Why did God used evolution?

Faith & Science Conversation
121

Views have to be based on the text – that is, on the meaning of the words. All too often you reject the meaning and contradict it.

The two are not in conflict – since the universe is not a biological entity, evolution doesn’t apply to it.

I once heard a Methodist pastor use the illustration of the guy on the old Ed Sullivan Show who got a couple of dozen plates spinning up on the tops of narrow poles and kept them all balanced and spinning – that the universe kept going due to God’s constant attention, all nicely balanced.

Wasn’t “the great chain of being” a Gnostic idea? I know Aristotle made some such reference and Aquinas invoked it, but if memory serves it was a favorite of the Gnostics, each step in the “chain” emanating the next “downward” one.

1 Like
122

That’s a nice point to look at in ANE laws; there was base compensation, which was essentially payment for lost work time, and restorative compensation, which was continuing support until a person could again work fully and support himself. Whether that provision extended to include “a slow and agonizing death” varied (as did the reasoning behind the laws, such as benefit to his city, a king’s responsibility before the gods, or none given).

Without reference to the specific passages I can’t comment on translation issues; my guess, though, would be worldview issues rather than translation; e.g. a lot back in the ANE had to do with whether one belonged to “the people” (das volk) or was “a stranger and alien”.

1 Like
123

:sunglasses:

The meaning you insist on.

Ever thought there might be alternative understanding?

Richard

124

Reminds me of a Roman Catholic Deacon I knew who was a Buddhist – it struck many as contradictory, but in order to be consecrated a deacon he was examined by the bishop, who ended up concluding that Buddhism was not contradictory to Magisterial teaching.
The local priest had to really bear down and bone up on the matter as the question came up every year in catechism classes, both child and adult: “How can a person be both a Buddhist and a Catholic?”
So I don’t think atheists have any corner on that!

That’s a definition that tends to result in backfilling from English (indeed most European languages) to the text, i.e. the phrase “God’s Word” is taken as an indicator of what “inspiration” means – and iffy proposition at best since scripture doesn’t actually call itself “God’s Word” (though there are places that come close, but only in reference to specific passages).

If the latter statement is true, then text and interpretation are essentially the same thing, except that the text is reduced to a basis for putting forth one’s own propositions.
As with any literature, one has to start with the meaning of the text at hand, which is what the author intended and the original audience understood – that’s essential to get out of one’s own conceptions and into the “mind” of the writer. Interpretation and application come later.

But Richard insists that we must not do this, that this constitutes judging! (Despite the fact that we are admonished to do so.)

1 Like
125

No – the meaning. Words have meanings, and those are found by viewing them through the lens of the original context, nowhere else – that is how language works.

You demonstrate that you don’t care about the text every time you dismiss something as “Jewish” or some other excuse – yet that “Jewishness” is part and parcel of the meaning.

Sure – but you never actually deal with the text to find one, you just cite some subjective notion and explain the text away. If you want to show an alternative, wrestle with the text, analyze the vocabulary and grammar, establish the context, and make a case! It’s no different than with science: you have to start with the data!

126

:sunglasses:

So you are claiming a single understanding that you have.
IOW there is one single meaning to any text. And if not you have considered and dismissed any alternative and everyone must comply with your conclusions

Richard

127

Richard, i say that God has revealed Himsepf to us through His word because that is what the Bible not only exists for, but it also tells us that.

God uses a number of avenues for this process, visions to the Prophets, Christs living ministry, and the Holy Spirit. The bible is the result of these three things…thats the point.

128

Show me the bible text where it says that St Roymond?

Google AI returns the following statement that is at odds with your claim. It actually actually shows your claim there is theologically wrong…

Several Bible texts, particularly those emphasizing universal principles and enduring truths, suggest the Bible’s message transcends its original time and context, aiming to guide humanity across generations.

