YECists attempt to dig into sheol

[Willtor]

I can say it definitely isn't exclusive to Christians. Primarily what I'm saying is that in no way shape or form can a non-Christian be considered good.

Well, if we're speaking in the Divine sense, who is good but God? But if we're talking about non-Christians with their feet set on a righteous path, I think Paul is arguing that there may be such people.

 

[Redneck Crow]

Yes my bearing comes from the Word of God. I understand evolution and because I do I reject it. Your last sentence is somewhat true, if I accepted evolution it would have a dramatic effect on my faith.

vossler, you have me curious here. If it were proven to your satisfaction that evolution did indeed occur, why would finding out that God had employed a different means of creation than you had thought He did have a dramatic effect on your faith?

 

[steen]

I can say it definitely isn't exclusive to Christians. Primarily what I'm saying is that in no way shape or form can a non-Christian be considered good.

Didn't Jesus come up with a parable specifically to that point about the Samaritan?

 

[vossler]

Well, if we're speaking in the Divine sense, who is good but God? But if we're talking about non-Christians with their feet set on a righteous path, I think Paul is arguing that there may be such people.

How about Romans 3:10-12

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

this ought to set the record straight about what Paul thought.

 

[vossler]

vossler, you have me curious here. If it were proven to your satisfaction that evolution did indeed occur, why would finding out that God had employed a different means of creation than you had thought He did have a dramatic effect on your faith?

Considering that if evolution were true (which on its own is an oxymoron) then the Bible's concept of sin originating from Adam would certainly take a dive and that God didn't do as He said He did are but two quick examples of how my faith, which is a gift from God based on His Word, could be effectually hindered. It is because of this very reason that I know that evolution is a lie. God cannot lie.

 

[steen]

So your opposition against Evolution is not because of the science, but because of fear of losing yuor faith? I don't get what you are saying here, could you please help me understand.

 

[Willtor]

How about Romans 3:10-12

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

this ought to set the record straight about what Paul thought.

And yet, to his way of thinking, some Gentiles may be excused according to their consciences. Even if a man is not counted righteous, he may be set in that way. In any case, it certainly seems foolhardy to distinguish Christians from non-Christians in this matter.

 

[xpiotosaves]

It doesn't really matter as long as we all accept Christ. We should be sticking up for fellow Christians in this world filled with anti-Christian views, instead of attacking each other on how the cosmos were created. No one knows for sure, so how can we attack other on who is right or wrong?

 

[gluadys]

Isn't a day suppose to represent billions of years?

Not necessarily. That is a requirement of OEC, but many TEs including myself, would not see the days of Genesis as an allegory of long periods of time, but rather as a literary form chosen to arrange the presentation of creation in an orderly manner.

Isn't evolution suppose to represent the means of creation for the entire animal kingdom, including man? Do I need to go on?

No, it doesn't represent the means of creation; it IS the means of creation of species, including humanity. And not just the animal kingdom either: plants, fungi, protists, every kingdom of life.

 

[theFijian]

Considering that if evolution were true (which on its own is an oxymoron) then the Bible's concept of sin originating from Adam would certainly take a dive and that God didn't do as He said He did are but two quick examples of how my faith, which is a gift from God based on His Word, could be effectually hindered. It is because of this very reason that I know that evolution is a lie. God cannot lie.

If as per your previous statement to the effect that you do understand evolution, you would know that it does not exclude the existance of Adam. Therefore the biblical concept of sin originating from Adam does not take a dive and evolution is not a lie. So why do you reject it now, personal prejudice?

 

[vossler]

If as per your previous statement to the effect that you do understand evolution, you would know that it does not exclude the existance of Adam. Therefore the biblical concept of sin originating from Adam does not take a dive and evolution is not a lie. So why do you reject it now, personal prejudice?

Evolution may not exclude the existence of Adam, but it sure makes Adam one strange character. According to God he form Adam as a fully formed man from the dust of the earth, how can you fit evolution within those parameters?

 

[Mallon]

I don't know of a single creationist for whom evolution has any bearing whatsoever, much less their faith.

As theFijian said, the very fact that you're here debating evolution on theological grounds means that it affects your faith in one way or another. If it didn't, we wouldn't have AiG, DI, and CRS scrambling around trying to overwrite evolution with their own "faith-safe" brand of hyperevolution in "kinds", flood geology, canopy theory, intelligent design, and other pseudosciences.

