I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Tsk. Tsk. It's called discernment. Not interested in going back to sleep.
Evolution
- Thread starter univac
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(jeffhughes;56866)
Please refrain from making any other comments about how I am a) deceived,
spiritually weak, c) trying to deny the existence of God, d) sending people to hell, e) directly rebelling against God, or f) an idiot. While any or all of those may be true, I expect that you will show justification for any claims you make. If you have no justification, then don't say it.
Well, God's Word and the truth justifies me to say that you are decieved... but lets look at the following.
Please refrain from making any other comments about how I am a) deceived,
Well, God's Word and the truth justifies me to say that you are decieved... but lets look at the following.
1 Corinthians 15:45-47And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Paul writes that Adam was the first man... and that it is written as such. If fact, He bases his theology and teaching's on Jesus sacrifice (called the last Adam) on the fact that there was, in literal fact, a first Adam (Adam himself). Is it as it was written, as Paul and Jesus knew, or is it not?And, again.Romans 5:12-19Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Again, Paul is basing his theology of our salvation by one man, on the same OT literal teaching that one man's sin brought SIN and DEATH into the world. You cannot share Paul's teaching of the Gospel if you teach that we evolved over millions of years. By Adam, death and sin came into the world... so Paul teaches respectively that life and salvation come by one man, Jesus Christ.Paul tells us that "death reigned FROM ADAM." If you have the Theory of Evolution, you have a serious problem on your hands with this. The Theory of Evolution puts death WAYYYYYYYY WAYYYY before sin, and before Adam. Not only death... but pain... and suffering... and great struggle.But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6)
Is Jesus decieved... or are you? Why didn't Jesus, Paul, or any of the other apostles introduce the Theory of Evolution? There are certainly a great number of things that we are to take on faith. Are there not some many things "fantastic" which we believe on faith? Why then when addressing our origin didn't ANY OF THEM, Jesus or otherwise, teach that we "evolved" or "changed" over millions and millions of years before reaching our current "homosapien" state? Curious.Sorry Jeff that you can not understand my post and where you are wrong, sorry you have chosen man words over Gods. May God give you some wisdom I agree with Tom have no more time to waste on this nonsense if you want to talk scripture we are always open.
(tomwebster;56873)
I'm not AFRAID of anything, specially you. I don't have time to waist. You will find out soon enough.
Well, I would say that perhaps if you are interested in helping me find the truth, that you would not see it as a waste, but oh well. That is your choice.(thesuperjag;56875)
I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Tsk. Tsk. It's called discernment. Not interested in going back to sleep.
Of course. And how do we know whether spirits are of God? Well, we check what they have to say against His Word. And my Bible tells me that the gap theory takes things out of context...I'm not trying to say you are a false prophet, just pointing out that we must examine what others say, that's all.(treeoflife;56877)
Well, God's Word and the truth justifies me to say that you are decieved... but lets look at the following.
Okay, so you've shown me that there must be a "first man" who literally existed. Cool. I believe that. Obviously, if there are people here, there must have been a first one, and evolution doesn't deny that. The only thing that must be accepted outside the theory of evolution in order to harmonize the two is to say that God gave man something special - a soul - in order to have free will. And that is something that we can still glean from a day-age interpretation of the Genesis account. If you want to claim that this first person who God gave a soul had the name of Adam, then fine. I have no problem with calling him Adam (even though Adam may just be more of a generic name, since all it means is "man"), and since there are genealogies from his point on, then it seems reasonable to assume that that was his name. No problems here.(treeoflife;56877)
And, again.
Ahh. But here we have a dilemma of sorts. We must determine whether evolution, which talks about much death, can be harmonized by the Biblical account, which states no death before sin. But we must ask ourselves, what does the Bible mean that "sin brought death"? Does it mean physical death, or does it mean spiritual death? Or both, perhaps? But let's take a hypothetical example, for a moment. What would have happened if Adam had not sinned? If physical death is only the result of sin, that means that if Adam had not sinned, then he would not have died. Nor would have Eve, nor Cain, nor Abel, etc. In fact, the entire human race would still be living today. As we are facing overpopulation of our world, it's hard to imagine a couple more billion people being added to this globe on top of the people we already have. If physical death only came about as a result of sin, then if Adam had not sinned, the earth would be unsustainable and horrible.Death, truly, is an important part of life. If God really created the world as "very good," but created it without death, then it really would not have lasted for very long. What would happen to animals, competing for resources, mates, etc., do when none of them die? They keep producing more and more animals, and yet there would be no place to put them all. People and animals would be overrun, and vegetation would be depleted because it could not keep up with the massive demand. No, if physical death was only a result of sin, then God created a world that was only sustainable through sin. It brings us to a strange contradiction.This leaves spiritual death as a result of sin, which most Christians at least would agree is one aspect of sin's effects. We know that the wages of sin is death, but that the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. Since God's give was to give eternal life (spiritual life), doesn't it imply that the wages of sin is spiritual death? And while you might argue why Jesus would have to physically die to pay for the debt of spiritual death, well...God set up the rules straight from the beginning that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins." (I apologize for not having a reference to back that up....but I know it's in there somewhere
) This was symbolized in the Old Testament through animal sacrifice, and we know it was completed through Jesus' death, once and for all. But we still physically die today. Christians, with their new natures, do not head straight to heaven without dying first. This, at the very least, gives a strong impression that the "death" mentioned in the Bible as the wages of sin is indeed a spiritual death rather than physical.Not to mention, animals also die today. While most people would say that it's somehow as a result of the effects of sin, the truth is that nowhere in the Bible is this mentioned. The only curse given to animals for Adam's sin was that the serpent would crawl on his belly, and then a prophetic thing about striking the heel, crushing the head, etc. So why do animals die today, since obviously animals cannot "sin". They do not have the free will to choose to sin or not sin. The reason animals die today is because that is the natural order of things. Without death, the earth would be unlivable. It is no contradiction to say that animals died before Adam, as long as we understand that they did not die spiritually.(treeoflife;56877)
Because the theory of evolution largely came about as a result of a) observation of changes in population over time, and
examination of the fossil record. The first I guess wasn't so popular back in those days, and the second, the fossil record, wasn't even known to those people. I suppose Jesus probably knew, but why bring it up? "Oh yeah, there are these bones buried underground that are of these strange creatures you've never seen before. Don't worry, you'll find them in a couple thousand years..." Doesn't exactly fit in with the Beatitudes very well...(treeoflife;56877)
There are certainly a great number of things that we are to take on faith. Are there not some many things "fantastic" which we believe on faith? Why then when addressing our origin didn't ANY OF THEM, Jesus or otherwise, teach that we "evolved" or "changed" over millions and millions of years before reaching our current "homosapien" state? Curious.
There are many fantastic things we take on faith. However, these are generally taken on faith due to an absence of evidence, rather than a contradiction of evidence. I can believe that Jesus healed a blind man because though I see no evidence for it other than the Gospel accounts, there's no evidence against it either. Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence in favour of it, and while I wholeheartedly agree that it provides complications with the Word of God, I believe that if a) God exists and the Bible is true, and
evolution is true, then the two should at least not be in contradiction. As I believe both to be true, I search for the way to harmonize them. If it turns out that I cannot do so, then I may have to rethink some things, but as of yet, I don't believe there is a need to.As for why those addressing our origins didn't mention evolution or change over time, well...I've said it before, but basically - why confuse the issue? The Bible isn't a scientific manual, and when God's giving His account of creation to a guy living like six thousand years ago, He's gotta dumb it down a little bit, maybe throw in some nice parallels to make it easy to understand. That doesn't make the account wrong, no more than one's explanation of certain things to a six-year-old may be simplified, but not incorrect.Edit: Btw thank you, treeoflife, for responding in a way that at least justifies what you say, as I requested. You have done better than most of the people who have responded so far. (kriss;56878)
Sorry Jeff that you can not understand my post and where you are wrong, sorry you have chosen man words over Gods. May God give you some wisdom I agree with Tom have no more time to waste on this nonsense if you want to talk scripture we are always open.
I have tried to talk Scripture with you, and you ignored my replies in order to repeat the same thing over and over again. I've said this like eight times now....Respond to my counter-arguments! How can you expect me to believe you if you don't even answer my questions? I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of having a decent discussion over a point of disagreement. I am always open to doing so if you change your mind.
I'm not AFRAID of anything, specially you. I don't have time to waist. You will find out soon enough.
Well, I would say that perhaps if you are interested in helping me find the truth, that you would not see it as a waste, but oh well. That is your choice.(thesuperjag;56875)
I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Tsk. Tsk. It's called discernment. Not interested in going back to sleep.
