What Scriptures support Evolution?

[shernren]

God's Word says otherwise and you are a prime example of one who has accepted lies.

"In the last days some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Paul told us.

Darwinism is one of those doctrines.

Indeed Paul told us so:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1Tim 4:1-5, ESV)
​

Within context it is clear that Paul speaks of extreme moralizing Judaizers; and no TE here has ever forbade marriage (indeed, a number are happily married themselves) or required abstinence from certain foods.

You of all people should know how shameful a thing it is to make Scripture mean what it does not mean. Follow the advice of Paul, who also says:

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:1-7, ESV)
​

 

[Clockstopper]

But:This sentence makes little sense unless you consider every evolutionist you have talked to until now dishonest, or a seeker of lies. Either thought amounts to calling all these fine people liars.

You who would exegete the Scriptures, dare you not exegete your own words?

I will include you in my list of those whom it is a quite useless to communicate with. Like the others who hold to your views your reasoning is so shallow and twisted that I would quite honestly do better to debate with a brick wall.

But a reply for any honest readers who might be viewing this spectacle; to state that others come to dishonest conclusions is the same as calling them liars? Since when? I've known plenty of people who come to dishonest assessments of both science and theology but many of them at least attempt to be honest in what they say about it. To be mentally dishonest about certain matters does not make a person a verbal liar.

Good grief. This fellow Shenren's reasoning is straight from the University of P.Z. Meyers.

 

[Clockstopper]

If there are any honest individuals reading this thread who have questions and you don't want the scripture twisting, mental gyrations, or pre-packaged mantra of the theistic evolutionists who regularly spout off here then I would be more than happy to help.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is... Exodus 20:11

Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
Exodus 23:12.

 

[Mallon]

The second chapter is merely a restatement of the creation spoken of in chapter one but not mentioned in the same order.

I think this one statement neatly captures the distinction between Clockstopper's hermeneutical foundation and that of evolutionary creationists. For Clockstopper, Gen 1 and 2 MUST agree on a literal level because his commitment is to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, Clockstopper must concoct a story (that isn't written in the Bible itself) where Gen 2 is simply a restatement of Gen 1, but in a different order... for unsaid reasons.
For the evolutionary creationist, Gen 1 and 2 are accepted as-is -- that is, as different, but complimentary, creation stories. No need for added subtext to explain away the contradictions between the stories because the commitment is to understanding the Bible on its own, and not within a post-enlightenment literalist hermeneutic.

Clockstopper also still seems to think that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, although Bible scholars have given up on that idea since the late 19th century (Gen 1 and 2 were obviously written by different authors, given their different subject matters and different language used).

 

[Clockstopper]

"Welcome to the board, Mr.Newbie. God bless you. We will love to talk with you...
but if you dare disagree with our super-enlightened, highly educated, very astute opinions about things we will cut you to ribbons.

 

[Mallon]

"Welcome to the board, Mr.Newbie. God bless you. We will love to talk with you...
but if you dare disagree with our super-enlightened, highly educated, very astute opinions about things we will cut you to ribbons.

It strikes me that the only one claiming to be "super-enlightened" here is you because you're the only one who thinks his position is The Truth and not worthy of discussion. Everyone else here appears more than happy to chew the fat with you, but you refuse to debate the issues because you think you're the only one here who is an "honest truth seeker".

 

[gluadys]

Beg pardon, it was Duncan. The phrase spoke of him. I am not beyond admitting a mistake. Yet the comparison I made holds true.

I don't see, however, how it will do any good to debate with you since your mind is closed to the six day creation that is taught by Moses in both Genesis one and in the Ten Commandments.

I will look for posters who are searching for answers and not those who are committed to error.

You believe the creation was accomplished in 6 days because you think Genesis 1 must be describing history.

So it is not an issue of literalism, but of historicism.

You were simply confusing "literal" with "historical".

History can be described in non-literal terms and literal terms don't necessarily describe history. I believe that is what we see in Genesis 1. "Day" in the context of Genesis 1 is "literal" i.e. it does not refer to a symbolic period of time. But Genesis 1 itself is not a historical account of the event of creation. Rather it is a theological account of the meaning of creation.

 

[Clockstopper]

Anyone else besides those who are absolutely closed to the truth?

 

[Mallon]

Anyone else besides those who are absolutely closed to the truth?

Again, this is an evolutionary creationist sub-forum. You're only going to get evolutionary creationists here. If you only want to talk to people who will pat you on the back and agree with you, go to the creationism sub-forum.

 

[Assyrian]

"Welcome to the board, Mr.Newbie. God bless you. We will love to talk with you...
but if you dare disagree with our super-enlightened, highly educated, very astute opinions about things we will cut you to ribbons.

Welcome to the board, Mr.Newbie. God bless you. We will love to talk with you. Try not to be too rude and arrogant towards everyone you disagree with, and if you find your arguments don't stand up, try to remember this is a discussion forum.

 

[shernren]

I will include you in my list of those whom it is a quite useless to communicate with. Like the others who hold to your views your reasoning is so shallow and twisted that I would quite honestly do better to debate with a brick wall.

But a reply for any honest readers who might be viewing this spectacle; to state that others come to dishonest conclusions is the same as calling them liars? Since when? I've known plenty of people who come to dishonest assessments of both science and theology but many of them at least attempt to be honest in what they say about it. To be mentally dishonest about certain matters does not make a person a verbal liar.

Good grief. This fellow Shenren's reasoning is straight from the University of P.Z. Meyers.

