[_ Old Earth _] creationism essential to christianity?

[felix]

Yes but I never argued to the contrary. I argued that not everyone has taken a literalistic interpretation but that doesn't automatically mean evolution since people before the theory of evolution was even first conceived didn't always take Genesis as literalistic history.

No one can take quotes of God, what God Himself spoke in any non-literal way.

 

[Grazer]

No one can take quotes of God, what God Himself spoke in any non-literal way.

So when Jesus said he was a door......

When you say "no one can" I'm assuming you mean "I don't" because I'm not sure you are in a position to dictate to anyone how passages should be interpreted.

 

[Grazer]

or perhaps I should word it another way. From what position are you speaking from to claim that God can only speak in a literalistic manner?

 

[felix]

So when Jesus said he was a door......

When you say "no one can" I'm assuming you mean "I don't" because I'm not sure you are in a position to dictate to anyone how passages should be interpreted.

He never said he is a door - don't misquote. He said, He is the way and He literally meant that. Even if He said anything in a non literal manner as in John 6:52, He clearly mentions it what it is as in John 6:63.

 

[cupid dave]

It doesn't prove anything. God created and called them Adam on a single day.

Of course.

That single day was conception inside a surrogate Ape-mother where, in that womb, by an Act-of-God two of the 24 Ape chromosomes fused together and for the first time ever,... on that day...

As a result of that atomic dust of the Earth that chemically reacted to induce that fussion,... a new species called Adam appeared which has only 23 Chromosomes making it Human, not Ape.

 

[Grazer]

He never said he is a door - don't misquote. He said, He is the way and He literally meant that. Even if He said anything in a non literal manner as in John 6:52, He clearly mentions it what it is as in John 6:63.

“No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness"

Luke 11:33-35

I doubt my body is literally full of light (or certainly nothing that came up on my recent x-ray anyway) Jesus uses analogies & metaphors that people are familiar with to make his point, we do it all the time in everyday language without even thinking about it. But my point was from what position are you standing to pass judgement and say "we can't take Gods word anything other than literalistically"?

This is getting away from the original subject and into "how should Genesis be interpreted" though but that's probably my fault.

 

[Barbarian]

If you read my post carefully, it was God who said there is no evolution.

Show us that. Nowhere in the Christian Bible does God say such a thing.

 

[felix]

Show us that. Nowhere in the Christian Bible does God say such a thing.

(Gen 1:24-25) Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, [each] according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good.

Somehow one creature bring forth another kind (through evolution) is rejecting God's Words.

 

[Grazer]

(Gen 1:24-25) Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, [each] according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good.

Somehow one creature bring forth another kind (through evolution) is rejecting God's Words.

Define kind in this context.

 

[Barbarian]

If you read my post carefully, it was God who said there is no evolution.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us that. Nowhere in the Christian Bible does God say such a thing.

(Gen 1:24-25) Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, [each] according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good.

That doesn't say what you claim it does. You just made up something and pretended that it was in the Bible.

Somehow one creature bring forth another kind (through evolution) is rejecting God's Words.

I know you want us to believe that, but pretending that God said it, is not the right thing to do.

 

[Free]

He never said he is a door - don't misquote. He said, He is the way and He literally meant that. Even if He said anything in a non literal manner as in John 6:52, He clearly mentions it what it is as in John 6:63.

Not wanting to get off on a tangent, but for the record:

Joh 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. (ESV)

 

[Grazer]

Not wanting to get off on a tangent, but for the record:

Joh 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. (ESV)

I knew I didn't make it up, thank you

 

[Free]

I knew I didn't make it up, thank you

I also knew you didn't. You're welcome.

Of course, it is worth noting that scholars now talk of a difference between understanding a passage literally and taking it in a literalistic sense. Literalistic would mean that Jesus is in fact a talking door made of wood. Taking a passage literally means taking it as the author intended it--Jesus is the means by which we enter into salvation. This is particularly important in dealing with metaphors and analogies.

One of problems in the theological debate on evolution is that some take the creation accounts in a literalistic manner when they should be read literally, as the author intended.

