Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[stumpjumper]

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.

Now I as a TE only really disagree with number five. But, lets say for instance that God used natural processes to start life. We would probably be able to uncover the process that God used and then it would be natural even though it was initiated by the supernatural.

All of the above claims are disputed by YEC's. Yet most of them are very well supported by our scientific understanding of the world. So, this is my question to Young Earth Creationists:

Do you dispute that these criteria are well supported by scientific inquiry?
or
Do you believe that, even though these may be well supported by scientific inquiry, the only way to truly accept the Bible is through a literal reading?

If you follow the latter then I would also ask whether or not you have ever read a theological view of evolution such as John Haught's God After Darwin or Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Also, have you ever looked at a good guideline for a historical/critical Biblical exegesis?

Lot's of questions I know but I am a curious chap

 

[vossler]

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.

Many evolutionists here have said on numerous occasions that God gave us a brain so that we would use it. Nothing wrong with that, as long as how we use it is aligned with the Word of God. Well, based on the one thing I can claim to possess or be gifted with, common sense, combined with all that God so graciously gave me to understand the world that I live in; is more than enough from which to make an informed Godly decision. No two year minimum studies in biology or theology are required for me to form a basis for this observation. Just the Bible and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling are necessary.



So here are my, I’m sure to sure to, simplistic responses.

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.

No biblical evidence of this whatsoever.

2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.

Again, not even a tidbit of biblical evidence for this.

3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.

Ditto

4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.

Ditto

5.) Life originated via natural processes.

Ditto



As I’ve stated here many times before, it’s God’s Word that determines my beliefs and forms my opinions, not man’s reasoning and deductions about what happened supposedly billions of years ago. Once we introduce fallible man and his knowledge as being superior to God’s, well, I think you get the point.

 

[Critias]

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

What evolutionists, theistic ones, will not accept is that much of this teaching is derived from the philosophies of the Greeks.

Let's look at your list of 5 claims and see.

Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.

Greeks believed this.

2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.

Greeks believed this, not in the same way it is presented today.

3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.

Greeks believed this, but not in the same way as it is presented today.

4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.

Nothing in the Greek philosophies on this.

5.) Life originated via natural processes.

Greeks believed this as well.

Now I as a TE only really disagree with number five. But, lets say for instance that God used natural processes to start life. We would probably be able to uncover the process that God used and then it would be natural even though it was initiated by the supernatural.

All of the above claims are disputed by YEC's. Yet most of them are very well supported by our scientific understanding of the world. So, this is my question to Young Earth Creationists:

Do you dispute that these criteria are well supported by scientific inquiry?
or
Do you believe that, even though these may be well supported by scientific inquiry, the only way to truly accept the Bible is through a literal reading?

If you follow the latter then I would also ask whether or not you have ever read a theological view of evolution such as John Haught's God After Darwin or Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Also, have you ever looked at a good guideline for a historical/critical Biblical exegesis?

Lot's of questions I know but I am a curious chap

Look to Acts 17, Paul preaches against these assumptions. I trust Paul over scientists.

Jesus spoke of creation of man. I trust Jesus over scientists.

Peter spoke of a global flood. I trust Peter over scientists.

Genesis speaks of creation in six days. I trust this account, given by God, over what scientists say.

Call it my interpretation, call it my ignorance, call it whatever you wish. Either I believe as I do, and not one New Testament Author is in error of what they preach, or accept TEs view and every New Testament Author is in error of what they teach.

Rationalize, trivialize with your logic, your own perception, but I don't trust those, even of myself. I will just accept what is written as it is written and follow Jesus Christ to the best of my abilities.

 

[stumpjumper]

As I’ve stated here many times before, it’s God’s Word that determines my beliefs and forms my opinions, not man’s reasoning and deductions about what happened supposedly billions of years ago. Once we introduce fallible man and his knowledge as being superior to God’s, well, I think you get the point.

Allright, so you dismiss the findings of modern science because they apparently contradict scripture. I can somewhat understand that view but I do not see it as necessary. You called the Bible the Word of God. But scripture says that The Word of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14) The Word became flesh not text. The text was put into print by men who were not (in my opinion) attempting to lay out a scientific theory of our origin.

I find God's Word in nature as well and it is there that God's fingerprints can be found. Let alone that I see much of Genesis to be clearly written in an allegorical fashion.

Is there anything that would make you reconsider your position on our biological origin?

