Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Johnv]

No it's not. Genesis is a narrative. It tells us just what happened. You're choosing to make a narrative something that it's not.

Genesis notwithstanding, a narrative is not literal factual account. A narrative is a literary work that tells a story or account of events, without regard to whether the story is factual or not.

Genesis is not a science text but it is not one bit contradictory to the truth of science.

WIthout regard to the debate at hand, you make a good point. Indeed, Genesis is not a science text, and I don't think anyone purports that scripture ever carries the context of contradicting science. History on the subject dictates, however, that if we have a view of a scriptural passage that contradicts science, that it is likely our view of that scriptural passage (not that scriptural passage itself) that is incorrect. That is evidenced by past attempts to defy claims that the earth is round, that the earth rotates around the sun, or that the sun is not the center of the universe. Even on this baptistboard, there is the occaisional person that pops up claiming that the earth does not rotate around the sun, or that plate tectonics is false, citing scripture. In those cases, the issue is not scripture, it's one's interpretation of scripture. It is certainly within the realm of possibility possible on this topic as well, regardless of where one stands on that topic.

 

[pilgrim2009]

Then answer my question. How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22? It's a reasonable question.


I don't understand the issue with Genesis 3:22. God said that if they will eat the fruit, they will die. They ate it. God said that Adam will return to dust. Then He prevented them from reaching the tree of life where they would be able to live forever. End of story.

If Adam and Eve would have made it to the tree of life after they sinned then they would have lived in that condition for eternity {i.e.spiritually dead}

 

[pilgrim2009]

Genesis notwithstanding, a narrative is not literal factual account. A narrative is a literary work that tells a story or account of events, without regard to whether the story is factual or not.

WIthout regard to the debate at hand, you make a good point. Indeed, Genesis is not a science text, and I don't think anyone purports that scripture ever carries the context of contradicting science. History on the subject dictates, however, that if we have a view of a scriptural passage that contradicts science, that it is likely our view of that scriptural passage (not that scriptural passage itself) that is incorrect. That is evidenced by past attempts to defy claims that the earth is round, that the earth rotates around the sun, or that the sun is not the center of the universe. Even on this baptistboard, there is the occaisional person that pops up claiming that the earth does not rotate around the sun, or that plate tectonics is false, citing scripture. In those cases, the issue is not scripture, it's one's interpretation of scripture. It is certainly within the realm of possibility possible on this topic as well, regardless of where one stands on that topic.

I think Genesis is a literal account from the first verse to the last verse.I have read some of the writings of the early Church Fathers within the first 400 years and they believed Genesis as a literal account of creation etc.

Origen was believed to be a heretic along with the gnostics and they twisted the Genesis account into not being a factual account.

 

[Johnv]

I think Genesis is a literal account from the first verse to the last verse.

I respect that, and I would expect any discerning Christian to respect that. A lot of Christians don't agree with a strict literal interpretation of Genesis, and that should likewise be respected by discerning Christians. (that doesn't even begin to address the diparity between those who believe in a 6kyo earth, a 10kyo earth, those who beleive 6 days were not necessarily 24 hours, etc).

I have read some of the writings of the early Church Fathers within the first 400 years and they believed Genesis as a literal account of creation etc.

I'm a great respector of the early church fathers, but they are by no means in agreement on all issues of faith, nor are they infallible on their views. For example, the early church fathers also believed in a geocentric cosmology, but nearly all Christians consider that concept laughable today. That does not, in any way, belittle the early church fathers or their writings.

 

[Revmitchell]

Reducing to Adam and Eve to figurative language ( and it is reducing) creates huge theological problems. That is the disparity. But of course you already know that.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Again a non sequitur. Nothing to do with the topic. Nothing to do with the statement quoted.

It has everything to do with it. Jesus said unless you humble yourself like a child you will not enter into the kingdom. Taking God at His word is like simple math 1+1=2 God created it, Genesis is the record,and that settles it.....Believe it or not. If you come up with 4 as your answer instead of 2.....well that's your fault.

