Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Right. When God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, you expect that it will happen. And when it doesn't, you have to conclude that maybe it happened, but not they way yoiu supposed.

This is why we know the "death" God spoke of was not a physical death.

Indeed, the serpent tried to convince Eve that God meant a physical death.

For example, he told them that they would be like God. That was true, but there was a complication, he didn't mention.

True. This is how many began to think that God's word to Adam wasn't true. It was true. Adam did die that day. But spiritually, not physically.

Some have tired to "adjust" His word a little to make it fit. But that's also not of the Holy Spirit.

Most of us are theists. We no more exclude God by not taking Him into account when we do science than a plumber excluses God by using a wrench instead praying for pipes.

I don't think creationists are actually ignoring God. They just want it to be a different way, and so they ignore some of His word.

It isn't even scriptural, much less scientific.

At least in the case above, they change scripture to meet their expectations of God.

Can't speak for others, but I have to let God's Word speak for itself. If you get a logical contradiction by forcing a literal meaning on scripture, that's a sure sign that a literal interpretation is wrong.

No matter how much you want it your way.

 

In fact, death did enter the world on that day, just as God said it would. Also, we know from scripture that spiritual death occured. When we were first created, our bodies and our spirits were eternally connected. The fate of one was the fate of the other. However, Jesus made a way where our spirits can now live on in new boides.

It is a fantastic change of pace to see you quoting what you claim to be a fairy tale (the Bible) as truth. Lets examine your work, and see how you did -

Firstly, lets look at Genesis 3. You claim that the curse of sin (death) is ONLY a spiritual curse. But lets examine the scripture.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Well it looks like it did have immediate spiritual implications. Their eyes were immediately opened to know right and wrong. Lets examine further, however:

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

That is an aweful lot of PHYSICAL consequences of Adam's sin for it to be a purely spiritual curse. Moreover, if you look at the last verse, that would seem to clearly define physical death and decay. Clearly the indication being that eating was not required to sustain life, nor was death present. Another telling verse is towards the end of Genesis 3:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I would submit that this was an act of kindness and love that God did. Had Adam eaten that fruit and his mortal body live forever, Jesus would not have been able to do what he did. Jesus would not have been able to die for us. You see, since Jesus, sin and death are condemned to die with our mortal bodies. If our motal bodies never died, then we would be trapped in spiritual death forever. Clearly the indication from this verse is that this is exactly what was now possible had Adam taken of the tree of life. Had there not been a physical curse of death in Adam's fall, then Jesus could not have died either (being of Adam's blood) and could not take the penalty of sin and death upon himself for us.

You are either a very confused, or a very decietful person. You admit that there is nothing advocating evolution in scripture, yet you deny the events it DOES advocate, and then claim that it has advocated the opposite of what it says all along.

For example, you say the death in the Garden was ONLY spiritual death, yet we show you Romans 5, and Genesis 3 and you still do not believe.

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, 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:

Romans 8
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Creationism is entirely scriptural. Evolution, however, - as even you agree - is not at all scriptural. To the YEC, what the Bible says is 'heavier' in truth than direct experimental observation. This is because the Bible gives us the Big Picture. It gives us the framework with which to interpret our observations. You who do not believe the Bible, and instead believe in a long earth, also do not believe in the Flood. Do you think that God threw that into the Bible for a neat little story, or do you think the Bible is true? I would submit that it was entirely true.

2Peter talks about two monumental events in history that cannot be denied... special creation, and the flood. It says that in the last days would come scoffers that would mock these things. You, Galatian, are one of these who scoff and mock the scripture.

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Unfortuneately, you have decided to interpret scripture according to man's flawed logic, instead of interpreting nature by God's irrefutable logic. You are interpreting scripture using evolution and man's humanistic, atheistic ideas. Instead, if you would use God's word to interpret God's word, and let it speak for itself... you could come much closer to rightly interpreting nature within the framework of absolute truth.

The question is not whether there are day sleepers, it's whether there are night grinders, and night feild workers. Luke 17:34 says that "in that night...".