 

[Scholar in training]

No biblical evidence of this whatsoever.

There's no biblical evidence for penguins or the Americas either. Does that mean we should refuse to believe in the Americas and in penguins? No. What you are using is an argument from silence.

 

[stumpjumper]

What evolutionists, theistic ones, will not accept is that much of this teaching is derived from the philosophies of the Greeks.

Allright this is a new one for me. I understand Greek philosophy and have read a good many of Origen's writings and how he sought to reconcile Greek philosophy with scripture.

But, what does Greek philosphy have to do with modern scientific theories? Darwin was an English naturalist not a Greek philosopher.

Look to Acts 17, Paul preaches against these assumptions. I trust Paul over scientists.
Jesus spoke of creation of man. I trust Jesus over scientists.

What theistic evolutionist would say we were not created? It is the method of Creation that is under debate not that we are a Creation and there is a Creator.

Peter spoke of a global flood. I trust Peter over scientists.

But who is to say whether he was speaking allegorically or literally. I see overtones of a theodicy in Noah's flood and see it as a primitive look at the Problem of Evil. Even if God were to intervene and rid the world of evil, man would still return to his sinful ways. The tower of Babel is also an allegorical story with a real meaning that ties into the fall of Adam.

Genesis speaks of creation in six days. I trust this account, given by God, over what scientists say.
Call it my interpretation, call it my ignorance, call it whatever you wish. Either I believe as I do, and not one New Testament Author is in error of what they preach, or accept TEs view and every New Testament Author is in error of what they teach..

I don't really want to question your faith and I don't think that you are ignorant, I am just not sure why some people insist upon a literal exegesis. I don't put an incredible amount of faith in scientists, I just find it hard to understand how some will insist upon a literal reading when it clearly contradicts what we see in the world and I find that much of the Old Testament is written in an allegorical fashion.

Do you read any part of scripture allegorically? And what parts?

 

[gluadys]

As I’ve stated here many times before, it’s God’s Word that determines my beliefs and forms my opinions, not man’s reasoning and deductions about what happened supposedly billions of years ago.

I will just accept what is written as it is written and follow Jesus Christ to the best of my abilities.

Ok. You have both made it clear that it doesn't matter what the scientific consensus is. You disagree with the scientific position on these matters because of what scripture says, as you understand scripture.

Does this mean you agree that when nature is investigated scientifically the evidence really does lead to the conclusions scientists have come to?


IOW, the scientists have not misinterpreted the evidence. It really does point to an old universe, an old earth, evolution, common descent and possibly a natural process of abiogenesis. But even though they have not misinterpreted the evidence, they are still wrong based on the word of scripture.

Is that the position you are taking? Just asking for clarification.

 

[Critias]

Allright this is a new one for me. I understand Greek philosophy and have read a good many of Origen's writings and how he sought to reconcile Greek philosophy with scripture.

Then you are aware of the many false teachings that Origen put forth. He taught against the Trinity(3 in 1), and he taught that everyone would eventually be saved regardless if they accept Jesus Christ or not, just to name two of the main heresy of his.

But, what does Greek philosphy have to do with modern scientific theories? Darwin was an English naturalist not a Greek philosopher.

Well, I think the Greeks had quite an influence on the rest of the world. It is quite evident and no true historian would deny it.

What theistic evolutionist would say we were not created? It is the method of Creation that is under debate not that we are a Creation and there is a Creator.

No, theistic evolutionsist say we did not come from one man and at the beginning of all creation, God did not create a male and female humans. They evolved, they were not created that way - the theistic evolutionists approach.

But who is to say whether he was speaking allegorically or literally. I see overtones of a theodicy in Noah's flood and see it as a primitive look at the Problem of Evil. Even if God were to intervene and rid the world of evil, man would still return to his sinful ways. The tower of Babel is also an allegorical story with a real meaning that ties into the fall of Adam.

At this time, it was commonly believed and accepted by the Jews that a global flood did happen. The students of Peter, John, and Paul all aruged against the Greeks - who believed it was a local flood not global - and their belief of the local flood. They taught it was heresy to say the flood was not global but local.

For us to documentation - the Early Church Father writings - of this debate, it must have been a common teaching of the Greeks. We can find that even Plato argued against a global flood and his Platonic and the Stoic philosophers carried on with the same position. With it being a none and fought against heresy, the Apostles must have taught their pupils on this subject, and the Apostles were taught by Jesus Christ.

