Three powerful challenges to theistic evolutionists

[elopez]

How wrong you are. Are you suggesting that the chronologists (Moses included) wasted their time and those records are of no value to us? A few missing names may be a bit of a mystery for the time being but there is still no way one can justify a millions-of-years scenario by what is available to us. Even if every character mentioned in those chronologies lived a thousand years that would not give us more than 77,000 to 100,000 yrs at the extreme limit; far fewer than what is required by the Darwinian time frame.

You obviously didn't read what I posted. Did I say that the authors wasted their time? No. I said recording genealogies has it's purpose, but not the purpose you propose.

A bit of a mystery? Call like it is. If there are generations skipped, we cannot come up with an exact date of creation. That is why every attempt to do so has came up with different calculations. And again, the genealogies are not mentioned for the purpose of chronology but to establish family roots. Your argument here is therefore pointless.

Read carefully....there were no Jews on record of the 14th century B.C. to well after Christ died that believed in anything other than the six day creation.

All you are doing is just looking for excuses to not believe what is given in the plain-spoken text of scripture. You are attempting to justify your acceptance of Darwinian dogma and in your mind Darwin has the bottom line over scripture. Well, it isn't true and never has been true because evolution does not exist in our world and never did. Even natural law tells us that.

I did read it. You need to read it if you think this is convincible evidence of the Bible explicitly saying the earth is 6,000 years old. It does not say that, no matter how much you want it to. It is you, then, who must make excuses in order to justify your dogma of creationism.

No! It is you that doesn't get it. The JEWS had no concept of anything other than a six day creation................that is what counts in this matter. The pockets of religious cults throughout the world that held to evolution to one degree or another is refuted by Paul in Romans 1;

Once again you show your lack of attention. I have maintained there were no early Christians or much of anyone who did believe in evolution. What I am saying you are not really understanding is that people were aware of evolution, and believed in evolution, before the time of Darwin's book. Do you acknowledge that fact?

"21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Watch how you take this verse out of context to make it say what you only want it to say. Verse 21 is talking about philosophers of antiquity, not of scientists. Verse 23 is saying they then made an idol of birds, snakes, and other animals. This verse has nothing to do with preaching against evolution, but preaching against philosophers who say they know God and are wise, while not being thankful or glorifying Him, and thus making idols of animals.

So the only indirect mention of evolution in the scriptures is refuted by the scriptures. It was the pagans who believed in the early ideas of evolution and it undoubtedly influenced their connection between their animal-like idols and the belief that all humans evolved from them.

Actually, it is not refuted in the verses you quoted as it has been shown. You simply took the verses out of context in hopes they mean evolution is refuted. Again, those verses are not talking about evolution. Talk about being wrong...

I asked you to name pre-Darwin theologians or authors who believed in evolution...but you did not. You can't support such a claim without evidence.

I am aware that some believed that nonsense in the pagan world.

You asked me to name pre-Darwin theologians. I have already said there may be none, and if there are, I don't know of them. You did not ask me for authors of pre-Darwin works on evolution, though they are not theologians, there were many and not just pagans.

Even then, not all early Christians thought of the six days as chronological, and in fact thought creation happened all at one moment.

No, it does not and you're are not telling the truth. Those genealogies are not wasted ink and paper nor a waste of our time reading them as you seem to think. God had a purpose in it and it was to reveal to us the history of the families of the earth and to legitimize their family lineages. Good grief, why can't you see that?

The truth? The truth is genealogies were skipped, and if they were meant to be read as portraying a chronological order, then why are some skipped? They would have included all generations if that was the case. I am not saying the genealogies had no meaning, as I said they are only meant to show the family roots. Anything beyond that is a stretch.

Yes, it is! Besides verifying the history of the families of early man and later Jewish chronology it is to given to us as a time frame for the events and occurrences of mankind since Adam. But you are ignoring the necessity of accuracy in the family lineage of Jesus Christ Himself as revealed in Luke 3. If Jesus is falsely linked to mythical characters or storybook tale myths then His family lineage is not legal and He has no right to the throne of David. By your treatment of scripture you are revealing that that fact does not matter to you and is of no importance at all.

No where in the Bible does it say to add up genealogies. If it does, show where. To assume they can be calculated to accurately convey a date of creation is to assume that the ancients used genealogies the same way we do. They used a different rule than the usual biological father to son lineage.

