Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

I don't have a problem with you making this statement, but I have a big problem with you making this statement and providing no exegetical/hermeneutical evidences that support this statement. Your statement and 50 cents will get you a Coke out of most Coke machines. Provide some exegetical evidences that will make a case for this statement or concede that macroevolution is not consistent with God's Word.

For starters, you could deal with the issues that I raised in my last post (which you simply chose not to respond to).

And by the way, placing your own observations about what you believe to be "true" on the same playing field with God's propositional, special revelation is a little misguided, don't you think?

Within this quote, you have basically identified yourself as the sole arbiter of truth. Further, you seem to place the "evidence" for macroevolution on the same playing field as the truth "revealed in the Bible" by God. Are you really sure you want to do this? Why not just open the word of God, do honest exegesis and exposition, and let the truth speak for itself? Why hold so adamantly to a theory forged within the fires of post-Renaissance atheism as if it were equivolent to "thus sayeth the Lord?" I don't understand that kind of a hermeneutic.

 

Two things:

1. Your explanation of "a garden" may sound pretty good, but it doesn't even deal with Gen. 3:17-18 or Rom. 8:20-22. For instance, Rom. 8:22 plainly says that the "whole creation (Gr. - pas ktisis ) groans and labors with birth pangs until now." According to your interpretation of the effects of man's sin upon creation, wouldn't it just be the small section of Garden in what is currently Iraq that would be groaning?

2. Let's follow your logic out to it's conclusion. If death, disease, and disorder reigned supreme over all the Earth (except for the Garden of Eden), then wouldn't we also have to admit that when God creates a "new earth" that He will only do so within the region that once was the Garden of Eden? If death, disease, and disorder reigned supreme over nearly all the earth prior to the Fall, why would things change when the effects of the Fall are once and for all reversed?

Pssst...got exegesis?

 

Paul, one more thing I just considered - if you say that the effects of Adam's fall simply meant banishment from the Garden for he and Eve, then shouldn't we be able to go back and find what once was the Garden of Eden? If you are asserting that the effects of the Fall never really touched the Garden as a result of Adam's sin, then shouldn't we be able to go back to that sinless, perfect Garden? One things for sure...it should be easy to find!

You could answer by saying that God allowed death, disease, and disorder to enter the Garden after Adam and Eve were banished, but if such was the case, then why would Adam and Eve have had to have left the Garden in the first place? I mean, if it were just going to become like the rest of the chaotic world, why couldn't they have just stayed? There seem to be many loopholes within your understanding of man's Fall and its effect upon creation.

 

Throughout our discussions you have over and over again demonstrated that you are not able to understand my posts even though I attempted to post at the 10th grade reading level. Ute very clearly and concisely explained my posts to you, but you did not understand him either. And now it appears that you believe that I completely accept all marcroevolutionary theory even though I have expressly stated several times that I do not. (And of course no rational human being could possibly accept them all as being true because to a very large extent they are self-contradictory regarding thousands of the small details).

For your benefit, I shall now attempt to post at the 8th grade reading level:

Unlike most macroevolutionists, I believe that the world that we find represented by fossils in the fossil record is a world that no longer exists and that it came to and end sometime before Adam was created. This world that no longer exists was created in the interval of time spoken of in Gen. 1:1,

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This world that no longer exists is described in Gen. 1:2,

2. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

When I say that this world no longer exists, I do not mean that the earth was entirely destroyed, but that world, theologically speaking, became “formless and void, and that darkness was over the surface of the deep.” Subsequent to this period of time, God intervened, as recorded in Gen 1:3:

3. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

And God “saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.”

5. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6. Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9. Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
10. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11. Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
12. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18. and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20. Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
21. God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22. God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23. There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
25. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB, 1995)

I believe that this description is a theological description, however, rather than a historical, biological, or geological description. Obviously verses 6 and 7 are not to be taken literally because they describe a physical impossibility. When we proceed through Genesis to the account of Noah and the Ark we come to what is obviously another theological account because it describes that which is a physical impossibility. Since in Genesis 1:1 – 11:32 we have already come to two accounts that we know for certain cannot be interpreted literally due their describing events which are physically impossible, and since we have throughout these 11 chapters only one kind of literature, it is unreasonable to suppose that anything in these 11 chapters is a historical narrative.

