Evolutionism vs the Gospel

And it is perfectly feasible to interpret His words as not being literally meant.


Certainly it's feasible -- you do it all the time. However methinks it takes an incredible amount of chutzpah to inform God when He literally meant something and when He didn't! I find nowhere in the Bible any indication that the purpose of our brains is to disagree with Him. In fact, that little use of our intelligence is EXACTLY what Satan told Eve to do regarding a certain piece of fruit....

God's universe proceded from His "Mouth" when He created all things by speaking them into existance. What He made cannot lie. We can believe what it tells us.

He made us and we lie all the time. Forms of deceit, such as camaflauge, are part of nature. When you say we can believe what nature tells us, I think you will find that there are a lot of interpretations regarding what different folk feel nature is telling us!

That speed of light thing, for instance -- hundreds of measurements before and a number since 1941 indicate the speed of light has not been constant. However Birge declared it constant in 1941, despite his own acceptance of the different measurements right up until that time! But he then said that if it were not constant, that would be against the "spirit of science." Excuse me?? WHAT spirit? I prefer the truth, myself, and if the spirit of science, so-called, depends on a man's declarations in order to avoid the data itself, then forget the men. I'd rather see the data.

You've been pounding your speed of light drum for quite a while now, totally ignoring the data itself in favor of some very mistaken (as Barry has repeatedly pointed out to you) ideas. In the meantime, more and more articles are starting to appear in the physics journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light through time. Barry may not be referenced yet, but his time will come. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that if you are going to keep referencing the constancy of the speed of light, that you read the articles as they are coming out now. They disagree with you.

 

Perhaps I should remind you that tabloid journalism isn't what the Bible is about. Your editorial comments dont effect the accuracy or validity of scripture. It's absolute truth regardless of your opinion.

They were not required to understand the word of God... only to obey it. A 5 year old can repeat the phrase 'it took 10 billion years' and not have clue of comprehension how many 10 billion is. They had metaphors for large numbers like that many as the "stars in the sky" or "grains of sand". None of these type of statements were used. They gave exact integers. Six days... 130 years.... etc.

I agree... I have yet to see anyone else build a solar system or a star. But that still does not in any way, shape or form support millions of years. It supports the Glory of God. It tells us that God can certainly do what he says He did. It supports the young earth creation account given in Genesis 1-11. God is glorious - he said he created the universe in six days (includig the stars) and look you can see the stars as proof his word is true!!

Except that time is often relative.

Even if non-literally meant, it still supports Genesis 1.... and it still disproves evolution entirely, even IF it were not literal (if it were figurative representing something else).

Indeed. And it tells us that the earth is young jsut as the Bible does. God's word is consistent afterall. So if we have God's direct word telling us it's young, and we have interpretations of physical evidence telling us it's old... then the interpretations of physical evidence must be wrong. We must re-interpret them so that they are consistent with the written word. What a great idea!!

 

The speed of light changes that are coming out bear no relation that I can see to what Barry proposes. Magueijo, for the most famous example, proposes only a higher speed of light in the very first moments after the Big Bang as an alternative to inflation. None of the things I have seen talk of massive changes in the speed of light spread throughout the history of the universe.

But since it has come up, I am going to bump the other thread I had started on this subject.

 

Try Albrecht, Barrow, and a few of the others. There are also some recent articles which are dealing with the subject. The reason, by the way, why Magueijo, for instance, limits the change in c to the first moments after the Big Bang is because he is refusing to consider the effect on the other constants. His minimalist position betrays him.

 

Anyway, welcome back Helen, and have you had a chance to enjoy the Oregon Coast yet, or the High Desert Museum?

If something so ingrained into the scientific viewpoint as evolution and the OEC viewpoint is completely wrong, then all the biases in the world will not keep back the truth for very long. So many things would fail to add up - so many little details would creep in from seeminingly unrelated fields - that soon the jig would be up and all of current science would be overthrown.

The jig isn't up and such a revolution shows no sign of happening.

Yes, Barry proposes his own solution for the light distance/time problem that is incompatible with Humphrey's solution. Barry's solution is also incompatible with the evidence.