No one asked Jesus to explain how or why someone would be grinding or working a field at night.

In fact, I do believe he knew much more than mortal men. In fact this shows when he quotes Genesis as literal, re-affirming that he did indeed know more than even mortal men from the future who might be posting on this message board in support of evolution

Shall we just re-post our previous posts over and over galatian, or do you care to respond to new material?

 

Barbarian observes:
Right. When God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, you expect that it will happen. And when it doesn't, you have to conclude that maybe it happened, but not they way yoiu supposed.

This is why we know the "death" God spoke of was not a physical death.

But that isn't what God said, is it? God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. This is another example of creationists changing scripture to make it more acceptable to them.

Barbarian observes:
This is why we know the "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. Indeed, the serpent tried to convince Eve that God meant a physical death.

As you know, I never said that it was a fairy tale. I wish you would not feel the need to lie to us.

Nope. Here's what I said:

1. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree.

2. Adam eats from the tree and yet lives on for many years after.

3. This shows that the death God mentioned was not physical. Otherwise God would have said something untrue.

Were there also physical consequences? Sure. Every spiritual failing in man has physical consequences. But death was not one of them, as God tells you in Genesis.

Yep.

So Adam remains mortal. He was always going to die, but if he could not die, there would have been no hope for him.[/quote]

I think you're getting it.

Barbarian observes:
I don't think creationists are actually ignoring God. They just want it to be a different way, and so they ignore some of His word.

No, I have it right. For example, in your last post, you changed God's word from "you will die in the day" to "death will come into the world."

Creationists often do this.

Nor electronics, or quantum theory, or many other things that are true.

Nope. I fully accept them. The only difference between me and you is that I accept them as God said them.

We know that, because if it was a physical death, Adam would have died physically, that day. God does not lie, and is not mistaken.

yet we show you Romans 5, and Genesis 3 and you still do not believe.

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, 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:

Romans 8
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.[/quote]

Perhaps you got the wrong verse. This says nothing about God meaning a physical death.

Barbarian on YE creationism:
It isn't even scriptural, much less scientific.

YE creationism is refuted by God in the first chapter. Instead of life "ex nihilo", God says that He created living things by natural means.

And God's words to Adam about the tree show that the YE doctrine of a physical death cannot be true.

And as you have admitted, God specifically kept Adam from becoming immortal.

Neither is meteorology. But we can still predict weather. Not everything that is true is scriptural.

No, if that was true, they wouldn't feel the need to change it.

But nowhere does he say that they are literal, any more than God does.

Another lie. I merely accept it as it is. You need to change it a little to make it more acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
Can't speak for others, but I have to let God's Word speak for itself. If you get a logical contradiction by forcing a literal meaning on scripture, that's a sure sign that a literal interpretation is wrong.

Sorry, if God tells Adam that he's going to die the day he eats from the tree, and Adam eats and keeps on living, one has to conclude either:

1. God meant something other than a physical death.

2. God told Adam something that wasn't true.

The latter is absurd, so a Christian has no alternative but to accept the former.

Nope. That's not "atheistic" logic. It's just logic.

But you just objected to that. If God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, and Adam lives on for many years after, scripture is directly telling you that the "death" is not physical.

If you let it be what it is, you have to accept this.

 

Adam was transformed from an immortal being to a mortal being... within the context of eternal life, Adam died that day. Moreover, notice that the word day here is not used with any of the modifiers that were used to show a literal day in the previous chapter. I find it ironic that you can call the previous chapter non-literal when the linguistic evidence is so insurmountable that Genesis 1 clearly specifies it is a literal day, and then here where the language is not nearly as clear you claim it is a literal day. I would submit that to God, and to eternity (as 2nd peter says) a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. Because we do not have the same contextual modifiers of day (YOM) to speciify a 24 hour period as we do in Genesis 1, we can therefore apply the meaning that is logical in context.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

No evening, no morning, no number (the linguistic clues that force the meaning of a literal day). So we are consistent in our interpretation that this use of YOM can mean a period of time rather than a literal day.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Adam did live mortally for 930 years. This falls within the 'day' period given in 2 Peter. Again, because Genesis 2:17 has no modifiers limiting it to a literal day, it CAN mean a period of time other than 24 hours, whereas the word DAY used in describing the creation week in Genesis 1 are limited to meaning a literal day by "evening" "morning" and "number".

