Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[seebs]

So God didn't say He would preserve His word, aka the Bible?

What verse are you thinking of?

Are you thinking of Psalms 12:6?

[bible]Psalm 12:1-8[/bible]

The problem here is that the "words" referred to here are promises, not the text of any book.

Did God preserve His word, aka the Bible?

The "aka" here is equivocation. The words "preserved" are promises kept.

There is no promise to "preserve" the Bible.

We were the ones who decided to pick some prophecies and letters and collect them together. God did not make us do this. We did it because we thought it would help us relate to God and teach other people about God.

Do we not have access to those books now? I know I do.

If they are considered no longer "part of the Bible" by some people, then we have the problem that some of the words God gave us are not even in the Bible, which makes the whole question of canon a very significant one.

 

[Critias]

Not history as I see it. For me it is history if it can allow us to accurately reconstruct the events of the past. I think we are disagreeing here on the details of definitions and on little else. I'll show you what I mean below.

Ah, so you want complete accuracy in order for it to be history. Then tell me, what is the true historical account of America's pull out of Vietnam? America says they pulled out, and were not defeated. North Vietnam says America was defeated. Which history is correct?

Should we look at what Russia recorded about the cold war and compare it to what America has recorded? I am sure we will find differences in between the two.

I'm not sure which painting you're referring to and I probably haven't seen them. But let's assume we're talking about a picture of a stick-figure humanoid throwing a spear into the heart of a buffalo.

When you look at the picture you say, "From this we can deduce that American Indians hunted buffalo with spears." Because of that you would say it's history, right?

When I look at the picture and hear your explanation I would say, "But we cannot deduce that on one specific day, one thin American Indian killed one buffalo by spearing it in the heart." I wouldn't draw such details from the painting without separate evidence. Thus for me it wouldn't be history.

So then you would conclude that American Indians did not hunt buffalo with spears, right?

I think you demand specifics, which the norm for just about every TE I have ever spoken with.

I find it kind of ironic (no insult intended) that our positions on history seem reversed. It should be the YEC who has a strict, rigid, high-accuracy-needed idea of history. For then you would say, "Genesis is history; therefore I can reconstruct the past in high detail from it, meaning that God really created in 6 days, that on the first day He really made light and separated darkness from it ... "

And the TE on the other hand would have the looser definition of history saying "Genesis is history. But while it tells us many things about God and what He intended for His creation perhaps we cannot deduce from it that God created in six days, that He started with a primeval ball of water ... but even if we cannot deduce such detail it is still history."

Actually, I think it fits quite well. TEs need to know what method did God use, other than His speaking things into existence, to create the world and mankind. YECs say that it is God speaking that is the how to how everything was created.

TEs need the specifics, or rather focus on the specifics.

But to each his own. I enjoy being surprised!



I find that I can imagine 6,000 years in the context of a few billion, heh. Like I said, I was just conjecturing. Interesting thought. Go ahead and destroy it if you want.

That wouldn't have been the language I would have chosen - destroy it. I don't honestly think man can truly comprehend 6000 years, 1 million years or even 1 billion years.

Can you comprehend what takes place in the universe in a matter of 1 minute? I mean everything, every detail every micro/macro scopic piece, including people(their thoughts, their words, their actions), animals, plants, air, ions, electrons, protons, gravity, etc.

Can you comprehend it all happening at once in a 1 minute span of time?

No, why?

Oh, just throwing a comment your way.

 

[Critias]

Uh oh. Are you doubting the verbally inspired infallible inerrant holy sacred canon of the Scriptures of God?

(Personally for me, I remember having read online The Prayer of Azariah. Liked it. Wonder why it's not in there either?)

I don't think I have said the cannon is the only Scriptures of God. I bet that there were many more writings by the Apostles than we have today. But, I bet the essentials of what we need to know, are recorded within the Bible.

That is my faith, that God preserved His word as He said He would. Jump in line and call my faith ignorant if you wish.

 

[Critias]

What verse are you thinking of?

There are a bit more than a few that come to mind. But, you have read the Bible, you should know them.

The problem here is that the "words" referred to here are promises, not the text of any book.

Last I checked, the Bible records promises of God.

The "aka" here is equivocation. The words "preserved" are promises kept.

There is no promise to "preserve" the Bible.

I didn't say you had to believe me. You believe what you will. I have faith in what the Scriptures teach, because God has given me faith to believe.

We were the ones who decided to pick some prophecies and letters and collect them together. God did not make us do this. We did it because we thought it would help us relate to God and teach other people about God.

Well this view works for you. And it is consistent with your naturalistic approach. I see God working through history and mankind to preserve His word as He said He would.

I think you view man's relationship with God as a man to God relationship. I just don't see it that way.

If they are considered no longer "part of the Bible" by some people, then we have the problem that some of the words God gave us are not even in the Bible, which makes the whole question of canon a very significant one.

Actually, if you have faith that what is in a non-Catholic Bible is sufficient enough to teach of God and Christ's sacrifice for our salvation, then why is this a problem? And who told you you cannot read the other books that are out there?

