What this is all about

[Martyrs44]

Since I'm a TE, I'll comment on my understanding of the YEC interpretation of the creation account.

and...

(such as those in Psalm 104; Proverbs 8; Job 38-41), they have little worth, since they are written in poetry

You destroyed your entire thesis with this one point. Job is not poetry. It/he is history. Ezekiel identified him as a real person along with Noah, and Daniel in Ezekiel 14:14. The account is history and literal and James 5:11 indicates that fact.

 

[Papias]

martys44 wrote:

So? The Bible nowhere teaches 'geocentrism'. Why is it even an issue except for the fact that God's attention seems to be totally centered on man...on earth?

..."traditional literal interpretation of the the geocentric passages "

Notice he gave you no scripture for this. There is no such teaching in scripture.

Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Papias

 

[Martyrs44]

Papias said:

If one were to stick to a literal interpretation, then yes, Gen 1 says the stars and such are inside the dome.

That is not what I said. I never said the stars were created inside the ice shield. But here serves a good reason why I won't enter into a debate with the posters who have been here on CF for an extended length of time and continually display error and unbelief as it regards Genesis and creation.

There are plenty of other people who are open to an honest inquiry.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

You destroyed your entire thesis with this one point. Job is not poetry. It/he is history.

That actually shows that my understanding of at least some YECs is correct. Note how you contrasted "poetry" with "history". In fact, there are historical psalms (which are poems), and there are non-historical prose accounts (such as Jesus' parables). Poetry and history are not a dichotomy, but YECs do often seem to view it that way.

Most of the book of Job, including the creation speech of God near the end, is written as poetry. Whether or not it is historical does not change that fact, nor is it dependent on that fact.

 

[Philis]

Waters - Highest
Firmament with sun/moon/stars
Ice canopy
Atmosphere
Land/Sea - Lowest

Yes. But it is difficult to know where those boudaries begin and end.

Alright let's break down the literal interpretation of this.

(a)Waters - Highest
(b)Firmament with sun/moon/stars
(c)Ice canopy
(d)Atmosphere
(e)Land/Sea - Lowest



6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
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.

So in these 4 verses we have (a) (b) (d) and (e) being created. There are waters above and below and the solid firmament was created to seperate them.

...
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.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
In these verses the heavenly bodies are created and placed within the solid firmament which adds the final touches on (b).

This leaves me with two questions:

1) Where is the dome of ice mentioned?

2) What happened to all the water above the stars? (Or even, what does it even look like to have water above the stars, given the size of the universe that would be a lot of water)

 

[Martyrs44]

Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Papias

Look:

Is it really that hard to figure out what God meant by the seals and how the analogy really applies to reality? No, not if one is not bogged down in unbelief by Darwinian dogma.

Then the lie that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. Really? Papias quoted Joshua 10:12

12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

To say that the sun & moon goes around the earth using this text as 'proof' is dishonest. But...from the vantage point of men on earth who had never learned about astronomy nor the geophysical sciences it certainly appeared to them so.

The other passages likewise fail to support his view:

4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun." Pslam 19:4

5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Where is the 'flat earth' in these passages? From man's point of view the sun did indeed go about in a daily 'circuit'. But even so, how does that prove a 'flat earth'? The fact is it doesn't. The scripture are not in error. Papias and his likeminded fellows are in error.

And as for the 'stars falling' to earth in Rev. 6:13 he is going to be in for a big surprise. It will happen because God said it will, but not by anything in his imagination.

 

[Philis]

the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal

Look:

[can't post images yet]

Is it really that hard to figure out what God meant by the seals and how the analogy really applies to reality? No, not if one is not bogged down in unbelief by Darwinian dogma.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The verse that he referred to said the clay stamped under a seal. You didn't show pictures of clay stamped under a seal, unless I'm completely misunderstanding something

 

[Martyrs44]

So you think that the ice was the firmament? Or over the firmament? I'm just trying to fit this view to scripture. The firmament in Genesis is a solid dome (according to Strong's Concordance) and the stars, sun and moon were all placed within it. The waters were above that. I'm just trying to figure out how a solid dome of ice fits into that description.

Just looking for clarification, hopefully you'll keep responding and let me know how an ice dome fits into Genesis 1. I had never heard this ice dome idea before and it's interesting.

I am doing my best to be patient but I did answer this above.

"The firmament in Genesis is a solid dome (according to Strong's Concordance) and the stars, sun and moon were all placed within it."

No, it does not say that.I quoted it for you.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so

You see there is more than one firmament; one above and one below. Just where the boundaries are and how thick they are is the question.