Here are some examples:
Universal Principles:
The Bible often presents principles like love, justice, and forgiveness as timeless and applicable to all people, regardless of their historical or cultural background. For example, the Ten Commandments, found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, are presented as foundational moral guidelines for all people.
Prophecies and End Times:
Prophecies throughout the Bible, particularly those concerning the end times, suggest that the events and messages within the Bible have a broader, future-oriented significance, extending beyond the immediate context of the writers.
Jesus’ Teachings:
Jesus’ teachings, particularly those found in the Gospels, are presented as applicable to all people, regardless of their background or time period. His teachings on love, compassion, and forgiveness are seen as enduring principles for all humanity.
Old Testament and New Testament Connections:
The New Testament often draws upon and interprets the Old Testament, suggesting that the Old Testament is not simply a historical record but a foundation for understanding God’s broader plan for humanity.
The Gospel Message:
The core message of the Gospel, which is about salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, is presented as a universal message that transcends time and culture.
Biblical Authors’ Intentions:
The authors of the Bible, such as the apostles, often wrote to encourage and instruct believers in their faith, but their writings also contain broader messages that can be applied to various cultures and situations.
Examples of God’s Actions:
The Bible contains numerous examples of God’s actions, such as the creation of the world and the deliverance of the Israelites from slavery, which are presented as illustrations of God’s character and power that can be understood and applied by people of all times.
Biblical Parables:
The parables in the Bible, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan, are designed to teach universal truths about compassion, forgiveness, and neighborly love.
The Book of Revelation:
The Book of Revelation, with its visions of the end times, is often interpreted as having a broader message about God’s ultimate victory over evil and the establishment of a new heaven and earth.

Of.course then theres the acronym “BIBLE”

Basic
Instruction
Before
Leaving
Earth

129

There are different variants on a chain of being; medieval concepts have various social ranks of humans in a sequence from “lower” life up to varied spiritual entities, for example.

Selecting varied elements of different traditions brings to mind a Reformed (i.e., Calvinistic) Roman Catholic who I knew some years ago.

Although AI can’t be trusted, the quote actually supports the importance of carefully considering the original. “Several Bible texts…” implies that there are parts that are not as transcendent as well. John Walton uses the catchy phrase that the Bible was written for us but not to us.

For example, Genesis 1:1 is actually something like

image
image148×244 6.17 KB

except that they should all run together. I can’t read that. It has to be translated. Unless we have some knowledge of what life was like in the ancient Near East, we’ll have trouble understanding a lot of details and may miss the point. Even English translations aren’t always clear to modern readers; a friend recalled thinking as a child that the beam in one’s own eye would be the beam of light from a flashlight, misunderstanding the language of a few centuries ago.

Also, the fact that passages have general application does not mean that we can rely on our first impression of what they mean. On the contrary, if we take Scripture seriously as being authoritative, we will seek to do what we can to understand it better, including gaining an understanding of the original context. We must strive to correctly apply the universal teachings.

In II Peter 3, Peter admits that some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand. Likewise, much of the message of Jesus and the apostles was that Judaism had misinterpreted a lot of Scripture. Although the doctrine of perspicuity of scripture affirms that the main points of Scripture are clear to any competent reader, that does not justify a presumption of personal inerrancy. Rather, we must always be checking our understanding against the insights of others and the best available scholarship into the textual meaning.

2 Likes
130

It’s next to the verse that says Genesis was written so it will be understood by modern English speakers 2,000+ years later in language that is consistent with modern scientific understanding in the year 2025 AD.

1 Like
131

You still do not get the point I am making.

Yes God is revealed through Scripture but…

What is revealed would appear to be understood differently and not just
How you say.

All I (ever) object to is dogmatism about what
Scripture says
Or how it must be read/interpreted/understood

Richard

132

No – and if you can’t grasp that, there’s little point talking with you because you understand neither literature nor scholarship.

Correct – it’s the sense that the author intended. That’s the definition of meaning – it isn’t what you bring to a text, it’s not how you think about the text, it’s what the text says given the author’s worldview and intent, literary type, and historical context. That’s just how language works.
You seem to play the game of “what it means to me”, which is a grand way of throwing out any need to actually study and understand.

See above – if you have scholarly argument based on the text, with linguistics and literary and historical studies to back it up, have at it. But you just claim the right to have a text "mean: whatever you like, which is no different from hollering “Neener neener neener”.
I’ll consider any actual alternative – but you never present any, you just assert on your own authority that you can declare that it means whatever you want it to and that people are supposed to accept that. You may as well claim that quantum mechanics is due to fairies who ride the electrons of atoms – you’re entitled to that notion, but you have no rational basis for expecting anyone else to pay attention; if you want others to pay attention, do some actual scholarship, present some actual arguments.