Of course. And how do we know whether spirits are of God? Well, we check what they have to say against His Word. And my Bible tells me that the gap theory takes things out of context...I'm not trying to say you are a false prophet, just pointing out that we must examine what others say, that's all.(treeoflife;56877)
Well, God's Word and the truth justifies me to say that you are decieved... but lets look at the following.
1 Corinthians 15:45-47And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Paul writes that Adam was the first man... and that it is written as such. If fact, He bases his theology and teaching's on Jesus sacrifice (called the last Adam) on the fact that there was, in literal fact, a first Adam (Adam himself). Is it as it was written, as Paul and Jesus knew, or is it not?Okay, so you've shown me that there must be a "first man" who literally existed. Cool. I believe that. Obviously, if there are people here, there must have been a first one, and evolution doesn't deny that. The only thing that must be accepted outside the theory of evolution in order to harmonize the two is to say that God gave man something special - a soul - in order to have free will. And that is something that we can still glean from a day-age interpretation of the Genesis account. If you want to claim that this first person who God gave a soul had the name of Adam, then fine. I have no problem with calling him Adam (even though Adam may just be more of a generic name, since all it means is "man"), and since there are genealogies from his point on, then it seems reasonable to assume that that was his name. No problems here.(treeoflife;56877)
And, again.
Romans 5:12-19Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Again, Paul is basing his theology of our salvation by one man, on the same OT literal teaching that one man's sin brought SIN and DEATH into the world. You cannot share Paul's teaching of the Gospel if you teach that we evolved over millions of years. By Adam, death and sin came into the world... so Paul teaches respectively that life and salvation come by one man, Jesus Christ.Paul tells us that "death reigned FROM ADAM." If you have the Theory of Evolution, you have a serious problem on your hands with this. The Theory of Evolution puts death WAYYYYYYYY WAYYYY before sin, and before Adam. Not only death... but pain... and suffering... and great struggle.Ahh. But here we have a dilemma of sorts. We must determine whether evolution, which talks about much death, can be harmonized by the Biblical account, which states no death before sin. But we must ask ourselves, what does the Bible mean that "sin brought death"? Does it mean physical death, or does it mean spiritual death? Or both, perhaps? But let's take a hypothetical example, for a moment. What would have happened if Adam had not sinned? If physical death is only the result of sin, that means that if Adam had not sinned, then he would not have died. Nor would have Eve, nor Cain, nor Abel, etc. In fact, the entire human race would still be living today. As we are facing overpopulation of our world, it's hard to imagine a couple more billion people being added to this globe on top of the people we already have. If physical death only came about as a result of sin, then if Adam had not sinned, the earth would be unsustainable and horrible.Death, truly, is an important part of life. If God really created the world as "very good," but created it without death, then it really would not have lasted for very long. What would happen to animals, competing for resources, mates, etc., do when none of them die? They keep producing more and more animals, and yet there would be no place to put them all. People and animals would be overrun, and vegetation would be depleted because it could not keep up with the massive demand. No, if physical death was only a result of sin, then God created a world that was only sustainable through sin. It brings us to a strange contradiction.This leaves spiritual death as a result of sin, which most Christians at least would agree is one aspect of sin's effects. We know that the wages of sin is death, but that the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. Since God's give was to give eternal life (spiritual life), doesn't it imply that the wages of sin is spiritual death? And while you might argue why Jesus would have to physically die to pay for the debt of spiritual death, well...God set up the rules straight from the beginning that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins." (I apologize for not having a reference to back that up....but I know it's in there somewhere
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6)
Is Jesus decieved... or are you? Why didn't Jesus, Paul, or any of the other apostles introduce the Theory of Evolution?Because the theory of evolution largely came about as a result of a) observation of changes in population over time, and
There are certainly a great number of things that we are to take on faith. Are there not some many things "fantastic" which we believe on faith? Why then when addressing our origin didn't ANY OF THEM, Jesus or otherwise, teach that we "evolved" or "changed" over millions and millions of years before reaching our current "homosapien" state? Curious.
There are many fantastic things we take on faith. However, these are generally taken on faith due to an absence of evidence, rather than a contradiction of evidence. I can believe that Jesus healed a blind man because though I see no evidence for it other than the Gospel accounts, there's no evidence against it either. Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence in favour of it, and while I wholeheartedly agree that it provides complications with the Word of God, I believe that if a) God exists and the Bible is true, and
Sorry Jeff that you can not understand my post and where you are wrong, sorry you have chosen man words over Gods. May God give you some wisdom I agree with Tom have no more time to waste on this nonsense if you want to talk scripture we are always open.
I have tried to talk Scripture with you, and you ignored my replies in order to repeat the same thing over and over again. I've said this like eight times now....Respond to my counter-arguments! How can you expect me to believe you if you don't even answer my questions? I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of having a decent discussion over a point of disagreement. I am always open to doing so if you change your mind.
(jeffhughes;56894)
(thesuperjag;56875)
I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Tsk. Tsk. It's called discernment. Not interested in going back to sleep.
Of course. And how do we know whether spirits are of God? Well, we check what they have to say against His Word. And my Bible tells me that the gap theory takes things out of context...I'm not trying to say you are a false prophet, just pointing out that we must examine what others say, that's all.Now that's ridiculous...they are number of places in the bible that has a time gap... not just the one we we're trying to show you, but I'll let God help you with this if you let Him help. But I do see that this spirit you are sitting on is so not of God.
(thesuperjag;56875)
I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Tsk. Tsk. It's called discernment. Not interested in going back to sleep.
Of course. And how do we know whether spirits are of God? Well, we check what they have to say against His Word. And my Bible tells me that the gap theory takes things out of context...I'm not trying to say you are a false prophet, just pointing out that we must examine what others say, that's all.Now that's ridiculous...they are number of places in the bible that has a time gap... not just the one we we're trying to show you, but I'll let God help you with this if you let Him help. But I do see that this spirit you are sitting on is so not of God.
(jeffhughes;56656)
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It sounds....odd.But to answer your original question, science has shown that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. It is well researched, well proven, and well documented, and although science hasn't come up with all the answers, since it works in a progressive manner toward facts, the theory of evolution has simply provided the best explanation for the similarities that we see among all forms of life - no other theory compares to it. "Intelligent design" has proven to be far from an intelligent theory based in real science, and its sister mode of thought, creationism, works more to try and "poked holes" in evolution rather than provide a better explanation. However, with that said, evolution does not deny the existence of God, and there are many Christians out there who harmonize what they see in the world with what they believe in their hearts. Whether God created us as we are or whether He used the natural processes of evolution doesn't in any way deny His power to create, nor His power over creation.
I have to agree. I debate christian/evolution way to much. I actually came here because i was getting tired of all the atheists I was encountering trying to bash me in. Thx for doing my work for me here normally I would type out a long post concerning christian evolution but you seemed to sum it up nicely. God created nature, therefore nature will never deny the existence of god, or the fact that God created it. Science is the study of nature which is Gods design, therefore true science will never contradict God. since we have a very well tested theory here we must rethink our beliefs on gods creation. for me this means denying a 6 day creation. how do I do that, I say most of the stories of genesis are stories from the time told by word of mouth over generations. You have a bunch of ancient people wandering the desert who don't know squat about science writing down stories of creation from stories their grandparents told them, they could never understand the truth even if God did reveal it to them, God might have dumbed it down to there level who knows, but evolution is a good theory and I think its complexity makes it much more glorifying to God for designing it. So our science and learning how god made things is more glorifying him which is what he wants anyway.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It sounds....odd.But to answer your original question, science has shown that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. It is well researched, well proven, and well documented, and although science hasn't come up with all the answers, since it works in a progressive manner toward facts, the theory of evolution has simply provided the best explanation for the similarities that we see among all forms of life - no other theory compares to it. "Intelligent design" has proven to be far from an intelligent theory based in real science, and its sister mode of thought, creationism, works more to try and "poked holes" in evolution rather than provide a better explanation. However, with that said, evolution does not deny the existence of God, and there are many Christians out there who harmonize what they see in the world with what they believe in their hearts. Whether God created us as we are or whether He used the natural processes of evolution doesn't in any way deny His power to create, nor His power over creation.
