[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Silmarien]

It could very well be literal and historical, but Paul doesn't actually state anywhere that it is. "For it is written" certainly doesn't mean "For it is historical fact."

The fact that it could be literal does not change the reality that Paul based a teaching on a figurative interpretation of it. The value of that particular passage to him was clearly not confined by its historicity or lack thereof, so I continue to not understand why you think Paul would have insisted that the Garden of Eden be literal to glean meaning from it. Obviously he's more flexible than that.

The insistence that Paul would have read all this stuff the same way in the 1st century that we do in the 21st century is odd to me. It was very much a different world! This is the problem with anti-intellectualism. Science is out the window, history is out the window, and you're left projecting modern sensibilities on someone who lived 2000 years ago.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

It is written, sounds like a statement of authority. Unless the next statement is to challenge that view, I think it's resonable to assume that Paul is supporting it as an authoritive source.

 

[Jim Parker]

It shows just how hardened your heart is towards God ideas.

And that arrogant statement shows how convinced you are that you are always right and are able to judge your brothers.

 

[Silmarien]

It is written, sounds like a statement of authority. Unless the next statement is to challenge that view, I think it's resonable to assume that Paul is supporting it as an authoritive source.

Agreed! Of course, the obsession that something be historical fact to be authoritative is super modern. There was a huge shift in mindset during the Enlightenment, so projecting backwards to appeal to Paul on an issue doesn't work when Paul would have likely thought that both sides were insane.

 

[Barbarian]

Through intelligent design...that's pretty obvious.

So far, no one has been able to demonstrate design in nature. Even Paley, when he brought up the idea, had to use a watch to make his argument. If he had used something from nature, instead of something designed, no one would have seen what his argument was. That alone should be a wake-up.

It becomes instantly obvious that a process of random chance mutations.....where very, very, few mutations would be considered to enhance the fitness of the organelle would be impossible.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

And since engineers have discovered that evolutionary processes are capable of solving problems that can't be solved by design, that's a pretty important clue to you that God knew best when He created the world.

Let Him be God; He knows what He's doing.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Agreed! Of course, the obsession that something be historical fact to be authoritative is super modern. There was a huge shift in mindset during the Enlightenment, so projecting backwards to appeal to Paul on an issue doesn't work when Paul would have likely thought that both sides were insane.

What are "both sides?" Sorry I know I'm a little late to the conversation, but it doesn't make sense to think that Paul didn't believe in the stories of the bible. If he was to challenge it then I can see where your coming from. As it is now it seems Paul believed wholeheartedly in what was written as he uses it as part of his teaching in his letters. The old Testiment and the Holy Spirit were his guides. There's no reason to doubt that or to assume He didn't believe the the stories of how God created the earth, how God created mankind, and how man fell. Believe them means take them as true. Literal, as well as lessons from it.

 

[Edward]

So far, no one has been able to demonstrate design in nature. Even Paley, when he brought up the idea, had to use a watch to make his argument. If he had used something from nature, instead of something designed, no one would have seen what his argument was. That alone should be a wake-up.

This is not true. With advances in microscopes and what they saw inside DNA on the subatomic level was superior design which demonstrates manufacturing facilities far beyond mans best. factories which manufacture the cells and stuff for our body. It's error correcting and the chances for such an automated organizer and manufacturing capabilty to begin to exist by random chance, the chances are up in the Absurdity level...confirming it to science.

 

[Cygnus]

Not only did Paul base his instructions to the women on the literal and historical.....throughout his writings the Genesis account is always presented as literal and historical. In his letters Paul tells us man was formed first, from the dust then women. Do you honestly think God who inspired Paul would make the blunder you're claiming happened?

Your last paragraph boggles the mind with your double standard. How anyone who is a christian can post like that is beyond me. You post as if modern man, modern science has figured out Genesis is a parable...and Paul got it wrong....all the while forgetting that modern man and modern science must disagree with the idea of Christ resurrection

 

[Barbarian]

This is not true. With advances in microscopes and what they saw inside DNA on the subatomic level was superior design

You can't see that with microscopes. In fact, it all looks evolved from simpler things.

which demonstrates manufacturing facilities far beyond mans best.

A large manufacturing facility is much more complex than DNA. Would you like to know why?

