Administrator2
New Member
[Administrator: This theistic evolution point of view is presented mainly by BWSmith. The theistic evolution point of view in general says that God created the universe and then established the laws to set it going, using evolution as the means by which life happened and spread out on earth. This point of view often is combined with the “JEDP theory” of Genesis, which states that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were written much later, by four different authors, which are identified by the four letters JEDP. In order to hold to the theistic evolutionist point of view, the first eleven chapters of Genesis must be dealt with in a way that denies either their literal meaning or, as in the case below, their reality at all. ]
BWSMITH
Real history begins with the patriarchs at the earliest. There is a structural unity within the Yahwist's Gen 1-11 that is not present in the Yahwist's Gen 12-Joshua. There are also no references to figures in Gen 1-11 anywhere in the Torah or the Former Prophets (Josh-2 Kings). There is no E material in Gen 1-11. There are connections between Gen 1-11 and near-eastern myths that are not present in the rest of the Torah (exception: Moses's
birth). The genealogical figures in Gen 5 & 11 are different for the MT, LXX-A, LXX-V, and SP, indicating that it was a late addition.
All this points to Gen 1-11 being an addition by the Yahwist to the pre-existing Patriarchal-Conquest Epic that was expanded by the Priestly writer.
Question for you: How long did Cainan (son of Arphaxad) live before he became the father of Sala? (Check Gen 11 for the answer...)
There was no special creation, or Garden of Eden, or Cain and Abel, or Jabal or Jubal or Tubal-Cain, no drunk Noah, no sneaky Canaan and no Tower of Babel. All of Gen 1-11 is united thematically before the big break with Gen 12, which points to Joshua (and never points back to the primeval history).
Fundamentalism is the greatest anti-Christian tool that Satan has ever devised. It keeps Christians' minds off of loving their brothers and forever obsessed with drawing and defending doctrinal lines in the sand against anyone who dares to cross them.
DHK
BWS, On what basis do you make the claim that "history begins with Abraham?" To make that claim, as someone has already pointed, out would in effect be calling Christ a liar, for He referred to many of the "historical characters" of Genesis 1 to 11, as real people. He also referred to these books, including Genesis, as the books of Moses. Genesis is an historical book written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and God inspired him to write in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." I simply believe it.
BWSMITH
Originally posted by Kiffin:
The problem with saying that History begins with Abraham is that Paul in the New Testament indicates that Adam and Eve were literal people and not just symbols.
I think you will agree that Paul wasn't there to witness it, so he is no more authoritative on their historicity than we are. He read the same Genesis text that we read today.
Jesus indicates that Noah was a literal person also.
No he doesn't. He talks about the end times in terms of the Noah account, but does not address Noah's historicity.
How does one deal with the origin of Sin if they deny a literal Adam.
It is our nature. See Gen 8:21. Sin and death are our created nature, not the result of our or anyone else's choice. Eternal life is a gift from God out of grace through faith in Christ, not "the norm" that we are returning to when we are saved.
Does not this indicate that one would have to deny inerrancy of Scripture and denial of Total depravity or Original Sin?
Yes to all the above. There is no original sin, only personal sin. We sin through our free will and Christ's crucifixion atones for our personal sin.
If the first 3 chapters aren't true, why do we need a saviour?
Because we are all sinners by our nature. We need a saviour to redeem the sins that are committed by our own hands, not some sin that is "inherited".
Originally posted by Sage:
To those who deny creation completely, or even worse the first eleven chapters, you put in jeopardy the entire Bible, for almost every book in the Bible refers to the creation or the first 11 chapters ! Not to mention that Jesus himself refers to the creation of Adam and Eve!
What does the truth of the entire Bible have to do with the historicity (notice I didn't say truth) of Gen 1-11? Just because it's not literally true doesn't mean it's not symbolically true.
