[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Jim Parker]

BTW, you did not answer the question....

I have answered the question.
You didn't understand it.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I don't think the TOE necessarily denies the Fall. There are arguments for and against that idea. Both sides present a reasoned case. I'm not a theistic evolutionist and don't think it's compatible with Special Creation or the whole of science for that matter. Yet there is something to the idea of how biological life evolves (changes) to adapt to its surroundings. This is an undeniable fact of observation. You see it with your eyes. It's not a matter of debate. For that matter, you all evolve through the years. (although this is an entirely different thing altogether). I suspect many Christians get hung up on the idea of evolution as if it's from the pit of Hell. If so, so is gravity. One has to define his/her terms first before objecting. If you think evolution denies the fall, define evolution first. Be precise. For me, the underlined portion above describes, in part, evolution on a micro scale. It's has no consequence to the fall. I don't know that macro evolution would either (if it were true) but I think there is much we don't know. God is not a magician. He doesn't "poof" things into existence. I believe he has a process. Much like a potter who first needs moist clay to make a pot, God needed "moist clay" to make his universe. The big difference is that He created the moist clay out of nothing. Now that may have been with a "poof" - there is is.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, asked about original sin:
Already did. God made us to be happy and free with Him forever. We disobeyed him and from that came sin and hence the need for a Redeemer, which He promised us and Who came and died for us.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Oh, come on. You started explaining how evolution is true and now you're dodging following up about that.

No, someone asked a different question, and I answered that. Original sin isn't about evolution. It's about our relationship with God, and how we messed it up.

It's not hard to accept scripture, so where's the scriptures on evolution?

Probably in the same chapter as the scriptures on solid-state electronics. A lot of things that are true, aren't in scripture.

 

[Barbarian]

See, that's the thing. We don't need any big explanation for the Genesis text. I'm not making it a science, you have before.

No, I'm trying to get you to understand that it's not about science.

The text doesn't say anything about evolution.

Or protons, or resonance bonding or DNA or... that what I've been trying to explain to you.

It says Jesus spoke, and by the power of His word, things were created.

He says that the earth brought forth living things as he commanded. That's how He does most things in this world. He created nature to do His will.

Evolution is directly observed, but like polymerization and DNA, it's not mention in the Bible.

There's a scripture which says that everything is upheld by Jesus,

If God took His mind from us for even and instant, we would no longer exist. That doesn't mean that He doesn't use nature for His purposes.

 

[Edward]

Barbarian, asked about original sin:
Already did. God made us to be happy and free with Him forever. We disobeyed him and from that came sin and hence the need for a Redeemer, which He promised us and Who came and died for us.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?



No, someone asked a different question, and I answered that. Original sin isn't about evolution. It's about our relationship with God, and how we messed it up.



Probably in the same chapter as the scriptures on solid-state electronics. A lot of things that are true, aren't in scripture.

What makes you think that any of us are not accepting Genesis?

The thread is that evolutionism denies the fall of man. You seem to be of the position of, it doesn't deny the fall of man, and that evolution is a real and necessary part of life on earth.We're trying to get you to explain your position, but you don't seem to be doing that. It almost seems like you're dodging around it and implying that we don't accept basic things out of (Genesis), (which isn't true), almost as if you are just funning with us and buying time or something, lol.
I accept that not everything is in scripture. Many truths are not in scripture. So where did you come to the conclusion that evolution started after God created the earth and man?

To me, that's a very curious position to take. It's as if you believe some of what Genesis says, but not all of it.

 

[Barbarian]

What makes you think that any of us are not accepting Genesis?

I said
God made us to be happy and free with Him forever. We disobeyed him and from that came sin and hence the need for a Redeemer, which He promised us and Who came and died for us.

What bothers you about that?

The thread is that evolutionism denies the fall of man.

Evolution doesn't. Evolutionary theory doesn't. But "evolutionism" is a creationist invention. So you could be right.

You seem to be of the position of, it doesn't deny the fall of man

As you see, it doesn't.

and that evolution is a real and necessary part of life on earth.

It's a real and necessary part of God's creation.

We're trying to get you to explain your position, but you don't seem to be doing that.

I just did. For some reason, you don't seem to be willing to read it. It almost seems like you're dodging around it and implying that we don't accept basic things out of (Genesis), (which isn't true), almost as if you are just funning with us and buying time or something. As you have seen, evolution is entirely consistent with Genesis.

Now if you want to believe a different idea of Genesis, that's OK. You're still a Christian.

