Fundamentalist view on creation vs. evolution

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

 

Yes, there are lost evolutionists and lost creationists, and some are even Baptists.

Those who “deny” parts of Genesis don’t believe the Bible. Those who understand parts of Genesis to be non-literal believe the Bible – they just believe it means something different than those who subscribe to a more literal interpretation. For what it is worth, there are believers who do not believe Genesis 1 and 2 are to be interpreted literally who are not evolutionists.

If I understand the intent of your words correctly, you are concerned that some who claim to believe the Bible have chosen to believe that the earth is millions of years old, but should not.

Many Bible-believing Christians do not see a conflict between a very old earth and the material in Genesis. Since (as far as I know) Genesis does not provide a timeline for dating the age of the earth, the matter is up for discussion.

Obviously we do not agree in interpretation of certain passages, but we can certainly affirm that the biblical materials we have in Genesis are truthful, reliable and reveal God’s role and intentions as Creator.

 

Both Jesus and Paul affirmed that Adam and Eve are literal, historical people. Believing such is crucial to a correct interpretation. Of course, people can believe whatever they want. However, only one view is correct.

Not interpreting Gen. 1-11 is the product of eisegesis and not exegesis. There is no sound or solid exegesis that supports such a conclusion. A non-literal understanding of Gen. 1-11 is the product of a need to take a more broad interpretation. I am very surprised to see BB as one who waffles on this issue.

 

Who said anything about Genesis 1-11? Looks like you are assuming a certain interpretation instead of reading what I have actually written. I was only referring to Genesis 1 and 2.

Asserting your opinion does not make it true.

Again, it sounds like you’re thinking of a specific theological model that I don’t happen to believe. If you’re going to condemn my position it would be helpful to make an attempt to understand it.

There’s no “waffling” here. You’re jumping to false conclusions yet again…

 

Ed thumbs through the basics of Fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture
2. the diety of Christ
3. the substitutinary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Nothing about creation vs. evolution.

John6:63: "How can one deny and call parts of Genesis
a “metaphor” or refuse to believe the earth isn’t
millions of years old and call themselves
“Bible believing Christians?”

I don’t believe that there is any middle ground on this subject."

I believe there is middle ground where a person
can believe the inspired and infallible Holy Scripture
and not deny the correct teachings of science.
God is the Master Engineer and i am but a minor
engineer (but at least i make a living thereby).
My engineering is based on science not
the Holy Scripture. I stand on the middle ground
yet am a Bible believing fundamentalist Baptist Christian.

I also note that some go far beyond the
fundamentalist Baptist Bible believing Christian
and get themselves into hot water. Trust me,
the universe is unforgiving and what you engineer
that is NOT based on good science will not work.

Interestingly enough, i don't know of a branch of
engineering that has any decisions based on
the age of the earth. My computer assisted
automated industrial process works just as good
if the earth is 12-million years old or was
created last week. So age-of-the-earth theory
is useless to me, an engineering Bible bellieving
fundamentalist Baptist Christian.

 

This thread is being moved to the Creation vs Evolution Forum as it violates the Forum Guidelines.

 

An informed scientist who is also a christian can just as easily argue that the fossil record was formed by God and that in many cases, it is easier to read than the biblical record and subject to less error in interpretation. John6:63, do you agree that the fossil record is the work of God? If so, why should you ignore what it tells you? Why should you ignore what is in the earth with respect to the age of the earth. Why do you rely on one type of teaching, the bible, and ignore almost entirely and dispute what the earth is telling you?

 

>>>>>>>Interestingly enough, i don't know of a branch of engineering that has any decisions based on the age of the earth. My computer assisted automated industrial process works just as good if the earth is 12-million years old or was created last week. So age-of-the-earth theory
is useless to me, an engineering Bible bellieving
fundamentalist Baptist Christian.
_________________________________________________

There are a number of industries that depend very strongly on having accurate information about the age of the earth. Petroleum exploration is one of these. The people who spend the big bucks like to have as accurate information as possible. It seems they almost invariably favor an earth that is a few billion years old.

 

I would be interested in seeing the verses in which Christ said that Gen 1 and 2 were literal.

Hint: Repeating an allegory does not convert it from allegorical to literal.

 

John6:63: "So when science tries to contradict the Bible what do you do?"

The Bible is right.
However, one is obliged to understand the
science and understand the Bible.
If one does not understand the science
or understand the Bible, one should keep
their mouth shut. Wisdom is sometimes
knowing when you don't understand.

John6:63: "I’m still wondering why this tread was moved
when it was clearly directed to the Fundamentalists,
which may not visit this forum? "

Well, it started out about creation/evolution,
so it got stuck here. I'm not a board guru, but
i've found it is not good to fuss with the
board gurus, who by definition are always right.
Anyway, try the PM function instead of crabbing
about the board gurus on the board.

[ May 08, 2003, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Edifier ]

 

I think you've set up a true scotsman fallacy. Only Christians who agree with ME are Christians. A bit narrowminded isn't it?

Another logical fallacy, this one is a slippery slope logical fallacy.

Building a strawman? Why are you so certain that genesis 1 and 2 are to be taken literally? This is not proof that the bible speaks about evolution, this is a complex question logical fallacy.

 

According to you. However there are many Christians who accept genesis as metaphor-containing 'truth'.

And when I say "I believe the bible", I mean I believe the deep truth of the bible.

You are seeing what you want to see and hearing what you want to hear. These scientist friends of yours are probably not evolutionary biologists, or geologists, etc, in fact they probably don't know the first thing about the science in question-therefore what good is their opinion?

This is all your opinion, and that's all it is. In my church, my preacher isn't afraid to mention science, he isn't afraid to tackle the tough questions. I am glad, however, that you have found a church that coincides with your world view and that I have found one that coincides with mine. With that I say a heartily AMEN.

 

>>>>>>There is no doubt in my mind that God created fossils. Do I believe scientists who say that he ran a test on those fossils and determines that they were millions of years old? NO.<<<<<<<

Wouldn't it be wise to learn about those dating methods in depth before condemning them as inaccurate? Your comments about the C-14 method suggest that you know almost nothing about the methods and are therefore not qualified to judge whether they are correct or not. I hope you read my comments of yesterday about how you misunderstand the experience and knowledge required to do the C-14 analysis.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>Thank God I belong to a church whose preacher preaches the Word of God as it’s meant to be preached. Thank God I have a preacher who’s not afraid to hold the Bible above his head and say that this Book is verbally inspired, without error, and infallible in all its affirmations the Word of God that was pinned by the HOLY SPRIT through different authors! AMEN Bro. Monte!<<<<<<

That does not eliminate the stark contradiction between a literal view of Genesis and the solid findings of science. You ignore science at your peril. Imagine what you would think of christians who claimed that the earth is flat based on the bible. I think even you would not have a very good opinion of their judgment and ability. That is approximately what mainstream scientists and others think of those christians who claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

 

There is no reason to imagine, there are Christians out there that believe this. There are also Christians out there who believe that the earth is the center of the universe.

You do speak the truth Peter101. Unfortunately YEC Christians tend to give the majority of Christians a bad image.