As you know, I never said that it was a fairy tale. I wish you would not feel the need to lie to us.</font>[/QUOTE]You called the account of creation in Genesis "allegorical" and "non-literal". Moreover, you have insisted on interjecting evolution in it's place - which is the opposite of special creation. The order and the time scales are both different. Therefore, we can deduce from these factors that you do not believe the account of creation in the Bible to be true.

For example, the Bible's account gives literal days, you believe in millions of years. The Bible's account shows discreetly created organisms created literal days apart, evolution says one changed into another over millions of years. The Bible says that life on earth (in the forms of full grass and full trees) came before the Sun in our solar system, evolution says that the sun came before the earth and the sun's rays contributed to the lack of entropy necessary for life to evolve from single cells to reproductive single cells, and millios of years later plants... and millions of years later animals. The Bible says that every step leading up to man was GOOD. Evolution says that every step leading up to man was filled with Death and struggle.

Clearly there is a vast dispairity between the Bible's account of creation and evolution. You have declared that you believe the Bible's account to be wrong and man's theory of evolution to be correct.

Is it any wonder, then, that we say you have delegated God's word in Genesis to the relevance of fairy tale? Because to us, this is exactly what it appears you have done. Also, you have done nothing to dispell that notion beyond a flat denial that this is what you mean.

I have, however, been pleased with your attempt to find your answers in the Word. While your arguments are incorrect (for example regarding the meaning of day in Genesis 1 as opposed to Genesis 2:17) it does show an attempt to find your answers in the Word, rather than turning to man, and for that I am encouraged that there may be hope for you yet.

Nope. Here's what I said:

1. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree.
2. Adam eats from the tree and yet lives on for many years after.
3. This shows that the death God mentioned was not physical. Otherwise God would have said something untrue.

Were there also physical consequences? Sure. Every spiritual failing in man has physical consequences. But death was not one of them, as God tells you in Genesis.</font>[/QUOTE]As I have discussed, the word for day in Genesis 1 is modified with evening, morning, and number - thereby limiting it to a literal, ordinary day. The day used in Genesis 2:17 has none of these modifiers to limit it's meaning and is therefore open to mean an extended period of time. Furthermore, death did enter Adam, and the rest of creation, on the same literal day as he sinned.

Genesis 3:19 directly states that death was part of the physical curse that entered the world at the point of Adam's sin. Romans 5 and Romans 8 confirm this.

You forget that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil were BOTH placed in the Garden. God told Adam he could eat of any tree EXCEPT for the tree of knowlege of good and evil. This means that Adam was able to partake of the tree of life. It wasn't until Adam sinned that the curse of death came upon Adam... both spiritual death and physical death. This is why God said "and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden".

Notice that God had JUST cursed Adam to physically die, and he wants to prevent Adam from eating of the tree of life to prevent his physical eternal life.

A chapter earlier God had put the tree of life in the garden and had no problem with Adam eating of it... actually said he could eat of all except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Adam was eternal, sinned and became mortal, and then to prevent him from again becoming eternal (knowing that eternal life in that body would NOW only enslave Adam for eternity to Sin). Do you see that the fruit from the tree of life is the opposite of what Christ did. Adam's death was both physical and spiritual, as these components were not separate but one in Adam. Christ came to die in the Natural to save the spiritual. The apple, however, would have saved the natural and condemned forever the spiritual (in making it impossible for Christ to pay the penalty of sin (both physical and spiritual death) for us.

Let me ask you - does it make sense for Jesus to have to come to earth to die physically for us if the penalty for Sin was not physical as well as spiritual? If it were simply a matter of spiritual death, why would Jesus need to die physically in our place?

