Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Amen, Deacon.

 

There is another point to be made here regarding the literal versus non literal interpretation of scripture.

For the YEC chooses to say that we must take the plain literal teaching of scripture and believe it no matter what science may tell us about the same thing.

Yet the YEC typically violates this same rule when it comes to the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night.

First of all, please note that in this particular post I am NOT referring to the spherical shape of the earth. The spherical shape of the earth is not acknowledged in scripture, and would make a nice debate on its own merits, but in the history of man's growing knowledge the spherical shape of the earth became apparent BEFORE the rotation of the earth became apparent.

Thus, Martin Luther, knowing full well that the earth was a sphere, railed against the upstart Copernicus who insisted that the earth moves and rotates, saying this was contrary to scripture.

And Martin Luther was right to say that, as along as one must interpret the bible literally and discard any science that comes along and teaches something else.

Today, however, all the YEC's who post on this board have accepted the science that it is the earth that rotates as the cause of day and night, and will say that the Bible verses that teach otherwise need not be considered literal.

Instead of being considered literal, they are to be understood as portraying merely the way things appear to men of that day.

In doing this, they are being inconsistent. They are not playing fair. They are going by different rules, one set for them and another set for those who accept the more recent findings of science.

I call attention to all readers to notice this inconsistency. Nobody has every come up with any justification for this inconsistency that has any logical merit.

 

Ah, Bob, YOU need to look more closely at what I wrote!
What text are you claiming I'm turning people away from?
I didn't point the statement at any particular biblical text.

And BTW Bob, it's been said before:
Old earth doesn't necessarily mean belief in evolution.

Rob

 

Here's an evening and morning that's not "undefined" but certainly longer than 24 hours.

Daniel 8:26 "And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." KJV

Note that "the evening and morning" (singular in verse 26) is noted to be 2300 days in length. (Daniel 8:14)


Rob

 

They are, of course. But the point is that they directly refute the "ex nihilo" claims of YE creationism, and the text clearly shows that a literal reading is wrong.

In fact, as has been shown here, the text specifically rejects YE creationism. It does not necessarily rule out some forms of OE creationism.

The main objection to inserting the creationist text into scripture is that it conflicts with the existing text.

Since the people who worked out modern evolutionary theory were Christians, that one goes in the dumpster, too.

As you learned, Bible-believing Christians acknowledge that evolutionary theory is consistent with the Word of God.

Paul writes:
Yet the YEC typically violates this same rule when it comes to the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night.

It's true. Luther correctly asserts that a literal reading of scripture means that the sun must orbit the Earth.

The "detail" as Luther observed was that scripture says that the Earth doesn't move, and the Sun does. This is why Luther denied that the Earth orbits the Sun. He took a literal view of scripture.

He was simply an honest literalist, and accepted all of the implications of literalism.

As Paul notes, modern YECs often pick and chose when they will call for a literal reading.

 

I see you are still taking man's word over God's Word. The only time there are contradictions is when you don't take God's word as true or literal when it was meant to be. However, a literal interpretation of Genesis always leads to inerrancy and wholeness throughout scripture.

However, if you deal with scripture as though it is absolute truth, and not some half baked fairy tale meant to tell us how to live a moral life you could see that it forms a compelete and congruent picture. That means that Jesus quoting Genesis as literal is because Jesus is true... Genesis is true... the whole BIble is true.

To paraphrase - "even the lies are true!". You have a pretty hopeless picture of Christianity and the Word. How can you believe anything in the Word? If there were a shred of evidence that Jesus never existed, would you would believe it and loose your salvation? You believe in that Jesus? Isn't he from that book that science has proven isn't true? What a joke! Your faith is rediculous. Your religion is based on a fairy tale. What an idiot you must be - you believe in Jesus when we have proven the Bible isn't true.

Now Rob, of course I don't believe those things, and I was simply taking a 'non-believers' position. But they would have a point. How can you base your faith on a book full of mistakes and without truth?

I would submit to you a different story. I would submit that the Bible is true... and it is accurate... and it is literal... and it is real. From the first verse in Genesis to the last verse of Revelation, it is absolutely true and without error or contradiction.

Your entire post is based upon a faulty assumption. You assume that the because they say circle that they though the world was flat. In fact, the idea that the world was flat didn't come around until after Christ.

Note the the word 'days' still means literal days. Many days is how it is described. The language of genesis is very clear that day means day.

 

Your entire post is based upon a faulty assumption. You assume that the because they say circle that they though the world was flat. In fact, the idea that the world was flat didn't come around until after Christ.

