Why I rejected theistic evolution

[Keachian]

Nope. Toss TE and just believe the Lord with no mixture of Darwin.

I'm a TE and I don't necessarily care for evolution, how about me can I have a badge?

Evolution isn't what drives me to reject a YEC pov, the text and a cultural understanding thereof is what does it

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm a TE and I believe Genesis is history. Do I get a badge?

You get a double kudo for believing what the Bible says and then for admitting it. Double kudos to you the Fijian! Congratulations, you have discovered the character of the Genesis account.

If you really want a badge I can make you one, what would you like it to say?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm a TE and I don't necessarily care for evolution, how about me can I have a badge?

Evolution isn't what drives me to reject a YEC pov, the text and a cultural understanding thereof is what does it

The Bible is attached to not one but two cultures, living cultures that are with us today. I realize that you are still working some things out but the whole concept of cultural norms of the literary style are suspect since most of them are now gone and exist as relics of the anthropologist and archeologist.

Still, I would like to learn more about your understanding of the text and cultural context. Any resources you would care to recommend?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Martyrs44]

I'm a TE and I don't necessarily care for evolution, how about me can I have a badge?

Evolution isn't what drives me to reject a YEC pov, the text and a cultural understanding thereof is what does it

Worry about your relation with the Lord who told you in no uncertain terms that the world He created was done in six days.

 

[theFijian]

Nope. Toss TE and just believe the Lord with no mixture of Darwin.

Ah ok, so believing the Bible isn't that important after all it seems.

 

[Keachian]

Worry about your relation with the Lord who told you in no uncertain terms that the world He created was done in six days.

Oh we get along fine. He has no problems with me understanding how he intended Genesis to be read, in fact we've grown closer for it. He especially enjoys it when I praise him for the 14 billion years it took him to mold the universe to where it is now, he calls me a little scamp and sends me out to convert the heathens.

 

[Martyrs44]

Ah ok, so believing the Bible isn't that important after all it seems.

What kind of a badge to you want? Why would you seek our approval in the first place?

It is your choice between truth and error but you cannot have both.

Read what Bob said above, please.

 

[Martyrs44]

Oh we get along fine. He has no problems with me understanding how he intended Genesis to be read, in fact we've grown closer for it. He especially enjoys it when I praise him for the 14 billion years it took him to mold the universe to where it is now, he calls me a little scamp and sends me out to convert the heathens.

Really? I don't believe you because God didn't create the universe 14 billion years ago.

You just slapped Moses in the face.

 

[Keachian]

Really? I don't believe you because God didn't create the universe 14 billion years ago.

You just slapped Moses in the face.

Did I say created? As in finished and done? Nope, if you want to know I believe creation was finished up in a 7 day inauguration week which is what is found in Gen1

 

[Martyrs44]

Did I say created? As in finished and done? Nope, if you want to know I believe creation was finished up in a 7 day inauguration week which is what is found in Gen1

Good.

Now eliminate the 14 billion yr stuff and your standing on good ground. There is no evidence for it except in the vivid imaginations of those who dreamed it up.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, did you ever think God could act in time and space too?

Of course. Then again TEs don't have a problem with God performing miracles the way creationists have a problem God speaking in metaphors.

So he goes on for an entire chapter describing six days of creation but it is not his purposed to teach a six day creation. No, his purpose is to teach the observance of the seventh day rest, which is synonymous with faith btw (Heb 3:7-11). The Sabbath (literally 7th) has no bearing on the six days of creation except that would raise the question, why did God choose to name it Seven?

As usual, you are making no sense at all.

Isn't seven a significant symbolic number in the bible?

But you didn't address the point I made. Whether you are right about Genesis 1 being mean to teach a literal six day creation or not, it is not why Moses referred to it in Exodus. Read Exodus 20:11 and look at what Moses is doing. He is using the six days to teach Sabbath observance, not six day creationism.

