The scriptures support evolution with a species, but not into different one!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time
- Thread starter kyredneck
- Start date
Did the red Sea actually part. did the Sun stand still, was Jo0nah swallowed up by the whale, or is all of that a metaphorical/myth thing going on?
I just want to note quickly that I have no problem believing that God could and would (if that was His purpose) create all of physical reality in a blink of an eye, much less six 24-hour days. But just because He can do something doesn’t mean He has done it that way. God works according to His purposes and for His own ends.
Why would He?
Maybe you would, but I wouldn’t.
The Triune God apparently created the earliest forms of life of this world to unfold in a certain way toward adaptation and diversity, and helped the process along, allowing (or directly creating) transformations into higher life forms. This was apparently done over an extremely long period of time (in human terms).
Again, why would He do something like that? What would be the point?
Jesus didn’t do miracles for entertainment or to attract crowds. Many of His miracles (water into wine, healings, etc.) were done secretly, or at least, very quietly. Others were done in terms of teaching people or demonstrating that the Kingdom of God was available to them in that moment.
Yes they are.
No. By YOUR hermeneutics, evolution is just paganism.
My hermeneutics have not been properly represented in your arguments.
Now I have some questions for you, based on your implied assertions that both Jesus and the Father must work in the same way, and that the Father working through an extended period is somehow subchristian:
(1) Why didn't God create everything in the blink of an eye? Why did He take -- as you interpret Genesis 1 -- six days? Why -- according to your argument -- do you have a low view of God?
(2) Using your argument, the gospel accounts of Jesus are suspect because He did not take six days to heal people. How could Jesus be doing the same works as the Father if He is doing them immediately? (Yes, I know that the Father worked at different rates throughout the Old Testament, but your argument does not recognize that.)
(3) At the sin of Adam and Eve, why didn't the second person of the Triune God suddenly appear, explain His plan, be crucified by Adam and Eve, be buried by them, and then be raised almost immediately so that the world would only be subject to futility for a brief time and that evil would not prevail upon the earth for millennia? Sounds like "paganism" for God to take so long and allow for extended suffering when He could have immediately resolved the problem. Instead, God instituted certain human situations and cultural processes, calling humankind to Him in many different stages including, the call of Abraham, the call of Moses, the giving of the Law and tabernacle worship, Solomon's temple, the Babylonian captivity, the Second Temple, the incarnation of Jesus, the ministry of Jesus, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension, Pentecost, the present age, and the promised return of Christ, judgment, and fullness of redemption in God's kingdom.
Why would Jesus talk about the process of creation? It was not essential to His mission. Moreover, He may have spoken about it but it was never recorded since we only have a modest record of the teaching of His incarnational ministry.
Back in college, I had a friend who was an Episcopalian and was planning to enter seminary after completing his music composition studies. He and I talked a few times about the subject of infant baptism. One of his major points about the rightness of infant baptism is that Jesus said nothing against infant baptism. Then he pointed out that infant baptism had been the dominant, nearly universal, practice of Christians for well over 1,000 years of Christendom. Moreover, the Bible doesn’t directly speak against the practice either.
I would counter with the many scriptural examples of believer’s baptism and the need to respond to the call of Jesus, not something that an infant is able to do. In response to some of those arguments, he would say something along the lines of, “Oh, so Jesus and the apostles conveniently left out arguments against infant baptism? Right…” It was an attempt to dismiss the evidence I had provided by asserting that “Jesus and the apostles” obviously held his view.
I hated when he would do that because it meant he was not going to fairly consider scriptural evidence. It was an attempt to “win” an argument for the sake of his ego and well as a bit of self-deception.
Now I don’t want to paint a dark picture of this friend because God used him mightily. He later became an Episcopalian priest and founded a home for orphans in Mexico, before his death at 43. He was a man of God, even though some of his theology was not quite right.
Believing differently about these issues does not make any of us “bad” or separate us from Christ.
Either we accept that the inspired scriptures, in genesis, are giving to us real and historical factual events and persons, or else the views of Jesus and Paul in regards to how they view this makes no sense!
You end up with Accommodation theory, that it was myth teaching us spiritual truth....
Sure, the Red (or Reed) Sea actually parted. I’m not sure if the Sun literally stood still or if there was another phenomena in the heavens that gave light for Joshua. I’m quite comfortable stating that there was a light from the heavens that took care of the immediate need of Joshua.
