Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Berean777]

This is the documentary theory (hypothesis) which has been blown out of the water in modern times, thanks to archeology. It was once believed the Torah was post-mosaic, since writing was thought to not exist prior to 1000 BC. But archeologist now disagree with you. In fact, even full blow documentary hypothesizers disagree with you. By the early 1900s, thousand of clay tablets were discovered, which predated Abraham. Turns out, writing has been around as early as civilization has been around.

What you're liking doing is reading old writings about the subject, before these archeology finds were made. Since then, your colleagues, those who agree with you, have abandoned this idea, knowing it has been refuted in modern times. They're still sticking to their hypothesis. Old habits die hard, but no longer use that line of reasoning.

But I would think something like this would be an encouragement to you. It means Moses could have, and indeed did write the Torah. And it also means it's likely he wrote it from older documents, perhaps clay tablets passed down to him from his ancestors.

Indeed, there is also internal evidence in the text of Genesis which indicates who the original authors may have been. We see a reference to the "Book of the accounts of Adam" (Gen. 5:1). There is an "account of Noah" and account of Noah's sons" also mentioned. Genesis is indeed a book of antiquity! It's certainly encouraging to me!

Billiant, thanks for that.

 

[Berean777]

Right, I realize you don't think the DH has been debunked, nor do your DHer colleagues. But they no longer are using the 1000 BC argument. The proofs you're relying on are out of date, and no longer used. They've moved to other arguments. The ancient writing problem has been solved by secular archeologists, mind you, not Christian ones.

As the saying goes, life finds a way or should I say TRUTH finds a way. Truth has set these secular archeologists free from the programmed biases. So let's see and hear more real science and not Ancient Greek philosophical mysticism,like evolution theory.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Citing from Scripture, BornAgain, really adds nothing to your case. If anything, people should avoid citing Scripture in theological discussions, as this simply leads to a biblical-quotes war, each side firing off quotes at the other. The issue here is your interpretation of what the Bible is saying. You, too, are gong on the commandments of men. You are simply citing your human-made opinions and probably re lying on the human-made opinions of church fathers. Hnece, you should listen to what the verse is telling you. it is telling you to carefully check things out. Opinions that you cherish may not at all be near the reality of God and Scripture. It's interesting how many Christians will accuse someone of being a false prophet, without every examining themselves to see if they are not a false prophet.

Matt:23

Mark 7:6-9
6 Then he answered and said unto them, Surely Isaiah hath prophesied well of you, hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For ye lay the Commandments of God apart, and observe the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and of cups, and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may observe your own tradition

 

[prodromos]

The issue I have with evolution is that it requires death. Death doesn't enter the picture until after the fall, and there has been insufficient time pass since Adam for evolution to even be a remote probability.

 

[ScottA]

Your premise is flawed when it assumes that the Bible is the same as God. If you take that equation out of the picture then anything is possible. If you say the Bible is a series of writings written by men , inspired by God, but not historically accurate or scientifically, then you're not talking of the providence of God. The only place the Bible is proven to be of God is in the Bible. In logic, that is what is called a circular reference.

There are plenty of versions of the Bible about, plenty of apocryphal books ... translations etc. Each different.
Science, i.e. that concerns the physical world is about facts that are repeatable, and methodically disproven.

Religion doesn't have those constraints. And a good scientist won't say there is no God because there is evolution. Many scientists (I can give you hundreds of names) consider evolution to be a work of God.

On the other hand because of how someone decides to read a book written centuries ago of which we have no original copies, people make the decision to take certain stories literally. And most of these stories like creation, or the flood can be traced back to Sumerians.

That is all well and good, providing you are content to live in a bubble of self-importance. But if one has an interest in knowing the whole truth, is should be considered that it in fact makes perfect sense that the Creator of the universe would not only have complete control over every little detail, but also, that the objectors would be last to know. If this was all your doing - would you have done it differently?

 

[Berean777]

Or the Book of Belial.

Tell a lie long enough, maybe, just maybe it can b sold as truth.....Hmmmmmm........

Or the Book of Belial.

8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie,10and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Tell a lie long enough, maybe, just maybe it can b sold as truth.....Hmmmmmm........


8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie,10and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Amen to that truth brother. But be very careful because we have those that get offended by the truth of God's precious word.