</font>[/QUOTE]Your missed. You failed to note I am not at all talking about the sphericity of the earth; I am talking about the rotation of the earth. You must have merely scanned my post to have missed my initially pointing this out. Long after the earth was realized to be a sphere men counted it as stationary; the heavenly bodies were assumed to revolve around it.

The false belief that the sun goes around the earth is widely documented in the Bible and a literal acceptance of the Bible would require that belief. No YEC has yet to explain why s/he feels free to disregard that literal teaching in a way consistent with their insistence on accepting literal scripture over findings of science.

 

As long as we are talking about the days of creation, what with dawn and sunset and so forth, I'd just like to point out that literally dawn never stops - it is always dawn somewhere on earth - and sunset never stops - it is always sunsetting somewhere on earth.

 

I would say that GOD built in east Eden a garden.
It seems that Israel became the focal point later.
We do seem to have a geological area on the map. I have no reason to believe that 24 hour periods were all specific to where GOD brought HIS attention to bear.

 

It always comes down to the fact of does GOD say what He means and means what HE says.

Satan at the very beginning wants people to question what GOD says ans means. That doesn't mean that we need not try to understand GOD's principles; however, it does mean that Christians must be aware that Satan has not changed. He is still the great deciever & liar. "Is it really so that GOD said, ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the gardner?" "Ye shall not surely die..." Genesis 3

Science or no science, education or no education----Satan can and will decieve, NOT only non-believers but Christians who attempt to do their "own thing" without relying on GOD for guidance. If the Bible demomstrates nothing else---it is clearly that FACT. If Satan can decieve an entire nation, I can be sure he has the ability and power to confuse, distort, warp, and control a man designed study along with all its investigations. Satan can clearly enable men to see only what Satan wants, in the way Satan wishes. Scientists may choose to EXCLUDE GOD---I believe GOD will allow such. However, Satan will not be excluded from the logic of secular men by those who choose to IGNORE GOD... This is why I feel so strongly that Creationists & Creationism is actually a far more honest understanding of what data is studied. They make GOD and HIS word the CENTER of their study and the CENTER of their interpretations. They are considering the MIND of GOD through prayer & supplication. I don't suspect evolutionists are of any mind but their own ego. Pride cometh before the fall.

 

I would also like to direct your attention to Luke.
Jesus confirms Genesis, and he also confirms that the world is round (or spherical if you like that term better).

It says :

Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luk 17:35 Two shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luk 17:36 Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Clearly, when it is night on one side of the earth, it is Day on another. This verse demonstrates that both Jesus and the Jews both knew this concept.

 

Right. When God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, you expect that it will happen. And when it doesn't, you have to conclude that maybe it happened, but not they way yoiu supposed.

This is why we know the "death" God spoke of was not a physical death.

Indeed, the serpent tried to convince Eve that God meant a physical death.

"Is it really so that GOD said, ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the gardner?" "Ye shall not surely die..." Genesis 3

True. This is how many began to think that God's word to Adam wasn't true. It was true. Adam did die that day. But spiritually, not physically.

Some have tired to "adjust" His word a little to make it fit. But that's also not of the Holy Spirit.

Most of us are theists. We no more exclude God by not taking Him into account when we do science than a plumber excluses God by using a wrench instead praying for pipes.

I don't think creationists are actually ignoring God. They just want it to be a different way, and so they ignore some of His word.

It isn't even scriptural, much less scientific.

At least in the case above, they change scripture to meet their expectations of God.

Can't speak for others, but I have to let God's Word speak for itself. If you get a logical contradiction by forcing a literal meaning on scripture, that's a sure sign that a literal interpretation is wrong.

No matter how much you want it your way.

 

Right. When God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, you expect that it will happen. And when it doesn't, you have to conclude that maybe it happened, but not they way yoiu supposed.

This is why we know the "death" God spoke of was not a physical death.

Indeed, the serpent tried to convince Eve that God meant a physical death.

Satan also promotes half-truths as full... Eve eventually died as did Adam; however, their soul is eternal. Eternity separated from GOD is far worse than death...

Genesis 3:7-8

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew their nakedness; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves girdles. And they heard the voice of the LORD GOD walking in the cool of the day (A Christophany): and Adam and his wife hid themselvesfrom the presence of the LORD GOD amongst the trees of the garden.

Genesis 3:22-

And the LORD GOD said, "Behold, the man is become as ONE OF US, to know good and evil: and NOW, lest he put forth his hand and TAKE ALSO of the TREE OF LIFE, and eat, and live forever...


