does anyone here know what the evening and morning means? It seems to indicate a 24 hour day, but maybe there is another interpretation.
My memory says you never answer any questions that are put to you while you keep posting longer and longer posts that are TLDNR.
You can’t even get what evolution is correctly. So why should we accept any of your “massive problems”? While we keep presenting massive problems with your view that you simply ignore.
Really? Sorry but your beliefs are just your interpretations. Interpretations that aren’t even that old.
2 Likes
But I want to know if you believe that the earth is fixed and doesn’t move. I don’t need any song and dance. Or projectile Scriptures that don’t answer my questions.
3 Likes
of course I dont believe the earth is fixed and doesn’t move…I am not a denier of images of a round earth or of the science. However, let me ask you this:
Can you show me from the bible where flat earthers cannot be saved? (because i can absolutely show you, and have already done on these forums, from the bible that an individual cannot be saved whilst believing in evolution because all Darwinian evolution followers deny a physical 6 day creation, the Seventh-Day Sabbath, the fall, that death did not exist prior to the fall of man, that man was created moral etc etc!)…Evolution denies purposeful guidance…its all unguided random natural selection. How do you reconcile that your own founder is opposed to the fundamental statement of the science he apparently bases his theology upon? He claims that whilst it apparently looks unguided, it is in fact guided by God…just not obviously!
I also do not think it is logically consistent for a faith statement to make the claim that the all encompassing darwinian theory that includes the origin of our morality is false! How can you accept the first half of his theory and reject the second? And even worse, in order to obtain the morality that you claim is false in the darwinian model, you cut it out of the opposing Christian model and stitch the to together such that you now find neither side agree with you at the most critically fundamental level! I believe this to be an impossible dilemma to reconcile as neither theories published writings agrees with you! Some might argue, and I am obviously one, that what you have left is hugely problematic?
Look here is a simple solution…go to the following youtube video…either watch the entire thing or if you wish to look specifically at just claims against this faith group fast forward to the16 minute mark
youtube video…God and Evolution: The Problem with Theistic Evolution - YouTube
Adam, it’s telling that you’ve submitted your complete list of objections to TE - a very honest thing to do. So all your cards are on the table. Very good.
The problem with impeccable logic (if indeed you have it) is that it is all for naught when the premises you feed into it are false.
Your #1 (title notwithstanding) is a partial truth at least. It is true that TEs do see physical death as woven into the very fabric of creation. Though even here you sneak in the unsupported premise that no created order that includes any form of death could be described as good. But even though you’re stumbling here already, let’s just set this aside for a moment for the next one.
#2 (God of the gaps) is just false - and would not apply to nearly any believers around here. How can you expect that your logic would make any headway against something that you consistently fail to even understand at all? Which makes your point #3 suspect too … I’m getting the feeling you know less about scriptures than a lot of us do who actually read them … all of them, and not just a few favorite ones that are specially fed to you by those who are more about anti-evolutionism than they apparently are about the scriptures they pretend to wrap themselves in.
You continue to insist that you’ve got the only correct understanding of scriptures that you think of as just “plain readings” - which ends up meaning - “It means what I say it means.” That pretty much collapses any confidence that you really know what you are talking about with any of the rest of scripture that you bring up. You have yet to show much sign of actually listening to, much less understanding others who don’t think as you do.
3 Likes
No, at least many TE/EC people would assert that God guides all natural processes.
Yes, but there are plenty of places where it is obvious that there is significant symbolism, and to tell that we need some knowledge of science.
Again, not something most TEs and ECs believe.
A myth in the sense of an account designed to give many theological points, not to give historical details.
We can get into all sorts of arguments over that, check a few of the older threads like Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools video series for students or Resources to further investigate the claims made in this article?
More non-issues, as they are rejected by TEs and ECs That last one is conflating evolution as a scientific position (what TE/EC people agree with). With atheistic evolutionism, which they very much do not agree with.
2 Likes
Do you believe salvation depends on belief of those particular interpretations? If you do, you are in danger of denying Jesus in favor of following rules as I see it. Paul wrote in Romans 10:9 if you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
And that ignores the fact that you are misrepresenting the beliefs of EC to the extent that it is textbook straw man.
3 Likes
This is just another ID video from the Discovery Institute and the folks around here are very familiar with their arguments.
Here is one problem for their argument. The Bible tells us that God is in control of all natural processes. That is a given. The fact that we can’t detect God’s control is not a problem. The ID folks argue that you can for evolution while ignoring all the other fields like meterology.
5 Likes
So you don’t really take the Bible literally. So you can’t expect us to do so.
And you should stop distorting the beliefs of Theistic Evolutionists. Isn’t that dishonest? Think of how you would feel if somebody kept saying that Adventists worship Ellen White.
2 Likes
@adamjedgar this conversation is not going to be very productive because:
- Most of us are not interested in converting people to the EC position if they are happy with the YEC position. So, my response to “prove to me I’m wrong” kind of assertions is going to be that it’s not hard to find the evidence that you are wrong on all the science. But I know that if you are convinced you are right, you won’t do that research and will continue to rely on creationist propaganda, mistakenly believing it is trustworthy. Almost nothing we say here will change who you trust.