If he wanted to describe creation in figurative terms using a parable he would have compared one thing to another. Do you ever take a minute before you post these things to consider what the words you use actually mean?

God is being compared to a workman doing a week's work and having a rest. Where you are getting confused is you think metaphors and parables always state their comparison, the Kingdom of God is like a grain of mustard. That is a simile, some parables use a simile others don't and metaphors don't state the comparison at all.

Your wrong about everything except that 'outstreched arm' is figurative language. It does not refer to the fleeing Hebrews though, it refers to the judgements and miracles of God used to deliver the Hebrews.

Exactly. It is a figurative description of all the plagues, leading them safely through the divided sea and drowning the Egyptian perusers. Moses used this figurative description of the events of the Exodus to teach the Sabbath Command. Which means there is no reason Moses couldn't use a figurative description of the creation to teach the Sabbath too.

Nonsense, it says in Genesis 2 that God ended (Strong's H3615 - kalah )His work on the 7th day. Exodus 23:12 explains that there is no work to be done on the 7th day so that the workers, including work animals, could be refreshed.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

I'll tell you if you actually explain the relevance of that point to what I said.

Yes it does, that's why the Sabbath was named the seventh day because it was after the six day creation when God had 'ended' his work and the creation was complete in all it's vast array. It is a specific and explicit reference to a six day work week.

What has that got to do with my comment on Psalm 33? Are you just working from the quote in the reply box and forgetting to look back to my post to see what I am replying to? It would explain a number of your comments here.

That's not what it says:

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10,11)​

It says the God's Word will accomplish God's purpose and it will succeed in the thing for which it was intended. So far you have taken three verses, twisted their meaning to suite your private interpretation, contradicting the clear meaning of all of them directly.

God compares the fulfilment of his word to the long process of rain falling down from the sky watering the ground, wheat sprouting, growing and bearing seed which is harvested, some is sown again in the next planting season and some is milled, made into dough and baked so people can eat it. It is not like raindrops fall to the ground instantly and immediately poof into loaves like ACME Dehydrated Bread.

Mark 4:26 And he said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.
27 He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how.
28 The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.
29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."

This is getting depressing, no wonder Creationists don't want to post here very much.

I know their scriptural basis is so shaky they simply cannot put up a decent defence.

No it's not...

I see you haven't read the passage I was responding to again.

Neither does Moses, that's because it was already understood that the name in the genealogy should be interpreted as names in the genealogy. It probably never occurred to that someone would mistake them for a parable.

It certainly didn't occur to them to interpret the text like a 21st century literalist. But whatever occurred to them or not, it doesn't change the fact the chronicler is silent on the meaning of the names other than to copy the order from Genesis. Martyrs was looking for witnesses to origins in Genesis being literal. The chronicler was another who simply won't take the witness stand.

Or Adam could be a literal person, the first parent of humanity as he is described in the New Testament. He could be a literal person and creation week could be a literal six day week which would account for called the seventh day, Sabbath (lit. 7th). That seems like it might be a possibility, doesn't it.

Perhaps if you showed where the NT describes Adam as the first parent of humanity. The Chronicler says nothing of the sort or anything about a six day creation.

No of course not, that just the literal meaning. Everyone else is the son of someone specific except for Adam and Christ. Could that be because the did not have human parents Assyrian? Could it be that it actually means what it says?

Could be. It doesn't say. But I am glad you agree Luke's description of Adam is not to be taken literally.

I know the literal meaning is not the preferred meaning among unbelievers but is it ok for Christians doing Biblical expositions?

Atheists like Dawkins certainly loves the literal meaning, but disciples of Jesus should learn to appreciate and understand parables and metaphors just like he taught his apostles.

No, not unless you want us to interpret Timothy figuratively.

