Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by BobRyan, May 2, 2004.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It has been argued on this forum that the noble cause - the noble goal for arguing the beliefs in evolutionism over acceptance of the Creator's Word in His "account" of Gen 1-2:4 and Ex 20:8-11 is that this "protects the Bible" and "protects the Christian faith".

    The idea is that SINCE the Catholic church once taught that the world was flat - as a matter of theology (and was soundly embarrassed as science demonstrated that position to be in error) - NOW we must yield to any wild humanist notion in evolutionist circles (taking them over the most explicit statements of the Creator) - as a means of building a protective hedge around the Bible.

    But doesn't that approach subject both Christianity and the Bible to the very ridicule and criticism (by atheists) that you are trying to avoid?

    Note that Richard Dawkings makes it clear that he sees the fallacy in those attempts to stick to the Christian story - while at the same time undermining it with theories and speculations apparent in evolutionism.

    Even Darwin gave up on Chrisianity.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The result is that Christian evolutionists "Like atheist evolutionists" --- NEED to find an excuse for ignoring data that supports the Creator's statements in Gen 1-2:4.

    Young Earth indicators like the low "average" geologic column -- and complete lack of a 100 mile geologic column (predicted in evolutionism) or even a modest finding of a 20 mile or 10 mile or 5 mile column - have to be "excused" and "explained way" by atheists and christian evolutionist alike.

    The "bad science" approach to the data - does nothing to advance science, undermines the gospel and faith in the Creator's Word - and creates an "obvious" logical disconnect that even Atheist Evolutionist see in Christian evolutionists.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    The problem is that many of us find the created world around us contradicts the hyper-literal interpretation of a 6/24 hour creation week.

    It's not a matter of not accepting the Creator's word, it's a matter of attempting to harmonize His word with what we observe in His creation.

    Rob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Actually your speculation about what you don't see in science contradicts the clear teaching of the Word of God.

    So you "solve the problem" by calling the clear and obvious meaning of the Creator's Account - "Hyper Literal".

    That is a kind of "eisegesis" that many Christians are not comfortable with.

    Even your atheist evolutionist brethren have difficulty with the "Sense of that".

    You "need it not to be true" so to make the Creator's account "untrue" you simply say the word "hyper-literal" (as if that proves a point or establishes a fact). Really you are only showing your "preference" not exegesis.

    The point of the thread is that you either show in the language of the text (Gen 1-2:3 Exodus 20:8-11) that the Creator did not use explicit language "OR" that you show that the language used is that of the "evolutionist".

    Clearly you can do neither.

    So we are back to the opening point. You insist that the Creator's account "not be accepted" but merely because of your need to hold to your speculations about evolutionism. It is NOT out of any careful review of the text - it is "inspite of the text".

    Clearly - the other evolutionist posters here have already admitted that the language used "in the text" is that of Creationists.

    (Note you "never" hear evolutionists insisting "In SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth and ALL that is in them").

    Just stating the obvious - but it is required in this case.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob:
    The Catholic church was in error about the shape of the earth. The Bible is not wrong ( Isaiah 40:22).
    The evolutionist is wrong about the creation of the universe. The Biblcal account of creation has stood the test of tine and investigation ( Genesis 1). It is amazing to me that the simple language of the text causes so many problems with supposedly educated folk.
     
  6. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob:
    I have enjoyed your posts on this topic!
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Just a couple points Bob.

    1. The Bible will never be "in the language of the "evolutionist"; that language is scientific and very much post-biblical. What we are looking for are clues that tell us the meaning of the passage to those who recieved it at the time. That would lead us to the correct exogesis of the passage.

    2. Regarding the term, "hyper-literal", it was a bit of a barb, but their are clues within the text that point to a expanded use of the word, "day" (literally!).

    3. Many old-earth creationist have the same sence of Biblical inerrancy as the 24 hour-day creationists. To do this DOES requre a slightly different hermanuetic method than the YEC's use.

    4. The shape of the earth is a red-herring. Even the Greeks knew of the roundness of the earth, even if they didn't understand the mechanics of how it was held in place.

    Rob
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Frank happy to post it and good to be in agreement on this point.

    I think it is instructive that the pretense to evolutionism among some Christians is to "protect the Creator's Word" against being proven wrong by hard science.

    But then the "means" they choose is to undermine the Word of God so blatantly that "Even" evolutionists themselves (like Dawkings and Darwin) can't go along with the "compromise of logic" that results.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well - we agree there.

    So - when the text says "SIX days shall YOU... for in SIX days the LORD MADE..." (you know Exodus 20:8-11 where God is summarizing the Gen 1-2:4 "account")... "the clue" is that that SIX DAYS actually meant SIX days as can be "observed" by the actual weekly cycle the Jews use.

    (This really isnt that "hard" is it??)

    Is it your position that the "obvious" should be called "hyper-literal"?

    Agreed.

    My point is that they "need" the text NOT to say what says - so they find pejorative phrases like "hyper-litera" to describe exegetically sound practices with the Word of God. No matter how blatantly obvious the text - they call it "hyper literal" to "believe it" when it "Says something they don't like".

    That is a apparent to all - both atheist evolutionist and Christian Creationist.

    In seeking to protect the Word of God against some mythical - future - event where evolutionism changes from being a religion to being actual fact and good-science -- they compromise the Word of God and they place themselves in the position of having to claim horribly conflicted views of the Bible.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Note: "they" is ME. Are you singing to the choir or are you trying to make a point with me?

