There’s no allegory there, though that’s not a bad view given that the kinds of literature the ancient Hebrews shared with the rest of the ANE is alien to us. One of my OT professors said there are almost as many literary genres in Genesis 1-11 as there are chapters (I can only recall four these days).
Anyone who studies ANE literature, including the Hebrew writings, is shocked at some point – it’s too alien to us.
The main problem with this thread is the assumption of what Theistic Evolution is.
I would maintain that it is not ToE with God inserted,
Richard
Edit,
And as I was proposing this long before BioLogos came into existence I have at least as much, if not more authority than Mr Collins. I have also been a Christian longer than Mr Collins. And, as Theistic Evolution is not a scientific theory any scientific qualification is not valid.(as I see it)
There is no authorised platform or group empowered with the authority to define Theistic Evolution be it church or science based. and it will almost certainly never be more than a theory (Not that I consider ToE to be anythng more than a theory either) which makes any version as valid or invalid as any other.
There are people who accept the theory of evolution as scientifically accurate. They also believe that God is a part of nature and acts through nature. What would you call them? These people exist, and they don’t disappear because you use a personal definition of theistic evolution that differs from what everyone else is using. You can’t define people out of existnce.
You seem to be arguing over which words to use instead of focusing on the position people are actually taking. That’s just semantics. If you want to use your personal definitions that are different from what everyone else is using, that’s your choice. However, if you want your position to be understood I would suggest using the definition everyone else uses so there is no confusion.
How many more times must we go here?
ToE is not theistic, it is the scientific view and science does not recognise God
If someone claims to accept ToE but “secretly” inserts God (because they believe that is how God works) they are no longer believing (accepting) ToE, Because God’s input would (should IMO) change the parameters or working away from random which is at the heart of ToE.( Chances are they just do not see any contradiction.or have even thought about it. it is what they have been told and who are they to argue)
What would I call them “Christians”
(It is not up to me to claim anything else)
And? Doesn’t everybody? Just because others agree does not make it right (or wrong)
You started that a long time ago. Besides, how else can we communicate?
So you admit that you do not understand my position? We i guess that is something
You also seem to be claiming that I am wrong to have my own view
Condescention is just anther form of insult It says one thing but means the opposite
Of course, that would mean I agree with it
Nah
Richard
Edit.
We are talking at cross purposes over a logical fallacy.
My view is based on a belief that ToE is wrong. If others do not then it doesn’t matter (to them) whether it states the inclusion of God or not. Therefore they can call it Theistic because, as far as they are concerned it is including God
They disagree with you, and since these are their beliefs I tend to accept their own descriptions of their own beliefs. Sorry, but you don’t get to define their beliefs for them. Just because you disagree with their beliefs doesn’t give you the right to ignore their existence.
No, they don’t. Most people use the common definition. Most people don’t make up their own definitions of words because that makes communication impossible.
What? You would probably use the same definition for “Islam” as everyone else. That doesn’t indicate you are a Muslim.
You seem to be speaking for me,things that I am not saying
Either you didn’t see this edit or you are ignoring it
Richard
Edit
A Rose by any other name?
Theistic Evolution would be the global term for any version that includes God, but within that grouping there will be many subsets, whereby the details change. That would be anything from the scientific view to a completely God centric controlled view. My view appears to be somewhere in the middle (as usual)
On your #5 question, everything in the Bible points to the Fall of man having been avoidable IF Adam and Eve had resisted their natural, evolutionary instincts to place preeminent trust in themselves over God.
Mistrust of God, and more broadly the elevation of trust in oneself over all others, is a core attribute of evolved man. Self-centeredness is the engine that drove biological evolution forward. Every creature that has ever existed has placed a priority on preservation and advancement of self, and those creatures who were most successful at doing so lived long enough to pass their DNA on to the next generation. As products of this process, all humans retain this self-centeredness as an inherent characteristic of their being. In mistrusting God, Eve was doing what she was programmed to do.
Adam and Eve’s time in the garden was meant to be preparatory, and thus temporary. Having come from a polytheistic culture, they needed to grow in their understanding of the one true God, His ways, and His plans before they could be the emissaries to the rest of humanity that they were called to be. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the garden not as a setup to test them, but as an necessary element in the process of maturation that would come into play at the proper time, if only they would trust fully in God. Prompted by Satan, they instead mistrusted God and ate from it before being given permission to do so.
Hear, hear!
I know you reject this fact, but that is true of all science, from astrophysics to volcanology. All boil down to randomness, all boil down to order arising from randomness (especially stellar physics, since over 99% of all stars depend on raw randomness to even undergo fusion and shine!).
Ah, sweet solipsism!
The basis of intelligent discourse is agreed-upon definitions. “I do not agree with your definitions” is not a rational element of discourse (let alone of logic).
And yes, you do have to be logical when discussing things with others; the other option is that I can define England as being a pot of moldy beans in a cow shed and that would be just as valid as calling it a country.
By using agreed-upon definitions. Here, that would be those held by the founder of the website/organization and the preponderance of the participants.
No, it would mean you are willing to engage in rational discussion. Or to put it another way:
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.