HumbleThinker

The problem here is that John 1:8 isn't talking about Jesus. It is talking about John the Baptist. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. Joh 1:6-8 So your position is based ona mishandling of the text. That's what happens when you quote verses while ignoring their context. That's part of the rules of hermeneutics that you keep trying redefine or ignore. Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate while on earth? I am not asking you if He was the Son of God. I am asking you if you believe that Jesus was God and was co-existent with the Father before the earth was made. We're clearly miscommunicating because I never said it was about Jesus. Verse 4 clearly states it's talking about John. If I were to say it were talking about Jesus, then this would be a completely different thread arguing against the Trinity. But I can see why you wold think that I thought it was talking about Jesus given that he was the closest male to the "he" at the beginning of verse 8 in my post. I was simply trying to compare John testifying about but not being the Light with the Bible containing the Word but not being the Word. Sorry for any confusion. Okay, that's cool thanks for clearing that up. But do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate? Yes, and I'm presuming by implication you are asking if I believe in the Trinity, which is also yes.

I can't answer that question because humans are by taxonomic definition apes. Are you asking why there are no, say, Neanderthals or more ancient humans still around? If so, it's because they went extinct like more than 99% of all species that have ever existed have. And they went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment enough to reproduce more of their species than were dying generally speaking. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, it is because I am not sure how to parse them. If you feel I have not addressed one or more of them, please try to rephrase and I will try to answer them next time. Evolution is a slow gradual process that takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. It's believed that the Great Flood took place a little over 4300 years ago. The human population went from 8 people to 7 billion people in just a little over 4 thousand years. Why couldn't our supposed ancestors accomplish that feat in the countless millions of years prior to the flood? The apes survived but our ancestors didn't. You don't find that odd? Evolution is a constantly happening process. How much time some result of evolution takes depends on what exactly you are talking about and what type of organism you are talking about. It will, for example, likely take longer for a large mammal to speciate than for a large mammal to evolve some novel or modified phenotype or for a small insect to speciate. There is no genetic bottle neck that would be anticipated if the vast majority of the human population were wiped out a few thousand years ago, so that really doesn't affect anything. And evolution nor life is bound by your belief in what they should have done. They were the fittest in their niche until another population became better and wiped them out or their niche changed and they weren't able to adapt. That's all that matters.

I can't answer that question because humans are by taxonomic definition apes. Are you asking why there are no, say, Neanderthals or more ancient humans still around? If so, it's because they went extinct like more than 99% of all species that have ever existed have. And they went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment enough to reproduce more of their species than were dying generally speaking. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, it is because I am not sure how to parse them. If you feel I have not addressed one or more of them, please try to rephrase and I will try to answer them next time. How is it the common ape has survived, and a human being has survived, but something in between could not adapt? That makes no logical sense to me. What about it doesn't make sense? I don't know how to answer that question because I see no connection between a species being between two existing species and its survival or extinction. Why are more than 99% of all species that have ever existed extinct? I'm not sure what you are expecting.

Thanks for the clarification. You are correct that we do not see this, but evolution does not predict that we would. As for your dogs, offspring will be different from their parents whether their parents mate with another species of dog or not because reproduction is an imperfect process, genetically speaking. Humans have IIRC ~60 mutations that their parents did not have and we only produce off spring when mating with other humans. Other animals are the same way, though their mutation rates are of course different. New species, which are nearly identical to their closest ancestors, branch off as populations become isolated and develop exclusive or nearly exclusive gene pools. Ring species are brilliant examples speciation in action as you can see populations slowly becoming modified, become partially or entirely isolated, then eventually have the population on one end of the ring become so differentiated that it can no longer mate with the population on the other side of the ring, thus resulting in a new species. This is despite most or all of the populations BUT the two ends being able to interbreed perfectly fine. Thus new species do not form from their direct ancestors, but from their more distant ones when a population becomes unable or unwilling to interbreed with one of its ancestral populations.