I have to agree. I debate christian/evolution way to much. I actually came here because i was getting tired of all the atheists I was encountering trying to bash me in. Thx for doing my work for me here normally I would type out a long post concerning christian evolution but you seemed to sum it up nicely. God created nature, therefore nature will never deny the existence of god, or the fact that God created it. Science is the study of nature which is Gods design, therefore true science will never contradict God. since we have a very well tested theory here we must rethink our beliefs on gods creation. for me this means denying a 6 day creation. how do I do that, I say most of the stories of genesis are stories from the time told by word of mouth over generations. You have a bunch of ancient people wandering the desert who don't know squat about science writing down stories of creation from stories their grandparents told them, they could never understand the truth even if God did reveal it to them, God might have dumbed it down to there level who knows, but evolution is a good theory and I think its complexity makes it much more glorifying to God for designing it. So our science and learning how god made things is more glorifying him which is what he wants anyway.
(thesuperjag;56895)
Now that's ridiculous...they are number of places in the bible that has a time gap... not just the one we we're trying to show you, but I'll let God help you with this if you let Him help. But I do see that this spirit you are sitting on is so not of God.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying. You're saying that in the Bible, there are often gaps of time in between verses? Well sure. But that doesn't say that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 there is a gap. I have no problem understanding that the Gospels don't record every detail of Jesus' life. They skip from his birth to when he's around 30. But saying that the Bible has gaps doesn't prove that the gap theory of creation is true.Again, I check the spirits against the Word of God. If they don't line up, they are not of God. When I read the Bible in its context, it appears that the gap theory has no support for it. Therefore, I discard it. If you can show me a good reason why Jeremiah would mention a random flood thousands of years ago, or why Peter would simply mention it offhand without explaining it to his audience who obviously wouldn't know anything about it, or even show me a good reason why God would create all these animals and dinosaurs, etc., and then decide to completely wipe out all life with a flood, but still leave evidence of it behind, then perhaps we can dispense with all this "your spirit, my spirit" stuff and get to the real answers. In Noah's flood, God didn't completely wipe everything out. He saved a bunch of the animals as well as Noah and his family. In this earlier flood, apparently everything got wiped out...so why didn't God just destroy the whole planet and start on a new one? Or just make all the animals disappear instead? These are other questions that you could answer in order to at least make your opinion seem more plausible. I'm trying to start a discussion, but you and kriss have made it very difficult by not answering my questions and countering my arguments. You seem more content to just tell me I'm wrong and that my "spirit is not of God" (though you have no way to tell) without explaining yourself. At the very least, even if I'm wrong, I at least have reasons for believing what I do. You have not explained your reasons...
Now that's ridiculous...they are number of places in the bible that has a time gap... not just the one we we're trying to show you, but I'll let God help you with this if you let Him help. But I do see that this spirit you are sitting on is so not of God.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying. You're saying that in the Bible, there are often gaps of time in between verses? Well sure. But that doesn't say that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 there is a gap. I have no problem understanding that the Gospels don't record every detail of Jesus' life. They skip from his birth to when he's around 30. But saying that the Bible has gaps doesn't prove that the gap theory of creation is true.Again, I check the spirits against the Word of God. If they don't line up, they are not of God. When I read the Bible in its context, it appears that the gap theory has no support for it. Therefore, I discard it. If you can show me a good reason why Jeremiah would mention a random flood thousands of years ago, or why Peter would simply mention it offhand without explaining it to his audience who obviously wouldn't know anything about it, or even show me a good reason why God would create all these animals and dinosaurs, etc., and then decide to completely wipe out all life with a flood, but still leave evidence of it behind, then perhaps we can dispense with all this "your spirit, my spirit" stuff and get to the real answers. In Noah's flood, God didn't completely wipe everything out. He saved a bunch of the animals as well as Noah and his family. In this earlier flood, apparently everything got wiped out...so why didn't God just destroy the whole planet and start on a new one? Or just make all the animals disappear instead? These are other questions that you could answer in order to at least make your opinion seem more plausible. I'm trying to start a discussion, but you and kriss have made it very difficult by not answering my questions and countering my arguments. You seem more content to just tell me I'm wrong and that my "spirit is not of God" (though you have no way to tell) without explaining yourself. At the very least, even if I'm wrong, I at least have reasons for believing what I do. You have not explained your reasons...
(jeffhughes;56914)
(thesuperjag;56895)
Now that's ridiculous...they are number of places in the bible that has a time gap... not just the one we we're trying to show you, but I'll let God help you with this if you let Him help. But I do see that this spirit you are sitting on is so not of God.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying. You're saying that in the Bible, there are often gaps of time in between verses? Well sure. But that doesn't say that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 there is a gap. I have no problem understanding that the Gospels don't record every detail of Jesus' life. They skip from his birth to when he's around 30. But saying that the Bible has gaps doesn't prove that the gap theory of creation is true.Again, I check the spirits against the Word of God. If they don't line up, they are not of God. When I read the Bible in its context, it appears that the gap theory has no support for it. Therefore, I discard it. If you can show me a good reason why Jeremiah would mention a random flood thousands of years ago, or why Peter would simply mention it offhand without explaining it to his audience who obviously wouldn't know anything about it, or even show me a good reason why God would create all these animals and dinosaurs, etc., and then decide to completely wipe out all life with a flood, but still leave evidence of it behind, then perhaps we can dispense with all this "your spirit, my spirit" stuff and get to the real answers. In Noah's flood, God didn't completely wipe everything out. He saved a bunch of the animals as well as Noah and his family. In this earlier flood, apparently everything got wiped out...so why didn't God just destroy the whole planet and start on a new one? Or just make all the animals disappear instead? These are other questions that you could answer in order to at least make your opinion seem more plausible. I'm trying to start a discussion, but you and kriss have made it very difficult by not answering my questions and countering my arguments. You seem more content to just tell me I'm wrong and that my "spirit is not of God" (though you have no way to tell) without explaining yourself. At the very least, even if I'm wrong, I at least have reasons for believing what I do. You have not explained your reasons...Genesis 1:1-2 is nowhere near Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:1 doesn't say "God created the heaven and the earth. This is the first day. It was very good."Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And Genesis 1:1-2 does not go near Noah's Flood, because that started Genesis 6 and Genesis 7. The ending is Genesis 8.Noah's Flood has humans in it. Genesis 1:1-2 has NO humans in it. Cause humans existed in Genesis 1:26-27. Was told to multiply in Genesis 1:28. What was it about NO MAN... in Jeremiah 4:25?Scriptures are clear as water. I don't need to reason, when the Word does the talking for me.
(thesuperjag;56895)
Now that's ridiculous...they are number of places in the bible that has a time gap... not just the one we we're trying to show you, but I'll let God help you with this if you let Him help. But I do see that this spirit you are sitting on is so not of God.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying. You're saying that in the Bible, there are often gaps of time in between verses? Well sure. But that doesn't say that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 there is a gap. I have no problem understanding that the Gospels don't record every detail of Jesus' life. They skip from his birth to when he's around 30. But saying that the Bible has gaps doesn't prove that the gap theory of creation is true.Again, I check the spirits against the Word of God. If they don't line up, they are not of God. When I read the Bible in its context, it appears that the gap theory has no support for it. Therefore, I discard it. If you can show me a good reason why Jeremiah would mention a random flood thousands of years ago, or why Peter would simply mention it offhand without explaining it to his audience who obviously wouldn't know anything about it, or even show me a good reason why God would create all these animals and dinosaurs, etc., and then decide to completely wipe out all life with a flood, but still leave evidence of it behind, then perhaps we can dispense with all this "your spirit, my spirit" stuff and get to the real answers. In Noah's flood, God didn't completely wipe everything out. He saved a bunch of the animals as well as Noah and his family. In this earlier flood, apparently everything got wiped out...so why didn't God just destroy the whole planet and start on a new one? Or just make all the animals disappear instead? These are other questions that you could answer in order to at least make your opinion seem more plausible. I'm trying to start a discussion, but you and kriss have made it very difficult by not answering my questions and countering my arguments. You seem more content to just tell me I'm wrong and that my "spirit is not of God" (though you have no way to tell) without explaining yourself. At the very least, even if I'm wrong, I at least have reasons for believing what I do. You have not explained your reasons...Genesis 1:1-2 is nowhere near Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:1 doesn't say "God created the heaven and the earth. This is the first day. It was very good."Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And Genesis 1:1-2 does not go near Noah's Flood, because that started Genesis 6 and Genesis 7. The ending is Genesis 8.Noah's Flood has humans in it. Genesis 1:1-2 has NO humans in it. Cause humans existed in Genesis 1:26-27. Was told to multiply in Genesis 1:28. What was it about NO MAN... in Jeremiah 4:25?Scriptures are clear as water. I don't need to reason, when the Word does the talking for me.
