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

[Cygnus]

I showed you that it was because Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. For some reason, you are unwilling to accept that.

Just as the JW's and LDS present a false Christ....the Theo-Evo sect presents a false Adam and Eve.

 

[Barbarian]

If you think Adam and Eve are false, what about Genesis do you believe?

 

[Barbarian]

Jesus Himself said: Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
I guess we've been around for a long long time then.

(Barbarian checks)

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Hmmm... no male or female. Most theologians resolve this apparent contradiction by recognizing that Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.

 

[Cygnus]

If you think Adam and Eve are false, what about Genesis do you believe?

I like the way you try to be clever..and never really answer the question.

Your Eve wasn't formed from Adams rib.....
Your Eve is a different Eve than the bible presents.

 

[Barbarian]

My point is this....if you destroy the doctrine christianity is built upon.....

You don't think denying the reality of Adam and Eve destroys Christian doctrine? Your new doctrine doesn't save anyone. Evolutionism puts your soul into grave danger. Instead of clinging to "evolutionism" (which has nothing to do with evolution) you should accept the Bible as it is. Original sin is a fact; Adam and Eve are facts. Accept it.

 

[Cygnus]

Hmmm... no male or female. Most theologians resolve this apparent contradiction by recognizing that Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.

Just when does your theology say Humans were created?

 

[Barbarian]

Your Eve wasn't formed from Adams rib.....
Your Eve is a different Eve than the bible presents.

Are we back to trying to explain to you that Jesus isn't really a door?

 

[Barbarian]

Just when does your theology say Humans were created?

Don't have a timeline. We don't need one. Just accept that at some point, there were two humans to whom God gave immortal souls, who chose to disobey Him.

Once you do that, all the difficulties you have with His word will go away.

 

[Cygnus]

You don't think denying the reality of Adam and Eve destroys Christian doctrine? Your new doctrine doesn't save anyone. Evolutionism puts your soul into grave danger. Instead of clinging to "evolutionism" (which has nothing to do with evolution) you should accept the Bible as it is. Original sin is a fact; Adam and Eve are facts. Accept it.

Yes, Adam and Eve were literal historical people.
Your Adam and Eve are false Adam and Eves. Your Eve wasn't made from Adams rib.
...in fact, you don't even have a biblical doctrine for your fake Adam and Eve. Your doctrine has no fall. You pretend it does..but have failed to show how it happened.

 

[Cygnus]

Are we back to trying to explain to you that Jesus isn't really a door?

Wow, cryptic. Once again you try to be sly. You do the Mr. Bojangles dance.

Let me say it again to you.....your Adam and Eve are not the Adam and Eve presented in Genesis and other parts od the bible.

 

[Cygnus]

Don't have a timeline. We don't need one. Just accept that at some point, there were two humans to whom God gave immortal souls, who chose to disobey Him.

Once you do that, all the difficulties you have with His word will go away.

Of course you don't have a timeline. That's just another admittance of your failed theology.
Where does the bible say God choose two people from the population and gave them an immortal soul?
Sheeze, question upon question you can't answer ...where your only reply is..."Just accept that at some point"...

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, Adam and Eve were literal historical people.

Thank you. That's a good first step.

Your Adam and Eve are false Adam and Eves.

God says otherwise. I don't see what you're trying to do here. You're like the guy who claimed Homer wasn't the man who wrote the Illiad; it was someone else with the same name.

Your doctrine has no fall.

I'm not the first person here who tried to show you that the fall was real. You keep switching your position, from post to post.

You pretend it does..but have failed to show how it happened.

Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. What's so hard to understand about that? If you won't believe that, why even claim to believe the Bible?

 

[Barbarian]

Of course you don't have a timeline. That's just another admittance of your failed theology.

Some things, God didn't tell us. Christians accept this fact. At least most of us do. There are always a few like you, who use their imagination to fill in the things God didn't tell us about.

Not a good idea, I think.

 

[Cygnus]

Thank you. That's a good first step.



God says otherwise. I don't see what you're trying to do here. You're like the guy who claimed Homer wasn't the man who wrote the Illiad; it was someone else with the same name.



I'm not the first person here who tried to show you that the fall was real. You keep switching your position, from post to post.



Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. What's so hard to understand about that? If you won't believe that, why even claim to believe the Bible?

Your whole doctrine is...there was and Adam and Eve...two people who were given a soul...and fell.

Yes barbarian we learn all about that in Genesis....but, the Adam and Eve you present don't even come close to the description of the Adam and Eve presented in Genesis. Just as the JW's and LDS present a false Christ, you present a false Adam and Eve.

