Why I rejected theistic evolution

[theFijian]

Sure. And every single one of them are wrong.

Ok so, believing the bible is wrong?

 

[Martyrs44]

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

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

Maybe not for your bucket.

And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Rev. 22:17

 

[Martyrs44]

Ok so, believing the bible is wrong?

No, believing in evolution is wrong. There is no evidence for it.

P.S. I am an ex-evolutionist.

 

[theFijian]

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

Insults do not an argument make

 

[Martyrs44]

Insults do not an argument make

You haven't given one.

 

[theFijian]

No, believing in evolution is wrong. There is no evidence for it.

So you keep saying, repetition doesn't doesn't make it right.

P.S. I am an ex-evolutionist.

P.S. I am an ex-creationist. And I still believe the Bible.

 

[theFijian]

Maybe not for your bucket.

And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Rev. 22:17

Is this really the standard of Creationist arguments these days?

 

[Martyrs44]

Is this really the standard of Creationist arguments these days?

Sir, did you even bother reading the OP? Yes/no.

If not, I would suggest you do so. Then read post # 44 in my answer to Assyrian.

Best wishes.

 

[Keachian]

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.

So basically it boils down to God is tricking me

 

[Martyrs44]

So basically it boils down to God is tricking me

No, the neo-Darwinian fanatics have tricked you. Did you read what I suggested to you? That was just a sampling.

The Lord never tricks anyone.

 

[Keachian]

No, the neo-Darwinian fanatics have tricked you. Did you read what I suggested to you? That was just a sampling.

The Lord never tricks anyone.

Well yeah first he has to trick the godless heathens such as Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, John Lennox, Ken Miller, and so on, oh wait all the people I just listed are Christian

 

[gluadys]

As you know by now - Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and P.Z Meyers all admit that evolutionism is not compatible at all with the Bible account of creation and that in fact - the choice is that either you are a Christian or evolutionist - but being both is to fail to pay attention in class.

in Christ,

Bob

That's nonsense.

They don't admit any such thing.

The propose it; they argue for it.

After all, except for Darwin, they are atheists and don't want to see any compatibility between creation and evolution.

It is in their best interest to oppose any harmonization of creation and evolution.


As Christians, we should be telling them they are wrong. We should be telling them that nothing in God's world (including evolution) can be incompatible with creation. We should be arguing back at them and destroying their case.

But look who keeps agreeing with them! YEC Christians! You make common cause with atheists in breaking the tie between the world as it is and God as creator of THIS world that we experience every day--with its immense time frame, fossil record, and ongoing process of evolution.

Why do you approve the anti-God arguments that atheists make?

Why not be pro-active, like Ken Miller, Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala and tell them they are wrong. Evolution is not anti-God no matter how much atheists hope to prove otherwise.

 

[Martyrs44]

Well yeah first he has to trick the godless heathens such as Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, John Lennox, Ken Miller, and so on, oh wait all the people I just listed are Christian

Really? Convince me.

But first convince me that God tricks humans.

 

[Smidlee]

Why not be pro-active, like Ken Miller, Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala and tell them they are wrong. Evolution is not anti-God no matter how much atheists hope to prove otherwise.

Ken Miller idea isn't much better that man was an accident and God didn't know how His creation would turn out.

 

[gluadys]

Ken Miller idea isn't much better that man was an accident and God didn't know how His creation would turn out.

That might pass for someone who has never read Ken Miller's writing.
Won't do for those like me who actually own copies of his books and can read the whole context.

And it is still the case that Miller agrees with both evolution and creation and so disagrees with Dawkins, Provine, Myers, et al.

Why do so many YEC Christians applaud when atheists argue against God, but hardly acknowledge,--even criticize and oppose--fellow Christians who defend God and creation?

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

 

[Assyrian]

Sure, but not when other passages indicate such a matter is historical and real. You would have done better to not reply at all than to give this monstrosity you call your 'theology'.

Now you just need some passage to indicate the creation accounts are historical.