(thesuperjag;56943)
Genesis 1:1-2 is nowhere near Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:1 doesn't say "God created the heaven and the earth. This is the first day. It was very good."Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And Genesis 1:1-2 does not go near Noah's Flood, because that started Genesis 6 and Genesis 7. The ending is Genesis 8.Noah's Flood has humans in it. Genesis 1:1-2 has NO humans in it. Cause humans existed in Genesis 1:26-27. Was told to multiply in Genesis 1:28. What was it about NO MAN... in Jeremiah 4:25?Scriptures are clear as water. I don't need to reason, when the Word does the talking for me.
I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying. If you're referring to the reference to "water" in Gen. 1:2, it's just as easy to say that God created the world with water covering the whole surface (since he doesn't create "land" until later) as it is to say that there was a gigantic flood that destroyed all the life, etc. Actually, it's easier, since all we're told is that there is water, not that there was a massive flood.And then, of course, you point to 2 Peter and Jeremiah, and I point to the context, and then the cycle continues. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
Genesis 1:1-2 is nowhere near Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:1 doesn't say "God created the heaven and the earth. This is the first day. It was very good."Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And Genesis 1:1-2 does not go near Noah's Flood, because that started Genesis 6 and Genesis 7. The ending is Genesis 8.Noah's Flood has humans in it. Genesis 1:1-2 has NO humans in it. Cause humans existed in Genesis 1:26-27. Was told to multiply in Genesis 1:28. What was it about NO MAN... in Jeremiah 4:25?Scriptures are clear as water. I don't need to reason, when the Word does the talking for me.
I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying. If you're referring to the reference to "water" in Gen. 1:2, it's just as easy to say that God created the world with water covering the whole surface (since he doesn't create "land" until later) as it is to say that there was a gigantic flood that destroyed all the life, etc. Actually, it's easier, since all we're told is that there is water, not that there was a massive flood.And then, of course, you point to 2 Peter and Jeremiah, and I point to the context, and then the cycle continues. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
Jag you may as well give it up anyone this set on denying Gods Words to listen to men will never see what you are saying
(kriss;56953)
Jag you may as well give it up anyone this set on denying Gods Words to listen to men will never see what you are saying
Well...perhaps I would be more receptive if you gave me reasons for why you are interpreting verses this way. For the umpteenth time, please answer my arguments against interpreting 2 Peter as you do...I will quote it for you once again, below. ANSWERS! Not judgment. Answers are what I need.
Alright, so let's look at the verses then. Establishing the context, we can see that Peter is talking about false prophets, and encouraging the church to remember certain stories of old, and what the prophets and apostles have said. Then, in verse 3 he starts talking about scoffers who question where Jesus is and why He hasn't returned yet. As we get into verse five, we see that the stuff about the water, etc. is hidden from these scoffers - not hidden in general. So your talk about "Noah's flood was never a secret" does not hold, for it is only from these people that it is hidden.So in verse five, Peter is talking about the earth, which was standing out of the water and in the water - obviously, landmasses. No problem there. Then, in verse six, we see that this world was flooded, and the world "perished." Now, note that this does not say that the heavens were destroyed, only the "world." So it seems like this could very well be talking about Noah's flood. At least, nothing seems to contradict it so far.In verse seven, Peter then goes on to talk about the heavens and earth that are now, and that they are held in store for judgment. The rest goes on to talk about how Jesus is still to return, and that time is meaningless to God, so His promise still holds. However, backing up to talk about the heavens and earth, note that nowhere in it does he say that the heavens were destroyed. He talks about the heavens and earth of old, then he talks about the earth being destroyed by a flood, and then he talks about the heavens and earth of now. I don't see how this implies that there was somehow a second flood before Noah's flood that somehow wiped out God's prior creation, like He somehow made a mistake and had to start over. And what, once God made a mistake and erased it, He wasn't powerful enough to erase it completely, or what? Why wouldn't He just blow up the whole earth and start again? In Noah's flood He didn't do that because He wanted to preserve the animals and Noah and his family. But in this previous creation, He apparently didn't let anything survive. So why not just completely destroy everything and start again from scratch?But what sticks to me even more about this verse is that he is speaking as if the church already understands and knows these things. He is not teaching new doctrine, but reminding them of this flood incident in order to make an inference from it. I don't think that there is any reason to assume that the church Peter was writing to had any belief about a first flood or of a gap theory, since none is ever recorded in Scripture, with the sole possibility of this short passage. But Peter just sort of mentions this flood in passing, like it would be common knowledge to all who were reading it. It is not a focal point of what he is trying to say, nor is it an attempt to prove that this prior flood occurs. This seems to tell me that he can only be referring to Noah's flood, but that he's doing it in a highly poetic sort of way because he knows it is common knowledge to his readers. If he were really teaching some strange, bizarre new doctrine, he would have slowed down, put it in simpler terms, and walked them through an explanation of how we could know that there was a flood before Noah's flood.No, I don't think that the gap theory can be justified based on this verse. At best, it is highly ambiguous, and I have a hard time justifying an entirely new timeline of events, along with a previous creation event and an erasing of all that previous creation, based on three ambiguous verses.
Jag you may as well give it up anyone this set on denying Gods Words to listen to men will never see what you are saying
Well...perhaps I would be more receptive if you gave me reasons for why you are interpreting verses this way. For the umpteenth time, please answer my arguments against interpreting 2 Peter as you do...I will quote it for you once again, below. ANSWERS! Not judgment. Answers are what I need.
Alright, so let's look at the verses then. Establishing the context, we can see that Peter is talking about false prophets, and encouraging the church to remember certain stories of old, and what the prophets and apostles have said. Then, in verse 3 he starts talking about scoffers who question where Jesus is and why He hasn't returned yet. As we get into verse five, we see that the stuff about the water, etc. is hidden from these scoffers - not hidden in general. So your talk about "Noah's flood was never a secret" does not hold, for it is only from these people that it is hidden.So in verse five, Peter is talking about the earth, which was standing out of the water and in the water - obviously, landmasses. No problem there. Then, in verse six, we see that this world was flooded, and the world "perished." Now, note that this does not say that the heavens were destroyed, only the "world." So it seems like this could very well be talking about Noah's flood. At least, nothing seems to contradict it so far.In verse seven, Peter then goes on to talk about the heavens and earth that are now, and that they are held in store for judgment. The rest goes on to talk about how Jesus is still to return, and that time is meaningless to God, so His promise still holds. However, backing up to talk about the heavens and earth, note that nowhere in it does he say that the heavens were destroyed. He talks about the heavens and earth of old, then he talks about the earth being destroyed by a flood, and then he talks about the heavens and earth of now. I don't see how this implies that there was somehow a second flood before Noah's flood that somehow wiped out God's prior creation, like He somehow made a mistake and had to start over. And what, once God made a mistake and erased it, He wasn't powerful enough to erase it completely, or what? Why wouldn't He just blow up the whole earth and start again? In Noah's flood He didn't do that because He wanted to preserve the animals and Noah and his family. But in this previous creation, He apparently didn't let anything survive. So why not just completely destroy everything and start again from scratch?But what sticks to me even more about this verse is that he is speaking as if the church already understands and knows these things. He is not teaching new doctrine, but reminding them of this flood incident in order to make an inference from it. I don't think that there is any reason to assume that the church Peter was writing to had any belief about a first flood or of a gap theory, since none is ever recorded in Scripture, with the sole possibility of this short passage. But Peter just sort of mentions this flood in passing, like it would be common knowledge to all who were reading it. It is not a focal point of what he is trying to say, nor is it an attempt to prove that this prior flood occurs. This seems to tell me that he can only be referring to Noah's flood, but that he's doing it in a highly poetic sort of way because he knows it is common knowledge to his readers. If he were really teaching some strange, bizarre new doctrine, he would have slowed down, put it in simpler terms, and walked them through an explanation of how we could know that there was a flood before Noah's flood.No, I don't think that the gap theory can be justified based on this verse. At best, it is highly ambiguous, and I have a hard time justifying an entirely new timeline of events, along with a previous creation event and an erasing of all that previous creation, based on three ambiguous verses.