 

As for Rom. 5:12-21,

12. 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--
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NASB, 1995)

I believe (still posting at the 8th grade reading level) that all men are born into this world with a human weakness. This human weakness makes them so very vulnerable to temptation that each and every man sins and falls short of the glory of God. The result of this is separation from God and His blessings. The one and only means of atonement for those sins is the blood that Jesus shed for us upon the cross. And this atonement becomes of benefit for each man only upon that man’s personal confession to God that he has sinned, and upon his desire to be saved from those sins and their consequences, and upon that man’s personal faith in Christ.

We do not need to know anything about Genesis or the rest of the Old Testament to be saved, but it is good to read them after you get saved. If the stories in Genesis seem to teach something different than you are learning in school, pray and ask God to help you learn from Genesis those things that He wants you to understand, and trust God to do so. In the meantime, don’t worry about it but concentrate on reading the New Testament and getting to know Jesus and Paul and Peter and John and living a life that will make Jesus proud of you.

Todd, Please don’t ask me to dummy this down any further.

 

No, there was no double talk needed. A direct question to you. Do you think the central message is our own depravity and our need to accept the saving work of Christ or is it the literal existance of Adam?

This is where I find many YEers miss the forest for the trees. They are so tied up on insisting that their literal view must be the only one that they quibble over things which are not central to salvation. If you recognize the true central message of what is being told to us in Genesis, then you realize that this message is true whether the account is a literal narrative or not.

"UT, it appears as though you have no problem pitting general revelation against special revelation (God's Word). "

I am not pitting anything against anything else. God gave us both. Interpreted correctly, they will not conflict. There is no doubt that the earth is old and that common descent is the means God used to give us the current diversity of life on earth. Unless you believe God is a deceiver, then there is absolutely no way for you interpretation to be the correct one.

"At least you have implicitely admitted that macroevolution can't be grounded in God's Word."

I don't think the Bible is a book of science. Evolution nor astronomy nor special relativity nor germ theory nor the atomic theory of gasses nor gravitation theory nor thermodynamics nor physics are addressed by the Bible nor are they central to salvation.

I believe there are hints in there though. Genesis does speak of the waters and of the land being directed to bring forth life.

"Just admit that when it comes to creation and the Fall of man, your allegiance is to science much more than it is the Word of God. "

I'll admit no such thing because it is not true.

"That's all I'm asking for - honesty."

And that is part of the problem. Propping up a young earth belief requires either ignorance of God's revelation through His creation, or a willfull misrepresentation of that revelation. The leaders of YE have apparently decided that a lie for God is a good thing. They choose to tell an endless string of half truths, untruths and misrepresentations.

If you will know them by their fruits, then YE is an evil upon our churches. BobRyan recently tried to make such a pont about evolution and I turned it around on him. Start here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2929.html#000005

Read on for a few pages. I hardly even scratch the surface of one of the worst: quote mining. This is where they edit scientists statements to make them appear to say something they did not say. Bob is an expert at this and is evidence that the tactics of YE can corrupt even good Christian men into believing that dishonesty is acceptable if it is done for the Lord.

Read through the examples. They are not just cases of YEers getting things wrong. They are cases of them lying about what has happened or what the correct results are. This is a short list of YE leaders choosing to not tell the truth.

That is the fruit that YE brings. Maybe we should be asking if adamant YEers should be allowed to teach SS.

Edit to add:

This is not to say all YEers are dishonest. I think that most are just deluded. I find that in my opinion most of the leaders fall into the dishonest category over the deluded one. This is just based on their actions. See the linked thread. I think the people that come to places like this are either ignorant of the true evidence or are deluded about what it means. Somethimes you will come across those who will repeatedly post obvious falsehoods, but usually they just refuse to see the truth.

 

One more question for you in addition to the one asked above.

