Origin Science

[~candice~]

,,,

Was that a typo? I was looking forward to discussing this with you. God bless.

[Byron A]

Evolution is predicated on a wholly naturalistic worldview that exludes God entirely, via Natural Selection. The theory of Evolution precludes God from the issue of origins either directlly or indirectly. It holds that life has evolved through an unguided, impersonal, naturalistic process known as natural selection.

The Bible says that Creation is the product of a personal, supernatural, all-knowing Creator who guides, plans and sustains His Creation. Evolution and the Bible are fundamentally incompatible and fundamentally contradictory.

You either don't understand the theory of Evolution or you don't understand the Bible, or both. It is also glaringly apparent that you have no grasp on hermeneutics (literary analysis) and how it works.

Evolution is really nothing but a modern form of idolatry, as its proponents seek to replace God with Natural Selection. You can read 50 chapters of the Bible a day, but if you reject and pervert what your read (as you do with Genesis 1 and 2), then your efforts are for nothing.

You can believe the Bible OR you can believe in Evolution, but you cannot have both.

What you describe here is naturalistic evolution, aka atheistic evolution. I believe bringing together science and faith can complement each other. Faith describes the who and the why of the act of creation (who did it? God. Why? In order to have fellowship with us.) and science can explain the how. Not all evolutionists are naturalistic. There are many scientists who are theistic evolutionists, as well as many very spiritual Christians. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

[Byron A]

Byron, while I disagree with your interpretation of Gen 1-2, I do agree that we must be careful when stating that people cannot be genuine believers and evolutionists at the same time. Your stance on creation is not salvational. It does however, give a pretty good indication on the manner in which you approach bible study, interpretation, and the value/attributes of the Word. To me, this is more of interest than the position you end up taking in the creation / evolution debate. Can you please elaborate on how you view the Word? Perhaps this might be better suited in a different thread but I thought I'd get it out there where you might read it. God bless, Candice.

That sounds like a very delightful topic to discuss. Perhaps I will start a conversation about it this evening after I get off work. For now, however, I will simply give a summation of my beliefs and go more in depth in another topic. I don't want to go too far off topic, you know!

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. However, I do not believe that it was meant as a scientific textbook. The Bible makes use of metaphors, allegories, and symbolism all the time. Some are clear examples, such as Jesus' parables, the book of Revelation, and certain parts of the book of Daniel. Others are not so clear, such as Genesis.

Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

Well, that should be a good day and God bless!

[Fez]

Byron, while I disagree with your interpretation of Gen 1-2, I do agree that we must be careful when stating that people cannot be genuine believers and evolutionists at the same time. Your stance on creation is not salvational. It does however, give a pretty good indication on the manner in which you approach bible study, interpretation, and the value/attributes of the Word. To me, this is more of interest than the position you end up taking in the creation / evolution debate. Can you please elaborate on how you view the Word? Perhaps this might be better suited in a different thread but I thought I'd get it out there where you might read it. God bless, Candice.

That sounds like a very delightful topic to discuss. Perhaps I will start a conversation about it this evening after I get off work. For now, however, I will simply give a summation of my beliefs and go more in depth in another topic. I don't want to go too far off topic, you know!

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. However, I do not believe that it was meant as a scientific textbook. The Bible makes use of metaphors, allegories, and symbolism all the time. Some are clear examples, such as Jesus' parables, the book of Revelation, and certain parts of the book of Daniel. Others are not so clear, such as Genesis.

Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

Well, that should be a good day and God bless!

Others are not so clear, such as Genesis.

You may not find it clear, while others do. Maybe sticking around here for a while will make it clearer for you?

[~candice~]

Byron, while I disagree with your interpretation of Gen 1-2, I do agree that we must be careful when stating that people cannot be genuine believers and evolutionists at the same time. Your stance on creation is not salvational. It does however, give a pretty good indication on the manner in which you approach bible study, interpretation, and the value/attributes of the Word. To me, this is more of interest than the position you end up taking in the creation / evolution debate. Can you please elaborate on how you view the Word? Perhaps this might be better suited in a different thread but I thought I'd get it out there where you might read it. God bless, Candice.