Because That's what it says I gave you another version(WCB) that is closer to the manuscripts than the KJVBut you refuse to see what it says also, and instead listen to what you have been taught in Sunday school. and by men Original languages and Hebrew traditions(idioms) ect. hold great wealth of information we do not get in English. the book was not written in English nor by Englishmen. Again from one of the oldest bibles 5 But it is hid from them willing this thing, that heavens were before, and the earth of water was standing by water, by God's word [that heavens were first, and the earth of water and by water being, or standing, together by God's word]; The earth and heavens were before, 6 by which [things] that same world cleansed, then by water perished. The earth perished, died, destroyed, void Noah's flood never affected the heavens never destroyed the earth . The flood was never hid from anyone In fact within 150 days after the flood a dove brings Noah an olive twig plucked offa tree it doent take a expert to see the earth had not perished. In fact God never says the flood made the earth perish he says only it was covered,.... covered and perish are not the same. God even goes futher he tells you all things with breath of life that were upon dry land died(gen 7:22)it was meant to destroy the sinful peoples not the earth 7 But the heavens that now be, and the earth, be kept by the same word, and be reserved to fire into the day of doom and perdition of wicked men. [Forsooth the heavens that now be, and the earth, by the same word put again, be kept to fire into the day of doom and perdition of unpious men.] The heavens and earth that are now this age will be destroyed by fire melting of the Elements we have always been taught this earth and the heavens would be destroyed by fire This is nothing new God says he will do this again end this age and make a New heaven and earth (Rev.21) 8 But, ye most dear, this one thing be not hid to you [be not unknown], that one day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years be as one day [and a thousand years as one day]. Again the Jewish people understood this figure of speech and Peter was a Jew living in Jerusalem why is so difficult to understand he would have used what was familar language and customs to him maybe you should find out about Idoms and customs http://www.christianityboard.com/parables-...ioms-t7648.htmlIt basically boils down to one thing Im giving you a explanation in Gods Word for an Old earthwhich you believe to be true. The problem is the same verse's that prove and old earth also disproves Evolution with a break in continual a eartha fact you can not except.But in your defense neither can the religionists that insist on a young earth so they in fact dispute the very verse's, that disprove Evolution. . So you have two wrong opinions both based in man's word not Gods. debating a thing God has told you the answer too, ironic indeed.God's word only says Adam was created 6000 years ago thats it, Adam.this is the last time Im explaining this, you either get it or you dont I can tell you the verse's I can not give you the wisdom to understand them that comes only from God.
(jeffhughes;56959)
Well...perhaps I would be more receptive if you gave me reasons for why you are interpreting verses this way. For the umpteenth time, please answer my arguments against interpreting 2 Peter as you do...I will quote it for you once again, below. ANSWERS! Not judgment. Answers are what I need.
I don't believe you need answers. What you need the a Holy Spirit filled kick in the rear (spiritually speaking), and to listen to God's Word, and obey.Where in the Adam and Eve story were all the other humans? Adam and Eve were put in the garden... so where was everyone else? Adam and Eve were given the command to be fruitful and multiply, and in fact, all the different peoples can Biblically be drawn from their doing so (both the good and the bad).So, if Adam and Eve "evolved", where were all the other humans, and why was EVE MADE FROM ADAM'S RIB? Can you please explain that in the Theory of Evolution? How was Eve made from Adam's rib? Is this yet another matter of interpretation--albeit an interpretation where you try to adapt God's clearly spoken Word to the lie that is the Theory of Evolution?Eve didn't evolve... she was created from the rib of Adam, made fully formed just as God's Word states. Adam is the same, he was created, fully formed. We believe whatever evidence we want to believe, and you have believed a lie. Now, that happens to a lot of people... but if you receive SO MANY witnesses and reject God's Word, there is no doubt you will walk into sin, and show that you are willfully decieved. Consider that, and I hope you come out of it. For your own good, and for the good of those whom's lives you effect.God's Word is always proven true in the end, every single time. We don't have to interpret a theory that has come about in the last 150 years into His Word that never spoke of anything of the sort. What He said happened did happen, and in time, the great dilusions will be smashed and His Word will be proven true.
Well...perhaps I would be more receptive if you gave me reasons for why you are interpreting verses this way. For the umpteenth time, please answer my arguments against interpreting 2 Peter as you do...I will quote it for you once again, below. ANSWERS! Not judgment. Answers are what I need.
I don't believe you need answers. What you need the a Holy Spirit filled kick in the rear (spiritually speaking), and to listen to God's Word, and obey.Where in the Adam and Eve story were all the other humans? Adam and Eve were put in the garden... so where was everyone else? Adam and Eve were given the command to be fruitful and multiply, and in fact, all the different peoples can Biblically be drawn from their doing so (both the good and the bad).So, if Adam and Eve "evolved", where were all the other humans, and why was EVE MADE FROM ADAM'S RIB? Can you please explain that in the Theory of Evolution? How was Eve made from Adam's rib? Is this yet another matter of interpretation--albeit an interpretation where you try to adapt God's clearly spoken Word to the lie that is the Theory of Evolution?Eve didn't evolve... she was created from the rib of Adam, made fully formed just as God's Word states. Adam is the same, he was created, fully formed. We believe whatever evidence we want to believe, and you have believed a lie. Now, that happens to a lot of people... but if you receive SO MANY witnesses and reject God's Word, there is no doubt you will walk into sin, and show that you are willfully decieved. Consider that, and I hope you come out of it. For your own good, and for the good of those whom's lives you effect.God's Word is always proven true in the end, every single time. We don't have to interpret a theory that has come about in the last 150 years into His Word that never spoke of anything of the sort. What He said happened did happen, and in time, the great dilusions will be smashed and His Word will be proven true.
willietdog;56901 said:
Hi there. I seem to have missed your post earlier, but I'm glad I saw it! It's nice to know that at least someone agrees with me here
At any rate, I am not entirely sure that the Genesis account must be interpreted as loosely as you have done, but it is certainly one way to look at it. I would take a more metaphorical stance, saying that Genesis can be interpreted as a story full of meaning, but not one meant to be scientifically accurate.
kriss;56960 said:
Hi there. I haven't heard of the WCB version - what does that stand for? I also can't seem to find it online, so I can't double-check. I was going to take a look at the whole chapter in that version, just to see the differences. At any rate, I will use what you've given me here.
kriss;56960 said:
First of all, I was never taught this in Sunday School. I was taught a literal, six-day creation, and that there was no room for any other view. I also was not taught this by men - while I obviously am not a scientist doing original research or anything, I did my best to take a look at the cold, hard evidence rather than the conclusions drawn from them, and also tried to cross-reference evolutionist arguments with creationist ones, to try to minimize the bias. But the conclusions I draw are mine alone - although I know that there are, of course, others that share my views.
kriss;56960 said:
Of course. And that is, in a lot of cases, why the Bible is so often unclear to us. Because while the original readers might have understood clearly, we looking back on it do not, without digging into it a little bit.
kriss;56960 said:
Again I ask - who is "them"? If we go back to verse 3, we see that "they" are scoffers - men who are coming along and mocking the Christians as to why Jesus has not returned. And it is they who this is hidden from.
kriss;56960 said:
Yes, here is mentioned old heavens and old earth. I'll use the terms "old" and "new" to indicate what you believe is "before flood" and "after flood."
kriss;56960 said:
Of course, Noah's flood did not affect the heavens, nor did it cause the earth to "perish." However, this is not what the text says. First, it does not say that the heavens were affected. It only mentions the world that was cleansed and then perished. Not only that, but the Greek word used for "world" is "kosmos", and is an entirely different word than what is used in verse 5 for "earth," which is "ge." The first one, "kosmos", can refer to pretty much anything. It can refer to the stars, it can refer to the universe, or the earth itself, or inhabitants of the earth, or even particular groups of people on the earth. It is as loose or even looser than our word "world", where if we say "the whole world" we could be talking about the actual earth or about all people, etc.
Contrast this word with "ge", which has multiple meanings as well, but in every case refers to the "earth" - the physical land, either a landmass or the earth as a whole. But it never refers to people on the earth.
So back in verse 5, we see that God created the heavens and the "ge", but then in verse six the "kosmos" (which can refer to people) is destroyed. Were Peter talking about the same physical earth that was "destroyed," surely he would have used the same word both times. But this difference in usage indicates a difference in what he is referring to. The earth was created, but the people on them were destroyed.
kriss;56960 said:
In verse 7 here, Peter is back to talking about the heavens and the "ge", and since neither were said to be destroyed by this flood (only the "kosmos"), we can presume that they are both still here. Thus the "old heavens" and the "old earth" still remain after the flood to become the "new heavens" and the "new earth".
kriss;56960 said:
No argument here. As we are only discussing this "previous world," whether or not the earth will be destroyed in the future is not of concern here.
kriss;56960 said:
Of course. But as I am assuming that you are not a Jew living in Jerusalem in Peter's day, I am assuming that you are not claiming knowledge of this particular idiom. As I have mentioned, it does not work as a literal mathematical formula, because it ends in nonsense. Thus we can safely conclude that it is, in fact, an idiom that is essentially saying that God's time is God's time, not our time. Whether Jesus takes a thousand years to come back or whether He comes back tomorrow, He will be right on time. This, of course, also fits with the context, since he is using all this to explain that Jesus will, in fact, return, and to not be discouraged by these scoffers.
kriss;56960 said:
You are giving an explanation, yes, but not one that is acceptable to me, because it is not supported by the context of the passage, nor is it supported by the Greek. You mention that sometimes the information in Scripture is hidden to us because we are unaware of the meanings in the original languages (Hebrew/Greek). So I have now updated my objections to the gap theory to include the meanings of key Greek words, which demonstrate that the heavens and earth were not destroyed in a flood as you say they were.