The problem here is that John 1:8 isn't talking about Jesus. It is talking about John the Baptist. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. Joh 1:6-8 So your position is based ona mishandling of the text. That's what happens when you quote verses while ignoring their context. That's part of the rules of hermeneutics that you keep trying redefine or ignore. Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate while on earth? I am not asking you if He was the Son of God. I am asking you if you believe that Jesus was God and was co-existent with the Father before the earth was made. We're clearly miscommunicating because I never said it was about Jesus. Verse 4 clearly states it's talking about John. If I were to say it were talking about Jesus, then this would be a completely different thread arguing against the Trinity. But I can see why you wold think that I thought it was talking about Jesus given that he was the closest male to the "he" at the beginning of verse 8 in my post. I was simply trying to compare John testifying about but not being the Light with the Bible containing the Word but not being the Word. Sorry for any confusion.

Good question that I will answer in two parts. First, I do not feel the need to make the Bible the Word of God for it to be all the things people, particularly enoob57, are rightly claiming it to be. It is what it is, and no matter what it is, it is still the primary way of knowing about God, His spiritual works, and His spiritual purposes for us. It contains the words of God spoken directly to others and through His prophets and is profitable in many respects as it claims to be. Being the Word of God or not doesn't change this. I see. You do not accept it as if God Himself wrote it, which we know He did not, but moved men to write it by the Holy Spirit. Do you see it as "second hand information"? More precisely, I don't accept it as if it were that which was with God and was God in the beginning and became flesh in Jesus Christ. I guess I can see where second hand information might be acceptable, but it certainly wouldn't be my choice of words. I see nothing wrong with it simply being a text written by men who were inspired by God to testify to various spiritual truths to fulfill God's spiritual purpose because He so loved the world, etc. etc. Even Satan knows God is real. That is a very dangerous place to be in, not knowing if you are saved, just taking a chance. You need to make scripture personal to your walk in Him and not depend so much on your own understanding ... Proverbs 3:5-6 Everything has an element of chance in it. In terms of absolute objective certainty, no I don't know that I'm saved. But a relationship with God, like religion in general, isn't objective but subjective. It is a personal matter. And my personal, subjective experience grants my 100% confidence that I am saved. The only problem with invoking Proverbs 3:5 here is that in practical terms, it really only works in a vacuum, if I am the only person on the planet. But I'm not, and to communicate and receive guidance from others, including priests, requires that I be influenced by their understanding. So from my experience, the Proverb is absolutely true, but is more often than not misused so that someone subtly makes you depend on THEIR understanding instead of your own and most definitely instead of God's. You see what I mean?

I believe this too, but what do the prophecies being divine in origin have to do with the Bible being the Word of God. Perhaps we are using the term differently? More on that below I'm sure. When you say "The Bible is not the Word of God." What do you mean? That the Bible is not literally God speaking to people? That the Bible was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? When i say the Bible is the Word of God I mean it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible words of God through various authors to humanity. It is how God reveals Himself. And I think this semantic difference is indeed what is causing us to disagree. You seem to be generally using the all-encompassing placeholder usage of the phrase that I spoke about in the last post. When I say Word of God, I mean what John spoke of in the opening chapters of his Gospel. That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word. The Bible is clearly none of these things despite being most or all of what you have been saying in the last two posts, which is why I think calling it the Word of God can be problematic even though it is a longstanding tradition. As you seemed to observe, I believe semantics is about all we disagree on as it pertains to this topic.

How convenient that you are redefining Darwinian evolution because you can't prove Darwinian evolution, thereby loading the dice of this discussion before it even begins. Besides the fact that evolution has evolved, pun intended, far past Darwin (read up on the modern synthesis), the accepted scientific definition of evolution since the days of Darwin has been change in allele frequencies in a population ... My 2006 Merriam-Webster states otherwise. Evolution: "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are decended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that occured over many generations". To say that evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies is to redefine the concept so as to prove it to your own satisfaction; not only do I find this self-serving, IMO, it's also intellectualy dishonest. Merriam-Webster isn't a scientific dictionary. Go to scientists if you wish to know about and argue against science. Everything else will inevitably be a strawman.