That sounds like a very delightful topic to discuss. Perhaps I will start a conversation about it this evening after I get off work. For now, however, I will simply give a summation of my beliefs and go more in depth in another topic. I don't want to go too far off topic, you know!

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. However, I do not believe that it was meant as a scientific textbook. The Bible makes use of metaphors, allegories, and symbolism all the time. Some are clear examples, such as Jesus' parables, the book of Revelation, and certain parts of the book of Daniel. Others are not so clear, such as Genesis.

Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

Well, that should be a good day and God bless!

I agree, it is not a science textbook and should not be read as such. Now come over to the fundie side or I'll thwack you over the head with a real science textbook .

[Guest shiloh357]

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. However, I do not believe that it was meant as a scientific textbook.

That is true, the Bibile is not a book of science.

The Bible makes use of metaphors, allegories, and symbolism all the time. Some are clear examples, such as Jesus' parables, the book of Revelation, and certain parts of the book of Daniel. Others are not so clear, such as Genesis.

The reason that some occurances of are clear is because the text of Scripture always indicates to you when it is employing figurative devices.

The argument that Genesis is an allegory or metaphor is an argument that is not textually based because the text does not indicate the use of such devices. The reader of the text does not have the right to decide when an author is being figurative or not. The reader does not have the right to say, "I believe this story is metaphorical. It is up to the author to indicate such literary devices. It is the duty of the reader to let the author communicate his/her intent and to let the author indicate when a figurative device is employed.

Genesis employs NO figurative devices in the Genesis account of creation. The text does not allow for a reader to make the text figurative. The account is written in concrete terms and is written from an observation view point. Furthermore, if you are going to argue that the text is metaphorical, allegorical, or whatever, the onus is on YOU to prove that indicators of such literary devices are in the text and that the biblical authors of the Old and New Testament agree with you that the text is figurative. In other words, since you are making a textual argument, you must defend that argument on a textual basis and prove from the internal textual evidence that your claim bears intellectual, historical and textual merit

Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

Well, of course. You accept as literal the parts of the Bible that are important to you and that you want to be true.

Here is the problem with that... If the Bible is allegorical or metaphorical in terms of how man God here, if it cannot be trusted as a accurate source for understanding the origin of man, then on what grounds does it suddenly become an accurate source for understanding man's sin and need for salvation?

If the creation account is just metaphorical or allegorical, then Adam and Eve were just mythical individuals who didn't really exist and if that were the case, man did not fall in the Garden. The fall of man would have to be have been an allegory for something else and man did not REALLY incur a penalty for sin and none of us could possibly be sinners because after all, Adam and Eve were just an allegorical man and woman who didn't really exist.

If that is the case, then we are not really made in God's image, and mankind is not really in need of a Savior since we cannot possibly be sinners if Adam and Eve were just mythical, non-existent characters in allegorical story that has no basis in genuine history. Therefore, the death of Jesus was pointless (if it really occured at all). And believing in Jesus and heaven and ascension of Christ is pointless because they probably didn't happen either. Maybe the ascension of Jesus was just an allegory for something else as well. Maybe the resurrection of Jesus was just allegory. Your approach to the Bible logically unravels everything.

What you describe here is naturalistic evolution, aka atheistic evolution.

Uh, there is only one version of the theory of Evolution, Byron. Natural Selection is workhorse of that theory. You are either not being honest about the theory, or you simply don't know much about Evolution. Evolution contradicts the nature and character of God. God's own divine attributes preclude the possibility of God using Evolution as a creative method.

I believe bringing together science and faith can complement each other.

I believe that they can complement each other as well. The problem is that the theory of Evolution is predicated on an entirely naturalistic, impersonal process.