I asked for well known and respected pastors, not a list of pastors. I would have hoped you knew there was a difference.

Again, see my comment about your demand being a logical fallacy (Argumentum ad numerum). And why does a pastor have to be world-renowned in order to be respected? I respect many pastors and they are hardly known outside the community in which I live.
In any case, I gave you Billy Graham. He's pretty popular and well-respected.

Like I said to gluadys, if the story is fiction and the characters are fiction then its hard to convince me of my sin nature originating from a fictional character.

Hm.

- Do you similarly find it difficult to help your neighbour as the good Samaritan did in Jesus' parable? After all, the good Samaritan was a fictitious character.
- Do you similarly find it difficult to forgive a debt at as the creditor did in Jesus' parable? After all, the creditor was a fictitious character.
- Do you similarly find it difficult to come to God with your needs as the friend in need did in Jesus' parable? After all, the friend in need was a fictitious character.

I could go on. We don't NEED a literal, supernaturally-created Adam in order to know that we are sinful and in need of a saviour, just as we don't NEED any of the above characters to be real in order to learn valuable lessons from Jesus' parables. (That said, as has been mentioned to you before, an acceptance of evolution doesn't necessarily negate a literal Adam, either. Just a literal creation story.)

No but it makes things more difficult.

Only for those entrenched in traditional fundamentalism.

 

[vossler]

As theFijian said, the very fact that you're here debating evolution on theological grounds means that it affects your faith in one way or another.

The fact that I'm here debating this issue doesn't mean that it has any bearing or relevance to me personally. The relevance is to those who are questioning this subject and are unsure of what to believe. My beliefs are secure.

Again, see my comment about your demand being a logical fallacy (Argumentum ad numerum). And why does a pastor have to be world-renowned in order to be respected? I respect many pastors and they are hardly known outside the community in which I live.
In any case, I gave you Billy Graham. He's pretty popular and well-respected.

You made the claim that there were "many well known and respected pastors" that believed in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. You're the one who then presented a list of unknowns. If you don't know of such people that doesn't surprise me, but again you made the claim.

As for Billy Graham, even you said he wasn't sure where he stood.

- Do you similarly find it difficult to help your neighbour as the good Samaritan did in Jesus' parable? After all, the good Samaritan was a fictitious character.

Did the good Samaritan do something that directly affects me, like Adam did? No!

- Do you similarly find it difficult to forgive a debt at as the creditor did in Jesus' parable? After all, the creditor was a fictitious character.

Did the creditor do something that directly affects me, like Adam did? No!

- Do you similarly find it difficult to come to God with your needs as the friend in need did in Jesus' parable? After all, the friend in need was a fictitious character.

Did the friend in need do something that directly affects me, like Adam did? No!

Adam passed something on to me, in order to pass something on to another the person doing the passing has to exist. I think most people, for example, would think it would be kind of foolish if I said I received the flu from a character in a book I was reading who had the flu.

 

[steen]

Evolution may not exclude the existence of Adam, but it sure makes Adam one strange character. According to God he form Adam as a fully formed man from the dust of the earth, how can you fit evolution within those parameters?

You don't, as the Bible is not evaluated through the Scientific Method.

 

[Mallon]

You made the claim that there were "many well known and respected pastors" that believed in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. You're the one who then presented a list of unknowns. If you don't know of such people that doesn't surprise me, but again you made the claim.

Ugh! This is getting really childish. But I'll play your game. You want a list of well-known and respected TE clergy. Here's my list:

Pope Pius XII
Pope John Paul II
Pope Benedict XVI
St. Augustine
Rev. Keith Ward
Rev. John Polkinghorne
Fr. George Coyne

There's a start for you. I won't ask you for a similar list.

Adam passed something on to me, in order to pass something on to another the person doing the passing has to exist. I think most people, for example, would think it would be kind of foolish if I said I received the flu from a character in a book I was reading who had the flu.

Nobody is arguing that Adam was fictional (again, see previous posts). We are simply arguing that the creation account is mythical. That sin entered the world through the disobedience of a single man is entirely within the realm of theistic evolution. That the man's name was literally "Adam", that he literally ate fruit from a supernatural tree, and that he was banished from a utopian garden are irrelevant to the moral that we are all sinful by inheritance.

 

[chaoschristian]

Alright, I'll give you that leeway, but just so we're clear the term allegory certainly could be used to describe evolution when compared to creation.

