Evolutionism vs the Gospel

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
What does the Jesus seminar or homosexuality have to do with any of this??

There are plenty of weirdos who believe the bible literally - even hyperliterally.

It is the slippery slope fallacy in action.

He thinks that if he goes to some extreme positions that most reasonable people would not agree to and tries to connect them, however tenuously, back to the age of the earth, that he can score points. He is using the fallacy to suggest that if we do not agree with him on the age of the earth, that we are just a step away from saying anything goes morally and declaring the whole Bible as nothing morethan a "fairy tale" as he puts it.

Logical fallacies, though severly flawed, are quite effective arguments and are quite tempting to use.

 

[Gup20]

Jesus seminar is an actual example of what happens when man's ideas become more true than God's Word to some people.

Homosexual marriage is an example of a concept that is defined by a literal Genesis that has been 'relaxed' because it is - as the evolutionists here say - not an issue that effects salvation.

 

[Gup20]

So you seriously considered being a homosexual before you settled on heterosexuality?

It's more like I rejected the notion of homosexuality the first time it flitted through my mind. For those who are homosexuals, they don't reject the deviation when it comes into their mind. They entertain the idea (aka meditate upon it) and it literally becomes part of their brain chemistry. But these things can always be changed.

Phl 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

Today, scientists are realizing what the Bible has said all along. The things you think about and entertain in your mind form circuit pathways in your brain. The more you think about something, the stronger that circuit becomes. Circuits that connect to the lower level instincts in us (such as sex, hunger, etc) can become especially strong when meditation is followed by realization of that which was meditated upon. For example... if you have an obesity problem it may be because you think about food so much and then go get something to eat. That 'circuit' in your brain is very strong. The homosexual is no different. The first time that homosexual thought crossed their mind, instead of rejecting it as heterosexuals do, that person allows their mind to entertain that idea. It eventually becomes a strong pathway.... especially if the person actually engadges in homosexual behavior. It is possible, however, to retrain the brain... to retrain those circuits and make the 'good circuits' stronger than the 'bad circuits'. The Bible again gives us the answer:

Phl 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Adultery is not a sexual orientation.

Both sexual sins (adultry and homosexuality) require the same choice to follow after that which is ungodly. 'Sexual Orientation' is a man-made term that tries to give the impression that this is 'the way you were born'. It is not. It is a choice of behavior... just as committing adultry, committing rape, committing incest, commiting fornication, committing child molestation, or any other sexual deviation.

It's perverted. So is homosexuality. However, neither person sins, if they don't do anything about it, and don't dwell on it.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I agree that if you don't dwell on it... if you dismiss the thought when it comes to your mind, you avoid sin. But as soon as you begin to entertain the idea, you cross over into sin. In this case, science agrees with scripture in that the thinks you entertain or meditate upon become part of who you are.

The "smell"? What are you talking about, Gup? That's creepy.

Scent has an extremely strong bond with your memory and brain circuitry... moreso than sight in a lot of cases. How many times has the smell of something reminded you of something else - for example you smell hommade apple pie and you think of your childhood days... or you smell lotion and you think of the beach. Scent has a very strong tie to the things you think about... your brain circuitry is very keen on those things. If you investigate into the thought processes of any pedophile and you will see that many of them profess they had a strong re-action to the scent of the young children they molested. It is creepy, yes... but it's also well documented fact.

The awful thing is, pedophiles, genuine ones, are apparently unable to ever be cured of their disorder. But a man who has that affliction has not sinned unless he gives in to it in mind or action.

It can be done, however it is very difficult and requires commitment and the CHOICE to want to change on behalf of pedophile. If those circuits in the mind are very developed, they may be difficult to re-program.

There is nothing "duplicitous" about my view. I said it quite clearly that I think that homosexuality is wrong and that they should not be allowed to marry. I said nothing at all resembling your paraphrasing of "but I don't see anything wrong with it." If that is what you got then you must have read it wrong.

I apologize if I have mis-represented you, however, it seems to me that you said "yes I believe homosexuality is wrong" and you immediately followed that statement by saying you wished to qualify that statement with a defense of homosexuality according to state law. Had you not offered the qualification, we could take you at your word that you beleived homosexuality to be wrong, but you indeed qualified those statements with a legal defense of homosexuality. Is it remiss of me to accept your qualification and interpret your view of homosexuality with that in regard?

Then your impression is wrong.

I can accept that ... provided you do not try to qualify your statments to make them politically correct. Say what you mean, and mean what you say and we'll not have problems understanding one another.

I do not think that your error in this matter effects your salvation at all.

