Creation vs. Evolution Apologetics

[Dei-Gnostica]

(Wakka;25893)
It's still a doctrine of man. And It plays with salvation. If you're wrong, you'll be in big trouble with the Lord, because you then call his a liar by saying that His word is not serious enough to take literally. There is no way I'm believing in Evolution.
I'm not wrong. In fact taking it literally doesn't do His Word justice. His Word is SO serious, SO profound, that it SHOULDN'T be taken at a literal, face value. It should be explored for spiritual significance. And science should be explored to complement this.

 

[Tyrel]

(Wakka;25893)
It's still a doctrine of man. And It plays with salvation. If you're wrong, you'll be in big trouble with the Lord, because you then call his a liar by saying that His word is not serious enough to take literally. There is no way I'm believing in Evolution.
No, that's not what I'm doing at all. His word is more than serious enough to be taken literally. However, in taking it literally, you are letting the real true purpose and message go right over your head. We are reaching for the Holy Message. We have stepped outside of the comfort zone to find God's Truth. He has led us here. He is not the liar, evangelical men were simply wrong for taking Genesis literally, that's all.

 

[Dei-Gnostica]

God is the greatest of all teachers. Why would the greatest of all teachers just give us the answer? We were made and are made to WORK for the answer. We are students, we have to work. It is for this reason that Genesis cannot be literal. No work is involved. It is for this reason that Evolution IS a part of God's design. It IS work. It is fulfilling and satisfying. And when I see the billions of years of WORK that was put in to get us where we are: homo sapiens; I know that the Love of God is there. The Knowledge of God is there. God is the Voice. We are the echo.

 

[Christina]

(Dei-Gnostica;25801)
It doesn't contradict Genesis because Genesis is not literal. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It's not a literal work. It was never meant to be taken as solely a literal work. What it commands us to do: "Love thy neighbour", "Remember the Sabbath", etc. are literal. Its stories in Genesis, and events beyond the scope of this universe, are symbolic.
See this is where the big problems always come into play when ever something does not fit some mans ideas They decide what is or isnt literal in scripture. Oh lets make it figurative then we make the Word say what we want.NOT ACCEPTABLE THERE ARE RULES THAT MUST BE APPLIED TOO TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD IT IS NO LESS THAN BLASPHAME TO START DECIDING WHAT AND WHAT IS NOT LITERAL If there is no presedent no symbolic figurative explanation in scripture you cant not make it literal or figurative to suit your self THE BIBLE MUST INTERPITATE ITSELF OR YOU YOU MAKE IT A WORTHLESS BOOK OF WORDS THAT YOU CAN JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU LIKE. You are making a hugh error if you think this is how God meant the Word to understood it is not the book we are supposed to change to fit our ideas We are are supposed to change our ideas to fit it.

 

[Letsgofishing]

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.the book of Romans chapter 1I'm just going to post this again in case anybody missed it.I think gods pretty clear on the belief of evolution and its effects

 

[Christina]

I happen to believe in Gods own suttle way he tells us that there is no Evolution how many times are we told one of the rules of Nature is kind after its kind God is not the author of confusion and everything has very perfect Laws evolution is blending/ breaking of the Laws. If God followed this rule then theere would be kaos in things Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:22 [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:29 These also [shall be] unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, Deu 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 14:14 And every raven after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.can anyone show me one verse thats says until it turns to another kind????????????????????????????????__________________

 