What do you think is the most conclusive evidence from God in His general revelation of creation that indicates a young earth?

For common descent, I offer the twin nested heirarchy as my answer to which bit of the creation best supports my position.

 

Please put the childish cander to rest. Your posts are not confusing because they employ difficult language - they are confusing because they are illogical and self-defeating.

This is nothing more than a spin on the Gap Theory, and I have already clearly demonstrated that one can't do faithful exegesis of Gen.1-2 and hold to day-age or gap theories of creation. If you could provide one example from the Hebrew OT where the word yom can be translated as something other than a 24-hour day when accompanied by a numerical qualifier (as it is throughout the creation account), then I would be happy to concede this point. Thus far, you've provided no exegetical evidence to make a case for such a position.

Further, to say that there was a world that existed and then came to an end before the creation of Adam and Even creates more problems than it solves, doesn't it? First of all, why would God have created a world filled with death, destruction, and disorder before the time of Adam and Eve? What purpose would such a world have possibly served? Why would he create a world without humans anyway? Doesn't the Bible say that "the Earth He has given to the children of men" (Ps. 115:16)? What use could a world without humans (and full of destruction) have possibly served? Your view of creation here is clearly one that has been misguided by macroevolution.

These are exactly the kinds of "limitations placed upon God" that one poster was referring to earlier. Do you really want to say that everything in the Bible that would fall into the category of "physically impossible" needs to be mis-interpreted as non-literal because they are "unreasonable?" Well, that would rule out all the miracles in the Bible. Further, that would rule out the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and all believers after Him (unless resurrection from the dead is not physically impossible). Worst of all, your hermeneutic of reason would force you to deny the very existence of God Himself (unless of course it is not physically impossible for an infinite, eternal being to exist).

I'm going to be busy cutting out all the things in my Bible that are "physically impossible" in the days ahead. Thanks for filling me in.

Even this is an incorrect view of anthrolopology. The psalmist said "in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5). It's not enough to simply say that all human beings are born with some "human weakness." All human beings are sinners because they were born sinners, and not just because some weakness will eventually cause them to sin. This is Theology 101.

Craig, your posts are getting worse as you go. To say that we don't need to know anything about Genesis or the rest of the OT in order to be saved is LUDICROUS! Here are just a few small reasons:

1. How would we know that we were sinners were it not for the Fall of Man that we find in Gen. 3?
2. How would we know that our sins need to be atoned for were it not for the Laws of atonement found in the OT?
3. How could we make any sense at all of John the Baptist's reference to Jesus as the "Lamb of God" were it not for an understanding of the spotless Passover Lamb of the OT?
4. Further, how could Paul, Peter, James, John and others been able to pen their NT letters were it not for their understanding of the OT?
5. Didn't Jesus say that He had come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it? (cf. Mt. 5:17)
6. What about the hundreds of references to the OT that are based in the NT (many of which speak of salvation)? Are an understanding of these passages not "central" to the message of the Gospel?

According to what you are saying here, a Christian could essentially toss his/her copy of the OT because it is now antiquated and no longer necessary for growth in the Christian life! Are you sure about that? This is very sad indeed.

You say that one need not know anything about the OT in order to be saved, and then have the gall to call me a dummy? I don't think that needs any further comment.

 

"These are exactly the kinds of "limitations placed upon God" that one poster was referring to earlier. Do you really want to say that everything in the Bible that would fall into the category of "physically impossible" needs to be mis-interpreted as non-literal because they are "unreasonable?" Well, that would rule out all the miracles in the Bible. Further, that would rule out the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and all believers after Him (unless resurrection from the dead is not physically impossible). Worst of all, your hermeneutic of reason would force you to deny the very existence of God Himself (unless of course it is not physically impossible for an infinite, eternal being to exist). "

This misses the point a bit I believe. It is true that the virgin birsth and the ressurection and other events in the Bible are outside of our normal experiences and would be considered impossible without supernatural occurances.

But, in the case of origins, the situation is quite different. God could have done things any way which He chose, but afterwards there are restrictions if He is the God portrayed in the Bible. The evidence He left in His creation is undeniably that of billions of years of existance and of common descent.