It's error correcting

But the error correction system isn't perfect. It actually allows a certain number of errors. And interestingly, it allows about the optimal rate of errors for the particular population to evolve without so many errors that fitness would crash. Life seems to be front-loaded for evolution.

and the chances for such an automated organizer and manufacturing capabilty to begin to exist by random chance,

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

the chances are up in the Absurdity level...confirming it to science.

Try this:

Shuffle a deck of cards well,and then draw one card at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is approximately one divided by 52 factorial, or about 8 with 67 zeros behind it. Do it again, you'll get a similarly unlikely result.

Let's go a little farther. The likelihood of you, given your great-great-great grandparents is many times more unlikely than any of those card sequences.

So your argument proves that card games and you are impossible. Does that tell you something?

 

[Silmarien]

What are "both sides?" Sorry I know I'm a little late to the conversation, but it doesn't make sense to think that Paul didn't believe in the stories of the bible. If he was to challenge it then I can see where your coming from. As it is now it seems Paul believed wholeheartedly in what was written as he uses it as part of his teaching in his letters. The old Testiment and the Holy Spirit were his guides. There's no reason to doubt that or to assume He didn't believe the the stories of how God created the earth, how God created mankind, and how man fell. Believe them means take them as true. Literal, as well as lessons from it.

No problem. The argument is whether or not it's appropriate to read Genesis allegorically instead of literally. One argument is that because Paul discusses Adam and Eve, he must have understood them as historical figures and therefore anyone who reads the Garden of Eden differently must be wrong. My problem with this is that it's anachronistic.

The thing is, believing that something is true does not necessarily mean taking it as literal fact. This is a modern obsession. If you look at Patristics, not everyone believed that Genesis was to be taken literally. Augustine, for example, believed that all of creation happened in a single instant and Genesis 1 was just instructive. The School of Alexandria went completely wild and reinterpreted the whole Old Testament allegorically. None of these people would have claimed that the stories weren't true; their idea of what constituted "truth" was just a lot bigger than our modern conception. And I think we've impoverished "truth" by insisting that it be contingent upon a literal surface reading. I mean, look at something like the Eucharist--is it symbolic or is it real? People who say it's real obviously don't think it's literally real.

(I am someone who thinks that Genesis 2 is profoundly true, but meaningless when reduced to its literal meaning. I have no problem with people understanding it literally, but I'm not thrilled when they start insisting that alternative views that have always been within the bounds of orthodox Christianity are suddenly no longer acceptable. It's abusing Scripture in the service of an anti-scientific agenda, which is kind of problematic.)

 

[Edward]

You can't see that with microscopes. In fact, it all looks evolved from simpler things.



A large manufacturing facility is much more complex than DNA. Would you like to know why?



But the error correction system isn't perfect. It actually allows a certain number of errors. And interestingly, it allows about the optimal rate of errors for the particular population to evolve without so many errors that fitness would crash. Life seems to be front-loaded for evolution.



Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.



Try this:

Shuffle a deck of cards well,and then draw one card at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is approximately one divided by 52 factorial, or about 8 with 67 zeros behind it. Do it again, you'll get a similarly unlikely result.

Let's go a little farther. The likelihood of you, given your great-great-great grandparents is many times more unlikely than any of those card sequences.

So your argument proves that card games and you are impossible. Does that tell you something?

So you're taking the position of intelligent design now?

 

[Barbarian]

What are "both sides?" Sorry I know I'm a little late to the conversation, but it doesn't make sense to think that Paul didn't believe in the stories of the bible. If he was to challenge it then I can see where your coming from. As it is now it seems Paul believed wholeheartedly in what was written as he uses it as part of his teaching in his letters. The old Testiment and the Holy Spirit were his guides. There's no reason to doubt that or to assume He didn't believe the the stories of how God created the earth, how God created mankind, and how man fell. Believe them means take them as true. Literal, as well as lessons from it.

So you're saying that if there's a parable or allegory in the Bible, it's not true? How so?

 

[Barbarian]

So you're taking the position of intelligent design now?

Since engineers have found that evolutionary processes work better than design for extremely complex problems, it would seem that an omnipotent God would avoid design.

Unless you mean it in the trivial sense of "intent."

 

[Barbarian]

(I am someone who thinks that Genesis 2 is profoundly true, but meaningless when reduced to its literal meaning. I have no problem with people understanding it literally, but I'm not thrilled when they start insisting that alternative views that have always been within the bounds of orthodox Christianity are suddenly no longer acceptable. It's abusing Scripture in the service of an anti-scientific agenda, which is kind of problematic.)

