More Evolutionary Nonsense

Well there is also a verse that claims the earth has FOUR CORNERS and so the church at that time chose to interpret a flat earth. In the same way that today there are verses that can prescribe a young or old earth (and evolutionary) view. I having learned from the past mistakes of horrible misinterpretation by Church leaders have decided to listen to both sides then seeing if science's latest discoveries can be reconciled with the Bible rather than the other way around. It would be so easy if Jesus was here to interpret the Bible, but instead, we have to accept a historically proven line of misinterpretation that has had to be later changed on most of its science/biology/geology/mathematical/and medical and claims.

The Bible simply doesn't go into these areas in any depth of importance, so why try to hang the whole of what Jesus has done on such ambiguous splattering that can be twisted a number of different ways?

Watchman, as you have just exemplified, a later generation will simply go back and pull a few more verses out of the bible and claim, see it was right here under our noses all along.

 

You can search back a few months and see where people on this board were defending the rights of the slaveowners, and saying that abolitionists were sinning.

 

There is an important difference between Flat vs Round Earth views and creation vs evolution.

The doctrine of salvation by the death and blood of Christ (soteriology) is essentially undermined by the Theory of Evolution.

The Bible alludes to a spherical earth and only distantly to a “flat” earth “four corners “ refers to a primitive stellar compass with the four directions on the four corners of the compass. No salvation questions here.

Jesus Christ (the Creator of the universe) validated the real personalities and male-female sexuality of man “from the beginning of creation”. Adam is identified in the NT as the real identifiable first human being of the 6 day creation of God through whom death entered the created world. The paradigm of creation is literal through out the Scripture.

Theistic evolution becomes a deadly heresy when the personality of God is denied.
Such, I believe, was the Theistic Evolution of Henri Bergson with his “élan vital”
where God is described as a “force” of kinds. Such is the “New Age” paradigm.
This approach invariably leads to the acceptance of abortion, euthanasia and other abominations.

For a Christian to adopt a theistic evolution approach to the creation of man is asking for trouble and a debilitating spiritual disaster when it comes time to define “sin”, “death” and “eternal life” under its paradigm.

Just what did Christ save us from? Sin and death or a flawed evolution? Who sinned Mr. and Mrs. Thalophyte or Adam and Eve?

“from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female”

Matthew 7
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Why not trust Him in this matter of creation also? Who cares what others think.

And if on the other side we find we are wrong so what?

HankD

 

IMO, when we that are saved stands before the Judgment Seat of Christ and we are judged according to our works; I believe we will be judged as to how strong our faith was in the Word of God. Did we allow fallible man’s assumptions and theories to discredit Gods Word or were we faithful in Gods Word despite these so-called “mountains of evidence” that supports evolution.

When I stand before Almighty Christ that day and I realize that evolution is in fact true and Genesis was nothing more that an allegory, then so be it. I guess I was a little too faithful. Shame on me. But if an evolutionist who is saved (only God knows one’s heart), stands before Almighty Christ, realizes that he trusted more on mans theories than Gods word, he’s gonna feel embarrassed and ashamed that he’d put man and his theories and assumptions before God.

How would you rather feel standing before Christ?

 

J: None of us is going to be feeling prideful and wise and sufficient when we stand before Christ. Every one of us is going to feel humble, unworthy, and blessed that we even got there safely at all. Moreover, the odds are we're every one of us going to learn we were wrong about this or that notion when we get there.

 

If a person looks at the scientific evidence for evolution and against YEC fairly and completely and then still decides to reject evolution based on faith alone, I see that as no shame. Some really smart people like Kurt Wise have done the same.

However, that approach is not for me -- I've taken a different path towards reconciling science and faith. Since I did so in honesty and a sincere desire for the truth, I see that as no shame either.

-Neil

 

I do not understand your last comment.

Anyway, where are you getting your odds? We will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and we will be judged according to our works. You can bet on that.

Will faithfulness to Gods Word be apart of those works? I wouldn’t bet the house against it.

 

If a person looks at the scientific evidence for evolution and against YEC fairly and completely and then still decides to reject evolution based on faith alone, I see that as no shame. Some really smart people like Kurt Wise have done the same.

However, that approach is not for me -- I've taken a different path towards reconciling science and faith. Since I did so in honesty and a sincere desire for the truth, I see that as no shame either.

-Neil </font>[/QUOTE]There was a little sarcasm with that quote “shame on me.” I probably shouldn’t have used it.

