This totally fails to address the question. To use an analogy for what Christy asked-- if you know that oil is moved across the world in tanker ships, why would you expect that all ships must haul oil?
Looks to me like Isaiah is indicating that some seriously heavy-duty evolution will take place since apparently the diets of many animals will change radically.
Apart from that, why should anything in the new heaven and earth have anything to tell us about biology in a fallen world?
Why? This falls under the question I just asked: how does anything in the new heaven and earth tell us anything at all about how things work in a fallen world?
I would be far more inclined to say that the writings of a certain E. White came about âas a direct result of sinâ, given that itâs a lot easier to screw up theology than science.
Why wouldnât He?
Who says itâs a mistake? From what I know of evolution Iâd say it makes the claim that God is such a consumate Artist-Designer that He can set initial conditions and invite all of Heaven to watch the beauty of it unfolding â as opposed to Him making everything individually like a plodder who doesnât understand systems.
You really have to stop doing theology based on science! Really, this is just making stuff up via defining Godâs characteristics as though He was a man you are capable of understanding â itâs the error of anthropomorphizing God!
It takes a LOT more intellect and creativity to set initial parameters and let a beautiful system unfold from them than it does to make pieces one at a time â thatâs why the people in our informal intelligent design club called the pseudo-literalist view of Genesis the âtoy farm animalâ version â it makes God a simpleton who plods along making all the bits individually.
Thereâs no such thing. Christ didnât atone for any wages, He atoned for sin itself and thus, if anything, tore up the statement of wages and tossed it away.
Indeed atoning for the wages wouldnât solve the problem; it would be akin to dealing with measles by treating each symptom while ignoring the disease.
Just as mountains of evidence demonstrates that the opening of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally â no one in the original audience would have even considered that as a possible category â especially since taking it literally throws out all three of the intended messages.
Indeed it relies on a false understanding of what being made in the image of God meant. One of the genres of the opening Creation account is temple inauguration, and that points to a question: since the very last thing done in building and filling a temple in the ancient near east was to install the image of the deity, we have to ask where the writer locates that image â and the answer is humans. We were meant to be Yahwehâs image in His great Temple. A temple image wasnât just a statue or anything, it was an item meant to be so much like the deity that the deity could fill it with his/her/its presence and power and thus interact with the deityâs adherents through the image. In a way more direct than when Yahweh told Moses that he would be as Elohim to Pharaoh we humans were supposed to be as Elohim to everything else in creation so that in looking at us all the other elements of Creation would be looking at Yahweh.
Thatâs why, BTW, ancient theology considered Jesus to be the first actual human: seeing Him we see God, and that had never before been true of any human. And itâs why the ancient church could describe martyrdom as âbecoming humanâ: being united in dying for God, we become like Christ.
Being in Godâs image has nothing to do with cranium volume or even with being upright furless bipeds, it has to do with being the image He designed to represent Yahweh in His temple.
3 Likes
I think Adam is a theological narrative not a historical narrative that must be imposed on some point of evolutionary history. Itâs about humans, Homo sapiens, in the relatively recent history of Israel, not some non-human evolutionary ancestor.
2 Likes
The whole concept of natural selection (including the concept of survival of the fittest) depends on reproduction. If humans donât reproduce in the New Creation because they are resurrected to different, immortal bodies, then that is the reason human evolution would stop, not because of some abstract idea of perfection being achieved through biological means. Humans wouldnât have the same kind of biological bodies. Your logic above about âno evolution in heaven therefore evolution has to do with sinâ is silly if we are given NEW BODIES altogether, ones that canât reproduce, in the new creation. Since reproduction drives evolution, you are implicitly linking Godâs command to be fruitful and multiply in this old creation with sin.
4 Likes
Yes you can blame us for that. Ours isnt any better.
well put. couldnt agree more.
an excellent understanding.
Sorry but that is ignoring the dilemma.
The bible clearly says sin came into this world through the actions of one manâŚAdam. it also says through one man Christ, it will be cleansed from sinâŚie removed completely.
The problem here is that it appears that one is errantly claiming that we have evolved from primative life forms into a form that has the ability to conceptualise, think, reason and through this process we are evolving with the help of Christ into beings capable of existing without sin.
Unfortunately, the above is simply unbiblicalâŚthe bible does not teach any of the above nonsense!
It is very clear from the opening chapters of Genesis, through the Old Testament, right through to the end chapters of the book of revelation that mankind was once without sin, fell into sin, God initiated a plan of salvation fulfilled in the death of Christ, and then restores/rebuilds everything new again.
Irrespective of whether one is YEC or TEist, this theology is undeniable.
Therefore, how does one find a need for evolution in a sinless world?
Remember that Revelation 21 very clearly describes a restored new heaven and new earth there will be no more pain and suffering and no more death. The restoration begins with the complete destruction of life on earth via fire from heaven. That is in no way supportive of any evolutionary idea that we are going to evolve into perfection!