Regarding Jonah, I had long held to a historic, literal view of Jonah, but now I am not so sure. I was invited to speak to a church about an hour west of Fort Worth and I was led to preach on the book of Jonah – the whole story at once. While I was preparing, I realized that the best way to preach the book was to tell the story as a storytelling might tell it around the family table or a campfire. So I went through the translation of the book and smoothed out some of the awkward phrasing (double-checking the Hebrew to ensure accuracy) and then printed out the story and started rehearsing it. After a day or two, I had the story nearly memorized, word for word. When I went to the church, I told the story which ends with a question to Jonah (and to us) about the LORD’s compassion. That naturally led to a section where I made clear the lessons of the story, including God’s compassion vs. Jonah’s contempt, God’s compassion for Jonah despite his hatred on Ninevah, and God’s ability to use horribly-flawed people, among other points.
While I was telling the story to a congregation that was spellbound by the story (especially the children), I realized that the story is told in hyperbole and has a few strange elements that make sense in a story, but not in a literal, historical sense. The stories has places where people are supposed to laugh (“…and the LORD sent a worm…” being the biggest one in my experience, with the line about Jonah being “vomited” onto dry land), as well as some fantastical elements of animals in sackcloth and ashes, repenting for the sins of the land.
Now when I look at Jonah, I think it is quite likely an inspired Old Testament parable instead of a literal, historical account. I don’t make an issue of it either way.
Why would He need to say that? There were no 21st century Americans in His audience. They were already quite familiar with “Adam” being a symbol for all humankind.
Haven't you ever noticed Genesis 5:1-2?
Genesis 5:1-2
This is the book of the generations of Adam [אָדָ֑ם– transliterated, “Adam”]. In the day when God created man [אָדָ֔ם– literally, “Adam”, but usually interpreted as humankind], He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male [זָכָ֥ר– an adjective indicating “masculine”] and female [וּנְקֵבָ֖ה – a noun meaning “feminine”], and He blessed them and named them Man [אָדָ֔ם– literally, “Adam”, but usually interpreted as humankind] in the day when they were created.
This is the book of the generations of Adam [אָדָ֑ם– transliterated, “Adam”]. In the day when God created man [אָדָ֔ם– literally, “Adam”, but usually interpreted as humankind], He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male [זָכָ֥ר– an adjective indicating “masculine”] and female [וּנְקֵבָ֖ה – a noun meaning “feminine”], and He blessed them and named them Man [אָדָ֔ם– literally, “Adam”, but usually interpreted as humankind] in the day when they were created.
So Genesis itself uses Adam to indicate all of humanity, both male and female.
Of course not. You have set up a false dichotomy that insists that Genesis has to be literal or else Jesus and Paul didn't know what they are talking about.
I have already explained how both Jesus and Paul likely understand Genesis, giving scripture to illustrate the point. It may not "make sense" to you, but it makes sense to me and many other people, including some of the finest scholars in the world.
So were the parables of Jesus literally and historically true, or were they big lies?
Jesus used stories that were not literally and historically true to teach us spiritual truth. And that is not necessarily "accommodation theory" (whatever that means to you) because people of that era and culture understood stories and myths much better than we do in our culture.
In our culture, when we begin with the words, "Once upon a time...", our audience knows that we are telling a story that is probably not literally, historically true, but we are not intending to deceive. We have to have verbal cues like that in our culture because we are not adept (in Western, 21st century society) at recognizing metaphor and myth when it is told. The Genesis stories of creation are quite similar in form to other cosmological myths of the culture (using similar themes and images), but are radically different in how they portray God, humankind, our purposes, and the ordering of creation. Seem in the context of the culture, it is clear it is a true myth.
Matthew 12:40, was He wrong or right?
So which aport of the OT was mere myth, and which parts of it were actually historical factual?
Were the demon possessions really happening at time of Christ? Did the Donkey really speak? Did God and 2 Angels vist Abraham, and then the angels destroyed Sodom?
The first thing I need to say is thank you for giving a specific scriptural reference. Too many of these exchanges (not just you) involve broad assertions not backed up with a scripture reference. I think a careful examination of this passage, not just verse 40, will be enlightening:
Matthew 12:38-41
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
Let’s break it down carefully:
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
The scribes and Pharisees wanted to see a sign that would be indisputable (as if that existed for unbelieving hearts), so they pressed Jesus on the matter.
