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

[Cygnus]

You're just assuming that the parable of man and woman being of one flesh, was a literal history. As you learned earlier, that can't be true.

let me say it again.......God did tell us how he made Eve from Adams rib...which is the furthest thing from the T.O.E.

 

[Barbarian]

No, you are right on the mark there, as you say "So he didn't tell us about blood circulation or protons, or quantum electron states, and therefore, none of those are real?" your argument is indeed not a very good one at all.
Can you not do better?

I don't understand why you think anything He didn't tell us can't be true. That's demonstrably false. Even the Bible says so.

If Genesis listed all the details available, even Methuselah would not have lived long enough to read the whole of Genesis.

Right. It's not a science textbook. It's about God and man and our relationship. So anything not directly connected to that wasn't included.

When the Lord God made something it was made as a finished work.

No, that's obviously wrong. The Bible itself says that after the Earth was made, God added many things. Bad assumption.

Let God be God and listen to what He's saying in Genesis. It's not about poofing animals magically into existence. Nor is it about evolution. You will learn nothign whatever about the specific means by which he created living things; He chose not to include that.

Let it go, and just accept Him.

 

[Barbarian]

let me say it again.......God did tell us how he made Eve from Adams rib...which is the furthest thing from the T.O.E.

Yes, we know you want to believe that. It's O.K. You won't go to hell for that. But don't make an idol of it, and declare that all Christians must agree with you. That would put your soul in danger.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes, we know you want to believe that. It's O.K. You won't go to hell for that. But don't make an idol of it, and declare that all Christians must agree with you. That put your soul in danger.

Personally, I don't think one can base their salvation upon a reason for Jesus that differs from what the bible teaches. A theology containing evolution is a damning theology. It does away with the fall in the garden as well as original sin and its repercussions.

I say that saying this...a belief in evolutionism doesn't cause one not to receive salvation....but a gospel that destroys original sin and the need for Christ in my opinion is useless. It would be like the JW view that Jesus isn't God. There is no salvation in their false Jesus. The bible tells us how Jesus created...and it took 6 days....Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib....it mentions the fall and how through one man, sin and death was established and how the second Adam delivered His elect from Gods wrath. Many of the Theo-Evo crowd follow a Jesus that isn't in the bible.
The Theo-Evo sect tends to cling to the resurrection...while dissembling other portions of scripture.
The Theo-Evo sect doesn't know why or understand why Jesus came...because their doctrine has no biblical base for sin.

 

[Barbarian]

Personally, I don't think one can base their salvation upon a reason for Jesus that differs from what the bible teaches. A theology containing evolution is a damning theology. It does away with the fall in the garden as well as original sin and its repercussions.

You've learned that it is none of those. Let this go. It's interfering with your relationship with God.

I say that saying this...a belief in evolutionism doesn't cause one not to receive salvation....

It merely means you're a YE creationist. "Evolutionism", as you learned, is a strawman that has little to do with evolution itself, and supposes things directly impossible in evolution.

As you learned there's no conflict between what Jesus came here for, and evolution. There is nothing whatever in Christianity that is inconsistent with evolution. Yes, some sects have adding new doctrines like YE creationism, that do deny evolution. But that is not a Christian orthodoxy, nor does the Bible support it. As you have seen, the Bible directly denys the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

Still it won't harm you salvation, if you believe it; so long as you don't put your new belief above Jesus and His Church, you'll be all right.

 

[Cygnus]

You've learned that it is none of those. Let this go. It's interfering with your relationship with God.



It merely means you're a YE creationist. "Evolutionism", as you learned, is a strawman that has little to do with evolution itself, and supposes things directly impossible in evolution.

As you learned there's no conflict between what Jesus came here for, and evolution. There is nothing whatever in Christianity that is inconsistent with evolution. Yes, some sects have adding new doctrines like YE creationism, that do deny evolution. But that is not a Christian orthodoxy, nor does the Bible support it. As you have seen, the Bible directly denys the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

Still it won't harm you salvation, if you believe it; so long as you don't put your new belief above Jesus and His Church, you'll be all right.

Believe me Barbarian....I haven't learned anything from your broken theology. Heck, you can't even provide an alternative reason for our sin nature that agree's with scripture. You disagree with the bible on soooooooo many points...sin via one man....even the linage of Christ.

You claim evolutionism and the bible are compatable...but fail to explain Eve being created from Adams rib......which is the furthest thing from evolutionism.

 

[Barbarian]

Believe me Barbarian....I haven't learned anything from your broken theology.

You're aware of a lot more facts now, than you were before we started talking. Whether or not you learn anything from it, is hard to say. But a lot of onlookers likely learned some things from both of us. And that makes it worth doing.

Heck, you can't even provide an alternative reason for our sin nature that agree's with scripture.

You don't need new reason. Go with the one in the Bible. This always puzzled me about YE creationism. Why do you need an alternative? You disagree with the bible on so many points. Why not just admit that sin came into the world as the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God?

You claim evolutionism and the bible are compatable...

I've repeatedly told you the creationist invention you call "evolutionism" is not consistent with the Bible. But then, as you learned, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is not consistent with Genesis, either.