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25900)
See this is where the big problems always come into play when ever something does not fit some mans ideas They decide what is or isnt literal in scripture. Oh lets make it figurative then we make the Word say what we want.NOT ACCEPTABLE THERE ARE RULES THAT MUST BE APPLIED TOO TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD IT IS NO LESS THAN BLASPHAME TO START DECIDING WHAT AND WHAT IS NOT LITERAL If there is no presedent no symbolic figurative explanation in scripture you cant not make it literal or figurative to suit your self THE BIBLE MUST INTERPITATE ITSELF OR YOU YOU MAKE IT A WORTHLESS BOOK OF WORDS THAT YOU CAN JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU LIKE. You are making a hugh error if you think this is how God meant the Word to understood it is not the book we are supposed to change to fit our ideas We are are supposed to change our ideas to fit it.
Dear Kriss,I won't speak for Dei-Gnostica, as I'm sure they can fend for themselves, and I surely would not want to speak something on their behalf which isn't true of them.However, speaking on my own accord, Please understand that I am not trying to make Genesis fit. I condemned everyone I thought was doing that. Instead of doing that, I almost threw out the bible completely, because I had sufficient evidence, in my estimation, to conclude that Genesis was wrong. Now, despite what you might draw and conclude from that of how much research I did, I assure you that one thing I am not doing is trying to make Genesis fit. What I am trying to tell you is that Genesis is being, and has been, misunderstood for a long time. I'm seeking to find the true meaning of the book, from the author's perspective. I'm reading the book in light of the religious connotations it had in it's day, and the language it uses to address it's audience, and most importantly it's audience. I think we have mangled it almost beyond reason by interpreting it literally, much as earlier Christians used to do with the Book of Job. If we observe Job honestly, it becomes very clear that it's a myth in the true sense of the word. None of the characteristics universally observed throughout Jewish historical literature inside and outside the bible find any place in the book. The people are given extremely symbolic names. The imagery is extremely symbolic, and the scene is described exactly in the manner which common day myths did. Furthermore, the Hebrew of Job is perfectly poetic, and is written like a psalm, rhyming and everything. Why the confusion? It goes back to such writings as the Didascalia, where the constitutions of the Apostles understands it to be literal, because of it's Greek form. There was no poetry in the translation. It was mistakenly understood as a literal story. Go back to the earliest Jewish Christians and the Jewish Rabbi's and the Dead Sea Scrolls... not a single source understands Job as literal to the extent of my knowledge and research. More recently even evangelical scholars are beginning to recognize and concede this point. The writing is absolutely clear about itself; it has the form of a myth, and was taught and understood as a myth for centuries, and even is still taught as that to this day. Christians simply made a mistake when reading it in a translation devoid of the beautiful language, and ignorant of the use and style of myth in the ancient world.I use this example, hoping that you've done the research on this yourself, and know very well that Job is not literal at all {though he was a patriarch, but check the lists of the genealogies, you'll notice that he is far too far back to have lived in the time and setting in which the book places him.} The same principles apply to Genesis. Meaning that, we made a mistake early on, in our understanding of the work. We misunderstood it to be literal, when that wasn't even the most common or only interpretation around, even at the time of the inception of Christianity. We now have all the tools we need to observe contemporary writings and see the obvious parallels which were not coincidence, but intentional, which Genesis has to them. We also have the scientific proof that Genesis, if it is true, cannot be literal, or else God is the author of confusion, because of the overwhelming evidence which leads every single objective scientist to agree that Evolution is the way things happened.This is where I'm coming from. We misunderstood Genesis, and we need to correct ourselves, just as we had to hundreds and hundreds of years ago with Job. We have to seek to understand the true nature of the work, and not simply try to fit it into our nice little box. In our modern times we seem to have a very hard time accepting the use and authority of Myth. Evangelical Christians, being the worst. It's time to open up our eyes and recognize that it's not simply symbolic or literal. There is a real meaning to it. A real message. A true message. And we've been missing it for too long now.I believe I found it, and continue to look forward to God's leading me further into the Truth. Down the rabbit whole I go. I burnt the blindfold a long while ago, and I'm telling you first hand, I couldn't be more thankful.In Hope,~Tyrel

 

[Christina]

I do not disagree that we have many parts of genesis wrong we have literal where figuative should be we have no understanding of the Hebrew used in the book and its implications we were three year olds reading Shakespear when Gen. was translated into English but that being said yes knowledge has increased and we can make more reason from Gen. But I do not think evolution is part of the Laws of Nature read the above post #126 very closely I think God clearly rules evolution out. Which is not to say we have gen. right.but we must be very careful what we read into it.