Google AI is an ass. Its response is illogical and ignorant of basic literary reality: no one writes something that is not in what was plain language for the original audience. The only alternative is that the text was essentially meaningless to the original audience.

Which is childish silliness that misrepresents the entire point of the scriptures – it’s very bad theology.

Boy, that brings back memories! I’m glad we never had to learn to write that stuff.

I presume you mean no spaces between words, which is true. And if they couldn’t get an entire word on one line, they just started off with the remaining letters on the next line.
(Though it wasn’t as bard as with Egyptian, which could change direction with each line, and figures could mean different things depending on whether they faced with the flow of a line or against it, so for example what on one line would be a “b” on the next line could be a “d” – same figure, flipped over, and which it was depended on which way the line was to be read.)

There are adults who have based meditations on that same error. It’s the basic error that drives all false teachings and heresies, that what the text looks like without doing actual study is what it must mean.

Luther had some imaginative and earthy things to say about people who thought they were personally inerrant, one of the politest being that they took Christians for the tyranny of a single pope and gave them to the chaos of a million!

Starting with the best scholarship!

1 Like
133

Thank you for the much more creative and polite response that the one I thought about making!

1 Like
134

Look this is just playing games…the genealogies gaps are nothing more than hot air…those theories have been addressed countless times before and are mute…flogging dead horses doesnt make them run…they are dead. The simple answer is that genealogy gaps account for a small percentage of missing time…so much so its completely irrelevant, not only statistically, but also in historical reality…because we can also fill some of those gaps from other historical cultural records outside of the bible narrative.

Then theres the internal consistency dilemma again…and around in circles you go with your mute arguments!

It gets to thepoint where you start making claims that essentially God isnt real…for example, because he cant possibly have given Moses the plans to the earthly tabernacle based on a heavenly one…“nope its a copy of an Egyptian pharoahs temple” you say…“the Exodus never happened”…and on and on the discrediting goes.

Then you have the hide to say…“Adam is adding interpretation and meaning to the bible”…all the while you detract from it…publicly discrediting the internal consistency of Gods revelation to us…His Word! It is the atheist who claims God doesnt exist…not the Christian.

quote=“St.Roymond, post:132, topic:56374”]
it isn’t what you bring to a text, it’s not how you think about the text, it’s what the text says given the author’s worldview and intent, literary type, and historical context. That’s just how language works.
[/quote]

This completely ignores the theological habit that other bible authors have also written about those same histories, those same doctrines…so its very easy to cross reference to get the original meaning. This is also why you rarely cite scripture in support of your claims here.

135

Are we re inventing wheels here? How many scholars decided on the bible cannon, was it not:

Council of Rome 382
Synod of hippo 393
Council of Carthage 397 and 419
Then there was the council of Trent, and along came the Protestant reformation…how many hundreds of scholars…do we really need to go down this ridiculous pathway trying to rustle up credibility to absurd notions such as all these scholars, who just so happen to be much closer in history to the time of the disciples/apostles, were offtrack? I would strongly argue that if anything, as time has gone on since the New Testament was written, we have tended to corrupt the message not restore it as you infer.

The dilemma for you is that the New Testament is harmonious with the Old…the two fit together so well that we can use them in both directions to ensure adequite theology and doctrine. We do not need some new scientific discovery to understand what God has already revealed to us…we already have everything we need and thst has been the case since the last living witness, the apostle John, died in the early second century.

136

And what verse would that be? (This is going to be interesting because i think i know whats coming and im going to shred it to pieces if you cite anything that references the prophecy in Daniel)

Secondly…you must have missed the part where Christ quoted scripture written over 1500 years before he was born…so if we can know New testament writing in our modern languages 2000 years after they were written, why cant Christ and the apostles understand an interprete Moses, Jocab, Abraham, Noah and other early Patriarchs? (Especially since many historical figures throughout the old testament timeline also refer to those patriarchs?)

We also have early church fathers such as Polycarp, Clementof Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Jerome etc who write about the apostles…if memory serves me correct, Polycarp even worked directly under the guidence of at least 2 apostles (John and Paul…probably also Luke since Luke worked with Paul)…so your argument there simply doesnt pass the stink test.

137

This confuses two separate claims, understandably, as they are confused from the skeptic side as well.