That restricts us to one of two situations. Either God really did use common descent as a means of creation or He created in six days and went through a lot of trouble to make things look like common descent had happened and gave the earth billions of years of geography that did not happen and gave the universe a 13.7 billion year history that did not happen. He could have done so but it would at least have to be considered deceptive and outside of His apparent character.

 

And my answer is very clear: There is no such thing as human depravity and the need to accept the saving work of Christ if there never was a literal Adam who literally fell into sin in a literal Garden of Eden. This is Theology 101! It seems to me that you want to affirm man's depravity but you want to dismiss the details of the biblical account that confirms man's depravity - how can you possibly do this? How can one possibly know that man is depraved and lost in sin if we are not sure than man literally fell into sin in the Garden? As I have said, you want to have your cake and eat it to (keep man's depravity and toss a literal Adam). That is not exegeis, that is isogesis and it is dishonest.

Again, how can you recognize the "true central message of wht is being told to us in Genesis" if you don't even accept the details of the Genesis account? That is nonsense. You want to keep the theology of Genesis, because you realize that we are not left with anything to base our beliefs on without it. Yet, you want to discard the historicity of Genesis - AMAZING!

Further, who gives you the right to discern what the central message of Genesis is if the historical details contained within the book are not literal? If the details are not literal, my view of the central message of Genesis could differ from yours, and there is absolutely nothing you could do to disprove me because you have long since abandoned biblical exegesis and exposition. I could say that the central message of Genesis is that one should stay away from forbidden fruit. You couldn't possibly correct my understanding of the central message of Genesis by using biblical hermeneutics, because the second you attempt to use honest exegesis and exposition, then you must be bound by all the theological and logical consequences of that exegesis and exposition! You can't have it both ways!

You can say that you are not pitting one against the other, but I have already clearly demonstrated that sound exegesis will not allow you to read macroevolution into the Bible's creation account, for many reasons. Rather than provide satisfactory responses to those exegetical reasons, you have simply chosen to trust the findings of natural science over what is contained in the Word of God.

By the way, if there is no doubt that macroevolution is true, then why does it still fall under the category of theory? The fact that you believe it lock, stock, and barrel doesn't make it true, does it?

You assert that I make God out to be a deceiver by saying that macroevolution won't wash with the Bible and because I believe that the Bible requires a young Earth. There is a deceiver working here, but it is not God. Rather, it is the devil who has blinded the minds of those within this age to believe such things as macroevolution (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4). Certainly, it is hard to reconcile everything we find in science with the plain exegesis of God's Word, but if we are going to be faithful believers then our first commitment must always be to the Word of God, not science. When God created this world, it is very possible that He created it in such a way that it appeared to be billions of years old (as the evolutionists say that it is). That would make God deceptive, except for this reason: He has told us plainly in His Word how He made this Earth and all things therein. Because some choose to believe what scientists say about this Earth rather than what God says doesn't make God a deceiver. Rather, it proves that some people allow themselves to be deceived because they have believed scientists before they have believed the Word of God!

Here is where you demonstrate your misunderstanding of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics doesn't argue that the Bible has specific details about everything there is to know - in fact, it says just the opposite (Jn. 21:25). But when the Bible provides with details about that which God wants us to know (eg. - Creation and the Fall of Man) then we can't just dismiss the details of those accounts by saying that the Bible is not a Book of Science. According to your logic, the Bible is not a Book of History. Does that mean that we need to reject what the Bible says about the historicity of ancient societies?

To think that such references could possibly affirm macroevolution is certainly not honest hermeneutics. Rather, I've found that a lot of folks look for such references as "loopholes" that they can attempt to use to force their a priori convictions into the Bible through. As a Pastor, I see people do this all the time. They take a passage like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stond" to argue that we should never "judge" the sins of others. We should just accept people where they are love and love them as they are, regardless of whether they ever change or not. Yet, the look past the fact that Christ told the woman to "go and sin no more." Be careful of isogesis - our depraved minds love isogesis.

