Evolutionism vs the Gospel

I hate internet browsers... my browser ate my post!! AH!

I gotta start writing them in notepad. They are too long to just loose and have to re-type.

--------------------

UTE - regarding the Smoller/Temple paper. They don't deny time dialation, they simply never considered it as part of their paper.

The physics, however, and math all agree that in the environment they are suggesting a time dialation exists.


Galatian -
Your entire post is filled with rote repetition of my points twised to represent your point. I get it... you want me to give you the actual scriptural references each and every time I make such claims as 'we give scriptural reference and you do not'. Gladly.

We showed you exodus 20:11 which is God speaking directly stating it is six days (in the context of a literal six day week and sabbath).

Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
Exd 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.
We showed you how Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 (God created them male and female) as literal.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

We showed you how Paul quoted Genesis 3 as literal.

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.

Rom 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:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 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.
Rom 5:15 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.

1Cr 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

We showed you how Peter quoted Noah's flood as aliteral even effecting the whole world, furthermore stating those who didn't believe that had big problems with God.

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:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


This is also very similar to what Jesus has to say about the flood -


Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.
Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.


Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


The last three passages all compare the 2nd coming of christ to other 'actual events' such as the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah perishing. If the events they are referring to are not literal, then neither is the 2nd coming of Christ.

1Cr 15:35 But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
1Cr 15:36 [Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
1Cr 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
1Cr 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

1Cr 15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
1Cr 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Cr 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Cr 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
2Cr 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken [it].
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

Quite literally, Christ would have come to the earth to 'die for nothing'.

Moreover, if we are not all genetic decendents of Adam, then we do not all inherit the curse of the fall. Then it IS based on works ... and anyone who is good enough can go to heaven.

BTW - I ran accross this verse, which confirms what I have been trumpeting in this thread... that the Word of God is far more substancial then scientific evidence:

1Jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

This verse even makes the declaration that the Word of God is ultimate and supreme because it is the Word of God that declares Jesus as God's son. Therefore in this verse Biblical authority and inerrancy is linked DIRECTLY to Jesus with the implication that if one is not true, neither is the other.

 

Since I'm also focusing on that verse, I'll explain more of my own position about it. I interpret this verse much the same way I interpret Luke 22:19. Here's both of them:

In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine (the symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they (and we) can remember God's act of creation and God's rest through our week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest (again, the symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

Now, I admit that this explanation is not going to do much good to a Catholic, since they may claim to interpret both verses literally while I don't. I accept that they are at least being internally consistent. This is more geared to non-Catholics, though.

Also, if BobRyan cares to respond to this, I'd appreciate it if he would first clarify his own interpretation on this verse, and whether he believes the stars were made during the six days of creation.

 

Regarding homosexuality Galatian -

You say that homosexuality is no more a sin then heterosexuality to the celebit.

Let me ask you then - should homosexuals be allowed to marry, and then if they are married, would their homosexual behavior within the marriage relationship be Ok??

 

Really? How do you explain away Romans 5:12 then? It says that "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned". It is not our genetics that makes us sinners and cursed -- it is the fact that we sin!

If a person thinks that the result of making Adam representative instead of historical is that "Christ would have come to the earth to 'die for nothing' ", it shows they do not realize what a problem their sin is. It isn't just something we inherited from our earliest ancestors, it is something we do! The problem isn't in our genes, it's in our behaviour and our rebellion to God! I don't need to read Genesis 3 to realize that I'm sinful because of my ancestry -- I know I'm sinful and in need of a Saviour because of my actions! I thank Jesus that he died for me, not just to correct a mistake a person made thousands of years ago, but to pay the price for my sin and make a way for me to be reconciled to him.

I think this shows how young-earth creationism can be dangerous, though. It can lead to using certain verses as prooftexts for certain points (in the case of Romans 5:12, animal death starting with the Fall) to the extent that the real meaning of the verse (in this case, our sinfulness and need of a Saviour) is ignored.

 

"UTE - regarding the Smoller/Temple paper. They don't deny time dialation, they simply never considered it as part of their paper.

The physics, however, and math all agree that in the environment they are suggesting a time dialation exists."

I believe their statement was "I do not think that the idea that some sort of time dialation reducing the age of the universe to 6000 years has anything whatsoever to do with our paper."

It sounds to me that they do not see how the math of their paper could be construed to give any type of time dialation.

I'm not a cosmologist, but it seems to me that the only simularity between their paper and Humphreys is that they both suppose a finite rather than infinite universe. There is no other comparisopn to be made. It is a most superficial resemblance. If you think that otherwise, spell it out for us. Just what is supposed to give the time dialation? A large mass? Where is it? Relativistic speeds? We do not seem to be moving that fast compared to the frames of reference we have. What else is there? Tell us.

The physics does not work becuase Humphreys does not know enough about cosmology nor relativity to make such a proposal. Those who do have such knowledge insist that it does not work.