I guess one may also wonder how competition and survival of the fittest can exist in a perfect world without sin where no environmental change will occur, resources are not being pillaged, where there is true stability?
I donât think I am the one missing the dilemma. The facts demonstrate that the Earth is old and that life evolved. It is no different than Heliocentrism.
The only error you can find is that it disagrees with your interpretation of scripture. You ignore the facts. This is why YEC is religion and is not scientific.
1 Like
Or perhaps religious science fiction.
the purpose of a Christian is to be religious and to believe on that religion in order to obtain the gift of salvation.
If one chooses not to follow the fundamental principles of religion, one is not religious. If one is choosing not to be religious, one is not able to obtain salvation. Its rather a simple equation really. So, I choose to be religious.
- ignores the physical death of Christ on the Cross as atonement for the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)
- ignores the reality that the first bishop of the Christian church specifically tells us he believed in the literal global flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorah and that he received all of his revelations from writings of the prophets, from the ministry of Christ, and from God in heaven (2 Peter Chapter 2)
- ignores the fact that the entire theme of the bible centers around the fall of man thereby corrupting all creation, and the goal to restore that perfection as illustrated in Revelation 21
- ignores the true explanation of the plan of salvation by the old testament Sanctuary Service
- ignores the prophetic narrative of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in book of Daniel and its ties to the book of Revelation
- Ignores Exodus 20:8-11 In six days God created the heavens and the earthâŚ
- Ignores Revelation 14:12 Here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith/testimony of Jesus. Both are required for salvation because,
- Jeremiah 31:33 In those days says the lord, i will write my laws on their hearts and in their minds
- 2 Timothy 3:16 AMPC Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to Godâs will in thought, purpose, and action),
And thereâs your problem. Believing on religion to get you to heaven doesnât work. Believing on Jesus does. See Matthew 7:22.
2 Likes
- There have long been Jews who affirmed the importance of the Sabbath and the Tabernacle in Exodus, and the first and second Temple. Looks like they were religious and believed on that religion, too.
Not a one of those is actually a problem with what T_aquaticus and I said.
Youâve got yourself into such a twisted view of scripture you canât see whatâs right in front of you.
Thats is nothing more than nitpickingâŚif you are so narrow minded that yougo down this pathwayâŚno wonder TEists straw pluck all the time. Their bias clouds common sense. If you honestly think that me of all people doesnt recognise ChristâŚthen you would be using the comprehension abilities of an idiot.
Every single one of them is a problem.
The fact you cant see that explains why you have such bad theology in the first place.
The sabbath commandment alone discredits any idea that a literal 7 day creation happened pver millions of years. God specifically says in exodus 20 that He created Adam on the 6th day!
The text in 2 peter 2 specificallys tells us, God destroyed all life via a flood. It also tells us fire fell from heaven and destroyed Sodom and Gomorah.
Peter was the first bishop of the christian chirch and he was clearly YEC!
the point is, these texts are complete opposite to any old age earth view. This means that according to New Testament writers such as the first bishop (the apostle Peter), TEism is a false religion.
Btw, the reason i use peter is because you guys already trash Pauls writings confiming creation and the flood, claiming he wasnt an eyewitness to Christs ministryâŚtherefore Pauls writings can be manipulated and reinterpreted differently. Well Peter being a disciple and an apostle, was an eyewitness who was taught the fundamentals of
Christianity by Christ himself and, to make it worse for.your interpretstions, Peter says his witness is also the writings of the prophets. Guess you forgot Moses was a prophetâŚone of the first actually (Noah being an earlier prophet than Moses)
I would like to see a cross referenced refutation of the apostle Peters claims of a literal global flood that destroyed all life on earth, and the destruction of sodom and gomorah. Until i see that, you have no credible answerâŚjust unreferenced made up beliefs that are unbiblical.
Question: Was Charles Darwin a Christian?
Google searched for this, and I found
By
Ted Davis
on November 03, 2016
The Evolution of Darwinâs Religious Faith
Was Charles Darwin an atheist, a Christian, or something in-between? Itâs difficult to say definitively; Darwinâs personal religious journey was complicated.
RS: Now Iâll see if I can ask a question, as Iâm in the process of reading.
Summarize the bullet points from the article that @TedDavis wrote.
Quote by @TedDavis Darwinâs religious journey from Christianity to agnosticism
RS: So Charles Darwin was a Christian, then became an agnostic.
Quote by @TedDavis Darwin has become an icon for atheismâeven though Darwin refused to identify with atheism himself
RS: I wonder what happened that caused Charles Darwin to go from Christian beliefs to agnosticism. Maybe itâll be explained further in this article that Iâve yet to read. Which I will be reading today.
i think that is up for grabs, and likely Charlie himself would have to think about it, but some feel the death of his daughter had a part. The reconciliation of evil with a loving God is a tough one.
1 Like