For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[Not_By_Chance]

What did this ancient writer(s) of these two pieces of Genesis, know about biology, know about astronomy, know about geology, etc?

So this writer(s) say if they were literally resurrected today, should they immediately enter our academia and reteach us all? Educate us all?

Aren't you forgetting that the author was not a human, but the creator of the entire universe and life itself? If He doesn't have all the answers then who does?

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't really accurate, NotByChance. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible was written by human beings, essentially males. Also, please note, you are expressing your own theory as to how the Bible was written. That's OK. No problem with that. However, to be honest, it is your interpretation. And then the question is whether your theory is accurate or not. Given the contradictions, I think it dubious that God simply dictated it word for word to purely passive scribes who took it all down exactly as God said.

 

[Hieronymus]

There are mountains of evidence for evolution.

No there are not.
Seriously, they sell you pure bluff and fluff.

It is corroborated by research in every field.

This is not true at all.

Scientists are basically unanimous these days.

another lie...
It's popular naturalistic science that presents it that way.

The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

Where do people get this nonsense?
It's truely pathetic.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.

But you do not even know what you disagree with, you do not even know what you agree with.
You have been persuaded into believing what you just wrote.
We all have been, in our culture.

This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution.

But it is you who is telling us we can't believe in creation.
Hello??
And you don't even know why.
You assume those who fed you this have the authority in the matter.

Please, do yourself a favour, and investigate this controversy form a different perspective, which is also available for anyone, but it just hasn't got the same platform and support.
It has to be pointed out to us first.

Or just have the integrity to be agnostic about it.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That isn't really accurate, NotByChance. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible was written by human beings, essentially males.

So is it the word of God or not, that is the question? If not, we might just as well toss it on the fire. If it is then we'd better take note of what it says, whether or not it agrees with man's (fallible) ideas.

I think it dubious that God simply dictated it word for word to purely passive scribes who took it all down exactly as God said.

I agree, but God would have made sure that what was written down was accurate and truthful before He allowed it to be associated with His name would He not?

 

[Merlin]

many times a jury of people have decided that a person is guilty and sent them wrongly to prison. It is not that the evidence was wrong but rather the interpretation of the evidence was wrong. Everyone of the jurists were in agreement but they were still wrong and the man was wrongly found guilty.

Evidence is never wrong but interpretation of the evidence can be wrong, even if everyone agrees with the interpretation.
So it is with the evolution evidence. The interpretation is wrong.

 

[Merlin]

So is it the word of God or not, that is the question? If not, we might just as well toss it on the fire. If it is then we'd better take note of what it says, whether or not it agrees with man's (fallible) ideas.

I agree, but God would have made sure that what was written down was accurate and truthful before He allowed it to be associated with His name would He not?

The bible is correct.
The interpretation of the data is wrong.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is not an either-or situation, NotByChance. Either the Bible is inerrant, or we should throw it out. Reality is often in shades of grey, and this is one prime example. You have to remember that the whole concept of the inerrancy of Scripture is a human-made theory about Scripture. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. For many laity, this lens is the teachings of their church. Many come to Scripture, with the firmly implanted in mind that Scripture has to be inerrant. The way Scripture says that things happened is the way they did. No question about it. However, there are two very different cultures involved with Scripture. There is the world of the laity, and there is the world of academic biblical studies. Many laity seem to assume that the latter is largely an extension of what they have learned in church and Sunday-school. Forget it. The world of academic is a wholly different ballgame with different rules, goals, and often reaches conclusions that some laity might find disturbing. In biblical studies, about the worst thing you can do is come to Scriptures with the notion of biblical inerrancy firmly implanted in your mind. You have to come to Scripture, with an open mind. You have to view Scripture through the lens provided by a healthy skepticism for traditional teachings. Maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not. Let us carefully study the texts and then reach a conclusion. Now, I submit based on the contradictions (about 100) alone, that the inerrancy theory is out the window. That doesn't mean Scripture is worthless, just that we have to recognize that it is covered with human fingerprints, so to speak.
Why would God allow there to be errors in Scripture? Well, why does god allow sin? I believe we all have a free will and therefore God cannot coerce or force us to do anything. The Holy Spirit does not cause a miracle by which we are no longer human and subject to error.

