I wanted to come here today to throw something you all's way. I have been debating for about 2 weeks now an ex christian, evolutionist on facebook. We have gone back and forth, but whenever I put up a response which I think is fullproof and provides evidence for Creation, he comes back with other information as well as sidetracked info. Here's the last post he made:

"Okay, I finally feel like responding :) There's a lot to respond to.

Macroevolution has been documented, as I noted in my previous comments. The only way we can directly observe this is to use life forms whose life spans are short enough to pragmatically allow the collection of data from many generations, namely insects and microbes. It is impossible to demonstrate this for plants and animals that live for any longer than these, because the data would take too long (centuries, millenia, etc.) to allocate a useful pattern. That is why the fossil record speaks with such clarity. (more on this later)

I have looked and looked for this example of Galapagos finch (the species you did not name) and the 4% change in beak sizes. I could find nothing online. Maybe you could point me to the reference. Regardless, the finch's lifespan - around 15 years - shows that the time frame of observation that you noted, 1970-1990, is wildly insufficient to draw any conclusions whatsoever. Further, a currently living generation does not change - it is their offspring which change. Since whoever conducted this research had enough time to observe two, maybe three generations at best, I cannot see how even observation of a change of 4% - and back again - is even possible, especially between seasons. It sounds like someone who understands nothing about evolution made up another wild story against evolution, which is much more common in creationist circles than is believable.

RE: The fossil record, it is very important to understand that what is contained in the fossil record is such a tiny fraction of the history of life on earth. What is preserved had to have died in a place with elements that can preserve the animal's remains, and that is highly uncommon for mobile, land-based life. There's a crack ton of sedimentary layers, listing in delightful detail the stages of evolution that occurred in the ocean, because crap settled on top of crap (for lack of better terms) and there has not been much disturbance, as far as percent ratio of ocean floor is concerned. For land-based life, what we have in the fossil record, we are lucky to have.

















This is why it is perfectly reasonable to take pieces of the grand puzzle and, though some of it has gaps the size of the grand canyon, make conclusions about the processes of evolution. There are also fossil records which have generations of similar species that hung out in the same area over time. So much evidence! The clusters you see is where plants and animals were in a place that happened to have elements which preserved fossils, for example a volcanic area, one prone to sediment cycles like clay or mud, tree sap, or other viscous substances.

You kind of jumped around near the end, no longer talking about evolution, but rather the origin of life. There are many scientific hypotheses regarding that, but the most widely accepted one has not been the "primordial soup" for quite a long time. It's an oceanic theme, complete with a love affair with a volcanic vent. It has much more to do with chemistry and physics than I can explain coherently. I can say, though, that life arose from organic materials, which are much more prevalent in the cosmos than you might imagine :)

I will grant you the difference between church sheep hypocrites and talking/walking Christians... however, even they tend to quietly discriminate and tend to not defend the rights of non-believers or those of other faiths, which in most cases is the most destructive path to take. Some of my most trusted friends are Christians involved in the liberty movement. The key is not the faith, but rather the understanding of and respect for natural rights, and in that there is peace.

I, and those guys on this video "The Atheist Experience," have yet to come across testable evidence in support of creationism. I honestly do not think it is possible, as you would basically need to prove magic. Your questions, my friend, have answers - but the great thing about science is that the questions never end! I'll send you some useful videos if you're interested."


You can probably infer some of the things I brought up from his response. I'm not arguing out of pride but out of a desire to defend God's word. I just don't know if saying anything else to him will do anything, I feel like he's ignoring the facts. But I guess he feels that way about me. What do you guys think about his post?

Nothing really wrong in those responses. Without seeing your arguments I can't really offer much as to their validity.

Then again, I am of the probably of the same opinion regarding evolution as your atheist friend.

If you are attempting to witness to this person, then by essentially arguing that one must completely subscribe to the plain reading of a six day creation, you will only put a massive stumbling block before them.

As Christians we beleive in a literal 6 day creation. I haven't brought that into the argument, though from his previous Christian background he knows this as my basis. What exactly do you subscribe to that he does?

As Christians we beleive in a literal 6 day creation. I haven't brought that into the argument, though from his previous Christian background he knows this as my basis. What exactly do you subscribe to that he does?

We do? I don't and many, many other Christians do not.

I subscribe to the fact that current Theory of Evolution is the leading theory explaining the diversity of life on earth. I subscribe to an old earth and universe. Probably a few others as well.

Can you post what your arguments are? If they are garden variety copy and pastes from the usual creationist sources you will porbably have no success in making a case.

They aren't typical. So what is the Genesis account to you? A nice story? For the Bible to be infallible and inerrant the Genesis account must be read literally and truthfully. The Bible opens with Creation, you can't deny that. I can't access my old posts right now because they're on Facebook, and it's blocked at work. I didn't really come here to argue evolution with Christians. We shouldn't really have differences on issues so large.

They aren't typical. So what is the Genesis account to you? A nice story? For the Bible to be infallible and inerrant the Genesis account must be read literally and truthfully. The Bible opens with Creation, you can't deny that. I can't access my old posts right now because they're on Facebook, and it's blocked at work. I didn't really come here to argue evolution with Christians. We shouldn't really have differences on issues so large.

Must all scripture be read literally to be infallible and inerrant?

Well yes, absolutely.

They aren't typical. So what is the Genesis account to you? A nice story? For the Bible to be infallible and inerrant the Genesis account must be read literally and truthfully. The Bible opens with Creation, you can't deny that. I can't access my old posts right now because they're on Facebook, and it's blocked at work. I didn't really come here to argue evolution with Christians. We shouldn't really have differences on issues so large.

I don't know what the statistical breakdown is, but outside of North America it a very significant percentage. Within the US, I have heard the numbers are close to 25% - again, not exactly a small group.

There have been many discussions on this board over the years. There is currently one going on in Bible Chat. There is one (among many in the past) in the Controversial section, but I don't think you have access to there yet. I've probably stated my opinion on the issue many times over the last few years I've been a member. And I don't think the issue is as large as you would believe. I have no issue if you choose to believe in a six day creation.

If you get a chance later to post what your arguments are for a six-day creation, feel free.

Well yes, absolutely.

Ok, for conversation's sake, how do you feel about taking the following passages literally?
1) Matthew 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
- Have you ever worn a literal yoke?

2) Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.
- Do you know any Christians who are blinded or maimed by their own hand?

3) John 10:7: "Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep."
- Is Jesus literally a wooden gate?

4) John 6:51:"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;"
- Is Jesus literally a piece of bread, composed of flour, yeast, water, and heat?

5) John 8:12: "Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I AM the light of the world"'
- Is Jesus literally a source of literal light? Does he have measurable candella output?

6) John 10:11: "I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep."
- Did Jesus come to save literal sheep (rather than human beings)

7) John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser."
- Is Jesus really a literal plant? Is God the Father really a literal farmer?

The reason I bring up these examples is that it is literally impossible to take the whole of scripture literally. The Bible is full of literary devices and metaphors that while true at some level are not necessarily literally true. Once one decides to take all scriptural content as literal, the whole thing becomes self contradictory by definition. For example: Jesus can not be a literal simultaneous plant, wooden gate, and loaf of bread.