 

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25923)
I do not disagree that we have many parts of genesis wrong we have literal where figuative should be we have no understanding of the Hebrew used in the book and its implications we were three year olds reading Shakespear when Gen. was translated into English but that being said yes knowledge has increased and we can make more reason from Gen. But I do not think evolution is part of the Laws of Nature read the above post #126 very closely I think God clearly rules evolution out. Which is not to say we have gen. right.but we must be very careful what we read into it.
Let me tell you, I don't have any problem with the passages above. Genesis is telling us something, yes, but you are misunderstanding it. It does not rule out evolution in my eyes.Kind of like saying, "the psalmist says that God's weakness is greater than man's strength, so God obviously has weaknesses according to scripture". No, it's not like that at all, of course. But if we approach the reading without keeping in mind the purpose and style, we inevitably come to mislead conclusions.I think your post above is an example of one of those. I think if you compare that with the other creation myths, you will see clearly why Genesis is copying them almost word for word, and why it's deviating where it does.

 

[Dei-Gnostica]

(kriss;25900)
See this is where the big problems always come into play when ever something does not fit some mans ideas They decide what is or isnt literal in scripture. Oh lets make it figurative then we make the Word say what we want.
You make the error of thinking Evolution is man's idea, man's design. It is not. It is God's design. Therefore the word of Genesis is figurative.
NOT ACCEPTABLE THERE ARE RULES THAT MUST BE APPLIED TOO TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD IT IS NO LESS THAN BLASPHAME TO START DECIDING WHAT AND WHAT IS NOT LITERAL If there is no presedent no symbolic figurative explanation in scripture you cant not make it literal or figurative to suit your self THE BIBLE MUST INTERPITATE ITSELF OR YOU YOU MAKE IT A WORTHLESS BOOK OF WORDS THAT YOU CAN JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU LIKE.
To take God's Word and not know the underlying meaning is blaspheming. Thus as it stands, I do not blaspheme. Rather, through the exploration of Evolution and other sciences, I praise God's Word. Those who blaspheme are those who take God's Word but then reject God's Work: Evolution. I have not made any errors in this.

 

[Christina]

quote)To take God's Word and not know the underlying meaning is blaspheming. Thus as it stands, I do not blaspheme. Rather, through the exploration of Evolution and other sciences, I praise God's Word. Those who blaspheme are those who take God's Word but then reject God's Work: Evolution(quote)DGthen why dont you show me the scripture supporting this.

 

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25951)
then why dont you show me the scripture supporting this.
... ok.. I admit.. that's a tad too ambiguous for me.Care to clarify?

 

[Jordan]

Like I said, I don't believe in anything that uses no scriptures in articles or using scriptures OUT OF CONTEXT like Tyrel and Dei-Gnostica does.Jag

 

[HammerStone]

I think your post above is an example of one of those. I think if you compare that with the other creation myths, you will see clearly why Genesis is copying them almost word for word, and why it's deviating where it does.
Or it could very well be the other way around, which is something we don't seem to want to allow for in this world. For one, all the archeology doesn't mean a hill of beans for an older oral tradition.I realize this is not the popular nor higher critic way of interpreting things, but assuming that the Bible had to make up or borrow an oral tradition leaves a lot to be desired otherwise - for that matter, what else is taken or borrowed?I think you have to go one way or another.

 

[Wakka]

(Denver;25960)
Or it could very well be the other way around, which is something we don't seem to want to allow for in this world. For one, all the archeology doesn't mean a hill of beans for an older oral tradition.I realize this is not the popular nor higher critic way of interpreting things, but assuming that the Bible had to make up or borrow an oral tradition leaves a lot to be desired otherwise - for that matter, what else is taken or borrowed?I think you have to go one way or another.
Yeah, you show him Denver! lol.

