VATICAN CITY - A professor at a Vatican-sponsored university expressed dismay Tuesday that some Christian groups reject the theory of evolution — implicitly criticizing the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Further emphasizing the official Catholic stance, a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith.
Both men spoke at a press conference ahead of a March event aimed at fostering dialogue between religion and science, and appraising evolution 150 years after Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origin of Species."
The forum is being organized by Rome's prestigious Gregorian Pontifical University, which is highly influential in Vatican circles, and by the University of Notre Dame in the U.S. state of Indiana.
Popes going back to the mid-20th century have "recognized the scientific value of the theory of biological evolution," Gennaro Auletta, who teaches philosophy of science at the Gregorian, told reporters. "Greater understanding and assimilation of such subject matter by clergy and faithful has been hoped for."
"I would like to point out that unfortunately one cannot say that about the faithful of all Christian confessions, as media reports indicate," Auletta said.
Auletta appeared to be referring to stories about fundamentalist churches that maintain a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the belief that the world was created in six days.
Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi told reporters that: "One thing is sure. Evolution is not incompatible with faith."
"Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless," Ravasi said.
Quoting the late Pope John Paul II, Ravasi said that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis."
Pope Benedict XVI warned last week against fundamentalists' literal interpretations of the Bible. The pontiff told a gathering of intellectuals and academics in Paris that the structure of the Bible "excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text," Benedict said.
Benedict, in a book published last year, praised scientific progress, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. In the book, he stopped short of endorsing what is known as "intelligent design."
Intelligent design proponents believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force, rather than evolving from more primitive forms.
Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class.
Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin's theories.
Associated Press Writer Daniela Petroff contributed to this report.
RSS
JC, you obviously have never studied geology and don't understand erosion, carbon dating or plate tectonics. I guess that lack of real knowledge lets you deny the age of our planet to fit some literalist scheme that says the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Our schools are definitely failing us.
Only ignorance can lead to dismissing evolution, the most widely accepted scientific theory in place today.
Of course, with personal, subjective and erroneous Scriptural interpretation, anything is possible.
God bless and maintain the Catholic Church for their recognition of God's hand in evolution. It helps combat ignorance.
What a bummer. I typed a post and posted it and it didn't show. I guess i have to wait for it to evolve or something.
viking, thanks for those encouraging words and even though some of your posts are way too deep for me from a scientific viewpoint I do appreciate your thoroughness as you share your views.
JoeU,
Hi. I am not qualified to discuss with you the issues you raise regarding catholic doctrine but in regards to "scientific reasons" I would like to suggest a few things in relation to your statement.
"Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life."
Of course contrary to misconception and popular belief in some quarters the theory of evolution which deals with biodiversity of species not the origin of life makes no such claim as you purport. The theory of evolution simply does not claim to be able to address the question of how life began and therefore any criticism based in this area is irrelevant. While there are many hypothesis of how life itself originated on earth non rise to the level of a universally accepted theory which adequately explains the observed phenomena or survives experimental scrutiny and so these are legitimately subject to criticism. However none of those is evolution.
"The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings."
While the above may seem at first glance to be sensible in fact the second statement is a logical non-sequiter to the first statement. In other words it does not logically follow. Let me demonstrate with a set of similar statements.
Trees do not sprout and grow "spontaneously" in the forest. Therefore there is no "natural process" whereby trees could exist in a forest.
As you can see you have "spontaneous" development with any "natural process" as if they are equivalent. This is simply not logical or true.
Third your statement contains an allusion to another popular misconception and untruth regarding the theory of evolution. you include the phrase or "chimpanzees into human beings." Contrary to the implication of your statement and to popular distortion the theory of evolution makes no such claim and in fact would deny that such a transformation was possible.
Which brings me to the suggestion that another reason could be added to why some people reject the theory of evolution. Because it has been misrepresented and distorted in popular culture many people simply do not know what it actually claims and do not understand the science that it is based on.
Believer,
thanks for your response. Also thank you for your first response remonstrating me regarding the appearance of arrogance. I need to be more sensitive to how posts "sound" at the other end. Finally let me say as you say while we agree to disagree I highly respect the fact that you base your views squarely on your beliefs and interpretations of biblical teachings. Keep well and while these discussions are interesting and diverting I know you will also stay primarily focused on sharing the Gospel of Christ.
Why are "Christians Rejecting Evolution" ?
Many (Catholic) Christians are rejecting evolution
for various reasons, including:
1.) Scientific reasons:
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.
2.) Traditional Catholic Teaching about Origins?
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real historyâ€â€
it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII) . . .
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
3.) Biblical reasons:
St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
4.) ... the Papal Oath,
which solemnly warns the pope against propagating any new teaching:
The oath which each pope is required to take states:
"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition,
. . .
to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
. . .
I swear to God Almighty and Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep
. . . whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
. . .
I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
References:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
Genesis 1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31;
the global Flood of Noah
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis6-9;&version=31
the Papal Oath
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/ larson-part2-2.htm
viking, thanks for your responses and as I said needless to say there are issues we can and do choose to agree to disagree and once again my interpreting your response to JC as being arrogant as opposed to simply stating a preference for not pursuing a discussion where the end result is pretty much known i do offer you my apology. That is one thing that posting lacks is the ability to fully hear others posters from an emotional and additudinal, if that's a word, perspective.
Polska13,
thanks for your response. I find that we disagree in some areas but agree in others. I will focus on where I see agreement. First I would say we both believe in a creator who is the originator of all the universe. Second I believe you would agree that this creator does not lie to us. Third you say that mostly God works in small still ways which I agree with as well.
Here let me expand on these with some further beliefs which I feel you might share. In keeping with the truth that god does not lie to us I believe that the creation itself is a message or telling to us by God. This being so things we discover reverently using the gifts he has given us to observe and understand his creation are also not lies. For example we have learned that contrary to superstition of some early groups of men lightning is not a weapon that angry petty dieties use to punish humans they are unhappy with.
God has given us the faculty not only of faith but also of reason. I believe that far from being incompatible that reason complements faith. Faith can inspire science and science can inform faith. I believe that any conflict between God's inspired word and God's revealed creation is a false conflict that arises from our misunderstanding not from God's revelation through word or creation. I have the feeling way may be together so far.
Now here is where I believe we differ. I believe the error in understanding is sometimes in the understanding of the revelation of creation (as in the view that the sun orbited the earth) and sometimes it is in our interpretation of the revelation of the word (as in my belief the view of a literal interpretation of Genesis). In closing let me say that my belief in God and faith in redemption through Christ is neither dependent on nor disturbed by the science of biodiversity and the theory of evolution.
Hi believer regarding secular humanism,
I think that idea regarding if "macro-evolution" (by which I take you to mean the process by which differing species arise as biologically distinct from common ancestors) is disproved then secular humanism is "dead in the water" is an unhelpful and even dangerous ground to try to stand on.
First let me say that to the extent that Secular Humanism is founded on an atheistic belief it is ultimately self defeating and void of a sustainable ethic (dead in the water). Ultimately all belief systems must face the existential question "is this all there is, is there nothing more" Eclisiastes dealt with this topic pretty thoroughly and is the best biblical answer I know to secular humanism. In modern philosophy and psychology Frankl's work that he began while a prisoner in a German concentration camp is helpful in understanding the limits and failings of secular humanism.
This is the ground on which atheistic secular humanism can be properly fought. However many secular humanists are not closed to a faith in God and ultimately reconciliation to god through Christ. Rather they are agnostic and thus are ground for the spreading of the word. However denouncing their entire world view (which many aspects of agree with Christ's teachings on man's treatment of man) does not bring them closer to Christ but often drives them from the hearing of Christ's message.
It dismays me that organizations such as ICR and others spend so much effort and time comming up with convoluted pseudo science attempts to prove the theory of evolution wrong in a vain hope that this will undermine the foundations of secular humanism. Secular humanism existed long before and completely independent of the scientific discoveries and observations which support the explanation of biodiversity known as the theory of evolution.
So no I would not agree with your statement in this area.
Believer regarding the "evolution camp". First my view is that there is no monolithic evolution world view. Some people will distort and misuse knowledge or truth to support a position which it does not. In fact even supposed Christians have been known to used the Bible to support such things as hanging Quakers in the early period of our country, justifying the continuation of slavery, etc. This does not mean that Christ's message was false just because those persons distorted and misused the teachings.
While I must be clear the understanding of the biodiversity of life called evolution is science not faith it to can be perverted and misused by those with either malice or ignorance.
My daughter had a science teacher in high school who told his students that women had an extra layer of fat becuase in "cave man times" while the men were away hunting the women would run into the ocean to escape being eaten by dinosaurs. The level of ignorance and misinformation included and implied by this statement is enormous.
similarly many elementary teachers and even textbooks tell children that we have seasons because the earth tilts "back and forth" on its axis. Again a dramatic display of scientific ignorance.
To the extent that you have experienced educators or others confusing the scientific explanation of biodiversity (evolution) with a theory or explanation of the origin of life (biogenesis) they are either ignorant of the science or they are intentionally misusing the science for ideological purposes. I have to say I place both atheists claiming evolution disproves god and theists claiming science proves god into this category. The bottom line on that by there very nature science can not prove or disprove the existence or non existence of God. Just as Faith can not prove or disprove a scientific fact or theory. Recognizing this I also believe without conflict that faith can inspire science and science can inform faith.
Now that being said as I would say to Denzel in the science and history courses you refer to "you had poor instruction with bad information and sloppy thinking"
Believer hi sorry for the delay in responding I was out of internet contact for a little while.
I agree with your identifying the Nail in our discussion. I believe the Bible is literally the inspired word of God but not that all parts of it are intended to be read as literally true. I believe this in fact no one believes every passage is intended to be read literally (i.e. Christs parrables, the poetry of Psalms etc.) but that there is honest disagreement between persons of faith on where the line is that seperates the literal and the metaphorical or allegorical in the bible. For myself I believe the spiritual truths of Genesis regarding the relationship of Man and God are more important than the literal issue.
Thank you for clarifying your view of Genesis two as literal. As you know I do not share this view but I think I understand your position. You explain the textual conflict arising from a strict literal reading in terms of the differing intents or emphasis of the passage based on an interpretation of the purposes of the writers.
5When no(D) bush of the field[a] was yet in the land[b] and no small plant of the field had yet sprung upâ€â€for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man(E) to work the ground, 6and a mist[c] was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the groundâ۠7then the LORD God formed the man of(F) dust from the ground and(G) breathed into his(H) nostrils the breath of life, and(I) the man became a living creature. 8And the LORD God planted a(J) garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.(K) The tree of life was in the midst of the garden,(L) and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up – for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, God formed man. Clearly this indicates that vegetation is already in the land and seeds are planted but had not yet sprung up (which would not happen in 3 days by natural processes – especially without rain or workers). That means they are already a part of the earth, made on day 3 when God gave the command to the earth to sprout forth plants. He then planted it and it sprout forth as He intended it to in its time.
You see, I believe you read these looking for a conflict to prove your point. However, it only indicates what you want to believe. The text does not contradict itself. You want to see God work instantaneously, but mostly we have seen that God works in still small ways because He is not held by our standards of time. If He wants to command the earth to sprout forth vegetation on day 3 after filling the earth with seed, that doesn’t mean the earth has to instantly have trees. It means that God could enjoy the beauty of His creation in watching them grow the way He intended. Just like a wonderful artist who doesn’t just throw everything together, but carefully administers each stroke and sees the beauty of it all even before the piece is finished.
11And God said,(H) "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
God said let the earth SPROUT forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees. Clearly the term sprout indicates growth of the plants. God did not just instantaneously put plants on the earth but planted them to sprout forth.
The earth brought forth vegetation, etc…… This is the effect of the command God gave to the earth. The work of God on the third day (the morning and evening) was to plant the earth with vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which their was seed. The earth bringing forth the things God demanded happened as God intended the same way they do today. It does not say that the earth was instantaneously filled with plants on the third day.
Thanks b, I appreciate you filling me in on that.
Steve
steveh20, I always appreciate your sharing what's happening in England on these issues. As for in the States in my personal experience where I attended school as well as where many of my friends went it was presented as the probable way life started, but as I told Viking that seems to have changed among evolutionists.
believer
I hope you don't mind if I interject here but in England when the big bang is referred to in classes it is in association with the origin of the universe and the formation of particles etc...nothing to do with the origin of life at all, which is the correct aproach. It may be a cultural thing but in the states when it is referred to in class is it to do with the origin of life then?
Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this.
Best wishes
Steve
viking, as much as I disagree with for lack of a better term macro-evolution I do agree that faith with regards to God should not be an issue. But would you agree that if you disprove macro-evolution secular humanism is pretty much dead in the water?
viking, help me to understand something about the evolution camp if you can. Was there not a time when the origin of life was a part of their argument. Because just about every science course and even in some history courses evolution as a reason for the origin of life was presented and normally the big bang theory was cited as the ultimate cause of life. And yet now it appears that many in that camp are doing their best to distance themselves from the origin of life issue. What is your take on this and if at all possible as Denzel Washington said in "Philadelphia" explain it to me as if I was a third grader, thanks.
viking, I think you've hit the nail on the head in our discussion. There comes a point when each person must decide for themselves if the Bible is literally the Word of God and more specifically is the creation account presented in the Word of God to be taken literally or allegorically, but regardless of how we decide ultimately God has decided already and needless to say He's right. But you seem to imply that I believe Genesis 2 should be read allegorically and I am not saying that at all. I believe it can and should be read literally but the writer or whoever shared it with Moses was giving a view of creation that specifically dealt with God's creation of Adam and Eve and His relationship in the Garden with them, but he did not focus on the chronological process of creation. It's almost like the first few verses are a quick rundown like an introductory paragraph and to be honest as a Pastor I've done the same thing in many of the sermons I've preached to get my audience on the same page with me. And then I totally focus on the heart of the message God has given me. But as you said ultimately our personal beliefs will determine how we interpret the Bible and the teachings in the Bible.