While I realize that this was an expression of pride rather than an actual argument, I would point out that you have yet to demonstrate from a Biblical perspective any error on my part. I have, contrastingly, given you mounds of scriptural evidence to support my position. So indeed the burden of proof is upon you to show us in scripture where the Bible says that Genesis didn't happen as it says it did.

Since I never disagreed with any of that, I do not know what you are trying to address.

I was stating directly what I believe to be true and laying the Biblical foundation for the rest of my statements.

I think that if you were to read the constitution you would find that people have every right to be homosexual. How can it not be a right? That is absurd. People also have rights to do all sorts of other things that I consider to be wrong also. Just because things are wrong does not mean that you don't have the right to do them.

According to your logic, people have every right to be rapists, murderers, robbers, etc as well. Clearly the constitution does not grant complete behavioral freedom, and we have the right ... under the constitution ... to restrict and limit behavior. Because homosexuality is a behavior, and not something someone is 'born with' (such as skin color for example) it cannot be classified as a right because it is not expressly provided for as a right in the constitution (such as freedom/liberty for example).

I suppose that my mistake with you is that I did not come out and say that the activities should be made illegal and we should through 'em all in jail. Maybe that would have been far enough for you.

I wouldn't expect you to be fanatical, but I would expect you to be consistant. If you don't believe homosexuality is right, you should not try to support it with the US constitution. This is why I called your view duplicitous.

For instance people with problems in the sex determining region of their sex determining chromosome. Before you twist my words again, this is not an excuse. The activity is still wrong. Some people may be predisposed to alcoholism or being a cleptomaniac. It is still wrong to do such things.

Yes, there are many corruptions of God's original creation... sin and death expressed in many members of our bodies. However, it does not change the fact that it's wrong (as you have pointed out, thank you) nor that the Bible is against it. Therefore we should be also. We should imitate Christ should we not? What did Christ do when he encountered sin and death? He forgave and healed. So should we. We should also strive to see that God's will is done in the earth. We are, after all, his vessels... his ambassadors. We represent our Master. Temples, all of us... carrying Jesus to those who do not have him. Do you think God is served by changing the definition of marriage from what he ordained it to be? No... I don't think so either. My point is that the same spirit that lets us relax in the face of such an assult on a Godly institution as marriage is the same spirit that lets you guys relax when Biblical aurhority, accuracy, and inerrancy is challenged by man's science.

Temptation is not sin of itself.

I do agree with this. The definition we must find is where does it cross from being a temptation to being sin. Jesus gives us that definition. It is the point at which any part of you - including your mind - accepts that behavior. If you entertain the idea, you have acted upon it with part of your body. The Bible says it would be better to cut off the part that offends you than to allow it to fester. In the context we see that he is referring to our minds. CUT OUT those thoughts... cast them out and take them captive! Think of them no more! Take every thought captive to the will of Christ. Renew your mind daily! FAITH comes by hearing and hearing and hearing. And hearing comes by the Word of God. The things you allow in your mind effect your faith. If you allow your mind to entertain the thought that God's word isn't true and that Man's word can be trusted above God's word, you have allowed your mind to effect your faith.

You are now comparing consenting adults to dirty old men preying on kids?

Pedaphilia is wrong. Those with those tendencies need help. THose that act upon them need punishment and help.

Yes, exactly! And the sexual sin of homosexuality is no different than the sexual sin of pedophilia. It is wrong. Those with those tendencies need help. It is sexual sin. I am comparing sexual sinners to other sexual sinners. It is the same sin expressed in a different way. It's like - is that person speeding by 30 mph or by 40mph? It matters because of degree and because the person going 40 over is endangering people moreso than the person going 30 over... but the crime is the same regardless of degree. The punishment by law enforcement is respective of degree... but conviction depends only on 'did they speed or not'. In our case, the wages of Sin is death. There is one punishment for all sin... and that is death. Doesn't matter whether the sexual sin is overt and victimizes... or consentual behind closed doors... sexual sin is sexual sin. As christians, we need to show the same outrage and disgust with the sin of homosexuality as we would with the sin of pedophilia. But, in my opinion, some may not do so where it concerns homosexual marriage because we have lost Biblical authority in our country. Instead of the Bible determining ultimately our concept of morality - right and wrong - our culture and man's humanistic ideas say it's ok as long as it is behind closed doors amoung 'consenting adults'.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We know that woman wasn't created by God for man because we know from science that both men and woman evolved from apes... by the definition of 'reality' then we should be able to breed with animals if we want to.

I hope this is an attempt to demonstrate the absurd by being absurd because there is not an ounce of logic in that statement</font>[/QUOTE]Indeed. "Answer a fool according to his folly" being demonstrated in action. Realize I am not calling you a fool so much as saying your view is foolish.

