1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by OldRegular, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Randomness isn't a problem for God, it's a problem for evolutionists who must deny "design" in the universe, even though it is obvious.

    Dawkins postulates that design is only "apparent" in the universe. What nonsense.
     
  2. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mercury,

    Everything you said about God creating and holding the universe together and working through the laws of nature is true. It's just not true for theistic evolutionists.
     
  3. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    False. That's like saying theistic scientists don't believe God holds the matter of the universe together because they accept gravitational theories, the strong and weak forces, etc.

    God created and creates all life. Evolution describes some aspects of how he did and does so.

    Theistic evolutionists do not deny the design in the universe. Of course I believe the universe was designed, although I think "created" is a better, more descriptive word.

    The difference is where one looks for design. I don't look for impossibilities in DNA that could not come about normally as evidence of a Designer, because I think the Creator designed (and sustains and uses to accomplish his purposes) the systems that produce what comes about normally.

    I'm a theistic evolutionist and what I wrote is what I believe. Why would you have a better handle on what I believe as a TE than I do?

    [ July 15, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]
     
  4. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    It constantly amazes me how some people on this board continue to use their own ideas and the ideas of atheists to determine what theistic evolutionists believe, while discounting what theistic evolutionists themselves claim to believe.
     
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    For a theistic evolutionist to say
    is an oxymoron. Evolution is not creation and that is a fact jack.

    You say
    . You are living in a politically correct dream world.

    Biological evolutionists want to equate micro-evolution with macro-evolution. That is just a ploy to fool the general public. They cannot demonstrate that macro evolution occurs or ever has occurred. It should also be recognized that regardless of what so called theistic-evolutions say evolution is an atheistic philosophy.

    From an earlier post.

    The following is an excerpt from a debate between evolutionist William B. Provine and creationist Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University, April 30, 1994. The full debate can be read at:

    http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm

    ON THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ADAPTATIONS, THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER CLEARLY IS VERY SHORT-SIGHTED INDEED. VIRTUALLY ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE EXTINCT. ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH ARE GOING TO BE GONE IN ONE BILLION YEARS, AND THE SAD THING ABOUT THAT IS THAT LIFE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THREE AND ONE-HALF BILLION YEARS ALREADY, SO IT'S ONLY GOT A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. PHIL AND I HAVE ALREADY LIVED MORE THAN HALF OF OUR LIVES. LIFE ON EARTH FACES THE SAME DISMAL PROSPECT.

    WHEN YOU DIE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE SURPRISED, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY DEAD. NOW IF FIND MYSELF AWARE AFTER I'M DEAD, I'M GOING TO BE REALLY SURPRISED! BUT AT LEAST I'M GOING TO GO TO HELL, WHERE I WON'T HAVE ALL OF THOSE GRINNING PREACHERS FROM SUNDAY MORNING LISTENING.

    LET ME SUMMARIZE MY VIEWS ON WHAT MODERN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY TELLS US LOUD AND CLEAR -- AND THESE ARE BASICALLY DARWIN'S VIEWS. THERE ARE NO GODS, NO PURPOSES, AND NO GOAL-DIRECTED FORCES OF ANY KIND. THERE IS NO LIFE AFTER DEATH. WHEN I DIE, I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT I AM GOING TO BE DEAD. THAT'S THE END OF ME. THERE IS NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS, NO ULTIMATE MEANING IN LIFE, AND NO FREE WILL FOR HUMANS, EITHER. WHAT AN UNINTELLIGIBLE IDEA.

    CHRISTIAN HUMANISM HAS A GREAT DEAL GOING FOR IT. IT'S WARM AND KINDLY IN MANY WAYS. THAT'S THE GOOD PART. THE BAD PART IS THAT YOU HAVE TO SUSPEND YOUR RATIONAL MIND. THAT PART IS REALLY NASTY. ATHEISTIC HUMANISM HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF FITTING NATURAL MINDS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD, BUT THE DISADVANTAGE OF VERY LITTLE CULTURAL HERITAGE -- AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM.

    SO THE QUESTION IS, CAN ATHEISTIC HUMANISM OFFER US VERY MUCH? SURE. IT CAN GIVE YOU INTELLECTUAL SATISFACTION. I'M A HECK OF A LOT MORE INTELLECTUALLY SATISFIED NOW THAT I DON'T HAVE TO CLING TO THE FAIRY TALE THAT I BELIEVED WHEN I WAS A KID. LIFE MAY HAVE NO ULTIMATE MEANING, BUT I SURE THINK IT CAN HAVE LOTS OF PROXIMATE MEANING. FREE WILL IS NOT HARD TO GIVE UP, BECAUSE IT'S A HORRIBLY DESTRUCTIVE IDEA TO OUR SOCIETY. FREE WILL IS WHAT WE USE AS AN EXCUSE TO TREAT PEOPLE LIKE PIECES OF CRAP WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG IN OUR SOCIETY. WE SAY TO THE PERSON, "YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG OUT OF YOUR FREE WILL, AND THEREFORE WE HAVE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REVENGE ALL OVER YOUR BEHIND." WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON, TURNING THEM INTO LOUSIER INDIVIDUALS THAN THEY EVER WERE. THIS HORRIBLE SYSTEM IS BASED UPON THIS IDEA OF FREE WILL.