Believer, re genesis one and genesis two. In esscence you are placing your interpretation (or accepting that of others)on the meaning and intent and purpose of Genesis II vs. Genesis I. I point out that by your own statement that since we don't have the original writings nor do we have any access to the original writers to inquire into their intent and purpose for writing something in one way or another (and I will add the process of translation and transliteration has further obscured the earlier written records that once did exist) the best that you could say is this is an informed guess at what the original writers meant or intended. If this is true for Genesis II then it is also true for Genesis I and therefore by your own explanation and reasoning no one can say with authority that the writers of Genesis I meant that God literaly created the universe in 7 literal 24 hour days. Personally I think God is much more awesome than that. I believe as you might guess that Genesis I is also an allegorical story attesting the transcendent truth of God as creator of the Universe and all of the natural laws and processes which scientific understanding as well as literature and Art etc. have helped to reveal through the ages. I personally believe that God created this wonderous universe in a timeless moment and set in motion both time and all physical reality and cosmological, evolutinary and human history. I know that many bible literalists disagree with this view.
Hi believer, thanks for responding.
Re secular evolution and theistic evolution being equally valid from a scientific point of view. I agree they are both equally valid. Since the scientific point of view does not attempt to explain either way how the whole process got started but rather just describes and explains the observed phenomena. The atheist view of evolution goes beyond science to claim that somehow the (I hold god created) processes of evolution somehow disprove god. No honest scientist promotes this view since one of the basic precepts of science is that by its nature as a study of the natural world it is unable to render any judgement on questions of faith or metaphysics.
viking, while I agree that true humanists don't want God to be a part of any equation, theistic evolution is from a scientific perspective only on equal footing with the evolutionary views of secular humanism.
viking, I should have added that Genesis 2 was not written for the purpose of chronology. Once again my comparison of a biography as opposed to a history or chronological study. So if you look at Genesis 2 from a chronological viewpoint it does seem to conflict with Genesis 1, but that was never the writers intention since once again it was not written as a chronlogical study or report. And in fact some Bible scholars point out the fact that the word for God in Genesis 1 is His formal name whereas the name for God in Genesis 2 is His more personal name.
viking, I was speaking to books written by humans as opposed to God's Word which was written by humans who were superintended by God's Holy Spirit. But I believe that Genesis 2 was historically accurate but not necessarily chronologically accurate since it purpose once again was to speak to God's detailed creation, relationship, and initial encounters with man.
Hi Believer, I agree that the original (meaning the earliest written rendition of the hebrew oral traditions) will not have chapters and verses. I am also sure that they will be significantly different in what they contain compared to what is today identified as the Old testament. This is true even with the intermediate autographs that we now have. Some of the books of the modern old testament are not in these oldest of renditions and others that are in these renditions are not in what we call the old testament. over the centuries the texts have not only been translated (sometimes in highly inaccurate ways) but also been intentionally edited in terms of what has been left in and what has been left out.
Believer, Hi thanks for the clarification on not claiming that I am a secular humanist. However I would challenge the idea that an acceptance of theistic evolution is a position of secular humanists. By definition a secular humanist is non theistic. Also if you check out "the council for secular humanism" (know thy adversary) you will find that while non theistic evolution is accepted by secular humanists it is not the cornerstone of there philosophy which in fact goes back all the way to the epicurean Greeks.
Hi believer,
I agree that the original Hebrew writings upon which the current translations of the bible were based did not have chapters or verses. This of course doesn't eliminate the conflict in the content of what we call Genesis I and Genesis II. However in regards the difference between these two which you note it is of course well established by Biblical scholars that what we call Genesis I and Genesis II were not written at the same time they are seperate in time and authorship and both arise from a developing oral tradition of the hebrew people.
That being said I feel your analogy to writing a history and a biography is apt. In evaluating a biography and history that intersect in reported time and events we would compare the two to see if there were inconsistencies or disagreements. Now of course there might be things in one that are not in the other or differences in emphasis in reporting things common to both. But if one makes statements that conflict with the other directly (as Genesis I 12 conflicts with Genesis II) we would say that at least one of them has to be inaccurate.
When you state in your example "one would hope would be historically accurate" are you indicating that you are open to the possibility that Genesis is not necesarily a literal historically accurate statement of literal events but might be taken as an allegorical explanation of the relationship of Man to God.
Hi polaska13,
Thanks for the comment but in reffering to Genesis I you left out a critical part of the passage. at Genesis I 12 it states "12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good." this was on the third day prior to man's creation. Note according to Genesis I at this point the plants were already yielding seed and the trees bearing fruit prior to man's creation.
But contradicting this as you outline in Genesis 2 "no shrub of the field had yet appeared in the earth, and no plant had yet sprung up." at the time of mans creation. So again I ask which was it is Genesis I right and the plants and trees grew and flourished before man's creation or is Genesis II right and this had not yet happened at man's creation. This is only one of several such contradictions but is so plain in the text it illustrates clearly that an adherence to a strict reading of Genesis as literally true is inherently self contradictory.
Regarding your observation that normally when you plant things they don't fruit in three days this undermines a literal reading of Genesis. Genesis I at 12 indicates that this happened all at once in one day on the third. This is only possible of course if one accepts that it happened not through natural processes (set in place by god) but through direct divine intervention by god causing it to happen instantaneously. Of course one could simply accept this (that god, as indicated in Genesis I, simply made it all happen on the third day) but it would still disagree with Genesis II's claim that it had not yet happened at the time of man's creation.
Either it happened on Day three three days prior to man's creation as stated in Genesis I or it had not happened yet at the time of man's creation as stated in Genesis II.
The choices available are
one is literaly true and the other false take your pick.
or neither is literally true and both are true in the sense that they represent a god inspired allegorical explanation of the origin of the universe and mankind which can help us understand our spiritual nature and our essential relationship with God.(this is my choice)
or you could deny the demonstrated conflict and maintain against the plain writing of the bible itself that both Genesis I and II are literaly true and historically accurate.
viking, somehow I couldn't get back to this site for a while, but the bottomline is that much of Genesis 2 is included in Genesis 1, a more detailed presentation of Day 6, and that's why I said that sometimes because of the use of chapters and verses it becomes difficult to understand some passages of the Word of God. And this is a good example. In others words I don't believe when they find the original manuscripts if they ever do that they will have chapters and verses.
viking, first we must realize that chapters and verses were added and are not part the earliest manuscripts and sometimes they can cause confusion in correctly interpreting certain passages. But, first off man was created on the sixth day of creation and not the seventh. Second, Genesis 2 is not a follow-on to Genesis 1, but rather it is a specific narrative dealing with Gods special creation of man and woman. Genesis 1 is a historical and chronological record of God's creation, whereas Genesis 2 reads more like a biography of man's creation as well as his relationship with God. It would be like if I were to do a report on a historical event I'd rely on books that reported the event from both the historical and chronological perspective, whereas if I wanted to do a report on a person who was a part of the event I would rely on books that dealt with that person's life and their role in the event. The books I would use for the second even though they would hopefully be historically accurate, it is quite possible they might not appear to be chronologically accurate or simply do not speak to the chronological record at all.
viking, I in no way said you were an adherent of secular humanism, but that you espouse teachings with regards to evolution which is the cornerstone if not the chief cornerstone of secular humanism and without evolution their house of cards comes tumbling down. Plus, you know that when a person says they believe the Bible is literally God's Word it does not imply we are to take each passage of it literally. As for my view of the creation account as recorded in Genesis 1, I'm going to start a new post to ensure I don't get cutoff.
Hi P
I think you've got me confused with someone else.
Best wishes
Steve
Steve,
You said: Note that it says that death passed upon all MEN. It says nothing about non-human animals or plants
But when you read carefully Romans 5:12, you see that death entered the world through sin. Without sin, death would not have came. After that, it says death passed to all men. So without man to sin, there would be no death. Death was a result of sin - not of natural order; therefore, Christ had to die and shed blood for our sins. That's the reason for the atonement. Our salvation depends on Christ alone, but without the correct interpretation here, your belief is no good because it takes away the atonement for your sin.
Verses 11-13 of Genesis 1 state that God created plants and vegetation that bear to their own kind on the third day. Then, on the 6th day, he created man.
Now, in Genesis 2, it states that no shrub of the field had yet appeared in the earth, and no plant had yet sprung up. But streams were watering the earth, but there was no man to work the ground. God then created Adam from the dust of the earth. Then in verse 8, it says that the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden. And he put the man there. And God made all kinds of things grow out of the ground.
You see, this is not contradictory at all; however, it follows the very nature of plants. Plants were created on the third day: God planted them in the ground. Man was created on the 6th day. The plants had not yet sprung up. I don’t know about you, but normally, when I plant something it doesn’t show in 3 days above ground, and it also needs water and working of the ground. So, if Genesis is literal, then this is entirely possible, but you see, if it is allegorical in “millions of years†terms, then it becomes contradictory.
Was God lying when Genesis I says
10God called the dry land earth, and the (R)gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11Then God said, "Let the earth sprout (S)vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Or was God lying when Genesis II says
5(F)Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, (G)for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7Then the LORD God formed man of (H)dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and (I)man became a living being.
Did the trees and shrubs grow and yield fruit on the third day before the creation of human beings (male and female) on the seventh day as stated in Genesis I or Did they do this after the creation of man adam but before the creation of woman on some unspecified day in Genesis II.
Please try to be consistent in your response either its a literal belief in the whole thing in which case genesis contradicts itself or it must be viewed as allegory in which case there is no obligation to accept 6 day creation as literal. You can't have it both ways picking and choosing what you accept as literal but denying others the right to do so. Well actually you can but it is not a legitimate position.
believer Hi thanks for responding,
However I must ask respectfully that you not put words in my mouth that I never said in order to bolster your position. You imply that the observable physical evidence I reffered to in relation to Geology are "so called truths of secular humanism" In fact I am not a secular humanist. You may note that unlike your post mine did not make accusations towards JC rather I asked a question. Which I will also ask you. Is your belief in the literal physical accuracy of Old testament bible stories (such as a world wide flood, six 24 hour day creation, and the sun standing still in the sky)so strong that it is unalterable by any observed evidence or knowledge of physical reality. If this is the case that no amount of observable evidence could ever shake your faith in those stories then could you explain to me the point of even discussing the observable evidence since at the end of the day it would not impact your view one way or the other.
Regarding the origin of life I am somewhat confused what relevance that has to this discussion at all. You are right that science does not have an answer as to the mechanics of the origin of life. But then no scientist I've read (including geologists and evolutionists) make any claim to know the origin of life. This is a common misconception. I in fact believe that God is the creator of life through an awe inspiring single act of creation that set in motion all of the wonderous processes of the universe including what we call physics, biology, evolution, chemistry, etc, etc,. No observable phenomena or scientific theory conflicts with this belief or my faith in the saving power of Christ.
I also reject the old canard that if we do not hold the old testament stories to all be literally true then we call god a liar. This is only the case if we insist on a physical literal reading of the bible.
However assuming for a moment for discussion that every word of Genesis is literally physically true and the literal writing of God (as you imply rather than inspired scripture as I believe) then I will ask you to answer a question from that view point. (see next post)
viking, so if a person believes the Word of God don't confuse him with the so-called scientific truths of secular humanism he's close-minded, but if a person believes the so-called scientific truths of secular humanism then he's an enlightened individual who is allowed to patronize those who don't. Since the origin of life cannot be scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it appears all sides are bending and twisting so-called scientific facts to fit their point of view. But heaven forbid that God told the truth in His Word with regard to creation and the flood, but if He didn't then where in the Bible does He begin to tell the truth?
Hi JC,
Thanks for your response. Rather than going through many exchanges reviewing geology vs evolution (not the same) let me just ask if I am correct in presuming that you have a strong (perhaps unalterable by evidence) belief that stories in the old testament regarding physical creation, the flood, the sun standing still in the sky, etc. are literally physically true as stated. If so then any discussion of geology, physics, etc. is pointless because in the end if the evidence disagrees with the story then the evidence will just be reinterpreted to fit the story. This is of course ok for a personal world view. No one has the right to demand that you or anyone accept the Genesis stories as non literal.
DP
Can you explain what you mean by plant remains being where they possibly shouldn't be, you can't mean at the Antartic during the Cretacous because we understand why that is, its not much of a mystery, so I'm not to certain where you mean.
Keep well.
Steve
The Bible records that all the sources of the watery depths burst open and the floodgates of the sky were opened, so as the waters were coming down the waters were also coming out or up for 40 days and 40 nights non-stop.
"a short one, say 40 days?"
The canopy theory says our planets atmosphere contained a very high quantity of water. This created a greenhouse effect (which explains tropical plants at the North Pole) and a 'good' climate everywhere.
When the canopy fell (the flood) all the water rained down which it had never done before. All that water could not be so quickly absorbed and a massive flood occurred.
It took time for the water to get absorbed but like a sponge it expanded creating the existing plate system we have today. (Some call it contentental drift). Many people believe all the land masses once were connected. The flood is what happened. The water came down, it was absorbed, the earth expanded, the land ripped appart and created the earth we know today.
This is why there is such messed up evidence in layer strada and plant remains where they couldn't possibly have been....
I'll have to leave the in depth geological history of the GC to somebody else as my hands on experience is the geological history of England. Last year in the north of England I studied an intresting site where by following the facies upwards one could see alternating periods when dessert had existed followed by gentle transgressions by the sea and then a return to dessert, there where many such periods, fascinating. I do enjoy doing geology rather than just reading about it.