Is Genesis literal or figurative? This will be debated until the 2nd last day of existence. One thing for sure though, there is plenty of room in Christendom for those who believe in a literal 6 day creation and those who believe in an old earth. If subscription to a literal 6 day creation was an essential element to being a Christian, then John 3:16 would have read "For whosoever believeth in him AND that the world was created in 6 literal days..." (especially if the Bible were strictly literal in every sense).

While that makes sense you're using semantics to try to disprove something that's plainly evident. Those at metaphors and comparisons, I understand that.


This is plainly read
Genesis 1:28-31-



28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

29Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


Day in Hebrew "YOM" is translated to mean "day," not many years.

To throw out the Creation story in the bible just because of a theory that's been around for 150 years is crazy. There is nothing metaphorical about the Creation story, it's in plain language.

You didn't answer my question about the Genesis account Hypno, I am aware that there are "Theistic Evolutionists" out there.

To post my "Arguments" for a 6 day creation? You want me to argue something that's right in the beginning of the bible?

While that makes sense you're using semantics to try to disprove something that's plainly evident. Those at metaphors and comparisons, I understand that.
Metaphors and comparisons aren't literal. If you say that all scripture must be read literally, you unilaterally deny the existence of metaphor and other literary devices. Its either all completely literal or it is not all completely literal.

It's literal in the areas of plain history, like much of the Old testament. Please explain to me at which point in the beginning of Genesis, is there anything metaphorially written?

Understand that when Christians refer to the Bible being literal, we are not denying that it does contain some figurative language. However, we need to keep two important facts in mind;

1)When figurative language is being used, it is obvious.

2)The figurative language is always intended to convey a literal truth.

For example, when Jesus referred to Himself as a "vine" (John 15:1,) He obviously didn't mean that He had leaves and grapes growing out of His arms!Rather, He was illustrating the literal truth that His relationship with His disciples can be compared to a vine's relationship with it's branches.

You're all derailing my questions.

Macroevolution hasn't been directly observed, and probably never will be. Aside from that, I have to agree with Teddy and HisLeast. If your purpose is to witness, I wouldn't worry about evolutionary theory. YEC isn't a necessary belief.

But the point is, it's his religion. He's an atheist. He uses evolution as a vehicle to attack Christianity (as many do) and the Creation account. There are many posts he makes in reference to the greatness of evolution (without God), and how there is no God. There are constant assertions made that everything on earth started from a volcanic vent in the ocean. So you see no trouble in this?

But the point is, it's his religion. He's an atheist. He uses evolution as a vehicle to attack Christianity (as many do) and the Creation account. There are many posts he makes in reference to the greatness of evolution (without God), and how there is no God. There are constant assertions made that everything on earth started from a volcanic vent in the ocean. So you see no trouble in this?

If he is using evolution to disprove God, then he's got a problem. Since a significant population of Christians do not hold to a plain reading of the creation story, then he also has another problem.

MOD NOTE!

I am moving this to the Bible Chat forum, where I think it will be better served.

Thanks.

Jeanne :)

The question I posed about the Genesis account was never answered, nor was my point about it being literal ever answered. Those pose some problems for "Theistic Evolutionists" don't they?

The question I posed about the Genesis account was never answered, nor was my point about it being literal ever answered. Those pose some problems for "Theistic Evolutionists" don't they?

I view the creation account as more about setting a correct worldview in the context of pagan, polytheistic cultures rather than a moment by moment scientific discourse formation of the universe and world. The former is more relevant to the overall Biblical narrative than the latter.

But the point is, it's his religion. He's an atheist. He uses evolution as a vehicle to attack Christianity (as many do) and the Creation account. There are many posts he makes in reference to the greatness of evolution (without God), and how there is no God. There are constant assertions made that everything on earth started from a volcanic vent in the ocean. So you see no trouble in this?

That's philosophy, not science. If you want to show the error in that kind of thinking, you need to employ philosophy.

Teddy,

There isn't anything more for me to add from your last comment teddy. The good thing about Christians is that we don't have to try to "prove" creaiton through science and argue, the bible is our source of authority. I'm really not sure why you view it the way you do, but I think it's an issue.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16

It's a slippery slope to not take parts of the bible seriously and interpret it exactly as it's written(metaphors aside, which aren't even used in the creation account).

Teddy,

There isn't anything more for me to add from your last comment teddy. The good thing about Christians is that we don't have to try to "prove" creaiton through science and argue, the bible is our source of authority. I'm really not sure why you view it the way you do, but I think it's an issue.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16

It's a slippery slope to not take parts of the bible seriously and interpret it exactly as it's written(metaphors aside, which aren't even used in the creation account).

He's not saying scripture is uninspired.
He's not saying scripture can't be used for teaching.
He's not saying scripture can't be used for reproof or correction.
He's not saying scripture can't be used for training in righteousness.
He's not even saying that you shouldn't take scripture seriously.

These are all what we call "straw man" arguments because you are attacking positions that teddy does not hold

I view the creation account as more about setting a correct worldview in the context of pagan, polytheistic cultures rather than a moment by moment scientific discourse formation of the universe and world. The former is more relevant to the overall Biblical narrative than the latter.


If the bible is taken as it is written, God created everything in the beginning. No macro evolution, no billions of years. I'm not using a "straw man." It's pretty evident what he's saying. Scripture being God Breathed(Inspired) makes it absolute, that's the reason I put the verse up.

Here's the error of "debating evolution." You are trying to use science and philosophy to convince someone of a religious faith.

Here's a better approach.

Don't get involved in the evolution debate, unless it is purely as a speculative or "what if" debate.

Talk about Jesus. If they reject Jesus, then they make the choice. Almost no human is ever convinced of the truth of the Bible by arguing from history or science. The "apologetic" for Christianity is philosophical, as Athanasius pointed out. If they do not want to discuss theology and philosophy, then arguing over creation is like standing downwind in a farting contest.

I'm aware of this, the reason I brought up the former point was because as Christians we use the bible as our standard. We should be on the same page on the authority of the bible. Obviously if I try to use the bible as an authority in this type of debate with my atheist friend he would just dismiss it as mythological and ask for "evidence of creation." The debate often ties into religion due to the fact of origin. "Where did everything come from?"

I'm aware of this, the reason I brought up the former point was because as Christians we use the bible as our standard. We should be on the same page on the authority of the bible. Obviously if I try to use the bible as an authority in this type of debate with my atheist friend he would just dismiss it as mythological and ask for "evidence of creation." The debate often ties into religion due to the fact of origin. "Where did everything come from?"

If the YEC interpretation is as obvious and scientifically sound, then simply learn the science and show him how the model is capable of generating the same practical end results as old earth models do. If the YEC position can not do so, then you have two options: (i) don't predicate your witnessing on the creation debate, or (ii) understand that Genesis MAY be allegorical (and no less authoritative) and move on to the real life changing stuff.

If the YEC interpretation is as obvious and scientifically sound, then simply learn the science and show him how the model is capable of generating the same practical end results as old earth models do. If the YEC position can not do so, then you have two options: (i) don't predicate your witnessing on the creation debate, or (ii) understand that Genesis MAY be allegorical (and no less authoritative) and move on to the real life changing stuff.


We must remember that our goal is to discover the author’s intended meaning of the biblical text. Did God intend for these chapters to be understood in a figurative, mythical, or allegorical manner, or did He intend to tell us precisely (though not in all the detail we might want) what He did in the beginning and in the early history of the earth? The Bible provides abundant support for the conclusion that these chapters are indeed historical narrative.

