The Unique distinctive of this board - Christian Evolutionism debates

The bible is not wrong about science, it simply does not speak to science. I simply refuse to practice bibliolatry.

I am a Christian and I respectfully disagree

We agree. Our disagreement is based on your insistence on using the bible for something other than its intended purpose.

YEC is an excellent example of that point. We agree again!

Spouting the good word is good apologetics, it only becomes a problem when you spew the bible as science.

In science, we call this progress and good science. Agreed.

Correct.

As you noted, man's interpretations can be wrong. However, we have the bible telling us who created and science to tell us about what God did and finally we have the bible telling us how to get to heaven. The main problem is that YEC have forced the bible to be something other than what it is. IMO, they lose in 3 ways. (1) They are forced to compromise Christianity by idolizing the bible (2) Conversion of non-believers is impossible when peddling scientific fancy as biblical fact and (3) they are unable to see the real beauty of creation.

Agreed.

Exactly, he gave us the brains and the scientific knowhow to get a glimpse into his creative mechanism. The bible was written to help us get to heaven and not to tell us how the heavens go (to quote someone more eloquent than myself).

Scientifically, it is irrelevant. With regard to telling us who did it, well that's an easy answer we both agree on.

You mean from your interpretation of what it presents. I have no doubt you truly believe what you say, but the evidence is against you on that claim.

EF

 

(Barbarian observes that Genesis rules out an "ex nihilo" origin of living things)

Nope. It's in the text where God says that the earth and the waters brought forth life. Life was not created from nothing, but rather it was created by God, using natural means from pre-existing things.

Nope. God gives us no details on that, except to say that it began with "let there be light".

And even then, there were things other than the physical universe created before.

That's true. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

 

Because a literal reading of Genesis produces a number of logical contradictions, ... Augustine and others have commented on it. Augustine himself repeatedly tried to justify a literal Genesis and finally concluded that it could not be done.

From the Administrator: all references to 'most Christians' will be forbidden in this forum from now on. No one is in a position to know and it only engenders arguments. Thank you.

[ July 09, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

There are no contradictions, logical or otherwise, in Genesis, when one pays attention to the Hebrew words.

In addition, to say that there are is to accuse the Israelites of thousands of years of utter stupidity. From the people who have produced so many brilliant scientists, not to mention our Savior Himself, that is a bit more than the average intelligent person should be able to swallow. It is something I reject entirely, and on that basis alone, even if I hadn't taken the time to look at what was being said in the Hebrew, know that Genesis is doing just fine!

 

Either that or to accuse them of ABOVE average intelligence AND wisdom. Many Rabbis have been comfortable with Midrashic and non-literal interpretations for millenia.

-Neil

 

That entire post was a lengthy argument from personal incredulity. Copying errors, transmission errors and reception errors can all creep into a document that was largely carried via oral tradition prior to the writing of the initial texts. Furthermore, we don't have the initial texts making whatever we do have at least one layer away from the originals.

EF

 

And of course, even if God could get it right in the first place, there is no way He is powerful enough to have preserved the meaning through time.

And the Hebrew scribes were, as we know, incredibly careless...

And the other authors of the Bible paid no attention to Genesis at all...

Give me a break!

 

Or perhaps many of them simply did the same thing you do, which is to use their intelligence and facility with words to find rationalizations to make the discrepancies dissapear in ad hoc fashion.

 

EF: How does one argue with an argument from incredulity? I don't know and I won't try.

 

All references to "most Christians" and arguments regarding who is and is not Christian have been deleted and will be deleted in the future.

 

EF: As well they should! Bravo!

 

Can something be done about the blatant bigotry and hate speech that is going on?

 

Which would be abiogenesis. Please distinguish between the two, they are two separate theories and invalidating one doesn't invalidate the other.

 

(Barbarian, belatedly)
Bravo, administrator! That was a wise and just decision.

 

Actually, BobRyan, evolution is perfectly consistent with proper scriptural interpretation, and that can be proved logically. Here is the proof:

a) Evolution is true (as per innumberable scientific discoveries)

b) The bible is always true when properly interpreted (axiom)

therefore

The Bible is consistent with evolution when properly interpreted.

Unfortunately this simple proof does not carry with it a detailed explanation of just how to properly interpret the Bible. We leave that as an exercise for the reader.

 

The atheists I wittiness to on other message boards and in my personal life all say that there is too much scientific evidence that disproves the Bible. And may I add these atheists aren’t stupid. They know the Bible like the back of their hand.

So apparently the atheists and the theists are interpreting the same scientific data differently.

 

In addition I feel some will massage the scientific data to fit the Bible or some will massage the Bible to fit the scientific data, so they will feel better consciously about their relationship with God the Father and His Son.

The Word of God, through all 66 books of the Bible, I hold as being authoritative.