My understanding is that stalactites can form over variable periods of time from years to months, this will depend on such things as mineral content of the fluid causing them or supply of fluid etc(and of course you did not state how big it was to be mm,cm,m? its important to always try and state units). There are some people who have the funny idea that geologists say they must take many years to form, glad your not one of them JC and you have taken the time to find out what geologsts actually do say
Best wishes
Steve
To Steve,
Beloved, you said it yourself, "or very short periods such as areas where flash floods occur". Would this then be the case of the Grand Canyon, which very much exhibits the layers, undisturbed? For it would seem that the Canyon was created, as you have described above, from a massive flash flood, a short one, say 40 days?
If I may ask you another question? How long does it take a stalactite to form?
Hi JC
I wasn't writing about the geololical column I was writing about the mis conception that all strta take millions of years to be deposited.
As you are most likely aware the stratigraphic column records the order that rocks are laid down in, of course it does not exist as such due to erosion etc of rocks of certain periods resulting in uncomformaties, but if we could find the "perfect sequence" that is what it would be like. So we don't find Triassic underneath Silurian, unless there has been overfolding or thrusting of course. Within each period are many diffrent strata of rock, so it is easy for some strata within a period to be laid over a long age , such as in deep seas, or very short periods such as areas where flash floods occur.
Not sure where you get the idea that fossils date strata. All the fossils can do is give us relative dates not actual ones. A good example is that we don't find bunny rabbits in Cambrian or Trilobites in anything after the Permian. In geology there are many structures that give realtive dates reather than actual ones, cross cutting igneous intrusions come to mind. So its only a problem for those who don't understand this princple.
Very happy to share these things with you. Geology rocks!!
Best wishes
Steve
To Steveh20:
Beloved, am I to understand that you are now questioning the Geologic Column? Something that which is one of the pillars of Evolution, and without it would not exist? Please clarify.
For myself, I consider it an illogical argument as it is nothing more than circular reasoning. The fossil is dated by the strata in which it is found, and the strata is dated by the fossil found in it. This problem has been well recognized for some time, but it remains out of the school books, and out of the mainstream media.
To Viking:
Dear one, interesting the Grand Canyon is. I've have stood on the edge in wonder and awe. Beloved, one thing I find interesting the is the erosion patterns, or should I say a lack there of. One would think that the erosion at the top of the Canyon would be more severe than at the bottom, since by Evolution's theory, it has been exposed millions of years before the bottom. However, when one takes a closer look, one can find the exact same erosion pattern at the top, and at the bottom. Indicating a more evenly distributed erosive decay. Wind could smooth the rocks, but generally has a tendency to do this unevenly.
Also, the layers themselves present a huge problem for Evolution that is also not talked about in the history books or mainstream media. How are such flat surfaces maintained over that long a time, or created in such an extensive manner as is seen generally throughout the geologic column, before the next layer started to form many millions of years later?
You said it yourself, there is evidence of a lot of water over this area on one time. I further that and say that the Grand Canyon was created by these waters, either rising or receding, and it was done in about 40 days. This would be more consistent with what is observed more so than Evolution, even for us lay people.
Hello JC
First of all thank you for your question, I have to say though that it is based on a false premise, that being that strata tale millions of years to form, whilst some strata do take a long time to form such as in low energy enviroments, we know from observations of enviomental processes today, that are reconised as occuring in the rocks of yesteryear, that it is more than possible for this to occur literally in minutes, i.e in floods or pyroclastic flows in other words, high energy enviroments. The idea that geologists say all strata takes millions of years to form is simply not true, best to view it as an urban myth.
Best wishes
Steve
JC,
wow! regarding your question on Niagra. Lets assume for a moment that your fact regarding the current rate of erosion of the falls is correct. Your question f the Earth is "millions and millions" of years old, how is it that the falls are even in existence today. Shouldn't they have already eroded into a non-roaring, non-raging river? One would think." Only makes any sense if one assumes that the falls themselves in there current state and rate of erosion are also millions of years old. This just isn't the case. The fact is some geological formations are older than others. The current formation of Mt.St. Helens is very young. On the other hand the appalacians are very old. Regarding Niagra for example the whole area was under an ice sheet from around 20000 to 13000 years ago. So the question you put makes no sense in the context of the known facts.
Re the Grand Canyon. Your question demonstrates a common misconception about basic geology and erosion. Many persons looking at the Grand canyon make the understandable error that the river eroded down to its current level from the top. This however does not agree with either the known geology or with physics. What actually happened is that over millions of years there was a prolonged uplifting of the land. The river during this time "sought itslevel" and as the land gradually rose the river eroded the soft sedementary rocks to maintain a relative constant. This becomes obvious when one remembers that no water course will erode below its outlet. if it somehow did it would become a body of captive water (pond, lake, etc) and not a river at all. As steve points out more fascinating than the relatively straight forward issue of the rivers erosion is the evidence of truly ancient mountains underlying the sedimentary layers. The example you raise of the grand canyon is in fact an excellent example of directly observable evidence by the common lay person of the extreme age of the earth. If you study the area you find not only the demonstraion of the eons of formation of the sedimentary layers you also find the evidence of ancient seas overlaying that strata and as mentioned above even more ancient mountain bases predating the sedimentary layers.
To Steveh20
You sound as if you are a well educated individual, so let me ask you a simple question that nobody has not been able to answer. (If I've asked this question of you before, please forgive me). Perhaps you will be able to answer this:
There are many levels of strata that have been observed by some in the scientific community. Most of these scientists agree that each level of strata defines each period in Earth's history. And of these same scientists, most agree that these different layers of strata took "millions and millions" of years to form.
If this is the case, how is it then that remnants of trees have been found in multiple layers of strata? If the process from one strata to the next took millions of years, even a thousand, then these trees would have decayed to nothing, but yet, there they are. Even more interesting is the fact that they are found in multiple levels of strata, indicating that the theory of millions of years of evolution is false, as the trees should have never made it from one era of strata to the next. Even more amazing is the fact that they found some of these trees upside down. How would this be possible, trees don't grow upside down?
JC
What I find fascinating about the Grand Caynon are the schists at the base of it which show that before the sediments it is composed of where deposited a mountain range existed there, some of those mountains where about 9km high and formed as two tectonic plates collided. Yes it certainly is an interesting place with a highly complex geological history, not as straight forward as some people seem to think, I don't understand why they think that.
I'm sorry you have the idea that if the Earth is millions of years old then Niagra falls must also be, personally I don't see the connection.
Best wishes
Steve
If you say a lie long enough, some will treat it as fact. Evolution is a "science" that ignores the facts.
For instance:
Niagara falls is eroding at 1 to 3 feet a year. In other words, the distance to the falls is shrinking, as the distance from the falls is growing. This is a scientific fact that can be accessed by any web browser. Now, I ask, if the Earth is "millions and millions" of years old, how is it that the falls are even in existence today. Shouldn't they have already eroded into a non-roaring, non-raging river? One would think.
The Grand Canyon is said by scientists to have been eroded away by the Colorado river over a period of "millions and millions" of years. Interesting observation. But they left out one important point. The river flows from East to West through the Canyon. The elevation on the East side is lower than the elevation on the West side. So, for this erosion to have happened, water would have had to defy the laws of physics by flowing up hill. Highly unlikely.
Northern Texas, southern Oklahoma, fossilized tracks were found after a river foundation was displaced after flooding. What was found made it into the history books, but with a twist. In the history books, a picture of two "prehistoric" humans are walking through some dinosaur tracks. If you look at the picture in the books, the humans have only three toes, and are walking half upright, like a morphing ape or something. Now, in reality, these tracks were filled with plaster upon their discovery. The dinosaur tracks and the human tracks were indeed made at the same time as the humans, which by looking at the plaster and the tracks themselves, each foot had five toes, not three. Distinctly human, and only one set of tracks, not two.
Each year, the Mississippi has to be dredged because of the sand and dirt build up. If the earth is "millions and millions" of years old, there should be an extension of the continent there by now, but there isn't. Interestingly enough, while drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, drillers have reported running into tree stumps. In the Gulf of Mexico? How did they get there? Some have a theory of a great flood, that washed all these trees down the Mississippi into the Gulf. That is definitely more believeable than Evolution.
Evolution is not science, it is a twisted version of science, that ignores the facts. In other words, it's a lie that had every intention of taking our eyes off of the One who is responsible for it all.
I know that the all that is was created in the Six Days of Creation. The Sabbath on the Seventh.
One week , baby , one week.
So pope put that in your pipe and smoke it. :D
From the Article:
"Pope Benedict XVI warned last week against fundamentalists' literal interpretations of the Bible. The pontiff told a gathering of intellectuals and academics in Paris that the structure of the Bible "excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text," Benedict said"
Say What?
ifeelfine72,
I just realized that http://dictionary.com brings up http://dictionary.reference.com.
So yes, dictionary.com DOES show what I wrote - you simply did not read far enough down the pages.
dictionary.com DOES say scarlet and crimson have the same definition in at least one source.
dictionary.com DOES say scarlet and crimson and purple are ranges of color.
dictionary.com DOES say purple is crimson.
ifeelfine, logic is not the only one who has brought out that possibility, several reliable Bible commentaries present a similar possibility. But regardless of the commentators education and giftedness I'm sure their wrong too.
Nice try Logic but it was either scarlet or purple (the colors in the Bible I read) not both or one first and the other later as the sequence of events in the two passages doesn't make sense for that to have happened.
Keep up with the semantic gymnastics but your worldview just isn't supported by the facts . . . some of which come right from the Bible.
logic, I agree with you. That is also a perfectly reasonable explanation for the difference in word usage.
logic, you're 110% this is a rabbit trail we have been down with ifeelfine many times before and I agree that your thought on this is a definite possibility, be blessed as you continue to serve Him, believer
wbmoore, On the issue of the robe's color. It could have been purple, then stained scarlet by His profuse bleeding. Therefore both accounts of the robes color are correct. The color "contradiction" is an argument seen many times on this site. Careful where you cast you pearls.
wb and tp, excellent posts on the Word of God, be blessed as you both continue to serve Him, believer
ifeelfine, plus living here in SEC country I can personally tell you that crimson and scarlet look very much alike after two hard fought halves of football when you add the wear and tear and sweat and blood. You see there are so many logical reasons why two of the writers recorded purple and one scarlet, but the bottomline is, and you yet to show why it is not, that the color of the robe is not relevant to the question of inerrancy in regards to the Word of God.
ifeelfine, the bottomline is that you are trying to disprove facts that are clearly black and white, clearly meant to be taken literally by taking issues such as the color of the robe to prove that the Bible in its original autographs is not the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God. Have you ever taken the time to look at Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" where he very thoroughly speaks to the inerrancy and reliability of the Bible? I would challenge you to pick up a copy of it if you have not.
People can choose to find ways to reconcile what God wrote that might appear confusing, or you can choose to call it wrong. Basically, people can choose to believe that God is powerful enough to write what He wanted written, or not. They can choose to believe the Bible or not.
If you find error in one place, then it is intellectually dishonest to say you can trust it somewhere else without having concrete evidence that THAT particular place in the Bible is trustworthy.
If you can not trust God, who can you trust?
Using the same links provided before (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crimson
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scarlet
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purple), I will show the defintions of these three colors using The American Heritage Dictionary.
purple:
Any of a group of colors with a hue between that of violet and red.
Purple is a range of color shades between violet and red.
scarlet:
A strong to vivid red or reddish orange.
Note it defines it as 'stong to vivid red'. This is a range of shades of red.
crimson:
A deep to vivid purplish red to vivid red.
This is a range from vivid purplish red to vivid red - again, this is a range of color shades.
As I said before, WordNet (from the same links provided above), define the words crimson and scarlet identically for their first definition:
1. of a color at the end of the color spectrum (next to orange); resembling the color of blood or cherries or tomatoes or rubies.
WordNet defines purple as:
1. of a color intermediate between red and blue
Like I said, color specialists today could probably dilineate what makes up various shades of color, based on the medium they are using. However, this is not the case for most people. Some would use scarlet where others would use crimson, and others would use purple.
While color specialists today could tell you the difference between crimson and scarlet, most people only see a difference if they are held side-by-side. To most people, the two colors are essentially the same.
What I'm saying is that different people use the same term in different ways, and use different terms to describe the same thing. Look at the links I provided and read the pages - these pages have multiple sources for what is provided, so you will have to actually read.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crimson
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scarlet
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purple
wbmoore: So, you're trying to tell me that scarlet and crimson are the same color? Those were quite the semantic gymnastics. It's funny dictionary.com doesn't define them the same. One is red leaning towards orange and the other is purple.
I think you've proven my point.
steveh20, thanks for telling me what I think. No. I said what I meant. If the bible can not be trusted in one place, it automatically calls into question every other place. If it can not be trusted in one place, it can be trusted in no place.
ifeelfine72,
The reason in the difference in word choice is the different purposes of the authors in question. Mark and John were focusing the reader's attention on the Kingly nature of Christ, and the soldiers were mocking this, thus they used the term purple. But Matthew was being more specific to the nature of the clothe/dye being used and so was able to focus his readers' attention to the blood sacrifice being made. The word choice was made because of different purposes of the authors. The colors were the essentially the same, and the audience, who were familiar with the color of the robes of the occupying Roman soldiers, would have had no difficulty with the word choices.
So there is no discrepancy. The color is the same, the difference was word choice for the purpose of the author.
So now according to some of you, God is a liar. How can you even claim the label 'Christian" if you don't even accept the very words of the God you claim to serve? Could it be you've invented your own "version" of God to suit yourself? How about Jesus Christ? Is He still the Son of God? How about His death burial and resurrection? Do you accept that or is that too outside the realm of your naturalistic indoctrination?