Nope. Let me demonstrate a Gup argument.....

Well that smacks of the beginnings of a spitting match... so let me define myself to help avoid that. Several times I have noticed that you will make an argument against what I have said basing it on an aspect of the original argument I have not defined. When I answer your argument by defining that aspect, you state that my definition of the aspect is wrong because of [the topic of the original argument]. By doing this, you never actually defend your position or argument, you simply continuously shift back and forth between arguments. All the while I am making concerted arguments and giving hard data to support the argument - for example giving you the scripture that supports what I am saying. Instead of giving scripture to support your side of the argument, you shift to another argument. I again give scripture to define my side of THAT argument, and you shift to another argument. Your 'evidence' for your arguments are 'other arguments' rather than evidence. Instead of showing scripture to back up your claims, you make more or different claims! That's all I was pointing out. I am inviting you to slow down and examine the scripture rather than take humanistic idea afer humanistic idea.

 

[DHK]

I think we should stick more to the subject at hand, vis-a-vis, evolution vs. the gospel. It is quite evident that the government may pass laws that are morally wrong and anti-Biblical (such as abortion rights), but that doesn't make it right and has no bearing on the subject of creation or evolution.

Let us be of the same mind as Peter:
Acts 4:19-20 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Provide the evidence and go from there.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Jesus seminar is an actual example of what happens when man's ideas become more true than God's Word to some people.

Homosexual marriage is an example of a concept that is defined by a literal Genesis that has been 'relaxed' because it is - as the evolutionists here say - not an issue that effects salvation.

Very true. The idea that you can slice up the Bible without affecting the Gospel -- is a failed one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gina L:
Regarding a non literal interpretation of Genesis, what is the symbolism of God forming Eve from Adam?
Gina

Indeed ... and how does simply "making things up about it" support the literal and authorotative statements that the Bible writers make about these historic facts that "aren't supposed to be true"?

We have the "easterbunny' argument from the evolutionists - that the Gospel writers and Christ Himself were appealing to facts that are false to prove a point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So, you believe all the Old Testament saints (Noah, Abraham, Job, Elijah, Moses, David, etc.) went to hell after they died?

There is no statement that Noah, Abraham, Job, David went to heaven in the OT.

But Elijah, Moses, and Enoch -- yes.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Ah.... wha? Idolizing the Bible? Um... in case you haven't heard or weren't aware... God and His Word are one in the same.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God... 16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

If you believe that the Bible can be an idol, then what you are saying that is that God... almighty God who created all things... is an idol. I would ask the question then... who do you worship? If not God, then who?

I think you've given a better example of what I meant than I could have. You've taken verses that clearly refer to Jesus and instead applied them to the Bible. Based on this, you claim that the Bible is God. To me, that is idolatry.

 

[BobRyan]

Mercury - you have already admitted that the text of scripture IS NOT teaching evolutionism -- but rather the CREATOR is teaching CREATIONISM as HE speaks of HIS work in CREATING not only the SUN and the MOON but all life on this planet and even identifying the exact evening and morning SEQUENCE that He used to do it.

Why then do you ALSO try to engage in debates about "interpreting the text wrong" when you already admit that the text IS creationist and God needed to do that since the Bible cultures were too stupid to be told the simple truth that God did absolutely nothing at all - that it all "is fully explained starting with nothing - by the junk science of evolutionism"?

Since He could not tell them that "wonderful truth" -- you claim He had to "make stuff up" -- stuff that as it turns out -- is Creationism.

Why then when Creationists AGREE with part of your statement (in effect the Bible IS teaching Creationism) do you have the need to dispute and debate what you already argue in favor of???

Kind of inconsistent on your part.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a point that zeroes in on the focus of this thread from Romans 1

Evolutionism denounced in Paul’s Gospel --

Romans 1

Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

What a blow against evolutionism! Paul declares that what is Known about God is KNOWN through what He has made – “being clearly SEEN and understood through what has been MADE”.

His invisible attributes made known and “Clearly seen” by “what has been MADE” by God. (Not by what has evolved on its own – nothing else needed – fully explained WITHOUT God).

Not since “the evolution of the world” but since the “creation of the World”

Paul relies on the fact that God MADE that which we SEE rather than arguing it “simply evolved – from nothing and EVERY step is fully explained by the junk science of evolutionism”.

His conclusion” so they are without excuse” could not be true IF it is impossible to conclude that God actually MADE what we see.

AT this point we see a striking parallel in Acts 14 where Paul connects the Gospel DIRECTLY to our understanding of God as Creator – Here Paul quotes the 4th commandment and its UNIQUE language.

Acts 14
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out
15 and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.