[QUOTE="kriss;56960]But in your defense neither can the religionists that insist on a young earth so they in fact dispute the very verse's, that disprove Evolution. .
So you have two wrong opinions both based in man's word not Gods. debating a thing God has told you the answer too, ironic indeed.[/QUOTE]
God has told me that He is supreme and that He has ordained all things. God has also given me two eyes and a brain in order to look at the world around me, observe it, and come to a better knowledge of my Creator as well. When I combine both of these, I am satisfied with the results I get. At any rate, I would appreciate hearing your response to my explanation above. Please know that I am not trying to attack you - you keep mentioning that I am "blinded" or "unspiritual", but I only seek a coherent explanation. If I can raise these objections, then it is possible that this gap theory is not as coherent as you believe it is. If you can resolve these objections, then the onus is on me to re-evaluate its coherence.
[QUOTE="kriss;56960]God's word only says Adam was created 6000 years ago thats it, Adam.
this is the last time Im explaining this, you either get it or you dont I can tell you the verse's I can not give you the wisdom to understand them that comes only from God.[/QUOTE]
If that is what you choose to do, then fine. But I have appreciated the more reasonable exchange in this last post, and I would like to continue if you are willing.
treeoflife;56975 said:
Thank you. That is what I attempt to do - listen to God's Word, and obey. But if God's Word is unclear, or if it seems to contradict physical evidence, then what must I do? I must resolve the contradiction. If this is untenable, then I must reject one or the other, but I do not believe that it is, indeed, untenable. So perhaps it is up the the Holy Spirit to "kick me in the rear", as you say. So far, He seems not to have done so.
treeoflife;56975 said:
Simple. Adam and Eve were, indeed, the first humans. Doesn't mean they didn't come from almost-humans.
treeoflife;56975 said:
You are basing what you say on the assumption that the Genesis account must be taken literally in order for it to work at all. If you take a look at it as more of a metaphorical account, the tension dissolves. Why was Eve made from Adam's rib? It's a sign of how close woman is to man - how she is a "helpmeet" for him. If you want to be really sappy - maybe the rib was taken from close to his heart. Aww.
If God's words in Genesis were "clearly spoken" as you say, then why is there such debate over them anyways? Even before evolution came up, there were people arguing over them. Even people such as St. Augustine did not believe that creation happened in a literal six-day period, and he was around way before Darwin. It is not a bad thing to say that we have misunderstood Scripture. It is not a bad thing to understand Scripture in light of the physical evidence. Otherwise, you might as well renounce this lie of the theory of "round-earthness". Because Jesus was clearly taken up onto a mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world, and the tree in Ezekiel (or was it Daniel? I can't remember) clearly was seen by the entire earth. Therefore, to say that the earth is round is a lie, and that's just that.
Of course, you know that you don't believe that. Instead, you take a look at the physical evidence, and then you interpret the Bible differently. "Oh, well that was just a vision. Oh, well that was simply hyperbole." So if evolution can be shown to be true, then why not do the same for that? Once again, it comes down to the physical evidence to prove or disprove it.
treeoflife;56975 said:
Again, the tension dissolves with a simple metaphorical interpretation, and it still does not diminish the power of God or His supremacy over all.
treeoflife;56975 said:
I have and am still considering it. My father is a staunch creationist. He gets Creation magazine, has a Creation International calendar, and goes onto the Answers in Genesis website frequently. You don't think that I have examined every alternative to evolution before accepting it? I hated the very thought that I would even consider evolution. It betrayed everything that I had grown up with, everything I believed, and everything my parents and church believed. But the physical evidence won me over - after a great deal of time and effort researching the possibilities - and from there on in, it was a matter of figuring out how I could reconcile it with my faith. Turns out it's not as big a deal as the creationists put it out to be. Why? Because you can still believe that God is supreme, that Jesus loves you and died for you, and that you can go to Heaven and have eternal life. It just means that God took a little more time to lead up to the Bible, really...
treeoflife;56975 said:
1) I'm not trying to prove His Word false. Nothing of the sort.
2) You are creating a false dichotomy, that either the Bible is true and Genesis is literal, or else Genesis is untrue and the whole thing is a lie. That is a naive way to look at Scripture - or anything, for that matter.
3) 150 years has brought about many incredible discoveries that we would not deny today. Not to mention that there has been 150 years for evolution to be examined and proven true over and over. Think about it. You'd think that after 150 years, someone would have found a nice hole in it to poke their stick in and wiggle around. As of now, the only people debating it are the ones who have a priori decided that it is false, in order to try and keep their faith intact, like it will fall apart if they find out that they evolved rather than were created special, like a unique little snowflake, by God. Other than these people who simply try and look for the ways in which scientists sometimes slip up, and then point and wave and yell and scream when it happens, the theory of evolution enjoys strong acceptance across the board, from religious and non-religious scientists. Science isn't perfect, and some theories are shown to be untrue. But those ones are discarded, like Lamarckian evolution, for example. That's how science operates, and when 150 years' worth of testing show it to be a valuable and useful theory, it is kept around.
Paul and Jesus didn't believe it is a metephore, and neither do I. Neither should you.By all means, side with the world Jeff, and make it a complete "metephore" so that the Theory of Evolution can be true and see where it gets you. If it is is a metephore though, Jesus is a metephore... I and others have shown you that. If one does not believe Moses, how will one believe Jesus' Words? Jesus begged the question, and your choice has deep deep side effects.Just like the prodigal son, you will come up empty handed if you try God as a "metephore" on this matter, either in this life, or the next.
(treeoflife;57021)
Paul and Jesus didn't believe it is a metephore, and neither do I. Neither should you.By all means, side with the world Jeff, and make it a complete "metephore" so that the Theory of Evolution can be true and see where it gets you. If it is is a metephore though, Jesus is a metephore... I and others have shown you that. If one does not believe Moses, how will one believe Jesus' Words? Jesus begged the question, and your choice has deep deep side effects.Just like the prodigal son, you will come up empty handed if you try God as a "metephore" on this matter, either in this life, or the next.
I don't agree with you that making the Genesis account a metaphor makes Jesus into a metaphor, but I would like to ask you a hypothetical question on a slightly different note.Let's pretend for a moment that I could provide you proof of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. I mean, I know that you don't think I can, but let's set that aside for a moment and just pretend, hypothetically, that I can. I show you this proof, and you sit there and try to think of some way around it, but you can't find any - not anything other than the one conclusion that God created everything to look like it evolved, which makes God into a deceiver. Now - what would you do? What would you decide was the best course of action to you? Would you believe, despite this proof, that the creation account in Genesis is literally true, or accept the proof and try to reconcile your faith to the truth of evolution? What would a reasonable, faith-filled person do? Or could the two even be reconciled?Let me know your answer...
Paul and Jesus didn't believe it is a metephore, and neither do I. Neither should you.By all means, side with the world Jeff, and make it a complete "metephore" so that the Theory of Evolution can be true and see where it gets you. If it is is a metephore though, Jesus is a metephore... I and others have shown you that. If one does not believe Moses, how will one believe Jesus' Words? Jesus begged the question, and your choice has deep deep side effects.Just like the prodigal son, you will come up empty handed if you try God as a "metephore" on this matter, either in this life, or the next.
I don't agree with you that making the Genesis account a metaphor makes Jesus into a metaphor, but I would like to ask you a hypothetical question on a slightly different note.Let's pretend for a moment that I could provide you proof of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. I mean, I know that you don't think I can, but let's set that aside for a moment and just pretend, hypothetically, that I can. I show you this proof, and you sit there and try to think of some way around it, but you can't find any - not anything other than the one conclusion that God created everything to look like it evolved, which makes God into a deceiver. Now - what would you do? What would you decide was the best course of action to you? Would you believe, despite this proof, that the creation account in Genesis is literally true, or accept the proof and try to reconcile your faith to the truth of evolution? What would a reasonable, faith-filled person do? Or could the two even be reconciled?Let me know your answer...
