I'm glad you agree with me on the destructive rhetoric. While I disagree with your opinion (on the matter of evo), it's structured in such a way that I will give it all due consideration. Whereas destructive rhetoric would just make me simply disagree with you (no matter what was said basically).
I fail to see how either evolutionism or creationism is a belief system in and of themselves. They both can be incorporated into belief systems and IMO creationism is more like a religion then it is like a science (it's central tenets can not be IMO tested). But that's for another thread I suppose.
Actually, to tell the truth I think all of us here are creationists to an extent. To my knowledge we all agree that God created everything. It's the manner God went about it that we are disagreeing on.
Evolution Corrupts the Gospel
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by BobRyan, Apr 18, 2003.
Page 7 of 7
-
As such I don't see how evolution would effect the non-literalists opinion of mankind falling from a sinless state. It happened, and the metaphor of Adam is still in effect.
As such there is no reason not to believe that man does not need to be forgiven.
-
Hi again, Meatros,
I think you will find that the Fall is closely connected with the concept of anti-evolution for many. You see, if man evolved physically from an ape-like ancestor, then he was never in a perfect and sinless state, so how could he fall? Does redemption 'restore' man to his state 'before' he was H.sapiens? Are we to become some kind of ape-like creature? This is the logic, or lack of it, that many creationists see with the idea of theistic evolution.
I want to ask you something: Why do you consider Adam a metaphor?
You also stted that God changes His laws throughout the Bible. I have not seen that. Could you point out what you mean, please? -
Helen, do you think that animals other than man can sin?
-
You've confused abiogenesis (which God tells us was the way He did it) with evolution.
Galation observes:
"YOM" is not necessarily translated to "day" and is often used for various periods of time.
Galation observes:
And as early Christians pointed out, there can be no days, or mornings or evenings without a Sun to have them. Some try to force a 24 hour day in to this text, but they are trying to replace God's word with their own ideas.
"Augustine trifles with the six days in a strange way, making them days of hidden meaning, according to the knowledge of angels, and does not let them be six natural days." - Martin Luther, who also denied that the Earth orbits the Sun.
"Origen (an influential early Christian theologian) ridiculed the notion of a creation that lasted during six days. And even the proponents of this approach have to concede that there are significant problems with it, for example:
How could there be “evenings” and “mornings” on the first three days if the sun was not created until the fourth day?
Why would Almighty God need to cease from His work because of the turning of the world on its axis?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~raphael/ph_3_2.html
Galation observes:
If you want your doctrine accepted by other Christians, you'll need to do more than insist you are right.
I direct your attention to the admonition about mocking and insults. When you say "evilutionists, you geve people reason to question your integrity and judgement, whether or not the rule is enforced. And it does your argument no good. You're pretty much left with "because I say so" as your reason for believing otherwise.
That's not enough. -
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in fact - evolutionism strikes at the very heart of the Gospel. Huxley knew it and most evolutionists (and all creationists) know it.
There is no fall of mankind from a perfect sinless state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that the "title" is "Evolution corrupts the Gospel" your objective would be to show that it does not - show it - do the math - present the details. You know, make your case instead of ducking, dodging and obfuscating as if that will cause anyone reading to "forget the subject".
God's Word promotes "Divine command, order in creation, obedience, worship and sinless perfection without death or disease". To FALL from that state "has meaning".
To "fall from the carnage of tooth and claw" has no meaning at all - it corrupts the Gospel.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no need to restore mankind back to that high and lofty state from which he fell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to smash and bash the right quota of monkey brains?
Failure to squat on his cave floor in the correct way?
"what would he need Forgiveness for"?
Why would God have to "Send His Son to die in our place"? If we were just - eating our monkey-brain breakfast - like any hominid offspring - killing and grunting his way through life??
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very concept of "the Savior" is void.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NT arguments that Paul and Christ made BASED on the "DETAILS" of Gen 1-3 are "void".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arguments that God makes from His own Law - appealing to Gen 1-3 "DETAILS" are void.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So please - show how you can make the case for that in Exodus 20 as IT summarizes the Genesis 1 details.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in the NT - voiding ONE part of the LAW - nullifies all of it according to James.
The house of cards falls flat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your piling of assertion upon assertion - while avoiding every detail raised as an objection to your speculation - is not a compelling form of rebuttal.
Pick one of these cases and deal with it in some convincing way. Show how your ideas "work" in the text.
Bob -
I am coming to the rather dissappointing conclusion that our evolutionist bretheren have no better solution to this problem - but to simply "pretend" that Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 do NOT show a six day time sequence with six cycles of "evening and morning".
Apparently - denying the "obvious" is the only resort left for them. How sad.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible declares DIRECT divine fiat creation in SIX days "FOR in SIX DAYS God created the Heavens and the Earth and the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But all our evolutionist friends can "imagine" is a defense that "pretends" not to see what everyone else quickly "obvserves" about that language and the meaning to its primary audience.
Fascinating!
Bob -
-
You are interpreting things now. You are picking and choosing your bible verses to try to make your incredibly weak point. IMO God is making the point that one should work the first six days and then to pray on the sabbath-to honor God. You are actually taking away God's message to suggest God said this to 'prove' Genesis. The important point, which you overlook, is to keep the Sabbath holy, not to justify Genesis as you are doing.
-
I have to now ask you something. Regardless of what someone believes what is the *ONLY* way to get to heaven?
Show your work. -
However, secondly, the death and predation and bloodshed we see in the animal kingdom are NOT part of the original creation.
You will see in Genesis 1:29-30, that neither man nor the land-crawling beasts or the birds were anything but vegetarian in the beginning. In fact, it was not even until after the Flood that animals were afraid of man. So evolutionists must ignore entire passages in the Bible such as Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:2-3 in order to present their "case" to Christians.