First, although many commentators have broken Genesis into two sections (1–11 and 12–50), such a distinction cannot be found in the text. Some have even argued that the first 11 chapters represent primeval history and should be interpreted differently than the final 39 chapters. There are several problems with this approach. Genesis 12 would make little sense without the genealogical background provided in the previous chapter. Further, since chapter 11 includes the genealogy of Shem (which introduces us to Abraham), this links it to the genealogy in Genesis 10, which is tied to the one found in Genesis 5.

Second, there is another link between chapters 11 and 12, which demonstrates one should not arbitrarily insert a break in the text at this point. Genesis 12 begins with a waw consecutive verb, wayomer (‘and he said’), indicating that what follows is a continuation of chapter 11, not a major break in the narrative. Also, chapter 11 ends with mention of Abraham, and chapter 12 begins with Abraham.

Third, Genesis seems to be structured on the recurrence of the Hebrew phrase eleh toledoth (“This is the book of the genealogy of . . .” or “This is the history of . . .”). This occurs 11 times throughout the book: six times in Genesis 1–11 and five times in chapters 12–50. Clearly, the author intended that both sections should be interpreted in the same way—as historical narrative.

Fourth, the New Testament treats Genesis 1–11 as historical narrative. At least 25 New Testament passages refer directly to the early chapters of Genesis, and they are always treated as real history. Genesis 1 and 2 were cited by Jesus in response to a question about divorce (Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9). Paul referenced Genesis 2–3 in Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:20–22, 45–47; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Timothy 2:13–14. The death of Abel recorded in Genesis 4 is mentioned by Jesus in Luke 11:51. The Flood (Genesis 6–9) is confirmed as historical by Jesus (Matthew 24:37–39) and Peter (2 Peter 2:4–9, 3:6), and in Luke 17:26–29, Jesus mentioned the Flood in the same context as he did the account of Lot and Sodom (Genesis 19). Finally, in Luke’s genealogy of Christ, he includes 20 names found in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (Luke 3:34–38).

These are just some of the reasons why Genesis 1–11 should be understood as literal history. Jesus and the New Testament authors viewed it as such,10 and the internal consistency of Genesis demonstrates its historical nature. Consequently, to interpret Genesis 1–11 in the same way Jesus did, you must treat the passage as historical narrative and follow the standard principles of interpretation.

Ok, then there's no problem then. You just have to learn the science and demonstrate how the YEC model is scientifically superior to all other models. To do this it has to be (i) verifiable (ii) explains the vast bulk of currently observable phenomena (iii) predict future phenomena accurately.

Ok, then there's no problem then. You just have to learn the science and demonstrate how the YEC model is scientifically superior to all other models. To do this it has to be (i) verifiable (ii) explains the vast bulk of currently observable phenomena (iii) predict future phenomena accurately.


Nice dodge man.

They aren't typical. So what is the Genesis account to you? A nice story? For the Bible to be infallible and inerrant the Genesis account must be read literally and truthfully. The Bible opens with Creation, you can't deny that. I can't access my old posts right now because they're on Facebook, and it's blocked at work. I didn't really come here to argue evolution with Christians. We shouldn't really have differences on issues so large.

OK, we'll stick with Calvinism vs. Arminianism and OSAS then. :D

Honestly, there are more Christians that accept evolution than those who don't. (The Catholic church's official stance is that evolution is compatible with Christianity.) There are even more Christians who believe that the universe is billions of years old (but don't necessarily believe in human evolution). I think the actual % in the US who are YEC is about 32%, and about half that or less worldwide.

I don't want to argue with you on this either; however, I do want you to understand that the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to believe. Just understand that our unity is through Christ and His sacrifice; we may have large differences between us, but we must always treat our fellow Christians with love and respect and honor.

People beleive a lot of things, a majority consensus doesn't make it more valid. This is the first time I've run into a large group of Christians that believe evolution as viable in something that God would use and try to say the Genesis account is metaphorical. I'd also like to mention I live in DC, so it has nothing to do with the area. I'm just trying to point out the biblical point I made, which no one is addressing.

As apologists we need to keep in mind the main goal of an apologist, which Peter set before us.

1Peter 3:15 . . . but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for [B]the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence . . .

Our job is not to be an apologist for a particular model of the development of the earth; our job is to tell others why we are putting our trust in Jesus Christ, rather than someone or something else, for eternal life. That's our hope, and that should be the main focus of our defense.

Debates about evolution get bogged down in the science of evolution, taking us away from discussions about our hope. We need to bring the discussion back to the philosophical assumption of the ToE, which is that all things came about through natural processes. And more significantly, that human beings are nothing more than animals, living on a blue dot, in the back wash of the universe.

The book of Genesis, if we think about it, spends very little time on the creation account, which is only given in abbreviated form in order to quickly get to the point of the issue, which is that God created man in his image and that man rebelled in sin and needs a savior. THE most important truth to take from the opening lines of Genesis is found in Genesis 1:26



Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image , according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The debate with Evolutionists is not centered on how the creation came to be, but on who is God, who is man, and how they relate to each other. God is the creator; I am his creature made in his image. And all else flows and follows from that premise. Evolution paints a certain picture of human kind, and Genesis paints another picture of human kind and our hope is built on the picture Genesis paints. Therefore, our apologetics should focus, not on the mechanisms of creation but on the implications of being made in the image of God for our hope.

As an apologist for our hope, we need to learn all the implications of being made in the image of God, stress those implications, and associate these with our hope and leave debates about the mechanical universe to others. We are not merely our body; we are more than our biology; and our significance is much greater than our physical existence.

But the point is, it's his religion. He's an atheist. He uses evolution as a vehicle to attack Christianity (as many do) and the Creation account. There are many posts he makes in reference to the greatness of evolution (without God), and how there is no God. There are constant assertions made that everything on earth started from a volcanic vent in the ocean. So you see no trouble in this?

What if: the best way to approach such people is to let them know that such beliefs as evolution and life's origins are not incompatible with a belief in Christ (even though you yourself don't accept them)? Why not point them to works by such scientists as Francis Collins, arguably the most respected, distinguished and accomplished Evangelical Christian scientist in the world, to show them that science doesn't have to be a barrier to belief?

Conversion is typically about experience, not semantics. Tell them of the joy you have through Christ. Tell them about the miracles you have experienced. Tell them about the comfort of Christ's love, and show this love through your words and actions. I believe that every person has an internal desire for the eternal, for God, that our human natures are fighting against. When they see Jesus through us they best see the path to God.

Nice dodge man.
Call it a dodge if you have to. I don't mind.

You came here wondering why your friend won't believe your statements about a young earth. You steadfastly deny that there are alternative interpretations to the Genesis account. You steadfastly hold to the idea that the gospel can't be spread without establishing YEC doctrine first. Seems to me your only option left is to simply prove the science. So do it.

What if: the best way to approach such people is to let them know that such beliefs as evolution and life's origins are not incompatible with a belief in Christ (even though you yourself don't accept them)? Why not point them to works by such scientists as Francis Collins, arguably the most respected, distinguished and accomplished Evangelical Christian scientist in the world, to show them that science doesn't have to be a barrier to belief?

