I agree. I was not disagreeing with you, at all. Rather, I was simply stating that when we embrace the person of the Truth (Jesus our redeemer) it is tempting to extend the possession of that Truth to our own theology. So, as you say, many do not think to change their theology, but I think it is because they mistakenly believe that the Truth automatically extends to their opinions, which it does not. As you rightly state, there are checks and balances between God’s books of revelation and they must be reconciled. In a sense, they have stopped at step one and never gone any further.
I really like how you stated that, Michael. …and welcome to the forum!
I was just listening to a Tim Hawkins skit, singing atheist campfire songs, and he had one line about evolution and Darwin, essentially equating accepting Darwin with atheism. Now, I don’t know if that reflected his personable belief, but it did reflect what he thought his audience would find funny. Point being, evolution has been presented to a sizable Christian subculture in such a way that they see it as equivalent to atheism. So, while many of us believe evolution is part of God’s truth revealed in creation, some stIll have an ingrained negative connotation that is hard to discard.
Quite a few of those with the negative connotation seem to come by here. And all seem very resistant to changing that incorrect belief.
Well I think that fits well with the problem @jpm just described. Consider being taught something your entire life, reinforced in every occasion and then coming here to find out that it was all one big lie. That’s not an easy thing to transition out of! In light of that, I think we can all aim to be more understanding in light of this mess that comes our way from a sort of American cultural Christianity, or from evangelical churches, pastors and apologists.
I do not think that there is a simple explanation why the Bible just does not tell us there were billions of years in a simple process of creation. Nor does God’s image have much say in the matter. The warning though had always been not to put faith and trust in the physical. The process of cloning was mentioned before any biological evolution. I doubt that is taken into consideration much, because the whole account is taken as a metaphorical philosophy. Other ANE text tell the account through an evolutionary viewpoint, but that is also lost on those who attempt to justify they were not actual accounts in the Bible. The Scriptures or Covenants with God did not include the view of society outside of this Covenant. Is that God rejecting the inclinations of the world even though such a physical view of creation cannot be refuted?
I am curious as to what you are referring to here. I can’t think off any biblical biological cloning. I suggested tongue in cheek once that when Christ was said to the second Adam by Paul that perhaps that literally meant they had the same genome, both being de novo genetically, but do not know of anyone who takes that seriously.
The creation of Eve probably doesn’t qualify as cloning, as long as we assume she wasn’t Adam’s genetic twin, but in the kooky world of Genesis 1-3, we do have one body (Eve’s) created from another (Adam’s) and that actually sounds like cloning to people who’ve had too much wine or who think that one ought to read Genesis “literally.”
My thoughts also regarding Eve. Even if you somehow duplicated Adam’s X chromosome and removed the Y, she still would not be a clone. A product of artificial parthenogenesis, perhaps. Speaking of, here is most interesting case report I stumbled upon:
She wouldn’t be a clone by the book, but she’d be close, and the process of taking a piece of one organism to generate another is a form of cloning. Again, the more obvious problem is that the conversation we are having is flat-out bonkers.