 

[Tyrel]

(Denver;25960)
Or it could very well be the other way around, which is something we don't seem to want to allow for in this world. For one, all the archeology doesn't mean a hill of beans for an older oral tradition.I realize this is not the popular nor higher critic way of interpreting things, but assuming that the Bible had to make up or borrow an oral tradition leaves a lot to be desired otherwise - for that matter, what else is taken or borrowed?I think you have to go one way or another.
I don't think we have to go one way or another. If I may, please hear me out.First, we already know that the authors of the biblical texts incorporated many things, such as Greek poetry in the New Testament. Compare the Song of Songs with ancient Egyptian love poetry, such as the most notable Papyrus Chester Beatty I, dated 1,200 - 1,100 BC. The similarities are so great between the two that it leaves almost no doubt as to the origins of the latter. Extensive work has been done by such scholars as Michael B. Fox, to that extent. {I've had the good luck to get the poem in book form, translated. I've read it, and I also see the obviously similar structure, of the beloved, the loved, and friends}.Scholars have long noted the incredible similarities between Ecclesiasties {particularly 9:3-10, and 11:7-12:1}, with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Now, that's not to say that Ecclesiasties was modeled after the Epic of Gilgamesh, as there are clear differences. For example, Ecclesiasties is not an epic, as it does not tell a story, and it's not quite a poem either. I mean, the Psalm 89 is very clearly borrowing imagery from the Epic of Creation in the Enuma Elish, as we can see by comparing the two next to each other. Psalm 78, is a nonchronological hymn praising God for his faithfulness in the history of Israel from the exodus, to the time of David. It parallels the Egyptian Hymn on a stele praising Osiris for his rule over Egypt.I could go on all day.Any honest Biblical Archaeologist will tell you of the amazing similarities the Bible variously has with other older texts. The same applies for Genesis.

 

[Tyrel]

And Ebla!! Oh my goodness, out of all the things to forget to mention off hand, the tablets at Ebla, with the account of a righteous man and his family, with a world wide flood, and his boat with all the animals. Along with the mentions of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the wrath poured out on them, along with 3 other cities, not mentioned in the Torah, but Ebla was written way before hand, and thus, has the first ever mention of the fire from heaven on Sodom, and the first source to mention either of these cities.Sorry, I was going to edit a few new things into the past post, but decided against it. But this, I thought, deserved it's own post.Of course, my point is that these things have been known to Christian Scholars for ages now. They don't undermine the Biblical text at all. They help us better understand them if anything.

 

[HammerStone]

Right, but again that's based off of only what's been dug up. You cannot simply dig up an oral tradition that was much older.I go to what Christ said in the New Testament, specifically in Revelation:Revelation 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
If the Bible borrowed from other religions, then that presents a real problem for a book that claims to be the Word of God. I would argue, for example, that Hebrew idioms preceeded the Greek ones. I would go a step further and say that using an idiom varies greatly from taking a story. Language is a language, a story is a story.I've actually had a chance to study a lot of the epics you mention, I'd add the Ugaritic texts and some of the other records of Ba'al and so on and so forth. I know the similarity, so I know where you are coming from.However, I go back to this. The argument that gods existed before God and only later became a single deity seems to defy logic.My point would be that these similarities were not borrowed from the other epics. My point is that these so called original epics were a corrupted form of the much older original verbal accounts. I can point the the story of giants which manifests itself in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. It survived a tremendously long time here with the North American tribes, and carried the same tenant that God punished a decidedly wicked and evil race with a flood. Everyone likes a unique national identity, but it's absolutely remarkable that so many traditions are so very similar.

 

[Wakka]

May I point out that the book of Jasher also points out the Genesis creation as well as exodus (I think, I only read the first half of the book

).

 

[Jordan]

(Wakka;25969)
May I point out that the book of Jasher also points out the Genesis creation as well as exodus (I think, I only read the first half of the book

).
Except for the fact that the Book of Jasher is completely messed up and flawed compared to the Word of God...Verse 1-5 skips many, I mean many verses of the Bible. It's sent by Satan.Jag