thightower
Member
How can a true bible believeing Christian even entertain the idea of evolution? I have run on to a few of these people and I just don't get it.
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
How can a true bible believeing Christian even entertain the idea of evolution? I have run on to a few of these people and I just don't get it.
The only part of evolution that holds water if you want to call it that is macroevolution. Which is the changing of colors or size, but the animal didn't change kinds. So a dog is still a dog and a horse is still a horse.
What I can't understand is when someone reads Genisis 1;1.
1 In the beginning God created...
How can a christian still entertain evolution.
I think you mean microevolution. Microevolution is changes within spieces, macroevolution is change from one spieces to another. The former has been scientifically observed and is beyond doubt. The latter is largely accepted but there is some disagreement.
I stand corrected. I have heard of both, I just got them turned around. But the point I don't understand is I have met bible believeing christians who believe God used evolution to create the world we live in.
Grazer,
With all due respect, you take the approach that you have to either choose between Science and Creation. That's simply not the case. Science can, and in many places does affirm Creation.
I think you mean microevolution. Microevolution is changes within spieces, macroevolution is change from one spieces to another. The former has been scientifically observed and is beyond doubt. The latter is largely accepted but there is some disagreement.
I stand corrected. I have heard of both, I just got them turned around. But the point I don't understand is I have met bible believeing christians who believe God used evolution to create the world we live in.
Yeah so have I and to a certain extent that's the view I hold.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
No I don't take that approach, I take the exact opposite. I thought my ford car analogy made that clear
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Perhaps it is better put that creationism takes a more literalistic interpretation. Creation, as in the act of creating, should not be put over against evolution as the process of evolution could very well be the means God used to create all living things.Creation takes a more literal interpretation of the text, thus the earth would be under 6,000 years old and when God created Adam, he created Adam. Adam didn't evolve from a slug.
Evolution states that the earth is 4.6 billions of years old and essentially humanity evolved from single cells.
Science can be used to support Creation, and it can be used to support Evolution. But for it to support Evolution, one has to accept the assumptions of Science.
Perhaps it is better put that creationism takes a more literalistic interpretation. Creation, as in the act of creating, should not be put over against evolution as the process of evolution could very well be the means God used to create all living things.
Just to try and keep clearer the different positions on the matter.
I agree that your verbiage is a tad more elegant, but I don't see any difference in what I stated above: Creation takes a more literal interpretation of the textPerhaps it is better put that creationism takes a more literalistic interpretation.
Creation, as in the act of creating, should not be put over against evolution as the process of evolution could very well be the means God used to create all living things.
Just to try and keep clearer the different positions on the matter.
Well, in this context "creation" is just a word that doesn't tell us anything other than everything that began to exist was created. It doesn't say anything about the method used in the act of creating. "Creationism" on the other hand is typically used of YECism, and that is a belief system which makes certain assumptions about the biblical text, including the very act of creating.I agree that your verbiage is a tad more elegant, but I don't see any difference in what I stated above: Creation takes a more literal interpretation of the text
And while I agree that that is consistent with a literalistic interpretation, the literal interpretation says that there are volumes of information not given between God speaking and things being created. The actual method used to create is not given in Scripture. Evolution is a process which God could have used to create and is therefore not necessarily against Scripture and the act of creating.Keeping to a literalistic reading of the text, God said... and it was. Evolution states otherwise. As a result, the two ideologies are not compatible.
Agreed.That being said, science should not be pitted against Creationism or Evolution since science can support a young earth and it can be used to support evolution depending on the assumptions one wants to read into the scientific facts.
Well, in this context "creation" is just a word that doesn't tell us anything other than everything that began to exist was created. It doesn't say anything about the method used in the act of creating. "Creationism" on the other hand is typically used of YECism, and that is a belief system which makes certain assumptions about the biblical text, including the very act of creating.
When we get to the use of "literal," that is commonly understood to be "the meaning or understanding that the author intended." "Literalistic" is understood as "what the words state is what the author intended." For example, when Jesus says he is the door, a literalistic understanding says that he is literally a talking wooden door, while a literal understanding says that Jesus meant he is the way, the means by which we have salvation made available.
So you can see that a literalistic interpretation is not always going to be correct. We need to try and understand what the authors of Scripture intended to say.
And while I agree that that is consistent with a literalistic interpretation, the literal interpretation says that there are volumes of information not given between God speaking and things being created. The actual method used to create is not given in Scripture. Evolution is a process which God could have used to create and is therefore not necessarily against Scripture and the act of creating.
The common error is when Evolution is always put up against Creation, when it actually is Scientific Naturalism versus Creation. Evolution is just a process, that is what science tells us. But it is then interpreted through a worldview such as Scientific Naturalism, which by definition, seeks to keep God out of the picture.
Not quite. It is my understanding that these are definitions used by biblical scholars and theologians for understanding all things biblical, as part of the normal process of biblical interpretation. Nothing at all esoteric nor relating only to the creation/evolution debate.Ahh, you see, I was simply using dictionary.com to define literal and literalistic. What we're actually talking about it esoteric nomenclature within the Creationist / Evolutionist debate. Got it...
It's all the same--God speaks and something happens. But what happens immediately after that happens, happens according to the laws of physics and nature. When someone was/is healed, there is a moment in time when God intervenes, he says something or does something, and then the body does what it is supposed to do. A process occurs. This process can either happen rapidly or it can happen slowly.hmm... thanks for sharing. It gives me insight to your reasoning. From a literalistic perspective, scripture tells us that God's Word is Jesus as affirmed in John's writings and within Colossians. So if anything, we as Christians should be able to understand that the jist of Scripture is to understand that God created the world through is son Jesus and we ought never loose sight if that since it's so primary in the scriptures. How did God create according to scriptures? He spoke it into existance by his word. And what was his word? It was Jesus. If we take it up a notch, we also find that God's name is found within God's word, but that's not for this discussion.
How did Jesus heal the sick? Most often he spoke and they were healed. Sometimes their faith in Him healed them... but it was all through His authority which they were healed. So, when Jesus says that somebody was healed, do we immediatly look for the scientific explanation, or do we just accept that what Jesus said was true. I know of one centurion who believed the words of Jesus and his son was healed simply by jesus saying "Be healed".
How to you attribute that to science?
That is how many portray it and which side started it, I don't know. But perhaps such an idea needs to be discarded. It's like any idea in nearly any discipline--either understood or misunderstood, it can be used to mislead.My view of Evolution is to discredit the Bible... at least that's been my experience.
How can a true bible believeing Christian even entertain the idea of evolution? I have run on to a few of these people and I just don't get it.
Evolution part of the state's religion. The public schools indoctrinate the population with it. Hollywood loves it. Anyone who doesn't believe it is ridiculed and considered a heretic. That's a lot of pressure for Christians to accept it.