 

[shernren]

Ah, so you want complete accuracy in order for it to be history. Then tell me, what is the true historical account of America's pull out of Vietnam? America says they pulled out, and were not defeated. North Vietnam says America was defeated. Which history is correct?

Should we look at what Russia recorded about the cold war and compare it to what America has recorded? I am sure we will find differences in between the two.

The true historical account is that American soldiers left Vietnam. Whether they pulled out or were pushed out is for politicians to decide. Ditto the cold war. My point is that history is a factual record of actual events.

So then you would conclude that American Indians did not hunt buffalo with spears, right?

I think you demand specifics, which the norm for just about every TE I have ever spoken with.

I never said that. I said that even if we can conclude that American Indians did hunt buffalo with spears (though I missed that out, I was implying it. Sorry for being unclear.), we cannot conclude specifically that ...

I thought you YECs were the ones wanting specifics. One argument I've heard a lot is that Scripture cannot condone evolution because it says birds were created before land animals. Now if that's not a specific I wonder what is ...

Actually, I think it fits quite well. TEs need to know what method did God use, other than His speaking things into existence, to create the world and mankind. YECs say that it is God speaking that is the how to how everything was created.

TEs need the specifics, or rather focus on the specifics.

TEs are asking why look for the specifics in Genesis? Go look for the specifics in radioisotope dating experiments or ice ring counting or something. Genesis isn't dealing with specifically historical scientific theories and facts, it's dealing with theology. That's why we say Genesis isn't history - and yet is still true.

That wouldn't have been the language I would have chosen - destroy it. I don't honestly think man can truly comprehend 6000 years, 1 million years or even 1 billion years.

Can you comprehend what takes place in the universe in a matter of 1 minute? I mean everything, every detail every micro/macro scopic piece, including people(their thoughts, their words, their actions), animals, plants, air, ions, electrons, protons, gravity, etc.

Can you comprehend it all happening at once in a 1 minute span of time?

I think I can imagine a minute. It's nanoseconds that have me stumped.

Oh, just throwing a comment your way.

Sure! *throws it back at Critias* catch!

I don't think I have said the cannon is the only Scriptures of God. I bet that there were many more writings by the Apostles than we have today. But, I bet the essentials of what we need to know, are recorded within the Bible.

That is my faith, that God preserved His word as He said He would. Jump in line and call my faith ignorant if you wish.

Okay. I agree completely. Line's long and I won't do anybody any good jumping in. *steps aside respectfully*

 

[gluadys]

Who knows. Maybe even their stance on marijuana, that it is a Godly creation meant for us to smoke in sacrifice to God, is what God intended for all mankind.

More ignorance. You are surely talking of Rastafarians, not Copts.

 

[Heinrich]

hehehehehehehehe

I just wanted to add another post to this thread

btw. I believe god created the earth in 6 days about 6000 years ago, and about 4400 years ago there was a world wide flood

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Which translation did God keep His message as He wanted it to be? Are you suggesting that one of the translations doesn't have God's message in it?

As should be clear from my post I believe that all of them have the essentials necessary for salvation.

Yet they disagree on details, mostly trivial despite what the KJV fanatics say about the NIV, but still disagreement, which calls into question the word for word preservation of his message. And furthermore the "literal" or "plain" interpretation of the Bible is called into question by the fact that ...

So tell me about these Hebrew passages that you say teach of the sun and moon standing still.

... for well over 2000 years the faithful worshippers of God believed that Joshua 10:12,13 plainly indicated that the Sun and Moon rotated about the Earth.

Is Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Of course.

 

[stumpjumper]

Well, we will have to disagree then. What I think you are doing here is stating that God has created us to be sinful instead of it being our choice to be sinful.

You state above that we didn’t fall from a perfect world, but I believe Adam and Eve brought evil into the world where it did not exist. God gave man a choice to live in a Very Good world without Evil, or to rebel against Him and bring Evil into the world.

We are definitely going to agree on original sin.

Let me see if I can understand this from a literal perspective. Literal: "Adam and Eve ate an apple and brought sin into the world." How does Adam and Eve eating an apple from a tree which was placed in the Garden by God with God's full knowledge of what would happen bring "evil" into a world which God created?

We know that God is responsible for both Good and "Evil" in our world. God is responsible for and the source of everything in the universe. Only Good has ontological status however.

I do not agree with the theology that states God created an evil world and placed man into the world, creating Him sinful from the beginning. Thus, God is the reason for sin, not man, because man never chose to sin against God, he has been born into sin that was already in place before his existence.

That is not what a evolutionary view of our past states. "Evil" does not exist it is merely a perversion of good. In the words of Thomas Aquinas: “The way God is governor of all things matches the way God is their cause.” God caused humanity to be causes as well. If God were to govern alone and all-powerfully, Creatures such as humans would be without a cause and would not have any power to affect the world in which we inhabit. God being loving goodness is drawing humanity towards our shared goal while allowing us to creatively participate in this endeavor. Natural "evil" then is only apparent as a perversion of the good which is God and is our eschatological goal. “Evil”, be it natural or moral, is only discernible when it is compared to goodness of God and our common goal.