The idea that the shield in question was ice is speculation...but a very, very good speculation for we know it could not have been made of metal.

My counterparts have rendered much of scripture mentioned in this thread as useless, meaningless poetry which does nothing to inform us about our world. How could their interpretation help any of us concerning anything? But..............they don't care as long as they can somehow support their Darwinian views.

 

[mark kennedy]

In the last few months of lurking on this forum I noticed a particular theme that seems to be central to the whole issue of origins. It seems it's really all about how we interpret the creation account, and what a "true" Christian is to believe about our origins.

I'm wondering if the YECs can explain how the TEs understand the creation account? Do you think they've brushed it off? Do you think there is a meaning that they see in it? If so what is that meaning? What is necessary that they are missing and how have they dealt with it?

I ask because of comments from YECs where they post scripture for creation, a TE responds by saying they don't see it that way, and the YEC comes back and instead of asking how the TE sees it, they accuse them of not trusting the bible.

I'm of the variety that if someone says they see it differently I want to hear what it is and gain an understading of their position, even if that means I won't agree with them at the end. At least I will know where their heart is at and if they are truly after learning about God's word and living the Christian life.

So please, to both sides, post the understanding you have of the other sides theological views. This question really does go out to TEs and YECs, but I'm most interested in the YEC answer to this.

I'm a young earth creationist but I'm not exactly sold out to the planet being created 6-10 thousand years ago. The creation happened in that time frame but the original creation (Genesis 1:1) could have been long before. Anyway, the way I understand the TE position is that they take the Genesis account of Creation as being literature reflecting a style of writing that was common for the time and the region. They call it Near Eastern Literature (NEL). Francis Collins being one of the more famous theistic evolutionists that endorses the concept.

They generally take the day/age position, which means, the days of creation should not be taken as literal days. They are almost oblivious to the New Testament teachings of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 that describe Adam as the 'first man'. The few times I have engaged them on the subject they simply insisted that Adam was another word for humanity, which is absurd.

Sometimes they can be pretty conservative in their doctrine and theology, mostly they represent a Liberal view and shy away from any mention of miracles. Trying to nail down a theistic evolutionist is like trying to catch a fish with your bare hands. It's a real test of you agility since they will flip flop all over the place. The do not diverge from standard Darwinian arguments with regards to evolution or natural history and they are fiercely opposed to Intelligent Design as well as all Creationist positions.

They are not given to Biblical exposition, not apt to make a defense of the credibility of Scripture at any level and rarely mention, let alone debate, theological or doctrinal issues. They are almost unanimous in their silence on the fundamentals of the Christian faith and only seem interested in engaging Creationists on a deeply personal level, criticizing their beliefs with an evangelistic zeal.

They are less vigorous intellectually then many of their atheistic/agnostic counterparts but very often they are well read. Many of them are able peacemakers with a sincere desire to reach Creationists with what they believe to be a correct understanding of natural history.

Frankly, they cannot boast of a single Bible scholar on this board and are grossly indifferent to the Gospel, Nicene Creed or foundational doctrines of the Christian church. They make a standard profession and become indignant if it is so much as suggested that they lack Christian conviction. Honestly, what they believe about the Bible remains a mystery, to me at least, since their sole interest in these discussions is to confront Creationist beliefs.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

hi Philis,

You asked: What is the purpose that you mention above that they are missing?

When someone begins to build something, say a house, their ultimate purpose is not to set a nail in this beam to attach it to that beam and then set nails in other beams to attach to other beams. Their ultimate purpose is not to set floor joists from rim to rim upon which they will then nail the floorboards to. Neither is their ultimate purpose to set in stud walls and hang drywall on them to then divide up the space within the outside walls and paint them and put moldings and so forth throughout. Their ultimate purpose is to build a house. A finished product in which they can live and raise their family. All these things that I've mentioned are merely necessary steps by which they can achieve their ultimate purpose. In other words someone doesn't just wake up one day and say to themself, "I think I'll go out here and nail one beam to another." No! They wake up one day and say, "I want to build a house." And in order to achieve that purpose they then have to do all these intermediate steps.

Similarly, when God thought to 'build' a new realm of creation His purpose was to 'build' a home for a new and different creature that He would create to love and serve Him and be loved and served by Him. So, to me, this idea that this all powerful, all knowing, all wise God took billions of years to create that for which He has the power and wisdom and knowledge to just speak into existence in merely a moment seems ludicrous. He's God! He can take an empty black void of space and just by the word of His mouth, fill it from one end to the other with millions, billions of stars, planets, asteroids and the like. Each one perfect and necessary for this realm in which mankind would live. So, as I understand what God has caused to be written to me through the Scriptures, He has told us that that is exactly what He did.