I can't answer that question because humans are by taxonomic definition apes. Are you asking why there are no, say, Neanderthals or more ancient humans still around? If so, it's because they went extinct like more than 99% of all species that have ever existed have. And they went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment enough to reproduce more of their species than were dying generally speaking. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, it is because I am not sure how to parse them. If you feel I have not addressed one or more of them, please try to rephrase and I will try to answer them next time.

This is a great question and represents a common misconception. Evolution is not an organism or population of organisms physically changing into another. The technical term for what evolution achieves is called "branching." Like the branches of a tree, (though modern evolutionary explanations tend to use the idea of a bush to avoid confusion but I'm sure you'll get the idea) the former branch does not cease to exist just because it produces another branch. In the same way, a population branches off of an ancestral population. If an isolation mechanism comes between these two populations, they will eventually be unable and/or unwilling to produce fertile hybrids with each other. This is called speciation. The only reason an ancestral population would disappear is if they could no longer survive in their environment because another population (sometimes the very population that branched off from them) were more fit within that population's niche. This is a bit of an overview, but do you get the basic idea I'm trying to convey. If not, let me know what is still unclear and I will try to do a better job next time or link to sites that will do a better job. Now I'm assuming you are asking this in good faith and thus care about accuracy here, but if you don't, please give me the courtesy of letting me know so I can just go back to ignoring you. There are all kinds of problems here. First of all, tree branches don't form completely different things. If you have an apple tree, the branches are all apple tree branches. Second, the Bible doesn't change. It remains constant. The fact evolution has to change shows there are problems with it. There is nothing convincing that shows one type of animal ever changed into another completely different species of animal. Since there is no convincing evidence this has ever happened, there is no reason for anyone to believe in evolution over the Genesis account of creation. I am well aware of the shortcomings of the analogy, but am happy you picked it up. That being said, it is not as drastic as you may think. Organisms do not "form completely different things" either. One population will only be slightly different from its most recent ancestors and very possibly only at the genetic level as opposed to the anatomical level. This slight difference between tree branches and populations of evolving organisms is due to the latter arising through reproduction as opposed to simply growing from the same organism. I'm not sure what your Bible/Creation comparison about change is supposed to mean. It certainly has no scientific meaning, so I can only assume it is trying to make a philosophical point, which doesn't have any impact on the scientific validity of evolution. And please define one type of animal changing into another type. Depending on your definition, this statement is either correct or false.

Without God, how can life even come to be formed? It neither requires "that everything must happen by chance" nor that "every link in the very long complex chain has to be proven." Natural selection, for instance, is not based on chance while random mutation and neutral drift are. And the latter simply isn't how science or any other form of investigation works. Also a couple of nitpicks with your word choice. First, science doesn't prove anything since it is an inductive form of reasoning; it can only find a claim relatively certain or uncertain based on physical evidence. Second, evolution as fact is that allele frequencies in a population change over time, which is easily seen in as little as a single generation. A simple example is the ratio of black colored bears to white colored bears increasing, which will naturally lead to the ratio of white bears to black bears decreasing. The theory of evolution is the proposed mechanisms that explain that. Simply offering an unfalsifiable, untestable alternative that requires us to invoke an omnipotent, scientifically unevidenced diety does not affect evolution in the slightest. Again this is not how science works, particularly the notion of parsimony. What is effectively magic is always less parsimonious than natural processes. Also, your quoted section makes no scientific sense, much less evolutionary sense. You will have to parse it for me. Thanks for the reply!