I f we can just pick and choose what we want to believe why then do we even need the Bible at all? If God lied in verse 1 of Genesis how can He be trusted with verse 1 of the Book of John??
And where does it give us the choice to "choose" what we want to "believe" (a word that has been so distorted and misused in the modern day) and what to discard?
What about God's commandments? We all want to "love our neighbor" but what about loving God by keeping His Word??
I am convinced that much of what calls itself "Christendom" is not Christian at all. It's a perversion of what Jesus left behind. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't do or trust God's Word (a prerequisite for being a Christian to begin with) is NOT A CHRISTIAN.
I mean what kind of false security is that? What, because some people have a mental ascent to a kind of "hippie Jesus" that makes them a Christian?
If you can't believe that God is so powerful that He can't create the universe in 6 days, how in God's name can you even believe Him to heal your body of cancer, or even save you from sin!? What kind of god is this that some must serve who is as small and feeble as they are?
Not to mention the fact that we sit in too fallible position to arrogantly dictate to a supernatural God what He did and didn't do when His Word makes it clear.
So now according to some of you, God is a liar. How can you even claim the label 'Christian" if you don't even accept the very words of the God you claim to serve? Could it be you've invented your own "version" of God to suit yourself? How about Jesus Christ? Is He still the Son of God? How about His death burial and resurrection? Do you accept that or is that too outside the realm of your naturalistic indoctrination?
I f we can just pick and choose what we want to believe why then do we even need the Bible at all? If God lied in verse 1 of Genesis how can He be trusted with verse 1 of the Book of John??
And where does it give us the choice to "choose" what we want to "believe" (a word that has been so distorted and misused in the modern day) and what to discard?
What about God's commandments? We all want to "love our neighbor" but what about loving God by keeping His Word??
I am convinced that much of what calls itself "Christendom" is not Christian at all. It's a perversion of what Jesus left behind. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't do or trust God's Word (a prerequisite for being a Christian to begin with) is NOT A CHRISTIAN.
I mean what kind of false security is that? What, because some people have a mental ascent to a kind of "hippie Jesus" that makes them a Christian?
If you can't believe that God is so powerful that He can't create the universe in 6 days, how in God's name can you even believe Him to heal your body of cancer, or even save you from sin!? What kind of god is this that some must serve who is as small and feeble as they are?
Not to mention the fact that we sit in too fallible position to arrogantly dictate to a supernatural God what He did and didn't do when His Word makes it clear.
ifeelfine72,
To see this more clearly, we will look at the definitions of crimson, scarlet, and purple. Let us begin with the definition of crimson (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crimson) from WordNet:
1. of a color at the end of the color spectrum (next to orange); resembling the color of blood or cherries or tomatoes or rubies
Now we will look at the meaning of scarlet from WordNet (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scarlet) :
1. of a color at the end of the color spectrum (next to orange); resembling the color of blood or cherries or tomatoes or rubies
Finally, we will look at the meaning of purple from WordNet (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purple):
1. of a color intermediate between red and blue
In fact, The relationship between these words is more easily seen when we look at the American Heritage Dictionary defintion for purple (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purple - the same link as above).
1. any color having components of both red and blue, such as lavender, esp. one deep in tone.
2. cloth or clothing of this hue, esp. as formerly worn distinctively by persons of imperial, royal, or other high rank.
3. the rank or office of a cardinal.
4. the office of a bishop.
5. imperial, regal, or princely rank or position.
6. deep red; crimson.
Notice, that crimson and scarelt have the same meaning. Also note that purple is defined as a deep red, crimson. This actually makes sense, when we remember that purple was used in the ancient world to describe the color of blood.
So the difference in purple (used by Mark and John) and scarlet (used by Matthew) is simply one of word choice. The color is the same - the color of blood - what we call crimson (or scarlet) today. What was important is the fact it was an elegant robe made to humiliate Jesus.
ifeelfine72,
the difference in word choice is simply due to the fact that different people were relating the same story. That is to say, the terminology used was not precise. If the color were of importance, Luke would have also mentioned a color. But he did not. So what was most important is that the soldiers were mocking Christ by putting a robe that was supposed to indicate royalty upon Him.
Describing color in the ancient world, like now, was not an exact science for the common person. Where one might use the term red, another might use purple. This is because different societies group colors differently, where one specific shade of color might be considered to be in the 'red' group for one society and another society would consider the same color to be in the 'purple' group. In fact, the Liddell and Scott Greek-English lexicon says the word porphureos means darkgleaming, dark, and is used to describe the color of heaving and surging of the sea, gushing blood, bright red or flushing human complexion, as well as the color purple (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2385838). The word Porphura is the word used by Mark to descibe the color of the robe; this word describes the name of the fish used to create the dye color. Porphurous is the word used by John; this simply an alternate of porphureos. In fact, here is a color chart showing verious shades of purple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple#Shades_of_Tyrian_purple_colour_comparison_chart.Today,
So what does this mean? It is evident to anyone who has ever discussed colors with someone else, two people do not always use the same description when they view the same color. Recall that we see color on a continuum. For some people, purple has a specific meaning, a specific range of colors make up what they think of as purple. For others, the colors that make up that range would be different. If the the set of colors that make up purple is different for different people within the same culture and time, it would certainly be different over time and in a different culture and language. When we think of purple, we often have a specific shade of purple come to mind. But purple, as a color, is a combination of blue and red (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_colors_and_amounts_do_you_use_to_make_purple). Tthe same two colors make up crimson - blue and red (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_colors_do_you_mix_together_to_make_alizarin_crimson). What range of colors make up purple or crimson differ based on the person you ask. My wife calls something burgundy and I will use dark red or purple or wine to describe the same color (and then she looks at me as if to say, "Was that necessary? Why are you arguing with me when you know you are agreeing?"). The ordinary person would probably use the word crimson or scarlet to describe the color of the robe put on Christ.
ifeelfine, I've never said the Bible was totally black and white, in fact when you attempt to say that because there is a gray issue in the Bible that we can't fully explain or interpret that you tend to use that to say that those issues such as the creation account which are clearly black and white are not. Godly discernment is the ability to differentiate between the two. With the exception of possibly John none of the writers of the Gospels were present when Christ was being scouraged and the robe was put on Him. We're not sure what they were told about the color of the robe or if they simply assumed what the color was based on what they were told, but it doesn't matter if the robe was scarlet or purple and at the same time it is totally understandable why there could be two colors recorded. Purple was a regal color used for royalty and scarlet was the color of the robes that the Roman soldiers wore. Since the robe was used in order to mock Christ for the claim He was King of the Jews a writer could have assumed the robe was purple and since the robe was put on Him by a Roman soldier a writer could assume he used either his or another soldier's robe which would have been scarlet. Thus you get two different colors which in no way, shape, or form have nay impact on the truth that Christ was mocked for the claim He was King of the Jews. And thus the inerrancy of the Word of God remains totally intact.
believer: It has to impact the Bible - they are not the same color and hence, the actual facts can be called into question. You know I believe the Bible to be God's Truth but it's not as black and white as you might make it out to be.
Tell me, does evolution being true based on evidence do anything to dispell God's Truth or God's Word? I don't think so and neither do millions of other Christians.
BTW: I don't recall if it was this particular article or if it was another but I do believe that sometimes you and others are patronizing - not just to me - but to others who don't share your viewpoint . . . and yes, sometimes I have a tendency to get under peoples skin - intentional or not. And for that I apologize. Please accept my apologies.
ifeelfine, the correct term is scarlet not red and the color of the robe has nothing to do with the fact they put a robe on Him. The point they all agree on is that a robe was put on Him in order to mock Him for the claim He was a King. The color of the robe has no impact on the inerrancy of God's Word.
Surely wb that should read "if you can't trust my interpretation of the bible?"
agent,
How you cannot recognize that ones religion is directly tied to their place and time of birth is beyond me. Had you been born In classic Greece you'd be swearing up and down over Apollo or Zeus.
Absolutely Wrong.
I live in Indonesia, guess the God that I worship?
You are wrong
wbmoore: Well, then I guess, YOU can't trust any of it because Jesus' robe is either red or purple - it's not both. Me, I don't have that theological quandary and as such see no problem with the color of his robe.
agent, hope you had a good weekend and I do realize that you don't consider the Bible to be in any way shape or form the Word of God and I respect your right to that view, but I am talking to those who claim to believe in the God of the Bible.
"The bottomline is that in order to believe in theistic evolution one has to say that the Bible in it's original autographs is not literally the Word of God and in essence one declares God to be a liar."
Or one recognizes the book is not writen by God, but by men. Inspired perhaps, but not directly penned by God. beliver, I view all holly books as the same, creations of men, the only reason you doubt the holliness of the Koran is b/c you're Christian and not Muslim. When you realize that the same reason I reject your book for the same reason you reject the stories of all the other thousands of gods written about, then you'll see why I reject yours. And it's not that I disrespect just Christianity, it's that I view them all with the same skeptical and jaded eye.
How you cannot recognize that ones religion is directly tied to their place and time of birth is beyond me. Had you been born In classic Greece you'd be swearing up and down over Apollo or Zeus.
If you can't trust the Bible in one place then you can't trust it in any place.
Or ibe if one accepts theistic evolution as an explantion for the bio diversty on this planet one has to ask the question, is believers approach to the bible correct? we should not take for certain every thing scienece claims for granted and in the same way those who would claim to speak on behalf of the bible etc...Does God lie? Maybe we make him out to be one if his word is misinterpreted by us, whilst on closer inspection that is not the truth.
lbe, so let me ask you the same question I ask other theistic evolutionists if the creation account in the book of Genesis is nothing but a made up story, is there anything written in that book that is true or to be taken literally and if so how do you determine when God finally starts telling the truth in His Word? Who are real persons and who are just make believe? And are all the links leading up to man mistakes on God's part with regards to being made in His image? And why does the Bible never record or speak to any of the evolutionary process? The bottomline is that in order to believe in theistic evolution one has to say that the Bible in it's original autographs is not literally the Word of God and in essence one declares God to be a liar.
All this talk about guilt and murdering Jesus has a very Catholic feel to it. I know that some Christians find it helpful to think about themselves in that way in relation to Jesus, for me though I find it spiritually and mentally unhelpful, its one of the reason I never went to see that gorefest " The Passion".
Steve
Groups such as the Viswa Hindu Parishad and BJP are allowed to have non profit status in the US. ofpbjp-usa.org, vhp-america.org, vhp.org.uk. At this mornings services many churches in India are at risk of being attacked by Hindu extremists.
Evolution is nothing more than the physical change of a species over time. God gets compared to a potter frequently so I'll use this. Evolution is like a lump of clay on a potter's wheel. Over time the potter works the clay and it takes different forms. With love and care the potter morphs this lump of unattractive clay into a beautiful pot. It can be said that God did the same for all things in this universe. Believing in evolution isn't wrong. I'm sure it explains how things came into being. What's wrong is saying that God was in no way responsible for it. Science can only explain the physical, and that is all evolution is, an explanation of the physical changes over time.
I am proud to know that fellow Catholics are not as literally bound to the bible than other denominations. With changing times comes changing attitudes. While science and medicine do not give absolute answers, they may work hand in hand WITH literature to deliver stronger, more ideological inspirations. Good for this report, and no more 'literal' interpretations!
DP, and indeed it was our sins that made it necessary for Christ to go to the cross so indeed we are truly guilty, but praise God that His Son advocates on our behalf and by His shed blood He has paid for the penalty and guilt of our sin.
DP, I agree with you 100% totally about God not being guilty but responsible for the death of His Son on the cross.
"Genesis in Space and Time"...Francis Sheafer. Good book.
"still does not mean I or anybody else alive today murdered him"
The Bible talks about people who have not accepted Jesus being at judgement. Either you have accepted the blood being shed for you or it's hell. Rejecting the sacrifice of Christ is a really bad thing. If you believe Jesus died for you then you accept that He was murdered in your place. If not, you reject His death and His shed blood was of no value to you.
One thing about God that many have a difficult time wrapping their brains around is that time is a created thing. God created the concept of time for our reality. He is timeless and time has not rule on the creator. Therefore, to the best of our limited understanding from creation to judgement may not be linier at all. In fact, it could be all happening at the same time. Adam sinned 'now', Jesus died 'now', we are having this discussion 'now', and we are all before the Lord at judgement 'now'. With that in mind....
"but ultimately God was responsible for the death of His Son"
responsible is where I have the hang-up. Many people say because God created us with the ability to sin that He is responsible for us being sinners in the first place. This, of course, is not true. English is such a lousy language. Jesus would not have died without the Father allowing it. He knew what would happen (all-knowing) and allowed it for our benefit.
By the same token Jesus would not have died if God had not allowed it. He is in control. Jesus died because we are out of control without His death. God turned His back on His son and allowed all of this to happen. Still, God is not guilty of the murder of His son ... we are. I think we have to define the difference that responsible and guilt are not the same thing. He's responsible...we're guilty.
steveh20, how about being an accessory to murder? The Bible teaches that Christ died for all sin past, present, and future to include both your and my sins. So even though you and I did not actually perform the murder our sins in essence put Him on the Cross, since that was the only way our sins could be forgiven. Christ died in our place and therefore was our substitute so we would not have to receive the penalty for our sins which ultimately would be eternal separation from God. And if a person does refuse to accept Christ as Savior then when they die they will indeed be punished for their sins by being eternally separated from God.
DP
Possibily true possibily not, but that still does not mean I or anybody else alive today murdered him, thats rather a leap to make, also by that reckoning I could have "murdered" lots of people down through history, lets not stop with Jesus. Don't see it myself.