 

I do not understand your last comment.

Anyway, where are you getting your odds? We will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and we will be judged according to our works. You can bet on that.

Will faithfulness to Gods Word be apart of those works? I wouldn’t bet the house against it. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]What I'm trying to say is - who among us can sit back self assuredly saying we absolutely have a perfect set of doctrinal beliefs? Look at the Calvinist / Non Calvinist debates. Both sides simply sure the other's all wrong. Look at the pre vs other millinum debates. Both sides sure the other's all wrong. On this board, we're all baptists, but we know that lots of christians have decided sprinkling is just fine for baptising. And so forth and so forth for doctrine after doctrine, and this by men who are obviously trying very sincerely to get at the truth.

So I'm expecting that when I get to heaven, to find out that I was wrong about something somewhere along the line.

Not that I have any clues what that will turn out to be, you understand, 'cause if I already knew what that would be, why, I wouldn't be believing that wrong idea anyway! Just that the odds are that's what will happen.

I hope that makes my comment a little more clear.

 

The differences IMO Paul are the Calvinist / Non Calvinist and the pre millennium debates don’t start from outside the Bible. Each proponent uses scripture to back their claims. (Correct me if I’m wrong) The evolutionist on the other hand, do start from outside the Bible with mans fallible scientific theories and assumptions. Atheists and the agnostic community also use these theories and assumptions to attack the Bible's authenticity.

How do you Paul witness effectively to an atheists or agnostic person who holds the same beliefs as you do concerning evolution? I know 2 people that have lost faith in God because of the theories of evolution.

 

John 5
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

Murph

I understand what you are saying and I understand why you are saying it. Let's see, you said:

I have never said that I do not trust God nor have I said that I disbelieve His word. Let me quote again a small part from the link from the BB banner ad at the top of one of the pages.

I agree with this. There is no conflict between science and the word of God. If we really are to take the reading of Genesis literally, then God's creation would not give a different story. God is not the author of confusion. He is not going to give us two different accounts.

What I was doing when looking at both sides was looking for the evidence from God's creation. I wanted to find and expected to find the data supporting the youth of the earth. What I actually found was that the data supported a very old earth and that the people who tried to deny this were not able to actually bring forth any data of their own but were instead reduced to working with a bag of tricks intended to confuse and distort the issue. It has nothing to do with not believing God or His word or thinking that God is not credible.

Believing that God would not lie, and realizing the overwhelming evidence for an old earth, the only answer available to me was that the truth of creation lies in the message being communicated about God and His relationship with man and that the literal reading is a potent way to communicate the spiritural truths in a manner that everyone can easily understand. This is not something that came easy to me, nor is it something that came about in isolation.

That's not quite what I said. The Bible is the inspired word of God. God made sure that were given what we need to know. (But it was written by men.) I just do not see what good it would have done to be completely literal and detailed about hwat happened with a people who did not have the background to begin to understand. God knew what needed to be said. Again, I know you disagree, strongly and passionately, but I do not think that you take away from what God was telling them and us by going non-literal on this.

I do not think that the Bible is incorrect. I do think that fixating on the literal reading is to ignore the implications of what God was having said. The truth is in there, I just disagree with you on whether it is necessary for it to be literal also.

Rather than continuing to ramble on, Neil was close enough when he said

I made a sincere search. I read the Bible. I prayed. I searched. And I came to a different conclusion to you.

Would God's creation lie? I don't think so. Then where is any shred of data to support a young earth? I have not seen any.

 

The differences IMO Paul are the Calvinist / Non Calvinist and the pre millennium debates don’t start from outside the Bible. Each proponent uses scripture to back their claims. (Correct me if I’m wrong) The evolutionist on the other hand, do start from outside the Bible with mans fallible scientific theories and assumptions. Atheists and the agnostic community also use these theories and assumptions to attack the Bible's authenticity.

How do you Paul witness effectively to an atheists or agnostic person who holds the same beliefs as you do concerning evolution? I know 2 people that have lost faith in God because of the theories of evolution. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps if you and others like you weren't telling them they had to choose between evolution and christianity they wouldn't lose their faith when they learned the truth about evolution.

 

Originally posted by post-it:
"It is only a matter of time when evolution will be mainstreamed into every Christian faith."

Maybe in the whore church mentioned in Revelation, but never in God's church.


Luke 18:8
8 ...Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
(KJV)