I believe this, but why does this require the Bible to be the Word of God. I believe this too, but what do the prophecies being divine in origin have to do with the Bible being the Word of God. Perhaps we are using the term differently? More on that below I'm sure. And the Bible has transformed me as well. It contains the Gospel, the power of God unto salvation. But that doesn't mean that the Bible is the Gospel. Similarly, the Bible contains the words of God, but that doesn't make it the Word of God as these are two distinct concepts. Similarly, World War Z the book is not a zombie apocalypse or the testimonies of various people about the zombie apocalypse, but it does contain those things. Because it could take up an entire thread, I'd rather not comment on this. When I get back, I'll make another thread on the scientific accuracy of the Bible. But as with the others, if the Bible is scientifically accurate, what does this have to do with it being the Word of God or not? We can attest to this without calling the Bible the Word of God. It is indeed profitable, but, for instance, it was not there in the beginning with God and it certainly is not God. The only thing physical the Word ever became was Christ when it became flesh. It didn't become ink and paper. I don't see not calling the Bible the Word of God as diminishing its importance or influence. I consider it as spiritually containing the Word of God in the same sense that the communion bread and wine are spiritually the body and blood of Christ, and I consider it as physically containing a written record of the words of God. When I hear others, and even myself, say that the Bible is the Word of God, it sounds like the phrase "Word of God" is being used as a placeholder for the litany of things people correctly and incorrectly believe about the Bible, which can be summed up in the general claim that it is authoritative. The problem I see with that if it is an accurate depiction is that the phrase "Word of God" already has a distinct meaning of its own, so using it as a placeholder would be inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) defining the Bible in ways that it clearly does not meet. Thanks for the reply and hope for further discussion.

Good question that I will answer in two parts. First, I do not feel the need to make the Bible the Word of God for it to be all the things people, particularly enoob57, are rightly claiming it to be. It is what it is, and no matter what it is, it is still the primary way of knowing about God, His spiritual works, and His spiritual purposes for us. It contains the words of God spoken directly to others and through His prophets and is profitable in many respects as it claims to be. Being the Word of God or not doesn't change this. Second, I have for a long time found no need for 100% certainty, even in faith, and have found it fraught with problems. What I have, though, is 100% confidence that God exists, that we have a relationship, and that Christ is my Lord and Savior. Confidence is what is important because that, not certainty, is what leads to perseverance and a deeper relationship with God. I found that it leads me away from the still waters, while God was leading me towards them. So yes, this entire relationship of mine can be a huge case of self-delusion and taking an ancient religious text a little too seriously, but that's a risk I'm willing to take and I am 100% confident that I am not mistaken on this point.

"Evolutionists do give evidence, but it is not convincing to me." Please keep repeating that to any creationists you may know, for many will loudly proclaim that there is no evidence for evolution. They seem to think that they cannot claim the latter without denying the former. And even though I'm sure you are talking about relative certainties just to juxtapose your position against my own, I am happy to understand your position in this manner even if I disagree with the likelihoods you have attributed to the two claims. We can talk about the idea of a missing link in another thread, which I think we may have started at one point but can't remember, but I am glad to understand your position.

This is a great question and represents a common misconception. Evolution is not an organism or population of organisms physically changing into another. The technical term for what evolution achieves is called "branching." Like the branches of a tree, (though modern evolutionary explanations tend to use the idea of a bush to avoid confusion but I'm sure you'll get the idea) the former branch does not cease to exist just because it produces another branch. In the same way, a population branches off of an ancestral population. If an isolation mechanism comes between these two populations, they will eventually be unable and/or unwilling to produce fertile hybrids with each other. This is called speciation. The only reason an ancestral population would disappear is if they could no longer survive in their environment because another population (sometimes the very population that branched off from them) were more fit within that population's niche. This is a bit of an overview, but do you get the basic idea I'm trying to convey. If not, let me know what is still unclear and I will try to do a better job next time or link to sites that will do a better job. Now I'm assuming you are asking this in good faith and thus care about accuracy here, but if you don't, please give me the courtesy of letting me know so I can just go back to ignoring you.

How convenient that you are redefining Darwinian evolution because you can't prove Darwinian evolution, thereby loading the dice of this discussion before it even begins. Besides the fact that evolution has evolved, pun intended, far past Darwin (read up on the modern synthesis), the accepted scientific definition of evolution since the days of Darwin has been change in allele frequencies in a population over time sans the talk of genetics that he only postulated and we didn't connect to evolution until we rediscovered Mendelian genetics. That is exactly what Darwin observed. His theory of evolution is his proposed mechanisms for how this phenomenon occurs. This is common knowledge that can be found anywhere with Google or a college enrollment that gives you access to scientific journal databases. For instance, from the National Academy of Sciences, which is the cohort of the most elite scientists in the country, evolution is defined as "changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms," which is another way of saying exactly what I said. Arguing against anything else is arguing against a strawman.