It takes evidence and actually dealing with the evidence.

Or the Bible can be reinterpreted to agree with the evidence. Things that were counted as literal may need to be interpreted in a non-literal fashion, for example. I started a thread on that - please contribute!

(sigh) all those pesky galaxies aren't REALLY millions and billions of light years away out there. . . all those pesky date determinations aren't REALLY valid - all those pesky vestiges don't REALLY mean anything - the way the chemical evidence backs up the fossil evidence doesn't REALLY mean anything - Whale embryos with little legs that get reabsorbed don't REALLY mean their ancestors walked on solid ground -

what's a little evidence when we're certain in spite of the evidence?

 

Thanks for digging up the quotes. I'm impressed! It's nice to see again what I actually said once your emotional rewording of it is stripped away.

Sure thing. I'm going to rephrase it based on the specific thing I said (about the use of the word "day") rather than your generalization (the text presents creationism). Your point is that once we see that the word "day" in its context in Genesis 1 literally means one day and not a large time period, "the whole thing simplifies."

Let's apply this simplification to other passages. We can examine the statement where Jesus said his body was real food (John 6:55) and find out that the literal meaning of "food" in that context is something that you eat, so then things simplify for us and we realize Jesus was advocating cannibalism. We can analyze Jesus' statement that he holds the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:18) and find out that the literal meaning of "keys" in that context is metal objects by which locks are opened. No need to consider that these things could be symbolic, metaphoric, allegorical or otherwise non-historical: we've found literal meanings for the words so we can stop there -- no need to think any further!

I see your point, Bob; I just don't agree that we should take that escape route when interpreting a complex passage. It may make things simple, but it doesn't get us closer to the truth.

 

Let's look at a non-controversial passage, relatively speaking, the passage of the temptation to eat from the tree of life. What does the Bible literally say happened - in Genesis? Most people will tell you that it says Satan went and tempted Eve. But it DOES NOT SAY THAT. Instead, it says:

Literally, here, we have a talking animal story. That is because you will not find any references to evil spirits until later in the history of biblical revelation. Finally, in the late books of the OT, we even find Satan named . . . and in the NT we have a pretty well developed idea of demons and Satan and such as that.

Well, we, having inherited this later view, go back to the Genesis story and guess what - we read into it our later knowledge and automatically interpret "satan" into the verse and nobody ever complains we're not reading the scriptures literally - even tho we aren't - because we understand things differently those to whom the initial revelation was given.

And we also see how God prepared the words to be compatible with the later understanding. Pretty cool!

Now - seeing how God dealt in that instance with man's lack of knowledge to deal with the whole truth and how He accomodated the revelation to be comprehensible to men, we look to what He did with the creation story, and it is not really surprising that He would do exactly the same thing, and accomodate the creation story also to the understanding of men of that time.

But with some points that match up anyway with the understanding men would develop in time.

Who among us has not been struck with the haunting similarity of the idea of the big bang as the origin and the words "let there be light?"

Who among us has not pondered the idea that the waters bring forth the life within them?

Who among us has not pondered the enigmatic word that "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day?"

Please, my friends, do not think we seek to abandon the scriptures as some of us learn and accept the findings of modern science; we seek to bring them to their final, more complete true interpretation.

 

Well, Bob, that's nice. While you insist we must take on the literal words for the one belief; and you go right ahead, as shown in the alternate thread regarding the inconsistencies of literalists, and do just what you say i should not do when you believe the earth rotates, contrary to wht literal interpretation and universal belief before the rise of modern science!

 

Originally posted by BobRyan:

(sigh) you keep failing to miss my point. I'll ask my other readers to share with me - have I spoken so unclearly? Did I not manage to communicate properly somehow that I certainly DO ACCEPT that it really WAS Satan in the garden - only - the passage doesn't literally SAY that?

And that I then seek to say that we should perhaps understand that God does INDEED sometimes hold back a literal truth we are not yet ready for?

Well, in any case, BobRyan, now that I've set you straight, please note what I'm really trying to say and reply appropriately to that.

 

And Genesis (compiled after the Ten Commandments were given) pulls from Exodus 20 when it describes creation as a week of work followed by a Sabbath rest.