It is a literal reading which has us believe that we live in an evil world. If that is the case then God created it evil.

Again, I disagree. As much as I like Einstein and enjoy his work, I also disagree with him. I believe God did have a choice. I wouldn’t limit God to say He had no choice in the matter.

I don't mean to say that he did not actually have a choice. But, God being love would have been compelled to create the world because of that very nature of His character.

I asked you those questions about John to see what your view of the Gospels was and what your reading of them led you to believe. Do you choose a literal reading of all parts of the Bible over say a narrative or historical critical reading?

I tend to follow a historical critical exegesis and because of that I view different books in the history in which they were written and what their meaning was in that context. A literal reading, although it is favored by some denominations, I view as inaccurate. I am coming to the conclusion that this is the real sticking point in these debates.

Have you ever wondered why many books of the Bible are put together in such a narrative fashion regardless of the actual events?

 

[Critias]

More ignorance. You are surely talking of Rastafarians, not Copts.

Actually, I was talking about the Ethopian Zion Coptic Church. My mistake.

You sure did jump in line quickly to insult me as well, didn't yah.

 

[artybloke]

Well, we have writings from this time recording actual events that took place, that in and of itself is history.

Which particular writings were written around the time of the creation or the flood? Which bits of Genesis were being written around the time of Abraham? Come to think of it, as it's more than likely that most of the "history" books were written at least a couple of centuries after the events which they relate, in what sense were the writers around?

I suppose you deny the archaeological finds of a school library in Ur that contained history books?

a) source please
b) I'm sure they did have "history" of a sort - the earliest named historians in Greece, for instance, were people like Thucyidides and Herodotus. Even Homer's Illiad has historical elements in it (ie Troy did exist). But history in an age before fact-checking, archeology, dating technology, etc etc, all the historians had to go on were oral traditions and official documents. Steles recorded "history" - but they were always biased toward the winners. There was no understanding of objective historical method (which arose at the same time as its "sister" discipline, "scientific method.) Histories would have mixed legend, folklore and oral traditions that they had no way of checking with reality. This is not a question of saying these people were "dumb", it's a question of technology.

Then I suppose you think that when Jesus Christ was transfigured on the Mount that

was not Moses there? Who was it with Elijah and Jesus then? Or is that just a myth too? So then Peter is a liar when he states he did not make up that story...

I don't consider midrashic story from the gospels that probably itself origninated in oral tradition to be "corroboration" of anything. Evidence from the time when Moses was said to have existed would corroborate it.

And yet, we have archaeological finds that proves your statements to be false.

Archeological evidence doesn't usually prove very much. It might prove that ancient peoples ate with spoons and wore sandals. It might prove that a city existed somewhere near where the Bible says it did. It doesn't prove that such and such a person existed and did such and such. For that, you'd need evidence from steles, papyrii etc. which is reliable.

I don't know if Moses existed or not; but outside of the Bible, he made no impact at all.

 

[Critias]

The true historical account is that American soldiers left Vietnam. Whether they pulled out or were pushed out is for politicians to decide. Ditto the cold war. My point is that history is a factual record of actual events.

Well, an actual event of a pullout happened. Whether it was from defeat or just pulling out is recorded differently.

Do you think who lost WWII is part of history? Or does that have nothing to do with history?

I never said that. I said that even if we can conclude that American Indians did hunt buffalo with spears (though I missed that out, I was implying it. Sorry for being unclear.), we cannot conclude specifically that ...

No, you didn't say "I want specifics", but look at what you added to what I said:

When I look at the picture and hear your explanation I would say, "But we cannot deduce that on one specific day, one thin American Indian killed one buffalo by spearing it in the heart." I wouldn't draw such details from the painting without separate evidence. Thus for me it wouldn't be history.

I bolded some of the above additions you made. Isn't that more specific than what I said? And didn't you just end the sentence I just quoted above stating that you wouldn't draw such details from the paiting therefore it wouldn't be history to you? Because you couldn't get those details, you conclude it isn't history, so don't you want more specific information before you accept it as history?

I thought you YECs were the ones wanting specifics. One argument I've heard a lot is that Scripture cannot condone evolution because it says birds were created before land animals. Now if that's not a specific I wonder what is ...

Ok, I think this still misunderstood. TEs want specifics such as microscopic specifics of things that go on. Makes sense since most TEs are science minded.

YECs follow the order of creation found in Genesis. We don't require specifics that are not found in Genesis like, say evolution, or single celled organism that evolves into a multicellular organism, that eventually evolves into a man. What we do say is that these sepecifics, not because they are not found in Genesis but because they require a lot of time are in contradiction to what is written in Genesis.

TEs are asking why look for the specifics in Genesis? Go look for the specifics in radioisotope dating experiments or ice ring counting or something. Genesis isn't dealing with specifically historical scientific theories and facts, it's dealing with theology. That's why we say Genesis isn't history - and yet is still true.