~ The For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. John 3:34 Musings He hath said, which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. Numbers 24:16-17 Of The Son For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18 Of God And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 See? Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11 Again, this says the Bible is the word of God where? You still are saying "because of X, the Bible must therefore be God's Word."

Thanks for your thoughts! Indeed it is a fine line, but one I have freely chosen to walk and one I suspect will not be as fine as many think when all is said and done.Would it be much easier to pick one and disregard the other? Of course, but understanding Scripture and Creation are both important to me in my relationship with God. Plus history is on my side that Christians throughout the Church's history have been quite devout while still being scientific or at least recognizing nature as a work of God and mode of revelation about Him and His works. God is my firm foundation, so He grants me the strength and light necessary to find my way through the fog instead of just sitting within it hoping that it will pass. I don't find doctrine to be of any help in this matter, so the difficulty in working out which doctrines to accept, which to toss out, and which to modify appears manageable and ultimately fruitful. God Himself says that "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart" in the OT and "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you" in the NT. All of your points are great and are unfortunately the cause of many to either leave the faith or throw up their hands and settle for a very shallow faith. There are certain measures we can take to weed out the people who obviously have not received revelation from the Holy Spirit, such as by following 1 John 4 (By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God...whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.) or Matthew 7 (You will know them by their fruits). But it becomes more difficult when good-hearted honest Christians genuinely believe that they have understood certain things correctly and that the Holy Spirit has granted this understanding to them. From my experience, we all have to find our own solution to this situation because of its very personal nature. I've found that throwing away the idea of 100% certainty and while retaining 100% confidence in one's views (and 110% confidence in God of course ) helps. Needing 100% certainty only invites unhealthy amounts of doubt that one then feels the compulsion to cover up with a false facade of certainty and lash out at anything that is honest in not providing 100% certainty. Leaving aside the idea of 100% certainty leaves room for a healthy amount of doubt that works against hubris and supports humility. Ultimately, you have to have confidence that God has or will be found if you seek Him with all your heart, mind, and strength and figure out for yourself how best to fulfill the call in 1 John 4 to "not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God." And in closing a quote from Augustine: "In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.”

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical. As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea? I will give you another scripture that shows Adam and Eve were real people. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 says the following: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the trangression. I have brought this up before. This makes no logical sense if Adam and Eve were not real people, and if you don't accept that the story of eating the forbidden fruit was true. Why do I need absolute proof for evolution when Genesis cannot be proved? Because you are asking me to reject things I already believe. You are asking me to go from the most logical interpretation of Genesis to accept something that makes little or no sense to me. You want me to do that based on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, not proof. This verse only makes sense if Adam and Eve were historical figures or if he is using a common psuedo-historical reference within his culture to make a point about the role of women. And even if he took it as historical, us taking it or not taking it as historical does not change the point he is making. In the same manner, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree teaches us to tell the truth no matter what whether the event actually happened or not, which it didn't. Now barring any knowledge about God's Creation, the most likely understanding to be taken away is likely that Adam and Eve were historical figures. But with the knowledge we have of God's Creation, which cannot simply be ignored just because it challenges our beliefs, the historiocity of Adam and Eve can be put in doubt though not altogether excluded. Thus I take the skeptical position of not siding with either position definitively. And our beliefs are not based on absolute proof, so it is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to demand that absolute proof be given to disprove them. Besides, if it is a choice between my beliefs and what an act of God is clearly showing me, I'll take the thing that has God as it's author and not my own mind. So I hope you can equally see why I demand such a high degree of certainty, to the point of requiring necessity or near necessity, for a Biblical interpretation that explicitly or implicitly makes natural claims about Creation when it goes against a clear understanding of God's Creation. But it doesn't go against a clear understanding of God's creation. The evolutionists haven't come close to giving us that kind of evidence. There is nothing hypocrtical in demanding proof before I will change my point of view. I would expect it would be just as hard to convince you evolution is wrong and the Genesis account of creation is correct? I would expect that you would require close to absolute proof to change your mind because you have all but made up your mind, so why should I be any different? You can claim it is not convincing to you. That is more than fine. But please don't pretend like there is not a plethora of evidence given, some of it easily understandable and some of it more complex. Whether you accept it or not, this site has reams of evidence for evolution from many independent lines. So you can say that it is not convincing to you, but that is not what makes it scientifically valid and supported or not. The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields who have not signed a Statement of Faith that explicitly makes them go against the ethics of their job as a scientist by intentionally forcing data to meet their a priori conclusion accept that evolution is scientific. Even some creationists accept that evolution is scientific, but still believe that creationism is the ultimately correct because of their interpretation of the Bible and are actively searching for ways to support this outside of the Bible. These creationists recognize things as they are, so even if they do not correctly accept evolution, they at least are not committing the error of misrepresentation. I've noticed that the people who speak the loudest that evolution is not scientifically valid are the one's least able to actually interact with the evidence? Does that include you? If not not, there is a thread talking about the evidence for evolution where you can either begin talking about the nested hierarchy within the GULOP gene or you can bring up another piece that scientists hold up as evidence that you wish to discuss. And what I expect to change my mind is greater certainty that Genesis must be interpreted as historical truth than there is that Creation must be interpreted as revealing that it is billions of years old and that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life. So if (and these numbers are arbitrary) Creation reveals with 90% certainty that it is old and evolution is accurate, while the Bible only reveals a 60% certainty that Genesis should be taken literally, then I'm going to go with Creation.

