Exactly. And his teachings, and those of the prophets, are at odds with much of conservative Christian teaching today.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Theologically, the age of the Earth, who did or did not evolve from what, and questions along those lines, are simply not that important. The Bible is more concerned with how we live our lives in the present than with how people lived their lives in the past.
In terms of science, the problem isn’t the age of the Earth or evolution itself. The problem is when other Christians attempt to support their position on the matter with bad arguments and falsehoods, or when they view science in general with suspicion or even hostility. For many of us, science is something that we have to understand and apply correctly in order to do our jobs properly – i.e. without driving our employers out of business or killing people. This means that there are strict rules that we have to follow and standards that we have to maintain, and for those of us in such a position to be subjected to demands from our fellow Christians that we lower our standards and flout those very same rules in order to support dogmas about subjects which the Bible leaves wide open to interpretation – that’s when the sparks start to fly.
3 Likes
Paul’s dismissal of arguments about genealogies in I Timothy 1:4 supports the idea that the topic of ancient history was not particularly important in New Testament times.
The way that many young-earth advocates make creation science central clashes with Paul’s warnings in Galatians about adding to the gospel - creationism becomes a legalistic false gospel.
5 Likes
@Fernando, Welcome.
Please note that there are three Creation accounts in our Bible, Gen 1:1 -2:3. Gen 2:4 - 25, and John 1:1- 3. Please do not cheapen the Bible by ignoring its diversity. John 1:1 going much better with evolution than Gen 1 does. One cannot pick and choose which part of the Bible one believes and does not believe.
More importantly Jesus did not believe that the Bible was the literal Word of God John 5:16-18 (NIV2011)
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute Him.
17 In His defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at His work to this very day, and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
We do not need Jesus to teach us physics. We need Jesus to show us how to solve the human problems of this world. We know how to solve the Covid pandemic. We do not know how to overcome the distrust, fear, and lack of faith that has plaguesthe4 church and the nation. Lord Jesus, forgive and help us!
1 Like
I think we need to create a post where we can discuss the other alternatives for the biblical creationism apart from the Young Earth Creationism.
As of today, I think Young Earth Creationism has a dominant place among Christians because the alternatives against Young Earth Creationism are not clearly defined so far.
There are no consensus even among Christian Theistic Evolution adherents regarding this subject.
Just like there is no consensus amount YEC adherents. They can’t even agree on where the flood is recorded in the geologic record.
I would agree, but the problem seems to be that BioLogos does not want to discuss NT creation thinking based on John 1:1-3. What do you say?
I wouldn’t say that at all!
1 Like
There are indeed different approaches within YECism but they’re not so much scattered apart and they respect each other very well as long as the sub-thought believes in literal 6 x 24 hours of creation.
While us, Theistic Evolutionists, we cannot agree on whether Adam and Eve were literal persons.
I truly don’t know what BioLogos stance is.
They need to clarify, I’ve seen several official postings and the statement that they respect the diverse views within Pro Evolution Theory Christians.
But, so far, I haven’t seen an official posting from BioLogos Staffs and Officials regarding the diverse views that they referred to several times in their postings.
At least, the YECism, they have pretty much defined the few dozens branches within this creationist school of thought which maintain the literal 6 x 24 hours Creation.
Sounds like they have defined their stance, which is to be a big tent. Some seem to want it to be something else, but it is not. I think the reason that it differs from the YEC organizations, is that the particular stance held by YEC groups defines who they are in differentiating them from the other YEC groups, which they need for fundraising, and also to support their financial investments, like the Ark Encounter and various museums. In contrast, EC groups do not rely on their base of support to be dependent on a particular distinct stance on issues like Adam and Eve. In fact, most EC adherents hold to interpretations of early Genesis that may allow different views, and are not binding to a particular narrow view. Biologos seems to respect those interpretations.
5 Likes
[quote=“Relates, post:220, topic:47563”]@
BioLogos does not want to discuss NT creation thinking based on John 1:1-3. What do you say?
[/quote]
@Fernando, you did not respond to my question. Are you willing to explore NT Creationism?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.