 

[Johnv]

Reducing to Adam and Eve to figurative language ( and it is reducing) creates huge theological problems. That is the disparity. But of course you already know that.

Let's see if this is the case for those who are nonliteralists. To all in this thread who do not view Gen1 as a strict literal account, does this create theological problems for you?

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis notwithstanding, a narrative is not literal factual account.

1. It says IN the text that it is "an account" Gen 2:3-4.

2. The detail of 7 real days is not only in the Genesis account - it is in the form of LAW in Exodus 20:8-11.

Law is never of the form "for as the Easter bunny has 7 toes so you are to work for 7 days". NOR is LAW of the form "For as God created the earth in 7 something-or-other globs of time -- so you should work 6 days and rest the 7th real day".

3. The term for day "yom" used in the Exodus 20 legal code does not allow for "re-interpreting" each time you find it so that it fits evolutionism.

No modern day Christian scholar has argued that Moses was trying to teach "darwinian evolution".

It makes no sense at all to try to appeas atheist science concerns by insisting that the Plants of Day 3 of creation week came about millions of years BEFORE the Sun of Day 4 of creation week. No real purpose is served in going that route.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for the "popular vote model" -- if we were to go back to the dark ages and then say "for all you Catholic Christians in the village -- does it bother you that Purgatory is not actually in the Bible or are you willing to take it on papal tradition alone?"

I think the "tradition alone" group would have it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No it's not. Genesis is a narrative. It tells us just what happened.

You're choosing to make a narrative something that it's not.

Genesis is not a science text but it is not one bit contradictory to the truth of science.

Saying that taking God at His word is limiting God is ridiculous - and it can absolutely be applied to everything else that God has told us in the Scriptures.

Whether Jesus saves or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether creation account is to be taken literally. It doesn't follow. For instance many people believe genesis to be literal but never have accepted Jesus as their personal savior (addmittedly this is more likely in the southern US but it happens) I know many scholars who believe in a non litereal view of creation yet believes Jesus saves and has taken Jesus as their personal savior. So one does not equal the other. You just wish it were so but it is not. I believe that Jesus is the word. Which if you studied your greek philosophies the Logos being a demurge created matter. John though not regulating Jesus to demurge status also states that Jesus created the universe and maintains it. How? It doesn't say but every christian should jump on board with string theory then huh? Because what is at the basic level of our universe are vibrating strings that make everything. Or God said. But christians are not jumping on this guess at a model of everything. Why? Because you would have to include multiverses and many more dimentions then are observable. Etc. Also String theory is not testable. Which they are hoping to test with the Hadron colider. Though I doubt anything significant will come of it.
So Whether Jesus saves or you believe in the Genesis account of creation is literal is pointless. BTW any telling of a story is narative. Many american native creation accounts are narrative too. You don't believe them and most Natives believe it is just symbolic. Your argument doesn't follow.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It has everything to do with it. Jesus said unless you humble yourself like a child you will not enter into the kingdom. Taking God at His word is like simple math 1+1=2 God created it, Genesis is the record,and that settles it.....Believe it or not. If you come up with 4 as your answer instead of 2.....well that's your fault.

Sorry the force is not with you. Whether I believe the creation account to be literral or that Jesus saves is not reliant on the other. Now I believe the creation account to be an outline but not a scientific exercise into how things were created. I still assert God created the universe. I assert that he maintains it. Just because I believe that the earth has been around a lot longer than 7,000 years doesn't affect the fact that I believe Jesus saves. One doesn't follow the other.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sorry the force is not with you. Whether I believe the creation account to be literral or that Jesus saves is not reliant on the other. Now I believe the creation account to be an outline but not a scientific exercise into how things were created. I still assert God created the universe. I assert that he maintains it. Just because I believe that the earth has been around a lot longer than 7,000 years doesn't affect the fact that I believe Jesus saves. One doesn't follow the other.