I accept that not everything is in scripture. Many truths are not in scripture. So where did you come to the conclusion that evolution started after God created the earth and man?

I didn't. You're still not listening. To me, that's a very curious mistake to make. It's as if you believe some of what Genesis says, but not all of it.

 

[Edward]

I'm done here. You're just trolling now.

 

[Barbarian]

Someone was. The error of using generic arguments is, that door can swing both ways. Try to be specific and it won't happen.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Scripture IS literature.
If you don't understand that then you have no business talking about what the Bible does and does not contain.

If you can refrain from personal attacks we can get more accomplished here......

Now, I fail to see where I denied that scripture is literature but my point is that is far more than that, which I am sure you would agree with, that scripture is primarily the inspired word of God.....agreed?
I will venture that you agree that God does not lie to his people?
Then my question is still why would He tell us this:
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature......if it were not true? Why would He tell us He created man in a specific way if, in fact, that were false? Why not just say He created man and let it go at that?......and let us use our imagination to fill in the blanks?......
Maybe He did not want us to use our imagination (and get it wrong (though many did anyway)) and instead told us how He did it?

 

[Jim Parker]

If you can refrain from personal attacks we can get more accomplished here......

Hope springs eternal......
You were the one having a problem with the reality of scripture being literature.
Your comment was; "You are the one who called it 'literature' not me.....I call it scripture...." as if scripture was not literature. (#117)
You were dismayed because I "...suggested that the biblical creation account in Genesis was simply literature,..."

Now, I fail to see where I denied that scripture is literature but my point is that is far more than that, which I am sure you would agree with, that scripture is primarily the inspired word of God.....agreed?

OK. It's inspired literature.
You seem to think that being literature takes away from it being the word of God.
In fact, being excellent literature makes it more effective communication.

I will venture that you agree that God does not lie to his people?

of course

Then my question is still why would He tell us this:
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature......if it were not true? Why would He tell us He created man in a specific way if, in fact, that were false? Why not just say He created man and let it go at that?......and let us use our imagination to fill in the blanks?......
Maybe He did not want us to use our imagination (and get it wrong (though many did anyway)) and instead told us how He did it?

sigh
It's ancient middle eastern literature
it's not a Mechanics Illustrated "DTY" article

 

[civilwarbuff]

OK. It's inspired literature.

Inspired by whom?
literature

Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
lit·er·a·ture
(lĭt′ər-ə-cho͝or′, -chər)
n.
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West).
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.
6. Music All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature.

See my point?

sigh
It's ancient middle eastern literature
it's not a Mechanics Illustrated "DTY" article

OK, so we can agree that you don't believe what the Bible says is neccesarily true?

 

[Jim Parker]

See my point?

Yes
and you totally don't get it

 

[civilwarbuff]

Yes
and you totally don't get it

You can insult or you can answer.....at this point I have to assume you can't answer......

 

[Jim Parker]

You can insult or you can answer.....at this point I have to assume you can't answer......

I have been answering.
You don't get it.
I don't know what else I can say to you to dislodge the idea that the literature of the Bible, somehow, isn't really literature.
I give up.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know what else I can say to you to dislodge the idea that the literature of the Bible, somehow, isn't really literature.

Can you point to where I said that?

 

[Jim Parker]

Can you point to where I said that?

I'm not interested in playing games
I said the Bible is literature
You have a problem with that
It's YOUR problem
I can't help you

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know what else I can say to you to dislodge the idea that the literature of the Bible, somehow, isn't really literature.

I asked where I said that.......Now if that is playing games you are the only one playing.
Now, once more........where did I say that? If you can't point it out then you are simply making it up and that is certainly you playing games.

 

[Jim Parker]

I asked where I said that.......Now if that is playing games you are the only one playing.

Note the emphasis YOU applied:
"literature
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
lit·er·a·ture
(lĭt′ər-ə-cho͝or′, -chər)
n.
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West).
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.
6. Music All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature."
By that emphasis, you imply that literature is predominantly "Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value" and of no value beyond that as compared to scripture.
So you didn't "say that" in so many words but you are playing games or "trolling."
Enjoy yourself.
I'm not playing

 

[Barbarian]

Sometimes I worry that if some creationists learn the truth, they will lose their faith in God, so strongly do they require Genesis to be literal history, rather than the parable it is.

But God is not neutral on this; He is truth, and faith in God should involve a commitment to the truth.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know what else I can say to you to dislodge the idea that the literature of the Bible, somehow, isn't really literature.

So, you still can't find where I said this then? I graciously accept your defeat.......