Lastly,

The first seven day week was followed and utilized in history by the most ancient civilizations of the world. Proof

All this chalks up to is an argument ad populum, which is really no coherent argument at all, but only a fallacious attempt to reason. It doesn't matter how many people of the ancient world believed in a six day creation. What about all the people who opposed a six day creation, and thought instead creation was instantaneous?

There is only one reason why even ancient pagan cultures would practice a seven day week and why even those that tried to break from it always returned to it...it is because of what God did in the creation week of seven days...and it continued in practice and was later verified by Moses in Genesis one and in the very ten commandments of Exodus.

This is conclusive. This is bottom line. Now you've lost this debate and you need to be humble enough to admit your error, if indeed you are a humble Christian and can admit to such things.

The only thing we can conclude from this is that those people you mentioned believed in a six day creation. If you want to say that means creationism is true, you literally commit the fallacy of appealing to the majority. On that note, that you think you 'won' this 'debate' is hilarious.

Evolution is a damnable lie. I am an ex-evolutionist, with excellent reasons.

You cannot show that evolution is a lie. You can think it all you want, but that will not make it true. I am an ex-creationist, with excellent reasons. See how that works?

 

[Martyrs44]

You obviously didn't read what I posted. Did I say that the authors wasted their time? No. I said recording genealogies has it's purpose, but not the purpose you propose.

I read everything. But you are not mentally digesting what you're being confronted with.

The purpose for the chronologies I gave you is exactly why they were given: to establish family lineage of the early human race and later the Jewish families of Isreal; and also to give us a time frame of human history. Many Christian theologians have taken the time and effort to do the count; something you apparently do not feel is worth such time and effort. You would rather believe the Darwinian count.

A bit of a mystery? Call like it is. If there are generations skipped, we cannot come up with an exact date of creation.

But we can come very close and that count comes nowhere close to the evolutionary time frame of history.

Your argument here is therefore pointless.

You're pretending. God gave us the facts and you just brush it aside.

I did read it. You need to read it if you think this is convincible evidence of the Bible explicitly saying the earth is 6,000 years old. It does not say that, no matter how much you want it to. It is you, then, who must make excuses in order to justify your dogma of creationism.

It is not dogma. It is fact. The age of the earth is approximately 6,000 years.

Once again you show your lack of attention. I have maintained there were no early Christians or much of anyone who did believe in evolution. What I am saying you are not really understanding is that people were aware of evolution, and believed in evolution, before the time of Darwin's book. Do you acknowledge that fact?

Sure, but how does that help you? Virtually all the peoples of the earth observed a seven day week which can be traced back to the very first seven day week of creation. It wasn't some Cro-magnon or knuckledragger fresh out of the caves that came up with that literal time frame. I documented that very thing.

Watch how you take this verse out of context to make it say what you only want it to say. Verse 21 is talking about philosophers of antiquity, not of scientists. Verse 23 is saying they then made an idol of birds, snakes, and other animals. This verse has nothing to do with preaching against evolution, but preaching against philosophers who say they know God and are wise, while not being thankful or glorifying Him, and thus making idols of animals.

It has everything to do with it and you don't know your history. The original believers in the various forms of 'evolution' were pagans who thought they evolved from the gods they worshipped.

Read carefully:

Evolution ancient pagan idea

Actually, it is not refuted in the verses you quoted as it has been shown. You simply took the verses out of context in hopes they mean evolution is refuted. Again, those verses are not talking about evolution. Talk about being wrong...

That is mere opinion and you are not accurate in your statements. The prejudices instilled in you by your acceptance of Darwinism is very evident.

You asked me to name pre-Darwin theologians. I have already said there may be none, and if there are, I don't know of them. You did not ask me for authors of pre-Darwin works on evolution, though they are not theologians, there were many and not just pagans.

Which I repeated because I want the other readers to see how empty your position is both from a biblical and historical standpoint.

Even then, not all early Christians thought of the six days as chronological, and in fact thought creation happened all at one moment.

Where is your source? If you can name even one I will accept it. Once again you gave us nothing but an opinion.

The truth? The truth is genealogies were skipped, and if they were meant to be read as portraying a chronological order, then why are some skipped?

We don't know...yet. Just like our brethren in the 19th century did not know why there was no evidence for the existence of the Hittites. Liberal theologians chided them for decades because there was no proof such people ever existed. But time and the spade of the archeologist eventually proved that there were ancient Hittites and they even had a great empire. So time and research will reveal the truth and the accuracy of scripture will be seen once again on that particular matter. It's just a matter of time.