Conversion is typically about experience, not semantics. Tell them of the joy you have through Christ. Tell them about the miracles you have experienced. Tell them about the comfort of Christ's love, and show this love through your words and actions. I believe that every person has an internal desire for the eternal, for God, that our human natures are fighting against. When they see Jesus through us they best see the path to God.Ah, but evolution theory IS incompatible with a belief in Christ. The fact that some people can believe both is a testament to the human ability to compartmentalise ideas and to hold two contractory ideas at the same time.

Call it a dodge if you have to. I don't mind.

You came here wondering why your friend won't believe your statements about a young earth. You steadfastly deny that there are alternative interpretations to the Genesis account. You steadfastly hold to the idea that the gospel can't be spread without establishing YEC doctrine first. Seems to me your only option left is to simply prove the science. So do it.

Shame on you, asking YEC's to do actual science work. :)

Ah, but evolution theory IS incompatible with a belief in Christ. The fact that some people can believe both is a testament to the human ability to compartmentalise ideas and to hold two contractory ideas at the same time.

No, they aren't. They are just incompatible based on your particular interpretation of scripture. And by the way, I have become utterly convinced YEC theology is untenable from a scriptural standpoint as well as a scientific standpoint.

It is a large deal, and I explained why it is earlier through scriptural base. I'm not going to start debating science with Christians when I have been debating for 2 weeks with my atheist friend. Whatever evidence is brought up and disproven, more will just be brought up. There are many points in evolution that have been brought up and later disproven throughout it's 150 year course. There will always be new information that will eventually be shown outdated, unsubstantial, and/or wrong. I'm not going to be tag teamed by 6 different people, it would go on for days.

This man has clearly heard the gospel and knows the scriptures, as I pointed out earlier. Also, using a personal experience for influencing someone towards the gospel isn't always the best case, as they'll just counter with the old "It works for you, but not for me." He is using evolution as well as "gaps" in the theory to support Atheism.


Shame on you, asking YEC's to do actual science work.


That's adorable, nice jab.

There are plenty of Young earth Creationists that have done much of the work:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/



If you start questioning scripture from the outright, you will start to question many things in it with the claim of it being outdated or "metaphorical."

Still trying to convince people of the Gospel using science. That's nuts.

Why not talk about who Jesus is? If someone wants to argue evolution, ignore them. Reason for your faith. Ask the Holy SPirit to draw men to Himself.

But don't get in vain arguments to try to "prove" anything. You've already lost before you begin.

I'm not trying to prove the gospel using science. I'm pointing to Genesis as a scriptural source as evidence of how God created everything. God revealed this to Moses supernaturally, and you're telling me it's metaphorical?

I'm not trying to prove the gospel using science. I'm pointing to Genesis as a scriptural source as evidence of how God created everything. God revealed this to Moses supernaturally, and you're telling me it's metaphorical?

I'm telling you that you are wasting your time, as the meaning of Genesis 1-2 and absolutely no bearing on "Who do you say that Jesus is."

You are spending a lot of effot to lean a ladder up against the wrong wall.

Why cant we let the Bible do Theology and let science practice empiricism ?

Why get involved in fights you dont have to fight, first rule of the art of war is "Never tell anyone about fightclub!" No....sorry "Avoid battle at all cost, only enter battle when necessary".

Read earlier in the posts Rabbi, there were quite a few claims that the Genesis account is metaphorical. I'm not running in circles here, quite a few here have been evading the issue that I brought up earlier and instead started concentrating on "Just preach the gospel." I understand we show the light of Christ and spread the good news, but it's a problem when the first book of the bible isn't taken literally. The bible is God's word.

Read earlier in the posts Rabbi, there were quite a few claims that the Genesis account is metaphorical. I'm not running in circles here, quite a few here have been evading the issue that I brought up earlier and instead started concentrating on "Just preach the gospel." I understand we show the light of Christ and spread the good news, but it's a problem when the first book of the bible isn't taken literally. The bible is God's word.

Says the 20th century America, in opposition to the previous 19.

Read earlier in the posts Rabbi, there were quite a few claims that the Genesis account is metaphorical. I'm not running in circles here, quite a few here have been evading the issue that I brought up earlier and instead started concentrating on "Just preach the gospel." I understand we show the light of Christ and spread the good news, but it's a problem when the first book of the bible isn't taken literally. The bible is God's word.

We already proved pretty conclusively that hte Bible can not be taken literally in every case.

Yea didn't prove anything, you just ignored my rebuttal.

HISLEAST:



1. Ok, for conversation's sake, how do you feel about taking the following passages literally?
1) Matthew 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
- Have you ever worn a literal yoke?

2) Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.
- Do you know any Christians who are blinded or maimed by their own hand?

3) John 10:7: "Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep."
- Is Jesus literally a wooden gate?

4) John 6:51:"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;"
- Is Jesus literally a piece of bread, composed of flour, yeast, water, and heat?

5) John 8:12: "Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I AM the light of the world"'
- Is Jesus literally a source of literal light? Does he have measurable candella output?

6) John 10:11: "I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep."
- Did Jesus come to save literal sheep (rather than human beings)

7) John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser."
- Is Jesus really a literal plant? Is God the Father really a literal farmer?

The reason I bring up these examples is that it is literally impossible to take the whole of scripture literally. The Bible is full of literary devices and metaphors that while true at some level are not necessarily literally true. Once one decides to take all scriptural content as literal, the whole thing becomes self contradictory by definition. For example: Jesus can not be a literal simultaneous plant, wooden gate, and loaf of bread.

Is Genesis literal or figurative? This will be debated until the 2nd last day of existence. One thing for sure though, there is plenty of room in Christendom for those who believe in a literal 6 day creation and those who believe in an old earth. If subscription to a literal 6 day creation was an essential element to being a Christian, then John 3:16 would have read "For whosoever believeth in him AND that the world was created in 6 literal days..." (especially if the Bible were strictly literal in every sense).



MY response:


It's literal in the areas of plain history, like much of the Old testament. Please explain to me at which point in the beginning of Genesis, is there anything metaphorially written?

Understand that when Christians refer to the Bible being literal, we are not denying that it does contain some figurative language. However, we need to keep two important facts in mind;

1)When figurative language is being used, it is obvious.

2)The figurative language is always intended to convey a literal truth.

For example, when Jesus referred to Himself as a "vine" (John 15:1,) He obviously didn't mean that He had leaves and grapes growing out of His arms!Rather, He was illustrating the literal truth that His relationship with His disciples can be compared to a vine's relationship with it's branches.

Yea didn't prove anything, you just ignored my rebuttal.

HISLEAST:
MY response:

I saw your response. I respectfully suggest that you do not understand what the word literal means, since you tell me both that "absolutely" all scripture is literal, then go on to tell me that sometimes its figurative. Figurative != Literal. Either things are always literal or things are not always literal. Its a binary condition.

Historic scripture like Genesis is absolutely literal, there aren't any metaphors present. It's only metaphorical when a metaphor/parable is present. They present a literal truth.

If we're reading in a history book about the holocaust, we aren't going to think "Well this all didn't really happen this way, some of it's not literal." History is plainly read.

The emphasis is on Genesis here.

Historic scripture like Genesis is absolutely literal, there aren't any metaphors present. It's only metaphorical when a metaphor/parable is present. They present a literal truth.

If we're reading in a history book about the holocaust, we aren't going to think "Well this all didn't really happen this way, some of it's not literal." History is plainly read.

The emphasis is on Genesis here.