1. If Evolution is accurate, then there was death occurring for millions of years before Adam and Eve. According to Romans 5:12 "...sin entered the world through one man(Adam)and death through sin..." So if Romans says death did not occur until Adam how could there be death for millions of years before Adam?
In a nutshell, Paul was wrong in assuming a literal Adam and Eve for the same reasons that most Christians are wrong about it. It's a misinterpretation of a symbolic passage.
2. If organisms have been evolving for millions of years, there should be literally thousands of intermediate fossils (missing links), yet there are NONE. Why?
There are tons of intermediate fossils. See the following: Transitional Fossils FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
3. Why are there no intermediate organisms now? Statistically is it possible that just by chance we live in an era that everything is in a "complete" state?
There is no such thing as absolute "intermediate" or "complete" organisms. We are in a constant state of genetic flux. Technically, everything is "intermediate".
4. 2 Peter 3:5-6: This is specifically for those who question the first 11 chapters (the flood specifically) of Genesis.
The author of 2 Peter was not there either.
5.If you deny the first 11 chapters as literal, than why in Hebrews 11:4-7 does God use three fictitious characters (Abel, Enoch, and Noah) as examples of men of faith, right along with a bunch of men who really existed?
All of the NT writers are going to believe in a literal Adam and Eve simply because that was the established tradition for hundreds of years, not because they received some divine revelation.
DHK wrote:
BWS, On what basis do you make the claim that "history begins with Abraham?"
Gen 12 begins the complete literary unit of the people and the land that begins with Abraham and ends with Joshua. Gen 1-11 was added later as an addition to the canonical form as an answer to why Abraham was God's elect.
To make that claim, as someone has already pointed, out would in effect be calling Christ a liar, for He referred to many of the "historical characters" of Genesis 1 to 11, as real people.
Actually, He never addressed their historicity any more than He addressed the historicity of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son. He refers to them in a way that is consistent with a symbolic interpretation.
He also referred to these books, including Genesis, as the books of Moses.
"Moses" was the common name for the Torah. There was nothing revolutionary about Christ referring to them as such.
Genesis is an historical book written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
Genesis is composed of three basic sources: J (9th c.BC), E (8th C. BC) and P (6th c. BC) that themselves are compilations of inherited traditions of unknown origin. Moses wrote the Law itself and the first-person speeches in Deuteronomy at most.
and God inspired him to write in Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." I simply believe it.
And yet, Deut 5 has a completely different explanation for the sabbath. This is because the P writer who wrote Exodus 20 tied the sabbath in directly with Creation, not because God said those very words.
charlie wrote:
BWSmith, you could be right about the symbolism of Gen 1-11, but would there not be in the rest of the Bible the defintions of those symbols that are found there? Is there anywhere in the Bible that makes the claim that these chapters are not literal? Are not historical?
That's the great problem with the Gen 1-11 text. The material itself is apparently based on underlying poetic sources. The Yahwist rewrote the poem in prose and the Priestly writers added a good deal of temporal and genealogical information to the accounts (mostly based on symbolic numerology).
If we still had the originals in their Psalm-like poetic form, it would be obvious that they were symbolic, but the circles that produced the text we have today have eliminated many of the obvious clues.
Is the only reason to accept them as symbolic because the the findings of science?
No. It is only through the combination of three things: 1) the scientific model, 2) the documentary hypotheses of the Torah, and 3) comparative mythology (Sumerian, Babylonian, etc.) that a Christian can simultaneously declare that a) Gen 1-11 is not literal history, and b) history begins with Abraham (Gen 12).
Through those three, you can understand that 1) the Bible does not represent a scientific "revelation", 2) Gen 1-11 is a completely separate literary unit from Gen 12-on with multiple stages of editing, and 3) nearly all the Gen 1-11 material has a parallel in near-east mythology, while none of the patriarchal material does (with the exception of the weak connection of the Joseph story to the Egyptian "Tale of 2 Brothers").
