6days
New member
Because God created Adam from the dust.
God created Eve from Adams rib..
Jesus quoted from Genesis saying male and female from the beginning of the creation.
Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Because God created Adam from the dust.
God created Eve from Adams rib..
Jesus quoted from Genesis saying male and female from the beginning of the creation.
Alate_One
Well-known member
You shouldn't bother arguing science if you're just going to say "because the Bible says so".
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Evolution and deep time are not observable, regardless of how many times they say it is, and are, therefore, theoretical.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
They don't. Did someone say that?
I have lots of fun reasons, such as "Darwin was a racist" and "If Genesis isn't literal, then the rest of the Bible isn't either." So, basically... no good reasons.
Jarrod
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
You shouldn't bother calling yourself a Christian if you would rather align your self with atheistic evolutionists than believe what God says.
Jesus is asking you to follow Him wherever He goes and would prefer you to use your talents for Him in faith rather than against Him in unbelief.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Alate_One
Well-known member
Multiple problems with your statement.
1. Evolution is neither atheistic nor theistic. It's a scientific ideal.
2. I don't agree with your or 6days position about what you think "God says".
I am. Young Earth Creationism drives people away from Christianity because rational people recognize it is false when they evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution.
I'm here to keep people from being ensnared by YECism and to show that scientists that accept evolution are Christians as well. That's why Biologos is in my signature.
My response to 6days is pointing out his inconsistency. An insistence on arguing about science and then hiding behind his view of scripture when confronted with information.
If you want to say "I believe scripture says this and anything you tell me won't change my view", fine. But don't make up fantasy "science" to try and support your scriptural view.
In doing so, you show the rest of the world that you value science more than scripture. That's what Baraminology and "kinds" are about, an attempt to make scripture scientific. But it's a wrong headed approach and always has been.
Interplanner
Well-known member
seattle creation conference underway
http://cedarpark.churchonline.org/
the first session is on monarchs
http://cedarpark.churchonline.org/
the first session is on monarchs
Aw, you spoilt it, Jarrod. :chuckle:
Well the real world evidence shows us that Genesis is not literal. Thanks.
6days
New member
Jonah.... I'm glad you arw part of the TOL community.
6days
New member
Common ancestry beliefs are mateialistic /atheistic in nature. Adding a god into the primordial soup is a compromise to materialism, and a contradiction to the character of the God of the *Bible.Alate_One said:
Alate_One said:
We repeat what God says... you spin what God says...
He says "For in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them"
He says man was created from the dust, and woman from man's rib.
He says light was created before the sun.
He says the great sea creatures were created before land animals.
Etc
A little of my testimony....Alate_One said:
At one time I was uncertain what to believe about Genesis. The Bible seemed to say one thing,and 'science' said something very different. I thought perhaps Genesis was just allegorical, and that it didn't really matter either way.
However, a few things convinced me that Genesis was true history and foundational to the gospel. *
1. One thing *was a survey (PEW Research I think). They surveyed young adults who grew up in Christian homes, attending church, but no longer did so. A variety of reasons were given but a prevailing theme was poor apologetic teaching from church and home. The basic teaching was the Bible has lots of stories... we don't have to believe everything, but we do have to believe in Jeaus.*
What the survey revealed is that Christianity became somewhat irrelevant in their lives. Some of this group said things like 'Well if OT stories are not true...then maybe virgin *birth and resurrection are also not true.'*
Meanwhile kids who grew up getting good answers to questions about dinosaurs, death etc connected to Genesis we're much more engaged in their faith and in church as adults.
2. Darwin helped convinced ce me of the importance of Genesis as true history. He struggled with issues of death and suffering. He seemed to have no understanding of these issues from the Bible. The more he was tormented (over questions of why there is suffering), the more he blamed God, and the more bitter he became.*
3. Charles Templeton helped convince me..... we must accept what God plainly says, or reject it totally. He was teamed with Billy Graham and was considered a better evangelist than Billy. But, Charles was poorly grounded in his faith. He went to Princeton where he learned to add long ages I to Genesis.. If there was one issue that caused Charles to reject God, it was because he compromised God's Word in Genesis.*
I think Biologos is far more harmful to Christianity than atheist groups such as Talkorigins. Biologos prints article's the that encourage compromise on scripture. In fact their past president, and frequent contributor seems to doubt Christianity altogether.*Alate_One said:
One contributor to Biologos wrote an article, printed elsewhere, *that said Christians don't need to believe in the physical resurrection. He said the real miracle of the resurrection is that the disciples came to accept the death of Jesus and once again *had joy. If, Biologos had interest in promoting the gospel you would think they might print articles from evangelical creationist Scientists instead of heretics.*
Alate_One
Well-known member
Science is based on methodological materialism. It doesn't tell you if there is teleology or not. Repeating this line simply reinforces the atheist position.