Well, you and try that approach, but I fear that it will fail on you.

And here is why I think that.

If evolutionary theory is allegorical to the Genesis account, then for what subject in the Genesis account is the change of alleles in populations over time symbolizing?

If evolutionary theory is allegorical to the Genesis account, the what is natural selection representing in the creation account?

As gluadys pointed out, stating the creation account is an allegory to evolutionary theory is really in the domain of the OECs.

I will hold that the TE approach is to view the account as an act of mythologizing.

Here is the difference:

In allegory the seven days represent periods of billions of years and one tries to match up as best as one can the parallel development of life in how Genesis accounts for it and how the fossil record presents it.

In a mythological appoach the seven days are both a literary and structural device. Literary in terms of providing a means to understanding, structural in that the specific use of seven days acts as a justification for the Sabbath week. Genesis 1 is not just about creation, it is about providing a justifying framework for a cultural custom.

This isn't new territory for this concept. Gluadys and shernren have both presented excellent articulations defending this point of view in the past.

 

[shernren]

Isn't a day suppose to represent billions of years? Isn't evolution suppose to represent the means of creation for the entire animal kingdom, including man? Do I need to go on?

Do you mean that the creation story is an "allegory" (properly a mythos, as CC pointed out) for the process of evolution? I don't see why your wording seems to put things the other way around. Evolution isn't an allegory for anything. It's a scientific process, at least to those who think that enough evidence exists to show that it occurs.

 

[vossler]

Ugh! This is getting really childish. But I'll play your game. You want a list of well-known and respected TE clergy. Here's my list:

Pope Pius XII
Pope John Paul II
Pope Benedict XVI
St. Augustine
Rev. Keith Ward
Rev. John Polkinghorne
Fr. George Coyne

There's a start for you. I won't ask you for a similar list.

It has been well known that the Catholic church supports evolution, I'll give you that. St. Augustine is hardly a representative for evolution. The rest I have never heard of but have found that they are primarily theologians, not pastors and therefore don't lead congregations.

I would have been surprised if you asked me for a similar list.

Nobody is arguing that Adam was fictional (again, see previous posts). We are simply arguing that the creation account is mythical. That sin entered the world through the disobedience of a single man is entirely within the realm of theistic evolution. That the man's name was literally "Adam", that he literally ate fruit from a supernatural tree, and that he was banished from a utopian garden are irrelevant to the moral that we are all sinful by inheritance.

This is why it is difficult having a discussion with TEs about matters such as these. I remember recently seeing a poll where many TEs stated they didn't believe in a literal Adam. The same is true for a lot of matters such as these. Lots of variations among the TE belief patterns. How's a YEC to know and keep straight what each of you believes before posting?

So now we have an account that is mythical but uses real human beings. Is it any wonder I'm confused.

So did Adam develop over billions of years from a zygote to a fish to a bird (or was that bird to a fish?), to a mammal to an ape to a human all in the garden?

(I'm sure I missed a few steps here, but those were the ones that came to mind, sorry )

 

[gluadys]

So did Adam develop over billions of years from a zygote to a fish to a bird (or was that bird to a fish?), to a mammal to an ape to a human all in the garden?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. So all the evolution which led to humanity occurred in the populations which were ancestral to Adam.

If Adam was an individual, he never evolved.

If Adam is representative of the human species, he is still evolving.

 

[vossler]

If evolutionary theory is allegorical to the Genesis account, then for what subject in the Genesis account is the change of alleles in populations over time symbolizing?

I don't have answers to scientific problems, besides it's not my theory.

If evolutionary theory is allegorical to the Genesis account, the what is natural selection representing in the creation account?

Time, at least that's how I've understood it. I really don't know, it's not my theory.

In allegory the seven days represent periods of billions of years and one tries to match up as best as one can the parallel development of life in how Genesis accounts for it and how the fossil record presents it.

In a mythological appoach the seven days are both a literary and structural device. Literary in terms of providing a means to understanding, structural in that the specific use of seven days acts as a justification for the Sabbath week. Genesis 1 is not just about creation, it is about providing a justifying framework for a cultural custom.

So, for you and many other TEs the creation account is mythological and not allegorical, fine, it really doesn't matter to me. I just know that in the past it has been presented as allegorical many times, I distinctly remember Vance pushing the idea. This is another one of those areas where there seems to be a wide view and much latitude is given by TEs to account for the widely differing views.