HAL PARKER
First let me come back to the issue of transitional fossils. The TalkOrigins website claims there are plenty of transitional fossils. Well what do some evolution experts say about the fossil record and transitional forms.
"The oldest truth of paleontology proclaimed that the vast majority of species appear fully formed in the fossil record and do not change substantially during the long period of their later existence. . . . In other words, geologically abrupt appearance followed by subsequent stability."
Stephen Jay Gould, "Opus 200", Natural History, Vol. 100 (August 1991), p. 14.
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."
Eldredge, N., 1989 Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22
"The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."
Derek W. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2 (1976), p. 133.
You are probably asking, well how can the TalkOrigins website claim so many transitional fossils. Well, let's approach it from another angle.
Ariel Roth presents an interesting problem for transitional forms in his book, Origins: Linking Science And Scripture. He has a table that is very similar to this:
Transitional forms claimed between phyla: None
Transitional forms claimed between classes: A few
Transitional forms claimed between genera: Many
Tranistional forms claimed between species: Multitudes
Evolutionists do not claim to have any transitional forms as fossils between different phyla. But a phylum is just beneath the kingdom in the classification system. If evolution were true, there should be countless transitional forms as fossils between the different phyla.
Evolutionists claim a few transitional forms between different classes of organisms. Creation scientists have begun to address these.
They claim many transitional forms between genera and species. This is not a problem for Creationists. These probably represent variation within a kind for most of these fossils. More research is being done with this.
Finally, I want to say that it is not good science to make a big distinction between theory and fact. The theory of electromagnetism is a good example. Think of all the devices made by man that depended on the theory of electromagnetism to be correct. Your computer is an obvious example. But the theory of electromagnetism is still called a theory. There is not a big difference between a theory and a fact sometimes.
BWSMITH
Hal Parker wrote:
First let me come back to the issue of transitional fossils.
The details of evolution itself are actually secondary to the issue of Biblical interpretation. Evolution is viable because the Genesis account(s) of Creation do not represent literal history, therefore the question is open as to whether or not evolution might be the scientific answer.
Charlie wrote:
BWSmith, I guess that is really my hangup with this evolution/theistic evolution/creation debate. I do believe that God wrote Gen 1-11 and everything up until Revelation 22:21. (Now I also believe that there are theistic evolutionistS who also believe this.)
Define "wrote". Do you mean divine dictation? What degree of freedom did the writers have in forming their writings?
I believe God wrote His word to be understood and applied to our lives in a meaningful way.
To the extent that we go firing science teachers?
Just because Gen 1-11 is meaningful doesn't mean that it is literal.
I believe that God has preserved His word for even our generation.
God's Word doesn't need to be "preserved". God's Word became flesh and the Bible testifies to Him.
Therefore I have no problem placing my faith completely in the literal account recorded in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
Again, why the necessity of a literal interpretation of 1-11?
…The actual purpose of Gen 1 is to dispel the myth that nature consists of lots of Gods. The entire account is the declaration that everything in creation is natural, and created by God, and not that they are gods themselves
ARS
quote: In a nutshell, Paul was wrong in assuming a literal Adam and Eve for the same reasons that most Christians are wrong about it. It's a misinterpretation of a symbolic passage.
I cannot believe what I read was correct. I had to reread this to make sure I didn’t miss something. BWSmith, how, as a Christian, can you even speak such blasphemy? With what authority do I say this to you. Let me quote the following verse.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3;16
It doesn’t say some, or a few, but ALL. And to say that Paul was wrong is calling God a liar. Or, was Paul wrong when he wrote Timothy as well? And did Christ lie to his apostles when he spoke of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth?
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15; 26[/I]
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John.16; 13
Either the whole Bible is the truth or it is all a lie. For one wrong passage nullifies the whole scripture.
BWSmith, I caution you. I think you need to spend more time in the scripture than in the science books. Also, I do not want you think I am making a judgment upon you. I am simply doing what a Christian is called to do when an affront against God has been made. I do not do this of my own volition but by the authority of God. I do this out of love for you, my fellow Christian, that you may walk with the Lord and not against Him.
