|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis?
|
| Yes. If "days"= millions of years. |
|
| No. Adam/Eve did not evolve. Original sin is literal. |
|
| Yes. Other explanation. Ultimately factual/historical. |
|
| No.If Genesis is a fairy tale for uneducated, what isn't? |
|
Total Votes : 23
|
(last vote on : 10/25/2008 1:04:32 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/9/2008 11:41:39 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Codegrazer
quote:
The Genesis is not a scientific text not matter how one wants to interpret it.
Agreed, but so what? The Bible is not a biology text yet it tells us about Jesus' virginal conception. Like Creation, we are informed what, when, who and why BUT not HOW, biologically, that actually manifested. The Bible no more has to be a biology text to inform us of the immaculate conception than it has to be a text on hydrodynamics to tell us about Noah's flood.
Did I miss your point, Cow?
The point is that no scientific theory "allows" or disallows a particular interpretation of Genesis.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/9/2008 11:47:19 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
A nice statement about faith but not about science. Nonsense! It takes minimal faith to accept the correct definition of "science". Indeed, it takes a whole lot more faith to accept the ever-changing theories of fallible humans as true knowledge when not a single person was alive to observe the beginning of life.
quote:
The Bible (as you interpret it) says it (the Bible) is true . Sorry cow, it really doesn't require a lot of interpretation to read and understand the simple fact that God created everything in six days. Now, if you really want to see a major exercise in hermeneutical gymnastics, then try to make evolutionary theory fit the Genesis record.
quote:
The origin of the word "science" is interesting, but not stretchable enough to make a religious text a science book. That's not what you stated in your first post, cow. Genesis is indeed "a scientific text" because it is written in the literary genre and context of historical narrative which clearly specifies factual knowledge relevant to the origins of the universe and life. I have never once claimed that the Bible can or should be made into a science book. However, not a single scientific fact has ever been shown to contradict Scripture which is certainly more than can be said for Darwinian fantasy!
I don't try to make evolution "fit Genesis." Nor do I try to make Genesis fit any scientific theory. Now, the OP could be looked at from more a philosophical stance where one could argue that science and Christianity do not cancel one another out, as you would propose.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/9/2008 12:12:26 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't try to make evolution "fit Genesis." That's for sure, because GTE will never "fit Genesis"!
quote:
Nor do I try to make Genesis fit any scientific theory. Indeed, God's Word must be magisterial to man's science!
quote:
Now, the OP could be looked at from more a philosophical stance... Actually, origins "science" in general should be looked at from a more philosophical stance since no one but God was around to observe creation!
quote:
...where one could argue that science and Christianity do not cancel one another out, as you would propose. Come on, cow, you ought to know better than that! I have never once "proposed" that Christianity and science "cancel one another out". What a ludicrous concept for a YEC proponent to even entertain when I base my entire approach to origins science on the authoritative, inerrant historical account of the only Eyewitness to creation. Do you need a refresher in YEC theology, cow?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/9/2008 12:32:50 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Come on, cow, you ought to know better than that! I have never once "proposed" that Christianity and science "cancel one another out". What a ludicrous concept for a YEC proponent to even entertain when I base my entire approach to origins science on the authoritative, inerrant historical account of the only Eyewitness to creation. Do you need a refresher in YEC theology, cow?
Then why do you say that an "eyewitness account" exists? It does not. Even the most strident literalist will admit that Moses was not alive at the creation.
By stating that Genesis is an "authoritative, inerrant eyewitness account" that invalidates a scientific theory accepted by 95% of the scientific community, you are saying that religion cancels out science.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/9/2008 12:33:52 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: cow451quote:
The Bible (as you interpret it) says it (the Bible) is true . How do you interpret “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” (2 Timothy 3:16a) then
if not as a clear statement that “The Bible is true”? Does God lie?
"inspiration" is not "dictation".
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 10:44:13 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
Then why do you say that an "eyewitness account" exists? It does not.
So you don’t believe God exists?
quote:
Even the most strident literalist will admit that Moses was not alive at the creation.
No YEC that I know of has EVER claimed that Moses was eyewitness to the creation, only that Exodus 24:4a, “And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD”, is true. I.e. God gave His eyewitness account to Moses to record.
However cow, do you think it foolish to follow Jesus’ instruction? Jesus quite clearly instructs us to believe Moses.
quote:
By stating that Genesis is an "authoritative, inerrant eyewitness account" that invalidates a scientific theory accepted by 95% of the scientific community, you are saying that religion cancels out science.
No cow. That is saying that God’s word is authoritative over man’s reasoning. You want to make man’s reasoning authoritative over God’s word. When the two disagree it is man who is wrong, not God.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 10:48:42 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
"inspiration" is not "dictation".
Let’s not forget that "all scripture is profitable for doctrine". Seems to me that God’s ability to “inspire” the exact message He intended is a bit better than you are willing to give Him credit for.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 12:29:36 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
Then why do you say that an "eyewitness account" exists? It does not.