Then why do you spend your time trying to affirm an athestic theory that can't stand up to the honest exegesis and exposition of God's Word? One must choose: Either believe what the Bible teaches about creation and the Fall of man, or accept what the scientists tell us about the creation of the world in which we live. Until you can provide some exegetical evidence that demonstrates that macroevolution is consistent with Scripture, the burden of proof rests on you.

I'm not the one who has attempted to misrepresent and twist God's Word by forcing macroevolution upon it. Just look at my posts: The only thing I've done is present biblical arguments grounded in sound exegesis. If you call that presenting an "endless string of half truths, untruths, and misrepresentations," then I guess I'm guilty. I'll choose to call it faithfulness to God's Word rather than the wisdome of man.

I'll be the first to admit that some YEers are dishonest with their information. Personally, I don't see much need in investigating all the evolutionary claims of every scientist under the sun. Mine is an exegetical, expository approach, and a lot of folks don't like debating this issue with me because they can't get around the exegetical obligations of Scripture that I lay before them. I have laid several of those obligations before you and Craig, and neither of you have yet to successfully refute any of them from the Bible (as well you can't).

As you know, it could take hours to answer this question. May I simply turn your attention to a book entitled "The Grand Canyon: A Different Perspective" just for starters. It is filled with examples directly from the Canyon that confirm the flood account of Genesis and point to a young earth. If you can get a copy, let me know what you think. To completely answer your question here could be very time consuming. I'd rather discuss some of the particulars rather than engaging is some lengthy scientific debate.

 

Again, you are applying the same weight of authority to your understanding of evidences from the natural order that you would apply to God's propositional truth as found in the Word of God. You may think that your view of the natural order requires an Earth that is billions of years old, but you can't verify that by the Word of God which has plainly told us that such is not the case when you utilize honest exegesis. Which should we place our trust in - our own presuppositions about the natural order, or the propositional revelation that is found in the Word of God? I think you know the answer to that question.

As I have already said, yes God would be deceptive if He had not plainly told us in His Word how He created the Earth and everything that is found therein. But the simple fact is that He did tell us in great detail how he did those things. Therefore, if you or anyone is deceived, it is not God's fault - it's there own fault for not trusting in His Word! Even Jesus Himself said that we can't simply rely on those thngs found in the natural order to sustain us - "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Mt. 4:4). God is not a deceiver, Satan is - and he has clearly deceived many well-meaning Christians into thinking that God couldn't have possibly created things the way His Word says that He did. That is not God's fault, it is ours.

 

"There is no such thing as human depravity and the need to accept the saving work of Christ if there never was a literal Adam who literally fell into sin in a literal Garden of Eden."

Man does not have a sinful nature if Genesis is not literal?

What if the universe is old, common descent did happen, but there was a literal Adam?

Those are two different questions and issues, BTW.

"Further, who gives you the right to discern what the central message of Genesis is if the historical details contained within the book are not literal? "

It is central to the whole Bible! The Bible starts off with our depravity and then spends half the book getting to Christ, a few books on Christ, and then the rest on the teachings about Christ. How can it be missed?!?

"According to your logic, the Bible is not a Book of History. Does that mean that we need to reject what the Bible says about the historicity of ancient societies? "

Fallacy of the slippery slope. No need to respond to fallacious baiting.

"Rather, I've found that a lot of folks look for such references as "loopholes" that they can attempt to use to force their a priori convictions into the Bible through. "

Nope. I started out firmly YE. It was the total dishonesty and lack of facts in YE that led me to look elsehwere in the first place.

"If you call that presenting an "endless string of half truths, untruths, and misrepresentations," then I guess I'm guilty."

Not you. The YE leaders on the other hand...

"By the way, if there is no doubt that macroevolution is true, then why does it still fall under the category of theory?"

Do you understand what a theory is? It is much different than the lay understanding of "theory." Things only get to be called a theory when the are well supported and explain many things about the world. Relativity is a theory and it holds up wonderfully under obseration.