 

[Hoghead1]

NotByChance, divinely inspired as the Bible may be, it is still the product of a prescientific culture. I don't think God intended it to be an accurate, scientific geophysical witness.

 

[-57]

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field. Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.
This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution. Is a person's belief in evolution going to send them to Hell, as long as they believe that Jesus has saved them and they have accepted him? No! As long as the central belief is there, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about the origin of the earth. It's like whether a person believes in post-Trib or pre-Trib. Who the hell cares?

If Christians keep pushing the view that people can't believe in both Christianity and evolution, many potential Christians will be lost. They will be pushed away from the church as it becomes increasingly anachronistic. The will say, "I believe in evolution; of course I can't be a Christian." But that's only because Christians themselves have promoted this view. They have a damn grudge match with evolution. Christianity and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.

I believe in evolution, and in my view, if God was involved, it is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon. It is the work of a master artist, a supremely brilliant engineer. A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us. It's amazing! Praise be to God for this glorious master work that shows us his incredible ingenuity.

Problem being....you have to change the bible is several places as you filter it through the nonsense of evolutionism.
For example the bible teaches .....Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned....

Did you see the through one man part? How does evolutionism account for that?

Then you get all excited by making the statement "A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us."....despite the crystal clear fact the bible doesn't even come close to teaching this.

 

[Hoghead1]

Problem being....you have to change the bible is several places as you filter it through the nonsense of evolutionism.
For example the bible teaches .....Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned....

Did you see the through one man part? How does evolutionism account for that?

Then you get all excited by making the statement "A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us."....despite the crystal clear fact the bible doesn't even come close to teaching this.

It isn't an either-or situation with the Bible. Either the Bible is all inerrant or it's all errant and worthless. Either-or thinking is unrealistic and neurotic. Reality is a shade of grey. The Bible is a complex synthesis of both myth and fact, and even myths have some real degree of reality to them. So, reading the Bible is no easy task. Regarding original sin, I view this concept as far more in Augustine than in Scripture, which, in many passages, contradicts this notion. But that is another matter. Getting back on track. Yes, when we read the Bible, we have to cherry pick. For example, do you follow all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork? Are you willing to sell your daughter into slavery, as per Exod. 21?

 

[-57]

It isn't an either-or situation with the Bible. Either the Bible is all inerrant or it's all errant and worthless. Either-or thinking is unrealistic and neurotic. Reality is a shade of grey. The Bible is a complex synthesis of both myth and fact, and even myths have some real degree of reality to them. So, reading the Bible is no easy task. Regarding original sin, I view this concept as far more in Augustine than in Scripture, which, in many passages, contradicts this notion. But that is another matter. Getting back on track. Yes, when we read the Bible, we have to cherry pick. For example, do you follow all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork? Are you willing to sell your daughter into slavery, as per Exod. 21?

Hoghead, I can tell from what you wrote you don't really understand much of the bible. But don't worry, I don't understand it completely.
But when it comes to your OT laws...perhaps you ought to read around this verse......

It contained all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, as well as birds of the air.

....

 

[Hoghead1]

Hoghead, I can tell from what you wrote you don't really understand much of the bible. But don't worry, I don't understand it completely.
But when it comes to your OT laws...perhaps you ought to read around this verse......

It contained all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, as well as birds of the air.

....

Well, how about giving credit where credit is due. I have a Ph.D. in theology. I initially thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, because I am very good with languages, but decided on theology instead. However, our department required all graduate students to pass major preliminary exams in OT, NT, church, theology, and ethics. So I did a fair amount of graduate study in biblical studies.
Also, I don't follow your above comment about four-footed animals.

 

[pat34lee]

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field. Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.
This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution. Is a person's belief in evolution going to send them to Hell, as long as they believe that Jesus has saved them and they have accepted him? No! As long as the central belief is there, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about the origin of the earth. It's like whether a person believes in post-Trib or pre-Trib. Who the hell cares?