16 "In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways;
17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."

Also notice that Nature is that which God MADE – and it is the actions of nature that provide rain and food that get our attention. Which leads us to the clear fact that God MADE nature directly therefore it speaks to the character and attributes of its MAKER so that “they are without excuse” as Paul said.

But notice how evolutionism shuts this Gospel claim of Paul down “to zero”.

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
Excerpt –

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

</font>[/QUOTE]This is how the pagans in Romans 1 could easily have turned AWAY from that evidence of what God MADE – claiming that in fact evolutionism MADE it – and “it explains everything” and it does so “Starting with nothing”.

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


Unbelief and Its Consequences

Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Clearly - they are without excuse BECAUSE God DID manifest Himself as described in the text and STILL they refused the God that "DRAWS ALL MEN unto Him".

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

They claim they are “informed” and “enlightened” but like evolutionists today who claim that we are made in the image of monkey-brain eating hominids – they “exchanged” the glory of the incorruptible God for that of animals.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Paul’s Gospel in Romans 1 continually comes back to the point that God is the creator and that the pagans deny this. They refuse to see IN nature – the work of God’s hands in MAKING what they SEE. They exalt their own stories, junk science and philosophy “Rather than the Creator”.

Certainly we see Dawkings, Gould and others doing that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

And right here lies the greatest HARM to Christianity; people who claim to be "loving" Christians speak out against all who accept the findings of science and tell them, stridently, loudly, unrelentingly, that they are enemies of God. That their knowledge must be suppressed and they must give up what they know in order to come to God. Such an invitation is anathama to any sincere seeker after truth, and perhaps accounts for some of the opposition to religion by men like Dawkins.

Because, like it or not, the scientific evidence comes down in favor of evolution and the ancient age of the universe.

 

[Gup20]

I think you've given a better example of what I meant than I could have. You've taken verses that clearly refer to Jesus and instead applied them to the Bible. Based on this, you claim that the Bible is God. To me, that is idolatry.

When the Bible clearly teaches that the two (God and His Word) cannot be separated, then I see them as one. Unless these new testamnet scriptures are fairy tale as well. I can see how you could think that, however, seeing as how you have already delegated Genesis to fairy tale. You are already MUCH farther towards rejecting Christ than you are even aware. The whole foundation of your faith is undermined, and you are 'one good piece of scientific evidence' away from rejecting Jesus. Idolizing the Bible? What's next... that I am idolizing Jesus? Millions of Catholics idolize Mary and the saints... what say you on that Merc? Mercury, you idolize MAN - you are a humanist who believes the word of MAN above the word of GOD. What about your own idolatry? Yet you are willing to say that we idolize the Word of God?

That their knowledge must be suppressed and they must give up what they know in order to come to God. Such an invitation is anathama to any sincere seeker after truth, and perhaps accounts for some of the opposition to religion by men like Dawkins.

Because, like it or not, the scientific evidence comes down in favor of evolution and the ancient age of the universe.

That is not so, PoE. We don't ask them to give up what they know about science... we ask them to give up the fairy tales about evolution. It's not that we need to suppress knowledge, it is that the knowledge you currently have is wrong. It must be changed to include the scripture, otherwise it is eternally wrong and will never find truth. When you exclude the supernatural causation from a supernatural world, all you are left with is the physical.

Evolution has an a priori committment to materialism, uniformitarianism, and naturalism - even Dawkins admits this. We are saying that this is wrong... not that it should be suppressed, but that it should be updated to include the truth instead of excluding it as current evolutionary belief does by design.

Also keep in mind that the science of origins and history is completely different from operational science. For example, the science that drives computers, cars, and nuclear power plants has absolutely no relation or reliance upon evolution being true whatsoever. What then DOES the science of origins effect? The only thing it REALLY effects is people and their attitudes toward the present and the future. Their idea of history influences what they do in the present and in the future. In a lost and fallen world where we are trying to save lives by bringing them to Jesus, this false history is driving literally billions of people away from the Gospel of Jesus.

The communist Marx said "if you can change a people's history, you can change them into anything". That is what evolution has done... we see it having almost completed it's course in Europe and England... now it's trying to change us here in the USA. We need to get back to the 'original version of history' presented by the BIble. And keep in mind, it was Young Earth Creationists who began and fueled the 'age of reason' where science started taking such a strong hold. It was a desire to confirm God's Word in nature that lead men such as Boyle, Linneaus, and Newton in their work.

And right here lies the greatest HARM to Christianity; people who claim to be "loving" Christians speak out against all who accept the findings of science and tell them, stridently, loudly, unrelentingly, that they are enemies of God.