    SINCE WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LIVE AFTER WE DIE, THERE IS NO REWARD FOR SUFFERING IN THIS WORLD. YOU LIVE AND YOU DIE. I'VE SEEN BUMPER STICKERS (VERY SEXIST ONES, ACTUALLY) THAT SAY "LIFE'S A BITCH, AND THEN YOU DIE." WELL, WHATEVER LIFE IS, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR YOURSELF OR FOR THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT, YOU HAD BETTER BECOME AN ACTIVIST WHILE YOU'RE STILL ALIVE.
     
  6. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    A quote from an atheist to attempt to explain theistic evolution? Wow, who could have predicted that something like that would be posted.
     
  7. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mercury,

    Fair enough.

    Briefly explain what you believe as a theistic evolutionists.

    When did God create?
    How?
    Through what means?

    Share your views in light of Scripture.
    Are Adam and Eve historical?
    Are they the first human beings?
    If not, where did they come from, etc.?

    Was there a universal flood?
    How did the animals evolve, etc.?

    Thanks in advance for sharing. I look forward to learning from you what a theistic evolutionist believes.
     
  8. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Paul33,

    Sure, I'll share what this theistic evolutionist believes. I hope you don't mind that for some of this I'm copy-and-pasting from Marcia's [Theistic Evolution] thread, because a number of the same questions were asked and answered there.

    Briefly explain what you believe as a theistic evolutionists.
    Theistic evolution is a view on origins that accepts what science has discovered while asserting that God is behind it and in charge.

    God's relationship to evolution is viewed the same way most Christians view God's relationship to the weather: he made it, he sustains it, and he can use it to bring about his purposes both naturally and supernaturally. The randomness of the process in no way limits God, but it may (some TEs disagree on this) give a freedom to creation so it is more than the panentheistic idea of God in everything.

    When did God create?
    God created our universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and he's been active in creation at least since that point (who knows what creative work he was involved with before then). In one sense creation was that act in the past and God is now in his Sabbath rest (see Hebrews 4). In another sense God is still working during his Sabbath and everything that has been brought forth since the foundation of the universe is also created by God (see Psalm 104 and Jesus' justification for working on the Sabbath in John 5:16-17).

    How?
    God spoke and nature happened. Nature is not something that exists apart from God, and nature's attributes and capabilities all derive from God's creative work. God's involvement is not limited to the supernatural nor is God's creation limited to the ex nihilo, although God did supernaturally make the universe out of nothing. God also created (Hebrew: bara) Israel, although he used existing people (Abram, Sarai) to do so. Similarly, stars were created from what existed before stars, and various species were created (Hebrew: bara) from organisms that existed prior to them. The use of existing material does not mean God did not create something, because ultimately everything is God's creation.

    Are Adam and Eve historical?
    Accepting evolution means that Adam has ancestry with other animals. Some believe that Adam and Eve were isolated from a population of primates by God and given a soul/spirit, and that this is what gives humans the image of God. Another theory is that a chromosome fusion caused by a mutation caused a stillborn primate child, and God took this child, breathed life into him, and placed him in a protected garden. At some point, God formed a mate for this child from part of his flesh and bone.

    There's many more ideas that also maintain a literal Adam and Eve. Basically, TEs try to put together all the revelation they have, both in Scripture and in creation, and come up with something that doesn't contradict what they know to be true.

    I'm open to many of these possibilities, although I lean toward the idea that God separated a population of hominids and endowed them with God's image by giving them a soul. Adam and Eve are representative of this group, and the sin they committed (more prosaically described in Romans 1:20-25) is passed down culturally rather than genetically. Each person lives in a world corrupted by the sins of all who have lived before, and it is this that causes creation to groan, because it has been subjected by God to humanity's dominion. (This understanding of original sin also means that Jesus was affected by it the same way we are, but without sinning himself -- just as Hebrews 2:14-18 and 4:15 state.)

    Are they the first human beings?
    I think Adam and Eve represent the first human beings.