 

I would question the conclusion that's being drawn. In my direct family alone, not a single person walked away from his Christianity. I am the only one to have had a private school education (all thru college).

I have three children in school. Formerly, all were in private, now all are in public. None has walked away from his/her christianity. In fact, the oldest, who is a senior in public high school, is the most staunch one in her faith.

 

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gup20:
A 1991 Gallup poll said that 7 out of 10 students who came from christian homes walked away from their christianity within two years of entering the public education system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

Why is this???

How often I saw this! How I WAS this!!!

If we teach our kids to build their faith on the ridiculous "science" of creation science or some of the other YEC arguments they go to college with a weak foundation. When they encounter professors of biology or geology who (unlike the YEC apologists) actually KNOW and UNDERSTAND science they say, "well I guess ALL of Christianity IS just a myth...too bad."

THIS is exactly my problem with YECism.

 

I would congradulate you then, as it seems your family is the exception to the rule. More than likely it has to do with the strength of your family unit, so you should be honored for such an achievement.

Do you think that it would benefit your children to learn of creation science so that they can practice some critical thinking on the issue? Perhpas it would further increase their faith and give them a powerful witnessing tool.

 

Imagine if you had the tools and resources that are available now - such as websites like ICR, AiG, and True Origins. You would have been equiped to "give an answer to every many who asks you about your faith".

The only way to show that ALL of christianity is not a myth is to show that ALL of scripture is not a myth. We both have different ways of doing this. You see the Bible does not agree with Evolution which is the domanant theory of our time. Therefore, either the Bible is right, or Evolution is right. You are attempting to delegate part of the Bible as 'a little off' in order to save the 'important parts'. Well I would submit to you that the Bible does not need saving. I believe that the Bible is true from the first verse thnrough the last, and even if it disagrees with the predominant theories, there is more absolute truth in Genesis 1-11 than in all of our books of science.

Instead of trying to hide our ugly cousin when our guests arrive, we should be confronting our guest's predjudice. That is to say, instead of trying to hide Genesis and get peopel saved by ignoring it and focussing only on the cross, how about we restore absolute Biblical authority by showing them how Genesis is actually possible. Because when it comes right down to it, it is a question of whether or not we as christians can believe the Bible to be true. How can we affirm that Christ's death and resurrection is true when it comes from the same book that says the earth was created in six days, or that there was a global flood? The REASON we believe in Jesus at all is because the Bible tells us to. If we begin undermining that... no matter how good our intentions... then we will ultimately only serve to undermine our very belief in Jesus Christ - they come from the same book!

Kids these days are not as quick to follow our example as in other generations. "because that is the way my parents were" is becoming less and less the standard. Here is exactly what happened... at some point, we were told that science and religion were separate. The Bible lost it's absolute authority, and has been delegated to a religious book of stories and morals. Kids coming up through the public schools learn evolution as fact. Our churches have allowed this to happen unchallenged. As they grow, they begin to get the notion that science determines absolute truth, not God. That science can be trusted OVER the Word. It eventually leads to a rejection of Jesus. If we can't trust the earthly things, how can we trust in the 'true riches'? If the Bible's science and history can't be trusted... how can the spiritual principles be trusted. If the things we can see and feel and touch are wrong, how can the things we can't see, feel or touch be right either?

You see, Darwin managed to popularize a worldview that successfully detached christianity from the real physical world. It bannished the Bible to the spiritual realm only... where never the two should meet. Darwin was a humanist most of his life. He spent his days in active rejection of God. His daughter died of a disease for which he blamed God. He decided that God must not be a loving God to have let his daughter die like that.

Later, many atheists and humanists fought hard to get Darwin burried in Westminster Abbey. He is burried there today. Why? Because the humanists of that day knew that if they could get Darwin burreied in the church, then the church would honor darwin. For the church to honor darwin, they honor his teachings and humanism would gain a foothold in the church.