As opposed to those in your camp who say that we can accept the world's ideas... even though contrary to the Word of God and it's ok. All of our humanistic and christian beliefs can coincide together? You guys even promote dismissing any portion of the Word of God that does not agree with the ALL MIGHTY WORD OF SCIENCE. You are changing Christianity into Humanism and promoting a perverted worship of a distorted God. You remove all power and authority from God and His Word and expect people to then line up to worship Him as God. You try to tell the world that they can continue to dispise God and serve Him at the same time.

No, sir. The greatest HARM to Christianity comes when you try to change God into something He is not to make Him more pallatable to the world. The greatest harm comes when the Word of God is undermined and discounted as not actual, literal, or true. Our whole faith is based on the Bible which is founded upon Genesis. To dismiss the foundation of our faith causes the structure our faith relies upon to crumble. If you believe in Jesus, then you do so because of what is written in the Bible. If you then find ways to dismiss portions of the BIble, you have undermined the very reason for your faith.

 

[Gup20]

Oh...

And we still have no Bible verses describing how Genesis isn't a factual event - however we do have plenty of new testament verses that we have already quoted showing how they saw those things as literal and actual events (creation, the flood, etc).

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Mercury - you have already admitted that the text of scripture IS NOT teaching evolutionism

I have said that the Bible does not teach evolution any more than it teaches electromagnetism. However, I do not believe that every scientific concept needs to be explained in the Bible in order to be true.

the CREATOR is teaching CREATIONISM as HE speaks of HIS work in CREATING not only the SUN and the MOON but all life on this planet and even identifying the exact evening and morning SEQUENCE that He used to do it.

I notice you left the stars out of that summary. But oh, that's right, you don't believe the stars were created during the six days of creation!

Why then do you ALSO try to engage in debates about "interpreting the text wrong"

Because I feel that how Christians interpret the Bible is vitally important. Many think that holding a different view on creation will lead to wholesale rejection of the Bible. In the interpretational issues that have come up, I've tried to demonstrate that this is not true. Both you and Gup have taken a crack at many passages, and in many cases I think you've shown a terrible disregard for what the words actually say. Whether it's your separation of stars from what's described in the fourth day of creation and Exodus 20:11, or your bizarre take on Genesis 6 where you claim it says the dinosaurs didn't make it onto the ark and were wiped out by the flood, or Gup's idea that Jesus was "bound to hell" along with all the saints who died before his resurrection, or Gup's idea that Jesus saw no distinction between sin and infirmity so that when he forgave someone's sins that also resulted in them being physically healed. Even more serious would be Gup's latest claim that John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13,16 show that the Bible is God.

In these creation threads, I do not think it is the theistic evolutionists who twist the Bible to make it say what it does not say. We may disagree over the genre of a passage or whether it is to be taken literally and historically, but we do not claim a passage is literal, then change the literal meaning to suit what we want it to mean, and then claim our meaning is what the passage literally says. However, I think the examples I gave in the last paragraph all demonstrate this technique.

Evolutionism denounced in Paul’s Gospel --

Romans 1 [...]

His invisible attributes made known and “Clearly seen” by “what has been MADE” by God. (Not by what has evolved on its own – nothing else needed – fully explained WITHOUT God).

Of course, what is really denounced in that passage is naturalism. No theistic evolutionist believes that God did not create the universe, and if after all this time and all these threads you still haven't grasped that, I think that is telling of your interpretational abilities.

Originally posted by Gup20:
When the Bible clearly teaches that the two (God and His Word) cannot be separated, then I see them as one. Unless these new testamnet scriptures are fairy tale as well. I can see how you could think that, however, seeing as how you have already delegated Genesis to fairy tale. You are already MUCH farther towards rejecting Christ than you are even aware. The whole foundation of your faith is undermined, and you are 'one good piece of scientific evidence' away from rejecting Jesus. Idolizing the Bible? What's next... that I am idolizing Jesus? Millions of Catholics idolize Mary and the saints... what say you on that Merc? Mercury, you idolize MAN - you are a humanist who believes the word of MAN above the word of GOD. What about your own idolatry? Yet you are willing to say that we idolize the Word of God?

I think your post speaks for itself, but I'll answer your last question. You subtly implied that what I said to you personally was actually directed at you collectively -- to all who hold your view on creation. That is not true. I quoted some of your statements about the Bible and said that I consider those statements to be idolatry. I doubt there's many people here on any side of the creation issue who would agree with you that the Bible is God. If we got down to brass tacks, I think many of us who accept evolution would be in closer doctrinal agreement with many of the other young-earthers here than you or Bob are.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Mercury - you have already admitted that the text of scripture IS NOT teaching evolutionism

Originally posted by Mercury:

I have said that the Bible does not teach evolution any more than it teaches electromagnetism. However, I do not believe that every scientific concept needs to be explained in the Bible in order to be true.