As Athanasius pointed out above, you are bringing your 20th-21st century view and applying it to literature written very far removed from the original cultural context.

Historic scripture like Genesis is absolutely literal, there aren't any metaphors present. It's only metaphorical when a metaphor/parable is present. They present a literal truth.
This sounds more like an opinion than a verifiable fact. For example, does Genesis actually tell the reader "this is a historic account, not an allegory"? It does not.

How do we know that Genesis is strictly literal?

But the point is, it's his religion. He's an atheist. He uses evolution as a vehicle to attack Christianity (as many do) and the Creation account. There are many posts he makes in reference to the greatness of evolution (without God), and how there is no God. There are constant assertions made that everything on earth started from a volcanic vent in the ocean. So you see no trouble in this?Faith in Christ through an intervention of the Holy Spirit is what is going to save your friend. You aren't going to do this by trying convincing him of a 6-day creation.

Teddy,

There isn't anything more for me to add from your last comment teddy. The good thing about Christians is that we don't have to try to "prove" creaiton through science and argue, the bible is our source of authority. I'm really not sure why you view it the way you do, but I think it's an issue.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16

It's a slippery slope to not take parts of the bible seriously and interpret it exactly as it's written(metaphors aside, which aren't even used in the creation account).No it isn't. In Christ, we have the Holy Spirit of Righteousness who guides us. Our intellectual understandings of Genesis don't create a "slippery slope". Abide in Christ and exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit. That's what pleases God.

This sounds more like an opinion than a verifiable fact. For example, does Genesis actually tell the reader "this is a historic account, not an allegory"? It does not.

How do we know that Genesis is strictly literal?

What I want to know is, why is Genesis exempt from the implications of the very same literary methods that imply metaphor or parable elsewhere in scripture?

This sounds more like an opinion than a verifiable fact. For example, does Genesis actually tell the reader "this is a historic account, not an allegory"? It does not.

How do we know that Genesis is strictly literal?


I'm fairly certain at the beginning of the Gospels it doesn't say "There are some metaphors in this text" either. How do we know it's literal? By faith. Just as most of the stories and accounts in the bible. When it's translated to a literal day "yom" there isn't much room for error.


Faith in Christ through an intervention of the Holy Spirit is what is going to save your friend. You aren't going to do this by trying convincing him of a 6-day creation.


I'm very aware of this.

You all keep ignoring the fact that there are no metaphors present in the creation account. You keep dodging it telling me faith in Christ saves which I understand and agree with. You can question every aspect of scripture if you view it up to personal interpretation. There are those who say "Paul was a Chauvanist and that women can preach over men, it was just his personal bias." They question points that don't agree with their new worldveiw.

I'm fairly certain at the beginning of the Gospels it doesn't say "There are some metaphors in this text" either. How do we know it's literal? By faith. Just as most of the stories and accounts in the bible. When it's translated to a literal day "yom" there isn't much room for error.

The gospels also do not claim that they are not in sequential order, or that they are presenting events in a way that might obscure the exact facts behind them. For instance, there are two instances of Jesus withering the fig tree in the gospels (Matthew and Mark). In one account, the words indicate the tree withered immediately; in the other, they travel to Jerusalem and don't see the tree withered until they travel back the next day. If you do a word study, the word for "immediately" is "parachrēma", which means "instantly" - it doesn't mean slowly over time. There is not much room for error in translation here - yet, if you take it literally, it brings the account in Mark into doubt.

Stories in scripture are purposeful, not literal. You can't derive a script from them to re-enact the events exactly as they happened. In the example above, Matthew is telling the story for one purpose. Mark is telling the story, but wrapping it around another story, in order to stress the major point about that story.


You all keep ignoring the fact that there are no metaphors present in the creation account. You keep dodging it telling me faith in Christ saves which I understand and agree with. You can question every aspect of scripture if you view it up to personal interpretation. There are those who say "Paul was a Chauvanist and that women can preach over men, it was just his personal bias." They question points that don't agree with their new worldveiw.

No metaphors? "Tree of Life", "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil", a serpent, fruit, the number of days, evening and morning, etc? Even most YEC's acknowledge there is metaphor in the creation account, although they believe it is still literal. If you deny the metaphor then you are not studying it deeply enough.

I'm fairly certain at the beginning of the Gospels it doesn't say "There are some metaphors in this text" either. How do we know it's literal? By faith. Just as most of the stories and accounts in the bible. When it's translated to a literal day "yom" there isn't much room for error.
Then why don't you believe Jesus is literally a loaf of bread by faith?

I'm fairly certain at the beginning of the Gospels it doesn't say "There are some metaphors in this text" either. How do we know it's literal? By faith. Just as most of the stories and accounts in the bible. When it's translated to a literal day "yom" there isn't much room for error.



I'm very aware of this.

You all keep ignoring the fact that there are no metaphors present in the creation account. You keep dodging it telling me faith in Christ saves which I understand and agree with. You can question every aspect of scripture if you view it up to personal interpretation. There are those who say "Paul was a Chauvanist and that women can preach over men, it was just his personal bias." They question points that don't agree with their new worldveiw.I'm not arguing whether there are or there are not metaphors in the creation story. I'm telling you that "defending God's Word" to an athiest evolutionist is a fruitless endeavor from a scientific standpoint. Like HisLeast mentioned above, if you believe that Genesis is literal and want to establish that on a scientific level, have the evidence ready to give. That evidence isn't the Bible to someone who doesn't believe in the Bible.

No, they aren't. They are just incompatible based on your particular interpretation of scripture.That's right. And if my interpretation of both scripture and Evolution are correct, they are not compatible. And why you would think that I would say anything else is beyond me. Of course I am going to assume that my interpretation is correct. What else would I do and what else would anyone do?

Having said that, I think anyone who does not see them as incompatible is fudging one or the other. As I said earlier, the bottom line for the Biblical view is that God created everything and that human beings were made in the image of God. The bottom line for Evolutionists is that nothing exists beyond the natural world; that random chance and time work on natural bio/chemical processes to produce all life on the planet, and that mankind is nothing more and nothing less than a biological mechanism with about as much significance as dust on a scale. The Biblical view is that mankind is something wonderful, magnificent, glorious and worth saving; the Evolutionist view is that mankind is a descendant of pond scum and not worth much more than that. The Biblical view is that each of us, individually, has worth; the Evolutionist view is that we are only significant in so far as we are able to propagate our genetic material. The Bible teaches survival of the blessed; the Evolutionist teaches survival of the fittest. The Bible teaches us that there is more to life than this world and we are more than our biology; the Evolutionist teaches us that this life is all there is and we are nothing more than our biology. I could go on.

That's right. And if my interpretation of both scripture and Evolution are correct, they are not compatible. And why you would think that I would say anything else is beyond me. Of course I am going to assume that my interpretation is correct. What else would I do and what else would anyone do?

Having said that, I think anyone who does not see them as incompatible is fudging one or the other. As I said earlier, the bottom line for the Biblical view is that God created everything and that human beings were made in the image of God. The bottom line for Evolutionists is that nothing exists beyond the natural world; that random chance and time work on natural bio/chemical processes to produce all life on the planet, and that mankind is nothing more and nothing less than a biological mechanism with about as much significance as dust on a scale. The Biblical view is that mankind is something wonderful, magnificent, glorious and worth saving; the Evolutionist view is that mankind is a descendant of pond scum and not worth much more than that. The Biblical view is that each of us, individually, has worth; the Evolutionist view is that we are only significant in so far as we are able to propagate our genetic material. The Bible teaches survival of the blessed; the Evolutionist teaches survival of the fittest. The Bible teaches us that there is more to life than this world and we are more than our biology; the Evolutionist teaches us that this life is all there is and we are nothing more than our biology. I could go on.