 

[Berean777]

That is all well and good, providing you are content to live in a bubble of self-importance. But if one has an interest in knowing the whole truth, is should be considered that it in fact makes perfect sense that the Creator of the universe would not only have complete control over every little detail, but also, that the objectors would be last to know. If this was all your doing - would you have done it differently?

Do you know your repy just simultaneously matched with my Bible quote of God giving them the strong delusion by letting the objectors know the truth last.

 

[Hoghead1]

Doesn't work, Scott. If we have genuine freedom, and I believe we do, than it is up to us to decide. God cannot decide for us. Furthermore, God would be the author of all the evil that happened.

 

[Calminian]

The issue I have with evolution is that it requires death. Death doesn't enter the picture until after the fall, and there has been insufficient time pass since Adam for evolution to even be a remote probability.

I would second this, and say it really is the cornerstone of the issue.

BTW, noticed you were Easter Orthodox. Not sure if you know, but you have a strong tradition of a literal approach to Genesis.

Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught

 

[Berean777]

Right, I realize you don't think the DH has been debunked, nor do your DHer colleagues. But they no longer are using the 1000 BC argument. The proofs you're relying on are out of date, and no longer used. They've moved to other arguments. The ancient writing problem has been solved by secular archeologists, mind you, not Christian ones.

Right on and the genealogies mentioned throughout scripture area documented proofs.

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh, really. Sorry, no takers here. I know better.

 

[Calminian]

Right on and the genealogies mentioned throughout scripture area documented proofs.

Oh absolutely. I mean that should be all we as Christians need. The Bible itself is historical evidence. But, go figure...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The Bible clearly states that God created the heavens, stars and all life, whereas evolution states that it evolved over billions of mutations owing to some leviathan of open looped systems. . . . . . .

It is false to declare that the God who set up a universe that could support evolution of life on planet earth is not, thereby, the Creator of life on earth. Just as it is false to say that you are not a creation of God and instead insist you were born by natural processes from a human father and a human mother. You are both a creation of God and a son of human parents, and we are both the creation of God and the result of an evolutionary process.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Right, I realize you don't think the DH has been debunked, nor do your DHer colleagues. But they no longer are using the 1000 BC argument. The proofs you're relying on are out of date, and no longer used. They've moved to other arguments. The ancient writing problem has been solved by secular archeologists, mind you, not Christian ones.

Why do you think the documentary hypothesis rests on the date of the invention of writing?

 

[Calminian]

Why do you think the documentary hypothesis rests on the date of the invention of writing?

I don't. I know they're making other arguments. If fact I mentioned that. But that's that argument Hoghead was making. He brought up the 1000BC (debunked for more than 100 years). I was just correcting him on that point. No DHers are making that argument anymore. They can't!

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Oh, really. Sorry, no takers here. I know better.

Titus 3:
8 This is a true saying, and these things I will thou shouldest affirm, that they which have believed God, might be careful to show forth good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9 But stay foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and brawlings about the Law: for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 Reject him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition,

11 Knowing that he that is such, is perverted, and sinneth, being damned of his own self.

 

[Berean777]

Doesn't work, Scott. If we have genuine freedom, and I believe we do, than it is up to us to decide. God cannot decide for us. Furthermore, God would be the author of all the evil that happened.

God didn't roll dice so that he does not have be made accountable to himself. Did you get that friend?

God stated that he made everything perfect and then from that point onwards, the system started to unravel from the fall of man. So the laws of thermodynamics and entropy highlight this fact, that we are at the tail end of what started as a perfect closed loop system fully supervised by God. Evolution on the other hand started from imperfection and after billions of trial runs, it is finding more and more perfect system that is evolving into something better and better. Or it can be a scenario where perfect is found, then it devolves, rather than evolves. Evolution states that things adapt and evolve to the survival of species. So we are approaching a perfect system from nothingness.

I find evolution as a disjointed ass end system with no mathematical backing what so ever.

 

[Hoghead1]

None of that is accurate, Berean777. Also, where does ancient Greek mysticism speak of evolution? It is true that the term " evolution" was first introduced by Christian mystics in the 19th century, prior to Darwin. As I already mentioned, the DH is till up and running in modern biblical scholarship. And, as I said, I have a list of about 150 scholars who accept the DH, plus a number of academic journals. So, the problem I have with your position is that it is not based on any solid scholarly foundation.

 

[Hoghead1]

Nobody observed God creating the world in six days either, BornAgain. You have the same problem.