We repeat what God says... you spin what God says...[/QUOTe]I don't "spin" it. I'm trying to understand the meaning of the text, not assume that I fully understand just by reading it in English without context or cultural understanding.
I believe God has given us intelligence and the ability to use the scientific method and natural evidence for us to study. The earth is the book of God's works, if it conflicts with God's word we're doing something wrong.
And that led even ancient Christians to realize it wasn't a literal retelling of events.
Saying six days was simply justification for the Sabbath.
And you think the YEC belief that Death is God's punishment of one man's sin which now stretches to all of humanity and all of the animal kingdom somehow "solves" that problem?
You're sorely mistaken.
You may feel your worldview is neat and solid, but reality is far more complicated than you imagine. That's fine if you want to keep yourself in your little box. I'm here for those that find themselves falling out of it, as I experienced when I learned science in more detail.
Something like this guy's experience
Here's the problem. You're reading in English from an ancient document written in an ancient culture. What you assume is important, isn't what the writers or readers assumed is important.
And if literalism in scripture was actually important to you, you should still believe in a flat earth. YECs don't actually believe in textual literalism. They promote Christian folk science, case in point kinds in the OP of this thread.
They have posted conversations with people from a variety of backgrounds. That's why you get some that are on both extremes of faith. Just because someone contributes to biologos, doesn't mean that's what everyone in the organization believes. They're interested in conversation.
It's only in Answers in Genesis and similar organizations that you have to believe EXACTLY what the leadership believes or it doesn't get posted to their site.
It says "six days." Let us know which of those two words you're having trouble with. :thumb:
6days
New member
Alate_One said:
OK. ..good!
So, then you must agree that the Hebrew context of 'yom' (day) in Genesis 1 is real days, as defined in Gen. 1:5?
And you must agree that the cultural understanding of Genesis 1, has almost always been that God created the heaven a d the earth and everything in them in six days?
Alate_One said:
We believe Gods Word because it is our source of absolute truth.
* If 'science' says people are not born of *virgins, *we still trust God's Word.
* If 'science' says people don't resurrect themselves, we still take the side of God's Word.
* If 'science' says a woman can't be created from man's rib, we still believe that is what God did.
Yes.... you do spin what God says.
Alate_One said:
God did not need to tell a lie to justify the Sabbath. *
Alate_One said:
Absolutely... the gospel is foundational on that. We understand why Christ had to suffer physical *death...we understand our sin nature....our need of the Savior.*
Alate_One said:
No...Charles Templeton s story was written *I *English, for a English audience.
Alate_One said:
Strawman argument. I have never argued for wooden literalism.*
Alate_One said:
I totally disagree. Biologos is heretical...time to revive the Biologos thread.*
6days
New member
Stripe said:
"When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go."
Martin *Luther
Alate_One
Well-known member
There have been many interpretations throughout history. Many Christians thought (after seeing the evidence for an old earth) that the story of Genesis happened after long ages of development. Others thought the days were symbolic and that creation was only one day.
Certainly many people thought the 6 days were literal. But many people thought the "sun standing still" and the earth having corners and being flat or at least the center of the universe as mentioned/implied in the Bible were literal too, in the not so distant past.
Point being people have changed their interpretations in the past based on scientific information. You have done so as well. If there's a slippery slope, you're already partway down.
Here you conflate different things.
A single event, a miracle in the past that leaves no natural evidence behind can't be directly disproved. Certainly these events do not happen in accordance with natural laws, but the Christian would agree with that statement, so there's no point in saying "science says".
However, when you say "the earth is 6000 years old", that is a big enough statement where evidence IS left behind. And based on the evidence either God did it as you say and manufactured false evidence, or God didn't do it as you say and did not actually say the earth is 6,000 years old.
It's not a lie. It's an anti-myth written in a particular poetic form. Written in the language of creation stories of the day, but altered in a way to make the message of monotheism and the sun and moon simply being lights in the sky.
The point isn't what the meaning of the word "day" is. The point is, is the entire story intended as a step by step instruction manual or is it a literary construction?
But that's what you're doing right now. Wooden literalism.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Alate_One
Well-known member
You really went there. Perhaps you should look at other things Martin Luther said.
| "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." |
| "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." |
Appealing to history does not help you. Contrary to popular belief, interpretations of scripture have changed over time and even in response to science.