(jeffhughes;57026)
I don't agree with you that making the Genesis account a metaphor makes Jesus into a metaphor, but I would like to ask you a hypothetical question on a slightly different note.Let's pretend for a moment that I could provide you proof of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. I mean, I know that you don't think I can, but let's set that aside for a moment and just pretend, hypothetically, that I can. I show you this proof, and you sit there and try to think of some way around it, but you can't find any - not anything other than the one conclusion that God created everything to look like it evolved, which makes God into a deceiver. Now - what would you do? What would you decide was the best course of action to you? Would you believe, despite this proof, that the creation account in Genesis is literally true, or accept the proof and try to reconcile your faith to the truth of evolution? What would a reasonable, faith-filled person do? Or could the two even be reconciled?Let me know your answer...
If I was given proof beyond any reasonable doubt... hypothetically... then I would do what many Christians do. I would begin to make compromises in God's Word. I wouldn't know what to know is real, or what is a metephore... accept that whenever I ran into something in God's Word that contridicted this new proof, I would say God was intending for what He said to be a metephore, and I would change His Word.For instance, if you could provide me with proof beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity was not wrong... than whenever I ran into a contridiction in God's Word that spoke contrary, I would change His Word into a metephore, or I would choose not to believe it anymore at all.If I was given proof, beyond any reasonable doubt that the Theory of Evolution was true, I would try and mold God's Word around that understanding. Either this, or I would give up my faith altogether (this is something else people who have been deceived by the Theory of Evolution do). I would then likely continue on in my error by making grevious mistakes in the interpretation and application of God's Word in the Bible, if I gave it the time of day any more. I might even become a defender of the Theory of Evolution and turn against those who still believe in God's clearly spoken Word.Reasonable doubt is up to whatever we believe is reasonable. I believe that if what God has clearly told us cannot be true with any given proof... then that proof is not reasonable.We should be molding our understanding and proofs around God's Word... around what He says is true... happened... is happening... and will happen. Not the other way around. So, if I was given proof beyond reasonable doubt I would make errors in interpretation as I mold God's Word around my beliefs, or I would give it up all together and begin following my new truth.
I don't agree with you that making the Genesis account a metaphor makes Jesus into a metaphor, but I would like to ask you a hypothetical question on a slightly different note.Let's pretend for a moment that I could provide you proof of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. I mean, I know that you don't think I can, but let's set that aside for a moment and just pretend, hypothetically, that I can. I show you this proof, and you sit there and try to think of some way around it, but you can't find any - not anything other than the one conclusion that God created everything to look like it evolved, which makes God into a deceiver. Now - what would you do? What would you decide was the best course of action to you? Would you believe, despite this proof, that the creation account in Genesis is literally true, or accept the proof and try to reconcile your faith to the truth of evolution? What would a reasonable, faith-filled person do? Or could the two even be reconciled?Let me know your answer...
If I was given proof beyond any reasonable doubt... hypothetically... then I would do what many Christians do. I would begin to make compromises in God's Word. I wouldn't know what to know is real, or what is a metephore... accept that whenever I ran into something in God's Word that contridicted this new proof, I would say God was intending for what He said to be a metephore, and I would change His Word.For instance, if you could provide me with proof beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity was not wrong... than whenever I ran into a contridiction in God's Word that spoke contrary, I would change His Word into a metephore, or I would choose not to believe it anymore at all.If I was given proof, beyond any reasonable doubt that the Theory of Evolution was true, I would try and mold God's Word around that understanding. Either this, or I would give up my faith altogether (this is something else people who have been deceived by the Theory of Evolution do). I would then likely continue on in my error by making grevious mistakes in the interpretation and application of God's Word in the Bible, if I gave it the time of day any more. I might even become a defender of the Theory of Evolution and turn against those who still believe in God's clearly spoken Word.Reasonable doubt is up to whatever we believe is reasonable. I believe that if what God has clearly told us cannot be true with any given proof... then that proof is not reasonable.We should be molding our understanding and proofs around God's Word... around what He says is true... happened... is happening... and will happen. Not the other way around. So, if I was given proof beyond reasonable doubt I would make errors in interpretation as I mold God's Word around my beliefs, or I would give it up all together and begin following my new truth.
To Jeff HughesMatthew 18:2 - And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 18:4 - Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven....John 5:46 - For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.John 5:47 - But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?In short...The bible was written by God Himself...He gave us a Love letter where a child can read and understand. A child needs NO man to help them understand His Love letter, when it is clear as water as a child can understand themselves.But what a man needs help with, is let a child teach a man to understand. A child to lead others. If a man does not understand a child, how shall they understand Christ, and the Word of God?
(treeoflife;57028)
If I was given proof beyond any reasonable doubt... hypothetically... then I would do what many Christians do. I would begin to make compromises in God's Word. I wouldn't know what to know is real, or what is a metephore... accept that whenever I ran into something in God's Word that contridicted this new proof, I would say God was intending for what He said to be a metephore, and I would change His Word.
This is a sensible answer. Please note, however, that you would not need to "change His Word" if it is, indeed, the truth. You might need to change your interpretation of it, but I know that most Christians will not claim that their interpretation is inspired or infallible (although many get pretty close to it...maybe even imply it).(treeoflife;57028)
For instance, if you could provide me with proof beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity was not wrong... than whenever I ran into a contridiction in God's Word that spoke contrary, I would change His Word into a metephore, or I would choose not to believe it anymore at all.If I was given proof, beyond any reasonable doubt that the Theory of Evolution was true, I would try and mold God's Word around that understanding. Either this, or I would give up my faith altogether (this is something else people who have been deceived by the Theory of Evolution do). I would then likely continue on in my error by making grevious mistakes in the interpretation and application of God's Word in the Bible, if I gave it the time of day any more. I might even become a defender of the Theory of Evolution and turn against those who still believe in God's clearly spoken Word.
I find it odd here that you say you would "try and mold God's Word around that understanding," and then you turn around and say this is an "error." Are you calling it an error because you don't believe it is true (in reality), or because you don't feel it is the correct thing to do (hypothetically)? Because your original answer is entirely reasonable. Calling this line of reasoning an error, if we remain within this hypothetical situation, is odd.(treeoflife;57028)
Reasonable doubt is up to whatever we believe is reasonable. I believe that if what God has clearly told us cannot be true with any given proof... then that proof is not reasonable.
I'm not sure that I quite understand what you are saying with your second sentence there, but in one sense you are correct about the notion of reasonable doubt. On the other hand, I think that we, as rational human beings, know when something crosses from "reasonable doubt" into "unreasonable doubt." If a criminal was caught in the act by several witnesses committing a crime, and they had photographic evidence of it, and his fingerprints at the scene of the crime, it would be pretty clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did in fact commit the crime. Saying that we cannot charge him because aliens could have come, abducted him and created an exact alien copy of him, who then committed this crime and planted his fingerprints there, but then quickly transported itself out and put the real person at the scene - well, it's true, but I don't think anyone would say it's a "reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubts are what a reasonable man would doubt, and to a certain extent it comes down to judgment, but I think that anyone with rational faculties is capable of making that judgment.As for your second sentence, if you're trying to say that if you believe that God's Word is true despite any proof given, therefore the proof is not reasonable - well, then I think you've crossed the line into unreasonable doubts. If we, in some fashion, could absolutely prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus never existed, but you still clung to your beliefs as a Christian, etc., then I think it would be crossing the line. But at any rate, I suppose this is largely hypothetical, since nothing can really be proven that well anyways...(treeoflife;57028)
We should be molding our understanding and proofs around God's Word... around what He says is true... happened... is happening... and will happen. Not the other way around. So, if I was given proof beyond reasonable doubt I would make errors in interpretation as I mold God's Word around my beliefs, or I would give it up all together and begin following my new truth.
Again, you mention that if you were given proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you would reinterpret God's Word, but in the same sentence you say this is an error. I would submit that under these circumstances, a person who clings to their beliefs despite the evidence is the one in error. I have no problem with believing in things that are unknowable or unprovable - but when it comes down to something that can, with any reasonable certainty, be known or proven, then the reasonable thing to do is believe in it.(thesuperjag;57030)
To Jeff HughesMatthew 18:2 - And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 18:4 - Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven....John 5:46 - For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.John 5:47 - But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?In short...The bible was written by God Himself...He gave us a Love letter where a child can read and understand. A child needs NO man to help them understand His Love letter, when it is clear as water as a child can understand themselves.But what a man needs help with, is let a child teach a man to understand. A child to lead others. If a man does not understand a child, how shall they understand Christ, and the Word of God?