And some of thos specifics that you and other TEs hold against are in contradiction with Genesis. As you and others have done by changing the meaning of Genesis 1-11, is to make your theology of creation, the fall, sin entering the world, free will, original sin, etc all that much more complicated and even now unexplainable. Instead of taking the Bible for what it says, you need to change it, in order to accept those specifics in the world that you feel you need to accept.

As I have said many times on this forum, it isn't the specifics that I care about when you or another accept them. It is the result of that - changing the Bible's intended meaning. Then, some here, will arrogantly state that Peter or Paul or both and all the Chruch Fathers who were taught by them and John are all wrong and you are right with your theology.

I can't even imagine thinking that I am greater than Paul when it comes to theological discourse. Yet, it is common place for some TEs here to indirectly assert that they are by calling him ignorant. For creation of the world is theology because it is talking about God. If you want to state it is not theology, then you must take God out of it.

I think I can imagine a minute. It's nanoseconds that have me stumped.

So in one minute, you can imagine what it is see, hear and know what God sees, hears and knows? That was what I was describing; being able to see, know and hear everything that happens within the universe, from very big to very small and leaving nothing out, all within one minute.

Can you still comphrend that in 1 minutes time?

Sure! *throws it back at Critias* catch!

Hey! You almost hit me in the head!

Okay. I agree completely. Line's long and I won't do anybody any good jumping in. *steps aside respectfully*

I am not sure if you have access or own the collection of all the Early Church Fathers, but the last volume in the Ante Nicene before 365 has what some think to be the work of Peter and Paul. There is a lot of speculation on these works and if they are really theirs or not. But, I personally think it is worth the read because I think that Paul wrote more than what we have today. I think the same about Peter and John and the rest of the Apostles. But what we have is sufficient enough for knowing who God is and what Jesus Christ has done for us.

I also think that too many people here arrogantly try to reduce the Bible to nothing greater than thoughts and teachings of men. Granted, men wrote what is inside the Bible, but the teachings are not mans, they are God's. I think there is a trend that extends much wider than just the internet that is trying to give less credibility, and authority to the Bible but putting it on the shelves and stating that it is nothing greater than Homers work.

I know that last line will make Gluadys upset because she has much respect for Homer. Last time I said such a comment, she came to Homers defense to uplift his words and really said nothing of the Bible. That for me, proved my point even more.

Thank you for not take hurling an insulting word or two at me because you disagree with me.

 

[Critias]

As should be clear from my post I believe that all of them have the essentials necessary for salvation.

And I agree.

Yet they disagree on details, mostly trivial despite what the KJV fanatics say about the NIV, but still disagreement, which calls into question the word for word preservation of his message. And furthermore the "literal" or "plain" interpretation of the Bible is called into question by the fact that ...

... for well over 2000 years the faithful worshippers of God believed that Joshua 10:12,13 plainly indicated that the Sun and Moon rotated about the Earth.

Have you ever actually tried to translate a book within the Bible? A verse? If so, then you are well aware that there are differences between the languages of Hebrew-English and Greek-English. Take the Greek for example, one word can have such a full meaning that it would take 3-4 words of the English to try and capture the meaning of the 1 Greek word.

I have a good friend of mine who did the translation of Ecclesiastes from Hebrew to English for one of the Bibles out there. If you haven't experienced it before - firsthand or through a friend - you wouldn't even know how painstaking the processes is. The review board will fight you on every word of the translation to make sure it is perfect. It is a constant back and forth explanation fo why 1 word was chosen instead of another to make sure it is the best word possible to remain closest to the original.

Most people really have no idea what is involved. What I have stated doesn't come close to what it is really like.

So, if God's message is still preserved so that we can understand how to receive salvation from Jesus Christ alone, what is the problem with God preserving His word?

Do you have historical evidence that show your assertion about the people who believed in God believed the sun rotated around the earth?

Of course.

 

[Critias]

We are definitely going to agree on original sin.

Let me see if I can understand this from a literal perspective. Literal: "Adam and Eve ate an apple and brought sin into the world." How does Adam and Eve eating an apple from a tree which was placed in the Garden by God with God's full knowledge of what would happen bring "evil" into a world which God created?

Where does the Bible say it was an apple? It wasn't the apple that gave them the knowledge. It was the disobediance against God that gave them the knowledge of what it is like to rebel against God. Thus, God allowed them to become aware of what it is like to depart from God's goodness.

I think you might be thinking that if a passage is literal, then every piece must be literal. That isn't the case. Have you read or heard anything that tells you of events that actually happened, how they happened and yet uses figures of speech? Do you take the figures of speech literally? Do you take the actual events and how they happened as mythical because of the figure of speech?

We know that God is responsible for both Good and "Evil" in our world. God is responsible for and the source of everything in the universe. Only Good has ontological status however.

So, do you believe God is responsible for mans rebellion?