The best analogy would be the theory of gravity. We know gravity exists for a fact but we are still working out just how it works. The theory of gravity and the fact of gravity. Newton made a good stab at it. Einstein gave us a quatum leap in our understanding. And now we are trying to figure it out at a fundemental level.

Common descent is considered a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the mechanisms behind the observed fact of evolution.

Calling something a theory is high praise, indded.

"Then why do you spend your time trying to affirm an athestic theory that can't stand up to the honest exegesis and exposition of God's Word?"

Because it is true. If we are to claim we have the truth, we cannot deny an obvious truth of God's creation. Trying to do so has borne obvious evil fruit as shown in the thread that I linked you to. Did you read any of it? What fraction?

"As you know, it could take hours to answer this question. May I simply turn your attention to a book entitled "The Grand Canyon: A Different Perspective" just for starters. It is filled with examples directly from the Canyon that confirm the flood account of Genesis and point to a young earth."

Have you got a copy? Thre is already a Grand Canyon thread. Maybe you can readup on the issues discussed and tell us what the explanation is.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/29.html

Besides, I am looking for something more specific. Not just an explanation of how something might could be done in a young earth paradigm. Not a list of supposed problems with evolution. But a specific, testible, verifiable fact from God's general revelation in creation that unambigously shows a young earth.

"I have laid several of those obligations before you and Craig, and neither of you have yet to successfully refute any of them from the Bible (as well you can't)."

One, I don't accept your interpretaion. SImply put. I don't think that the Genesis account has to be literal in order for God to communicate the needed information any more than I think the parables of Jesus need to be literal. We disgree on this.

Lucky for us the is a way out. God's own creation records for us His creative means. They include an old universe, an old earth and common descent. Therefore it is imposible for your interpretation to be correct.

 

"You may think that your view of the natural order requires an Earth that is billions of years old, but you can't verify that by the Word of God."

I cannot verify thermodynamics through the Bible, either, but that does not stop me from doing my job.

"Again, you are applying the same weight of authority to your understanding of evidences from the natural order that you would apply to God's propositional truth as found in the Word of God."

They work together. The creation is unambiguous about its ancient age and the means God used to create. The only honest explanation is that your instistance on a literal interpretation of creation is flawed.

Have you ever read biographies of Copernicus or Galileo? YOu will find that the arguments for geocentrism were extremely similar to those for a young earth. Good men honestly believed that a literal interpretation of scripture only allowed for geocentrism. It seems todayeven, to do an honest exegesis that allows for this not to be the case. But today we all know that geocentrism is false. Those passages that MUST have been interpreted literally are no longer interpreted literally. You look upon them figuratively without ever thinking about it.

It WILL be the same for evolution one day. The evidence is so overwhelming that it will only be a matter of time before the realization is made that all of the important lesson of the creation still hold if they are not a literal six day account.

In the mean time ww will contiue to spend time wrestling over something not critical to salvation. We wil continue to have those that insist we have the "Truth" even while denying an obvious truth from God's own creation. We will continuie to lose Christians when they learn the truth and wonder what else they may have been lied to about. We will continue to not reach lost who have come across the dishonest means necessary to prop up YE beliefs and use that as an ecuse not to consider anyhting else we have to say.

 

What translation of the Bible are you looking at? The Bible says,

Genesis 1:1 Bre'shiyt bara' 'Elohiym 'et hashamayim w'etha'arets.
Genesis 1:2 Wha'arets haytah tohuw wabohuw . Wchoshek`al- pney thowm . Wruwach 'Elohiym mrachepet `al- pneyhamayim.
Genesis 1:3 Wayo'mer 'Elohiym, Yhiy 'owr wayhiy- 'owr.

Where in these three verses do you see any indication that verses 1 and 2 are talking about the same “day” as is verse 3? Whether or not the seven days enumerated in Gen. 1 are literal 24-hour days or not is 100% irrelevant to my “spin on the Gap Theory.”

 

My posts are neither illogical nor self-defeating so obviously your inability to understand them is caused by an inability of some kind on your part. I believe that I now know the cause of that inability, but I am not sure that it would be in keeping with the rules of this message board to post what I believe that cause to be. I will say, however, that I am NOT questioning or doubting your salvation.