I gave you a complete answer in the Job account- the hearing from God and God had it written down inHis Law and Jesus using it to overcome the wiles of satan... I believe by your response you flushed that God's Word is just that 'HIS' to lead us to His Son. That pretty much concluded the begin, middle, and end of His Word as to what is His Word demonstrated by The Word... The fact that it is demonstrated in one place in God's Word then it is true in all places of His Word! Thanks for your replies. Love, Steven And none disputed that, but that doesn't make it the Word of God. It makes it that which was written down and used by Jesus to overcome the wiles of Satan. You have not yet justified why this fact should then make us take the leap to calling the Bible the Word of God. The Bible doesn't need to be the Word of God for the former fact to be true or meaningful. And speaking of flushing, you've side stepped many of my questions, such as does the Torah melt ice, can God's Word be burned and ripped to pieces like the Bible can, why do you essentially promote a form of transubstantiation, etc. So you can fell this way if you wish, but I have pointed out why your points are not supporting this position as you claim they do, while you have not weighed in on many or most of my points. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is God's Word. It is you who are saying "because of X, the Bible must therefore be God's Word." But again, the Bible does not justify this; only the musings of men's minds do.

No, we are left with the Bible AND Creation. Why do you disqualify a work of God? You also seem to be implying that your opinion of the Bible is magically more authoritative than than another's opinion of Creation. Why is this so? I cannot disappoint paper and ink. I cannot disappoint people I've never met. And the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields accept evolution, so even if I was going to care, I would certainly care about the larger group. I would like your opinion because I seek discussion and I want fellow Christians to be accurate whether they deny evolution or not. If they are going to deny evolution, they should at least be as honest as Todd Wood: "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)" And you've ignored addressing the phenomenon at hand. Again, which parts would you like explained so that you are equipped to actually discuss it and rebuke it if you can instead of using false and/or oversimplified arguments against it that don't reflect the reality of evolution? If all you can present is strawmen, your argument has failed before it has even begun. If you are not arguing against the thing you claim to be arguing against, but instead are arguing against strawmen of it, then you are just boxing the air and look foolish. As Proverbs 18:2 says, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." So take pleasure in understanding that which you wish to destroy, instead of just giving your uninformed opinion on it that you are just borrowing from someone else's uninformed opinion. Actually know what scientists say about evolution so that if you still wish to argue against them, you will actually be doing so.