Your position & those who share a like postion hijacks the chronologies of scripture and their vast importance.

No where in the Bible does it say to add up genealogies.

Yet Matthew did that very thing and your position likewise undermines the great importance of what he said, the bottom line being the lineage of Christ and His legal right to sit on the throne. If you were a lawyer and called into court to defend His legal right to David's throne you would lose your case based on your position in the matter.

But once again you avoided the very, very obvious problem...as it relates to Jesus and that claim to the throne of David. If that alone does not make you feel uncomfortable then why do you ignore it's great importance? And if it does make you feel uncomfortable knowing that you have dissed Luke and his historical family lineage from Christ back to Adam...then how can you sleep at night?

All this chalks up to is an argument ad populum, which is really no coherent argument at all, but only a fallacious attempt to reason. It doesn't matter how many people of the ancient world believed in a six day creation. What about all the people who opposed a six day creation, and thought instead creation was instantaneous?

That is so much baloney you couldn't fit it through a big barn door. You just dissed an enormous amount of evidence that proves that ancient man continued the seven day week following the original seven days of the creation of the world by God. Wow. You just demonstrated that you don't care what kind of evidence you are given...scriptural, historical or otherwise.

But as to your last sentence; there have always been heretics and false prophets. Why should I have to answer for them?

The only thing we can conclude from this is that those people you mentioned believed in a six day creation. If you want to say that means creationism is true, you literally commit the fallacy of appealing to the majority. On that note, that you think you 'won' this 'debate' is hilarious.

It won't be a laughing matter when we stand before the Lord.

You cannot show that evolution is a lie. You can think it all you want, but that will not make it true. I am an ex-creationist, with excellent reasons. See how that works?

Oh, but I can and I have. I have even converted honest evolutionists and I look forward to doing so again.

 

[Keachian]

I thought you said this was all irrelevant?

I replied to this here

So why are you still posting here?

To point out misconceptions, and to wait for your response to my Calvin quote and my last post from our original discussion, it's here would you mind addressing my actual beliefs this time and not just guessing, if you need more clarification I'd be quite happy to oblige.

 

[Martyrs44]

I replied to this here


To point out misconceptions, and to wait for your response to my Calvin quote and my last post from our original discussion, it's here would you mind addressing my actual beliefs this time and not just guessing, if you need more clarification I'd be quite happy to oblige.

You are the one with misconceptions. The Bible is clear enough.

As to an answer about Calvin's beliefs about creation:

Quote: from page 105 of his Genesis commentary: "I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works."

Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation by Dr. Kenneth Gentry

Furthermore: "‘They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe."

"Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men."

Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:925, ed. John T. McNeill, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1960.

Calvin, J., Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 78

 

[samaus12345]

Glaudys why do you care so much about that crap? Yes its interesting and i like reading about it but who cares?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Photons/light particles or whatever.


4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


Day/night cycle.



9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Tectonic plates/activity.


11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Flora


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Day/night cycle planetary orbits for year cycle.




20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Fauna


21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Fauna and its classification system (baraminology).


24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Fauna/baraminology.


26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Nutritional biochemistry, cell cycle/sexual reproduction.

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys why do you care so much about that crap? Yes its interesting and i like reading about it but who cares?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Photons/light particles or whatever.


4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


Day/night cycle.



9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Tectonic plates/activity.


11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Flora


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Day/night cycle planetary orbits for year cycle.




20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Fauna


21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Fauna and its classification system (baraminology).


24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Fauna/baraminology.


26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Nutritional biochemistry, cell cycle/sexual reproduction.

Why are you trying to shoehorn modern science concepts into the bible?

Do you think scripture is defective if it doesn't allude to modern science?

As for why I care---I see too many people, especially young people, needlessly turned away from the gospel because of YEC intransigeance that their interpretation of the bible is the only valid one.

 

[Keachian]

You are the one with misconceptions. The Bible is clear enough.

Oh I wasn't talking about misconceptions about the Bible, I was talking about your misconceptions about my stance, since you do seem to be adamant that I have misconceptions could you point out the ones I am propagating in post #15 please?

As to an answer about Calvin's beliefs about creation:

Quote: from page 105 of his Genesis commentary: "I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works."

Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation by Dr. Kenneth Gentry

So you quote the bit that invariably is something I agree with, I find it unlikely that Calvin would have placed Gen 1 above his ideas of God lisp-talking to his people, I agree with Calvin that there was no necessity for God to take six days or 14 billion years, whether one comes at it from a 14 billion years or as Calvin takes it God has done it for our benefit in some ways.