As you know, revising Genesis to make it a literal history won't mean you're not a Christian. But if you put that ahead of God and claim that you have to believe your new doctrine to be a Christian, that won't go so well for you. Admit that Christians differ on this point, and let God be God. He knows best, after all.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Believe me Barbarian....I haven't learned anything from your broken theology. Heck, you can't even provide an alternative reason for our sin nature that agree's with scripture. You disagree with the bible on soooooooo many points...sin via one man....even the linage of Christ.

You claim evolutionism and the bible are compatable...but fail to explain Eve being created from Adams rib......which is the furthest thing from evolutionism.

Sometimes you have to understand you are dealing with an ignorant mind and shake the dust off your sandals......

 

[Barbarian]

Sometimes you have to understand you are dealing with an ignorant mind and shake the dust off your sandals......

Bad idea. As you see, the discussion will be useful for others who aren't as unwilling to face the facts as Cygnus has been. One of the best ways to expose the truth, is to give a complete airing to erroneous arguments.

 

[calvin]

You're aware of a lot more facts now, than you were before we started talking. Whether or not you learn anything from it, is hard to say. But a lot of onlookers likely learned some things from both of us. And that makes it worth doing.

Exactly so!
You have ably demonstrated that no matter how many times the erroneous and falsity of theistic evolution is repeated, it can never become truth; it can never even approach truth.
I think the merry-go-round approach as exemplified in post #s 29,30,31,45 show this to be true.
And as you have agreed with this in principle:::

One of the best ways to expose the truth, is to give a complete airing to erroneous arguments.

Barbarian post #69
And that is what I and others have been doing.

 

[Barbarian]

I think my job is done here.

 

[Cygnus]

I think my job is done here.

darn, I was hoping to learn about evolutionism and sin.

 

[Barbarian]

darn, I was hoping to learn about evolutionism and sin.

"Evolutionism" is your invention. It can be whatever you want it to be. Sin, however, is not your invention. We did talk about why science can't tell you about original sin, even though scientists can.

I have heard other creationists reject the Biblical nature of original sin, but I was surprised that you didn't accept it.

 

[Cygnus]

"Evolutionism" is your invention. It can be whatever you want it to be. Sin, however, is not your invention. We did talk about why science can't tell you about original sin, even though scientists can.

I have heard other creationists reject the Biblical nature of original sin, but I was surprised that you didn't accept it.

Huh, now I thought your job was done.

 

[Barbarian]

Every teacher knows. The key to understanding is repetition and restatement.

 

[Cygnus]

Every teacher knows. The key to understanding is repetition and restatement.

Then why don't you tell us how forming Eve from Adams rib...that is the creation of woman...is compatable with evolutionism.....and while your at it explain how evolutionism justifies original sin.

 

[Barbarian]

Then why don't you tell us how forming Eve from Adams rib...that is the creation of woman...is compatable with evolutionism..

Sorry, "evolutionism" is your invention. You'll have to deal with that. Same with original sin.

As you know, evolution is consistent with Genesis in every way. But suppose that God actually performed a miracle on Adam, making a woman from a bit of his body (this makes no sense from a literal point of view; God could have just poofed her into existence).

God would have to make some drastic genetic changes to every cell; lots of genes altered and an entirely new chromosome out of nothing. But he could have done that.

Suppose He did. Although it would do considerable damage to His parable about woman and man becoming one flesh, it is at least possible. How would any of that have been a problem for evolution? Nothing in science says that God can't step in and do the miraculous.

And if original sin is the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God (as they did), how does that in any way cause any problems for science? As you know, science does not deny the supernatural.

 

[Cygnus]

As you know, evolution is consistent with Genesis in every way. But suppose that God actually performed a miracle on Adam, making a woman from a bit of his body (this makes no sense from a literal point of view; God could have just poofed her into existence).

Once again....Eve was created from Adams rib....which isn't anything close to the T.O.E.

And if original sin is the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God (as they did), how does that in any way cause any problems for science? As you know, science does not deny the supernatural.

What do you mean...if...original sin is the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God??? That was the result. It's what the bible teaches. But, your evolutionism can't explain how from 2 people were the orginal ancestors of all humanity.

 

[Barbarian]

Once again....Eve was created from Adams rib....which isn't anything close to the T.O.E.

As you now see, even if it wasn't a parable, and God wasn't trying to teach us something with it, it would still be consistent with evolution.

What do you mean...if...original sin is the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God ( as they did)???

It's a Christian belief. Thought you knew. It's what the bible teaches. Your "evolutionism" can't explain it. And as you learned, science doesn't and can't explain the supernatural.

It is nevertheless true.

 

[Cygnus]

As you now see, even if it wasn't a parable, and God wasn't trying to teach us something with it, it would still be consistent with evolution.

Barbarian, Barbarian, Barbarian....as explained to you a long time ago, Paul presented the creation per Genesis as quite literal when he established how women should act in church when he wrote the letter to Timothy.

Why would Paul base a rule upon an event that never happened? Keep in mind there are SEVERAL verses that present Genesis as literal.....but, I suppose when you filter those verses through the religion of evolutionism the bible has to give up a little. Right?

Perhaps because Paul Bunyan dragged his ax behind him and formed the Grand Canyon...we should establish rules instructing us on how to handle an ax.