That is not what a evolutionary view of our past states. "Evil" does not exist it is merely a perversion of good. In the words of Thomas Aquinas: “The way God is governor of all things matches the way God is their cause.” God caused humanity to be causes as well. If God were to govern alone and all-powerfully, Creatures such as humans would be without a cause and would not have any power to affect the world in which we inhabit. God being loving goodness is drawing humanity towards our shared goal while allowing us to creatively participate in this endeavor. Natural "evil" then is only apparent as a perversion of the good which is God and is our eschatological goal. “Evil”, be it natural or moral, is only discernible when it is compared to goodness of God and our common goal.

Death of life, goes against what God originally intended. Evolution says death is natural process. TEs say death is something God sees as good. Paul says death is an enemy to God.

It is a literal reading which has us believe that we live in an evil world. If that is the case then God created it evil.

So, if we chose to be evil, we blame God now? That sounds like what you are stating above because of a literal reading.

If you want to know what someone thinks who reads it literally, then I will tell you that man chose to rebel, thus knowing what evil is. We don't say that God created man originally to rebel. It is people like yourself that state such erroneous statements to distort what we really say.

I don't mean to say that he did not actually have a choice. But, God being love would have been compelled to create the world because of that very nature of His character.

I asked you those questions about John to see what your view of the Gospels was and what your reading of them led you to believe. Do you choose a literal reading of all parts of the Bible over say a narrative or historical critical reading?

Actually, I don't follow a literal reading, but since most people confuse hermeneutics here, I just state it plainly as literal.

I tend to follow a historical critical reading.

I tend to follow a historical critical exegesis and because of that I view different books in the history in which they were written and what their meaning was in that context. A literal reading, although it is favored by some denominations, I view as inaccurate. I am coming to the conclusion that this is the real sticking point in these debates.

I view God as a God who works within our real history and uses that real history to teach us of Him. This, to me, makes Him more real for mankind to know. Because I view this, I see the Bible as recorded events of God working through history, our real history. It shows God's love for mankind because He has constantly been pursuing mankind to turn us to Him. This shows that He truly does want all to be saved, but that won't be the case.

Have you ever wondered why many books of the Bible are put together in such a narrative fashion regardless of the actual events?

They are an expression of God's love for mankind. To show His desire to call us unto Him. For Jesus said and I paraphrase, 'Oh, Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you like a chick gathers her hens, but you would not have Me.' For one, this shows who Jesus Christ is, God, for here He shows His knowledge of before His birth as a man, and His undying love for mankind.

When you take the Bible and say it is mythical, not historical, then why hasn't God come and work within history if He loves us so much? Why wouldn't He have it recorded so we can read about what He has done for us, in real history?

To me, it appears that you and many TEs want the world to know God has not worked within history only myths as recorded in the Bible and He hasn't left us with records of Him working within history. If God truly loves us, He would leave an account of what He has really done to gather us up like a hen gathers her chicks because He does not want anyone to perish.

Instead, you argue for a side that says God didn't leave a real historical account of Him do such and He may not have tried to gather us us to turn to Him.

 

[stumpjumper]

Where does the Bible say it was an apple?

I have an artistic mind; I'm allowed literary license.

It was the disobediance against God that gave them the knowledge of what it is like to rebel against God. Thus, God allowed them to become aware of what it is like to depart from God's goodness.

I think you might be thinking that if a passage is literal, then every piece must be literal. That isn't the case. Have you read or heard anything that tells you of events that actually happened, how they happened and yet uses figures of speech? Do you take the figures of speech literally? Do you take the actual events and how they happened as mythical because of the figure of speech?

You are just selecting what you wish to interpret as allegory in this story of the Garden of Eden and yet at the same time saying it must have happened or it would have no significance. The knowledge of right and wrong is a good thing wouldn't you say.

Here is my mythical interpretation to this story using only what is written. Original sin is an estrangement from the ideal so in one sense you are correct above that we depart from God's goodness. We do this everyday.

So in our mythical Garden of Eden we see collective humanity transforming from an innocent love to a mature love. Adam and Eve reached for universal knowledge and the power to define what is good and evil for their own lives. Godlike they wanted to decide what is good for me and what is wrong for me.

After they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve covered themselves and hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God walking among the trees (finding the allegory yet?) "Where are you Adam?" Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree that I told you not to eat from? All of the sudden our existence has been complexified. We have grown into a mature love and we now know the act of knowing. We no longer experience just the simplicity of loving but have made the simple act of loving infinitely more complex. This is a story of innocence lost because of our pretension to be our god. Adam and Eve turned away from God and hid themselves in shame. This is rewritten over and over again in Auschwitz, Rhwanda, Iraq, and all the other places where man was making his own rules.

This is what this story is teaching us. We share in Adam and Eve's sin because we are human. Not because of some genetically inherited defect because of eating from the tree of knowledge. A literal reading that puts us physically in a perfect Garden and then falling would have to make natural evils the result of moral evil. Are hurricanes the result of moral evils? Or is the Garden of Eden an allegory about our now complex and estranged existence and how it relates to a simple and innocent love that we can share with God.

We do not judge the truth; the truth judges us!

Death of life, goes against what God originally intended. Evolution says death is natural process. TEs say death is something God sees as good. Paul says death is an enemy to God.