I'm pretty sure no theistic evolutionist believes what you state they believe. You appear to be confusing philosophy with science.

Many of the cultures of the time that Genesis was penned also believed humans were not that special, and merely subject to the whims of their gods so it's not like biological evolution has got that part of the market cornered. In fact it's not even part of that market.

Metaphor has nothing to do with allegorical.
Literal is not synonymous with true.
Figurative is not necessarily either metaphorical or allegorical.

So, Jungleman, if you are going to be a literalist (like me), then you must agree that God created the earth, that it was covered with water, that in vs 2 it was covered in water and formless and void, and then in vs 3, God started re-creating the already existing water covered void and formless earth into what we see in Genesis 1:3 and following, correct?

Congratulations! I too believe in the extended gap theory and that the description of re-creation in vs 3 and following is a literal event as described.

:D

That's right. And if my interpretation of both scripture and Evolution are correct, they are not compatible. And why you would think that I would say anything else is beyond me. Of course I am going to assume that my interpretation is correct. What else would I do and what else would anyone do?

Humbly admit that you could be wrong or that you might not fully understand Genesis or God's methods or purpose? Stop judging and start understanding?


Having said that, I think anyone who does not see them as incompatible is fudging one or the other. As I said earlier, the bottom line for the Biblical view is that God created everything and that human beings were made in the image of God. The bottom line for Evolutionists is that nothing exists beyond the natural world; that random chance and time work on natural bio/chemical processes to produce all life on the planet, and that mankind is nothing more and nothing less than a biological mechanism with about as much significance as dust on a scale. The Biblical view is that mankind is something wonderful, magnificent, glorious and worth saving; the Evolutionist view is that mankind is a descendant of pond scum and not worth much more than that. The Biblical view is that each of us, individually, has worth; the Evolutionist view is that we are only significant in so far as we are able to propagate our genetic material. The Bible teaches survival of the blessed; the Evolutionist teaches survival of the fittest. The Bible teaches us that there is more to life than this world and we are more than our biology; the Evolutionist teaches us that this life is all there is and we are nothing more than our biology. I could go on.

The bottom line for TE:

1) God created everything and human beings are made in the image of God.
2) God exists beyond the natural world.
3) God created a system where random chance and selection led to diversity and, inevitably, to humankind.
4) God endowed mankind with an eternal soul and set them apart from the rest of creation.
5) Thus, from #4, mankind something wonderful, glorious, magnificent and worth saving; not because of our physical bodies but because of our connection to God.
6) God gives us value as individuals.
7) God's nature guides and motivates our physical bodies to procreate.
8) Nature survives through survival of the fittest.
9) Mankind, as the stewards of creation, has been set aside to protect it and stand above it.
10) Physically, we are products of this world, with all the good and bad associated with it.
11) Spiritually, we are children of God and destined for an eternal life after our physical life is over.

...and I could go on and on. I see no conflict.

Honestly, this is not the first time I've written this kind of stuff down. Do you guys read Richard Dawkins and the like and think we TE's believe everything he does unfiltered? I'm not sure why you're not getting us.

This is one of the most heretical things I've ever heard:


3) God created a system where random chance and selection led to diversity and, inevitably, to humankind.


-

"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness." Gen 1:26

RabbiKnife:

Metaphor has nothing to do with allegorical.
Literal is not synonymous with true.
Figurative is not necessarily either metaphorical or allegorical.

So, Jungleman, if you are going to be a literalist (like me), then you must agree that God created the earth, that it was covered with water, that in vs 2 it was covered in water and formless and void, and then in vs 3, God started re-creating the already existing water covered void and formless earth into what we see in Genesis 1:3 and following, correct?

Congratulations! I too believe in the extended gap theory and that the description of re-creation in vs 3 and following is a literal event as described.



Not quite where I stand unfortunately.

The gap theory is popular because it appears to present an interpretation of Genesis that offers rather impressive evidence for a position that does not radically challenge the evolutionary timetable of geology. However, this idea compromises the doctrine of the unity and completeness of the creation account. Furthermore, it seriously compromises the original perfection of the world, the genetic continuity of fossil and living forms, the totality of Adam’s dominion, the uniqueness of the Edenic Curse, and the global nature of Noah’s Flood.

The gap theory must redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that had just been destroyed. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being (i.e., Satan). This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture, as we shall see.

The gap theory assumes that animals, including carnivores and omnivores, were dying millions of years before Adam. Yet Scripture tells us that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22). The whole of creation groans and travails in pain (Romans 8:22) because God cursed it after Adam sinned. Animal death and human death were results of the Curse; they were not part of God’s original creation.

The gap theory teaches the existence of pre-Adamic men and women who were destroyed by Lucifer’s flood. Consequently, any human fossils that are found (e.g., the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnon people, etc.) are considered to be pre-Adamites who have nothing to do with mankind today, even though some of these so-called pre-Adamites are identical to us. This teaching also implies that these pre-Adamites did not possess an eternal soul and so could not be saved.

The gap theory is simply compromise. This relatively modern theory has been formulated in the last couple hundred years in an attempt to harmonise the facts of Scripture with the ideas of fallen men. This compromise view is designed to accommodate those who believe in millions of years. Proponents of the gap theory have reinterpreted Scripture to try to make it fit the idea of millions of years. The gap theory does not rest upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture but is founded upon the shifting sands of the ideas of those who want to believe the evolutionary teaching of millions of years.

This is one of the most heretical things I've ever heard:

"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness." Gen 1:26

We have a long discussion of what that verse actually means in a thread in contro. In a nutshell: 1) "make" doesn't imply a specific method, 2) "image" is a passing of authority, 3) "likeness" means that essentially we as individuals are "idols" of God. None of that means a thing about physical characteristics.

Note that the word for "make" here is not "bara" (creation from nothing), but "asah". It has the implication of altering something that already exists.

The creation of all living creatures was introduced with the repeated phrase "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:21, 24-25). The introduction of man breaks the pattern, as it does not say, "The earth will bring forth man according to his kind." Rather, in verse 26 God announced, "Let Us make man after Our image, according to Our likeness"—to resemble God. Additionally, He endowed man with the ability to think, to create and to dominate the rest of creation. These are godlike qualities, superior to any other creature.

God regards man differently from the animals. The Bible account is primarily concerned with the relationship between God and man. Man was created by God, in his image, for God’s joy and glory, and exists only in the context of God. It is because God is (Hebrews 11:8) that man has being (Acts 17:28). True, the earth and animals too have a place in God’s economy, but essentially, the world was created as a place for man to live (Romans 8:19–22).


I see a lot of people's personal interpretations without scripture to back it up on this topic posting.

I'm pretty sure no theistic evolutionist believes what you state they believe.As I say, anyone who doesn't see them as compatible is fudging one or the other. Either you are messing up your theology or you are messing up your theory of evolution, which is based on the philosophies of Positivism and Naturalism. From what I have seen and heard, a theistic evolutionist is confused about both and is unwilling to take a stand either way.