Best wishes
Steve
DP, with regards to your point to steveh20, I sometimes get concerned with Christians who are adamant about the fact that they are willing to suffer and die for their faith and yet there is no doubt in my mind that if a poll were taken of the Apostles each of them with maybe the exception of Judas would have claimed the same thing and yet we already know the truth in this matter and I suspect there is a good chance most of us would respond in a similar fashion if we had been there at the time of His arrest and His death.
DP, I do see your point that both the Roman soldiers and Jewish religious leaders were willing participants and God by no means had to force them to carry out the Crucifixion, but ultimately God was responsible for the death of His Son since there was no other alternative with regards to the price that was required for the forgiveness of our sins.
"Jesus did not have to die to pay the price of our sins - we could have been left to rot in hell. "
You got that straight!
"At anytime God could have rescued His Son and at any time Jesus could have walked away."
True...the point is that God didn't drive the nails...man did. God knew it would happen and could have prevented it but didn't. Did you want to open the 'predestination' can of worms? :)
Steve--truth be known nobody including His closest friends lifted a finger to try to stop it. I doubt I would have either. I doubt any of us would have stuck our necks out for Him if we were there in that time. In my mind, what's the difference if they did it or I did it. I was just as bad. We all are in one way or another.
"Mac version of Libtronix (Logos) software crashes when it searches."
Have you tried cutting off all extensions which are not needed to run the OS and that program? If you don't know, you can create an init set for when you run the program. Also, there maybe a patch on the software website.
IF God was not Holy, Righteous, Just, Merciful and Gracious, and did not love us, did not want us to be with Him, or IF we did not have free will and we were perfect and without sin, Jesus would not have had to die. God the Father sent Jesus, God the Son, to suffer and die for OUR sins. God ALLOWED Jesus to die for us.
Socrates did not have to die to pay the price of our sins. Jesus did not have to die to pay the price of our sins - we could have been left to rot in hell. The difference is that even if Socrates HAD thought he was dying for the sins of the world, it would have made no difference as HE was unable to satisfy the wrath of God and provide justification to those who believed in him, while JESUS is both the perfect man and the Son of God and is the only one who COULD satisfy the penalty for the sins of the World.
God IS holy. God IS righteous. God IS just. God IS merciful. God IS gracious. God DOES love us. God DOES want us to be with Him. We DO have free will. We ARE NOT perfect. We ARE sinners. Adam started it and each of us have continued it. But GOD DID provide a way for us to be with Him.
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 9:15-16
15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
BECAUSE we are sinners. Because God is who HE is, the only way for us to be with God is through acceptance of what GOD has done on our behalf.
So ultimately, we are each responsible for the death of Christ. Bud God is responsible for making a way for us to be with Him. We need only to accept it.
If we think about it no one murdered Christ but God. At anytime God could have rescued His Son and at any time Jesus could have walked away. What murdered Christ was God's unconditional and eternal love for us, since by Christ's death alone it is now possible for anyone to enter into a personal relationship with God through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ. Because of sin a perfect sacrifice was required and only God's Son was qualified to be that sacrifice.
But did "we" murder his son DP? It seems to me from reading the gospels that Jesus was put to death as a result of those religious leaders of that time afraid of loosing their authority, the Romans then became a useful political tool to get this carried out. These leader the stir up the mob who are always easily lead (arn't they always)etc..so who are the we who murdered Jesus, its certainly not me or anybody I know. The muderers of Jesus are those who conived at that time to have him executed, I and others alive today bear as much responsibilty for that as the trail and execution of Socrates 400 years before that.
Its an opinion?
Hope all well
Steve
Not to be sacrilegious, but the thought of people complaining about God being violent brings to mind my kids with Legos. They spend a lot of time building things, deciding how things will go together, which care will go where, which people will go where, what the people look like, etc. Then they play crash-em-up. They destroy what they made, at least in part, and then put it back together slightly differently. But its done in a way that pleases them. They are the "creator", and they get to decide who goes where and set the rules, then they decide if something needs to be rearranged and they do it. Now obviously, God is not a child, and we are not Legos, but I think the analogy helps me to understand that from God's perspective, HE created us. HE gets to set the rules in place. HE gets to decide when/if HE will change things, and whether it will be forever or just for an instant.
Does anyone have a good definition of the literal grammatical historical (sometimes cultural is differentiated from historical and so included in the description) hermeneutic? All my books are packed away and my Mac version of Libtronix (Logos) software crashes when it searches.
"Anyone who reads the OT would think that God is incredibly violent"
Actually, God can be incredibly violent. I would call putting one family in an ark and flooding the entire plant a bit on the incredibly violent side...no? Mankind simply doesn't understand that God owes us nothing nice. We SINNED against Him. We down play that word until it's meaningless. It's not. This "I'm OK, You're OK" stuff is just not true when it comes to God. God's OK...without Him, we're screwed!!! We killed His prophets who were special to Him simply because we didn't like what they said. We egnored Him all through out the OT and things really haven't changed that much since we MURDERED His Son.
Get the idea? We just don't want to admit that He has every right to be completely ticked off at us!
ifeelfine, I need to know if I have ever or you have felt I have patronized you? Now there are times you've got under my skin and I may have responded a little harsh at first but I don't honestly remember patronizing you and hopefully anyone else. So please let me know, thanks believer.
ifeelfine, what I am saying is that you take for lack of a better term the gray issues of the Bible or verses that obviously are not meant to be interpreted literally and say if myself and others don't take them literally then we are hypocrites. And then you choose to say that many passages of scripture that give no indication that they should not be taken literally such as the literal 24 hour six day creation and other historic narratives, that because they aren't in agreement with your worldview then they are simply a myth or simply figurative language. And that is both your perogative and right to do that. But my question to you once again is, based on your interpretation of the Bible and specifically the Book of Genesis, when does God finally start to tell the truth or speak literally as opposed to figuratively?
ifeelfine, just because a person believes that the Bible in its original autographs is literally the Word of God does not require them to believe that everything in the Word of God must be taken or interpreted literally. Nor does the fact that some things in the Bible were not meant to be taken literally mean that the Bible is no longer literally the Word of God.
Daniel Paul: Well, clearly it does need some interpretation, just look at the passage in Mark I mentioned earlier or look any passage regarding slavery or pretty much any of the violence of the OT. It definitely needs interpretation and context. Anyone who reads the OT would think that God is incredibly violent and certainly not worthy of worship. Obviously that isn't the case otherwise, we wouldn't, but you get my point.
believer: I say you can't do that because of the definition of "literal." "Literal" doesn't go well with "my interpretation." As for belittling, its a little hypocritical don't you think? I don't belittle or least I do my best not to, but you and many other Christians on this site patronize as a matter of course.
"Homosexuality is and abomination. It is 'disgusting' in the eyes of God. It's not interpretation. It's just what the Bible says."
As is the commandments about killing them. I am not saying certain parts are not literal, but to suggest the whole thing to be would be more of an injustice, one would really have to start rationalizing and cherry picking passages left in right and compartimentalize their brain so they would think it all gelled.
agent, but that depends on one's view of the Scriptures. I assume you see the Bible as basically a work of literature where many of us who profess to be Christians see it as far more than just that. It is God's story of His relationship with mankind as well as provides us with the directions we need to enter into a personal relationship with God through Christ and instruction on how we can live a life that is pleasing to Him and will allow us to join Him in doing His will and work. As a result it is imperative that we be able to discern what is literally true as well as what is figuratively true in order to better know God and grow in our relationship with Him.
ifeelfine, what do you mean I can't do that, that is why God equipped us with a brain and why at the moment were saved we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit who has the responsibility of illumining the Word of God in the mind of the believer. What I find amazing is you look for the most complicated and controversial passages of scripture and try to use them to justify your rejecting passages of scripture that are blatantly meant to be taken as historic events such as the creation account in Genesis. If you choose to not believe the creation account as literally having occurred that way that is your right and I totally respect your right to do that, but don't ridicule and belittle those of us who do by assuming you are more enlightened or intelligent than we are.
"all the while adding your own interpretation "
Just because the clear reading of scripture doesn't agree with what you want to do ifeelfine doesn't mean believer is misinterpreting it. The Bible stands on it's own and needs no "interpretation".
Homosexuality is and abomination. It is 'disgusting' in the eyes of God. It's not interpretation. It's just what the Bible says.
In the greek there are tenses for figurative and for literal. We use the same words both figuratively and literally... thus the confusion for a discussion in English.
Agent, I can't help but give you some props,as the kids say.I believe the Bible is the Word of God, but that does not mean that some things are not meant to be figurative.Your example of the metaphor of Jesus as the Rock is a good example.It points to a literal truth, but it does not mean that Jesus literally is a Rock.That's why it is important to clarify what we mean when we say we take the Bible literally.Good point, agentorangex.
believer, part of my consideration is that when one tries to really read it all literally, it becomes wraught it contradictions both in and outside the bible, and this wouldn't as preferable to refering to such passages in a metaphorical sense.
believer: You cannot have it both ways - it appears as though you are trying to take the moral high road and say that you believe the Bible literally all the while adding your own interpretation (your response to the passage in Mark is a perfect example) and you cannot do that.
agent, the book of Genesis is an historical account of God's creation and initial relationship with man and the Jewish people. And even though the Bible is not a history book it is when kept in its proper context historically accurate.
This is not necessarily saying PI is 3. A more reasonable explanation would be that either the measurements were not exact, or there is a difference between the inner and outer rims of about .45 cubits.
ifeelfine, if you mean to take it literally I believe Christians are supposed to handle snakes and drink poison then no, but if you mean if Christians are compelled by their persecutors to handle snakes or drink poison will God protect them or as in what happened to Paul, then yes we can take those verses literally, but please recognize there is still much debate as to whether or not those verses were a part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. The debate is about whether this particular text belongs in the Bible, not over whether any truth is missing.
agent, you're 100% correct if I'm hearing you right. There are passages which are meant to be taken literally as fact, that these events did indeed occur, there are other passages such as the Parables which may or may not have taken place, and then there are other passages such as you cite that are purely figurative. But none of that changes the fact that the Bible in its original autographs is literally the Word of God.
steve55455,
It does state that death spread to all men. However, when you read the beginning of the verse it says this, "Just as sin came into the world through one man, AND DEATH THROUGH SIN, so death spread to all men...."
You see when you read it fully, it specifically says that death came through sin which came through one man. Therefore, there was no death before this time of any kind. When it came in, it spread to all men as a result.
wbmoore,
I Kings 7:23-26 and II Chronicles 4:2-5 describe a huge brass bowl built by King Solomon. If the diameter of this bowl was 10 cubits, then the circumference should have been 31.415926...cubits, not just 30 cubits!(3..141592653589793...)
1 Kings 7:23 (King James Version)
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
That in diameter = 10, radius = 5 circumference=30
2*pi*radius=circumference
2*pi*5=30
pi=3
" it states PI is a round number, 3"
citation please?
beliver, the question you ask it sorta of non starter. you're presuming that at some pre-assigned page (genesis or not) literalism ensues and never stops, but you and I know this cannot be done as it's laden with it songs, hyms, figurative and often very vauge or imagainative passages in which literalism is impossible.
To read it all in a literal sense would ruin the entire meaning and spiritual essence and nature of the books as one would have to admit jesus really was a rock and other such things that aren't meant to be read literally, and I think this is where Ifeelfine is comming from. You both agree God inspired it, but the interpetation of such passages leaves one impossible to read it all in either a literal or firurative sense. Only a blending of the 2 seems reasonable. Also, consider all the books which have been rejected in years past that with their inclusion might make sense of other passages but result in further contradictions.
It's a mixed bag and part of this unfortunatly is that there is no single sect in Christianity as all the sects view it differently and all the while saying they serve the Lord while others are heritics. I noticed Professor X made fun of Catholics, but really outside of them and Orthadox, Christianity is one huge consortment of disjointed sects.
Mark 16:18
they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.
Doesn't what is described in Mark 16:18 decribe what happened to Paul:
Acts 28:3-9
3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, "This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live." 5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. 6 The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. 7 There was an estate nearby that belonged to Publius, the chief official of the island. He welcomed us to his home and for three days entertained us hospitably. 8 His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him. 9 When this had happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured.
"the Bible is not literally the Word of God"
I don't think so, he's suggesting certain passages aren't literal while others are, the same as you do (refer to my note of Jesus as a rock) and this application of literalism can't be fully employed on the bible anyway, it requires interpetation. So there is no real set page where full on literalism ensues for the remainder of the bible.
Saying its the word of God doesn't really get at the issue. It was still penned by men, inspired perhaps, but none the less penned by mere falliable and error prone men. This would explain the science errors (like how it states PI is a round number, 3) and contradictions in it, and to suggest it otherwise seems unrealisitic. Appologetics exists for a reason.
believer: Agentorange is right, that is how I feel - and you feel the same way about certain passages; we just differ on those passages.
believer: Do you take Mark 16:18 to be literal? It is obviously not written as metaphor.
agent, perhaps I should have said in Sunday School class he wasn't having a geography lesson.
agent, ifeelfine is set on proving that the Bible is not literally the Word of God and what he and others do is take obvious passages of scripture that were never meant to be taken literally such as your example of Jesus not literally being a rock and they tell those of us who believe that the Bible in its original autographs is literally the Word of God that we are required to take every word or passage in the Bible literally or we're being a hypocrite. For instance I would be deeply concerned if my son came home from school and said in geography class he was taught that the earth literally had four corners, whereas I would have no concern in that regard if he came home and said in say Sunday School class they were challenged to take the Gospel to the four corners of the earth. Because in geography class he was being taught factual material whereas in Sunday School he was being spoken to figuratively.