 

[Cygnus]

Some things, God didn't tell us. Christians accept this fact. At least most of us do. There are always a few like you, who use their imagination to fill in the things God didn't tell us about.

Not a good idea, I think.

My imagination tells me Eve was made from Adams rib....you deny that 100 %. My "imagination" (as you put it) is based upon what the text of Genesis says....your imagination is based upon a text book that directly denies the events presented in Genesis.
The Adam and Eve you present is not the Adam and Eve presented in Genesis.

Your clever snappy answers clearly show you have no real doctrine to explain our sin nature....you slip on the old soft shoe and hope no one notices.

 

[Barbarian]

We all understand. Your re-interpretation of Genesis is different than traditional Christianity. You're welcome to it, so long as you don't pretend it's essential Christian doctrine.

 

[Cygnus]

We all understand. Your re-interpretation of Genesis is different than traditional Christianity. You're welcome to it, so long as you don't pretend it's essential Christian doctrine.

Now you're dancing in a circle.
I never said a belief in a literal Genesis is essential to ones salvation. I never said if one believes in evolutionism doesn't have eternal life.
So, Barbarian, stop polluting what I say.

What I have said is that the religion of evolutionism when added to the bible attacks the doctrine that ESSENTIAL christian doctrine is based upon.
One of those doctrines is the inability to explain original sin or why we have a sin nature. Considering the evolutionism/bible mix can't present a doctrine...the reason for Jesus isn't part of the The-Evo doctrine.

 

[calvin]

Hmmm... no male or female. Most theologians resolve this apparent contradiction by recognizing that Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.

Unless as creator He knew better than the nay sayers and meant exactly what He said.
Reading a bit of Augustine's literal meaning of Genesis, he thought he could placate his peers (apparently), by postulating that God created the whole kit and caboodle instantly. Of course that opens the gate for an ancient universe, how many gazillions of years would you like? Why would the Lord talk about creating in 6 days if He just did it all instantly?
It isn't only Genesis that is being attacked, the attack threads its dark way through the whole of God's word.
What worries me is the apparent shame some Christians feel about the Gospel.
The argument that people will reject salvation because they can not accept uncomfortable things contained in the Bible is something of an Aunt Sally.
Truth be known, these people would not accept the Gospel and hence salvation no matter what. Why? because as Paul puts it:
2Co 4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.
2Co 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.
2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
So it it is the god of this world aka the Satan who blinds the mind of those who are willingly perishing.

 

[Cygnus]

It isn't only Genesis that is being attacked, the attack threads its dark way through the whole of God's word.

How true....as mentoned above...."The religion of evolutionism when added to the bible attacks the doctrine that ESSENTIAL christian doctrine is based upon."

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes what God says was there at the beginning)
Hmmm... no male or female. Most theologians resolve this apparent contradiction by recognizing that Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.

Unless as creator He knew better than the nay sayers and meant exactly what He said.

He meant what He said, but not what some people interpreted it to mean. Notice that God says what is there at the beginning, and male and female are not there.

Reading a bit of Augustine's literal meaning of Genesis, he thought he could placate his peers (apparently), by postulating that God created the whole kit and caboodle instantly.

No. Augustine never tried to placate anyone. He was pretty much the major Christian theologian of his time. He showed that scripture was an initial instantaneous creation, followed by the rest unfolding over time, as God says in Genesis.

Of course that opens the gate for an ancient universe, how many gazillions of years would you like?

Augustine was primarily interested in refuting the "eternal universe" ideas of pagans. He thought the Earth was thousands of years old, but admitted that such ideas could be wrong, and that we should be willing to re-examine them if new evidence was found.

Why would the Lord talk about creating in 6 days if He just did it all instantly?

As Augustine noted, the absurdity of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, made it clear that the "days" (actually "yom", which can mean "forever", "in my time", "always", etc.) were categories of creation, a parable for us.

Literalists attack Genesis, because they want to believe that their way is God's way.

It isn't only Genesis that is being attacked, the attack threads its dark way through the whole of God's word.

I don't think so. One can be a completely sincere Christian and be a YE creationist at the same time.

What worries me is the apparent shame some Christians feel about the Gospel.

You don't need to be ashamed. For two thousand years, Christians have embraced the Gospels without adding YE creationism.

But Augustine has a timely warning for those who try to use imagination to fill in Genesis:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.


The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.


Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Augustine lived long before YE creationism and evolutionary theory, but he speaks to us today, as he did then.