Many of the cultures of the time that Genesis was penned also believed humans were not that special, and merely subject to the whims of their gods so it's not like biological evolution has got that part of the market cornered. In fact it's not even part of that market.This is really irrelevant the discussion and therefore not of any interest to me. Evolutionary theory was accepted, not because it explains anything or that it adds to our knowledge of things or that the evidence supports it, but because it was a way for God haters to ignore him. All you need to know about this debate is that theists say God did it, and evolutionary biologists say he didn't. Theistic evolutionists are just confused and/or not able to take a stand somewhere.

I'm not sure why you're not getting us.There isn't anything to get. All I see in a theistic evolutionist is a schizophrenic person who, when he faces one way is a theist, and when he faces another way, he is an atheist. Make up your mind. As I say, if you don't see the conflict then either you aren't aware of the implications of either concept or you are fudging one or the other or both in order to sit in the middle.

The creation of all living creatures was introduced with the repeated phrase "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:21, 24-25). The introduction of man breaks the pattern, as it does not say, "The earth will bring forth man according to his kind." Rather, in verse 26 God announced, "Let Us make man after Our image, according to Our likeness"—to resemble God. Additionally, He endowed man with the ability to think, to create and to dominate the rest of creation. These are godlike qualities, superior to any other creature.

God regards man differently from the animals. The Bible account is primarily concerned with the relationship between God and man. Man was created by God, in his image, for God’s joy and glory, and exists only in the context of God. It is because God is (Hebrews 11:8) that man has being (Acts 17:28). True, the earth and animals too have a place in God’s economy, but essentially, the world was created as a place for man to live (Romans 8:19–22).


I see a lot of people's personal interpretations without scripture to back it up on this topic posting.

I don't disagree with you on many counts here. Certainly, there is a reasoning behind why the pattern is broken, and that is because man is being called out to rule over the rest of creation. Certainly, we are set aside as the only creatures that can think abstractly, and thus, subdue the earth and everything in it. However, that is NOT the purpose of "image" or "likeness". The very words for image (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6754&t=KJV) and likeness (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1823&t=KJV) illustrate exactly what is meant by them.

However, the claim where evolution cannot be consistent with the idea of man being set apart and endowed by God is completely wrong. The very idea that scripture eliminates this possibility does so by making assumptions and speculation that go beyond the written word. Like I mentioned in my post above about the fig tree, YEC's assume "immediate" but that is not necessarily being implied.

As I say, anyone who doesn't see them as compatible is fudging one or the other. Either you are messing up your theology or you are messing up your theory of evolution, which is based on the philosophies of Positivism and Naturalism. From what I have seen and heard, a theistic evolutionist is confused about both and is unwilling to take a stand either way.I assume you meant to type "...incompatible...".


Evolutionary theory was accepted, not because it explains anything or that it adds to our knowledge of things or that the evidence supports it, but because it was a way for God haters to ignore him. All you need to know about this debate is that theists say God did it, and evolutionary biologists say he didn't. Theistic evolutionists are just confused and/or not able to take a stand somewhere.Right. If that is your view then I will simply ignore any post you make regarding this subject since even creationist scientists disagree with your statement. I respect your views on other subjects, but as for this...

There isn't anything to get. All I see in a theistic evolutionist is a schizophrenic person who, when he faces one way is a theist, and when he faces another way, he is an atheist. Make up your mind. As I say, if you don't see the conflict then either you aren't aware of the implications of either concept or you are fudging one or the other or both in order to sit in the middle.

Ahhh, that's why. Willful, stubborn ignorance. Not much I can do about that. :(

I don't disagree with you on many counts here. Certainly, there is a reasoning behind why the pattern is broken, and that is because man is being called out to rule over the rest of creation. Certainly, we are set aside as the only creatures that can think abstractly, and thus, subdue the earth and everything in it. However, that is NOT the purpose of "image" or "likeness". The very words for image and likeness illustrate exactly what is meant by them.

However, the claim where evolution cannot be consistent with the idea of man being set apart and endowed by God is completely wrong. The very idea that scripture eliminates this possibility does so by making assumptions and speculation that go beyond the written word. Like I mentioned in my post above about the fig tree, YEC's assume "immediate" but that is not necessarily being implied.


I disagree. I see most of your assertions as "assumptions and speculation that go beyond the written word." Most of the responses have been personal interpretation without scripture.

Fig Tree Example:

I would say that, in general, Matthew
created a dramatic description of the ministry and words of Jesus without
giving extreme care to exactly reproducing the order and timing of the
events. Luke, being sort of an amateur historian, created a consciously
more chronological account of the events of Jesus? life. Most likely
when Matthew presents some of Jesus's monologues, he is bringing together some of the actual statements from
different times into a single monologue for dramatic effect in order to ex
plain Jesus to his hearers.

This is not evidence of a lack of inspiration, but is simply one way to present the gospel material. The fact that different witnesses report slightly different aspects of the same events supports the belief that the four gospels are independent
accounts of the same events. When two witnesses to the same event
describe it in court, they will generally present what seems like a
significantly different picture of the same events, even if they are both
giving an honest account of their recollections.

I believe this is exactly what we have in the gospels. This is not evidence of a mistake or of a lack of inspiration, but of truly independent accounts of the life of
Jesus, which is exactly what one would want of multiple gospels. The
point, when one reads Matthew or Mark, is that one is seeing a glimpse of
the words and ministry of Jesus. Every event is recorded with great care
by Matthew and Mark to give an accurate account of what they observed. I
believe that both the general description and the details of his account
are true to what happened, and that is all that I require to view it as
accurate history and as inspired by God.

As I look at Matthew 21 and Mark 11, I simply do not see a
contradiction. Matthew reports Jesus at the temple, driving out the money
changers in vs. 12-15. After that, Matthew has Jesus, "early in the
morning" causing the fig tree to wither. Knowing the fact that Matthew
is not always extremely careful to present every situation in strictly
chronological order, I would not be shocked if it turned out that the
events in Matthew 21, although accurate, are not in the actual order they
occurred. However, when I go to Mark, I see Jesus, after driving out the
money changers, coming across the fig tree, cursing it and the tree
withering. The only significant difference in the two accounts is that
Matthew reports only the second visit to the fig tree, while Mark reports
both the first and the second visit to the tree. Possibly then, on the following day, Jesus actually spoke to the tree again, causing it to wither before the very
eyes of the disciples. It is possible that Mark was not aware that
Matthew and others actually saw the tree wither before their eyes on that
particular day, and that all he was aware of was the original statement to
the tree and the subsequent withering he saw the next day. Again, what we
have here is independent but non-contradictory accounts of the same
events. Exactly as with separate but honest eye-witness accounts in a
court of law, the stories may appear to contradict at first because the
witnesses have not colluded with one another, but when one brings the two
accounts together and asks how they might actually not contradict, one
comes up with a perfectly reasonable account of the actual events.

I'm telling you that you are wasting your time, as the meaning of Genesis 1-2 and absolutely no bearing on "Who do you say that Jesus is."

You are spending a lot of effot to lean a ladder up against the wrong wall.

If it is merely about an intellectual debate then:

Jesus the Christ is the Son of the living God

But who is God?

If an atheist does not believe in God, then how can they believe in or understand who is the Son of God?