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2 Timothy 4; 2
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
…These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
Titus 2; 15
I pray that you find it in your heart to realize your mistake and you repent.
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]
BWSMITH
Real history begins with the patriarchs at the earliest. There is a structural unity within the Yahwist's Gen 1-11 that is not present in the Yahwist's Gen 12-Joshua. There are also no references to figures in Gen 1-11 anywhere in the Torah or the Former Prophets (Josh-2 Kings). There is no E material in Gen 1-11. There are connections between Gen 1-11 and near-eastern myths that are not present in the rest of the Torah (exception: Moses's
birth). The genealogical figures in Gen 5 & 11 are different for the MT, LXX-A, LXX-V, and SP, indicating that it was a late addition.
All this points to Gen 1-11 being an addition by the Yahwist to the pre-existing Patriarchal-Conquest Epic that was expanded by the Priestly writer.
Question for you: How long did Cainan (son of Arphaxad) live before he became the father of Sala? (Check Gen 11 for the answer...)
There was no special creation, or Garden of Eden, or Cain and Abel, or Jabal or Jubal or Tubal-Cain, no drunk Noah, no sneaky Canaan and no Tower of Babel. All of Gen 1-11 is united thematically before the big break with Gen 12, which points to Joshua (and never points back to the primeval history).
Fundamentalism is the greatest anti-Christian tool that Satan has ever devised. It keeps Christians' minds off of loving their brothers and forever obsessed with drawing and defending doctrinal lines in the sand against anyone who dares to cross them.
DHK
BWS, On what basis do you make the claim that "history begins with Abraham?" To make that claim, as someone has already pointed, out would in effect be calling Christ a liar, for He referred to many of the "historical characters" of Genesis 1 to 11, as real people. He also referred to these books, including Genesis, as the books of Moses. Genesis is an historical book written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and God inspired him to write in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." I simply believe it.
BWSMITH
Originally posted by Kiffin:
The problem with saying that History begins with Abraham is that Paul in the New Testament indicates that Adam and Eve were literal people and not just symbols.
I think you will agree that Paul wasn't there to witness it, so he is no more authoritative on their historicity than we are. He read the same Genesis text that we read today.
Jesus indicates that Noah was a literal person also.
No he doesn't. He talks about the end times in terms of the Noah account, but does not address Noah's historicity.
How does one deal with the origin of Sin if they deny a literal Adam.
It is our nature. See Gen 8:21. Sin and death are our created nature, not the result of our or anyone else's choice. Eternal life is a gift from God out of grace through faith in Christ, not "the norm" that we are returning to when we are saved.
Does not this indicate that one would have to deny inerrancy of Scripture and denial of Total depravity or Original Sin?
Yes to all the above. There is no original sin, only personal sin. We sin through our free will and Christ's crucifixion atones for our personal sin.
If the first 3 chapters aren't true, why do we need a saviour?
Because we are all sinners by our nature. We need a saviour to redeem the sins that are committed by our own hands, not some sin that is "inherited".
Originally posted by Sage:
To those who deny creation completely, or even worse the first eleven chapters, you put in jeopardy the entire Bible, for almost every book in the Bible refers to the creation or the first 11 chapters ! Not to mention that Jesus himself refers to the creation of Adam and Eve!
What does the truth of the entire Bible have to do with the historicity (notice I didn't say truth) of Gen 1-11? Just because it's not literally true doesn't mean it's not symbolically true.
1. If Evolution is accurate, then there was death occurring for millions of years before Adam and Eve. According to Romans 5:12 "...sin entered the world through one man(Adam)and death through sin..." So if Romans says death did not occur until Adam how could there be death for millions of years before Adam?
In a nutshell, Paul was wrong in assuming a literal Adam and Eve for the same reasons that most Christians are wrong about it. It's a misinterpretation of a symbolic passage.