The worst of this is the attempt to divide believers into two camps, and to label one of them as not Christian. That sort of behavior is instigated by something other than love of God.

Creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us, unless they have actually made an idol of creationism. And in my experience, few of them have done so.

 

[Cygnus]

A large manufacturing facility is much more complex than DNA. Would you like to know why?

Sure....tell us how it is more complex than this.....and this is only a small portion.

 

[Cygnus]

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

Are you saying mutations are not random?

 

[Cygnus]

Try this:

Shuffle a deck of cards well,and then draw one card at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is approximately one divided by 52 factorial, or about 8 with 67 zeros behind it. Do it again, you'll get a similarly unlikely result.

Try this, get two decks...shuffle them...and have all the cards of both decks the same except for two.

 

[Cygnus]

The worst of this is the attempt to divide believers into two camps, and to label one of them as not Christian. That sort of behavior is instigated by something other than love of God.

Creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us, unless they have actually made an idol of creationism. And in my experience, few of them have done so.

The other camp has to introduce a false Genesis....changing Genesis to say what it doesn't say....eliminating the fall which gave us our sin nature.
Bottom line the The-Evos can't explain origin sin...and keep it biblical. This is a problem. The love of God and the love of the Word, allow christians try to correct the LDS and JW's...as well as the Theo-evo sect.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

So you're saying that if there's a parable or allegory in the Bible, it's not true? How so?

I see no reason to count anything in Genesis as parable.

The kingdom of Heaven is like a woman who lost a coin and searched all her house to find it and celibrated with her neighbors when it was found. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who finds a treasure in a field and in his excitement he buries the treasure again and sells all he owns to buy the field with the treasure in it. The kingfom of Heaven is like a father who's son takes his inheardance and travels, wastes it away and becomes a slave yo anothet in work. Finally realizing the servents at his father's was treated well and better them he is. He returns to his home ready to live as his father's servent, and His father welcomes Him back with joy and celibration.

The bible verses that describe these parables does a better job then what I've given them but do you see the difference between theses parables and the book of Genesis?

If you don't see the difference between a parable and am allegory verses the words in Genesis, then I thing we should start a new conversation on that. There's more we need to talk about.

That said this line of conversation started because I commented on Paul's wording "it is written." I would count anything in the bible with that kind of authority. The kingdom of heaven is like.... then the parable. I believe that in a very real sence. God made the world in 6 days and on the 7th He rested. I believe this in an equally real sense. Why would we doubt the words of God as He gave them to us? It is written. Therefore it must be so.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

No problem. The argument is whether or not it's appropriate to read Genesis allegorically instead of literally. One argument is that because Paul discusses Adam and Eve, he must have understood them as historical figures and therefore anyone who reads the Garden of Eden differently must be wrong. My problem with this is that it's anachronistic.

The thing is, believing that something is true does not necessarily mean taking it as literal fact. This is a modern obsession. If you look at Patristics, not everyone believed that Genesis was to be taken literally. Augustine, for example, believed that all of creation happened in a single instant and Genesis 1 was just instructive. The School of Alexandria went completely wild and reinterpreted the whole Old Testament allegorically. None of these people would have claimed that the stories weren't true; their idea of what constituted "truth" was just a lot bigger than our modern conception. And I think we've impoverished "truth" by insisting that it be contingent upon a literal surface reading. I mean, look at something like the Eucharist--is it symbolic or is it real? People who say it's real obviously don't think it's literally real.

(I am someone who thinks that Genesis 2 is profoundly true, but meaningless when reduced to its literal meaning. I have no problem with people understanding it literally, but I'm not thrilled when they start insisting that alternative views that have always been within the bounds of orthodox Christianity are suddenly no longer acceptable. It's abusing Scripture in the service of an anti-scientific agenda, which is kind of problematic.)

The lists of genology makes it hard to view Genesis as an allegory. Both the children of Cain and then the decendebts of Seth Adam and Eve's third son going from Adam to Noah. Noah to Abraham and the books later that follow suit listimg genology, it is very difficult to see that in an allogerical way.

Proverbs, Psalms, and Revelations I can see it that way. So the argument if an allgeory can word for a book in the bible. But it just tskes a lot of extra explaination to fit Genesus in that boat. I've no reason to apply that reasoning to Genesis to a view that is not mentioned in the bible about Genesis.