Twice you have given this similar statement when it has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Twice you have given this similar statement when it has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

This is what both Jedi Knight and Annsi are saying from my understanding of their post. Jesus saves. And because he saves you must believe in Genesis literally. That does not follow. I'm responding to them that one does not necessitate the other. Jesus saves. Yes I believe that. I do not believe in the ultimate literal sense of the creation account. I believe that the creation account is accurate but I do not believe it to be specific days but outline. Though I hold this view it hasn't changed the fact that I believe Jesus is homoosious with the Father and the Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus is the very incarnate God. I believe that Jesus is fully human. I believe he was born of the virgin. I believe that he rose from the dead. I believe that he ascended into Heaven. I believe he is currently at the right hand of the father. I believe that he's coming again. I believe that he will raise the saints from the dead and we will have resurrected bodies. I believe that Jesus will judge everyone. I believe that you must know him personally and live accordingly. But I still believe the creation account to be outline. So again one does not necissitate the other.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is what both Jedi Knight and Annsi are saying from my understanding of their post. Jesus saves. And because he saves you must believe in Genesis literally.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you saw what was there and I did not break it down for me and show me where this was said in either post.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you saw what was there and I did not break it down for me and show me where this was said in either post.

These are the original post I was referring to. This is annsi

Huh?? Is it putting God in a box when we say that Jesus is the only way to heaven - because He said so?

Is it putting God in a box when we say that salvation is from God only - because He said so??

That is a most ridiculous statement

I never said anything remotely familiar to this. My statment had to do with the genesis creation account not whether Jesus saves or not. Someone said they believed I put God in a box because I don't believe God created the Universe in 6 days. I said I thought they put God in a box because God had to submit to their specific view of interpreting the creation account. Nothing to do with salvation in Jesus. Or belief in Jesus. If I had said I don't believe in Jesus being the only way her statement would be correct. Its a jump.

This is Jedi Knight

1+1=2 Jesus is the only way. Simple logic

He continues this version of what annsi is saying with regard to my statement which didn't follow to begin with.

 

[Revmitchell]

These are the original post I was referring to. This is annsi



I never said anything remotely familiar to this. My statment had to do with the genesis creation account not whether Jesus saves or not. Someone said they believed I put God in a box because I don't believe God created the Universe in 6 days. I said I thought they put God in a box because God had to submit to their specific view of interpreting the creation account. Nothing to do with salvation in Jesus. Or belief in Jesus. If I had said I don't believe in Jesus being the only way her statement would be correct. Its a jump.

She was rightly giving an example of what was problematic with your statement that she was wrong and putting God in a box. Which by the way is the liberal phraseology that excuses anything. But I digress, That statement in no way implied you or anyone who holds to your position does not believe in Jesus.

Is saying that Jesus is the only way putting God in a box since it limits Him. the jump that was made was yours. Not hers

 

[Thinkingstuff]

She was rightly giving an example of what was problematic with your statement that she was wrong and putting God in a box. Which by the way is the liberal phraseology that excuses anything. But I digress, That statement in no way implied you or anyone who holds to your position does not believe in Jesus.

Is saying that Jesus is the only way putting God in a box since it limits Him. the jump that was made was yours. Not hers

What does that have to do with creation? Literal or not? Are you saying she's following this trian of thought.
1. You limit God because you relegate him to your interpretation of scripture for the specifics with regard to creation
2. Are you saying my general interpretation of scripture is that Jesus saves is limiting God?

It doesn't follow. 1. I and every one posted here believes God created (general sense) the universe. We disagree with specifics. Ie specifically 6 days of creation. But all are in agreement with the general principle. God created the universe.
2. Jesus saves is agreeable to all and a general statement. There may be disagreements with specificity. (arguments calvinsim and armenianism would apply here) Two differing topics. So one does not follow the other. Its at best a misdirect.

 

[BobRyan]

No it's not. Genesis is a narrative. It tells us just what happened.

You're choosing to make a narrative something that it's not.

Genesis is not a science text but it is not one bit contradictory to the truth of science.

Saying that taking God at His word is limiting God is ridiculous - and it can absolutely be applied to everything else that God has told us in the Scriptures.