But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet
So Jesus tells them that He is not there to do tricks for evil and unbelieving people. Instead, He directs them to the well-known tale of Jonah, the prophet and draws a comparison:
… for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jesus compares Himself to Jonah’s three day and three night experience in the belly of the monster to His upcoming time in the tomb, which He non-literally calls “the heart of the earth. His time in the tomb is also not literally “three days and three nights,” simply three days and two nights (although some work very hard to make it fit since they insist that Jesus must me literal here), and Jonah is alive in the belly of the monster while Jesus is physically dead while in the tomb. Jesus is not using literalism here, He is making a reference to a story that they would know that has symbolic resonance for them.
The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
Why did Jesus use the example of Jonah? Because of the three-day reference AND so He can compare His accusers to the men of Ninevah who did repent because of a simple declaration from Jonah, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.”
But Jesus is greater than Jonah and He is giving them all kinds of evidence.
That being said, I think you can make a much better case for Jonah being a literal, historical person based on Matthew 12:41 because of a reference to men who heard Jonah being at the judgment, than a simple reference by Jesus in Matthew 12:40.
Now, back to your question: “…was [Jesus] wrong or right?”
Jesus was obviously right that His death and resurrection would be the only sign that evil and unbelieving people would necessarily get.
But in light of our discussion, you are asking a question that Jesus is not addressing. He is simply making a scriptural reference, not asserting that it is literal history.
Again, I just want to point out that I lean toward Jonah being an allegory, but I have no problem with it being literal and historical. I also want to point out that it make NO DIFFERENCE whether or not it is an allegory or literal and historical in regard to the teaching of Jesus.
Your question drips with venom (that’s a non-literal statement). I have NOT claimed any part of the Bible is “mere myth.” That’s your foul assessment, not mine. You have also introduced a new term into our discussion, “historical factual.” Please explain what your terminology means before I answer any other questions related to those terms.
Sure. They happen now too. I’ve dealt with the demonic in my ministry.
Sure. Why not?
Sure. Genesis 12 marks a change in the Book of Genesis that moves away from the foundational truths about God and humankind and begins the story of God working with Abraham and his children to redeem humankind.
You really need to stop letting Don Stewart think for you. He asserts that just because Jesus and Paul make references to Old Testament figures, that proves that those figures were literal and historical humans.
Just because I reference the prodigal son that Jesus talked about doesn’t mean that I think he was real. That's not logical or biblical.
So when the scriptures in the NT refer to historical OT figures and events, we have to guess if they were meant to be taken as literal, or just used as storytelling?
No. We don’t “have to guess.” Careful students of scripture understand that there are various types of literature in the Old and New Testament books, and the passages must be interpreted in light of their genre, historical setting and their purpose. We gain insight into these elements through internal and external research. There may be disagreement about some of these elements, but the process has nothing to do with ‘guessing.’
I have noticed a pattern in our discussion. You feel free to quiz me about everything – sometimes the same question over and over – yet you are quite unwilling to tackle any of the questions I have raised in this thread, or even substantially respond to evidence that I have provided… for instance, how the writer of Genesis uses “Adam” to mean the male and female of humankind.
Why do you avoid engaging with the evidence I provide?
Your "evidence" is not concerning with the proofs of scripture, but trying to get them to assert evolutionary lies.
Genesis 3:20 one Adam, God created from his rib one Eve, who was One mother over all who live after her. Truth, or some type of myth?
Ah, now the personal attacks. You think I am a liar, telling lies, unconcerned with the "proofs" of scripture.
You need to think through this very carefully -- Does scripture self-identify your favorite passages as "proof" of six, 24-hour, day creationism, or are those YOUR proofs?
True myth. They are not contradictory.
Genesis 5:2
"He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man [literally, the Hebrew says "adam"] in the day when they were created."
"He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man [literally, the Hebrew says "adam"] in the day when they were created."
So, is Genesis 5:2 true or false? If true, my point is made. If false, you are rejecting scripture you don't like.
NOT calling you a liar, but would say someone who has bought hook, line, and sinker the false teachings under girding trying to mix evolution and the Bible!
I've noticed that you avoided answering my direct question about Genesis 5:2. That's quite telling.
God created a Adam, and a Eve by special creation, and they were considered both to be "Man"
And the word translated and interpreted there is literally "Adam" in the Hebrew. So even Genesis uses the word "Adam" to speak of a population of male and female persons. Since it is done in Genesis (presumably by the same author who composed Genesis 1-3), you have no reason to make blanket assertions that Adam only refers to a single person when referenced in the scriptures.
Thank you for finally acknowledging that point.