Whatever.

The point remains - that your argument about evolutionism is NOT the Christians are "misunderstanding" the text - you AGREE with them that the text IS speaking in terms of creationism (and then you give God some bogus reason for doing it).

So instead of "NOT mentioning" elctromagnetism - you have God holding up a giant easterbunny to explain what is happening in a bogus way that is (by your standards) a lie, but serves to entertain and make God look like He is in charge.

Your approach here is instructive in its all-out defense of evolutionism "at any cost".

the CREATOR is teaching CREATIONISM as HE speaks of HIS work in CREATING not only the SUN and the MOON but all life on this planet and even identifying the exact evening and morning SEQUENCE that He used to do it.

Originally posted by Mercury:

I notice you left the stars out of that summary.

Yes that is a little sidetrack you like to take. But as said before "THE NUMBER" of lights created on the 4th day is already given in scripture - and the number is "TWO".

Now back to the point - your argument has not been that the Christians are getting it wrong - it is that God MEANT to say it wrong.

Why then argue that some are misinterpreting when in fact -- you don't believe that??

Bob asks Why then do you ALSO try to engage in debates about "interpreting the text wrong"

Originally posted by Mercury:

Because I feel that how Christians interpret the Bible is vitally important. Many think that holding a different view on creation will lead to wholesale rejection of the Bible. In the interpretational issues that have come up, I've tried to demonstrate that this is not true. Both you and Gup have taken a crack at many passages, and in many cases I think you've shown a terrible disregard for what the words actually say.

As much "fun" as that game must be for you to play - I don't think you have proven your point AND I don't think this game HELPS you once you admit WE ARE taking the Genesis 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 text CORRECTLY - in fact you claim God MEANT to say it wrong, meant to lie because the people of Bible times were no more ready to hear the truth about Evolutionism than electromagnetism and so insted of being SILENT on origins God gave them an easterbunny story where HE appeared to be in charge.

Once you go down that road - playing this game of "you got a different meaning from some other text than I did" is not helping you at all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Mercury
In these creation threads, I do not think it is the theistic evolutionists who twist the Bible to make it say what it does not say. We may disagree over the genre of a passage or whether it is to be taken literally and historically, but we do not claim a passage is literal, then change the literal meaning to suit what we want it to mean, and then claim our meaning is what the passage literally says. However, I think the examples I gave in the last paragraph all demonstrate this technique.

My point is that you claimed to be IN AGREEMENT with Christians on the interpretation (literal) -- of Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11. You claim that historically, literally God IS telling the story of creationism because the people are too stupid to REALLY be told the truth.

Why then play these other games - you already AGREE with Creationists on what the text IS saying and how it WAS meant to be understood!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Gup20:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That their knowledge must be suppressed and they must give up what they know in order to come to God. Such an invitation is anathama to any sincere seeker after truth, and perhaps accounts for some of the opposition to religion by men like Dawkins.

Because, like it or not, the scientific evidence comes down in favor of evolution and the ancient age of the universe.

That is not so, PoE. We don't ask them to give up what they know about science... we ask them to give up the fairy tales about evolution. It's not that we need to suppress knowledge, it is that the knowledge you currently have is wrong. It must be changed to include the scripture, otherwise it is eternally wrong and will never find truth. When you exclude the supernatural causation from a supernatural world, all you are left with is the physical.
</font>[/QUOTE]There you go again, declaring valid science is fairy tale. Fortunately for the cause of truth, you don't get the final say about the matter; and by opposing the truth, you consign yourself to the sideline of history.

You take what you believe to be the high road and call for the literal interpretation of scripture to have precedence over science; at the same time, you allow science to have precedence over scripture in those areas where you are already yourself convinced by the science. For example, although the scripture asserts time and again that the sun travels across the sky, you believe the true cause of day and night is the earth's rotation, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, for if you went only by scripture, you would reject that science.

In other words, you fulfill the scripture uttered by Jesus when he condemned the lawyers, who lay heavy burdens on the people and yet never lift one of them with a single finger.

Evolution has an a priori committment to materialism, uniformitarianism, and naturalism - even Dawkins admits this. We are saying that this is wrong... not that it should be suppressed, but that it should be updated to include the truth instead of excluding it as current evolutionary belief does by design.

You've misstated the commitment of science. It is not committed to materialism, which would be a doctrine that there is nothing but material things; instead, it is a limitation to only study the "material". It is perfectly fair to see just how far a study limited to only the material will be able to carry you, and I'm sorry for your philosophy that you don't like the results, which are repeatable, objective, based on evidence, and therefore judged to be actually true by many fair minded people.

