these posts would know, is equivalent to "breathed out" and in the ESV is phrased... "...breathed out by God..."

So.. what is it that has been "breathed out" by God? "All Scripture..."

So man's opinion as to just what portion of the Scriptures to accept or reject really comes down to whether or not you believe what is so plainly presented in 2 Tim. 3:16. All means all. As posted elsewhere in this forum, renowned scholars in the Hebrew language have stated that the "days" (yowm) mentioned in Genesis chap. 1 are to be understood as literal 24 hour days.

There is absolutely no room in Scripture for evolution.

I think you misunderstand the (predominant) Theistic Evolutionist position. I'll phrase this in terms of myself (and any TE who thinks likewise can think happy thoughts). Although you believe that I am opposing the intent of Scripture, I actually hold the position that you are opposing the intent of Scripture.

Here's part of the problem: If I were a n00b Christian, and all I had was the Bible and access to the internet, reading Genesis would come as a bit of a shock. In my society, almost everything is intended literally, unless it is first qualified as allegorical. Thus, raised on Evolution, I would have to ask, "Is Genesis a literal sequence of events?" Now, suppose my internet connection is flaky, and the only Biblical commentaries to which I have access are those of the ancient Church Fathers (until the fifth or sixth centuries, or so). I would quickly come to the conclusion that Genesis is a theological allegory because it is treated purely for its theological basis, and not at all for its literal meaning. This is entirely different from Christ, who is considered in both ways by all authors.

Now, we come to young-Earth Creation. How is it that the early Church was so deceived regarding its interpretation of Genesis, and the (comparitively recent) young-Earth Creationists are not?

I am forced to conclude that it is probable that Genesis does not mean what you think it means.

This does not mean Evolution is correct (though, I think it probably is, for reasons which fall outside the scope of this thread), but that YEC is probably incorrect.

 

[shernren]

But WAB, does 2 Timothy 3:16 tell us that "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for finding out the detailed natural history of the universe"? While we may agree that yowm is a 24-hour day within the context of Genesis 1 (some don't, apparently) it is not immediately apparent that Genesis 1 itself has the context of being a historical treatise. A 24-hour day in a story does not necessarily correspond to a 24-hour day, or indeed to any period of time, in actual historical time.

 

[Dannager]

Truth, as it pertains to faith and the worship of God, is not the same as fact. I can accept something as a universal truth in terms of the moral standpoint it is trying to take, without accepting the individual and largely irrelevant details as fact.

 

[lismore]

[/size][/font][/i]

Wrong. Theology, as a general discipline, does not require Scripture.

'Theology' without scripture is sheer blasphemy.

Theo=God, Logos=word. Theology is the word of God. If you base your views on anything other than Christ then beware what happened to the man who built his house on sand.

 

[Dannager]

'Theology' without scripture is sheer blasphemy.

Theo=God, Logos=word. Theology is the word of God. If you base your views on anything other than Christ then beware what happened to the man who built his house on sand.

He was talking about

Theology, as a general discipline

not Christian theology. You are aware that there's an entire theological field of study out there, in which Christianity plays a fairly moderate role, right?

 

[gluadys]

'Theology' without scripture is sheer blasphemy.

Theo=God, Logos=word. Theology is the word of God. If you base your views on anything other than Christ then beware what happened to the man who built his house on sand.

I think you miss the intended meaning. Christian theology necessarily requires a basis in scripture. Theology as a general discipline does not. After all, not all theology is Christian.

"-ology" as a suffix refers to a reasoned and systematic study of the subject.