He wanted to build a home suitable to sustain the life of man and He in practically an instant, spoke the earth into existence. No other stars or planets or anything else anywhere in all the universe. He then spoke all of the other intermediate steps to build this home for man. But His ultimate goal in creating was to build a home for man and the God I know doesn't need millions or billions of years to accomplish that.

However, God also had an even more awesome purpose in all of the creating that He did. His ultimate long range purpose was that what He was creating; a home for man who would then sin and need to be redeemed, was to get to the last page of God's revelation to us. "Now the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people."

So, this idea that God would just start some speck of some kind or some rudimentary framework through which nature would complete the 'home' for man, comes from not understanding the purpose, the power, the majesty, the wisdom of God. God began at some point in His time and took six literal days to build this home for mankind and then He rested. By the way, once the earth was created, if it was spinning on it's axis at roughly the same speed at which it spins today, a day would have passed in roughly 24 hours. I hope that you understand that the literal and current definition of a 'day' doesn't take into account anything as far as the sun and moon being necessary for its completion. A 'day' is merely one full rotation of the earth upon its axis. If you look up the length of a day in any encyclopedia for any of the other planets in our solar system you will find that the calculation of the length of their respective days is nothing more than the calculation of the time it takes for each planet to make one full revolution upon its own axis. I say this because many retort with, "Well, you can't have a day without the sun and the moon." Yes you can!

The God I serve knew exactly all that He was doing when He said the first "Let there be..." and He didn't need millions or billions of years to accomplish the ultimate purpose for His having said that.

However, science does not accept that there are miracles. The basic foundation of science is that everything is explainable naturally if you know all of the necessary variables. So, they argue that the earth must be billions of years old because we couldn't see any stars if it were only 6,000 years old. There are, according to the speed of light, no stars close enough, other than our sun that we would be able to see based on that speed. They refuse to allow such statements as, "Well, yes we know that in the natural world that now exists that light travels at this speed, but if we accept that the creation was a miracle of a God who has the power, wisdom, and knowledge to override all such natural events, there is no reason to believe that when God said, 'let there be stars in the heavens', that He didn't cause the light of those stars to be instantly visible all across the universe." Science does not allow for that possibility and from what I know of the power, glory and majesty of God, that's a very real possibility. That when God spoke the universe into existence that stars nearly instantly cluttered the heavens like the grains of sand on a seashore and that the light from each and every one of them was visible from one end of the universe to the other. That's the power, glory, majesty and purpose of our God.

By the way, I apologize that my posts are so long, and I acknowledge that you have commented about their length a couple times, but consider that it took God 700 pages of fairly small typeface to convey all that He wanted us to know and issues such as this can't be taught and explained in short 3 or 4 sentence posts. So, I hope that you will not only be patient in reading my posts, but give serious consideration to all that I am saying.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Philis]

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so

You see there is more than one firmament; one above and one below. Just where the boundaries are and how thick they are is the question.

It just doesn't sound like you're taking genesis literally. It doesn't say there is a firmament above and a firmament below, it says there are waters above and waters below, and the firmament divided them.

Also, how do you fit the stars in there? They were placed in the firmament and there are waters above the firmament. How does that look exactly? Where are these waters now and what was the point of making it that way? It sounds like the waters were all together then seperated with enough room for the stars. Does that mean water was rapidly zoomed out into space?

Sorry but your literal interpretation is making less and less sense. Do you have a source that goes through it verse by verse and explains it?

 

[Martyrs44]

It just doesn't sound like you're taking genesis literally. It doesn't say there is a firmament above and a firmament below, it says there are waters above and waters below, and the firmament divided them.

Also, how do you fit the stars in there? They were placed in the firmament and there are waters above the firmament. How does that look exactly? Where are these waters now and what was the point of making it that way? It sounds like the waters were all together then seperated with enough room for the stars. Does that mean water was rapidly zoomed out into space?

Sorry but your literal interpretation is making less and less sense. Do you have a source that goes through it verse by verse and explains it?

All right. Let me back up and clarify the matter if I can.

The word 'firmament' means 'an expanse'. If I confused you by the location of that expanse then I am sorry. I am not beyond making mistakes.

God created the world with waters 'below' and waters 'above'. It is the waters 'above' that made up the ice shield I was talking about. My wording above needs changing. That happens when I am in a hurry and trying to answer so many people in such a short span of time I have. So I apologize.

I hope this answers it.

But don't just question me. Question Assyrian and Papias about the mistakes they have made that I pointed out. If you are going to take me to task on such issues, then do the same with them. Hold them to the fire also.