Genesis1:1 In the beginning GOD
Genesis1:1 In the beginning GOD created

Possibly then, on the following day, Jesus actually spoke to the tree again, causing it to wither before the very eyes of the disciples.

And this isn't speculation? You are adding a statement that isn't recorded in either (your supposed second cursing by Jesus). Why not make the explanation simpler? The event occurred over two days, Matthew just compressed the event into an appearance of one moment in time. Since Matthew wasn't concerned with timescales or chronological order anyway, this makes perfect sense. However, it does still illustrate the point that we are not told specifically that Matthew's book is unconcerned with such things; we must imply it.

The difference between my speculation and yours - TE speculation vs. YEC speculation - is that TE speculation is about scientific matters. We allow the biblical text to say what it does without worrying about fitting it inside some 21st-century version of historical and scientific accuracy. We let it be what it was intended to be - an ancient document written by ancient peoples with an ancient worldview but inspired by God. YEC thought, on the other hand, speculates on bible verses itself. It lets an assumption of age, an assumption of scientific accuracy, an assumption of historical accuracy, drive the meaning behind ambiguous scripture.

I do NOT believe that evolution is "supported" by scripture, any more than nuclear physics or aerodynamics or chemistry or gravitational theory is supported. It is simply something that is beyond the intent of scripture to discuss. Evolution, like medicine, is something that we learn by exploring the nature of God's creation through the scientific method. Evolution is not some atheist plot to discredit God. It is a well-founded, well-supported and well-evidenced theory that explains the data so well that it is very, very unlikely that it is wrong.

Jungleman528,

I debated whether to respond to this post. My background is in the physical science, so I'll leave that to those with the expertise there. But I do have some brief comments:


You can find material on this on Creation Research Society's website, though they have gone to an extreme IMO in insisting upon a young earth and universe.
Just because a person holds to evolution does not necessarily mean he does not believe in the God of the Bible. Theistic evolution is a position held by many solid believers. (I do not agree with their position, but they are saved.)
If this person does not believe in God there are ways to show him his error. Look at Reasons to Believe (Hugh Ross).

take care,

BD

I assume you meant to type "...incompatible...".

Right. If that is your view then I will simply ignore any post you make regarding this subject since even creationist scientists disagree with your statement. I respect your views on other subjects, but as for this...Okay, let me put it to you this way. I contend, and I don't think I am alone in this, that the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system remained the dominant theory for so long, not only because it explained the observable facts, but also because it explained these facts according to strongly held philosophical beliefs such as: 1)the heavens were perfect; the earth was imperfect, 2) circles were the most perfect of the conic sections. Therefore the orbits of planets, the sun, the moon, and the stars must travel in circular paths. Even Copernicus, who posited a heliocentric solar system, didn't easily abandon this philosophical position, placing the planets in circular orbits around the sun.

I made some pretty bold assertions about evolutionary theory, which I haven't defended yet. So let's back up and I'll simply ask the question what are the "givens" the "taken-for-granteds", the strong philosophical assumptions that lay beneath the Theory of Evolution?

Let's turn this question around. What was the dominant, Greek Philosophical position strongly held by scientists until Darwin published "On the Origin of Species", held by William Paley and others?

RabbiKnife:



Not quite where I stand unfortunately.

The gap theory is popular because it appears to present an interpretation of Genesis that offers rather impressive evidence for a position that does not radically challenge the evolutionary timetable of geology. However, this idea compromises the doctrine of the unity and completeness of the creation account. Furthermore, it seriously compromises the original perfection of the world, the genetic continuity of fossil and living forms, the totality of Adam’s dominion, the uniqueness of the Edenic Curse, and the global nature of Noah’s Flood.

The gap theory must redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that had just been destroyed. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being (i.e., Satan). This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture, as we shall see.

The gap theory assumes that animals, including carnivores and omnivores, were dying millions of years before Adam. Yet Scripture tells us that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22). The whole of creation groans and travails in pain (Romans 8:22) because God cursed it after Adam sinned. Animal death and human death were results of the Curse; they were not part of God’s original creation.

The gap theory teaches the existence of pre-Adamic men and women who were destroyed by Lucifer’s flood. Consequently, any human fossils that are found (e.g., the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnon people, etc.) are considered to be pre-Adamites who have nothing to do with mankind today, even though some of these so-called pre-Adamites are identical to us. This teaching also implies that these pre-Adamites did not possess an eternal soul and so could not be saved.

The gap theory is simply compromise. This relatively modern theory has been formulated in the last couple hundred years in an attempt to harmonise the facts of Scripture with the ideas of fallen men. This compromise view is designed to accommodate those who believe in millions of years. Proponents of the gap theory have reinterpreted Scripture to try to make it fit the idea of millions of years. The gap theory does not rest upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture but is founded upon the shifting sands of the ideas of those who want to believe the evolutionary teaching of millions of years.

Hey, JungleBoy.

You have any original thoughts or do you just regurgitate plagarized passages from Answers in Genesis?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/mind-the-gap

Try again.

The creation of all living creatures was introduced with the repeated phrase "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:21, 24-25). The introduction of man breaks the pattern, as it does not say, "The earth will bring forth man according to his kind." Rather, in verse 26 God announced, "Let Us make man after Our image, according to Our likeness"—to resemble God. Additionally, He endowed man with the ability to think, to create and to dominate the rest of creation. These are godlike qualities, superior to any other creature.

God regards man differently from the animals. The Bible account is primarily concerned with the relationship between God and man. Man was created by God, in his image, for God’s joy and glory, and exists only in the context of God. It is because God is (Hebrews 11:8) that man has being (Acts 17:28). True, the earth and animals too have a place in God’s economy, but essentially, the world was created as a place for man to live (Romans 8:19–22).


I see a lot of people's personal interpretations without scripture to back it up on this topic posting.

And this post was stolen from here....

http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/image-of-god-mean.htm

As Christians we beleive in a literal 6 day creation. I haven't brought that into the argument, though from his previous Christian background he knows this as my basis. What exactly do you subscribe to that he does?

Not every Christian believes in a literal 6 day (i.e. 144 hour) creation. Some believe the six days are metaphorical and refer to six approximately equal periods of time. I heard one interesting theory recently that suggested that, since God must have explained what happened to Adam so the word could be passed on and later written down, the six days referred to the time God spent explaining the whole thing to Adam and the seventh day of rest was for Adam's benefit rather than God's. I haven't considered it in any detail, it's entirely possible that it's a load of bunk, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless.

Looking at the argument that the six days were metaphorical makes at least some sense. If God wanted his word to be passed down through the generations, written down by man and preserved by man, it makes sense to put things in a way that makes them memorable and understandable. If a primitive man found a stone tablet that said "And God said, 'let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures...'" it makes sense, it explains the things he can see around him. If that same primitive man found a tablet that said "And over the next 20,000,000 years God slowly caused the DNA of one oceanic creature to mutate until it formed a loosely similar but biologically distinct species" it would make no sense and probably be treated with the same reverence as the National Enquirer receives today.


Ultimately whether God created the fish in the sea by literally uttering the words "let there be fish in the sea" or by some long and complex process of genetic tinkering makes no difference to my day to day life. The sacrifice made by Jesus on my behalf makes every difference to my day to day life. Hopefully the fruit of the Spirit in my life are visible to others, my belief in a literal 6-day creation, theistic evolution, old earth creationism or whatever else I may believe is not.