Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, one can be both a Bible believing Christian and accept evolution...
How? Evolution is a theory of natural origination from a single common progenitor over millions of years. The Bible said God created the world in its mature state and populated it with plants and animals in their maturity over a six day period. Can you not see the obvious contradiction?No, one can be both a Bible believing Christian and accept evolution...
Adam was a young earth creationist. He was there.And no, Augustine was not a young earth creationist. There was no such thing in the 5th century.
To say Augustine, or any of the Christians before the modern period, were YEC, is totally anachronistic. As it is to say the Greeks were old earth believers.
The important point is the principles. What are the principles that we need to know about the relation of God to the material world that we perceive? What are the principles we need to know when we consider what Scriptures and the teachings of the Church mean?
I would suggest there are some clear answers there. One is that creation itself is a part of God's revelation,....
No, I didn't bring up Augustine, someone else did and mentioned a particular thing he said. I pointed out that his reasons for thinking such went beyond the question of evolution and spoke to fairly fundamental problems in how we understand change in the material world. There are a number of parallels between the question of change and how to understand evolution.
The ideas are what is most important, but it is useful to know they came from Augustine because if we know about his ideas, we can see how what he said fits into his other ideas about God.
I don't know that it is possible to know if anyone is really "born again" or indeed if we are ourselves. So I can't see that as a terribly useful way to judge whether we should consider someones ideas.
As far as judging people's ideas based on how they accord with Scripture, I have to ask how you know your interpretation is better than anyone elses? If you reject Augustine's interpretation, whose are you substituting? Ultimately, your own.
So really, you might as well just look at the ideas themselves.
Hmm. I would have guessed you subscribed to faith alone.
The other is that even quite early in the history of the Church, we see that people were comfortable with the idea that the creation account was not to be understood in a strictly historical or scientific way. Some did see it that way, but many orthodox thinkers did not and that was an acceptable position.
Then you're simply unaware of history then, because the greeks absolutely did believe in deep time. You just didn't know about it as you listened to the wrong "experts" and believed them without checking. Augustine railed on the chronologies of the Egyptians and the Greeks, as did other early fathers. Sorry, but I'm just telling you the truth.
I think the principles are quite simple. The early fathers were far from perfect, but understood that God was smarter than man and that his revelations about history were much more reliable than men's theories.
You've decided to place your trust in man's ever-changing theories, and use them to help you understand the Bible. I recommend you flip that round. Look at man's theories, and then look at God's revelation, so you can correctly judge man's theories. Men always get things wrong.
Creation is just thatGod's creation. It speaks some truths from its design about the Designer, but can't tell us anything about its origins. That's why God revealed history to us, so we could understand its origin. The problem is, you want to trust what man says about its origin. That's why you're in no way similar to the early fathers.
It's funny, but in every generation, men think their scientists are superior. When the geocentrists ruled, they thought they were the creme of the crop. There is nothing new under the sun.
It isn't a new phrase. bible - What does CS Lewis mean by True Myth? - Christianity Stack Exchange
Yes, that's exactly what happens in the translation process.Translation is not the same thing as interpretation. Simply converting from one language to another does not explore the intended meaning of the author.
Jesus always told the TRUTH. His parables were true stories about real people and actual events. Do you think He had such limited knowledge about life that he had to invent fictional characters and events? Well, I don't. That would be a dangereous game to claim that you are "The Truth" but created fiction to get your point across!If you don't think that stories can be inspired, i.e. inspired myth, then what do you think Jesus' parables were?
Can you show is in the Scriptures where Jesus admits He made them up?Lol you think parables are literal? How cute
Can you show is in the Scriptures where Jesus admits He made them up?
He explained why He taught in parables, but He never states whether they were actual events or stories made up to illustrate His point. Being God, He had the entire ancestry of man to compile and use real stories. It doesn't really matter to me whether they were illustrations or actual happenings. What matters is that He taught the absolute accuracy of the Scriptures so that false teachers could't later come back and claim that the most important parts were allegory.
Jesus Use of Parables
33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.
Can you show is in the Scriptures where Jesus admits He made them up?
Can you show where he claims he did not?
The people who were closest to him, who wrote the gospels, tell us that they were parables, not actual events. I think they would know.
Sure, they are life-like, drawn from the common experiences of his listeners, but there is no evidence they were about particular instances of those experiences.
Jesus said many times that he was telling the truth and made up nothing.
A Parable is a METHOD of telling a story. Look it up. A Parable is not a Myth or a Fable.
Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth.
For we cannot oppose the truth, but must always stand for the truth.
Even PROVERBS warns about making up any fiction:
teaching you to be honest and to speak the truth, so that you bring back truthful reports to those you serve
LORD, set up a guard for my mouth; keep watch at the door of my lips
Then keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies!
Lies = Fiction. Jesus told no fiction.
Lies = Fiction. Jesus told no fiction.
I profoundly disagree. Fiction is not lies, and lies are not fiction. Jesus used fiction to teach truth. Report is not the only category of truth.
I supported my non-fiction stand, you've made no attempt to support yours
other than to claim that parables are fiction, and they may be in some cases.
But if you have access to the knowledge of the world, you don't need to invent
situations just for illustration.
List of the Parables that Jesus Told
I supported my non-fiction stand, you've made no attempt to support yours
other than to claim that parables are fiction, and they may be in some cases.
But if you have access to the knowledge of the world, you don't need to invent
situations just for illustration.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?