Furthermore: "‘Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world.

For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains 2206in his treatise, De Bono Perseverantiae (cap. 14-20)." -- John Calvin, Institutes Book III Ch 21.4

It would have been nice for you to follow on the quote to what Calvin was actually dealing with, the problem is not with creation happening 5000 years ago alone but rather that people expect that if God is sovereign (which he is) that he would have performed the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ at the beginning if God was in sovereign control of the universe. But then YEC do the same thing in regards to the Christ so why should I be surprised that they do the same thing in regards to one of the two most influential theologians of Western Christianity.

"Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men."

You've quoted this before, it appears that you're just taking quotes from creationist sites and saying, "here, look you're wrong" I'm not saying that Calvin believed in theistic evolution, that would be silly, I'm saying with my God lisp-speaks quote that Calvin makes the admission that God does condescend and speak to us in ways that we can understand which is something that some theistic evolutionists also state and specifically apply to the creation accounts.

 

[samaus12345]

As for why I care---I see too many people, especially young people, needlessly turned away from the gospel because of YEC intransigeance that their interpretation of the bible is the only valid one.

Examples with details please?

 

[mark kennedy]

That was in response to where you said:


I had originally written something I think wasn't that conducive to the discussion, especially as you didn't address my beliefs and instead threw a red herring at me, here is a better response to your above quote: creation was finished 6,000 years ago, we both agree on this point, we differ on what the point of Gen 1 is and I will freely admit that, you choose to read it for what it is without any outside considerations, I read it for what it is with consideration to the cultural (both its own and those around its own) views. Just as Christianity isn't played out in a vacuum (we need other Christians around us) I don't think we can treat the Bible as if it has no cultural ties (or to a lesser extent treat our culture as if it is the culture to which the Bible was written to).

I don't know exactly what you are trying to get at here but there is a culture in the Christian community. One of the selling points, indeed, one of the strongest credibility indicators is that the Bible has been attached to two living cultures that are contiguous from the authorship to this day.

You can't say that about Mediterranean mythologies that everyone seems to think Genesis is based on. What is more the Bible makes some fascinating claims of two prophets in Egypt, Joseph and Moses, one preaching to the empires Babylon and Media-Persia, Esther in Persia, Nehemiah and perhaps a number of others. That, and did you ever consider the weight of the miracles of the New Testament. Without a shred of academic credibility coming from the same secular sources that give us evolution as natural history we stake our hope of eternity on these events.

At what point do we begin to question the veracity of the secular 'experts' and academic professionals when a living history we know to be true is dismissed as myth. Do you have the vaguest opinion along those lines?

What do you think of those miracles? Jesus walking on water or feeding 5.000 and almost certainly the ascension and soon return of Christ. May we take these events as literal history are do these flashes of redemptive history unfolding only stand as parables and fables?

What constitutes credibility with regards to history? Are you aware you are siding with a worldview that is categorically rejecting any hint of an actual miracle. These are the same people who are telling us about natural history from 3 billion years ago and yet are consumed with incredulity with regards to the events around Galilee in the first century.

Why are you not being more skeptical of them?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains 2206in his treatise, De Bono Perseverantiae (cap. 14-20)." -- John Calvin, Institutes Book III Ch 21.4

It would have been nice for you to follow on the quote to what Calvin was actually dealing with, the problem is not with creation happening 5000 years ago alone

That is specifically one of the problems he is dealing with in a long list of blasphemies inspired by unbelief.

In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision.​

That sounds like the most common complaint of creationists concerning evolutionists in this forum and virtually everywhere the issue of origins is discussed. I wonder what I must have missed for the Theistic Evolutionist to be quoting it and demanding an explanation from a Creationist. That is specifically what Calvin was dealing with and it tells me one thing most certainly, there is nothing new under the sun. We just happen to be calling it evolution now but down through the ages it has been called so many things.

but rather that people expect that if God is sovereign (which he is) that he would have performed the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ at the beginning if God was in sovereign control of the universe. But then YEC do the same thing in regards to the Christ so why should I be surprised that they do the same thing in regards to one of the two most influential theologians of Western Christianity.

What a silly thing to say, I don't mean to deride you, it just seems so utterly foolish. God, according to the Apostle, will be blasphemed in the end times in a remarkably similar way.