So did God make a mistake? We have not turned out as originally intended. It only goes against your literal reading of Genesis. Paul is talking about spiritual death not physical death. Christ triumphed over death.

So, if we chose to be evil, we blame God now? That sounds like what you are stating above because of a literal reading.

If you want to know what someone thinks who reads it literally, then I will tell you that man chose to rebel, thus knowing what evil is. We don't say that God created man originally to rebel. It is people like yourself that state such erroneous statements to distort what we really say.

Yet with your literal exegesis God placed a tree in the Garden with a talking snake and expected man not to eat the fruit. God knew full well that the fruit would be eaten. Why did God put the tree in the Garden?

I tend to follow a historical critical reading.

Then how do you explain the fact that you disregard the recorded history of our world. Antropology, archaeology, cosmology, biology etc. etc. all provide a history of our world which should be taken into account with any historical critical exegesis.

When you take the Bible and say it is mythical, not historical, then why hasn't God come and work within history if He loves us so much? Why wouldn't He have it recorded so we can read about what He has done for us, in real history?

Instead, you argue for a side that says God didn't leave a real historical account of Him do such and He may not have tried to gather us us to turn to Him.

Any theist should say that God is responsible for every contingency in the world. Is not that God working through history? Do you really want to argue that God only works through the history that is recorded in the Bible? In parts that are clearly written allegorically no less. YEC's make such a big deal about Genesis 1-11 and create this false dichotomy that pretty much states well if this is not a real historical account then God does not work through history.

Do you really want to make that statement? It creates such a stumbling block for non-Christians that can be almost insurmountable. The Creation and Flood story is a myth. Yet, not surprisingly to me, the God of Abram is still very real.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Actually, I don't follow a literal reading, but since most people confuse hermeneutics here, I just state it plainly as literal.

I tend to follow a historical critical reading.

i believe you mean historical-grammatical.
historical-critical is the proper label for the liberal hermeneutic which your opposition has evidenced is his general approach.

 

[Critias]

I have an artistic mind; I'm allowed literary license.



Ahaha.



You are just selecting what you wish to interpret as allegory in this story of the Garden of Eden and yet at the same time saying it must have happened or it would have no significance. The knowledge of right and wrong is a good thing wouldn't you say.



So, if one piece is allegorical, then everything around it is as well then? Is that your approach?




Here is my mythical interpretation to this story using only what is written. Original sin is an estrangement from the ideal so in one sense you are correct above that we depart from God's goodness. We do this everyday.

So in our mythical Garden of Eden we see collective humanity transforming from an innocent love to a mature love. Adam and Eve reached for universal knowledge and the power to define what is good and evil for their own lives. Godlike they wanted to decide what is good for me and what is wrong for me.

After they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve covered themselves and hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God walking among the trees (finding the allegory yet?) "Where are you Adam?" Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree that I told you not to eat from? All of the sudden our existence has been complexified. We have grown into a mature love and we now know the act of knowing. We no longer experience just the simplicity of loving but have made the simple act of loving infinitely more complex. This is a story of innocence lost because of our pretension to be our god. Adam and Eve turned away from God and hid themselves in shame. This is rewritten over and over again in Auschwitz, Rhwanda, Iraq, and all the other places where man was making his own rules.

This is what this story is teaching us. We share in Adam and Eve's sin because we are human. Not because of some genetically inherited defect because of eating from the tree of knowledge. A literal reading that puts us physically in a perfect Garden and then falling would have to make natural evils the result of moral evil. Are hurricanes the result of moral evils? Or is the Garden of Eden an allegory about our now complex and estranged existence and how it relates to a simple and innocent love that we can share with God.

We do not judge the truth; the truth judges us!

Ok. Here is my historical narrative approach that I believe the author intended to say about a real historical event.



In the Garden of Eden, we have seen a representation of all of mankind within two people. These two people, being very much real, are also representing what we would have done, if we were placed in their position.



God told Adam, before Eve was created to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge within the Garden. Why was this tree present in the Garden? Because, in order for man to have free will, he must be able to make the choice of following God and what He says or not. Free will is not God making us follow Him.



A serpent, whether literal or figurative, came and said to Eve, ‘Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ Eve, obviously have been told by either God or Adam that she also was not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge replied to the serpent that they were not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. She told the serpent that God said if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, they would surely die. The serpent, being cunning and knowing what God really meant by what He said used it to tempt Eve by saying, ‘Surely you won’t die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing Good and Evil.’



Just from this, it is obvious that there was a time that man did not know of Evil. When did this happen in the events of evolution?



Why did God allow Adam and Eve to be tempted? I actually think the book of Job answers this quite well.



When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge, they made their choice to know of Good and Evil. Notice what Genesis says about how Eve saw the fruit, ‘pleasing to the eye’ do you think Moses is making a small point here? Moses also adds that it was ‘desirable for gaining wisdom.’ Is this God’s wisdom?