2. If organisms have been evolving for millions of years, there should be literally thousands of intermediate fossils (missing links), yet there are NONE. Why?
There are tons of intermediate fossils. See the following: Transitional Fossils FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
3. Why are there no intermediate organisms now? Statistically is it possible that just by chance we live in an era that everything is in a "complete" state?
There is no such thing as absolute "intermediate" or "complete" organisms. We are in a constant state of genetic flux. Technically, everything is "intermediate".
4. 2 Peter 3:5-6: This is specifically for those who question the first 11 chapters (the flood specifically) of Genesis.
The author of 2 Peter was not there either.
5.If you deny the first 11 chapters as literal, than why in Hebrews 11:4-7 does God use three fictitious characters (Abel, Enoch, and Noah) as examples of men of faith, right along with a bunch of men who really existed?
All of the NT writers are going to believe in a literal Adam and Eve simply because that was the established tradition for hundreds of years, not because they received some divine revelation.
DHK wrote:
BWS, On what basis do you make the claim that "history begins with Abraham?"
Gen 12 begins the complete literary unit of the people and the land that begins with Abraham and ends with Joshua. Gen 1-11 was added later as an addition to the canonical form as an answer to why Abraham was God's elect.
To make that claim, as someone has already pointed, out would in effect be calling Christ a liar, for He referred to many of the "historical characters" of Genesis 1 to 11, as real people.
Actually, He never addressed their historicity any more than He addressed the historicity of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son. He refers to them in a way that is consistent with a symbolic interpretation.
He also referred to these books, including Genesis, as the books of Moses.
"Moses" was the common name for the Torah. There was nothing revolutionary about Christ referring to them as such.
Genesis is an historical book written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
Genesis is composed of three basic sources: J (9th c.BC), E (8th C. BC) and P (6th c. BC) that themselves are compilations of inherited traditions of unknown origin. Moses wrote the Law itself and the first-person speeches in Deuteronomy at most.
and God inspired him to write in Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." I simply believe it.
And yet, Deut 5 has a completely different explanation for the sabbath. This is because the P writer who wrote Exodus 20 tied the sabbath in directly with Creation, not because God said those very words.
charlie wrote:
BWSmith, you could be right about the symbolism of Gen 1-11, but would there not be in the rest of the Bible the defintions of those symbols that are found there? Is there anywhere in the Bible that makes the claim that these chapters are not literal? Are not historical?
That's the great problem with the Gen 1-11 text. The material itself is apparently based on underlying poetic sources. The Yahwist rewrote the poem in prose and the Priestly writers added a good deal of temporal and genealogical information to the accounts (mostly based on symbolic numerology).
If we still had the originals in their Psalm-like poetic form, it would be obvious that they were symbolic, but the circles that produced the text we have today have eliminated many of the obvious clues.
Is the only reason to accept them as symbolic because the the findings of science?
No. It is only through the combination of three things: 1) the scientific model, 2) the documentary hypotheses of the Torah, and 3) comparative mythology (Sumerian, Babylonian, etc.) that a Christian can simultaneously declare that a) Gen 1-11 is not literal history, and b) history begins with Abraham (Gen 12).
Through those three, you can understand that 1) the Bible does not represent a scientific "revelation", 2) Gen 1-11 is a completely separate literary unit from Gen 12-on with multiple stages of editing, and 3) nearly all the Gen 1-11 material has a parallel in near-east mythology, while none of the patriarchal material does (with the exception of the weak connection of the Joseph story to the Egyptian "Tale of 2 Brothers").
HAL PARKER
First let me come back to the issue of transitional fossils. The TalkOrigins website claims there are plenty of transitional fossils. Well what do some evolution experts say about the fossil record and transitional forms.
"The oldest truth of paleontology proclaimed that the vast majority of species appear fully formed in the fossil record and do not change substantially during the long period of their later existence. . . . In other words, geologically abrupt appearance followed by subsequent stability."