God cares. And you should. If death came before sin, then
God lied, and we don't need him or a saviour. It means that
God created death and evil, making him evil also. Who would
serve such a god? Bottom line: either we have a Creator we
can trust, or a god who is a liar and evil to boot.

 

[pat34lee]

.

 

[pat34lee]

Hi Resha, good to chat again!
Resha wrote-
But the two are very different. Christianity is based on the life of a single human being thousands of years ago.

Christianity is based on 1500 years of teaching from Moses
onward. So is Judaism. From there, they split and went their
separate ways.

And those trees of life look nice except when you find out
there are more spaces than connections between species.

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2016/04/more-holes-in-evolutionary-tree-of-life.html

 

[-57]

Well, how about giving credit where credit is due. I have a Ph.D. in theology. I initially thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, because I am very good with languages, but decided on theology instead. However, our department required all graduate students to pass major preliminary exams in OT, NT, church, theology, and ethics. So I did a fair amount of graduate study in biblical studies.
Also, I don't follow your above comment about four-footed animals.

Hoghead said....For example, do you follow all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork?

Start here Acts 10:10

 

[Hoghead1]

Hoghead said....For example, do you follow all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork?

Start here Acts 10:10

I am well aware of that passage. My point is that we do read Scripture selectively, cherry pick. We have to. We actually have a biblical warrant to do so, as per the passage you just referred to. Thanks for reminding me of that. It adds to my case that divinely inspired as it may be, Scripture is still the work of humans. Therefore, it can and should be questioned. The NT does a pretty good job of dumping the OT laws, showing that they really aren't what God wants. As far as I am concerned, Christ throws all the "laws of Moses" right out the window.

 

[-57]

I am well aware of that passage. My point is that we do read Scripture selectively, cherry pick. We have to. We actually have a biblical warrant to do so, as per the passage you just referred to. Thanks for reminding me of that. It adds to my case that divinely inspired as it may be, Scripture is still the work of humans. Therefore, it can and should be questioned. The NT does a pretty good job of dumping the OT laws, showing that they really aren't what God wants. As far as I am concerned, Christ throws all the "laws of Moses" right out the window.

For someone who said... "I am well aware of that passage."... expressing biblical knowledge through the statement...you seem to be falling short on understanding the reasons for Christ. Didn't Christ come and fulfill the law? Why a man of such knowledge would use the language of "Christ throws all the "laws of Moses" right out the window"....makes me wonder.

 

[Willtor]

Both of these approaches are lacking, I think. The laws were written with specific intentions -- to benefit the people. Understanding how they do that is important to thinking about whether they can be applied directly to our society or ways in which our society behaves that support or conflict with them. This is how it makes sense to say that Christ fulfills the law. It neither goes away, nor is mechanically applied.

I mean, who today thinks that we shouldn't sow fields with two kinds of crops? That would undermine crop rotation. But the passage wasn't intended to undermine crop rotation. They didn't have that technology. That law limited the ability of landowners to establish horizontal monopolies. We have horizontal monopolies, today. They're destructive to society. But both the ignoring of the passage and the mechanical application of it don't help in constructing a biblical case opposing them.

 

[-57]

Both of these approaches are lacking, I think. The laws were written with specific intentions -- to benefit the people. Understanding how they do that is important to thinking about whether they can be applied directly to our society or ways in which our society behaves that support or conflict with them. This is how it makes sense to say that Christ fulfills the law. It neither goes away, nor is mechanically applied.

I mean, who today thinks that we shouldn't sow fields with two kinds of crops? That would undermine crop rotation. But the passage wasn't intended to undermine crop rotation. They didn't have that technology. That law limited the ability of landowners to establish horizontal monopolies. We have horizontal monopolies, today. They're destructive to society. But both the ignoring of the passage and the mechanical application of it don't help in constructing a biblical case opposing them.

Great post.....but the topic of the "law" is huge.

The intent of my post was to show Hoghead something about the law after his post where in post 56 He said "For example, do you follow all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork"?

13 Then a voice spoke to him: “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 “No, Lord! Peter answered, “- I have never eatenanything impure or unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him a second time: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Hoghead seems to read his bible....I wonder what his position is on pork. I wonder why he even asked me that question.