Are you aware that if you look into linguistics that it is accepted that at one time there was one language for all people because the languages all share the same roots, too much so for coincidence? It is believed that when these people separated, their languages began to change.

But then again, that is just a myth, forget the historical evidence we have of it.....

I don't really want to question your faith and I don't think that you are ignorant, I am just not sure why some people insist upon a literal exegesis. I don't put an incredible amount of faith in scientists, I just find it hard to understand how some will insist upon a literal reading when it clearly contradicts what we see in the world and I find that much of the Old Testament is written in an allegorical fashion.

Have you studied Hebrew? If you have, then compare the Hebrew text of Genesis with that of the Psalms, can you see a difference? Secondly, all the Church Fathers and Apostles taught that Genesis was historical. Again, their understanding most likely came from Jesus' teachings.

I hold Jesus Christ in high regard, since He is God, and I am sure you do too. I see the affects of what the theory of evolution has done to so many Christians here and in the world. The acceptance of it has led to the reject of many truths within the Bible. They alter them, change them, to suit the worlds teachings. They deny it, but the fruit of their labor makes this well known, for those who actually open their eyes and can see.

It isn't a contradiciton with creation, it is a contradiction with man's teachings. It is appalling that so many Christians here are trying to be deceptive and teach that it is creation itself that teaches against a six day creation instead of scientists interpretation of creation teaching against a six day creation. Have TEs become so blind that they cannot see a difference between the two? It seems so.

Do you read any part of scripture allegorically? And what parts?

Yes, I do. There are parts throughout the Bible and to list everyone would take more time than I have. Genesis has figurative statements/phrases, Proverbs, Psalms, Prophecy, Parables, Revelations, Paul's teachings, Peter's teachings; every book in the Bible has figurative statements and phrases.

But because they do have figurative statements, does not mean the whole book is figurative; just as because they contain literal statements doesn't mean the whole book is literal. This is the TE common strawman laid at the feet of YECs: that if Genesis 1-3 is overall a historical account then every piece of the Bible is taken literally.

It is a deceptive claim to wage war with those who uphold the truth of the Bible.

 

[Critias]

Ok. You have both made it clear that it doesn't matter what the scientific consensus is. You disagree with the scientific position on these matters because of what scripture says, as you understand scripture.

Correct.

Does this mean you agree that when nature is investigated scientifically the evidence really does lead to the conclusions scientists have come to?

No, I don't agree.

IOW, the scientists have not misinterpreted the evidence. It really does point to an old universe, an old earth, evolution, common descent and possibly a natural process of abiogenesis. But even though they have not misinterpreted the evidence, they are still wrong based on the word of scripture.

Is that the position you are taking? Just asking for clarification.

Scientist have misinterpreted, either ignorantly or purposely. I would venture to assert the former. I don't believe all intend to lead people astray, but I think they view the evidence in their perception of a godless world or a world where God uses evolution. Therefore, what they will find will be interpreted in the light of their own perception regardless.

 

[vossler]

Allright, so you dismiss the findings of modern science because they apparently contradict scripture. I can somewhat understand that view but I do not see it as necessary.

It is most certainly is necessary for me

You called the Bible the Word of God. But scripture says that The Word of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14) The Word became flesh not text. The text was put into print by men who were not (in my opinion) attempting to lay out a scientific theory of our origin.

Once again, when evolutionists are confronted with the statement “Word of God” they start going down the path (you’re not there yet ) of calling those that honor and respect God’s Holy Bible blasphemers or idolaters. I show respect, reverence and honor for the Words of the Bible and evolutionists treat it as some sort of slap in the face of God. Go figure? Yet, these same evolutionists will take God’s written Word and completely change it’s meaning, finding themselves somehow righteous in the process. Whew, that’s a lot to try and understand. Thankfully, this isn’t something for me to judge.


Yet, for trials such as these I am destined and can take comfort of in Jesus’ Words.

John 16:33: I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." Just as Jesus has overcome the world, so shall I.

James 2: 2-3 goes on to say: Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. I may not like being called names but I will count it all joy, because ‘greater is He who is in me the he who is in the world’


2 Thessalonians 1:4 then gives me the order to boast when it states: Therefore, among God's churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring. So every time I’m called a blasphemer or idolater I will boast in my faith how Jesus has delivered me and how ‘I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me’

Is there anything that would make you reconsider your position on our biological origin?

