Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

Wow. You're pretty upset. I'm just saying how I see things and I think my previous post clearly indicates why I think Annsi's argument does not follow. Now If I'm mistaken so be it. But thats pretty clear how I see things. You state here :

I gave no accusation save I didn't think the argument followed. You also said

My only reply is where do I give myself this apperance? How is it any more moral to say I don't think your argument follows? You say

When in reality I'm making an argument and defending them. You also say

When its actually defined as limiting God in some respect. Though I've nevery claimed God could not make the world in 6 days I just don't think he did. You also said

with the supposition that he agrees with you on how to take that verse or verses. You also said

and my reply is what for? Making an argument and defending it? You also make this accusation

Which I defined smut as

I have done niether. In fact I challenge you to look through all the posts that I have ever made and find one item that would fall under either catagory. If you disagree with me, I'm ok with it. Just say so argue if you will and at the end of the day we'll end up agreeing to disagree. However, you have unjustly accused me of pilfering smut which I've defined above. Maybe you should apologize. You don't have to be impressed to do such a thing. I'm not even asking you to be impressed with me. Just fair. Are we not allowed to disagree with each other?

 

I limit nothing and neither does Annsi. And that is a result of interepeting scripture with scripture rather than interpreting scripture with man made faulty and ever changing science.

Some times I do not understand liberal speak so you are going to have to clarify the word "general".

Christians and Moslems believe in God. We disagree with the specifics.

I follow neither calvin nor arminian teachings. I am a follower of Christ and Christ alone. And their conversations interest me not as they simply beat the dead horse of the mechanics. In the end neither argument changes the nature of salvation. The secular evolution you work so hard to hold on to and then tack God on at the end has large theological implications.

 

Possibly, but I would say that I believe God and validate aspects of evolution. I don't tack God as you say at the end of evolution. For me God comes first. Not evolution as you seem to imply. I BTW read the JI Packard article. Though overall the article was very good, I disagree that there is little value in looking at scripture beyond the simple. Even Jewish theologians look at scripture at several levels ie:

ashat: simple
emez: allegory
rash: seeking
sod: mystical

Looking at the Essene communities writings at Qumran they indicate these levels of understanding as well. It would seem that Jesus would have been familiar with these views of scripture in his day and his apostles.

 

The point in posting the article was to show the misrepresentation, on this board, of the literal interpretation position. Trying to ask why we do not interpret allegories literally is silly and or ignorant.

 

Ok I agree why you don't interpret allegories literally as being silly. Question. How do you choose what is meant to be allegorical? Especially with the readings of books like Revelation? Why would John 6 be allegorical and Genesis creation account not?

 

Why don't you be more specific

 

Jesus tells us to "his flesh" Disciples leave. God creates the universe in 6 days and rests on the 7th.

 

How do you take the crucifixion narrative literal and not Genesis 1&2?

 

Question with a question? Genesis and the creation account were oral tradition passed through a popular medium down through many generations until Moses. The crucifixion was an eye witnessed account reported to the gospel writers.

 

And the Bible says that where? I asked a question to show the absurdity of your question.

 

explain the absurdity of it.

Jesus tells his disciples to eat his flesh. The majority take off. Jesus is saying it. It was an eye witnessed event. This is however taken as allegorical. Rather than what Jesus was saying. The Genesis account was not eyewitnessed by anyone who wrote the Torah. God wrote the 10 commandments. Moses and scribes wrote the rest.

 

Some one get me some duct tape for my head which is about to explode. The logic you use here is the broadest of mental gymnastics. Having eyewitnesses to the allegory that Jesus uses has nothing to do with proving the nature of Genesis. How you managed to pull that line of thought out is really quite amazing.

 

Ok Mr. Glenn Beck!

Consider this many christian theologians do not believe Jesus was being allegorical. Many be it was I've heard good areguments for John 6 on both sides. JOhn 6 statement of Jesus being allegorical or not is a matter for debate yet we do know it was a witnessed event. Genesis creation account is not. In fact when considering other liturature of that same time period in that cultural setting all creation accounts were allegorical. Its not that much of a leap.

 

It is a leap.Other literature does not even come close to the nature of scripture for it is the Word of God. Not just another book. And anyone who thinks Jesus was not being allegorical needs their head examined.

 

I don't think there's any dispute amonst those here. The question that arises is whether Scripture's status as being the inspired Word of God makes it a requisite to view Scripture as literal in nature. That's probably a good question to ask, regardless of the current topic.

 

I'm sure I'll let you take that up with the many, many, many Christian theologians who disagree with you.

All literary types in the bible are modeled after existing literary types. The bible is a library of books of differing literary types. The bible is singular in that Christians have selected those specific books as being the inspired word of God. It doesn't mean Those literary types were not used but that is how God chose to communicate to man. The fulness of communication found in the incarnation. The bible incorporates each literary type as a vehicle of that communication. God did not hand write the bible and give it to some guy a long time ago like Joseph Smith claims about the gold tablets. No! God uses man and his ability to write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Men wrote in the literary style they knew. If God inspired you to write you may choose different formats. Some Autobiographical others not. I'm sure if you spoke with Frank Perretti he would tell you God inspired him to write and his comfortable medium was fiction. Now its not the Inspired word of God but men wrote with what they were familiar with.

 

There is a grand assumption that pagan creation accounts had its effect on the actual creation account. This is a lie straight from the pit of hell. The other creation account did not have the one true and living God to reveal the creation account. Moses did. Frank Perretti is not relevant to this discussion. I hold that scripture is the inspired, infallible word of God. Any interpretation not based on that is a non starter. You say men wrote in the literary style they knew. There is no such claim in scripture, but we do see that God's word is just that His word. You impose to much to the pen and not enough to God. That is your error.

 

No thats not what I said. I said they used the literary style they were familiar with to transmit Gods inspired word. Not all of it was literal. Some were moral stories like in Jesus parables others were wisdom literature, others were poetic like psalms and song of songs. Some were historical like the gospels and 1&2 kings; Chronicles etc. Some were prophetic like Isaiah etc... I'm saying Genesis was a familiar type of creation liturature used at the time of its making. God shows by outline how he created the world. He shows his dominion over all things and gods. He shows mans fallen nature and need for redemption. But not necissarily in the way you take it.