Good points!

1. Genesis 1-2:4 says it is the "Account" of God's work in ORIGINS of all life on earth.

2. Genesis 1-2:4 is summarized in "legal code" (not poetry) in Ex 20:8-11 showing that the day "yom" of the people of sinai is the same day "yom" being mentioned in Genesis 1-2:4.

It is a not-so-subtle point that is pretty hard to miss actually.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Creation week is REAL according to the statement given in "legal code" in Ex 20:8-11.

The fall of man from the sinless and perfectly peaceful state is "real" according to Romans 5 - and that man was "Adam".

The temptation of mankind in the Gen 3 account is "real" according to 1Tim 2 with Eve being the first one to be deceived and to fall.

The Tree of life in Genesis 2 is "real" according to Rev 2 and Rev 22.

Christ himself affirms the marriage details of Genesis 2.

So the perfect paradise and sinless condition of mankind is key to the STARTING point for the Gospel.

Then the literal fall of mankind and subsequent introduction of death and suffering -- is key to undrestanding the Gospel.

It is God who then comes to rescue mankind from that fallen state.

Now let's "imagine" the evolutionist alternative to the Gospel.

"One day Adam is in his cave bashing in his daly ration of monkey brains with a club - when suddenly a 'bad thought' occurs to him and NOW he is doomed to a life of misery until someone comes to restore him to that wonderful cave".

In fact it is even worse "while our homind Adam is having that bad thought he hears a voice speaking words that he has no language skills to understand -- but what they are saying is that all mankind will now be doomed to eternal fire due to his bad thinking that day".

Hence the need of a Savior for the hominids!

Truly such a thing is what Paul would call "another Gospel" in Gal 1:6-11.

No wonder the atheist evolutionists ridicule it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

She was rightly giving an example of what was problematic with your statement that she was wrong and putting God in a box. Which by the way is the liberal phraseology that excuses anything. But I digress, That statement in no way implied you or anyone who holds to your position does not believe in Jesus.

Is saying that Jesus is the only way putting God in a box since it limits Him. the jump that was made was yours. Not hers

What does that have to do with creation? Literal or not? Are you saying she's following this trian of thought.
1. You limit God because you relegate him to your interpretation of scripture for the specifics with regard to creation
2. Are you saying my general interpretation of scripture is that Jesus saves is limiting God?

It doesn't follow. 1. I and every one posted here believes God created (general sense) the universe. We disagree with specifics. Ie specifically 6 days of creation. But all are in agreement with the general principle. God created the universe.
2. Jesus saves is agreeable to all and a general statement. There may be disagreements with specificity. (arguments calvinsim and armenianism would apply here) Two differing topics. So one does not follow the other. Its at best a misdirect.

Okay, Thinkingstuff, I have held my peace thus far about your latest string of smut on this board, but can do so no longer.

There was absolutely no justification for your stunt against Annsni, nor is there any excuse for your creative misrepresentations of the people you decided to make your opponents. More than one of us have noticed that you are playing games.

Here is what it comes down to. "You limit God because you relegate him to your interpretation of scripture for the specifics with regard to creation" -- s/he does not.

You are giving false accusation in order to give yourself an appearance of moral superiority. Rather than face up to it, you persist in it. It is truly disgusting.

The term `putting God in a box' means `saying what God can/will and cannot/will not do.' The lady you have falsely accused has done no such thing.

It is NOT `putting God in a box' to believe that He did exactly as Genesis 1-2 says. It is simply taking the text of His written Word at face-value, and assuming that it happened exactly as He said it did.

If you want to believe
a) God did not really intend for that narrative to be believed as written,
b) that contrary to observation, mutation is a positive thing, and
c) that we are descendents of some mutated monkey-like creature,
go ahead if that is what you have decided. However, please do not be what you sit on towards those that assert `not so, not so, and/or not so.'

Oh, and please spare us the `Oh, that was not what I was trying to do' thing you always try. I have never been impressed, nor will I ever be. Try apologizing and moving on, or just quietly stopping it and moving on.