Both. You are not telling the truth.

This is wearing thin Martyrs, how about you show I am wrong about something and have the grace to assume I was simply mistake. But first you have to show I was wrong

The one is the basis for the other and the very reason we have a six day working week and a one day of rest.

Assuming it is literal. That doesn't change the fact Moses is using the six day creation to teach Sabbath observance, not literalism. Interpreting Genesis literally is not one of the ten commandments, the Sabbath is, and that is what Moses was teaching. You need to understand the context of a passage what the writer is actually saying, the point he is making in it. You can read other things into what he says, but he is not saying them.

The fact is the whole human race observes a seven day week...by calendar agreement. Despite the Mayan calendar, Chinese calendar, etc. the world does business on a seven day basis.

Yes the whole world has adopted our calendar, but so what?

This is neither being truthful nor is it an honest conclusion. You really do think the truth is cotton candy, or better yet; rubber. Because you stretch biblical truth beyond all reason.

Do you have a point here or just or can you only respond to what I said with insults?

What is refreshing to God for 'rest' is not the same as refreshing for rest for human beings, for God doesn't need 'rest' from being tired.

The word refreshed only occurs three times in the whole bible twice in Exodus 23:12 to describe the weary labourers exhausted by a week work being refreshed by a Sabbath rest, 2Samuel 16:4 to describe David exhausted after fleeing Absalom stopping at the Jordan and refreshing themselves, literally getting their breath back. When Moses uses the word in Exodus 31:17 to describe God's Sabbath rest he chose the word specifically to compare God with the weary labourers. That is a metaphor and anthropomorphism.

Metaphor or not the six day creation was established in chapter one and there is nothing anyone can do to change the fact; like I said, the world runs its business based on that all-important week.

You were trying to prove the six days were literal by appealing to the witnesses.

You missed the point...just like all TE's miss the point because of their acceptance of neo-Darwinian error. The point of this verse and the one following is INSTANTANEOUS CREATION. He spoke and happened instantly. It did not take 13.7 billion yrs nor did the light take millions of years to 'switch on' after He said, "Let there be light". Your conclusions are utterly without merit.That's right; the same thing. Instantaneous creation, not evolution. You are doing this deliberately. It certainly reveals to any honest readers the depth of Darwinian poison in your belief system.

Where does the verses say instantaneous?

This comment is an untruth.

There is another word for it that the mod's are sensitive to so I won't mention it. But it's clear that the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ as given by Luke means nothing to you and that it doesn't matter to you if it happens to be legal or not. You clearly don't care.

Luke says the genealogy was what people supposed, so he didn't seem bothered or even convinced by the legitimacy of the genealogy either. He says it is what people supposed was Jesus genealogy not what it actually was.

Both the reality of Adam being created on the sixth day AND the metaphor that later speaks of him as clay are correct. But the latter does not cancel the former as you have dishonestly implied.

No I didn't imply that at all. The bible says God made us from clay too Isaiah 64:8 we are the clay you are our potter. But it isn't literal, we were born by sexual reproduction like everyone else. This doesn't 'cancel' Adam be made from clay, it doesn't prove he wasn't. But it certainly opens the possibility that the description of Adam being made from clay is a metaphor too.

You are attempting to obscure the issue. Adam was indeed a 'son of God' being the first among many. Jesus on the other hand was the 'only begotten Son of God' as the scriptures later tell us. But again you denigrate the family lineage that is so important in many ways but especially as it relates to Jesus Christ Himself.

This is a genealogy, 'son of' means biological son or at least biological descendant. But Adam wasn't God's biological son. Whatever other way you want to read 'Adam son of God' it is not the literal genealogical meaning.

Again, you are not being truthful. Adam was a type of Christ just as was Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, etc. But above you told us that Adam could be a literal figure without the six day creation being literal and here you switch gears and say he was merely figurative. How convenient.