"then when does God start telling the truth? "
There are parts in the bible outside of genesis that can't be read literally, so really at no single page does entire literalism ensue and allagory end. Jesus isn't a rock, obviously such passages are figurative.
It's till truth if it's metaphorical and figurative truth, as opposed to literal, explicit truth. This is, what I think Ifeelfine means.
ifeelfine, what do you call 144 theistic evolutionists? Gross ignorance when it comes to the Word of God. You can get as many supporters to your cause as you want, but in its original autographs the Bible will always be the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, literally the Word of God. Plus maybe you can get together with your 143 theistic evolutionists friends and come up with an answer to my question, if much if not all the Book of Genesis is nothing but myths along with other narrative passages of scripture in the Bible, then when does God start telling the truth?
steve55455 - Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for posting here. I really appreciate it. Agentorange is a good, competent guy but unfortunately he has one thing that causes others here (not myself) to doubt his credibility - he's an atheist / agnostic. And unfortunately, I differ on a couple of theological points so my percieved credibility isn't as high either. So thank you - its nice to have someone else here who believes that evolution and Christianity are completely compatable. Cheers.
The backslidden Catholic Empire Strikes Back!
God has the Creator is so elementary that without that acknowledgement and understanding can lead to "brain damage" in people - For God "turns them over to a debased mind." (Read Romans Chapter 1)
As the movie Expelled pointed out, the catholic Churches compromise on god as the Creator has lead a college professor to becoming an atheist. If God did not create life then no one is accountable to Him. And that is ultimately "the image of the beast" The image is on peoples hands already because it effect their works. The image is already on their forheads because it effects their thoughts and their identity of whose they belong to. They belong to "THE BEAST." What is the image of the beast? ............... It is the image of a MONKEY. Mankind without a god-given conscience, Mankind just another animal among others, mankind without a soul, a mere body moving without a creator who purposely designed them, an accident among many. That IS the image of the beast.
So we can stop looking for barcodes on hands and forheads. The image of the beast is a "SELF"-image and it ultimately serves the "god of self." That's why pagans, man-made religions, atheists, hindus, buddhists, new age spiritualist, etc treat Darwinism as a central part of their doctrine. Because they serve the same god.
WAKE UP AMERICAN CHURCH. WE ARE SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF REVELATIONS NOW!!!
For more information
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
ifeelfine, plus there is a huge difference between who said something as opposed to who wrote down the words that were spoken.
The backslidden Catholic Empire Strikes Back!
God has the Creator is so elementary that without that acknowledgement and understanding can lead to "brain damage" in people - For God "turns them over to a debased mind." (Read Romans Chapter 1)
ifeelfine, nice try, but wrong again, just because man does not clearly understand a passage of scripture does not in any way take away from the fact that the Bible in its original autographs is literally the Word of God. There is still much debate with regards to the full meaning of the Book of Revelation and in fact there are several interpretations that have valid points, but regardless of those interpretations being right or wrong they have no impact on the inerrancy of the Word of God.
believer said: "Hosea 6:2 is still being debated as to what the writer was referring to or even who said those words, so to use it to justify your view is shaky at best."
So you're saying the Bible isn't the "inerrent, literal" Word of God then? What gives, either It is or It isn't? If the Bible is the "literal" Word, then authorship shouldn't matter because it's God, right?
(It's impossible to have a 24-hour day as we understand it without a sun.)
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
Steve55455,
(And later passages speak of a Sabbath year. So the sabbath is not limited to a single, literal day.)
There is a distinction between the yearly ceremonial sabbaths and the weekly seventh day Sabbath; read Leviticus 23.
(The 7 day week predates the Jews. . . . . . )
The 7th day was made for man, not for the Jews (And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath) Mark 2:27.
(The creation accounts are not allegorical, nor are they literal history . . . )
You are entitled to your opinion but as a Christian I accept Jesus’ testimony when he speaks of creation and of the creation of man and women as historical accounts. There is nothing in the first two chapters’ that warrant an allegorical interpretation. The fourth commandment speaks of a DAY not a year; throughout the scriptures the weekly Sabbath has always been from sundown to sundown, one DAY.
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment (Luke 23:56).
(They are literary accounts, which makes them no less true.)
Sorry, I do not personally subscribe to biblical criticism/higher criticism as some liberals do.
(The dispute is not over the fact that He created; it is over How.)
How? For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast (Psalms 33:9).
steve55455, I guess your right since you can't find any legitmate scriptural support to refute the fact that the Bible clearly states that the six days of creation were literally six 24 hour periods it is best for us to agree to disagree.
Daniel Paul,
> "What 'distinct changes are you talking about,"
>
> There is no middle ground between ape and man. Where are the transition
> creatures? You have ape and you have man. Where are the signs of smooth
> evolutionary transition?
As I noted in my response to Polska, here are three books filled with pictures and descriptions of the hominid to human transitional fossils:
http://www.amazon.com/Lucy-Language-Revised-Updated-Expanded/dp/0743280644/
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Origins-Clark-Spencer-Larsen/dp/1577660021/
http://www.amazon.com/Fossil-Trail-Think-About-Evolution/dp/0195109813/
And an FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Believer,
> I challenged you on this issue earlier today and Exodus 20:8-11 does
> prove that the six days of creation were literally six 24 hour periods
> of time.
And I responded. And your response apparently is simply to ignore mine and repeat your orignal assertion. This discussion really isn't getting anyhere, so I think it's time to say we just disagree and leave it at that. I wish you well.
"What 'distinct changes are you talking about,"
There is no middle ground between ape and man. Where are the transition creatures? You have ape and you have man. Where are the signs of smooth evolutionary transition?
steve55455, I challenged you on this issue earlier today and Exodus 20:8-11 does prove that the six days of creation were literally six 24 hour periods of time.
steve55455, to say they believe that it means a short period of time does not rule out the fact that it could be a 24 hour period of time it means that they do not specifically know the period of time. Plus, these are believed to be the words of the people and not God speaking these words. Plus, some scholars believe this was speaking to the Resurrection of Christ.
Believer,
> the issue is not with the word Sabbath
It was for the original poster, who claimed that because the Sabbath was a literal day in the 4th commandment, that provided evidence that the days in Gen 1 were literal 24 hour days. His issue was specifically with the word Sabbath.
steve55455, the issue is not with the word Sabbath, but with the word day and year. A Sabbath DAY is a DAY of celebrating and/or observing the Sabbath. A Sabbath YEAR is a YEAR of celebrating or observing the Sabbath. Where is your confusion when it comes to understanding that when you read Sabbath DAY in Exodus 20:8-11, that it was referring to an actual 24 hour period and in no way any other period or length of time?
Believer,
> Exodus 20:8-11, clearly refers to the Sabbath DAY as a 24 hour period. A
> Sabbath YEAR refers to a calender year. So where does your confusion on
> this matter occur?
I don't have any confusion on the matter. The claim was made that the Sabbath day in the 4th commandment was evidence that that days in Genesis 1 were literal 24 hour days. I pointed out that the Sabbath Day was not evidence for the literalness of the Genesis 1 days because there are also Sabbath years. In other words, the Sabbath is not necessarily a day. It can also be a year. The Sabbath is not specifically a day; it refers to a pattern of one unit of rest following six units of work. Those units can be days or years or decades, as in the Jubilee year. Therefore, sabath does not equal 1 day in all cases, and therefore the argument that a reference to the sabbath in the 4th commandment is evidence for the literalness of the days in Gen 1 is fallacious.
> Plus, Hosea 6:2 could very well be interpreted as an actual 24 hour
> period and at this point scholars are still speculating at it's specific
> interpretation, so you need to find another verse in the Hebrew that
> when the word DAY is preceded numerically does not refer to a literal 24
> hour period.
To say that scholars are still speculating on the interpretation of Hosea 6:2 is misleading. The overwhelming majority of scholars and commentators take the referece to mean a short period of time rather than a literal day. Apparently the only commentators that think there is a debate are the ones that hold to a literal interpretation of Gen 1, and want to preserve that interpretation.
The original poster made a claim that yom preceded by an ordinal number ALWAYS refers to a literal day. Hosea 6:2 show that that claim is simply not true.
steve55455, Exodus 20:8-11, clearly refers to the Sabbath DAY as a 24 hour period. A Sabbath YEAR refers to a calender year. So where does your confusion on this matter occur? Plus, Hosea 6:2 could very well be interpreted as an actual 24 hour period and at this point scholars are still speculating at it's specific interpretation, so you need to find another verse in the Hebrew that when the word DAY is preceded numerically does not refer to a literal 24 hour period.
Online4Him, > However, when Genesis 1 says that the evening and the morning were the
> first DAY and so on until it concludes on the seventh DAY (the Sabbath);
> how can this be taken as anything but literal?
The first clue is the fact that the sun is not created until the third day. It's impossible to have a 24-hour day as we understand it without a sun. That clue should cause us to dig a little deeper. As Augustine noted "Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 4:27).
I reccomend
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508/
for a good overview and discussion of the three main interpretive frameworks for Genesis 1
> The Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue which specifically speaks of the
> Sabbath as a literal DAY.
And later passages speak of a Sabbath year. So the sabbath is not limited to a single, literal day.
> It has been observed throughout history along with our 7 day weekly
> cycle which only strengthens these passages to be historical in nature.
The 7 day week predates the Jews. It was used in the near and far east prior to the first millennium B.C. Even if that was not the case, the fact that we observe the 7 day week has no bearing on the historical nature of the Genesis creation account. As Augstine noted, the Genesis account sets a pattern of 7 days, but that pattern is not limited to days. Witness the fact of sabbath years.
> For Christians who reject a literal interpretation of these two
> chapters, a question, should we also reject Adam, Eve, the firmament,
> waters, land, fruit yielding vegetation, the animals, the fowls, the
> sun, the moon, stars, etc as being allegorical too?
The creation accounts are not allegorical, nor are they literal history. They are literary accounts, which makes them no less true. Non-literal does not mean untrue. Are Jesus's parables true? Certainly, but they are not literal history.
And we have rejected the firmament. In Hebrew cosmology, the firmament was a solid hemisphere that rested over a flat earth. We now know that that's not how the universe works.
Online4Him,
> Jesus himself speaks of the creation in a literal way (But from the
> beginning of the creation God made them male and female) Mark 10:6.
Nothing in Jesus's statement requires a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. His statement fits just as well with non-literal readings.
> For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in
> earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
> principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
> And he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Colossians
> 1:16, 17).
The dispute is not over the fact that He created; it is over How.
Online4Him,
And later passages speak of a Sabbath year. So the sabbath is not limited to a single, literal day.
> It has been observed throughout history along with our 7 day weekly
> cycle which only strengthens these passages to be historical in nature.
The 7 day week predates the Jews. It was used in the near and far east prior to the first millennium B.C. Even if that was not the case, the fact that we observe the 7 day week has no bearing on the historical nature of the Genesis creation account. As Augstine noted, the Genesis account sets a pattern of 7 days, but that pattern is not limited to days. Witness the fact of sabbath years.
> For Christians who reject a literal interpretation of these two
> chapters, a question, should we also reject Adam, Eve, the firmament,
> waters, land, fruit yielding vegetation, the animals, the fowls, the
> sun, the moon, stars, etc as being allegorical too?
The creation accounts are not allegorical, nor are they literal history. They are literary accounts, which makes them no less true. Non-literal does not mean untrue. Are Jesus's parables true? Certainly, but they are not literal history.
And we have rejected the firmament. In Hebrew cosmology, the firmament was a solid hemisphere that rested over a flat earth. We now know that that's not how the universe works.
Online4Him,
"the firmament, waters,"
Doesn't the bible suggest there is water outside, or above the firmament? And the firmament is often viewed to be the atmosphere, so in their view their was water outside and above it, in turn they thought water existed in space then?
I personally do not condemn anyone who does not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.
However, when Genesis 1 says that the evening and the morning were the first DAY and so on until it concludes on the seventh DAY (the Sabbath); how can this be taken as anything but literal? The Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue which specifically speaks of the Sabbath as a literal DAY. It has been observed throughout history along with our 7 day weekly cycle which only strengthens these passages to be historical in nature.
For Christians who reject a literal interpretation of these two chapters, a question, should we also reject Adam, Eve, the firmament, waters, land, fruit yielding vegetation, the animals, the fowls, the sun, the moon, stars, etc as being allegorical too? Jesus himself speaks of the creation in a literal way (But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female) Mark 10:6.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Colossians 1:16, 17).
Polska,
> If death was in the world millions of years before man evolved, then
> Jesus died for nothing and your faith in Him is futile.
I, and the majority of Christians, disagree. Your stance has tragic implications for evangelism, as you would condemn everyone who doesn't hold to a literal reading of Genesis to Hell.
> I believe Genesis 1 and 2 to be exactly as God inspired them.
As do I. We just don't agree on how to interpret them.
> It is not written in parabolic form nor poetic form,
Actually, it is.
The first three days parallel the second three days. The first three are days of creation; the second three are days of filling what was created in the first three. As Gary Rendsburg notes, "This pattern acts as a blueprint and establishes the overall theme of Genesis 1, namely, creation of the
world according to an order, representative of goodness, continuing the theme of order out of a chaos, or good out of evil."
Further, one of the points of the Genesis 1 story is to demythologize the creation. Other ancient near eastern cultures worshiped the sun, moon, and seas as gods. The author of Genesis was very careful to use not use the proper names of those objects because those proper names were names of Gods. Genesis instead uses euphemisms like "greater light" and "lesser light."
> God is not a deceiver and did not mean for us to make our own
> interpretations, but to find His interpretation.