After they ate of the fruit, their eyes were both opened, knowing now what Evil was/is. They could now see themselves in the light of both Good and Evil, instead of only Good. They felt shame in their nakedness, in the light of knowing Evil.



Notice, when God speaks to Adam about what he has done and how Adam replies, ‘The woman you put me here with – she gave me the fruit and I ate it.’ Notice how Adam shifts the blame off of himself onto Eve, which really is not in Eve but on God, because Adam says “the woman you put here”. Do we still see this today?



How about when we decide to carry out Satan’s temptations? Don’t we say it is God who created Evil and therefore it is not my fault I am doing what He created.



God shows us amazing love by creating us with free will and when we misuse the free will He gave us, we blame Him for giving it to us. As if we rather be created with no choice to serve Him.




So did God make a mistake? We have not turned out as originally intended. It only goes against your literal reading of Genesis. Paul is talking about spiritual death not physical death. Christ triumphed over death.



Yet with your literal exegesis God placed a tree in the Garden with a talking snake and expected man not to eat the fruit. God knew full well that the fruit would be eaten. Why did God put the tree in the Garden?



1 Corinthians 15 is one my favorite chapters in the New Testament. It talks about the resurrection of the dead. Now, do you think the resurrection of the dead will be a real resurrection of the dead? People who were physically dead? Notice verse 21, how Paul talks about death coming through a man(singular) as the resurrection of the dead comes through a man(singular). Paul isn’t talking about spiritual death here; he is talking about the physical for Christ’s body was spiritual and physical. His body had the scars of His crucifixion.



1 Corinthians 15:26 speaks of the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Let us cross reference this with Revelations 20:14 which says “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.” Death and Hades are to be thrown into the second death and we know the second death is separation from God, permanently. We also know sin is separation from God. So what death is this that these two verses speak of? Is it spiritual death being thrown into spiritual death?






Then how do you explain the fact that you disregard the recorded history of our world. Antropology, archaeology, cosmology, biology etc. etc. all provide a history of our world which should be taken into account with any historical critical exegesis.



Are you stating that you know that I disregard all of the above and everything they put forth? I love archaeology and I think the field has done much to prove the historical value of the Bible.





Any theist should say that God is responsible for every contingency in the world. Is not that God working through history? Do you really want to argue that God only works through the history that is recorded in the Bible? In parts that are clearly written allegorically no less. YEC's make such a big deal about Genesis 1-11 and create this false dichotomy that pretty much states well if this is not a real historical account then God does not work through history.



Do you really want to state that God is responsible for us sinning? Instead of us taking up the responsibility of our own sins, you suggest we say it is God’s fault instead?



I never said God only works through the history of the Bible. I said the Bible has recorded God working through history; it doesn’t record everything He has done. I told you of what John said, if he were to record all that Jesus did while here on earth, the world could not contain the volumes written.



It is not if A then B. Why would God chose to not have His work through history recorded and instead record the things He did not do?

Do you really want to make that statement? It creates such a stumbling block for non-Christians that can be almost insurmountable. The Creation and Flood story is a myth. Yet, not surprisingly to me, the God of Abram is still very real.



I am aware that the Bible having recorded history is a stumbling block for some people. Should I alter what is written for them? And those who find Jesus as a stumbling block, shall I alter what is written about His life so it isn’t a stumbling block for them? Shall I tell people that Jesus isn’t the Only Way to the Father? I cannot. I am bound by my faith, that God has given to me, to follow His teachings and to accept that He did have men write about what He has done.



I do not accept the view point that the Bible is mans work in trying to find God, but rather an account of God’s effort to reveal Himself to man. He does so in our very real lives, not in myths and fables.

 

[stumpjumper]

So, if one piece is allegorical, then everything around it is as well then? Is that your approach?


Ok. Here is my historical narrative approach that I believe the author intended to say about a real historical event.

I like my interpretation better but I don't have time to debate the finer points of the Garden of Eden right now. My approach to the Garden of Eden is that the entire story is an allegorical myth and was intended to be read as such. The story of Hagar and Sarah is both history and allegory so your first comment does not apply.

Can you give me one good reason why people should view the Garden of Eden and Creation story as anything but a mythical story?

Just from this, it is obvious that there was a time that man did not know of Evil. When did this happen in the events of evolution?

Give me your defintion of "evil"?

Are you saying that before Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge that they did not know how to disobey God's commands?

God shows us amazing love by creating us with free will and when we misuse the free will He gave us, we blame Him for giving it to us. As if we rather be created with no choice to serve Him.

If we had free will before we ate the fruit then we had the knowledge of how to disobey God's commands.

Now, do you think the resurrection of the dead will be a real resurrection of the dead? People who were physically dead? Notice verse 21, how Paul talks about death coming through a man(singular) as the resurrection of the dead comes through a man(singular). Paul isn’t talking about spiritual death here; he is talking about the physical for Christ’s body was spiritual and physical. His body had the scars of His crucifixion.