Did I say ? I said Paul interpreted Adam figuratively I didn't say he interpreted Adam merely figurative. As you point out he could still be a literal person interpreted as a type of Christ. Paul could also be interpreting 'merely figurative' character figuratively. The text doesn't tell us. All we have is Paul figurative interpretation of Adam with nothing in the text to say if Paul was interpreting a historical Adam this way or a metaphorical Adam.

What is does tell us is how important the figurative interpretation of Adam is.

No. Because sin came into the world by Adam's sin...literal sin...and then death came. Death did not enter into the world at some mysterious date in the pre-historic past for some unknown reason. We have that reason given to us plainly and you sir, have rejected the reason God gave us.

You are assuming the reason for Romans 5 is to tell us how sin and death came into the world, rather than to tell us about Christ and his redemption through a figurative comparison of Adam and Christ


Basically you are saying "No its literal and here is my literal interpretation" rather than addressing my point that Romans 5 12-21 is a comparison of Adam and Christ and Paul say in verse 14 that he compares Adam and Christ figuratively.

Again, an example of the poison that acceptance of evolution has forced the thinking of a professing believer into disbelief. The comparison between Christ (a real person who did real things) and an Adam (figurative who did not do real things) is not justified.

Why not address my point?

It's like comparing the world-wide destruction of Noah's flood with the world-wide destruction of the earth at the coming judgment and yet concluding that the deluge was not, after all world-wide also. No doubt, your tortured logic leads you to that conclusion also.

Jesus compared the destruction of Sodom to the coming judgement in the verses after that. Does that mean Sodom must have been a world wide destruction too?

Like I said above, there is a word for that attitude. Guess. Hint: 'dust' is literal. 'Heaven' is a literal, real place. Some of us will be there.

Instead of veiled hints some of us won't be there, why not address my point that Paul calling Adam and Christ the first man and the second man is not speaking historically.

Hint: Paul is not saying, "Remember that storybook tale I told you about Eve and the serpent... well even though it never happened it nonetheless pictures Christ and the church." No way.

Is Paul using Eve as an allegorical picture of the church as the bride of Christ or not? I don't care whether you believe Paul thinks Eve is historical or not, the question is whether he is interpreting her allegorically.

Because if Paul's interpretation of Eve here is allegorical, then you can't say the verse is a witness to Genesis being literal. He might think Eve is historical, but this verse doesn't tell you.

And? The fact that Eve is the federal head of the gender of woman and a type of church does not make her any less of a human being than you are.

Paul never actually mentions federal headship, he does talk of allegorical interpetaion and types (or figurative interpretations) and specifically say he interpets Adam figuratively.

You have taken verses easy enough for the average Christian to understand and twisted it for your own ends.

Actually women being saved through childbirth is one of the most difficult and obscure verses Paul wrote. None of the explanations I have heard do justice to it or to Paul switching subjects from 'Eve' to 'she' to 'them', it comes together a lot more easily when we see Paul is speaking allegorically and it fits Paul's figurative interpretations of Adam in Eve in the rest of his letters.

It comes down to that poison again.

The main poison I am seeing here and stuff you keep pouring out, it is really sad to see that in a fellow believer. There seem to be a root of bitterness Creationism seems to produce in people. I really don't know why that its, but it is what convinced me modern creationism was not of the Spirit of Christ.

Creationists don't refuse to see metaphors in scripture; but those metaphors have a basis in reality. What Adam and Even did in the garden was real as you will see for yourself on judgment day as God reviews the world.

I find creationist have real problems with metaphors, probably because they are so afraid to step beyond their literalism. What does metaphors has a basis in reality mean? That metaphor use things from real life to tell their story? Sure, most of the time. But that doesn't mean the stories are real. Pigs are real so are prostitutes and wild parties, but the parable of the Prodigal Son is a story. It didn't happen. It tells us deeper truths about us and God (or Israel and God), it is made up of real elements families, pigs, fatted calves, rings, robes prostitutes. But the story is till made up.