So you don’t believe God exists?
quote:
By stating that Genesis is an "authoritative, inerrant eyewitness account" that invalidates a scientific theory accepted by 95% of the scientific community, you are saying that religion cancels out science.
No cow. That is saying that God’s word is authoritative over man’s reasoning. You want to make man’s reasoning authoritative over God’s word. When the two disagree it is man who is wrong, not God.
Bible 101: God did not write Genesis. Moses did not witness creation. Therefore, there is no eyewitness account.
The Bible and science are addressing different aspects of human evolution. Therefore it is illogical to say that one has to be wrong.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 12:49:43 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Bible and science are addressing different aspects of human evolution. By all means, cow, please share the Biblical reference that addresses a "different aspect of human evolution". I'm sure Codegrazer won't mind if it's outside of Genesis even though that's the OP.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 12:55:33 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
"inspiration" is not "dictation".
Let’s not forget that "all scripture is profitable for doctrine". Seems to me that God’s ability to “inspire” the exact message He intended is a bit better than you are willing to give Him credit for.
We can agree on inspiration, but not on dictation.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 12:58:43 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The Bible and science are addressing different aspects of human evolution. By all means, cow, please share the Biblical reference that addresses a "different aspect of human evolution". I'm sure Codegrazer won't mind if it's outside of Genesis even though that's the OP.
A better way to state the issue within the OP is that Genesis is theological, not scientific. Therefore, it cannot be compared with any scientific text.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 1:43:33 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
Bible 101: God did not write Genesis. Moses did not witness creation. Therefore, there is no eyewitness account.
There is a serious flaw to your reasoning. Exodus 24:4a plainly states “And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD”. Therefore, what Moses wrote is God’s account of creation.
I think I will pass on your Bible classes. They are severely deficient.
quote:
The Bible and science are addressing different aspects of human evolution.
They both tell of how man came into existence. They are NOT different aspects, but rather different versions of the same aspect.
quote:
Therefore it is illogical to say that one has to be wrong.
According to the Bible man was placed into a world free of carnivorous activity. According to TOE the world was full of carnivorous activity BEFORE man came into existence.
They contradict each other. It is illogical to say they can both be right.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 2:26:37 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
Bible 101: God did not write Genesis. Moses did not witness creation. Therefore, there is no eyewitness account.
There is a serious flaw to your reasoning. Exodus 24:4a plainly states “And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD”. Therefore, what Moses wrote is God’s account of creation.
For a literalist, you aren't much on words. According to tradition, Moses wrote Genesis. Moses was not God.
quote:
According to the Bible man was placed into a world free of carnivorous activity. According to TOE the world was full of carnivorous activity BEFORE man came into existence.
They contradict each other. It is illogical to say they can both be right.
Since one is a theological statement and the other scientific, they are not comparable.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 3:06:03 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
A better way to state the issue within the OP is that Genesis is theological, not scientific. Therefore, it cannot be compared with any scientific text. You wish it were so! Genesis is an historical account. It contains scientific facts. The knowledge presented in Genesis is accurate. Find one verse that contradicts known history or science, cow!
quote:
Since one is a theological statement and the other scientific, they are not comparable. There is nothing uniquely "theological" about stating that humans first existed in an herbivorous environment. That is as valid a scientific theory as half a million years of carnivory. Prove either one from observational scientific methods if you can!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 3:30:05 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
A better way to state the issue within the OP is that Genesis is theological, not scientific. Therefore, it cannot be compared with any scientific text. You wish it were so! Genesis is an historical account. It contains scientific facts. The knowledge presented in Genesis is accurate. Find one verse that contradicts known history or science, cow!
quote:
Since one is a theological statement and the other scientific, they are not comparable. There is nothing uniquely "theological" about stating that humans first existed in an herbivorous environment. That is as valid a scientific theory as half a million years of carnivory. Prove either one from observational scientific methods if you can!
By creating a false paradigm, YEC makes a stream of logic that reduces God and scripture to nothing more than a cultish worship of a deity that operates like a Las Vegas magician. Genesis contains no scientific "facts".
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 4:06:46 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
By creating a false paradigm Name it. The only "false paradigm" I see is claiming man's science over God's Word!
quote:
YEC makes a stream of logic that reduces God and scripture to nothing more than a cultish worship of a deity that operates like a Las Vegas magician. Are you for real, cow? Show us a Las Vegas magician that can create anything out of nothing and I'll eat my monitor! My Deity is the Omnipotent Creator of the universe who has graciously shared His Truth of origins with all who trust Him!
quote:
Genesis contains no scientific "facts". Have you ever read Genesis, cow? Jacob used selective breeding to develop his herds of robust animals - Genesis 30:34-43. This scientific technique based on scientific facts is still in use 4000 years later in some scientific endeavors.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 4:19:18 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
For a literalist, you aren't much on words. According to tradition, Moses wrote Genesis. Moses was not God.