Typology is not an effective tool for reducing something you don't believe, to a figure of speech. When it is used in Roman 5:13 it is used to speak of the person Adam, the first parent of all humanity, that is not my opinion, that's the Strong's definition of 'Adam'. As far as 'type' sometimes translated 'figure' the clear meaning is not figure of speech as you would have us believe:

Strong is certainly right that Adam in Greek referred to the person in Genesis, it is not Strong's place to tell us how to interpret Genesis, or to tell us how Paul interpreted Adam. It is Paul who tells us he interpreted Adam figuratively.

Strong's G5179 - typos - τύπος (from τύπτω G5180) These two examples of how that exact form of the word is used:

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.

Paul certainly used a literal Timothy as an example, that doesn't mean examples have to be literal. Paul could have thought Adam was literal and used him as a figure, or he could just as easily have used a non literal Adam as a figure. A figure or tupos didn't have to be literal, not in the first and second century.

Or he might be a literal person that is a pattern by virtue of being the first parent of humanity. Isn't that a possibility Assyrian?

How are we now inside a parent that died and returned to the ground thousands of years ago, how do we now die in him?

Yea, let's look at the passage in it's native context:

However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. (I Corinthians 15:46-49)​

The comparison is of the first man created, the natural man, to the second man created (Christ Jesus). What you have grossly failed to appreciate is that the creation of Adam and the incarnation are inextricably linked doctrinally

Paul doesn't say first man created and second man created he says first man and second man and that is not literal. Doesn't the bible say God created Jacob and Israel, doesn't it say he created the Ammonites? You are right the creation and incarnation are linked, Paul compares them in 1Cor 15, but his comparison of Adam and Christ is figurative like his comparison in Romans 5.

I will not comment on your treatment of this one because the rules of the forum forbid me from telling you exactly what I think of you perverting the meaning of a passage of Scripture as important as I Corinthians 15.

You should be ashamed.

Paul is the one who tells us he see Adam as a figure of Christ. If that is even just one aspect of how he saw Adam and Christ, shouldn't we look at the other places where Paul makes strange sounding statements about Adam and Christ and consider the possibility that he is comparing them figuratively there too? Isn't that just basic exegesis? Shouldn't we use scripture to interpret scripture, using what Paul tells us about his comparison of Adam and Christ to try to understand the times he compares Adam and Christ?

Or you can ignore what Paul says and accuse me of perverting the meaning of scripture because the bible contradicts your bondage to literalism.

No. Marriage is often used as a figure or pattern for the relationship of Christ to the church, that much is in bounds. That doesn't mean you get to dismiss every mention of Adam and Eve as figures of speech, parables or myths. The proposition is absurd.

The only thing to do is look at each case individually and see if Paul is speaking literally or figuratively. The problem is, I can't find one case where Paul seems to speak of Adam and Eve literally. It is Paul who compares Eve to the church the bride of Christ. Look at the context:
2Cor 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Virtually every exposition you attempted here was completely erroneous, does this ever fool anyone?

If they were completely erroneous shouldn't you be able to do a better job of refuting them?

Finally got something right.

How you can be so fatally flawed in your arguments, consistently spouting blatant errors and hopelessly optimistic in your self-appraisal is a miracle of modernist audacity.

Thanks for the post but did you have to make it so darn easy?

Maybe if you put more effort into it you could do better

 

[Assyrian]

The Hebrews still speak in parables and metaphorical language, that doesn't make the subject matter any less literal. God 'bore them up on wings of eagles' but the subject is still God.

Of course, and a figurative interpretation of Genesis still says God created everything. This is a problem with literalists the keep forgetting, metaphors still have meaning. Because they have such an aversion to metaphors, they forget God uses them in his word to teach truth.

When you are making an exposition of a text you have to read it in it's proper context and the literal meaning is always preferred. It is preferred not because it's something you want to be true but because it reflects the intent of the author and the meaning of the text.

What makes you think it reflects the intent of the author? Doesn't that depend on whether he was speaking literally or not?

That's how sound interpretations are done by any and all Christian scholars whether novice, layman or cleric.

Assuming literalism is not sound scholarship.