But if the Bible is correct, then the very processes of predation and 'natural selection' by death which evolution claims brought forth the H.sapien were actually the result of the Fall and are the consequences of sin. They did not exist before it. Therefore the picture Galatian and you are presenting is not just a reinterpretation of Genesis, but a clear denial of it.
Evolution DOES corrupt the Gospel by denying the reality of the foundation of it -- the sin nature of man and condition of creation itself being the consequence of the Fall. I would love it if you folks actually read the Bible carefully, for yourselves... it's all there.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You also stted that God changes His laws throughout the Bible. I have not seen that. Could you point out what you mean, please?Click to expand...
Please, please read your Bible for yourself. Slowly. Carefully. You will find that a lot of what you and some others here are presenting is clearly denied by the Bible. And at that point you are going to have to make a choice: believe Bible or believe man. You cannot combine the two and be faithful to either. -
However, secondly, the death and predation and bloodshed we see in the animal kingdom are NOT part of the original creation.Click to expand...
You will see in Genesis 1:29-30, that neither man nor the land-crawling beasts or the birds were anything but vegetarian in the beginning. In fact, it was not even until after the Flood that animals were afraid of man. So evolutionists must ignore entire passages in the Bible such as Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:2-3 in order to present their "case" to Christians.Click to expand...
But if the Bible is correct, then the very processes of predation and 'natural selection' by death which evolution claims brought forth the H.sapien were actually the result of the Fall and are the consequences of sin.Click to expand...
Which is why most Christians don't interpret God's word that way; it's not consistent with His creation.
They did not exist before it. Therefore the picture Galatian and you are presenting is not just a reinterpretation of Genesis, but a clear denial of it.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />However, secondly, the death and predation and bloodshed we see in the animal kingdom are NOT part of the original creation.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You will see in Genesis 1:29-30, that neither man nor the land-crawling beasts or the birds were anything but vegetarian in the beginning. In fact, it was not even until after the Flood that animals were afraid of man. So evolutionists must ignore entire passages in the Bible such as Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:2-3 in order to present their "case" to Christians.Click to expand...
In short, you are simply denying, as you state, Genesis 1:29-30 as being the truth. That is up to you. I find it perfectly in line with the description given by Isaiah of the restored creation when Christ will rule for a thousand years:
The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:6-9
I suppose that is allegorical for you, too, though.
To many of us, that is a description of the once and future creation here on earth, when sin no longer reigns.
In short, I have no trouble knowing that Genesis 1:29-30 is the absolute truth.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But if the Bible is correct, then the very processes of predation and 'natural selection' by death which evolution claims brought forth the H.sapien were actually the result of the Fall and are the consequences of sin.Click to expand...
Which is why most Christians don't interpret God's word that way; it's not consistent with His creation.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />They did not exist before it. Therefore the picture Galatian and you are presenting is not just a reinterpretation of Genesis, but a clear denial of it.Click to expand...
Nor does Genesis have to be interpreted at all. It is telling the straight and unvarnished truth about creation and what happened. You deny it and think by 'reinterpreting' it you can shoehorn it into some kind of evolutionary scenario. In doing that, however, you are twisting and distorting not only Genesis out of recognition, but a good many other parts of the Bible, too!
So I think I prefer Bible and the actual evidence we see around us and what real science is showing. -
Meatros
As The Galatian makes quite obvious (IMO), animals don't sin. Therefore man *was* in a sinless state.Click to expand...
But then sinless-animal turns into sinful-man and that is the "evolution" view of sinless-MAN falling???
Do you realize how illogical your argument is for "SINLESS MAN" by insisting that he was NOT man but merely ANIMAL and that is sinless MAN falling?
Or are you saying that man was NEVER sinless - that ANIMAL is sinless and once ANIMAL fell - "and became man" THEN the tooth-and-claw-carnage-and-death dealing "ANIMAL" was no longer sinless, no longer in perfect fellowship with his Creator. AND so NOW God must send His Son to die for the sins of FALLEN ANIMAL - (man) because ANIMAL FELL when it "BECAME a MAN" by virtue of BEING a hominid+ he could now have a "bad thought" in the middle of bashing in his daily share of monkey-brains?
So - God sends His Son to die on the cross for "a fall" into spiritual darkness has taken place among the ANIMALS. ANIMAL "has become like one of US knowing good and evil by EVOLVING and BECOMING man". Now ALL mankind is "doomed" - condemned to hell for the "sin" of the ONE ANIMAL that "became man" and "thought something bad in his lonely cave one day" while playing grunt-and-bash with his fellow hominids.
All mankind must suffer sin, death, and eventually hell - because that one cave-dweller was 'incorrect on some point'.
What a fairytale is that spun by evolutionisms mythologies??
And so when I say that such nonesense as the above is a "corruption of the Gospel" - HOW could any serious Bible student doubt it for second?
Maybe the first step is to define "what is the Gospel" - can we really stretch it out to redeeming a "sinless monkey'ss-cousin that became human while sitting in his cave - and thereby sinned causing all his cave-dwelling-grunting postertiy to DESERVE the fires of HELL"?
If so - then is that not the poster-child for "corruption of the Gospel"?
I would call this an obvious open and shut case. Even out atheist friends will quickly agree that this is a far cry from what the Christian gospel is supposedly all about.
Bob -
All posts dealing with doctrine arguments, name-calling, and personal accusations were deleted from this thread. That means every post after the one above was deleted. This thread is being closed as it is long enough now anyway.
All participants here should remind themselves of the rules of Baptist Board. Personal insults and slander are reasons for suspension or banning. This is a reminder.
Page 7 of 7