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

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, Barbarian, Barbarian....as explained to you a long time ago, Paul presented the creation per Genesis as quite literal

He didn't say so.

when he established how women should act in church when he wrote the letter to Timothy.

So you're argument is that if Paul repeats a parable, that changes it to a literal history? I don't think so. Moreover, Paul recognized that there are many parable in Genesis.

Keep in mind there are SEVERAL verses that present Genesis as literal.

One down. Got any more?

There isn't one verse that actually says the creation story is a literal history. Not one. There's a good reason for that, if you stop and think about it.






.

 

[calvin]

There isn't one verse that actually says the creation story is a literal history. Not one. There's a good reason for that, if you stop and think about it.

G'day Barbarian, calvin here
There is no need for a verse that states "the creation story is a literal history."
Why? you ask,
Because the idea that it could be anything else is so absurd 'bovine waste' that it needs no qualification.
The idea that it is just parable falls over when we weigh it against what a parable actually is.
Would you like to learn why?

In its most fundamental form a parable is a story in which a fictitious item is given a role to play that relates to the plight of a real item. In most cases those items would be people, though not necessarily.
The idea of a creation parable falls over though because you are dealing with original items and there exists nothing that can be successfully used in juxtaposition to those original items.
for example it is a logical absurdity to claim that Adam (an original) is like ???
or that when God created the heavens, they were like???
One could talk of Adam (the first man) in juxtaposition to Jesus of Nazareth (the last Adam), because Jesus was uniquely different from Adam. So we could use either of the Adams in a parable about other real people because there are now other real people to use as an example, but not as examples of originality. That quality of originality is unique to Adam and no metaphoric, allegoric item exists.
That is one simple illustration of why calling the Genesis creation account a parable is wrong.

 

[Barbarian]

G'day Barbarian, calvin here
There is no need for a verse that states "the creation story is a literal history."
Why? you ask,

Because there isn't any. For the same reason, there's no verse that says the invisible pink unicorn made the world. Yes, I know that there are some people who think it's so obvious that the pink unicorn did it and the idea that something else did it is so absurd that there's no need to say it. I'm not convinced by that kind of an argument.

Because the idea that it could be anything else is so absurd 'bovine waste' that it needs no qualification.

Nice try.

In its most fundamental form a parable is a story in which a fictitious item is given a role to play that relates to the plight of a real item.

Nope. For example, St. Paul cites the story of Abraham and Isaac as a parable. The idea won't fly.

 

[calvin]

Nope. For example, St. Paul cites the story of Abraham and Isaac as a parable. The idea won't fly.

I thought we covered this before. please pay attention.
The whole of Hebrews ch 11 is about faith. it draws heavily on historic fact there are no parables there.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I thought we covered this before. please pay attention.
The whole of Hebrews ch 11 is about faith. it draws heavily on historic fact there are no parables there.

I believe Barbarians failing arises from the fact he does not understand what a parable is; it has been explained to him numerous times along with a Merriam-Webster definition but it does not seem he is able to grasp it. I don't know what else we can do to help him comprehend this very simple & instructive teaching method.

 

[Barbarian]

I thought we covered this before. please pay attention.

I read the argument here. I found St. Paul more persuasive. Sorry.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe Barbarians failing arises from the fact he does not understand what a parable is;

I'm just pointing out that St. Paul said it was a parable.

it has been explained to him numerous times along with a Merriam-Webster definition but it does not seem he is able to grasp it. I don't know what else we can do to help him comprehend this very simple & instructive teaching method.

Maybe you could get a time machine and tell St. Paul.

 

[Cygnus]

I believe Barbarians failing arises from the fact he does not understand what a parable is; it has been explained to him numerous times along with a Merriam-Webster definition but it does not seem he is able to grasp it. I don't know what else we can do to help him comprehend this very simple & instructive teaching method.

No, Barbarian certainly undrstands what a parable is.....the problem is when you filter your bible through evolutionism...Genesis MUST become what it isn't. That' a parable. There is absolutly no way Barbarian, or any other Theo-evo can reconcile evolutionism with the bible unless they change the historical and literal...into a parable.

 

[Barbarian]

No, Barbarian certainly undrstands what a parable is.....the problem is when you filter your bible through evolutionism..

... you end up as a YE creationist. The notion of a creation story that is literal history, is a very recent revision, no older than the 20th century.

 

[calvin]

... you end up as a YE creationist. The notion of a creation story that is literal history, is a very recent revision, no older than the 20th century.

Well then it is a shame Jesus did not have the benefit of your insightful understanding.
Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Now look closely at the beginning of Matt 19:4. "Have you not read"???
Where might they have read? surely not the Wall Street Journal.
No, they were expected to have read the creation history as contained in the Torah.....Gen 1:27 which by divine providence our English Bible coincides with the Torah and other relevant Rabbinical writings.
You see, Jesus taught it as history. If He thought or knew that it was just a parable then there was His golden opportunity to set the record straight.
He did teach it as history and moreover He taught it as something to be obeyed and used to govern and shape our understanding, being as it is foundational to our faith.