    Don't get all self-righteous about my label. Are there no "pejorative phrases" in any of your posts above? "( “…undermine the Word of God”, “This really isnt that "hard" is it??”, "...horribly conflicted views” etc). I think I expressed myself fairly: one literal interpretation is that "day" means 24-hours; another literal interpretation is that the word "day" is a longer period of time. The word "day" has a number of different meanings even in the opening text. Just the presentation of "a day" before the sun lead some ancient “pre-evolutionary theory “ commentators to question what the Genesis "day" really meant. Both the 24-hour interpretation AND the day-age view have a literary basis.

    Of course Dawkins and Darwin wouldn't go along with any theistic theory, they are totally for materialistic evolutionary theories, no God theories. Once God in inserted in to the matrix they balk. That’s why any theistic “evolutionary” theory really isn’t true evolution; there is no blind chance, God is in control.

    But back to the point: those that do not adhere to a 24-hour creation day are not attempting to do so to protect the Bible: Given that the evidence in our created universe points to a longer period of time than a few thousands of years, we are searching for a unified understanding and attempting to rightly divide the Word accordingly. We are not tossing out the biblical data; we are working with it to develop a more complete picture of the creation process.

    And most pointedly, we are doing the same sort of research that YEC’s are doing to prove their point. The opening statement is your typical flame (statement without thought) and I fell for it.

    Rob

    [ May 04, 2004, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  11. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all you imply that only the catholics made the error of stating the earth was flat. To be precise, I would say their error was that the earth did not rotate as a cause of night and day. I believe they had long ago accepted that the earth was in fact round.

    Second, it was not just the Catholics. Martin Luthor, the protestant reformer, is famously quoted as saying that Copernicus was wrong because scripture teaches us that it is the sun that moves, not the earth. He quoted the Joshua long day passage. Indeed, every theologion of the day, catholic, protestant, whatever, that addressed the issue came down against the new science.

    And I don't advise anyone adopting the wild notions of scientists, I merely favor accepting the solid determinations such as the age of the universe and the common descent of life. As for their wild notions we can safely withold judgement on them. String theory, for example, is a little bit to undeveloped to say we know it is true.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Paul,
    Simply using a straight exegesis and exposition of Genesis chapter one, there is no way you can harmonize evolution with creation. Forget about history or historical views, what others said in the past, and/or the church fathers. Adhere strictly to the Bible. There is no way that you can harmonize evolution with the first chapter of Genesis.
    DHK
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoa, there. It's wasn't just a Catholic idea. The idea that the earth was flat was also sharred by the Hebrews at the time many of the OT books were penned, including Genesis. The ancient Greeks concieved of a sperical earth, but their view was not commonly shared by people who viewed the Greeks as pagans. The spherical conception of the earth was unknown prior to the 5th century B.C.
     
  14. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob Ryan said:
    A little Bible study would have given those "old time theologians" the answer - then they would not have needed to be embarrassed!

    Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but that supports a flat earth idea, not a sperical earth idea. The Hebrew word "chuwg" (translated 'circle') referrs to a disc-shape, like the surface of a compass. The old idea was that the earth's surface was a circular flat disc, with a dome-shaped firmament above it, holding back the waters behind it.
     
  16. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    A little Bible study would have given those "old time theologians" the answer - then they would not have needed to be embarrassed!

    Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
    </font>[/QUOTE]I know what you're saying here Dan, & while I totally agree with you in principle- I don't think this verse offers us the basis to say that the Bible doesn't teach a flat Earth.

    In Geometry, a circle is a two-dimensional form. In a horizontal plane, it would very well be flat.

    Now, the three-dimensional form of a circle is a sphere. This word would undoubtedly show that the Bible teaches the "round-ball" shaped Earth as we know it to exist.

    Does anyone know if, from the original language, "sphere" would have been a preferable translation compared to "circle" in this verse? Is this just an example of a less-than ideal translation?
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good question. In my post just before this one I noted that the Hebrew word "chuwg" (translated 'circle') referrs to a disc-shape, like the surface of a compass. Sphere would not have been a correct interpretation of this word. I referred to the word "disc", which is probably as close as we can get.
     
  18. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good question. In my post just before this one I noted that the Hebrew word "chuwg" (translated 'circle') referrs to a disc-shape, like the surface of a compass. Sphere would not have been a correct interpretation of this word. I referred to the word "disc", which is probably as close as we can get. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the info. John. I had begun typing my reply before your earlier reply had posted, so I hadn't seen it prior to my post.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The truth is that compromising the Word of God (and hence the Gospel) is no more "protection" than just being flat wrong.

    The atheist evolutionists see this clearly (As can be seen from things that Dawkings and Darwin have said) and Bible Believing Christians that accept the Creator's Gen 1-2:4 "account" and His Exodus 20:8-11 summary -- also see.

    So far - the red herring offerred here is "The four corners of the earth mean the world is not round and the Word of God can not be trusted".

    This "failed argument" is used EVEN though we still use those terms today.

    But that is "just how it is" when "any old excuse will do" to undermine confidence in the Creator's "Account" as if that "protects the Bible".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, BR, in your view the logic to be accepted is this:

    ONLY the literal interpretation of Genesis one is legitimate
    Since the evidence is that the universe is old, contrary to the literal interpretation of Genesis, it follows that our religion is false.

    Or, if we hold that our religion is true regardless of all evidence, then we simply acknowledge we disregard all evidence no matter how convincing. Not a happy choice, since we come to accept the Bible as true only on the basis of some kind of reasoning or evidence in the first place anyway. Why accept one set of evidence and not another?

    It is this logic that endangers our religion in the minds and hearts of so many. Your continued insistance that Genesis One must be interpreted literally will have the effect of turning many away from Christ on grounds that need not cause them to turn away!

    [ May 07, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...