In giving Moses directions for making a tabernacle, God gave directions that Moses could understand, for a purpose he could understand. There are only a certain number of ways to make a portable (by humans) shrine, using resources that were available to the people about 1250 BC in Sinai. Thus, the directions should resemble other portable shrines known from that general region and time. This does not mean that the tabernacle wasn’t inspired by God [conspicuously promoting monotheism rather than idolatry, for example, is an important contrast with surrounding cultures]. In fact, it contradicts claims that the description must have been an invention centuries later. But it does highlight that the Bible can be better understood through a thorough knowledge of the relevant culture. Many of the details in descriptions of the tabernacle and temple furnishings and the sacrificial rituals are unclear to us now precisely because they are explained in terms that were familiar to ancient Near Eastern culture and assume that the audience had the common knowledge of the day. For example, Leviticus gives some detail on how to do a proper wave offering. But not other details, nor exactly why to do a wave offering at all - presumably everybody knew that, but we don’t.

The gaps in the genealogies, and the problematic nature of the numbers (with the differences between Septuagint, Samaritan, and Masoretic and the odd patterns) make any calculation of exact dates problematic. It is ironic that insisting that the days of Genesis 1 and the years of the genealogies must be strict historical chronicles is often closely tied to insistence on particular symbolic interpretations of the days in apocalyptic writing. But most of the time that God has used so far in creating the diversity of life, which the young-earth movement makes bad excuses to ignore, comes before humans. The genealogy times are not very relevant to the question of the age of the earth.

An honest argument must accurately represent the various positions, accurately report the overall data, and assess what best corresponds to the data. Creation science cannot credibly explain any of the millions of geological layers.

2 Likes
138

That was my rhetorical way of pointing out that there are no verses supporting your view of scripture.

I don’t remember Jesus saying Genesis was literal history and scientifically supported.

We can interpret scripture today. We just have to interpret scripture through the lens of the period in history in which it was written.

1 Like
139

I prefer a higher authority than human scholarship.

(I wonder where the Holy Spirit fits in to your view)

Hey, what do i know. I thought religion was about God, rather than human scholarship.

Richard

140

How do we know that? We have to have some sort of legitimate biblical study to determine what is corrupt. Certainly, the guidance of the Spirit is critical, but plenty of people claim all sorts of things were inspired by the Spirit. A few years ago, I received a letter from someone claiming that God had revealed to him the corrected text of Scripture and anyone could come and view their choice of passage on a particular afternoon. My interpretation will be biased in light of my background, preferences, etc. My job is teaching, keeping the department running, dealing with all sorts of paperwork and requests, and getting in a little research. Other people have had much more opportunity to study the Bible in depth. They also, though not perfect, will have different biases and so are likely to recognize some of my errors. Remember the many verses about seeking counsel, heeding the teaching of the elders and apostles, etc.

Thus, our responsibility is to seek out sound teaching, to find what those who have more experience have to say, to improve our understanding and correct the corruptions. Checking the teaching from much earlier scholars, as you suggest, is an excellent approach - living in a different culture, they have quite different biases and often see through what we are blind to. Also, anything that has stood the test of time is worth looking at, whereas much popular at the moment will vanish like surplus copies of “88 reasons why Jesus will return in 1988”.

But it is also necessary to have due diligence in checking what people taught through history. The claim that the church held a young-earth position until modern science came along is an “Enlightenment” lie, aimed at making Christianity look stupid, for example. There’s plenty of corrupt claims about history to beware of, also.

The fact that the Old Testament and New Testament fit so well is an important reason against accepting creation science claims. Both teach primarily what we are to believe concerning God and what duties He requires of us. We should not separate out Genesis 1 and claim that it is talking about scientific history rather than theology. Creation science in general, and flood geology in particular, is an extreme of dispensationalism, having God working in wildly different ways in the past (indeed, simultaneously doing multiple incompatible actions) rather than consistency in God’s working from beginning to end.

Indeed, religion is about God, but there’s no reason to take seriously someone’s claims about God that are based only on whatever they want God to be like. Good scholarship about God teaches us to better understand our religion.

Just because someone has a big name PhD does not mean that their scholarship is theologically sound. Nor does my PhD studying fossil and modern mollusks mean that I am an authority on unrelated topics. I am not saying that we should just defer to anyone with more letters after their name. Rather, like the Bereans, we should study Scripture ourselves to assess claims as well as we can, and listen to those authorities who do show credible evidence of faithfully investigating Scripture, throughout church history.

3 Likes