"Is it really so that GOD said, ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the garden?" "Ye shall not surely die..." Genesis 3

True. This is how many began to think that God's word to Adam wasn't true. It was true. Adam did die that day. But spiritually, not physically.

Some have tired to "adjust" His word a little to make it fit. But that's also not of the Holy Spirit.

Most of us are theists. We no more exclude God by not taking Him into account when we do science than a plumber excluses God by using a wrench instead praying for pipes.

I don't think creationists are actually ignoring God. They just want it to be a different way, and so they ignore some of His word.

It isn't even scriptural, much less scientific.

At least in the case above, they change scripture to meet their expectations of God.

Can't speak for others, but I have to let God's Word speak for itself. If you get a logical contradiction by forcing a literal meaning on scripture, that's a sure sign that a literal interpretation is wrong.

No matter how much you want it your way. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Well, its not really "proof" - after all there are day sleepers. And I am REALLY interested in why you think this shows that the JEWS as well as JESUS realized it could be night in one place while day in another. You don't believe, then, that Jesus was privy to devine insights not available to mortal men?

 

Jesus it GOD in the flesh. Of course HE was privy to insights not available to mortal men!

John 4:17-18

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou hast well said, 'I have no husband:' For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

This is but one example of insights that Christ had, even in the flesh, that would not be known to mortal men without some background check. Jesus was God in the flesh. He had access to whatever information he needed.

 

In fact, death did enter the world on that day, just as God said it would. Also, we know from scripture that spiritual death occured. When we were first created, our bodies and our spirits were eternally connected. The fate of one was the fate of the other. However, Jesus made a way where our spirits can now live on in new boides.

It is a fantastic change of pace to see you quoting what you claim to be a fairy tale (the Bible) as truth. Lets examine your work, and see how you did -

Firstly, lets look at Genesis 3. You claim that the curse of sin (death) is ONLY a spiritual curse. But lets examine the scripture.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Well it looks like it did have immediate spiritual implications. Their eyes were immediately opened to know right and wrong. Lets examine further, however:

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

That is an aweful lot of PHYSICAL consequences of Adam's sin for it to be a purely spiritual curse. Moreover, if you look at the last verse, that would seem to clearly define physical death and decay. Clearly the indication being that eating was not required to sustain life, nor was death present. Another telling verse is towards the end of Genesis 3:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I would submit that this was an act of kindness and love that God did. Had Adam eaten that fruit and his mortal body live forever, Jesus would not have been able to do what he did. Jesus would not have been able to die for us. You see, since Jesus, sin and death are condemned to die with our mortal bodies. If our motal bodies never died, then we would be trapped in spiritual death forever. Clearly the indication from this verse is that this is exactly what was now possible had Adam taken of the tree of life. Had there not been a physical curse of death in Adam's fall, then Jesus could not have died either (being of Adam's blood) and could not take the penalty of sin and death upon himself for us.

You are either a very confused, or a very decietful person. You admit that there is nothing advocating evolution in scripture, yet you deny the events it DOES advocate, and then claim that it has advocated the opposite of what it says all along.

For example, you say the death in the Garden was ONLY spiritual death, yet we show you Romans 5, and Genesis 3 and you still do not believe.

Romans 5
12 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 8
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Creationism is entirely scriptural. Evolution, however, - as even you agree - is not at all scriptural. To the YEC, what the Bible says is 'heavier' in truth than direct experimental observation. This is because the Bible gives us the Big Picture. It gives us the framework with which to interpret our observations. You who do not believe the Bible, and instead believe in a long earth, also do not believe in the Flood. Do you think that God threw that into the Bible for a neat little story, or do you think the Bible is true? I would submit that it was entirely true.

2Peter talks about two monumental events in history that cannot be denied... special creation, and the flood. It says that in the last days would come scoffers that would mock these things. You, Galatian, are one of these who scoff and mock the scripture.

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Unfortuneately, you have decided to interpret scripture according to man's flawed logic, instead of interpreting nature by God's irrefutable logic. You are interpreting scripture using evolution and man's humanistic, atheistic ideas. Instead, if you would use God's word to interpret God's word, and let it speak for itself... you could come much closer to rightly interpreting nature within the framework of absolute truth.

The question is not whether there are day sleepers, it's whether there are night grinders, and night feild workers. Luke 17:34 says that "in that night...".

No one asked Jesus to explain how or why someone would be grinding or working a field at night.

In fact, I do believe he knew much more than mortal men. In fact this shows when he quotes Genesis as literal, re-affirming that he did indeed know more than even mortal men from the future who might be posting on this message board in support of evolution