If you look at the church in England today it is all but completely dead. There is no life in the churches in England. Why? Because evolution took hold and became accepted by the church and they gave up Biblical authority. We see a moral decline also in England for this very same reason. It is only a matter of time when giving up Biblical authority before you not only reject the physical but also the spiritual.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring for good fruit. We cannot build a christian future based on removing the authority of scripture. It will not happen. We can see that as an example in England.

 

Gup20,

"Imagine if you had the tools and resources that are available now - such as websites like ICR, AiG, and True Origins. You would have been equiped to "give an answer to every many who asks you about your faith".

That's just the problem! I've heard all these answers before! These sites represent alot of work by well-meaning believers. But they also represent laughable attempts to manipulate science into saying what it does not say!

Anyone who actually KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS biology, chemistry, physics, etc will not be swayed by the AiG type stuff. It just doesn't fit.

It would be nice if all of science pointed to a young earth but it doesn't - it just doesn't!

If we insist that a literal Genesis is an integral part of Christianity then many will lose their faith when the begin higher studies.

I once had someone tell me, "if you're having doubts you should read Josh McDowell - he's the big gun! That'll show you the real answers."

I read several books and realized that he was making the same bogus claims about thermodynamics and radiocarbon dating. He did give me the answer - it seemed that all of Christianity was built on non-science and intellectual dishonesty!

I thank God that he didn't give up on me then!!

 

I wouldn't go there. ICR and AiG have all people with doctorates in those fields working for them and writing their articles. For example, you mentioned Biology. The President of AiG in Australia (Carl Wieland) and his wife Lara are both actual Medical Doctors. He stopped practicing to head up AiG Aus. Furthemore, there is a man named Russel Humphreys who is a physicist with doctorate who works on the USA's nuclear weapons programs.

So I would say they have very qualified and intelligent people working as creationist scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

Moreover, it 'doest take a rocket scientist' to see that Genesis is true.

In fact, many scientists outside creation science look to creation science for inspiration.

So the notion that anyone who knows those sciences will not be swayed is wrong. AiG, ICR, and True Origins are MADE UP of people who know these sciences.

If you are looking for good books to read on the subject, try these:

http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/41090bfe085ab4fa271bccfd844c067a/Product/View/10-2-164
http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/41090bfe085ab4fa271bccfd844c067a/Product/View/10&2D2&2D021
http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/41090bfe085ab4fa271bccfd844c067a/Product/View/10&2D3&2D086
http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/41090bfe085ab4fa271bccfd844c067a/Product/View/10&2D2&2D030

Note that I am not selling these, or trying to get anyone to buy them. I am simply pointing you some books it would be good to read.

 

I quit putting any credence in AIG at all, since they were caught lying about the conclusions of Clark and Caswell on supernova remnants. They claimed that these two astronomers said that the distribution of supernova remnants was a "mystery", but when you go to the actual paper, they say "the mystery is solved." Precisely the opposite of what AIG was claiming.

No biologists?

This is like saying you have an expert on physics who is an engineer, or an expert on hydraulics who is a plumber.

I know a few personally. But they all have a religious objection to science. A few of them are quite frank about it, and others are unwilling to admit it, but they all do.

That's why they are such a tiny minority among scientists. Often, in the lists of "scientists" who are creationists, you'll find that many of them are actually engineers, theologians, philosphers, lawyers, etc.

Check out Project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

It is a list of scientists who have doctorates in biology, or a related field, who agree with modern evolutionary theory, and are named "Steve" or a derivative, like Stephany, etc. Currently, there are 441 Steves on the Steve-o-meter.

So, when you see those lists of "creationist scientists", cull out everyone who is not a steve, and then everyone who does not have a doctorate in biology or a related field. Then compare that number to the number on the Steve-o-meter, to get a pretty good idea how rare creationists are among scientists.

I would be very pleased if someone could name me even one scientist who objects to evolution for other than a religious reason.

 

Yet you were unable to answer my question posed directly to you - If you take out the evolution science, and look ONLY at what the Bible says, does it, in your opinion, give the impression of millions of years of history, or does it give the impression that Noah's flood wasn't real?