 

[Free]

Yes they are mutually exclusive.

(Gen 5:1) .. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

He did not "create" a pre-biotic soup and allowed man to evolve.

How much clearer can Scripture be, the way God created man with His?
(Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


If anyone says, God did not "create" man, then he denies "his Creator". Further, he undervalues the power of God as incapable of creating as Scripture speaks.

So, how did Eve evolve according to you? Did a rib fall off Adam and got evolved itself into Eve?

Do not underestimate the power of God by giving yourself over to the wisdom of this world which is foolishness before God.

Yours is a very common error in the discussion on evolution, especially in the North American Church. It is a category error. That is to say that you are erroneously equating God, the Creator, an intelligent agent, with a process. They do not belong in the same category.

Intelligent agents use process to accomplish something and it is wrong to say that it is either the process or the intelligent agent, as though they are on the same level of explanation.

This is why saying that God is the Creator and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive. God could have used just such a process. It certainly would show that he is exceedingly intelligent and there is certainly no less "wow factor" than believing he spoke and everything just kind of popped into existence fully mature. It is absolutely mind boggling to think of the intelligence to use a process to create everything.

The problem is not creation vs evolution, religion vs science, as most believe it to be but rather theism vs naturalism. If God used the process of evolution, naturalism will interpret it one way and theism another.

 

[Grazer]

Yours is a very common error in the discussion on evolution, especially in the North American Church. It is a category error. That is to say that you are erroneously equating God, the Creator, an intelligent agent, with a process. They do not belong in the same category.

Intelligent agents use process to accomplish something and it is wrong to say that it is either the process or the intelligent agent, as though they are on the same level of explanation.

This is why saying that God is the Creator and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive. God could have used just such a process. It certainly would show that he is exceedingly intelligent and there is certainly no less "wow factor" than believing he spoke and everything just kind of popped into existence fully mature. It is absolutely mind boggling to think of the intelligence to use a process to create everything.

The problem is not creation vs evolution, religion vs science, as most believe it to be but rather theism vs naturalism. If God used the process of evolution, naturalism will interpret it one way and theism another.

It's what I said only you put it better

 

[Free]

It's what I said only you put it better

Haha, sorry, not meaning to do that. I didn't read through everything.

 

[Grazer]

Haha, sorry, not meaning to do that. I didn't read through everything.

It's all good, I take it as a compliment Plus it helps me learn how to phrase things more clearly

 

[felix]

I also knew you didn't. You're welcome.

Of course, it is worth noting that scholars now talk of a difference between understanding a passage literally and taking it in a literalistic sense. Literalistic would mean that Jesus is in fact a talking door made of wood. Taking a passage literally means taking it as the author intended it--Jesus is the means by which we enter into salvation. This is particularly important in dealing with metaphors and analogies.

One of problems in the theological debate on evolution is that some take the creation accounts in a literalistic manner when they should be read literally, as the author intended.

While it is true that Jesus is referred as a door, Scripture itself declares it as an 'illustration' as in John 10:6.

As I mentioned in other post, it is very clear on Scripture
when,

• a parable is used,
• an illustration is used,
• a example story is told
• a dream is interpreted
• a statement of spiritual meaning is referred,
• and spoken directly.

If you mix things up, you are actually allowing yourself to discard the entire Bible as a dream, illustration, example story etc which never happened. When you question the authenticity of one, you question the authenticity of all.

If you believe the old heavens and earth were created using a mechanism called evolution, do you believe the new heavens and new earth also requires the same mechanism of evolution?

 

[felix]

Define kind in this context.

H4327 מִין miyn (meen) n-m.
1. a sort, i.e. species

You can also use a concordance to see all the occurring and you will understand "kind" here [H4327] refers to a single species. There is "no overlapping" of species.

 

[Free]

If you believe the old heavens and earth were created using a mechanism called evolution, do you believe the new heavens and new earth also requires the same mechanism of evolution?

I don't believe the Bible teaches there will be a different heavens and earth but rather a redeemed heavens and earth. But that is for a different topic.