Stephen Jay Gould, "Opus 200", Natural History, Vol. 100 (August 1991), p. 14.
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."
Eldredge, N., 1989 Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22
"The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."
Derek W. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2 (1976), p. 133.
You are probably asking, well how can the TalkOrigins website claim so many transitional fossils. Well, let's approach it from another angle.
Ariel Roth presents an interesting problem for transitional forms in his book, Origins: Linking Science And Scripture. He has a table that is very similar to this:
Transitional forms claimed between phyla: None
Transitional forms claimed between classes: A few
Transitional forms claimed between genera: Many
Tranistional forms claimed between species: Multitudes
Evolutionists do not claim to have any transitional forms as fossils between different phyla. But a phylum is just beneath the kingdom in the classification system. If evolution were true, there should be countless transitional forms as fossils between the different phyla.
Evolutionists claim a few transitional forms between different classes of organisms. Creation scientists have begun to address these.
They claim many transitional forms between genera and species. This is not a problem for Creationists. These probably represent variation within a kind for most of these fossils. More research is being done with this.
Finally, I want to say that it is not good science to make a big distinction between theory and fact. The theory of electromagnetism is a good example. Think of all the devices made by man that depended on the theory of electromagnetism to be correct. Your computer is an obvious example. But the theory of electromagnetism is still called a theory. There is not a big difference between a theory and a fact sometimes.
BWSMITH
Hal Parker wrote:
First let me come back to the issue of transitional fossils.
The details of evolution itself are actually secondary to the issue of Biblical interpretation. Evolution is viable because the Genesis account(s) of Creation do not represent literal history, therefore the question is open as to whether or not evolution might be the scientific answer.
Charlie wrote:
BWSmith, I guess that is really my hangup with this evolution/theistic evolution/creation debate. I do believe that God wrote Gen 1-11 and everything up until Revelation 22:21. (Now I also believe that there are theistic evolutionistS who also believe this.)
Define "wrote". Do you mean divine dictation? What degree of freedom did the writers have in forming their writings?
I believe God wrote His word to be understood and applied to our lives in a meaningful way.
To the extent that we go firing science teachers?
Just because Gen 1-11 is meaningful doesn't mean that it is literal.
I believe that God has preserved His word for even our generation.
God's Word doesn't need to be "preserved". God's Word became flesh and the Bible testifies to Him.
Therefore I have no problem placing my faith completely in the literal account recorded in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
Again, why the necessity of a literal interpretation of 1-11?
…The actual purpose of Gen 1 is to dispel the myth that nature consists of lots of Gods. The entire account is the declaration that everything in creation is natural, and created by God, and not that they are gods themselves
ARS
quote: In a nutshell, Paul was wrong in assuming a literal Adam and Eve for the same reasons that most Christians are wrong about it. It's a misinterpretation of a symbolic passage.
I cannot believe what I read was correct. I had to reread this to make sure I didn’t miss something. BWSmith, how, as a Christian, can you even speak such blasphemy? With what authority do I say this to you. Let me quote the following verse.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3;16
It doesn’t say some, or a few, but ALL. And to say that Paul was wrong is calling God a liar. Or, was Paul wrong when he wrote Timothy as well? And did Christ lie to his apostles when he spoke of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth?
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15; 26[/I]
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John.16; 13
Either the whole Bible is the truth or it is all a lie. For one wrong passage nullifies the whole scripture.
BWSmith, I caution you. I think you need to spend more time in the scripture than in the science books. Also, I do not want you think I am making a judgment upon you. I am simply doing what a Christian is called to do when an affront against God has been made. I do not do this of my own volition but by the authority of God. I do this out of love for you, my fellow Christian, that you may walk with the Lord and not against Him.
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2 Timothy 4; 2
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
…These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
Titus 2; 15
I pray that you find it in your heart to realize your mistake and you repent.
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]