You don't get to dismiss everything you don't believe as a figure of speech because figurative language is used. That would make you crazy as a loon, even though you know I have not mistaken you for a literal loon.

I don't. I take the geocentric passages literally. The reason I take the Genesis creation account figuratively is because evidence in the text they are not speaking literally like two contradictory order of creation if you take both account at the plain meaning of the text and the fact there are no literal interpretations of them in the rest of the bible only non literal.

You know that from the context I made it in and the use 'as', or sometimes you can use the word 'like'.

You really need to learn the difference between similes and metaphors.

I have discussed this with you repeatedly and still you repeat the same errors. Why must you persist?

What errors?

 

[Keachian]

Good.

Now eliminate the 14 billion yr stuff and your standing on good ground. There is no evidence for it except in the vivid imaginations of those who dreamed it up.

Do you mean Georges Lemaitre? Catholic Priest and astrophysicist and proposer of the Big Bang. Also seeing as there is evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth I'm fine with a 14 billion year old universe

 

[Martyrs44]

Do you mean Georges Lemaitre? Catholic Priest and astrophysicist and proposer of the Big Bang. Also seeing as there is evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth I'm fine with a 14 billion year old universe

There is none. You've been tricked.

Read my post #130 on "Where did the first cell come from?" thread exposing the evolutionist error on the age of the moon...by their own formula as given by George Darwin.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm a TE and I believe Genesis is history. Do I get a badge?

Like a cat piloting the space shuttle - it all just makes perfect sense... in some reality other than this one.

 

[BobRyan]

No doubt Darwinian evolution is opposed to Christian theism but the Christian faith is not opposed to Evolutionary Biology. Consider this, When did Noah's Ark touch down on Ararat, how many avians (birds), reptiles and mammals emerged from the Ark, how long ago was that? There would have had to be a wave of adaptive evolution spanning the globe on a dramatic if not universal level.

True - but the birds did not "Become reptiles" nor did "reptiles become birds" nor did land animals return to the sea and become whales.

Which is the difference between adaptation the remains bounded within a single genome pool (look dog breeds) - vs the true bootstrap model of the atheist evolutionist obtaining complex genomes from simpler ones.

More along the dog lines - suppose that as the wolf came off of the ark - it is somewhat domesticated and non-aggressive. The humans begin to take wolves as pets - and other wolves are left free to compete for food and specialize -- to the extent that the more aggressive traits are favored in the wild and the milder traits are favored in the domestic environment. It is the same original species and remains a part of the same over-all genetic pool.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Martyrs44]

True - but the birds did not "Become reptiles" nor did "reptiles become birds" nor did land animals return to the sea and become whales.

I concur. Adaption I can handle as long as it is defined as 'within the kind' or as in a more Linneaun class "family'.

Changes occur for certain but those changes never cause any living organism to slowly change into another type of organism.

So flies change but still remain flies; bacteria changes but still remains bacteria (Lenski's experiments notwithstanding!); rodents change but remain rodents; moths change but yet remain moths, ad infinitum.

However, if even one organism could be observed to transform into another identifiably different organism by both the genotype and the phenotype then our entire argument against evolution would break down. But that has never happened and no one has ever observed it.

 

[theFijian]

You get a double kudo for believing what the Bible says and then for admitting it. Double kudos to you the Fijian! Congratulations, you have discovered the character of the Genesis account.

If you really want a badge I can make you one, what would you like it to say?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks, although I'm sure you already know there are plenty of bible believing TEs apart from me.

 

[Martyrs44]

Thanks, although I'm sure you already know there are plenty of bible believing TEs apart from me.

Sure. And every single one of them are wrong.

 

[theFijian]

What kind of a badge to you want? Why would you seek our approval in the first place?

I don't need or want your approval, call it an attempt at lightening the tone.

It is your choice between truth and error but you cannot have both.

Read what Bob said above, please.

I read it, just more of the usual accusations which don't hold water.