Only a divine revelation.

 

[Critias]

Such comforting verses. Thank you for posting them!

 

[stumpjumper]

No, theistic evolutionsist say we did not come from one man and at the beginning of all creation, God did not create a male and female humans. They evolved, they were not created that way - the theistic evolutionists approach.

Yes, but you seem to be taking the Theistic out of Theistic evolutionist's positions. Yes, I accept that we did not come from one man at the beginning of all creation. But Adam is a common and proper noun in Genesis and we did all come from the same source = God.

At this time, it was commonly believed and accepted by the Jews that a global flood did happen. The students of Peter, John, and Paul all aruged against the Greeks - who believed it was a local flood not global - and their belief of the local flood. They taught it was heresy to say the flood was not global but local.

I'll put it right out, I don't think there was any flood. I think the story alludes to a global flood because that is what the message was meant to relay about the evilness of mankind. How do you know that the flood was accepted to be global because of the fact of the flood and not because of what the flood had to say about God's will?

Are you aware that if you look into linguistics that it is accepted that at one time there was one language for all people because the languages all share the same roots, too much so for coincidence? It is believed that when these people separated, their languages began to change.

Well I follow the Out of Africa model for the diversification of homo-sapiens and that one world language certainly fits within that model. Also, that model makes a lot sense in regards to theistic view of evolution.

Secondly, all the Church Fathers and Apostles taught that Genesis was historical. Again, their understanding most likely came from Jesus' teachings.

Two things. All the Church Fathers did not teach that scripture should be read literally. I view Genesis as historical even if most of it did not happen. Second, it makes no difference whether you view it literally or allegorically to accept the implications upon your faith. Because of that there would be no reason to deny the literal application even though it should have been read allegorically. Today we have reason to deny that Genesis is meant to be read literally.

I hold Jesus Christ in high regard, since He is God, and I am sure you do too. I see the affects of what the theory of evolution has done to so many Christians here and in the world. The acceptance of it has led to the reject of many truths within the Bible. They alter them, change them, to suit the worlds teachings. They deny it, but the fruit of their labor makes this well known, for those who actually open their eyes and can see.

Do you think that a TE does not hold Jesus in high regard?

I view that what the world says it says it for God who created the world. To be honest, I am not sure that I follow that conservative Christians are better at following the teachings of Jesus. But maybe you could change my mind.

Yes, I do. But because they do have figurative statements, does not mean the whole book is figurative; just as because they contain literal statements doesn't mean the whole book is literal. This is the TE common strawman laid at the feet of YECs: that if Genesis 1-3 is overall a historical account then every piece of the Bible is taken literally.

It is a deceptive claim to wage war with those who uphold the truth of the Bible.

I see. You seem to draw a line between YEC's who "uphold the truth of the Bible" and anyone else. Would it make any difference if I said that I believe wholeheartedly in the truth of the Bible and that the truth that I find says that I can answer my scientific questions by studying God's Creation.

You stated that you do read some parts of the Bible figuratively. Why do you make such a distinction between Gen 1-3 and the other parts that are obviously meant to be interpreted figuratively?

My point is that these few verses cause a great divide between Christians. And, that divide does not have to exist because our biological origin is meaningless when you consider that to apply Jesus's teachings you have to live in the here and now.

Peace Critias

 

[stumpjumper]

Once again, when evolutionists are confronted with the statement “Word of God” they start going down the path (you’re not there yet ) of calling those that honor and respect God’s Holy Bible blasphemers or idolaters. I show respect, reverence and honor for the Words of the Bible and evolutionists treat it as some sort of slap in the face of God. Go figure? Yet, these same evolutionists will take God’s written Word and completely change it’s meaning, finding themselves somehow righteous in the process. Whew, that’s a lot to try and understand. Thankfully, this isn’t something for me to judge.

But I view the word of God as showing us how to live a moral and spiritual life. Not teaching us about scientific theories. I am sure you can not point me to the Theory of Relativity in the Bible and I am also sure that you accept Einstein's understanding of the universe. Why do you make an exception for Darwin's understanding of our biological history?

I don't think that you are an idolator. I just don't understand the POV that someone who is a Christian and accepts evolution is changing the meaning of the Bible. Especially when I look at the Bible as a book of faith. If I want science I put on the Discovery channel.

Only a divine revelation.

Do you believe that nature is part of God's revelation?