Nobody is trying to create an "excuse" to make up anything. Instead, I'm saying that's there's good reason to look closely at the parallels between the work week/Sabbath and the way Genesis 1:1-2:3 is presented. The two are obviously tied together (I don't think anyone disputes that), but the question is whether the tying is symbolic or strictly literal. When one examines how symbolism is used elsewhere in the Bible -- especially for events that no human could witness or comprehend -- there is good reason to favour a less literal approach. The symmetry between the days of Genesis 1 and its lyrical, highly structured form are more clues. The awkward way it meshes with the rest of Genesis 2 (if both chapters are taken as historical and chronological) is an even more glaring clue.

So, internally -- just by looking at Scripture -- a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis 1 is a strong possibility. By looking at creation itself, it becomes the only possibility. Science doesn't trump the Bible, but it allows us to whittle the possible interpretations down to ones that line up with reality.

 

History agrees with the scripture in re-affirming that the earth rotates. Genesis 1 describes this, and history bears witness to the fact that many cultures believed this long before modern science. For example, I gave you information regarding the ancient Mayan calanders that rivaled our own current time keeping for accuracy. You attempt to set up a straw man argument... but that argument only works on those who have decided the Bible is wrong before examining the evidence.

Perhaps you have also missed the point. We have shown you time and time again where Paul, Jesus, Peter, and others quote Genesis as descirbing literal events. They even compare the events of Jesus to those events.

2Cr 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

If the verses regarding Eve are MEANT to be seen as non-literal, then we can also conclude that that the verses on Jesus are meant to be non-literal. 2Cor 11 makes a direct correlation between the two, for example.

Moreover there are many verses in the NT which quote Genesis as literal. Most doctrines are founded in Genesis. I was listening to the radio this morning... heard Chuck Swindoll come on. I am not normally a huge Swindoll listener, but what he was saying caught my interest. He likes to preach on Grace. He establishes a pretty compelling case for the foundation of Grace being formed in the first 11 chapters of Genesis:

http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/swn/oneplace/wm/in/in20040816.wax

You guys should all go listen to Chuck's message there... it really puts very well what we have been saying about those who believe in Evolution are really suffereing the deception of humanism... the same exact deception used on Eve.

Keep in mind... Chuck says nothing about evolution or creation... but speaks only of Grace according to scripture.

 

My favorite line:

"Some of you might be thinking - I thought this was a series on Grace, and here we are in Genesis 11 and now Romans 4, and you have hardly mentioned Grace. Oh - Believe me! It's at the heart of everything I am saying. For in order for there to be a demonstration of Grace there must be an acknowledgement that I have nothing in myself to give God... that is not in my nature, in my birth, or in my name naturally. I am in total and abject and complete need, and I am dependent upon him to do for me what I cannot do for myself. "

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

You see... even the very idea of Salvation is founded and born out of Genesis. To dismiss Genesis as a non-literal account is to dismiss the same nature of Grace and thereby salvation.

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 5:15 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.

 

Gup20, you're making the common mistake "non-literal means untrue".

 

You have yet to show anyone #1 where in scripture it reveals that it wasn't literal, and how it refutes all the scripture we have shown you from the rest of the Word that shows it is literal, and #2 why a non-literal interpretation changes the meaning to allow for evolution or millions of years.

In fact, the whole of scripture corroborates a literal Genesis, moreover even if Genesis was figurative, you still have plants and life on earth happening before the sun... which completely goes against the naturalistic means whereby life evolved over millions of years. Add to that the geneologies and you have no room anywhere in scripture for millions (let alone billions) of years, nor any room for molecules to man evolution. Evolution is entirely refuted by scripture.

 

The showing is in the universe, that is manifestedly billions of years old. The showing is in the history of life, that is manifestedly of common descent.

These things being true, as per the overwhelming evidence, and the Bible also being true, by faith, then we reject all interpretations that find them incompatible, that's all.

It is your choice to cling to the interpretation that keeps science out of the picture, but science is, after all, merely the accumulation of objective knowledge, as foretold in scripture itself.