Are these verses one of the main reasons that you believe Adam had to be an historical person? Looking at these passages from a narrative approach you have Paul setting up why we should follow Christ's teachings, why Christ's resurrection was important, and why we should not fear physical death. Now Paul say's the price of sin is death. Does that mean every time we commit a sin we physically die? I think it means that the price of sin is a spiritual death because every sin takes us further away from God and also that our original sin without the resurecction of Christ would mean that our physical death would be the end of our existence. But, we preach Christ risen and His risen nature will be our risen nature. I believe that our resurecction does not entail the resucitation of our physical bodies but that a bodily resurrection does include the matter of the universe. But this is off topic.

Adam is a common and proper noun in Genesis as you know. If Christ can represent the risen nature of all saved men then why can not Paul be using Adam to represent the dead nature of all men. It does not have to be a specific comparison between a physical Adam and a physical Christ. Paul is talking about the risen Christ which we all can become not the phyisical Jesus.

The resurrected Christ will conquer all evil and our physical death. That is the point of those passages. I would consider complete absence of God a spiritual death yes. I'm out of time

 

[vossler]

You folks have entirely too much time on your hands.

Are you deliberately skirting the issue? Surely you are aware that there is no Christian consensus on the canon of the OT. For 1500+ years the church used the Septuagint as the basis of the canon. Then Martin Luther decided not to and switched to the more restrictive rabbinical Tanakh instead. But, of course, not all Christians agreed with him. It is perfectly reasonable to ask why books considered scripture for a millenium and a half should no longer be included in the OT.

Nothing to disagree with here. Whether there was consensus or not isn't the issue for me. God's all consuming power and authority is the issue. For me to doubt that the canon of Scripture is either incomplete or not authentic would call into question every book therein, which then calls God into question. I'm not even going to come close to touching that.

Which is God's canon? Where in scripture does it say to include or exclude the books of Tobit and Judith and other parts of the Septuagint which are routinely included in some bibles and excluded in others?

God being who He is I think can take care of a small detail like that, don't you think?

 

[shernren]

You folks have entirely too much time on your hands.

I agree wholeheartedly! In more ways than one.

I bolded some of the above additions you made. Isn't that more specific than what I said? And didn't you just end the sentence I just quoted above stating that you wouldn't draw such details from the paiting therefore it wouldn't be history to you? Because you couldn't get those details, you conclude it isn't history, so don't you want more specific information before you accept it as history?

I would say it isn't history. But that doesn't mean I can't learn something from it. To me calling it history represents a high factual quality of the information. The particular piece of info could change my life and still not be qualitatively accurate enough to be called history.

YECs follow the order of creation found in Genesis. We don't require specifics that are not found in Genesis like, say evolution, or single celled organism that evolves into a multicellular organism, that eventually evolves into a man. What we do say is that these sepecifics, not because they are not found in Genesis but because they require a lot of time are in contradiction to what is written in Genesis.

Okay you bolded "order" right? So basically what matters is the sequence in which things happened? And not the amount of time in which they happened? So why is "a lot of time" in contradiction to Genesis?

I can't even imagine thinking that I am greater than Paul when it comes to theological discourse. Yet, it is common place for some TEs here to indirectly assert that they are by calling him ignorant. For creation of the world is theology because it is talking about God. If you want to state it is not theology, then you must take God out of it.

PRECISELY! Saying that evolution happened is NOT theology. It is science precisely because God has been taken out of it. It is not bad theology because it isn't theology because it doesn't say anything about God. What is bad theology is people saying evolution proves that God is cruel, evolution proves that there is no God, ad infinitum ad nauseam. We try our best to repel such notions. And to be candid, all that posturing by parties like AiG with "Evolutionism is a bloody atheist invention!" doesn't help at all.

And of course, that's why I believe that Adam and Eve were very real and literal progenitors of the human race, evolution notwithstanding.

So in one minute, you can imagine what it is see, hear and know what God sees, hears and knows? That was what I was describing; being able to see, know and hear everything that happens within the universe, from very big to very small and leaving nothing out, all within one minute.

Can you still comprehend that in 1 minutes time?

I hope I don't sound like I'm boasting but yeah. Reading science fiction helps. I find it not too hard (though still somewhat) to imagine the entire universe, galaxy-scale physics, solar systems and all. Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything helped loads. You should read it too! before tearing out the one-third of the book about the age of the earth and the discovery of evolution.

For me what I find hard to wrap my head around is the idea of the very small - the fact that some enzymes complete a few million reactions in seconds, the idea of cells so small millions of 'em fit into the next comma, atoms, electrons et al. Which is why I also believe that it's more probable that God started the whole "life" thing going.

I am not sure if you have access or own the collection of all the Early Church Fathers, but the last volume in the Ante Nicene before 365 has what some think to be the work of Peter and Paul. There is a lot of speculation on these works and if they are really theirs or not. But, I personally think it is worth the read because I think that Paul wrote more than what we have today. I think the same about Peter and John and the rest of the Apostles. But what we have is sufficient enough for knowing who God is and what Jesus Christ has done for us.

No I don't have any of the Church Fathers, physically or literally but it would be interesting. Not much access now frankly.