Also keep in mind that the science of origins and history is completely different from operational science. For example, the science that drives computers, cars, and nuclear power plants has absolutely no relation or reliance upon evolution being true whatsoever. What then DOES the science of origins effect? The only thing it REALLY effects is people and their attitudes toward the present and the future. Their idea of history influences what they do in the present and in the future. In a lost and fallen world where we are trying to save lives by bringing them to Jesus, this false history is driving literally billions of people away from the Gospel of Jesus.

Are you arguing that we should change our minds about the whether X is true because if we change our minds more people will believe in Jesus? Lying for Jesus might be a good short term strategy but it is not a motive that moves me particularly. Try that one on somebody less dedicated to the truth.

I'm open to arguements based on the evidence. Got any evidence based arguments?

That is what evolution has done... we see it having almost completed it's course in Europe and England... now it's trying to change us here in the USA.

The real satanic scheme is to seperate people into two realms; those who accept christianity and those who accept evolution. That way each can claim to have the truth the other rejects. And you and others like you are playing into his plans not knowing it, because you place this barrier of having to deny one truth in order to accept the other truth before the world. Satan really would dread the arrival of an active evangelical movement that accepted science as well; then his cause would have one less ploy to use against the potential believer.

We need to get back to the 'original version of history' presented by the BIble. And keep in mind, it was Young Earth Creationists who began and fueled the 'age of reason' where science started taking such a strong hold. It was a desire to confirm God's Word in nature that lead men such as Boyle, Linneaus, and Newton in their work.

And the men who determined that the earth rotates instead of the sun moving across the sky and who determined that the earth is far more than 6 to 10 thousand years old were also dedicated christians, only they allowed God's evidence in the rocks and skys to inform them of the truth.

As opposed to those in your camp who say that we can accept the world's ideas... even though contrary to the Word of God and it's ok. All of our humanistic and christian beliefs can coincide together? You guys even promote dismissing any portion of the Word of God that does not agree with the ALL MIGHTY WORD OF SCIENCE.

As do you, when the evidence is such that you believe the evidence instead of the bible. You prove this by accepting the science that the earth rotates instead of the scripture that the sun moves across the sky.

You are changing Christianity into Humanism and promoting a perverted worship of a distorted God. You remove all power and authority from God and His Word and expect people to then line up to worship Him as God. You try to tell the world that they can continue to dispise God and serve Him at the same time.

Those are all untrue statements. I will concede that I expect people to worship God as God. The rest is poppycock.

No, sir. The greatest HARM to Christianity comes when you try to change God into something He is not to make Him more pallatable to the world.

God is not going to change to be more pallatable to you no matter what you say. You need to change to what God has really said and done.

The greatest harm comes when the Word of God is undermined and discounted as not actual, literal, or true. Our whole faith is based on the Bible which is founded upon Genesis.

To dismiss the foundation of our faith causes the structure our faith relies upon to crumble. If you believe in Jesus, then you do so because of what is written in the Bible. If you then find ways to dismiss portions of the BIble, you have undermined the very reason for your faith.

Your faith and acceptance of the Bible is not, in fact, based on the idea that it is a scientific text book; rather, you believe it because of evidence such as fulfilled prophecy, credible testimony of witnesses, and God's spirit working to bring about repentence and faith.

These things work with or without a belief in evolution.

Just because you have frozen into a particular interpretation of the Bible does not mean the Bible is really useless unless accepted through your interpretation.

 

[Gup20]

The point remains - that your argument about evolutionism is NOT the Christians are "misunderstanding" the text - you AGREE with them that the text IS speaking in terms of creationism (and then you give God some bogus reason for doing it).

So instead of "NOT mentioning" elctromagnetism - you have God holding up a giant easterbunny to explain what is happening in a bogus way that is (by your standards) a lie, but serves to entertain and make God look like He is in charge.

Exactly. Merc, you claim that the Bible says nothing about evolution, but you scoff at the story the Bible DOES tell (in your opinion) as allegorical, non-literal - which is a clever way of saying "it never actually happened". God, however, says it happened and we have decided to believe what He says.

I quoted some of your statements about the Bible and said that I consider those statements to be idolatry.

If by 'the Bible' you mean the covers, paper and ink, then you have totally misunderstood what I said. I said The Word. The Word is the 'content' of the Bible... not the paper and ink itself, but what is contained by the paper an ink. The Word of God.

If you think that the Word of God is idolatrous, yet believing the man's word over God's Word is not, then you are seriously decieved. You worship your prophet Darwin at the altar of humanism and you claim that the Bible is idolatrous? Wow.