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (2 Peter 3:4-6)​

YEC maintains the trustworthyness of the Scriptures, miracles and certainly maintains a Calvinist theology, all evangelicals do. What on earth are you driving at here? I mean I'm genuinely confused because you just got one of the most scathing quotes from Calvin that could be leveled at a theistic evolutionist and their endless derision of Creationists and read it as an indictment against Creationists.

I supposed my question for you in this instance would be, are you being serious right now or are you kidding me?

 

[Keachian]

I don't know exactly what you are trying to get at here but there is a culture in the Christian community. One of the selling points, indeed, one of the strongest credibility indicators is that the Bible has been attached to two living cultures that are contiguous from the authorship to this day.

I disagree and so would one of the cultures if I understand you correctly, Pre-exile Judaism is very different to Post-exile Judaism and the influence of Greek culture on the 2nd and 3rd Century church cannot be discounted and that's not even before we get to the current era and have to wade through the effect that the enlightenment has had on Christianity, not to mention fundamentalism.

You can't say that about Mediterranean mythologies that everyone seems to think Genesis is based on.

I don't think they are based on each other the similarities and differences to me more point to the same understanding of certain concepts and the like than any copying.

What is more the Bible makes some fascinating claims of two prophets in Egypt, Joseph and Moses, one preaching to the empires Babylon and Media-Persia, Esther in Persia, Nehemiah and perhaps a number of others.

I'm aware of those claims, they are carried out, however the validity of the Bible is not dependent upon any of those figures, but rather the next one you focus on.

That, and did you ever consider the weight of the miracles of the New Testament. Without a shred of academic credibility coming from the same secular sources that give us evolution as natural history we stake our hope of eternity on these events.

We stake our hope for eternity on one event, no other, we stake our hope for eternity on one person that is Christ, of course we need to see his ministry otherwise we'd just have a Christ that died for our sins and that is hardly compelling, it is the juxtaposition of Christ both dying for our sins and calling us to a righteous life that is most compelling about starting to follow him, not only that but we hope that as he died and was risen so to when we die we will be raised unto eternal life.

At what point do we begin to question the veracity of the secular 'experts' and academic professionals when a living history we know to be true is dismissed as myth. Do you have the vaguest opinion along those lines?

I said culture not history and while I do recognise the mythological elements of the grand opening chapters of Genesis I don't dismiss them as non-factual, you march to the beat of Mythological =/= historical and expect everyone else to fall in line. Ridiculous.

What do you think of those miracles? Jesus walking on water or feeding 5.000 and almost certainly the ascension and soon return of Christ. May we take these events as literal history are do these flashes of redemptive history unfolding only stand as parables and fables?

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

What constitutes credibility with regards to history? Are you aware you are siding with a worldview that is categorically rejecting any hint of an actual miracle. These are the same people who are telling us about natural history from 3 billion years ago and yet are consumed with incredulity with regards to the events around Galilee in the first century.

Well when these people do speak with credulity about the events in Galilee they're speaking about things outside their fields of study, as such I'm far more at ease with disregarding such opinions as just that opinions with no basis in real history.

Why are you not being more skeptical of them?

I'm sceptical of anyone who speaks outside of their discipline.

 

[Keachian]

That is specifically one of the problems he is dealing with in a long list of blasphemies inspired by unbelief.

In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision.​

That sounds like the most common complaint of creationists concerning evolutionists in this forum and virtually everywhere the issue of origins is discussed. I wonder what I must have missed for the Theistic Evolutionist to be quoting it and demanding an explanation from a Creationist. That is specifically what Calvin was dealing with and it tells me one thing most certainly, there is nothing new under the sun. We just happen to be calling it evolution now but down through the ages it has been called so many things.

Name me an evolutionist from the time of the reformation then.

Calvin ties the incredulity of the 5000 years to the cross from my understanding, that is setting right the thing that God foresaw would happen in the garden, it's not about creationism, it's about the Grace of God coming from the Cross. If he is making any statement about the origins of the universe then he is stating that it happened as opposed to the other contending idea that is far more against the Bible than Big Bang cosmology, that is what we generally call steady state theory, iirc philosophically this was proposed around the first century by some greek philosopher under a different name.

What a silly thing to say, I don't mean to deride you, it just seems so utterly foolish. God, according to the Apostle, will be blasphemed in the end times in a remarkably similar way.

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (2 Peter 3:4-6)​

I wait in expectant hope of the return of my God and King, what is your point?