Which means nothing substantively if your position is correct. 'numerological significance'?" What significance? One need only count the three matching genealogies of scripture to see how wrong you are. It's history and you will not escape that fact no matter how dedicated you are to the dogma of Darwin.

It means another of your witnesses to literal Genesis has failed to take the stand. You meay not understand the numerological significance of the number seven (which I find hard to believe) but the writer of the book of Enoch did and so did Jude.

Not with you. Because you wrest the scriptures just like all TE's do...to justify your acceptance of serious error.

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered...And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" Gen. 7:18-19.

I have no doubt you will twist these scriptures also just like you've done to all above.

The word earth erets means a land or region much more often than it means the earth, under the whole heaven is used to describe the Canaanites Edomites and Moabites trembling in fear when they heard of the the approaching Israelites (Deut 2:25 c.f. Exodus 15:14-16) it basically meant form one horizon to the the other. It was was all the creature in the region flooded that died, not the whole planet.

Those men were just as guilty of murder as their predecessors or Jesus would not have made the statement. They were like their predecessors in that they inherited their spirit, attitude, and behavior. That is why they were condemned but the point is that Jesus compared the literal Zachariah with the literal Abel. It takes terrible mental gyrations of thought to affirm one act of blood guilt in the latter and not in the former.

Yes. There is no question. But he used a symbolical expression to illustrate a literal truth. THAT is what the parables are all about...for they were all was given to illustrate literal, physical, eternal truths about reality. You utterly fail to see it...

Of course Jesus was using the metaphor to teach real truth, but the real truth is the guilt and condemnation of the Pharisees. Being accountable for the blood of Abel to Zachariah is the metpahor illustrating that truth. But if Jesus is using Abel and Zechariah as part of a metaphor you cannot claim it as testimony to them being literal.

You need to realise why Jesus picked those two. Chronicles was the last book in the Jewish canon and Zachariah's murder that last murder in it. Abel's is the first murder mentioned. They are A to Z of murder and bloodshed in the Old Testament. That is why they were picked as an illustration of the Pharisees guilt. It doesn't matter whether they are both literal or not.

because your presuppostions are tainted by Darwinian thought. So one error leads to another, to another, and to another.

Refer to above concerning the term 'untruth'.

Perhaps if you spent more time trying to address my points instead of suggesting I am lying.

(tongue in cheek: guess.)

That is the biggest untruth of all. By the way...are you a Jehovahs Witness? Just curious. Only they treat scripture as badly as you have.

No.

To be continued...

 

[Assyrian]

Continued...

This has not been pleasant for me. It's not like you haven't had your errors and disbelief pointed out by others before me. I would much rather communicate with someone who is open, seeking, searching, and will honestly assess the scriptures in pursuit of God's truth.

I told you that I did not want to communicate with you because I feel your position on these matters amounts to unbelief. I still feel that way but you ignored me, twice. There will not be a third, for you are going to join your companion in disbelief in the 'ignore' box after I proof read this post.

That is a pity. Honestly, when a creationist comes up with a good point I take it on board. But most of the time they are arguing from an unscriptural basis of literalism and cannot come up with good arguments to defend it. They can not see past their own literalism to see other interpretations of scripture and because they cannot get their heads around figurative interpretation, they cannot come up with good arguments against it. I was a literalist once but it was through Jesus and his words I learned the scriptural importance of metaphor and parables, just like his own disciples learned from him. How is a literalist going to convince me to go back, what scriptural arguments can he come up with to convince me to give up the love of metaphor I learned from Jesus? If literalists had good arguments I would listen but they don't have them.

If you arguments are sound you should be able to answer anyone who disagree with you. But if you refuse to talk to anybody who can show you the problems with your scriptural basis, how else will you learn about them?

Isaiah 31:8 Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man

Isaiah 19:23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians.
24 In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth,
25 whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance."