If you have a shred of honestly, your answer will be that, No, the Bible does not support millions of years, and it DOES support special creation and the flood as actual recent events.

Just as you say the only objection to evolution is the Bible, we say that the only objection to the Bible is humanism (evolution). Your ideas of millions of years and one animal turning into another didn't come from scripture, and is found no where in scripture. A very different story is found in scripture. YOu have tried to adapt the scripture to support evolution, but it does not. You are only serving to undermine scripture - just as has been done in England where the church there long ago capitulated to evolutionary thought. The churches there are, for the most part, empty and dead. The churches here will follow the same pattern unless we restore the Biblical foundation of Genesis.

You are serving only to undermine your own faith. Why do you believe that Jesus died and rose again? Because the Bible tells you so. If we can't trust the history and 'earthly things' in the Bible, how can we trust the higher 'spiritual things' of the Bible? If you can reject the things you CAN see, how can you accept the things you CAN'T see? Rejecting the literal, plainest meaning of Genesis sets you and those who hear you on the road to dismissing the whole of scripture.

The ONLY reason you believe Jesus Died and rose again is because the Bible says it's so. If we can show that the Bible is wrong in Genesis... if we can dismiss that portion of scripture as non-literal... then we can do the same to every part of scripture that touches on Genesis... and in that, you can dismiss whe ENTIRE BIBLE as non-literal, or allegorical, or fairy tale (which ever of these synonyms you happen to like best).

How do you know that Jesus was thwe Son of God? "Because the Bible tells us so"... "you mean that same book that says that the world was created in six days? That same book that says there was a global flood? You actually believe those fairy tales? That Jesus is no more real than Noah or his Ark! Science has PROVEN that to us!!"

 

Meaning, that you accepted the word of Man as more relevant and more true than the Word of God. Clearly, you were convinced of the plainest literal meaning of scripture until man told you otherwise. Now, you accept that Word of Man above the word of god.

What happens when they tell you that they can scientifically prove that a virgin can't give birth, or that a man can't be raised from the dead, so Jesus probably was never dead... he was just in a coma or something until his body had time to heal itself.

If you put the word of man and science above the word of God, you must continue to do so for your view to remain consistent. That means applying the same standard... the same "truth scale"... to the New Testament. Which is to say - is this physically possible? Is this scientifically possible? I mean come on! Is it really scientifically possible for Jesus to turn water into wine? Is it really scientifically possible for Jesus to heal people by touching them, or by simply proclaiming them healed? Is it really scientifically possible for Jesus to have walked on water? Is it really scientifically possible for jesus to feed thousands of people with a few biscuits and a few panfish - or turn that into TWELVE baskets full of leftovers? Aren't we far more sophisticated and advanced than to believe these CLEARLY non-literal events actually happened? Clearly, these types of things just do not happen, and cannot happen. We cannot test them scientifically, nor repeat them experimentally... therefore it is more than logical to conclude they are not actual events - such as Jesus' resurrection. Furthermore, don't we know about the people who wrote about Jesus? Most of them were losers who were not even trusted by their own people... most of them had established backgrouds in OTHER areas... NONE Of them were theologically or scholarly qualified... yet we are supposed to trust these men's writings? For example, some were commercial fishermen... what credentials do these people have to write biographical material? None! Clearly they were not writing scientifically or even journalistically... their writings are very ficticous... so we can see that most of it is allegorical, and not real or literal. We don't get to any actual scholars till Saul/Paul. He never witnessed Jesus though... and his writings are clearly entirely theological... no physical meaning intended. He does write about that light appearing to him on the road to Damascus, but that is clearly metaphorical for the change of heart he experienced along the way. Clearly, he was influenced by the message of love and good morals, not some mystical light or voice. He saw an opportunity to cash in on the fame and success of these 'christians' to try to promote love and peace.

So now, according to your faith, be it unto you. Clearly, I have shown you guys where your non-literal claims will take you... to the very rejection of Christ, and the undermining of all of God's Word.