It is impossible to read the Bible, or any text for that matter, without interpreting it. A literal interpretation is just that, an interpretation. We have an infallible Bible, but we only have fallible readers. As Michael Spencer put it, if you give a chimp a perfect compass, you still have a chimp with a compass. :)
> I believe God created the earth in 6 literal days with mornings and
> evenings and rested on the 7th.
I don't question your right to believe such, but I do question the wisdom and Christian charity of insisting that your interpretation is the only possibility and questioning the Christian commitment and salvation of anyone who disagrees.
Polska,
> Just because we observe similar things in animals does not mean that one
> evolved into another through mutations, etc. It just means we were all
> created by the same designer. Ford designs vehicles, right? Well, there
> are a bunch of different Ford vehicles which are very different, but
> have some of the same interior designs. You know why? They are made by
> the same company.
And animals share similar features because they share a common ancestor. The evidence for common ancestry and and descent with modification by natural selection is written in our genes and the genes of all living creatures on the planet. Google "toolkit genes", "hox genes", "Pax 6" and "FOXP2" for examples.
> There is one reason why christians should not accept macro-evolution: If
> death entered the world through the sins of one man (Adam), then it
> couldn't have existed millions of years before man evolved. Otherwise,
> For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did
> God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus
> Christ, overflow to the many! (Romans 5:15) If Jesus overcome sin and
> death literally, then death couldn't have entered the world before Adam.
Read Rom 5:12 carefully. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:†(Romans 5.12 KJVS)
Note that it says that death passed upon all MEN. It says nothing about non-human animals or plants.
"It's an analogy to say why we have similar designs when created by the same designer. It states the case."
Of course it states a case, but it also doesn't incorporate all the processes involved with life, so the analogy is at variane with reality. Cars don't self replicate, they don't have DNA, and thus can't evolve, life can. Cars and biology are both complex, but there is where the paralells end. You're comparing apples to oranges here I am afraid. Both are fruits (both complex) but neither undero the same processes, thus they're not really analogous.
Polska13, I find that your opposing this realm of science not for evidence based reasons, but for theological ones. Just like how some christians in the past rejected Galileos notions of cosmos as in their minds it wasn't theologically satisfying and heracy.
"I would believe that God created the natural way so that the planets could orbit in such a way; therefore, the gravity (which was created by God) controls the celestial orbits; hence, God controls the celestial orbits"
Well by this twsited logic you can inturn say god created anything and still make it imply he is still controlling it now, but we know that's not the case, we know nothing supernatural is controlling it now, it just acts in accordance with natural principles. We know such natural things obey according to natural principles, not supernatural ones. Besides gravity only exists in relation to the mass of an object, in the absense of matter it doesn't exist. Matter makes it exist, not magic.
It's no more logical to infer the supernatural to the orbits of the celestial objects than it is for the diversity of life.
"Just one problem with that analogy, cars don't self reproduce, they don't have DNA which shows their inherited genetic history, they don't undergo any of the same processes life undergoes like predation and habitat loss, or mutations so they don't undergo natural selection and hence can't evolve."
It's an analogy to say why we have similar designs when created by the same designer. It states the case.
"Riiight, just because we observe and understand the facts of gravity doesn't mean the planets behave according to this natural set of facts oh gravity, god controls their celestial orbit patterns. Oh wait, the celestial orbits is controlled by gravity, ahh shucks."
This makes absolutely no relevance to what I just stated before. I would believe that God created the natural way so that the planets could orbit in such a way; therefore, the gravity (which was created by God) controls the celestial orbits; hence, God controls the celestial orbits.
'It just means we were all created by the same designer. Ford designs vehicles, right?"
Just one problem with that analogy, cars don't self reproduce, they don't have DNA which shows their inherited genetic history, they don't undergo any of the same processes life undergoes like predation and habitat loss, or mutations so they don't undergo natural selection and hence can't evolve.
If death was in the world millions of years before man evolved, then Jesus died for nothing and your faith in Him is futile. I don't know about anyone else, but I believe in eternal life and overcoming death through my faith in Christ.
I believe Genesis 1 and 2 to be exactly as God inspired them. It is not written in parabolic form nor poetic form, but when checked in a grammatical-historical process, one will see it is written as detailed as an eye-witness account. God is not a deceiver and did not mean for us to make our own interpretations, but to find His interpretation. I believe God created the earth in 6 literal days with mornings and evenings and rested on the 7th.
"Just because we observe similar things in animals does not mean that one evolved into another through mutations, etc."
Riiight, just because we observe and understand the facts of gravity doesn't mean the planets behave according to this natural set of facts oh gravity, god controls their celestial orbit patterns. Oh wait, the celestial orbits is controlled by gravity, ahh shucks.
There is one reason why christians should not accept macro-evolution: If death entered the world through the sins of one man (Adam), then it couldn't have existed millions of years before man evolved. Otherwise, For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! (Romans 5:15) If Jesus overcome sin and death literally, then death couldn't have entered the world before Adam. So unless you think Adam was a bacteria or ape other than a human, the macro evolution is wrong. Death came as a result of man's original sin. Jesus came as an atoning sacrifice for that sin to conquer death. That is the fundamental belief of our faith. Therefore, although I don't believe one's salvation depends on this, it is critical in evangelism. And is true.
Just because we observe similar things in animals does not mean that one evolved into another through mutations, etc. It just means we were all created by the same designer. Ford designs vehicles, right? Well, there are a bunch of different Ford vehicles which are very different, but have some of the same interior designs. You know why? They are made by the same company. They didn't mutate after a toxic spill.
It is the very fact that God is a god of order that allowed Christian and Muslim scientists to believe they could discover the underlying ideas of what God has created.
Steve, you may not wan to agree with it, but DP is right. Anytime the word day in hebrew is used with a number it indicates a single day. When dealing with Sabbath, God always makes clear whether He is speaking of day, week, year, etc.
"Non-religious people would like to pretend it is from non-life cells (the image of Frankenstein's monster comes to mind). "
The idea is organic matter began to replicate and thereafter NS selection began acting on of variants of these first replicators and diversity ensued.
"to avoid saying God did it."
The whole point of Science is to discover the natural world and what causes things to occur. Inserting magic, or supernaturalism isn't allowed b/c it removes one from showing their work on how such a process works and in the end produces nothing of value. Is it any wonder such a naturalistic approach too so long for humanity finally grasp and use?
believer,
> Hosea 6:2 is still being debated as to what the writer was referring to
> or even who said those words, so to use it to justify your view is shaky
> at best.
I didn't use 6:2 to support any view; I used it to refute your assertion that "but anytime days are preceded by a number (1st, 2nd, etc.) they always mean a literal 24 hour period in the Hebrew". Hosea 6:2 shows that your assertions of "any time" and "always" are simply incorrect.
> As for the 4th Commandment if your read the passage in Genesis in
> context it is clear that it shows creation occurred literally in six 24
> hour days.
Again, since we're having this discussion, it is obvious that the 4th Commandment doesn't _clearly_ say what you believe it says. :) We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Daniel Paul,
> You must misunderstand the implications of my point. General speciation
> would be a somewhat smooth transition from one species to the next.
Which is exactly what the genetic and fossil evidence show.
>If this were the case the fossil record would reflect that.
It does. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/
for specific examples.
> It doesn't. There are distinct places in the fossil record where
> distinct changes occured. Even evolutionists agree to that.
Not sure what you're referring to. Can you be more specific? What "distinct" changes are you talking about, and what evolutionists agree to what?
Are you referring to the concept of Punctuated Equilibria?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> Apes are no longer evolving into man. Why not?
Because there is no selection pressure on the apes to evolve into man. They are sufficiently adapted to their ecological niche. Also, the idea of "apes evolving into man" is not correct in itself. Apes didn't evolve into man. Homo sapiens and apes share a common ancestor, just as you and a cousin share a common ancestor in your grandfather.
> In short, for speciation to be true as evolutionists believe it to be,
> there would have to be a much smoother and current progression of
> speciation observable today simply by looking around. It's not there.
We do observe the kind of speciation you're looking for. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Sean Carrol describes observed instances of speciation in his two books:
http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Forms-Most-Beautiful-Science/dp/0393327795/
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393330516/
Both of which I recommend highly as great introduction for the non-scientist to the genetic and developmental evidence for evolution.
Actually, I agree with steve that "day" might not have been a 24 hour period. Wasn't it the mayans who actually came up with the 24 hour calendar?
"Apes are no longer evolving into man. Why not?"
Evolution of a species is predicated on external pressures along with NS and mutations, they don't have to evolve if nothing is pressuring them to. Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a branching tree, there is no reason extant apes should have to evolve into humans, especially if they're well suited in their niche habitat.
"Yet, there is not smooth slide fossil record to support evolution through speciation."
Horse evolution and more generally artiodactyleevolution google it.
No, the idea is if evolution is true we should find fossils which are transitional consisting of traits that are inheriteted from their recent ancestor and also demonstrating those of its later descendants. Especially for major groups during major transitions from water to land and vice versa, and this would have taken much longer periods of time and we should find those species which bridge the gaps. And these we do find.
c"If this were the case the fossil record would reflect that." DP, you're forgetting one thing, the rarity with which fossils are even formed, and how rare it is for them to survive such long periods of time despite all the geological activity like erosion.
If you want examples of gradualism, you can find it in areas where fossilization is more preserved, as in sea shells, planktonic foraminifera, the cannartid-ommatarid lineage of radioaria, marine snail lineage Athleta, horseshoe crabs, sand dollars, and of course Trilobites.
agent, strictly speaking, you are correct. the theory of evolution does not mention where the first cells came from.
However, taken to its extreme, evolution indicates that both vertebrate and invertebrate creatures came from multi-cell life forms which came from single-cell life forms, which in turn must come from some where. Non-religious people would like to pretend it is from non-life cells (the image of Frankenstein's monster comes to mind).
It boggles the mind the lengths to which people who want to not trust God will go to to avoid saying God did it.
"The formation of new biological species by the development or branching of one species into two or more genetically distinct ones. The divergence of species is thought to result primarily from the geographic isolation of a population, especially when confronted with environmental conditions that vary from those experienced by the rest of the species, and from the random change in the frequency of certain alleles (known as genetic drift). According to the theory of evolution, all life on Earth has resulted from the speciation of earlier organisms."
You must misunderstand the implications of my point. General speciation would be a somewhat smooth transition from one species to the next. If this were the case the fossil record would reflect that. It doesn't. There are distinct places in the fossil record where distinct changes occured. Even evolutionists agree to that. You don't have to look any further than the 'progression of man's evolution' chart to see that.
That being the case there is no evidence of general speciation but rather distinct 'jumps' between species. In this situation, evolution is a one time process. Apes are no longer evolving into man. Why not? Either it's a continuous process or it is an ordered one time thing. Evolutionists hold to random chance vs. order and therefore it could not be a one time thing. Yet, there is not smooth slide fossil record to support evolution through speciation.
In short, for speciation to be true as evolutionists believe it to be, there would have to be a much smoother and current progression of speciation observable today simply by looking around. It's not there.
steve55455, Hosea 6:2 is still being debated as to what the writer was referring to or even who said those words, so to use it to justify your view is shaky at best. As for the 4th Commandment if your read the passage in Genesis in context it is clear that it shows creation occurred literally in six 24 hour days.
wbmoore,
Sure, you can believe anything you like, this is your freedom of choice, but this choice doesn't mean it is correct. Believe in aliens, bigfoot, flat earth, etc. Anything really. The point is at a certain point the evidence supports the belief in the proposition and only those who are either ignorant of such evidence or refuse to read it still think contrary to what the evidence supports. It would be like a Flat Earther refusing to review all the evidence for a spherical Earth (that Sheppard lady from 'The View') and then proclaiming it to be flat after all. Surely many in the 3rd world who don't have access to education have such a view, but of course we laugh at the idea, we know it to be demonstrable wrong and this is how many of us in the realm of science feel to those who don't understand evolutionary theory or other science concepts.
believer:
re: "but anytime days are preceded by a number (1st, 2nd, etc.) they always mean a literal 24 hour period in the Hebrew." Except that it isn't. :) See Hosea 6:2.
re: "Also, considering the 4th Commandment indicates clearly that Creation occurred in a literal six days." If it _clearly_ indicated it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :) The 4th Commandment certainly indicates a pattern of 6, followed by a day of rest, but the Sabbath is not limited to a single day preceded by six days. The OT also talks about Sabbath years. See Exodus 23:10-12 and Leviticus 25:1-7 for examples.
wbmoore,
"Evolution from non-life to single cell life to multi-cell life to plants and animals as we have today is impossible"
I don't know if another has pointed this out, bu evolution doesn't describe the origins of life, only the diversity of it. So, evolution doesn't deal with how non organic molecules began to replicate, this is organic chemistry and abiogensis, not evolution.
so far, its still legal in the USA to believe what you want. Its just not allowed to be expressed in the 'scientific community', or even in some places in public.
Why does it matter? Aren't people allowed to believe what they want?
You miss the fact that where ever a number is used with the term 'day' it refers to that many 24 hour periods.
steve55455, but anytime days are preceded by a number (1st, 2nd, etc.) they always mean a literal 24 hour period in the Hebrew. Also, considering the 4th Commandment indicates clearly that Creation occurred in a literal six days.
wbmoore,
Re: the use of the word "Day" in the Genesis creation account, I highly recommend _The Genesis Debate_:
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508/
It provides an excellent overview and discussion of the three major views on the days in Genesis 1: The 24-Hour view, the day-age view, and the framework view.
wbmoore,
re: "You can't get around the fact that God used 'day' in Genesis 1." Like the English "day", the Hebrew "yom" can have different meanings and refer to different periods of time. Think about how "day" is used in the following sentences:
"We need to do this during the day." Day = 12 hrs, or daylight hours.