 

Gup,

"1Jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son."

That's a good point. But none of us (I hope) are asserting that the scriptures are WRONG. I If we cannot trust scripture then we're in trouble.

I do however disagree that we should always conclude that the plain, literal, 21st century Anglo-American reading is correct. This is especially true of the OT.

I agree that Adam was real and that God prepared a place for him. I do not think that Genesis 1 was meant to be a factual account of how the entire cosmos came into being.

 

The mistake you make is that Jesus is eating the passover. This meal is already in the context of meal representing another event (already a ritualistic supper). This is the context of the 'Lords Supper'.

The context of exodus is actual, literal law. The context of days in Exodus 20:11 is literal days (just as the literal days of the week). If it was figurative, then the 10 commandments would be 'suggestions' rather than laws.

 

Exactly! In the same way the six-day work week represents another event (creation).

And as I already explained [here], the explanation tying creation to the commandment is not part of the actual, literal law given directly by God. If so, it would have also been included in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 -- unless you believe Moses was in error or incomplete when he recounted what God wrote on the two tablets of stone in Deuteronomy 5. Note Deuteronomy 5:22: "These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me."

From this, we have biblical proof that Exodus 20:11 was not on the stone tablets. It is still inspired Scripture, but it is inspired commentary on the law (just as Deuteronomy 5:15 is) and not law itself. Believing that Exodus 20:11 establishes a symbol doesn't make the law into "suggestions" any more than partaking of the Lord's Supper does away with Jesus' actual sacrifice at Calvary.

 

Not at all. His followers were scandalized by Jesus' remarks. Many left him. "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" some of them said (John 6:60). Does this sound like a reaction to what the audience knew was a mere figure of speech?

Actually, I believe they are symbolic of an instant. Not only do I believe God is capable of creating the universe in an instant (hopefully we all agree on that) -- I think that's the way he actually did it! Since that instant, God has been actively sustaining his creation.

First off, thanks for nearly answering the question! I was pretty sure you believed that the stars pre-existed the rest of creation! So, when do you think the stars were created?

I'm not going to argue with you about whether the stars were created on day 4. I think they're part of the account of that day, but there's enough YECs here that also believe that, so one of them can discuss this with you if they like. At least now they know that the "evolutionists" aren't the only ones who don't take Exodus 20:11 literally (although, at least the theistic evolutionists admit to this).

I must say that your stretch of Exodus 20:11 reminds me of the hyper-Calvinist interpretation of John 3:16. They interpret "For God so loved the world..." as "For God so loved some of the world...". It appears that you interpret Exodus 20:11 the same way. Instead of "For in six days God created the heavens..." you believe it's "For in six days God created some of the heavens...". The other heavens, along with the stars within them, you claim were created earlier (or perhaps later -- you haven't yet stated exactly when you believe the stars were created).

 

ah but you fail to realize that Jesus could not have died for us, if he wasn't ONE of us. Meaning, he had to inherit our fate, yet be blameless... therefore... he had to be bound to hell as we are having NEVER SINNED!! The only way he COULD pay for our sin was to take our sin nature... he did that by being a direct decendent of Adam... .that's why the Bible goes through the trouble of showing the bloodline from Adam to Jesus.

Moreover, only decendents of Adam can be saved. So if you don't think you are decended from Adam, then you have no business being a christian.

ONe has only to look at themselves... at death... and at the world around them to realize that this world is under the curse. Everything dies. You don't see people catching good health... it's sickness that is infectious. It's death and decay that is prevelant. We are in a cursed and dying world. It's not hard to look around and SEE the result of our sin. It's in every member of our bodies.

We are ruled by sin until we take on the likeness of Christ. Sin is our master.

 

It sounds to me like they are saying that is not the point of their paper... and that their paper never considers it.

Which is why we go to the Hebrew. The word DAY in Genesis 1 (YOM) is used over 500 times in the old testament and EVERY time it's used in conjuction with the words "night", "evening", "morning", or with a number it always and unequivocally means a literal ordinary day. The first time it's used in the Bible lets take a look -

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

You will notice in this very first verse that the days are mentioned, it uses the word Night, evening, morning, and first to describe day. Now whenever YOM is used with ANY of these words in scripture, it always means a literal ordinary day. Here it is used with all of them.

We see in the rest of the verses it always says "and the evening and the morning were the # day". Clearly we can tell from the HEBREW text that in context it means a literal ordianry day.

Can you tell us what the Bible DOES mean? It says God created everything in six ordianry days... many scholars, however, agree that this is just about the only thing it DOES'T mean. It is speculated to mean just about anything else, but no ... not six ordinary days.

Where did the concept of the week come from? The basis of the day is from one rotation of the earth on it's axis. The concept of the month is one rotation of the moon around the earth. The concept of the year is one rotation of the earth around the sun... but where did the concept of week come from? It came from God creating the earth in six days and resting on the seventh.