YEC maintains the trustworthyness of the Scriptures, miracles and certainly maintains a Calvinist theology, all evangelicals do. What on earth are you driving at here? I mean I'm genuinely confused because you just got one of the most scathing quotes from Calvin that could be leveled at a theistic evolutionist and their endless derision of Creationists and read it as an indictment against Creationists.

I did no such thing, while I will admit that I was scathing towards Martyrs, it was in reference to him using Calvin in a way in which Calvin certainly wasn't intending to be used, in much the same way as other YEC use Mark 10:6 as Christ being against theistic evolutionists, especially since Christ is not talking about creation in that passage but rather about marriage! In the same way I don't think Calvin was talking about the universe having a beginning 5000 years ago but rather that it had a beginning at all, the 5000 years is just there to back up his claim. And before you say that an infinitely old universe is the same as a 14 billion year old universe, there is an eternity of eternity's difference between the two of them.

I supposed my question for you in this instance would be, are you being serious right now or are you kidding me?

I felt delving into some Calvin would be interesting.

 

[mark kennedy]

I disagree and so would one of the cultures if I understand you correctly, Pre-exile Judaism is very different to Post-exile Judaism and the influence of Greek culture on the 2nd and 3rd Century church cannot be discounted and that's not even before we get to the current era and have to wade through the effect that the enlightenment has had on Christianity, not to mention fundamentalism.

I didn't say those cultures were monolithic, I said they were contiguous. I know there is a difference between the ancient Hebrews at the time of Moses and the Hellenistic Jews of Palestine so what? Christianity has maintained the New Testament in nearly pristine condition with tens of thousands of extant manuscripts testifying to that fact by remaining virtually unchanged for 2,000 years. No text of history can boast of anything remotely similar with regards to the longevity and the Scriptures have always been in possession of this living culture that continues today.

I don't think they are based on each other the similarities and differences to me more point to the same understanding of certain concepts and the like than any copying.

Is the concept of direct revelation completely alien to you mindset? We are not talking about the Moses book of devotional poetry, we are talking about a collection that is expressly written as historical, in fact, a chronicle of redemptive history.

I'm aware of those claims, they are carried out, however the validity of the Bible is not dependent upon any of those figures, but rather the next one you focus on.

Let's hold that thought a minute and see what you have here.

We stake our hope for eternity on one event, no other, we stake our hope for eternity on one person that is Christ, of course we need to see his ministry otherwise we'd just have a Christ that died for our sins and that is hardly compelling, it is the juxtaposition of Christ both dying for our sins and calling us to a righteous life that is most compelling about starting to follow him, not only that but we hope that as he died and was risen so to when we die we will be raised unto eternal life.

We most certainly do not base our faith on a single event even though the Gospel as sermon must always be, 'Christ and him crucified'. Are you forgetting the Incarnation, Ascension and Parousia of Christ. Perhaps for the initial conversion a belief that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification but that is not the end of doctrine. That is certainly not the only credible event of redemptive history that we are compelled to have confidence in, the other miracles of the ministry of Christ are certainly not dispensable to the ministry of the church.

I said culture not history and while I do recognise the mythological elements of the grand opening chapters of Genesis I don't dismiss them as non-factual, you march to the beat of Mythological =/= historical and expect everyone else to fall in line. Ridiculous.

I march to nothing of the sort and I was crystal clear on that point. Genesis was attached to the Hebrew culture in a contiguous, unbroken chain throughout it's history. That is my point and I asked you based on the credible history that Christians necessarily believe in why are you not more skeptical of secular academics that deny they have any merit based on the fact that they are miraculous?

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I am very familar with I Corinthians 15, if you have followed my posts of late I have emphasized this chapter with great vigor. It is here that Paul makes one of the clearest statements regarding Adam and original sin.

Well when these people do speak with credulity about the events in Galilee they're speaking about things outside their fields of study, as such I'm far more at ease with disregarding such opinions as just that opinions with no basis in real history.


I'm sceptical of anyone who speaks outside of their discipline.

These are the same people that are giving us evolutionary metaphysics and it's called Darwinism. They are well out of their depth, uniformly and unanimously antagonistic toward the things of God and Christ. Their qualifications have nothing to do with their abilities or the scope of their expertise but the audacity of the prejudice and profoundly uniform condemnation of anything remotely theistic or miraculous.