 

"Yet you were unable to answer my question posed directly to you - If you take out the evolution science, and look ONLY at what the Bible says, does it, in your opinion, give the impression of millions of years of history, or does it give the impression that Noah's flood wasn't real?"

A number of points need to be made about this statement.

The first, obvious point is that you failed to answer the question. I know of no scientists who have come to the conclusion of a 6000 year old earth without their accompanying belief that their interpretation of scripture also indicates a young earth. That only people who have a predisposition to a young earth come to the conclusion of a young earth speaks volumes about what the evidence from Creation actually says about its age. OTOH, many, many Christians come to the conclusion of an old earth and do not feel that their faith is lessened.

The second point is that even if you shut your eyes and plug your ears to the witness of the Creation itself, there are still indications in the words of the account to show that it might not be meant to be taken literal. Some of these include the evening and morning refrain on days before the sun was created. It is hard for a non-existent sun to rise in the east and set in the west. The accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contain differences that make sense in a non-literal reading but force the literalist into some mental gymnastics. The words say that the earth and the waters themselves brought forth life.

The final point to be made, that has yet to be adequately addressed, is that by the same sort of plain reading upon which you insist, you should also believe in a flat, geocentric earth in which the weather is controlled by the opening of windows in a fixed dome over the earth which allows the waters above to fall.

"Just as you say the only objection to evolution is the Bible, we say that the only objection to the Bible is humanism (evolution). "

False.

Only you use the Bible to object to evolution. We do not.

But the second half of that is interesting. You say "we say that the only objection to the Bible is [evolution]. " Now this is interesting. You seem to be saying that you find no way to reconcile evolution with the Bible. Not surprising given your posts. So the questions that logically follow from this are:

What specific or general physical evidence would you accept as evidence of an old earth / evolution?
If such evidence was provided, would you still consider this evidence against the Bible?
If such evidence could be presented to you, would you lose your CHristian faith or would you then find a way to reconcile the two?

Remember, I was once YEC, so I have already been through this. For me, it started with becoming aware of the falsehoods proclaimed in the name of "creation science." I have detailed a handful of these on the other thread. This led to examine the evidence. I came to the conclusion that only an old earth made sense and was able to reconcile my faith with that. That does not mean that I know ho to reconcile every possible objection. But this also means that I could be convinced today of a young earth. I am open. You are closed to your own interpretation whether it is right or not.

"If we can show that the Bible is wrong in Genesis... if we can dismiss that portion of scripture as non-literal... then we can do the same to every part of scripture that touches on Genesis... and in that, you can dismiss whe ENTIRE BIBLE as non-literal, or allegorical, or fairy tale (which ever of these synonyms you happen to like best). "

I do not find those terms synomynous. You are trying hard to make people think that we do not believe thae Bible when it is your interpretation with which we disagree. A definition of allegorical "having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text" from Merriam-Webster. This is far different from a fairy tale. You try to draw that comparison as a slander when it simply is not true.

We are not trying to say the Bible is wrong. We are saying that you are wrong.

Two quotes from St. Augustine might be appropriate here.

"We must be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers."

"The Spirit of God who spoke through them did not choose to teach about the heavens to men, as it was of no use for salvation."

And yes I know that you will dismiss such as taking the opinion of man over that of God though it is no such thing. But you have never justified why your opinion is the most important when trying to determine the opinion of God.

 

"So now, according to your faith, be it unto you. Clearly, I have shown you guys where your non-literal claims will take you... to the very rejection of Christ, and the undermining of all of God's Word. "

This can be determined false by the simple fact that we are here. We have not rejected Christ. Obviously or we would ne be proclaiming our Christianity and posting here in fellowship with other believers. There could not be an easier to see demonstration that your claims are false.

 

Thank you.

If they would like to take a class on the topic, they're welcome. But no, I don't think it's an essential to one's faith. I'm not a staunch YEC literalist myself. However, I've made it a point to instill into my children that topics on evolution are theory, and not fact. I thought I'd have to drive this point home with them, but, contrary to assertions made by some, this is already made clear in their classes.