 

[Barbarian]

Well then it is a shame Jesus did not have the benefit of your insightful understanding.

Of course He understood it. And you brought up an example:

Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Now look closely at the beginning of Matt 19:4. "Have you not read"??? Where might they have read? surely not the Wall Street Journal.
No, they were expected to have read the creation history as contained in the Torah.....[/quote]

But the first words therein are:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

At the beginning of creation, no male, no female. If Jesus was speaking of it as a literal history, He would have been wrong. But that's not the way He meant it. He was speaking of the beginning of the human race, and of course that was true.

You see, Jesus taught it as history.

See above. Not only did He not teach it as history, His teaching would have been absurd if taken that way.

 

[Cygnus]

... you end up as a YE creationist. The notion of a creation story that is literal history, is a very recent revision, no older than the 20th century.

Doesn't matter Barbarian...the simple fact is that the Theo-Evo sect filters the bible through evolutionism.

The YEC'ers simply read the bible. No need to filter the bible through evolutionism and filter the bible to the point day now equals "ages".
No need to filter the bible through evolutionsm to the point original sin via Adam never happened.

 

[Cygnus]

At the beginning of creation, no male, no female. If Jesus was speaking of it as a literal history, He would have been wrong. But that's not the way He meant it. He was speaking of the beginning of the human race, and of course that was true.

I noticed when you filter the bible through evolutionism you must add to the bible the words...beginning of the human race,

 

[calvin]

... you end up as a YE creationist. The notion of a creation story that is literal history, is a very recent revision, no older than the 20th century.

Well in the light of other authorities you are totally wrong.
Would you like to learn why?

The Hebrew calendar started counting from 1 year before creation. And now, the Hebrew date corresponding to Friday July 7th 2017 is 13th of Tamuz 5777
Yep you see? the year is 5777 from creation or from 'day dot'.
The Hebrews are what can truly be termed young Earth Creationists and they most definitely have been so for centuries before the 20th century.
And since a lot of Christian understanding is founded on a heritage of Hebrew teachings, It would be fair to say that Christianity has been of a young Earth understanding from its beginning till the rot set in during the late 19th century early 20th century.

 

[civilwarbuff]

At the beginning of creation, no male, no female. If Jesus was speaking of it as a literal history, He would have been wrong. But that's not the way He meant it. He was speaking of the beginning of the human race, and of course that was true.

That is the most hillaryous interpretation of scripture I have ever seen. Do you write comedy for some 2nd rate TV show?

 

[Cygnus]

So you're argument is that if Paul repeats a parable, that changes it to a literal history? I don't think so. Moreover, Paul recognized that there are many parable in Genesis.

Paul also recognized that the resurrection was a parable.

 

[Barbarian]

Paul also recognized that the resurrection was a parable.

Show us that.

 

[Barbarian]

That is the most hillaryous interpretation of scripture I have ever seen. Do you write comedy for some 2nd rate TV show?

It's just what God says in Genesis. I don't think He does much comedy. But you're far from the first YE creationist to disagree with Him.

 

[Barbarian]

The Hebrews are what can truly be termed young Earth Creationists and they most definitely have been so for centuries before the 20th century.

The early Hebrews also thought the sky was a solid dome over a flat Earth with windows in it to let rain fall.

On the other hand, many Jewish theologians recognized that Genesis was not a literal history.

According to some Seventh-day Adventists, the only way to maintain a strong theology of the Sabbath is by way of an unbendingly literalistic account of the creation week in Genesis. Yet Orthodox Judaism has included non-literal readings of the creation, without controversy or schism, for more than a millennium. Although the Jewish faith includes provisions for anathematizing and excommunicating heretics (as in the famous trial of Spinoza on charges of pantheism or atheism), no Jew has ever been declared herem for failing to be a strict young earth creationist or literalist on the days of creation in Genesis 1. Abraham Joshua Heschel—a Hasidic Jew and the preeminent twentieth century interpreter of the Sabbath—did not subscribe to a literalistic creation week. Neither did perhaps the most highly revered and authoritative rabbinical interpreter of the Torah from the 12th century up to the present. According to a medieval Jewish saying still repeated by orthodox Jews today, “From Moses [in the Torah] to Moses [Maimonides] there was none like Moses.” Yet Rabbi Moses Maimonides taught that the six days recorded in Genesis should not be understood as literal 24-hour time periods.
http://spectrummagazine.org/article/news/2010/02/01/moses-maimonides-literal-meaning-genesis

 

[civilwarbuff]

• The early Hebrews also thought the sky was a solid dome over a flat Earth with windows in it to let rain fall.

  Not because God told them that......