Because I feel that how Christians interpret the Bible is vitally important. Many think that holding a different view on creation will lead to wholesale rejection of the Bible. In the interpretational issues that have come up, I've tried to demonstrate that this is not true. Both you and Gup have taken a crack at many passages, and in many cases I think you've shown a terrible disregard for what the words actually say.

Yet you quote no scripture to back up your point of view... and you can give no reference to refute our point of view. Your entire interpretation of the Bible is determined solely by the word of man... or OTHER MEN's interpretation of the Bible... and you don't even know WHICH scriptures they interpreted or why. You dogmatically preach evolution as fact and try to claim that the Bible accepts it yet you can't show a single scripture to corroborate your story. You claim that the things we say (and mind you we are almost continually quoting scripture to back up what we say) are not true, yet you have no scriptural evidence whatsoever.

Your position is absolutely flat when it comes to scripture and the Bible. You have no case whatsoever because there is no scripture that advocates your false doctrine. You have resorted to ad hominem attacks, whispers and implication rather than arguing or presenting what you believe. In fact you have yet to present any scripture to support what you believe.

Until you are able to do that, there is no reason to take anything you say about evolution or the origin of any species on earth, including mankind, seriously. We have shown you how the Bible supports a very different version of history, and how evolution contradicts the plain, literal, clear, normal... and even non-literal interpretations of Genesis. We have shown you how the whole of scripture, including the New Testament supports the events written in Genesis as actual events. You have shown us nothing but the word of man which contradicts the Word of God. You have no Biblical evidence and you are more than willing to dismiss the portions of scripture that contradict your humanistic views.

Gup's idea that Jesus was "bound to hell" along with all the saints who died before his resurrection, or Gup's idea that Jesus saw no distinction between sin and infirmity so that when he forgave someone's sins that also resulted in them being physically healed. Even more serious would be Gup's latest claim that John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13,16 show that the Bible is God.

By all means I welcome your discussion on these matters. The only condition I place on that discussion is that you argue FROM THE WORD OF GOD and not from the word of man. I don't have everything 100%... I know that and freely admit it. But you have given me no scriptural reason NOT to believe as I do. You only scoff and mock using ad hominem to claim my arguments regarding creation are flawed because you don't agree with my interpretation in other areas. Well... you have yet to offer a scriptural argument for either... so either accept what I am saying as truth or demonstrate from scripture where I am contradicted.

As a human, Jesus partook in the death of Adam. That death is a punishment for Sin. The difference between Jesus and all other people is that Jesus never sinned. We share in Adam's fate because we are all decended from a dead being. However, we deserve the fate as well... there are none innocent. All have sinned and fall short. Jesus was the FIRST and only who both shared in the punishment of Adam (death) yet deserved it not.

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

Was Jesus the first to escape from Hell? Did all the saints go there? Lets see -

1Cr 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Cr 15:21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jhn 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
Jhn 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

It seems pretty clear that no one was 'going to heaven' or going to 'be with Jesus Faither in heaven' unless it is through Jesus. NO MAN. ALL.

Also... I would point out a distiction for the "bible being God"... I said that the Word was God... the Bible tells us God's word, but it is just paper and ink. The Word is Jesus... Jesus is God. God and his Word are one. God and Jesus are one.

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jhn 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Jhn 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Jhn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

Clearly there is connection (v 17) between the Law of Moses and Jesus. Jesus is the fullness. The law, grace, and truth make up 'The Word'.

You can't have the 'good news' without the 'bad news'. When you dismiss the bad news in Genesis, you dismiss the reason for the good news. If the bad news isn't real or literal, how can we say that the good news is real or literal? That road leads directly to denying Jesus as real or literal.

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

So when you guys say "it's not important to believe in literal Genesis because it doesn't effect my salvation" we say that you are wrong... it does indeed have the capability of leading a person to reject their salvation... as we see in the case of the Jesus Seminar (they are the best example).

 

[Gup20]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mercury:

I notice you left the stars out of that summary.

Yes that is a little sidetrack you like to take. But as said before "THE NUMBER" of lights created on the 4th day is already given in scripture - and the number is "TWO".</font>[/QUOTE]Keep in mind that God made the stars on the 4th day, but that doesnt mean that the light from the stars showed up on the 4th day. Bob is correct when he asserts that there were TWO lights.

Humphreys cosmology (a universe with a center and edge) give us some insight into how this might have been possible. However, we are not required to understand how it is possible to believe what the Bible says is true.

 

[UTEOTW]

Humphrey's cosmology shows that he neither understands cosmology nor relativity and little else.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main