The theory of evolution teaches that man is the offspring of an ancient ancestor from which the apes also branch off of. That ancestor, is the product of millions and millions of years evolution. The Bible teaches that man is created directly from the dust of the earth, separate from the rest of the created order and was made in God's image. Those two views are irreconcilable.

Faith describes the who and the why of the act of creation (who did it? God. Why? In order to have fellowship with us.) and science can explain the how.

Actually, science cannot tell us how and is unable to tell us how. Science has several limitations. In fact, there are a lot of things that occur in our universe that science cannot explain.

Not all evolutionists are naturalistic. There are many scientists who are theistic evolutionists, as well as many very spiritual Christians.

All of Evolution IS naturalistic. Without the naturalistic worldview, the theory Evolution ceases to exist. There is no alternative theory of Evolution. You are trying to force Evolution and the Bible together, but that is simply not possible.

Evolution, if it were true, usurps God's authority as Creator, and Sovereign Judge/Lawgiver and Redeemer. You can believe the Bible or you can hold the theory of the Evolution, but the two will not and cannot peacefully inhabit the same space.

Thesitic Evolution is a logical contratidiction. It is as ridiculous as "atheisitic Christianity."

[Guest]

Divine Knowledge

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

So What Is That Knowledge?

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:15-17

So Strongly Worshiped As True Knowledge By Earth Dwellers

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,

being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;

but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22

_____________

_________

______

___

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. However, I do not believe that it was meant as a scientific textbook.

Ah Yes Dear Brother

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

I Believe Science Was Never Meant To Be A Study of The Revelation Of God

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: Psalms 8:3-6

Nor Was It Ever Intended To Model And To Predict His Might And Power

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:

for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Nor Can Science Lay Claim To Be The Way Of Redemption

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,

but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God,

that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory;

that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:18-21

Nor Will Science Excuse Mockers

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said.... ? Genesis 3:1

For God Be True

For what if some did not believe?

shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

And Evolution Is Already

The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4

Judged In The Big Book

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay:

for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?

or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it,

He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Of Jesus

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:

and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

He was in the world,

and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him,

to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)

full of grace and truth. John 1:20-22

And Be Blessed Beloved

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3

Or Not

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life;

but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

Love. Joe

____________

_________

______

___

Divine Knowledge

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved,

what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,

wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved,

and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Nevertheless we, according to his promise,

look for new heavens and a new earth,

wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Wherefore, beloved,

seeing that ye look for such things,

be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 2 Peter 3:11-14

It's What's For Dinner

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

Isn't God Wonderful

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

Wonderful Isn't He

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart,

so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

[Byron A]

Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

May I ask what objective criteria you use in order to decide what is allegorical and what is not?

I only see three possible cases:

- Everything should be taken allegorically

- Everything should be taken literally

- Something should be taken literally and the rest allegorically. But I do not see how to decide apart from

our modern sensitivity or personal, fallible, taste. There is no sign on scriptures that says "the following verse is allegorical".

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Guest shiloh357]

Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

May I ask what objective criteria you use in order to decide what is allegorical and what is not?

I only see three possible cases:

- Everything should be taken allegorically

- Everything should be taken literally

- Something should be taken literally and the rest allegorically. But I do not see how to decide apart from

our modern sensitivity or personal, fallible, taste. There is no sign on scriptures that says "the following verse is allegorical".

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You are being gudied by A spirit...

[Byron A]

Let me also say that I do believe that other parts are meant to be taken literally, such as the majority of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles). I do believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

May I ask what objective criteria you use in order to decide what is allegorical and what is not?

I only see three possible cases:

- Everything should be taken allegorically

- Everything should be taken literally

- Something should be taken literally and the rest allegorically. But I do not see how to decide apart from

our modern sensitivity or personal, fallible, taste. There is no sign on scriptures that says "the following verse is allegorical".

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You are being gudied by A spirit...

And did you receive permission to make that judgement from Him who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged", or was that a judgement your flesh made?