You said we were not "honest seekers". I tried, I really did, but I cannot see how I am not an honest seeker unless I am either not honest, or not a seeker. This is basic logic.

If you are saying I am not honest, then you are saying I am lying.

If you are saying I am not a seeker, then here I am saying that I indeed do seek after truth. Either you will have to take me at my word, in which case you do indeed think I am an honest seeker (at which point you should respond to my post showing you the major differences between Genesis 7 and 1 Kings 6), or you will not take me at my word, in which case you will have to say that I am lying.

Either way, if you meant to say that we were coming to dishonest conclusions instead of saying that we were dishonest, why didn't you just ... say so? Instead, you have done nothing but heap insult upon insult:

Why don't [you] think before you make such statements?

Your words are empty whoever you are. I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand and the mental cheating you practice in defending Darwinism. ...

Don't come 'blessing' me out of one side of your mouth while placing doubt and unbelief in the hearts of the readers out of the other side of your mouth. That doesn't work with me.

Oh, so you greet me with 'christian love' combined with error and then tear me down when I point out your errors. Nice going, O godly one. How typical of theistic evolutionists who can't stomach the truth.

I will look for posters who are searching for answers and not those who are committed to error.

Give me some honest people who are looking for answers about God's creation that have not been tainted by the damnable doctrines of Darwinism and I'll be glad to talk.

You just don't know when to stop, do you?

So we are not honest, don't think before posting, speak out of both sides of our mouths (you're an English teacher, go on and tell me that phrase doesn't refer to deliberate deceit), are committed to error, mental cheaters speaking empty words, and cannot stomach the truth. Your other posts also insinuate that we have neither the Holy Spirit nor common sense, and that we are disingenuous and closed-minded.

You're right about one thing - I don't know when to stop. That is, when someone tries to backpedal from a statement they know to be wrong, I will not stop until they admit their mistake. You called us liars, and now you are trying to deny that you did so, when I have just shown that you have made several posts within the past two or three days which cannot be individually interpreted in any other way, to say nothing of the cumulative impact they have as a unified representation of your view of people who accept evolution.

If you, as an English teacher, asked your students to read your posts, do you sincerely think that they would not conclude that you called us outright liars?

 

[theFijian]

The trolls have nothing new to say, quelle surprise!

 

[shernren]

The trolls have nothing new to say, quelle surprise!

And the light of harsh truth sends them a-hiding, once again.

 

[pgp_protector]

And the light of harsh truth sends them a-hiding, once again.

Actually looking at Profile page I'd say it was the Mods that sent em hiding

 

[shernren]

Actually looking at Profile page I'd say it was the Mods that sent em hiding

Meh, I like my aetiological myth about Clockstopper's disappearance better.

 

[Assyrian]

Meh, I like my aetiological myth about Clockstopper's disappearance better.

So if an aetiological myth speaks to you like that, it means it must be true*doesn't it?









*For a given value of true.

 

[shernren]

Well, the Truth made the Mods ban him. So my aetiological myth is a mythological description of a nonetheless historical event, accommodated to my grumpy and fractious personality.

At least, that's what my gut tells me. (And my gut has more nerve endings than my brain, so it must be true.)

 

[Cash80]

Reading evolution into the Bible generally nets you the same kind of errors that permeate creationism. Scientific concordism is a terrible idea.

Exactly.

 

[theistic evol]

Ok, through a discussion at this thread thread 482446

I said "I would be happy to agree if you can show me where in the Bible it talks about evolution and where it states that God created some men heterosexual and some homosexual. If the Bible does in fact say that than I stand corrected and more than willing to admit my error."

Don't you believe God created? If so, then why do you insist on reading only one of God's books? Why do you ignore God's second book?

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

 

[Clockstopper]

You said we were not "honest seekers". I tried, I really did, but I cannot see how I am not an honest seeker unless I am either not honest, or not a seeker. This is basic logic.

If you are saying I am not honest, then you are saying I am lying.

If you are saying I am not a seeker, then here I am saying that I indeed do seek after truth. Either you will have to take me at my word, in which case you do indeed think I am an honest seeker (at which point you should respond to my post showing you the major differences between Genesis 7 and 1 Kings 6), or you will not take me at my word, in which case you will have to say that I am lying.

Either way, if you meant to say that we were coming to dishonest conclusions instead of saying that we were dishonest, why didn't you just ... say so? Instead, you have done nothing but heap insult upon insult:

So we are not honest, don't think before posting, speak out of both sides of our mouths (you're an English teacher, go on and tell me that phrase doesn't refer to deliberate deceit), are committed to error, mental cheaters speaking empty words, and cannot stomach the truth. Your other posts also insinuate that we have neither the Holy Spirit nor common sense, and that we are disingenuous and closed-minded.

You're right about one thing - I don't know when to stop. That is, when someone tries to backpedal from a statement they know to be wrong, I will not stop until they admit their mistake. You called us liars, and now you are trying to deny that you did so, when I have just shown that you have made several posts within the past two or three days which cannot be individually interpreted in any other way, to say nothing of the cumulative impact they have as a unified representation of your view of people who accept evolution.

If you, as an English teacher, asked your students to read your posts, do you sincerely think that they would not conclude that you called us outright liars?

If they had read many of your posts as I have and those of the others who have likewise sold their souls to Darwin and/or when push comes to shove, those who diss Genesis history as written by Moses and confirmed by the New Testament authors will always take a back seat to Evolutionary guesswork; yes, they would come to the same conclusions.

By the way: I've been posting on two other Christian boards.

Thought I would clear the air and move on to others who might want some answers and not waste time with those who think they have answers.