 

[Keachian]

The fact is that the Old Testament has been attached to a culture which is one of it's strongest claims of credibility. Older writings like the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Cuneiform tablets are often given greater weight with regards to historical veracity but the languages and the cultures are long dead. Writings contemporary with Hebrew Scriptures emerge as discoveries with little known about the cultures that produced them. The Hebrew Scriptures have a living culture that they were and are attached to, bottom line, the Scriptures are a cultural context.

Let me put it this way, suppose you had a business that had been in your family for 4 generations. Some questions arise, legal questions, as to whether you have a legitimate claim to the assets and and profits of the business. The courts are going to want records going all the way back to the foundation of the business. One of the fundamental rules of evidence will be, were these records in the possession of the people that you would expect them to be.

The Semitic cultures contemporary with the Pentateuch, the Chronicles of the Kings and the Prophets are virtually all dead cultures. The Hebrews continue with us today as a living culture with their language and culture still in tact.

I disagree, if you're going to link the Biblical culture to a Christian worldview then you are being dishonest about the development of our culture in this post-modern world disregarding the influence of Greek thought and modernity.

What about culture? I assume you mean as a barometer for interpretation and a bench mark for implied and explicit meanings intended by the authors. We have one, we are part of one. The literary character of the Genesis account has always been understood as an historical narrative, thus the genealogies with explicit and extensive references to names, dates, places and practices. We have a living testimony that has been and continues to be inextricably linked to these sacred texts.

I agree but what is Gen1 specifically a historical narrative of? The question of the being of anything in the ANE world is not that it materially exists it is that of purpose.

On the other hand, modernist claims of myth and metaphor lack substantive veracity because we have a cultural context for these writings with a virtually unbroken line of descent reaching back to the origin of these testimonies.

Genesis is written as an historical narrative, not in the style of a myth and certainly not written in some nebulous abstraction or comparison remotely resembling poetic allusions. Cultural considerations are vital as a fundamental benchmark as a basis for interpretation and the culture attached to the Genesis account has always and will always regard Genesis as an historical narrative.

Frankly, the cultural barometer of the modernist has a history of less then 200 years and is marked by skepticism and unbelief. The bulk of the academics are opposed to any literal interpretation due to a deep animosity toward anything remotely theistic and certainly incredulous with regards to miracles. This holds true for New Testament miracles.

Are you talking about the framework hypothesis by chance? if so then you are sadly mistaken about when it first reared its head, not that I agree with it mind, the first person to propose such an interpretation of Genesis was St. Augustine, hardly scholarship of the last 200 years, it probably has as you are possibly suggesting come back in fashion over the last 200 years, the "historic" interpretation as you put it from what I understand dates back to coming into vogue around the time of the reformation, but in any case I'd much rather attempt to go further back to an ANE understanding.

I would ask you the same thing progmonk, what about culture? Which cultural influence is authoritative, which cultural context will we insist on having as the guiding influence of our hermeneutics?

Whichever culture the specific parts of the Bible originated from, I thought that would be obvious, so we have ANE for most if not all of the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism and 1st Century Hellenism for all of the New.

<snip>
Irrelevant, you do so like to cast yourself as the Galileo of the piece don't you?

<snippity-snip>
I think I have adequately answered your questions in this post, I'm not going to drag up the same lines of argument again to say the same thing over again.

 

[Keachian]

Really? Convince me.

But first convince me that God tricks humans.

You're right God doesn't trick humans, God doesn't make things have appearance of age in order that people will disagree with a modern reading of Genesis, the fact that you are suggesting that somehow the interpretation of the evidence is incorrect is flawed because of the way that the scientific arena of ideas works, heck even the theological arena of ideas works in the same way. You look at the evidence, propose your conclusion from there and people look at your evidence and theirs and then shout you down if you are wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

That might pass for someone who has never read Ken Miller's writing.
Won't do for those like me who actually own copies of his books and can read the whole context.

I was referring to a debate Ken was in that the subject was bought up. He stated he did believe than an intelligent being coming in existence was not an accident but God didn't know it would be man. God threw the universe together and waited to see what happen.