Would you say that the doctrine of the Trinity, or the concept of free will vs. predestination, or the covenantal vs. dispensational views, or the dual nature of Jesus as fully God and fully man, or the virgin birth, are things that are simple enough for a child to understand them? You may say that with someone explaining it to them, yes. But you are saying that by a child reading God's Word, they should be able to understand these. Or you might say that the child may not get all these details, but they can get the general idea. I would agree with that - but evolution or creation is not part of this "general idea." In fact, the reading of Genesis as a metaphor does just this - it gives us the general idea of the account, while leaving the details up to science and those who have spent their whole lives studying the earth and its processes. Heck, if all this stuff was so easy that children could understand it, then theologians would be out of work. Just as if the world were as simple as "God made it that way," scientists wouldn't be of much use to us...
If I was given proof beyond any reasonable doubt... hypothetically... then I would do what many Christians do. I would begin to make compromises in God's Word. I wouldn't know what to know is real, or what is a metephore... accept that whenever I ran into something in God's Word that contridicted this new proof, I would say God was intending for what He said to be a metephore, and I would change His Word.
This is a sensible answer. Please note, however, that you would not need to "change His Word" if it is, indeed, the truth. You might need to change your interpretation of it, but I know that most Christians will not claim that their interpretation is inspired or infallible (although many get pretty close to it...maybe even imply it).(treeoflife;57028)
For instance, if you could provide me with proof beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity was not wrong... than whenever I ran into a contridiction in God's Word that spoke contrary, I would change His Word into a metephore, or I would choose not to believe it anymore at all.If I was given proof, beyond any reasonable doubt that the Theory of Evolution was true, I would try and mold God's Word around that understanding. Either this, or I would give up my faith altogether (this is something else people who have been deceived by the Theory of Evolution do). I would then likely continue on in my error by making grevious mistakes in the interpretation and application of God's Word in the Bible, if I gave it the time of day any more. I might even become a defender of the Theory of Evolution and turn against those who still believe in God's clearly spoken Word.
I find it odd here that you say you would "try and mold God's Word around that understanding," and then you turn around and say this is an "error." Are you calling it an error because you don't believe it is true (in reality), or because you don't feel it is the correct thing to do (hypothetically)? Because your original answer is entirely reasonable. Calling this line of reasoning an error, if we remain within this hypothetical situation, is odd.(treeoflife;57028)
Reasonable doubt is up to whatever we believe is reasonable. I believe that if what God has clearly told us cannot be true with any given proof... then that proof is not reasonable.
I'm not sure that I quite understand what you are saying with your second sentence there, but in one sense you are correct about the notion of reasonable doubt. On the other hand, I think that we, as rational human beings, know when something crosses from "reasonable doubt" into "unreasonable doubt." If a criminal was caught in the act by several witnesses committing a crime, and they had photographic evidence of it, and his fingerprints at the scene of the crime, it would be pretty clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did in fact commit the crime. Saying that we cannot charge him because aliens could have come, abducted him and created an exact alien copy of him, who then committed this crime and planted his fingerprints there, but then quickly transported itself out and put the real person at the scene - well, it's true, but I don't think anyone would say it's a "reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubts are what a reasonable man would doubt, and to a certain extent it comes down to judgment, but I think that anyone with rational faculties is capable of making that judgment.As for your second sentence, if you're trying to say that if you believe that God's Word is true despite any proof given, therefore the proof is not reasonable - well, then I think you've crossed the line into unreasonable doubts. If we, in some fashion, could absolutely prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus never existed, but you still clung to your beliefs as a Christian, etc., then I think it would be crossing the line. But at any rate, I suppose this is largely hypothetical, since nothing can really be proven that well anyways...(treeoflife;57028)
We should be molding our understanding and proofs around God's Word... around what He says is true... happened... is happening... and will happen. Not the other way around. So, if I was given proof beyond reasonable doubt I would make errors in interpretation as I mold God's Word around my beliefs, or I would give it up all together and begin following my new truth.
Again, you mention that if you were given proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you would reinterpret God's Word, but in the same sentence you say this is an error. I would submit that under these circumstances, a person who clings to their beliefs despite the evidence is the one in error. I have no problem with believing in things that are unknowable or unprovable - but when it comes down to something that can, with any reasonable certainty, be known or proven, then the reasonable thing to do is believe in it.(thesuperjag;57030)
To Jeff HughesMatthew 18:2 - And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 18:4 - Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven....John 5:46 - For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.John 5:47 - But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?In short...The bible was written by God Himself...He gave us a Love letter where a child can read and understand. A child needs NO man to help them understand His Love letter, when it is clear as water as a child can understand themselves.But what a man needs help with, is let a child teach a man to understand. A child to lead others. If a man does not understand a child, how shall they understand Christ, and the Word of God?
Would you say that the doctrine of the Trinity, or the concept of free will vs. predestination, or the covenantal vs. dispensational views, or the dual nature of Jesus as fully God and fully man, or the virgin birth, are things that are simple enough for a child to understand them? You may say that with someone explaining it to them, yes. But you are saying that by a child reading God's Word, they should be able to understand these. Or you might say that the child may not get all these details, but they can get the general idea. I would agree with that - but evolution or creation is not part of this "general idea." In fact, the reading of Genesis as a metaphor does just this - it gives us the general idea of the account, while leaving the details up to science and those who have spent their whole lives studying the earth and its processes. Heck, if all this stuff was so easy that children could understand it, then theologians would be out of work. Just as if the world were as simple as "God made it that way," scientists wouldn't be of much use to us...
(jeffhughes;57047)
(thesuperjag;57030)
To Jeff HughesMatthew 18:2 - And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 18:4 - Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven....John 5:46 - For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.John 5:47 - But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?In short...The bible was written by God Himself...He gave us a Love letter where a child can read and understand. A child needs NO man to help them understand His Love letter, when it is clear as water as a child can understand themselves.But what a man needs help with, is let a child teach a man to understand. A child to lead others. If a man does not understand a child, how shall they understand Christ, and the Word of God?
Would you say that the doctrine of the Trinity, or the concept of free will vs. predestination, or the covenantal vs. dispensational views, or the dual nature of Jesus as fully God and fully man, or the virgin birth, are things that are simple enough for a child to understand them? You may say that with someone explaining it to them, yes. But you are saying that by a child reading God's Word, they should be able to understand these. Or you might say that the child may not get all these details, but they can get the general idea. I would agree with that - but evolution or creation is not part of this "general idea." In fact, the reading of Genesis as a metaphor does just this - it gives us the general idea of the account, while leaving the details up to science and those who have spent their whole lives studying the earth and its processes. Heck, if all this stuff was so easy that children could understand it, then theologians would be out of work. Just as if the world were as simple as "God made it that way," scientists wouldn't be of much use to us...Without preconceived ideas of men, yes we can understand His Word... Without the Holy Spirit to teach us, we wouldn't understand as He helps 24/7.
(thesuperjag;57030)
To Jeff HughesMatthew 18:2 - And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 18:4 - Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven....John 5:46 - For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.John 5:47 - But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?In short...The bible was written by God Himself...He gave us a Love letter where a child can read and understand. A child needs NO man to help them understand His Love letter, when it is clear as water as a child can understand themselves.But what a man needs help with, is let a child teach a man to understand. A child to lead others. If a man does not understand a child, how shall they understand Christ, and the Word of God?
Would you say that the doctrine of the Trinity, or the concept of free will vs. predestination, or the covenantal vs. dispensational views, or the dual nature of Jesus as fully God and fully man, or the virgin birth, are things that are simple enough for a child to understand them? You may say that with someone explaining it to them, yes. But you are saying that by a child reading God's Word, they should be able to understand these. Or you might say that the child may not get all these details, but they can get the general idea. I would agree with that - but evolution or creation is not part of this "general idea." In fact, the reading of Genesis as a metaphor does just this - it gives us the general idea of the account, while leaving the details up to science and those who have spent their whole lives studying the earth and its processes. Heck, if all this stuff was so easy that children could understand it, then theologians would be out of work. Just as if the world were as simple as "God made it that way," scientists wouldn't be of much use to us...Without preconceived ideas of men, yes we can understand His Word... Without the Holy Spirit to teach us, we wouldn't understand as He helps 24/7.
Similar threads