 

The Bible summarizes this three-four billion years in two verses. Perhaps they are not entirely central and integral to the message of the Bible. And perhaps God gave man enough intelligence that those who choose to use it could figure out this part for themselves. One thing for certain, however, is that nothing that scientists are learning about this period is in anyway in conflict with the message of the Bible, and therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with one’s qualifications to teach Sunday school, that is, unless one places a statement of faith written by men in supremacy above the word of God.

 

Real simple to understand--believe on the Lord Jesus Christ . . ." Christ is our salvation.

I have seen those who promote the issue of believing the whole Bible to be saved. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were the condition we would all have to take a test for salvation that would surpass our lifetime. That's works earned salavation, but not Christ's salvation for those who believe.

 

I don't have a problem with you making this statement, but I have a big problem with you making this statement and providing no exegetical/hermeneutical evidences that support this statement. Your statement and 50 cents will get you a Coke out of most Coke machines. Provide some exegetical evidences that will make a case for this statement or concede that macroevolution is not consistent with God's Word.
</font>[/QUOTE]I've already mentioned the possibility of considering the garden of Edon a separate local for uncorrupted Adam and Eve; which counts for making the scriptures consistent with the reality shown in the earth's fossil and geological history.

Now let me speak to the reference from Paul, that the "entire creation groans". If you take a look at that verse, I defy you to find any hint within that verse that there ever was a time when the creation DID NOT GROAN, being yet not made complete by the arrival and participation of perfected mankind.

This is not contradictory to the statment of God that the creation was very good; it is not yet what it will be when Man has fully become what Man is to be in God, that's all; in the same way, a child is a wonderful thing, and yet the child yearns to become an adult. And meanwhile, creation is forced to "endure" the affects of man's sin on creation.

And by the way, insisting that only your own interpretation of God's propositional, special revelation is true in spite of all evidence against your interpretation is a little misguided, don't you think?

Within this quote, you have basically identified yourself as the sole arbiter of truth.
</font>[/QUOTE]I have news for you. Every one of us is the sole arbiter of truth as we perceive it. Every one of us is capable of having great insights into truth and is capable of self deception as to what the truth really is.

psssst . . . got evidence?

And why do you even think that the Bible is God's special word to mankind? Do you think so merely because the Bible itself says it is so? Many books have a similar claim. Why pick out the Bible for such a reverential status, and none of the others?

Answer: Because of the evidence that supports the Bible. Nothing less will do.

Not internal revelations alone - lots of people in our insane asylums have complelling internal revelations that caused them to be locked up when acted upon.

Not the mere beauty of the work alone - followers of the Koran will tell you theirs is the most beautiful scriptures that could possibly be.

Evidence. That what it takes. Evidence.

Now, if the Bible is to be established by evidence (and the honest seeker will have nothing less) . . . the interpretations of the Bible may also be critiqued by the evidence.

Its as simple as that.

No man placed the galaxies billions of light years away; it was the hand of God that made them and sustained their light for all those billions of years. No man placed the fossils in the earth and sorted them according to eras and ages as if they had evolved; it was the hand of God that placed them there. No man forged the genetic frame of all animals and linked them in a web that shows the common descent each from the other; it was God Himself Who made all life actually live through the ages and ages of common descent that made, as a consequence, those genetic links come out so plainly. No man laid down lying layers into the Greenland ice cap or the Antarctic ice cap; it was God Himself that laid down those snows over the hundreds of thousands of years.

Your quarrel, in the end, is not with me, it is with the God who did all those things and more.

 

I certainly believe in miracles! There are many accounts of them in the Scriptures, and I have seen several of them myself. But there is a HUGE difference between the miracle narratives in the Bible and the story of Noah’s Ark. Show me just one piece of exegetical evidence that the story of Noah’s Ark is written as a miracle narrative and I will reconsider my position.

 

Maybe that is why God did not write the Bible at the 8th grade reading level. It is a good thing that you did not ask me to dummy-down my posts any further!