Goodnight. Time for Bible study with my friends.

 

[Assyrian]

Martyr[/color]s44;60903990]Assyrian



I didn't make you the subject of a topic post. Furthermore she didn't ask you, she asked me the questions.

The OP opened the topic to both TEs and YECs.

But I always treat seekers and perhaps sincere questioners different than seasoned debaters who are in constant, continual error and won't be corrected by any amount of evidence they are given, scriptural or otherwise. I've read enough of your posts by now to know that of you.

It is just that I have never seen any solid evidence for literalism or creationism.

There is another one, right there, right off the bat. As far as I am concerned such a position is not true and an insult to the Holy Spirit who gave us ONE account and with no confusion about what He said.

I don't think the Spirit of God is that easily insulted by people trying to understand the meaning of his word. I would be more concerned about the precarious position you put yourself in thinking people who disagree with your interpretation must be insulting the Holy Spirit. At very least you are in danger of closing your heart to the Holy Spirit correcting your own understanding.

But any attempt to convince the likes of you in this matter is an effort in futility.

Maybe your arguments aren't as sound as you think?

If you wish to know more of my positions on the issues then you have access to all I have said and whatever I post in the future. I assure you I will cover the bases as it might pertain to what else you said.

It is up to you whether you want to respond to my post or not, but I have shown you from scripture that there isn't just ONE account of creation scripture and that scripture itself has different interpretations of the accounts.

 

[Martyrs44]

Mercury

That actually shows that my understanding of at least some YECs is correct. Note how you contrasted "poetry" with "history". In fact, there are historical psalms (which are poems), and there are non-historical prose accounts (such as Jesus' parables). Poetry and history are not a dichotomy, but YECs do often seem to view it that way.

So? Your point is? My point is clear. Job was historical, not poetic. Psalms and Proverbs are a combination of both. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Most of the book of Job, including the creation speech of God near the end, is written as poetry. Whether or not it is historical does not change that fact, nor is it dependent on that fact.

"...whether it is historical or not..." ??? There is the error. There is no 'whether' according to the other writers of scripture who mentioned Job.

 

[mark kennedy]

Philis,

I wanted to show you something, it's actually pretty typical. I thought a comparison of a young earth view alongside a theistic evolutionist discussion might be useful.

However, God also had an even more awesome purpose in all of the creating that He did. His ultimate long range purpose was that what He was creating; a home for man who would then sin and need to be redeemed, was to get to the last page of God's revelation to us. "Now the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people."

A typical ambiguity, not unlike Liberal Theologians who personalize Scripture without ever claiming there are events, like the new creation of the heavens and the earth, associated.

This is what I wanted you to notice:

However, science does not accept that there are miracles. The basic foundation of science is that everything is explainable naturally if you know all of the necessary variables. So, they argue that the earth must be billions of years old because we couldn't see any stars if it were only 6,000 years old. There are, according to the speed of light, no stars close enough, other than our sun that we would be able to see based on that speed. They refuse to allow such statements as, "Well, yes we know that in the natural world that now exists that light travels at this speed, but if we accept that the creation was a miracle of a God who has the power, wisdom, and knowledge to override all such natural events, there is no reason to believe that when God said, 'let there be stars in the heavens', that He didn't cause the light of those stars to be instantly visible all across the universe." Science does not allow for that possibility and from what I know of the power, glory and majesty of God, that's a very real possibility. That when God spoke the universe into existence that stars nearly instantly cluttered the heavens like the grains of sand on a seashore and that the light from each and every one of them was visible from one end of the universe to the other. That's the power, glory, majesty and purpose of our God.

Contrast this with my particular view of Creation. The heavens and the earth are already formed but the earth is covered in darkness and water. The Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the deep and when God says 'Let there be light'. This light is the glory of God, sometimes refereed to in the Old Testament as the Shekinah (Hebrew: שכינה&#8206 glory of God, described here only as light. Everything in the narrative is from the perspective of the view from the surface of the earth. The sun, moon and stars would latter appear as the clouds were parted and the light reaches 'the surface'.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Philis]

Thank you for this response, it was definitely refreshing to take a step back.

All right. Let me back up and clarify the matter if I can.

The word 'firmament' means 'an expanse'. If I confused you by the location of that expanse then I am sorry. I am not beyond making mistakes.

According to Strong's Concordance it means that it's a solid dome. But I'm willing to put that aside for now and focus on the ice dome issue.

God created the world with waters 'below' and waters 'above'. It is the waters 'above' that made up the ice shield I was talking about. My wording above needs changing. That happens when I am in a hurry and trying to answer so many people in such a short span of time I have. So I apologize.

