[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[OzSpen]

It also leads to talking in circles when it comes to political discussions.

AND theological and scientific discussions.

 

[Papa Zoom]

AND theological and scientific discussions.

Exactly.

 

[OzSpen]

Science isn't a political issue.

You bet it is, global warming being one example.

Social and cultural evolution also have become scientific/political issues.

 

[Papa Zoom]

You bet it is, global warming being one example.

Social and cultural evolution also have become scientific/political issues.

Good point Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I suggested that you might learn by trying to provide exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 and demonstrate that God used chemistry in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis, because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the chemical worldview.

This is your repeat example that you don't understand that exegesis gets its meaning from the text of Scripture. It doesn't read into Scripture a 'chemical worldview'.

I am not 'overwhelmed' by this worldview. I've had 5 open heart, valve replacement surgeries and I take a string of medications to deal with my heart issues, including 34 years of warfarin.

I've already given you definitions (above) about the meaning of exegesis vs eisegesis:

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.​

Why not just admit that evolution wasn't even part of creation until living things appeared? And by now, you surely realize that even if you can't do an exegesis of Genesis using chemistry, it doesn't mean that God didn't use chemistry after the initial creation, just as He used evolution.

When living things appeared in Gen 1:11, there is not a word of exegesis here that affirms evolutionary methodology by God in the creation of vegetation. Not a word.

So your pushing the idea that God didn't use evolution 'until living things appeared' is a nonsense explanation. You zoom past the exegesis of the 'living things' in the text to promote the doctrine you are pushing - evolution.

I don't buy it because the text of Gen 1-2 DOES NOT TEACH IT.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

This is your repeat example that you don't understand that exegesis gets its meaning from the text of Scripture. It doesn't read into Scripture a 'chemical worldview'.

I am not 'overwhelmed' by this worldview. I've had 5 open heart, valve replacement surgeries and I take a string of medications to deal with my heart issues, including 34 years of warfarin.

I've already given you definitions (above) about the meaning of exegesis vs eisegesis:

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.​

When living things appeared in Gen 1:11, there is not a word of exegesis here that affirms evolutionary methodology by God in the creation of vegetation. Not a word.

So your pushing the idea that God didn't use evolution 'until living things appeared' is a nonsense explanation. You zoom past the exegesis of the 'living things' in the text to promote the doctrine you are pushing - evolution.

I don't buy it because the text of Gen 1-2 DOES NOT TEACH IT.

Oz

You are here ,on the earth for a reason.

 

[OzSpen]

You are here ,on the earth for a reason.

Yes, Jason, I thank God that he is the one who chooses when life begins and when it ends. My life didn't end in my 5th open heart surgery in 2013.

I'm also encouraged in knowing that whatever gifts I have were given by the Lord and he has placed me on earth to use them.

I write a fair number of letters to the editor to deal with local and other issues. I've recently written a couple of comments as 'Spencer' to this article, 'Unholy row over religious instruction in Queensland schools'. I sent a couple more they didn't publish. They've concluded taking comments, otherwise I'd ask you to join me in dealing with the assaults on God, Jesus and Christianity.

How many of you engage in apologetic responses for Christianity in local newspapers or online?

Blessings, Oz

 

[Barbarian]

This is your repeat example that you don't understand that exegesis gets its meaning from the text of Scripture. It doesn't read into Scripture a 'chemical worldview'.

And yet, you asked me to provide an exegesis based on evolution. Am I to conclude you weren't sincere? I'm more inclined to believe you don't get that fact that science can't be used that way.

I am not 'overwhelmed' by this worldview.

And yet you decline to do what you asked me to do, even after I reminded you several times that science can't be used that way. If you have a PhD in the New Testament that should be obvious to you.

I've already given you definitions (above) about the meaning of exegesis vs eisegesis:

And yet you're going on about using science for exegesis. There's a disconnect here.

When living things appeared in Gen 1:11, there is not a word of exegesis here that affirms evolutionary methodology by God in the creation of vegetation. Not a word.

Not a word about DNA, either. Do you understand why? I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

So your pushing the idea that God didn't use evolution 'until living things appeared' is a nonsense explanation.

"Evolution", in the sense we're using it, only applies to living things. So it makes no sense for you do demand that God use it before there were living things.

You zoom past the exegesis of the 'living things' in the text to promote the doctrine you are pushing - evolution.

You still can't get past your new doctrine of "evolutionism." Evolution is a natural phenomenon. The creationist doctrine of "evolutionism", is something entirely different.

I don't buy it because the text of Gen 1-2 DOES NOT TEACH IT.

Doesn't teach DNA, either. For reasons I've explained to you several times. I can appreciate that this is very difficult for you, but I don't understand why.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that science is not a polticial issue)

You bet it is, global warming being one example.

It's not a political issue. Some morons have tried to make it so. (on the left and on the right). But that's not science. It's just some fool's misconception about science.

 

[OzSpen]

Doesn't teach DNA, either. For reasons I've explained to you several times. I can appreciate that this is very difficult for you, but I don't understand why.

There is absolutely no difficulty or misunderstanding for me. I know what exegesis means and know how to do it. An exegesis of Gen 1-2 finds NO evolution and DNA. Neither of them.