 

[Critias]

Yes, but you seem to be taking the Theistic out of Theistic evolutionist's positions. Yes, I accept that we did not come from one man at the beginning of all creation. But Adam is a common and proper noun in Genesis and we did all come from the same source = God.

Then it seems you would have to accept that Paul is in error in Acts 17:26.

I'll put it right out, I don't think there was any flood. I think the story alludes to a global flood because that is what the message was meant to relay about the evilness of mankind. How do you know that the flood was accepted to be global because of the fact of the flood and not because of what the flood had to say about God's will?

I know this because of the Josephus' writings about the history of the Jews and what they believed. They took it literally.

IF there was no flood, then Peter is in error in 2 Peter.

Well I follow the Out of Africa model for the diversification of homo-sapiens and that one world language certainly fits within that model. Also, that model makes a lot sense in regards to theistic view of evolution.

So you don't accept that the Tower of Babel was a real historical account? WHy not?

Two things. All the Church Fathers did not teach that scripture should be read literally. I view Genesis as historical even if most of it did not happen. Second, it makes no difference whether you view it literally or allegorically to accept the implications upon your faith. Because of that there would be no reason to deny the literal application even though it should have been read allegorically. Today we have reason to deny that Genesis is meant to be read literally.

When I stated that all of the Early Church Fathers and Apostles taught that Genesis was a historical narrative, did I state that they all taught that Scripture was suppose to be taken literally? I did not. I don't see why your second sentence above is being used to infer that I did state such a thing.

Why is it with Theistic Evolutionists it always has to be an either or? Either it is literally or it is allegorical. Why is there a need to limit the Scriptures?

What Theistic Evolutionists seem to fight for is taking the literal away from Genesis and limited it to only the figurative; suggesting that God does not work through history but only through myths.

YECs are on the side that Genesis is a literal historical account and can be read allegorically for a deeper meaning. Because we take this approach to Scripture, TEs attack us because we have not accepted scientists word as absolute truth.

Do you think that a TE does not hold Jesus in high regard?

I sure hope that they do, but since I know I cannot speak for you or another, I spoke for myself. Would you rather I speak for you and tell you what you think and how you view things? I don't think you would.

I view that what the world says it says it for God who created the world. To be honest, I am not sure that I follow that conservative Christians are better at following the teachings of Jesus. But maybe you could change my mind.

So everything the world says, it says for God? That would make much of what Paul said to be a lie.

I am not suggesting that conservative Christians are better at anything. I know the people here who are YECs are committed to the Bible's Authority over mans because it has come from God Himself.

I see. You seem to draw a line between YEC's who "uphold the truth of the Bible" and anyone else. Would it make any difference if I said that I believe wholeheartedly in the truth of the Bible and that the truth that I find says that I can answer my scientific questions by studying God's Creation.

Science cannot answer your questions of origins. Science and scientists were not there when God created. God was. God gave special revelation to Moses about what God did. Only God can tell us what He did and He has done so.

You don't have to accept it, but it doesn't change the fact of it being true.

You stated that you do read some parts of the Bible figuratively. Why do you make such a distinction between Gen 1-3 and the other parts that are obviously meant to be interpreted figuratively?

Because they use figurative language. It has been my experience here that when the Bible uses figurative language, TEs suggest the whole chapter is figurative instead of the phrase being used figuratively.

There are Hebrew phrases that easily understood to not be literally. It has been through my study that God has allowed me to be able to understand them. Hebrew has a specific structure to it when it is speaking in poetic phrases and proverbs. These are consistently seen throughout the Bible, that is how I can make the distinction.

My point is that these few verses cause a great divide between Christians. And, that divide does not have to exist because our biological origin is meaningless when you consider that to apply Jesus's teachings you have to live in the here and now.

It is a great sadness for YECs here that this debate needs to be waged between fellow Christians. This forum saddens me each time I visit it, but yet feel compelled to respond to the posts that are made here by TEs.

It is not evolution itself that is the problem, it is what evolution does when accepted. Genesis is viewed as myth, every New Testament Author is in error because they speak of the creation and flood accounts as literal historical events.

This forums does not bring joy to YECs. It is a joy and an unworthy position to stand up for God's Message and His Truths within Scripture. But, standing against fellow Christians is not a joy, it is met with great sadness.

Peace Critias

And may God's peace that passes all understanding be with you as well.