 

[Keachian]

I didn't say those cultures were monolithic, I said they were contiguous. I know there is a difference between the ancient Hebrews at the time of Moses and the Hellenistic Jews of Palestine so what? Christianity has maintained the New Testament in nearly pristine condition with tens of thousands of extant manuscripts testifying to that fact by remaining virtually unchanged for 2,000 years. No text of history can boast of anything remotely similar with regards to the longevity and the Scriptures have always been in possession of this living culture that continues today.

Yes, the transmission of scripture is quite amazing when you think of it, but that's not what I'm talking about either.

Is the concept of direct revelation completely alien to you mindset? We are not talking about the Moses book of devotional poetry, we are talking about a collection that is expressly written as historical, in fact, a chronicle of redemptive history.

I'm fine with direct revelation, in fact I firmly believe that the Bible is direct revelation from God, however I believe as I have pointed out that Calvin suggested that a part of this direct revelation was not God giving a full understanding of everything but him bending down from his great height and talking to us as a nurse goos at a child under her care.

We most certainly do not base our faith on a single event even though the Gospel as sermon must always be, 'Christ and him crucified'. Are you forgetting the Incarnation, Ascension and Parousia of Christ. Perhaps for the initial conversion a belief that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification but that is not the end of doctrine. That is certainly not the only credible event of redemptive history that we are compelled to have confidence in, the other miracles of the ministry of Christ are certainly not dispensable to the ministry of the church.

I realised that I was more talking about the entirety of Christ's ministry and so modified my claim later, must have missed a few references, I thought the general thrust of my argument was quite apparent that that's what I was meaning, oh well.

I march to nothing of the sort and I was crystal clear on that point. Genesis was attached to the Hebrew culture in a contiguous, unbroken chain throughout it's history. That is my point and I asked you based on the credible history that Christians necessarily believe in why are you not more skeptical of secular academics that deny they have any merit based on the fact that they are miraculous?

again we seem to be operating at a disconnect on whether Myths are inherently untrue, I said nothing about the miraculousity being what drives it into mythos in my opinion, that's simply not what does it, it is more about the imagery, especially the anthropomorphism of Yahweh in the Garden account than about anything miraculous in the story, while I don't discount the idea of God appearing bodily, it just seems strange when compared with the later accounts of God's presence specifically that of Ex 34.

I am very familar with I Corinthians 15, if you have followed my posts of late I have emphasized this chapter with great vigor. It is here that Paul makes one of the clearest statements regarding Adam and original sin.

I accept a literal Adam, what's your point? You asked me whether I believed that Christ was a real person, I answered with an emphatic yes.

These are the same people that are giving us evolutionary metaphysics and it's called Darwinism. They are well out of their depth, uniformly and unanimously antagonistic toward the things of God and Christ. Their qualifications have nothing to do with their abilities or the scope of their expertise but the audacity of the prejudice and profoundly uniform condemnation of anything remotely theistic or miraculous.

Oh so scientist = atheist, gotcha, never mind the fact that there are scientists who are theists, let alone Christian ones.

 

[Assyrian]

It isn't genealogies aren't the issue with the age of the earth, it is a six day creation. You could have genealogies as literal as you like but if the six days aren't literal, then young earth creationism flies out the window. Of course you can interpret Pslam 90 as a rigid conversion scale and say that would only add 6000 years to Ussher's date, tbut that is assuming Psalm 90 was meant as a rigid conversion scale, in any case it is only one non literal interpretation of the days, there are plenty of others.

Of course as elopez pointed out, there isn't a hint in scripture that the purpose of the genealogies is to calculate the age of the earth, if that wasn't their purpose, then the writers were hardly wasting ink and paper if the genealogies cannot be pressed in into uses creationists want to put them to.

It is worth checking out Week - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Seven-day week - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for different length weeks in different cultures throughout history.

 

[Martyrs44]

Oh I wasn't talking about misconceptions about the Bible, I was talking about your misconceptions about my stance, since you do seem to be adamant that I have misconceptions could you point out the ones I am propagating in post #15 please?

No, I wouldn't. Because you said plainly that this topic is irrelevant anyway.

So when you decide that the subject matter is actually relevant then get back with me.

Good grief, you know how to waste time, don't you? Where is my fly swatter?

 

[Martyrs44]

Quote: "I'm genuinely confused because you just got one of the most scathing quotes from Calvin that could be leveled at a theistic evolutionist and their endless derision of Creationists and read it as an indictment against Creationists."