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical. As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea? I will give you another scripture that shows Adam and Eve were real people. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 says the following: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the trangression. I have brought this up before. This makes no logical sense if Adam and Eve were not real people, and if you don't accept that the story of eating the forbidden fruit was true. Why do I need absolute proof for evolution when Genesis cannot be proved? Because you are asking me to reject things I already believe. You are asking me to go from the most logical interpretation of Genesis to accept something that makes little or no sense to me. You want me to do that based on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, not proof. This verse only makes sense if Adam and Eve were historical figures or if he is using a common psuedo-historical reference within his culture to make a point about the role of women. And even if he took it as historical, us taking it or not taking it as historical does not change the point he is making. In the same manner, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree teaches us to tell the truth no matter what whether the event actually happened or not, which it didn't. Now barring any knowledge about God's Creation, the most likely understanding to be taken away is likely that Adam and Eve were historical figures. But with the knowledge we have of God's Creation, which cannot simply be ignored just because it challenges our beliefs, the historiocity of Adam and Eve can be put in doubt though not altogether excluded. Thus I take the skeptical position of not siding with either position definitively. And our beliefs are not based on absolute proof, so it is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to demand that absolute proof be given to disprove them. Besides, if it is a choice between my beliefs and what an act of God is clearly showing me, I'll take the thing that has God as it's author and not my own mind. So I hope you can equally see why I demand such a high degree of certainty, to the point of requiring necessity or near necessity, for a Biblical interpretation that explicitly or implicitly makes natural claims about Creation when it goes against a clear understanding of God's Creation.

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves No, what I said and what you said are two different aspects. When one studies or ponders on the Word, seeking God for the Truth in that scripture, the Holy Spirit reveals revelation knowledge to you, in the quiet, still part of your spirit. There was nothing on your mind other than raking a pile of leaves and HE spoke the Word of Truth in your heart. you seem to say we have to dig through this until we can make somekind of logical sense of this. Leaning to your own understanding, which is the way of the flesh. You haven't waited on HIM to speak at all, because you keep being bigger than God. That is individual choice but man you are robbing yourself when you do. God Bless I think you may have mistook a response to another poster as a response to you. Or you quoted the wrong post, so I'm not sure how to address your post.

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves No, what I said and what you said are two different aspects. When one studies or ponders on the Word, seeking God for the Truth in that scripture, the Holy Spirit reveals revelation knowledge to you, in the quiet, still part of your spirit. There was nothing on your mind other than raking a pile of leaves and HE spoke the Word of Truth in your heart. you seem to say we have to dig through this until we can make somekind of logical sense of this. Leaning to your own understanding, which is the way of the flesh. You haven't waited on HIM to speak at all, because you keep being bigger than God. That is individual choice but man you are robbing yourself when you do. God Bless So you do think that God directly reveals the correct interpretation of Scripture to us, thereby making hermeneutics pointless in arriving at the correct interpretation of Scripture? Because you seemed to be disagreeing with this earlier. The Spirit is satisfied in my Heart with what has been given you... and you will not see it!It is not me that will answer for what you reject of what God Says; oh wait you don't know if it's God's Word even if has said so by speaking it, writing it, or even using it. Love, Steven You presume I do not see what you are saying because I point out you are not answering my questions and that I am not agreeing with you. You gave Scriptures you claimed showed the Bible is the Word of God, I pointed out that they did not say what you claimed and asked for clarification, then you started talking about things that neither answered my questions nor were furthering your point that the Bible claims the Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible does not say this, then there is no reason to claim it. The Bible does not need you to do this to make it look better. But if you believe it despite the lack of rationale from the Bible, then just say so. The actual wrong would be misrepresenting Scripture, not believing in a doctrine that is not explicitly endorsed by Scripture. Avoidance does not make you right and myself wrong.

We don't know any such thing. Have a credible scientific paper to back this up instead of just a creationist site's opinion? Since we are talking about science, personal opinions of others, particularly non-scientists or scientists in irrelevant fields to evolution who thus have no expertise to make such a proclamation is not relevant. Also, we should actually speak of the subject at hand before trying to address other topics, for your reference still does not address the phenomenon of the nested hierarchy in the mutations in the GULOP gene. Vague notions of "common similarities" drastically oversimplifies the phenomenon, so just addressing this vaguery does not actually address the nested hierarchy in the mutations of the GULOP gene. So what about this issue would you like explained in more detail because it seems that you have nothing but an oversimplified understanding of it.