It is you who is making a mound out of a molehill when you refuse to rule out evolution and DNA and chemistry in an exegesis of Gen 1-2.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

There is absolutely no difficulty or misunderstanding for me.

I see you writing that, but then you demanded that I do and exegesis on Genesis using science. Do you still not understand why that is not possible?

I know what exegesis means and know how to do it.

You say that, but then you declined to do what you asked me to do. Were you trying to be deceptive? Or did you just not realize that it isn't possible?

An exegesis of Gen 1-2 finds NO evolution and DNA. Neither of them.

So your conclusion is that there are no such things as DNA and evolution? Seriously?

Is it possible you were just joking in your initial request, and then when I took your question to be sincere, it became kind of a tarbaby for you? If you'd like to just drop it, I'm O.K. with that. Or if you want to show me how science can be used for an exegesis of Genesis, by all means, do that.

I don't have a PhD in NT, after all.

 

[OzSpen]

(Barbarian notes that science is not a polticial issue)

It's not a political issue. Some morons have tried to make it so. (on the left and on the right). But that's not science. It's just some fool's misconception about science.

It's too late to convince me of this because it is false. See 'Global Warming Science', from the union of concerned scientists. This article makes a political association between science and global warming with statements such as:

• 'Global warming has serious implications for our health, environment, and economy';
• 'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. Through the IPCC, climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings every five to seven years and present their report to the world’s political leaders.'

Oz

 

[calvin]

I see you writing that, but then you demanded that I do and exegesis on Genesis using science. Do you still not understand why that is not possible?

Hello calvin here,
An Exegesis of Genesis 1_2 is to be based on the text; that has already been explained to you. the only connection with science would be to call it the 'science of Exegesis'.
If you are unable to understand the science of exegesis, and think it must mean chemistry or biology, then there is little present hope for you.
Please try to expand your horizons.

 

[OzSpen]

I see you writing that, but then you demanded that I do and exegesis on Genesis using science.

Where did I state that you need do an exegesis of Gen 1-2 'using science'? Please direct me to a statement where I said that.

So your conclusion is that there are no such things as DNA and evolution?

That's baloney! Not once have I stated or inferred that. It's your dishonest straw man of my views.

 

[Barbarian]

An Exegesis of Genesis 1_2 is to be based on the text; that has already been explained to you.

I explained that to OzSpen when he asked me to do it based on evolution. I thought perhaps if I asked him to do it based on chemistry, he'd see that. Apparently not. I'm beginning to think he wasn't serious.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I see you writing that, but then you demanded that I do and exegesis on Genesis using science.

Where did I state that you need do an exegesis of Gen 1-2 'using science'?

http://christianforums.net/Fellowsh...ble-with-the-bible.69888/page-23#post-1350532

An exegesis of Gen 1-2 finds NO evolution and DNA. Neither of them.

Barbarian asks:
So your conclusion is that there are no such things as DNA and evolution?

That's baloney! Not once have I stated or inferred that. It's your dishonest straw man of my views.

No, I was asking you. If that's not your point, what is your point, telling us that an exegesis of Genesis 1-2 finds no evolution and DNA.

Are we to then conclude that if it's not in an exegesis of Genesis, that doesn't mean that it wasn't there? Or what? You're not being very clear.

 

[Barbarian]

It's too late to convince me of this because it is false. See 'Global Warming Science', from the union of concerned scientists.

• 'Global warming has serious implications for our health, environment, and economy';

So do a lot of other things in science. But the science is entirely apart from what (if anything) we should do about it. You're confusing policy with science.

 

[OzSpen]

Barbarian observes:
I see you writing that, but then you demanded that I do and exegesis on Genesis using science.

http://christianforums.net/Fellowsh...ble-with-the-bible.69888/page-23#post-1350532

Here you go again with a false statement about what I wrote. In that link, I stated:

I was the one who asked you to provide exegesis of Gen 1-2 and demonstrate that God used evolution in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the evolutionary worldview.​

There is not a word here that 'demanded that I [Barbarian] do and (sic) exegesis on Genesis using science'. Not a word. I asked you to provide an exegesis of Gen 1-2 that shows from the text that God used evolution in the original creation.

Please quit misrepresenting what I write. You have committed a falsehood in what you wrote about me and what I asked of you. Deceit should have no place in a Christian's behaviour (Prov 12:17 NIRV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So do a lot of other things in science. But the science is entirely apart from what (if anything) we should do about it. You're confusing policy with science.

Changing the topic again, of what I wrote. It's called a red herring fallacy.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I see you writing that, but then you demanded that I do and exegesis on Genesis using science.

I was the one who asked you to provide exegesis of Gen 1-2 and demonstrate that God used evolution in the original creation.

Ah, asked, not "demanded." But when I asked you to do it with chemistry, you declined three times. As I told you from the start, it's impossible to do an exegesis of Genesis using science.

You refuse to engage in this exegesis because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the chemistry worldview.

I'm still thinking you were joking the first time you asked, and then kinda got yourself tied up in trying to appear sincere. Let me just ask you now; do you or do you not understand that one cannot do an exegesis of Genesis using science?

Just a yes or no. If it's a "maybe", be very specific as to when it is possible.

Then we'll go on.