There it is again, Mark, pure Orwellian dialectic; the mental manipulation of the facts to support ones view when in fact those facts reveal just the opposite position. That is why that time waster may be about the join the ranks of the non-existent in my 'ignore box'.

 

[Keachian]

No, I wouldn't. Because you said plainly that this topic is irrelevant anyway.

Again I have explained that part of that post, I even gave you an answer to the part of your post that I felt was irrelevant.

So when you decide that the subject matter is actually relevant then get back with me.

Well yes the validity of Scripture is relevant, let's recap the discussion on the particular point that I decided that your answer was irrelevant to the discussion that we were having:
You asked three questions, I decided that the answer for two of them basically came down to one answer.

2. Can you name 1st century Christians who believed in evolution? If so, quote them.

3. Why did God Almighty wait until 1859 (date of Origin of the Species by Darwin) to inform all of us about the true origins of our world?

Well in my mind the answer to the both of these is the same: it is not theologically relevant and quite easily fits into the difference of opinion that is found in Romans 14 that I have quoted in my signature.

you implicitly claim that I am disregarding and therefore rejecting what the Bible teaches about creation, I reply that no I don't and imply that I'm heavily leaning towards 6000 years since Adam and so emphasise that what we're disagreeing on is how long it took God to create.

No, it doesn't. There is no other option than to believe what God says as historical and literal just as the other authors verified those events with many infallible proofs. The creation of the world by God in six days and the flood of Noah is just as certain and historical as was the resurrection and as the Second coming of Christ will be.

We've talked about my understanding of the sweep of biblical narrative before but let's just recap, Gen 1 is a temple inauguration account where God finishes his creation of the universe, whether creation took an instant or 14 billion years before that is not covered by the Bible, all we need to know is as Genesis 1:1 puts it; "God created the heavens and the earth."

You then reply continuing with the assumption that we don't agree on the length of time between Adam and now, I decide that since you are not addressing my stance that I didn't want to continue with that part of the discussion because you weren't listening to me.

Closer to 6,000 yrs. Grab your pocket calculator and start with Genesis chapter five. Moses didn't lie and he didn't miss a beat.

<snip>
I don't really want to continue arguing this as it is mainly an irrelevance to me, again from my perspective God could have spent an instant creating the universe or 14 billion years in both cases he finishes it up with a temple inauguration week recorded in Genesis 1. I do not believe that a cultural contextual reading of Genesis 1-3 gives us any indication one way or the other and merely says that God created.

You decide to latch on to that one part of my post to discontinue all discussion with me, I then state that you have misrepresented me and answer your question anyway, hoping that we can continue what I've felt is a rather civil conversation

Quote: "I don't really want to continue arguing this as it is mainly an irrelevance to me."

O.k. But if that is true why did you just spend so much time arguing your point?

No need to answer that. You have your reasons.

That was in response to where you said:

Closer to 6,000 yrs. Grab your pocket calculator and start with Genesis chapter five. Moses didn't lie and he didn't miss a beat.

I had originally written something I think wasn't that conducive to the discussion, especially as you didn't address my beliefs and instead threw a red herring at me, here is a better response to your above quote: creation was finished 6,000 years ago, we both agree on this point, we differ on what the point of Gen 1 is and I will freely admit that, you choose to read it for what it is without any outside considerations, I read it for what it is with consideration to the cultural (both its own and those around its own) views. Just as Christianity isn't played out in a vacuum (we need other Christians around us) I don't think we can treat the Bible as if it has no cultural ties (or to a lesser extent treat our culture as if it is the culture to which the Bible was written to).

Good grief, you know how to waste time, don't you?

I'm not wasting time, you have ignored post #17 I haven't even seen any recognition of it whatsoever from you.

 

[Martyrs44]

That was in response to where you said:

Quote: "I don't really want to continue arguing this as it is mainly an irrelevance to me..."

But here you are, still arguing.

Bye.

 

[Martyrs44]

No, I got that reading your post. Why didn't you answer my questions?

Oh, the answers are trivial. They are, "no", "no", and "what kind of blasphemous nitwit would think he could guess why God chooses to do things?" Why you think these are powerful challenges I have no idea.

No, you got it while rehearsing a snappy comeback in your mirror. But you didn't help your case with such a comeback and your answers are still, 'no, no, and 'I haven't got a clue'...never mind that it is obvious that God Almighty didn't wait until Darwin to, ahem(pardon the expression) 'clue us in'.

Good grief.