I hope this answers it.

It does clear some things up but it leaves me with one big question: The firmament seperated the waters above from the waters below, and the waters above are the ice dome. But if the stars/sun/moon were placed in the firmament wouldn't that mean that the ice dome would be on the outskirts of the universe? Reading this literally, the "waters above" are above the stars. That is where I'm not understanding what you think this is literally describing.

But don't just question me. Question Assyrian and Papias about the mistakes they have made that I pointed out. If you are going to take me to task on such issues, then do the same with them. Hold them to the fire also.

That's a fair thing to say. The point of this thread was to get people to otherstand what others believe. Since I already somewhat agree with their theology then it makes more sense for me to take the time to try to understand your theology better. Note, I don't necessarily accept evolution, I'm not familiar with the science, I'm just focusing on what scripture says.

 

[Keachian]

Contrast this with my particular view of Creation. The heavens and the earth are already formed but the earth is covered in darkness and water. The Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the deep and when God says 'Let there be light'. This light is the glory of God, sometimes refereed to in the Old Testament as the Shekinah (Hebrew: שכינה&#8206 glory of God, described here only as light. Everything in the narrative is from the perspective of the view from the surface of the earth. The sun, moon and stars would latter appear as the clouds were parted and the light reaches 'the surface'.

Light in the entirety of Genesis 1 is the Hebrew word owr

 

[mark kennedy]

According to Strong's Concordance it means that it's a solid dome. But I'm willing to put that aside for now and focus on the ice dome issue.

From the Strong's Dictionary and Concordance. I just happen to be working on a digital version right now.

firmament (Strongs H7549 raqiya` רָקִיעַ )

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a. expanse (flat as base, support)
b. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above), considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above.

Gen 1:6, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:14, Gen 1:15, Gen 1:17, Gen 1:20, Psa 19:1, Psa 150:1, Eze 1:22, Eze 1:23, Eze 1:25, Eze 1:26, Eze 10:1, Dan 12:3​

 

[mark kennedy]

Light in the entirety of Genesis 1 is the Hebrew word owr

That's right, but there is no light reaching the surface of the earth at this point. The light would not appear until the 4th day. Until then the light was supernatural, coming from God, that light was the glory of God. This is the same light that raised Christ from the dead as well as the natural revelation of God reflected in creation. (Romans 1:20; 6:4; John 1:3,4)

No it's not the same word, but it's the same thing.

 

[Philis]

They generally take the day/age position, which means, the days of creation should not be taken as literal days.

In most of what I've read people who don't hold the creation account as literal history are NOT day/agers. Usually the word yom means just that; "day". It's just not referring to an historical day. (Gladys posted something about his above as well).

They are almost oblivious to the New Testament teachings of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 that describe Adam as the 'first man'. The few times I have engaged them on the subject they simply insisted that Adam was another word for humanity, which is absurd.

What do you mean that the definition of "humanity" is absurd? Are the following sources unreliable?

Strong's H120
) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon


Catholic Encyclopedia
In the Old Testament the word is used both as a common and a proper noun, and in the former acceptation it has different meanings. Thus in Genesis 2:5, it is employed to signify a human being, man or woman; rarely, as in Genesis 2:22, it signifies man as opposed to woman, and, finally, it sometimes stands for mankind collectively, as in Genesis 1:26.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Adam

Also with no quote the following source confirms that translation:
Gesenius, Wilhelm & Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1893). Genenius's Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. J. Wiley & Sons. p. xiii

The do not diverge from standard Darwinian arguments with regards to evolution or natural history and they are fiercely opposed to Intelligent Design as well as all Creationist positions.

What do "Darwinian" arguments have to do with a theological discussion?

They are not given to Biblical exposition, not apt to make a defense of the credibility of Scripture at any level and rarely mention, let alone debate, theological or doctrinal issues. They are almost unanimous in their silence on the fundamentals of the Christian faith and only seem interested in engaging Creationists on a deeply personal level, criticizing their beliefs with an evangelistic zeal.

Even in my short time on this subject I'd say this is catagorically false. NT Wright, CS Lewis, and other have certainly spent a great deal of time defending Christianity.

Frankly, they cannot boast of a single Bible scholar on this board and are grossly indifferent to the Gospel, Nicene Creed or foundational doctrines of the Christian church. They make a standard profession and become indignant if it is so much as suggested that they lack Christian conviction. Honestly, what they believe about the Bible remains a mystery, to me at least, since their sole interest in these discussions is to confront Creationist beliefs.

Again, my experience has led me to think that this statement of yours is catagorically wrong. But if it is your experience so be it.