    Was there a universal flood?
    No, I think the flood was "worldwide", just like Caesar Augustus' census of the whole world (Luke 2:1), and just like how the gospel was growing and bearing fruit in the whole world when Paul wrote Colossians (Colossians 1:5-6). Worldwide does not necessarily mean planet-wide. A more complete answer can be found on page six of this thread in [this post] as well as many of the follow-up posts.

    How did the animals evolve, etc.?
    I think they evolved the way the fossil record, genetic data, and other evidence demonstrates. Basically, I accept the present scientific explanations, and my confidence in each particular explanation is largely based on how universally it is accepted by scientists of all world-views and how strong the competing explanations are.
     
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Who better than an atheist to explain evolution since it is an atheistic philosophy? The sad thing about so-called theistic evolution is their attempt, unfortunately with some success, to bring an atheist philosophy into the Church.
     
  10. yeshua4me2

    yeshua4me2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    apparently theistic evolutionists ignore normal and accepted biblical hermanutics. To say that Gen 1-11 is figurative show one's ignorance of biblical hebrew.

    EXODUS 31:15-18

    Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. 17It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed. 18Then God gave Moses two tablets of stone upon which were written the commandments of God, written by the finger of God.

    and again the 4th commandment....
    Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
    Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    Hmmmmm. i wonder if God is wrong and Theistic evolutionists are right. if one uses proper and accepted hermaneutics and does not "privatly interpret" the scriptures, the meaning is quite clear.

    thankyou and God Bless
     
  11. yeshua4me2

    yeshua4me2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    ohh and if the days are not normal day how long is a work week. the only document that explains the origin of the 7 day week is the bible. or maybe it's a 13.7 billion year week. makes for a long work week, since the 7 days of creation are the basis for our work week, when are my days off?

    this is mainly tongue in cheek...lol
     
  12. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said this? In any case, judging what is figurative or not is based less on researching Hebrew words and more on carefully analyzing context and the form of writing. Similarly, going to the Greek and studying word meanings doesn't help much in determining if the words "sheep" and "shepherd" are being used literally. The same Greek words and grammar are used regardless. The literal or figurative nature is determined by context, and this can still be examined in English translations.

    A biblical work week is six days long. There is a difference between a symbol and what the symbol represents.

    Baptism includes literal water, but it represents salvation.

    The Lord's Supper has literal bread, but it represents Jesus' body that was broken for us.

    The work week has literal days, but it represents God's work in creation.

    The Sabbath is a literal day, but it represents God's rest that is ongoing.

    Scripture often equates a symbol with what it represents in the process of establishing the symbol. For example, baptism is equated with salvation (1 Peter 3:20), the bread of the Lord's supper with Jesus' body (Matthew 26:26), and the six days of creation with the work week (Exodus 20:11) and God's rest with the Sabbath (Exodus 31:17). These passages need not imply salvific baptism, real presence, or young-earth creationism. That is only the consequence of taking them in a way that ignores their symbolism.

    The length of the work week is no more equal to the length of creation than the substance of communion bread is equal to the substance of Jesus' body. Symbols and what they point to are not the same thing.
     
  13. yeshua4me2

    yeshua4me2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    So mercury God Lied, hebrew does has different syntax when it is figurative, just write any hebrew scolar and have them translate and explain. the writting style in Genesis is historic narrative, not figurative or poetic.
     
  14. yeshua4me2

    yeshua4me2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    historic narrative just like the rest of the book.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,976
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is no symbolism concerning the origin of man but explicit language.

    According to the Scripture man came out of the "dust of the ground" (or the soil), created in the image of God, created male and female.

    There is no hint in Scripture that they had their origin from one of the other created beings. They were sexual from the beginning not asexual. They were take from the soil and not the sea.

    All this given in explicit langauge and contrary to the theory of evolution.

    To me, the TE attempt to meld evolutionary theories of the origin of man with the scriptural account is a clear case of eisogesis which breaks down in several other places in the Bible when Scripture is compared to Scripture as has been shown.

    HankD
     
  16. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    fur shizzle. heretics, every last one of em yo.
     
  17. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Guys,

    The figurative nature of Genesis 1-11 (as posited by the theistic evolutionist) cannot be discerned by examination of syntax.

    Genesis 1-11 is literal narrative, that's for sure.

    The question is whether this narrative designed to be a historically factual account or a theological epic.

    I favor the latter.
     
  18. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus favored the former.
     
  19. yeshua4me2

    yeshua4me2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, God did not lie. If you are aware of this principle about Hebrew syntax indicating figurative language, I'm sure you can explain it yourself. Let's take two verses:

    Isaiah 55:12: "For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."

    Isaiah 65:25: " 'The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,' says the LORD."

    Do you see symbolism in either of these verses? If so, how does the Hebrew syntax reveal it?
     
Loading...