I accept God’s word as authoritative over tradition. God’s word plainly states “ Moses wrote all the words of the LORD”. Therefore, according to the Bible the creation account given in Genesis is God’s, not Moses’, and that’s what I believe regardless of tradition. You, on the other hand, use every argument except what God’s word states.
quote:
Since one is a theological statement and the other scientific, they are not comparable.
Actually they are both historical statements. As such they not only can be compared, but MUST be compared to answer the question in the OP.
According to the Bible the existence of man preceded carnivorous activity of the animal world. TOE requires carnivorous activity prior to the existence of man. Denying that conflict is illogical.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/10/2008 4:43:09 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
Genesis contains no scientific "facts".
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1
Do you deny the universe had a beginning?
Is it not a scientific fact that the offspring of dogs are dogs and of cats are cats and of birds are birds?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/11/2008 10:46:50 AM
|
|
|
Codegrazer
Posts: 56
Joined: 9/12/2006
From: New York
Status: offline
|
I think I get where cow is coming from. He does not believe the Bible is reliable as God's inerrant Word of Truth (fact = truth). Therefore he sees no problem with a conflict between contradictory elements of scientific theory and scripture. He disassociates the two completely in order to maintain belief in both independantly - at least that's my scientificly based pshycological theory 
Therein lies the real danger. If Genesis isn't a true, factual rendition of what God has told His people about Creation, what is? Christians are free to cherry pick the scripture they believe to be God's Holy Word and dismiss what they don't like so long as they can support it "scientifically".
For one example, if people want to say homosexuality is "scientifically proven" to be biologically "natural" (and therefore not sinful, as many do), regardless of what the Bible says about it, one can - because the Bible is not informed or informative about the science behind sexual orientation. If over 50% (or whatever arbitrary number one wants to pick) of scientists (the material world's sacred gurus) think homosexuality is biologically natural how can anyone, even God, say it's sinful and an abomination? How could God create men to be homosexual and then condemn them for their homosexual behavior? He couldn't. Therefore either the Bible must be "missing something," because man's science shows us differently, OR man's "science" has it wrong and the Bible correctly informs us that homosexuality is an unnatural abomination, sinful in God's eyes. The list goes on, there's no logical stopping it's application to absolutely anything Biblical. It's all up for grabs.
Why believe Jesus was God become man, died and rose again? THAT's just not scientific. Ask 90% of scientists today if that's scientifically possible and then believe what THEY say. Jesus walked on water???, wwellllll maybe if there was a layer of ice just below the surface... I'll bet over 90% of scientists would accept the scripture that way but...
--
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/11/2008 10:56:27 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
Genesis contains no scientific "facts".
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1
Do you deny the universe had a beginning?
Scientology also says there was a begining. Does that make Scientology scientific? Your effort to prove the Bible "scientific" with such silly "facts" lowers Christianity to the level of every religion that has any statement of a "Beginning".
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/11/2008 11:20:12 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, was God walking through the garden? or, was His voice walking through the garden? Or, were they walking through the garden and heard the voice of God? Why would an omnipotent spiritual deity walk? Why would an omnipotent being have to ask the whereabouts of Adam and Eve? cow, I think I owe you an apology. I really didn't realize how little you understand Scripture. Perhaps if you got a good study Bible with footnotes these kinds of questions would be easier for you to answer. I can recommend one if you like.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/11/2008 1:53:23 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So, was God walking through the garden? or, was His voice walking through the garden? Or, were they walking through the garden and heard the voice of God? Why would an omnipotent spiritual deity walk? Why would an omnipotent being have to ask the whereabouts of Adam and Eve? cow, I think I owe you an apology. I really didn't realize how little you understand Scripture. Perhaps if you got a good study Bible with footnotes these kinds of questions would be easier for you to answer. I can recommend one if you like.
Please share with me the correct translation that has the correct footnotes.
So, one can either believe that Moses was teaching how God reaches out (figuratively) to man in spiritual crisis or that God became a physical being to speak with Adam and Eve.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/11/2008 3:35:38 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4925
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE - ATTENTION PLEASE!!
Please knock off the personal attacks. I've deleted the last couple of posts.
Please do not respond to this message in this thread or elsewhere in the forums community. Please do not send me PM's (private messages) regarding this issue.
All questions, comments or concerns should be directed to community@salemwebnetwork.com.
Thank you for your attention and compliance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Forums Moderator
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? - 9/11/2008 4:05:25 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3960
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:cow451quote:
Genesis contains no scientific "facts".
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1
Do you deny the universe had a beginning?
Is it not a scientific fact that the offspring of dogs are dogs and of cats are cats and of birds are birds?
setriously, how about a "fact" that is a bit more challenging? Something beyond the grass being green, etc. Something about process or mechanism, etc.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