What you fail to take into consideration, however, is that Genesis treats Genesis as literal... the Hebrew gramatical rules show that YOM cannot mean anthing other than an ordinary day in Genesis 1. Therefore, you have two literal events corroborating each other in Exodus 20:11 - literally. For example, not many fictional stories have chapters filled with precise geneologies.

 

I've never heard someone say that Jesus needed to be born with original sin in order to be our Saviour. A lot of people see the virgin birth as ensuring that Jesus was not born with the taint of original sin (indeed, that's the way I've always understood it, although I admit to not being really sure about what exactly original sin is). I've never heard anyone claim that Jesus was bound to hell in spite of the fact that he never sinned. Do other YECs interpret the gospel this way as well?

Let's think logically for a while. Let's pretend I'm saying that I'm not descended from Adam (in reality, I'm claiming no such thing -- the exact nature of Adam is something I'm unsure about, but most of my ideas would still lead to me being descended from him). Would my hypothetical claim of not being descended from Adam change who I'm really descended from? Not at all! If you're right and I must be descended from Adam to be saved, then that's not an issue since if you're right I'm descended from Adam!

What you actually seem to be implying is that I don't just need to be descended from Adam, but I also need to believe in Adam in order to be saved. By contrast, I hold that it is only by faith in Jesus that I can be saved. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to have faith that Adam was among our ancestors.

In your efforts to try and show why I must lose my faith because I accept evolution, you seem to be losing sight of the basis of the faith we share. It's Jesus, not Adam.

 

Gup,

"Which is why we go to the Hebrew. The word DAY in Genesis 1 (YOM) is used over 500 times in the old testament and EVERY time it's used in conjuction with the words "night", "evening", "morning", or with a number it always and unequivocally means a literal ordinary day."

This much is true. This usage makes it very unlikely that any one to one symbolism is going on here. The idea of "one day" corresponding to a million years or something like that is pretty well ruled out.

The question remains whether or not the account is figurative. Jesus spoke figuratively in parables - yet words used in them had discrete literal meanings just as they would in a factual account.

 

I don't know... I believe Jesus had to become one of us - sharing in our fate, yet Jesus never sinned, so he did not deserve our fate. Remember, Jesus resurrection was a physical occurence. It was the PHYSICAL result of what happened. Jesus was bound by death and sin.... yet he was the first and only one who didn't deserve death and sin. Therefore, death could not hold him.

1Cr 15:55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?
1Cr 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.

Jesus was the FIRST and only person who ever fulfilled BOTH criteria - that of heaven and that of hell. Keep in mind, that when Jesus died he went to hell! Why would someone who never sinned go to hell? Because part of him was Human - and in Adam all have sinned -

Rom 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:
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Rom 5:15 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.

So we see then that sin and death passed upon all men as a result of Adam's sin. However, the Gift of God (salvation) is not the same as the offense. Salvation covers all sin, but it is a gift that must be accepted... rather than a curse which cannot be rejected.

Well I wouldn't say that at all. I was simply pointing out that the curse of the fall was in Adam, and those who are heirs of that curse are those who need to be 'saved'. If we are all not in Adam, then we all would not need to be saved, and 'some of us' could try to live righteous lives worthy of avoiding hell and death. Then, it WOULD be a works based religion rather than a faith based religion.

The Bible makes it clear that this isn't the case. It says that all have sinned, and death reighned over men because of sin.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

So, you believe all the Old Testament saints (Noah, Abraham, Job, Elijah, Moses, David, etc.) went to hell after they died? After all, they were descended from Adam. If even a sinless person (Jesus) descended from Adam was bound to hell, then certainly those who did sin would go there too?

But then, how would you reconcile that with Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus? That story, which is set in the time before Jesus died and rose again, does not show the righteous going to hell -- unless you feel that Abraham's bosom was a part of hell.

Also, the verses that allude to Jesus going to hell talk about him ministering or making a proclamation to the spirits there, or stealing the keys to death and Hades. These are not the actions of someone bound to hell! They are the actions to someone who has conquored death and hell!

 

Just for clarification - HADES is not HELL.

Hades is the greek word for "where dead people go".

By definition then everybody who dies goes to Hades.

The next question is, what is Hades like, that's all. Because merely giving a name to an unspecified idea does not give us any information about what it really IS.

It is unfortunate that some translators directly translate "hades" into "hell".

The Greeks supposed there was a place for the good people there - the "Elysion Fields". . .

 

Paul, I agree. I oversimplified matters when I said "the verses that allude to Jesus going to hell". The verses only allude to it if a person thinks the grave is equivalent to hell. I think 1 Peter 3:18-20 and Ephesians 4:8-9 refer to the place elsewhere called hades (the grave). I don't think Jesus went to hell (gehenna or tartaroo) at all, and I most certainly don't think Jesus was bound to hell.