 

[vossler]

But I view the word of God as showing us how to live a moral and spiritual life. Not teaching us about scientific theories. I am sure you can not point me to the Theory of Relativity in the Bible and I am also sure that you accept Einstein's understanding of the universe. Why do you make an exception for Darwin's understanding of our biological history?

I've never stated that the Bible teaches us scientific theories. The Bible teaches that God created everything in 6 days, no theories are involved; just the facts.

I don't think that you are an idolator. I just don't understand the POV that someone who is a Christian and accepts evolution is changing the meaning of the Bible. Especially when I look at the Bible as a book of faith. If I want science I put on the Discovery channel.

You're the first TE that has stated that they don't think I'm an idolator. Thanks!

Evolution changes the meaning of the Bible when it says the earth was formed over billions of years. The Bible clearly states that it was created in 6 days.

Do you believe that nature is part of God's revelation?

Sure, just like you and I are. If I can observe something that nature provides then I can consider it a part of God's revelation.

 

[gluadys]

Scientist have misinterpreted, either ignorantly or purposely. I would venture to assert the former. I don't believe all intend to lead people astray, but I think they view the evidence in their perception of a godless world or a world where God uses evolution. Therefore, what they will find will be interpreted in the light of their own perception regardless.

Ok, let me try again.

Is this a better reflection of your position?

Scientists have misinterpreted nature on the questions of the age of the universe, the age of the earth, evolution and are seeking a natural process of abiogenesis which would also be a misinterpretation of nature.

You know that their conclusions are a misinterpretation of nature because they disagree with scripture as you understand it.

Scientists are ignorant (probably) of the fact that they have misinterpreted nature because they are relying solely on the evidence in nature without taking scripture into account.​

 

[seebs]

Once again, when evolutionists are confronted with the statement “Word of God” they start going down the path (you’re not there yet ) of calling those that honor and respect God’s Holy Bible blasphemers or idolaters. I show respect, reverence and honor for the Words of the Bible and evolutionists treat it as some sort of slap in the face of God.

This has nothing to do with being an "evolutionist" and everything to do with being a Trinitarian.

It is not showing "respect" for something to equate it to Jesus when it isn't.

Go figure? Yet, these same evolutionists will take God’s written Word and completely change it’s meaning, finding themselves somehow righteous in the process. Whew, that’s a lot to try and understand. Thankfully, this isn’t something for me to judge.

There is no written Word. The Word became flesh, but never writing.

As to whether or not I am "righteous", I would say I have a long way to go.

Actually, despite the apparent triviality of the dispute, I think this really is a key point. I view the Bible as wholly separate from God, strongly enough to react negatively to even the implication that they are interchangeable. By the way, although the Search function is off now so it's hard to find, I've seen people reason from "Word of God" to "the Bible is eternal and was there before creation"; similarly, I've seen children's books say "the Bible is Jesus in written form". Even if you are not confused, the simple fact is that the terminology you like is a stumbling block for others.

I think that there is a serious dispute here over how we see the Bible, and the whole rest of the debate comes out from that. Is the set of English words we have today supposed to be the one true factual history of the world, penned directly by God? Is it some translations of some stuff some crazy shepherds came up with? Is it somewhere inbetween?

 

[Critias]

Ok, let me try again.

Is this a better reflection of your position?

Scientists have misinterpreted nature on the questions of the age of the universe, the age of the earth, evolution and are seeking a natural process of abiogenesis which would also be a misinterpretation of nature.

You know that their conclusions are a misinterpretation of nature because they disagree with scripture as you understand it.

Scientists are ignorant (probably) of the fact that they have misinterpreted nature because they are relying solely on the evidence in nature without taking scripture into account.​

That is better.

 

[Critias]

This has nothing to do with being an "evolutionist" and everything to do with being a Trinitarian.

It is not showing "respect" for something to equate it to Jesus when it isn't.

Ok. Maybe you are incapable of understanding that when we say God's Word, we are speaking of the Bible and not Jesus. Maybe it is too much for you to understand that Logo does not always mean Jesus in the New Testament.

Maybe you just feel better to be our accuser. And I suppose John, Peter and Paul are all Idolaters as well because they used the word Logo to refer to a word or words instead of Jesus.

There is no written Word. The Word became flesh, but never writing.

Is it really that difficult for you to understand? How can I make this clearer for you so that you can understand?

As to whether or not I am "righteous", I would say I have a long way to go.

