• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why Theistic Evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
fragmentsofdreams said:
"Formed" indicates that the action took place at that moment. If they had already been formed, it would use the "had formed" tense.

Which is why the NIV (with its evangelical bias) translates it as "had formed" - there is no distinct pluperfect in Hebrew. There is, of course, no grammatical justification for choosing the pluperfect over the simple past here - just a presupposition of harmony. The timing is made clear by the stated motivation.

If I said:

On Tuesday, I decided to make a toad in the hole. I mixed the batter. I looked in the freezer. I had no sausages. So I went into town and bought some sausages.

You'd assume the sequence of events was:

* Decided to make toad in the hole
* Made the batter
* Found I had no sausages
* Went and bought some

Now, this parallels Genesis 2:

Mixed batter - Made Adam
Looked in freezer: no sausages - It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a companion for him
Went into town - made the animals.

The harmonisation proposed requires that the sequence is:


* Went and bought sausages
* Made the batter
* Found I needed sausages

Which is not the natural order from the narrative I gave. It would require a Genesis 1 type narrative:

I went into town and bought some sausages. Then I made some batter. Then I put the sausages in it and made a toad in the hole.

The plain meaning (which creationists keep harping on about) is very clear. And it contradicts Genesis 1.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Badfish said:
At least this view is consistent with the word, you by accepting evolution with nothing Holy to back it up

God's Creation is not holy? Why.

teaching other Christians that YOU seem to know how God created,

We are saying that this is what GOD tells us how He created. However, don't creationists do the same thing? Tell other Christians that YOU seem to know how God created?

man you need to take a step back and pray and make sure you're not teaching heresy, if God didn't tell you, then you have no reason to promote TE.

Hmm. You apparently aren't aware that YECers promoted heresy.

"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.

So here we have you contradicting yourself, by your logic here, if God said it was so it must have been, God said the bible was inspired, so it must be so right? God said that he created in 6 days, so it must be so right?

The Bible teaches you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens were made. God also says in Gneesis 2:4b that He created in ONE day! So which is it? 6 days or 1 day? Ignoring the Bible when it disagrees with your man-made theology, aren't you?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air.



When does this verse say that the animals were formed?


~malaka~

The timing is in the previous verse:
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Notice the FUTURE tense there. Adam is already made. Now God WILL MAKE (future) a helpmeet. THen you get verse 19 where the animals and birds are formed.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
obediah001 said:
Dinosaurs as a word was created in 1840, preevius to hat tdate they were in history called dragons & there are literally thousands of histories of them. Look also in the Bible book of Job ch. 38 for leviathan & Behemouth; the description of both fit the bill of what we today call dinosaurs. Job obviously saw them as God would not of asked him to consider them.

They don't. None of the known dinosaurs fits behemeth and none of the aquatic reptiles (they weren't dinos) fits leviathan. The Job descriptions are either
1. Distorted descriptions of hippos and crocodiles or some other existing animal or
2. Mythical beasts that the people of the time THOUGHT were real.

None of the histories of dragons (most of whom have the animals flying) fit dinos.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
The timing is in the previous verse:
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Notice the FUTURE tense there. Adam is already made. Now God WILL MAKE (future) a helpmeet. THen you get verse 19 where the animals and birds are formed.


You have read that into the text. Future tense doesn't "carry over" like in math....



There is no "THEN"... that's the point concerning chapter 2... you are taking it as all being "and then"... when the chronology is given in Chapter 1.


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
They don't. None of the known dinosaurs fits behemeth and none of the aquatic reptiles (they weren't dinos) fits leviathan. The Job descriptions are either
1. Distorted descriptions of hippos and crocodiles or some other existing animal or
2. Mythical beasts that the people of the time THOUGHT were real.

None of the histories of dragons (most of whom have the animals flying) fit dinos.


source please.

~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
Hmm. You apparently aren't aware that YECers promoted heresy.

"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, ......?






For convenience, I will quote the definition of "creation-science" appearing in Arkansas Act 590.

Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:


Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;

The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;

Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;

Separate ancestry for man and apes;

Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and

A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That doesn't make it heresy.

~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Vance said:
Malaka:

2:7 says that God created Man
2:19 says he created animals

A literal, plain reading indicates that he created man first, then animals. Are you stating that we should not follow this plain, straightforward reading, but instead look for a less straightforward and simple reading so that it fits with other things we believe?

As far as the the "in response to" argument, that is based on verse 18, which says that God saw that man was alone and this was not good, and so God decided to make him a helper. Then the very next verse indicates that He made all the animals, Adam named them, etc, and THEN verse 20 concludes "But for Adam no suitable helper was found." A plain, literal reading would be that none were found *among the animals*.

Regardless, you can see that conforming the two tellings of the Creation story involves some interpretive efforts and that a simple, plain reading will not do it.


Vance,

If you are a supporter of "plain reading" then in Genesis 1 when it says and the evening and the morning was the first day....



You told me that Genesis one pertaining to "days" could not be taken in a plain reading.... but now, you tell me that Genesis 2 shold be taken at a plain reading.

How inconsistant can one person be in their personal interpretation of the Bible?


If you believe that there are conflicts in the Bible.... How can you justify Christ and Christian teachings... because you are trying to tell me that there is a lie in the Bible... in fact, I believe you are consistently telling me that there are lies in the Bible.

Perhaps, your next statement will be that Jesus Christ was a lie?

When do you stop using the "pick and chose" method of interpretation.


I have asked you previously for the hermeneutics that you utilize in interpreting the Bible. I don't think that I ever read a reply to that question.

One thing is certain, if one is applying inconsistent applications of hermeneutics to the Bible, there is only one method that does that and it is

the PICK AND CHOOSE method.


~malaka~




~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, Malaka, you are making a lot of false assumptions there.

I do NOT think that there are ANY contradictions in the Bible. It is your approach of sticking to literal readings when such literal readings create conflicts which I oppose.

My point about the days was that those who believe in a 24 hour day also believe that "morning and evening" prove a flat Earth. I never said that I believe in a 24 hour "yom".

I am not sure how often I need to say this: I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Inerrant and holy. It is man that messes it up by insisting on reading it in a way that either conflicts with itself or with God's Creation.

If God describes a miracle, I believe it. No problem with miracles at all. Miracles do not conflict with the evidence of God's Creation one little bit since God can, at any time, over-ride the natural laws He put in place. If He wants to protect Jonah in the belly of a "great fish", then I have no reason to believe He did not do just that.

As for my method, I told it to you before. I start with a literal, plain reading unless and until I have a VERY good reason for believing that this literal and plain reading is not likely to be the correct reading. There is no magic formula for this and if anyone tries to tell you they have a perfected formula, that is simply another Man talking to you. My check is self-honesty, humbleness and being led by the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another thing we should look at is what it means to believe in the *literal* text of the Scriptures. Does this mean relying solely on the modern translations into your own language? Or, does it require that you look at the original languages more carefully?

Very often the translators were faced with Hebrew and Greek words and phrases which, just like our languge, are often used in a variety of ways. The translators had to choose among these and either would choose the most common or the one that seemed to make sense given their understanding of other Scripture. This was, in most cases, perfectly acceptable, but I believe that they are human and subject to error. Human error in translation does not make the Scriptures in error.

So, what is "literal"? Accepting the translator's choice among the various optional meanings?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.