- Most of us are going to invest zero time in listening to/reading the creationist propaganda you find compelling. I have been there and done that and read thousands of pages and made my informed decision already. I am not going to waste any time arguing with these articles and videos because other people have done this already better than me, I have already made up my mind against them, and if you want to believe them, that’s your deal (see 1).
- You keep telling me what I believe and none of it is right. I don’t feel any obligation to defend or clarify beliefs I didn’t claim. If you are actually interested in what people here believe and how they reconcile their faith and what they know is true about the world from science, then ask some specific questions. Don’t just spout off creationist caricatures and then tell people they are wrong or not real Christians. You don’t know any of us.
7 Likes
Adam, there is something very important that you need to realise here.
If you are going to address what people believe, you must address what they believe in reality, and not your incorrect misconceptions and misrepresentations of what they believe. Others have told you repeatedly that proponents of evolutionary creation, or theistic evolution, or whatever you want to call it, do not believe what you claim that we believe about death, sin and the Fall. This is something that I see coming from science deniers in YEC and ID circles a lot, and it is uncharitable, divisive, and dishonest.
@Christy has pointed out that she, and many of the rest of us, do not find the scientific claims of the young earth organisations to be credible. There is a specific reason for this: science has rules, and young earth “creation science” flouts the rules in ways that would kill people if they did the same in any normal science-based workplace. I can go over this in detail with you if you like.
5 Likes
If death before the fall is evil, why is the Psalmist praising God for providing food for lions at any time? It is not always evil?
Psalm 104 is a creation Psalm (or the Creation Psalm).
The original unfallen creation was merely “very good”, not perfect (there is a word for perfect in Hebrew, and God did not use it):
God’s purpose was and still is to magnify the most valuable thing there is, namely himself (he would be lying if he said otherwise), and to increase and share his joy. He is happy in himself.*
Father’s intended purpose in creating the world was to was not to create a perfect one. His purpose was not thwarted. It was a two creations model** from the get-go, and the first one was subjected to futility on purpose, from its very start.
The original unfallen creation was merely “very good”, not perfect, since it did not and could not magnify God’s justice, mercy, grace and love through our Lord, Jesus, the Christ. Jesus’ motivation is also explicit and clear, and it was forward looking***: “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame.” Hebrews 12:2. That joy is us(!), if you nave been adopted into his family.
The New Earth will be perfect.
*See The Pleasures of God by John Piper
**”Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 25:34
***Our motivation should be forward looking, too, toward future grace. See Future Grace, also by John Piper
1 Like
You repestedly assert without argument. The OT was written in Hebrew not English. The text can, and has been for over 2000 years, been read in other than a literall way. Disagree with this witness if you want, but don’t deny its existence or possibility.
Feel free to actually argue your case, rather than–once again–assert without evidence…and often contrary to evidence. I’m a teacher of biblical languages and a well-versed scholar who’s published in this area. I find your rantings ill-grounded and uncharitable. If you think the Bible teaches YEC, believe it while admitting the cognitive dissonance it entails. Choose better YEC representatives than ones that provoke you to dismiss the faith and salvation of fellow believers (there are some good ones to follow).
4 Likes
Excellent article, Bill. It is gentle in tone, yet provides good ideas for engagement. I have several Adventist friends but never considered how Ellen White’s ideas still are strongly held.
1 Like
Hi. Do you have an idea of what evening and morning means? If the days are millions of years, why would the author use evening and morning to describe them?
2 Likes
Greetings! Yes, I think there is a definite, culture specific reason, but it’s been a few months since I saw it. I’ll dig some for you. It may be in one of Walton’s books, but I don’t recall. @DOL Dr Lamoureux has a degree in both theology and evolutionary science. Dr Lamoureux, can you clarify? Thanks!
1 Like
He’s long gone from BioLogos. I have his contact information, but don’t want him subjected to any hostility. So here’s a youtube lecture he gave that might provide answers:
1 Like
Hi Rohan,
Nothing special or unique about these nouns.
Very common in the Old Testament.
עֶרֶב (ereb) 134 X
NASB: evening (114) , evening* (1), evenings (2), every evening (1), night (2), sunset (1), twilight (11)
בֹּקֶר (boqer) 214 X
NASB: dawn (1), dawn* (2), day (1), daybreak (1), every morning (5), morning (195) , mornings (2), soon (1), tomorrow morning (1)
Hope this helps.
Blessings,
Denis
BTW, I’m actually working on a translation of Genesis 1 right now.
4 Likes
A translation, don’t you mean a paraphrase?
The Bible cannon was complete many centuries ago.the translation into english, also centuries ago…it does not need a re-translation.
What that is now is a paraphrase… placing ones own interpretation in print.
I have seen posts in this forum claiming any denomination writing their own Bible are heretical cults. .and yet here we are reading that a theistic evolutionist is doing exactly that!
I will stick with the TR and Critical texts dating back many centuries thanks…I know and trust these codeces have not been completely corrupted by denominational and non Christian evolutionary biases.
People should be very alarmed by the quoted post above.