Actually, despite the apparent triviality of the dispute, I think this really is a key point. I view the Bible as wholly separate from God, strongly enough to react negatively to even the implication that they are interchangeable. By the way, although the Search function is off now so it's hard to find, I've seen people reason from "Word of God" to "the Bible is eternal and was there before creation"; similarly, I've seen children's books say "the Bible is Jesus in written form". Even if you are not confused, the simple fact is that the terminology you like is a stumbling block for others.

When one says God's written Word, I think many are quite aware of what is being meant. It is you who chooses to call us Idolaters, when we are not. You stand as our accuser, and we are fine with this. Jesus stands as our redeemer. In Him we trust. So go ahead and keep accusing us.

I think that there is a serious dispute here over how we see the Bible, and the whole rest of the debate comes out from that. Is the set of English words we have today supposed to be the one true factual history of the world, penned directly by God? Is it some translations of some stuff some crazy shepherds came up with? Is it somewhere inbetween?

I think it is your desire to accuse us of something we do not do that is the real problem here. You seem to have a great desire to be our accuser; accusing us of Idolater because we have great respect for what God says.

Well, if that is problem for you, that we have great respect for what God says, I would tell you to look real hard inside yourself and see why you have such disdain for those who look to God and what He says with reverence. Because that is not the sign of the Spirit when one is offended because another fears God.

 

[stumpjumper]

Then it seems you would have to accept that Paul is in error in Acts 17:26.

I know this because of the Josephus' writings about the history of the Jews and what they believed. They took it literally.

IF there was no flood, then Peter is in error in 2 Peter.

That's not a fully accurate representation of the Pharisaical approach to scripture. Jewish interpretation of scripture frequently used the allegorical meaning to a passage over its literal. Sometimes passages were viewed as both allegorical and literal.

But' lets focus on what Paul had to say as recorded by Luke. In Acts Paul is saying that from one man God created all the nations on the earth. Well, that could still be biologically true if looked at through evolution. Universal common descent means that we all share the same biological origin (even though it did not start out as a male mud-pie). Now that could be a way to connect that passage to our biological history but I doubt that that was Paul's intention. Paul was preaching in Athens and saying that God does not reside in a Temple; that our God is the Creator of all. Paul was laying out God's sovereignty not teaching a literal history.

We are talking about Paul here. In Paul's letters he used 89 references to OT scripture and many of those he reworded to fit his need sometimes drastically changing the literal meaning of the text. Also, in Galatians 4:24 Paul specifies that he is giving an allegorical meaning to an OT passage. If Paul stated in the text that some scripture has allegorical meaning and he reworded other passages to fit his need, would not it make sense to deduce that Paul's view of scripture was that it had allegorical meaning.

In Galatians 4:24 Paul was showing how Hagar and Sarah represent allegorical covenants and that this passage represents a metaphor of God's relationship with the world. If I were to read the original passage I doubt that I would initially view it as allegory. Yet, when I view the Creation story in Genesis, the story of Noah, and the Tower of Babel I see that they were most likely written as allegory. If Paul interpreted the passage of Sarah and Hagar in an allegorical fashion why would he not view those others as allegory as well. Especially when it appears that they are meant to be read as such?

Why is it with Theistic Evolutionists it always has to be an either or? Either it is literally or it is allegorical. Why is there a need to limit the Scriptures?

What Theistic Evolutionists seem to fight for is taking the literal away from Genesis and limited it to only the figurative; suggesting that God does not work through history but only through myths.

I think that you are equating TE's with atheistic views of evolution. The Creation narrative is written in a mythical fashion but it points to a literal God as creator. It just left out the Big Bang, long ages of earth, and all those extinct creatures that came before us (which does not really mean that much because the author of Genesis was more likely concerned with relaying a message about our ontological origin not the biological method).

I don't view scripture in an either or fashion. I just look at some passages as clearly written in an allegorical fashion. The method of creation matters not. What matters is that we were created and that God did the creating and he views his Creation as good.

So everything the world says, it says for God? That would make much of what Paul said to be a lie.

Science cannot answer your questions of origins. Science and scientists were not there when God created. God was. God gave special revelation to Moses about what God did. Only God can tell us what He did and He has done so.

If God created then world then the world does speak for God. Being created in God's image means being able to appreciate the beauty of the world and experience loving relationships with each other and God. I don't see how uses God's creation to speak for God is making a liar out of Paul. Please elaborate.

I'm out of time. Have a good day.