"This is due in the morning, so we only have 1 day to complete it." Day = 24 hrs
"In my grandfathers day." Day = decades.
"In the day of the dinosaurs". Day = millions of years
You find a non-24 hour day use of the word "day" in Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". Here day refers ot the whole period of creation. You can also find numerous references to "the Day of the Lord", where day again refers to an indefinite period of time.
Daniel Paul,
Re: Trusting in the God who wrote it. I too trust in God, but you and I apparently disagree on how to _interpret_ what He wrote.
Re: "There would have to be an 'evolved' man and woman at the same place on the planet at the same time which were compatable to procreate." That exactly what evolutionary theory claims. I'm not sure why you see this to be a problem. Maybe you don't have a clear understanding of how speciation works. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
For a good overview.
I suppose if plants evolved before sea animals, and sea animals before land animals, and all this occurred in three days, then it could match what God's word says.
You can't get around the fact that God used 'day' in Genesis 1.
"I think there are a lot of fundamentalists out there that read Genesis literally, and yet they ala carte choose not to read John 6:66 literally when Jesus says we must eat his flesh to have life in us and that his flesh is food indeed."
First off: that not John 6:66, its a few verses starting at John 6:53
second:
It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is usless. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
John 6:63
"It's not a matter of trusting in the Bible; it's a matter of you trusting in a particular _interpretation_ of Genesis 1 and 2."
Actually, it's a matter of trusting the God who wrote it. Again, I didn't see anyone address the point I made about the evolution of man and woman. There would have to be an 'evolved' man and woman at the same place on the planet at the same time which were compatable to procreate. The odd's of that happening are...well, not good at all. Man and/or woman would live out their lives and then die with no human off-spring. The 'evolutionary cycle' would end until there was a man and woman in the same place at the same time on the planet.
Logic wins out.
Genesis doesn't tell us specifically how things were created, they were Just created by God. Genesis is not a science book and does not list the chemicals in which God made man, the earth, or anything for that matter.
As a Christian, you must believe that God created EVERYTHING out of NOTHING. If the Big Bang happened, then God was the Big Banger. If life did evolve and if man evolved over time, how does that contradict our faith? It doesn't. Man becomes man at the point when the soul was placed in his body.
Evolution is still a theory that may be a good one. The caveat is that God made everthing from nothing. Our Christian faith has nothing to fear from science, since God created science in the first place.
I think there are a lot of fundamentalists out there that read Genesis literally, and yet they ala carte choose not to read John 6:66 literally when Jesus says we must eat his flesh to have life in us and that his flesh is food indeed.
Wow, that didn't take long to get the "thumb's down." Who did it and what is your science behind it?
steve55455 - Thank you for your eloquent and insightful posts.
Polska13 - Actually science supports macroevolution 100%. Genomically, humans are closer to chimps than rats are to mice or even some cats are to others . . . and that's observable at the genome (genes, epigenome, DNA, etc)
wbmooore,
It's not a matter of trusting in the Bible; it's a matter of you trusting in a particular _interpretation_ of Genesis 1 and 2. The majority of Christians do not hold to a literal interpretation of these passages, and thus find not conflict with modern science.
The creation accounts in Genesis were not intended to be literal scientific accounts of how God created. Imposing that reading on the text is a modern invention. Many of the early fathers, notably Augstine, noted that Genesis 1 couldn't be referring to literal days as we understood them.
philo, There was one author to the books of Moses - God.
I stand by the idea that if you can't trust the Bible in any one place, then you can't trust it anywhere. It is intellectually dishonest to say that God didn't mean what He said in Genesis, but He did in the New Testament.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, believe God's word or not; accept or reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Way the Truth and the Life, our Savior and Lord.
itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
Question: I'm addressing this to the whole panel, because I think all of you have addressed this subject one time or another on origins. I'm sure you know that Christians hold a fairly wide range of views on origins, from the young-earth creationism of Henry Morris and Duane Gish, to the progressive creationism of Hugh Ross, to the intelligent design movement, to Christian evolutionists such as Howard Van Till, Kenneth Miller, and Michael Behe. All of them agree that God created; they just disagree on the "how". The question relating to apologetics and evangelism is, should we be careful about hanging our apologetic or evangelistic efforts on picking out one of those methods and "the" Christian method when it is still a matter of discussion and debate in the Christian community?
Geisler: Let me answer that first. The answer is yes, the brief answer. We should be very careful in doing that. First of all, those intramural differences among Christians are not tests for orthodoxy, they're not one of the great fundamentals of the faith.
Secondly, it's another unnecessary obstacle to put in the way. The offense of the Gospel we can't overcome. That's offensive because they're sinners, and the Gospel is saying they're sinners, and they need the grace of God. But we can avoid any extra offenses to the scientific mind that are unnecessary. So I would say don't tie your pre-evangelism to a test for orthodoxy that has anything to do with how old the earth is or precisely how everything arose. We have strong convictions, and we differ on them among Christians: old earth and young earth. I know that right here all three of those views that you mentioned are represented on this panel. But at the same time, those are intramural differences, they shouldn't be obstacles to evangelism, they shouldn't be used as a test for faith.
Rhodes: I agree with that completely, and let me just say also that there is a world watching in terms of how we respond to each other. Humanists, if you read the humanist magazines and some of these atheistic publications, they love it when Christians do battle on these kinds of issues. We're mocked, and it shouldn't be so. Now I will never, ever break fellowship with a Christian who disagrees with me on this issue, and I say this only because there are people and there are organizations that will break fellowship with you if you don't hold to their view on it. It shouldn't be that way.
Polska,
Three books filled with pictures and descriptions of the hominid to human transitional fossils you say don't exist:
http://www.amazon.com/Lucy-Language-Revised-Updated-Expanded/dp/0743280644/
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Origins-Clark-Spencer-Larsen/dp/1577660021/
http://www.amazon.com/Fossil-Trail-Think-About-Evolution/dp/0195109813/
And an FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
BTW, you are not trusting in the infallible Word of our Lord; you are trusting in an _interpretation_ of the infallible word of our Lord, and not one that the majority of Christians share.
Now think about this from a perspective of evangelism. I hope that we can agree that one's view on creation vs. evolution or the age of the earth is not a fundamental of the faith, and that one's salvation does not depend on what one believes on these issues. Given that, if you tell someone who knows something about geology, palentology, or anthropology that "there are no transitional forms" and that the Bible teaches that evolution didn't happen, their natural response will be, "If the Bible teaches those things, things I know to be untrue based on the evidence, why should I believe anything else the Bible says". In other words, you put an unnecessary impediment between them and accepting the Gospel.
This every question was asked of Norm Giesler, Ron Rhodes, and Hank Hanegraaff at a National Apologetics Conference. See next comment for response:
None of these sights gives any evidence of transitional fossils, but spills the same speculation as always. There are no transitional fossils that show humans evolved from apes. Historical science does not support macro-evolution, but however does support the story of Noah's flood. Observable science tells us that organisms adapt to their environment and small changes occur (micro-evolution), but it has never been observed that these changes made an ape a man; nor a dinosaur an alligator. To believe in macroevolution is to put your faith in the hands of man. I choose to believe in the infallible Word of my Lord.
Almost forgot. See:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=828762
For a discussion of the evidence for an ancient earth from two Christian geologists.
I used to be a YEC anti-evolutionist, but anti-evolutionism just collapses under the weight of the evidence. (And yes, I am a Christian. Have been for over 30 years. I attend and teach sunday School at a conservative Southern Baptist Church).
To those who say there are no or not enough transitional fossils, see:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/
For a complete catalog of transitional fossils. See
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html
for an overview article by the author of the above book. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
For FAQs on transitional fossils.
You ARE kidding, aren't you WB? Even Christian scholars have admitted for years that the first five books of the bible had at least four authors, and that different narratives have been cobbled together in several places.
Genesis one and two is only one example, there are others, such as the flood myth. Trying to argue that two completely different accounts are somehow complementary is like Sarah Palin talking about her bridge to nowhere fantasy.
Saying it "just isn't so" does not refute Darwin's theory. Even if we had no fossils, as has been pointed out in this thread, the theory would still stand on the purely biological (dna) evidence.
But, the fact is, we do have the fossils, and guess what? They are all in the right layers! Imagine that! No bunny rabbits in the cretaceous, or anything like that. All it would take to disprove evolution, you see, is just one fossil out of sequence (in the wrong layer), but that has never happened in the real world, only in the minds of the folks at AIG.
I'm sorry you can't see the elegance inherent in the theory of evolution, but I guess that's why you have your own worldview, somewhere other then reality.
TallGuy,
Please show me where you think there are two creation stories. There is a summary account of the creation of everything and then a more indepth account about man.
If common descent is so pervasive in the fossil record and there are ten to fifty million (quite a range!) species of plants, animals, etc. on the planet today, shouldn't the number of transitional forms number in the billions or possibly trillions in the fossil record? Yet the number of creatures that are called transitional are small and none are beyond dispute. Another thing that often happens is that people use the word evolution in two different ways and because one is observable, the other definition must be true as well. They are often described as being macro and micro evolution, which I don't think is adequate and can be quite misleading. If you mean by evolution the change in gene frequencies in a selected population, well that is observable over time. If you mean by evolution that through random processes that non living matter can produce information, put into place a method for decoding that information and then create a mechanism for metabolizing that information and become a living single celled organism and becoming all of the living things that we see today, that is a faith proposition. The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from other living things. It has never been observed to happen and all experimentation thus far confirms that it is impossible. In fact, there are only two known ways that fossils can be produced; volcanism, and being buried in sediment laid down by water and then permineralizing. One of the things that we would expect to find if Noah's flood were true would be billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the world, laid down by water and marine fossils to the highest parts of the world. That is what we find.
I agree, " In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." But it doesn't mean that He had to do it in 6 days. Reread Gen, there are two stories of creation, a bit different from each other. Day / night, then there was light. The story of creation is to let us know that God was still the Creator of the universe and He is our creator, and it even tells us why, but exactly how and when is not in Genesis.
Peace in Christ...
nbelievers have always been " Dismayed " at the Faith of Christians in the Word of God.
They are " Highly " upset over the fact that they cannot with all of their science disprove the Bible.
Why it is easier for them to have faith in a big bang theory, Than to have Faith in a God that can do anything I don't know.
While I am not a scientist, or even highly educated, I am smart enough to know that, " In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."
DP
What are the things in the strata we can't explain, it may be that we can't by the way(taking it they are real problems not imagined), there are many things we don't understand about lots of things, though I do not believe ignorance is ever a refuge, more a challenge, I'd like to know what they are re strata.
Hope your well
Thanks
Steve
Carlos wrote (The biologists have more than enough fossils . . .)
Really, Where? Surely, you are not referring to Nebraska man or Pithecanthropus erectus, or Piltdown man or Peking man? All of which have proven to be frauds; I stated that no VERIVIABLE TRANSITIONS from one species to another have yet been found.
"Science can't disprove the existence of God, but it sure has done a good job of making Him unnecessary."
So does a lot of other things: Drugs, Alcohol, Sex, Money, Power, Porn, Self-Adoration, Movies, Media...shall I go on?
Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
We have eternal life or eternal death. The choice is yours. Its not selfish to want to be who God has created you to be, it is humbleness and love.
Luckily, God is not greedy, but loves us all and gives us the ability to make a choice for Him or not. God wants you to look at His creation and realize He exists. He wants to you hear the truth of Christ and accept Him. But God is more than willing to let you make a mistake from arrogance and not choose Him.
But to think science can prove or disprove God is nothing short of arrogance. The fact is, every single thing in the Bible is being shown to be true through archaeology. When we are granted entrance into heaven, so too will the rest of it be shown to be accurate.
Micro-evolution is not what we are discussing. Evolution from non-life to single cell life to multi-cell life to plants and animals as we have today is impossible.
Bombard any non-living cell with sufficient energy and you will destroy the cell, not make life. Try it. bombard a non-living cell with energy and develop a car, or even more unlikely a person, from it. It wont happen.
Now, now ifeelfine72, you know there are things in the strata data that just cannot be explained. I'm more I think it will be interesting for God to explain exactly how He created the world. It will put the arguement to rest. Of course, by that time everyone will be accountable for what they believed here on earth.
online4him: Actually, it should be embarassing for all Christians (I certainly am) that any of us reject evolution for religious reasons. As for your uninformed, uneducated comment about the fossil record, you couldn't be more wrong . . . just Google it.
Evolution is an embarrassment to evolutionists; the fossil record is silent, in that NO verifiable transitions from one species to another have as yet been found. For any church to come to its defense is biblically irresponsible.
God either created man as the Bible said, or He didn't. If He didn't then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong in one area, it can be trusted in no area. If it can be trusted in no given area, then we have no evidence for the resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection of Christ never occurred, no one is saved. If no one is saved, we will not be in heaven with Christ upon death. If the Bible is not accurate, then there is no Christianity. There might be some religion based on a book, but it does not differ from any other religion in this case, it would be based upon lies.
The Pope is wrong about this, as he is wrong in other theological issues, such as the ascension of Mary.
Thank God that He wrote the Bible using men to state accurately and exactly what He wanted said. Thank God He sent Christ to suffer and die to pay for our sins, that we who believe in Him have eternal life with Him.
Really, who cares what the pope says/thinks he is a sinner like the rest of us,may THE HOLY SPIRIT guide him to an accurate interpretation of GOD'S HOLY WORD.Praise to our LORD & MASTER JESUS CHRIST
Why do most Christians reject evolution? It's very simple actually. If God created man in His image, that which is perfect, then why would He need to evolve that into something else? To say that God used evolution is to say God was wrong, that He is a liar, which is against everything that we know!