Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Your first point is just completely irrelevant to the discussion. In that case they are talking about events they were  actually involved in.

 

 

My first point is not irrelevant because it speaks to what would have happened had the Bible been written entirely from a human understanding at the time the Bible was written.  I am simply pointing to the fact that the Bible would not look like it does today had it been written according to the conventional human wisdom that existed in the ancient near east at the time the texts of the Bible were being pinned.

 

 

 

Your last response makes no sense. The only way you'd make a statement like that is because you  have no clue as to what I am saying. Atheists have no interest in talking about the manner in which the Bible is inspired by God. If anything they will insist on everyone taking everything in it as historically true so as to make it easier to take shots at you. I am entirely interested in understanding the Bible *as inspired by God*, particularly as it attests to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

Note, I am not questioning the inspiration of the Bible, I am explicitly questioning your understanding of what that entails. Your continual comparison to me to atheists is a red herring at best.

Inspriation by God who doesn't lie or make mistakes  How would you not see the doctrine of inerrancy in that??   That is the only understanding of that term that I am advocating.  I would be interested in seeing how you reconile God being all-knowing and all-powerful yet not smart enough to get his facts straight and not powerful enough to preserve what He inspires.

 

 The comparison is warranted given how similar you present your views.   I am not saying you are an atheist, but had I not known you claim to be a believer, there is not much in your posting to indicate that you are one.

[Mr. Nice Christian]

 

 

Inspriation by God who doesn't lie or make mistakes 

 

 

Agreed.  The word/truth of God does not lie and make mistakes, even if the word/truth is within an allegory.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Mr. Nice Christian

[Guest shiloh357]

While the Bible doesn't give an age, the Bible does give genealogies and the ages of people when they died and when they had children. If it is all literal history, at the very minimum, humanity is less than 10,000 years old, and probably more around 6,000. Bishop Usher is perhaps the most famous scholar for working out a time scale, and he concluded that the universe was created around 4004 BC, which gives us the common 6,000 year age many YECs believe. 

Ussher didn't realilze that most of the genealogies were not complete and several generations were omitted and thus the genealogies were telescoped. 

 

To me it seems the only area of contention is the usage of "yom" for "day" in Genesis 1. While yom can mean an indeterminate period of time, it can just as easily mean a normal day, what we would recognize as a 24-hour day; i.e. the Jewish holiday "Yom Kippur" is translated as "Day of Atonement".and lasts for roughly 24 hours. If you say Genesis 1 has no figurative language, to me it is clear, at the end of every day the Bible states that there was evening and then morning came signaling the next day. Unless you render the days figuratively, I don't see how you can conclude that they are anything other than normal 24-hour days. 

That is true and if we go even futher, Exodus 20 tells us that God created the earth in six days.  How would have been understood by the original hearers?   There is plenty of biblical support for the days being solar 24 hour days.

 

My point to BFA was that OECists hold to a different understanding and believe in longer periods of creation "days" and are not bound to an evolutionary worldview.  It is possible to differ on the length of days without having to surrender to evolution.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Inspriation by God who doesn't lie or make mistakes 

 

 

Agreed.  The word/truth of God does not lie and make mistakes, even if the word/truth is within an allegory.

 

But it isn't allegory, it does have the characteristics  of an allegory and the rest of the Bible treats it as literal history.   So you have no real biblical reason to view it as an allegory. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Exactly right. That's what the opposing side here can't overcome, no matter how hard they try. Whether or not God created us through evolution is ultimately irrelevant to the major issue here: the death and resurrection of Jesus. I don't see why I should torment myself over precisely how God created us (as he could have done it in any way whatsoever) when it does not affect the gospel message or my standing with God. It doesn't affect my ability to read the bible and be guided. It in fact has no primarily important impact that I can see either way.

 

That is exactly wrong.

 

Genesis is directly relevant to the death and resurrection of Jesus.   Why? Because Genesis 1-3 establishes Jesus' authority as our Creator, our Redeemer and our Judge.  Jesus, according to Colossians chapter 1 created the world, and the entire universe.   John 1:1-3 makes the same claim.  Jesus is tied directly to the fall of man in Romans 5:12-21 which makes Jesus directly relevant to Genesis in terms of our redemption from sin.

 

It matters because Evolution in theory is an a wholly naturalistic theory both in terms of a worldview and in terms of the method/process.  It is inherently absent of any intelligent force or impulse. 

 

The theory of Evolution is naturalistic. Creation is supernatural.   The ToE is impersonal, unguided and unplanned.   Creation is the product of a personal God, who planned guided and sustains the universe.  The two could not be more opposite and only ONE of them works within the framework of a biblical worldview.  Only one presents mankind with hope and reason for being here. 

 

Evolution in the sense that we are talking about is a model which explains the current diversity of species on the planet through common ancestry. There is no reason that  couldn't be guided by God on multiple levels. Once again, God could use anything method whatsoever to create us. None of this could possibly interfere with the authority of God over creation. You want to strawman this view to make it easy to knock down, but you aren't spending enough time responding to what we are actually saying.

 

The first problem is that you don't have the right to modify the theory to accomodate a belief in in God.  Either commit to theory or don't try to advocate for it with this kind of nonsense. 

 

Secondly,, Evolution is contrary to the nature and character of God.  It is not an issue of what God can or cannot do.  It is an issue of what God would do based on His own self-disclosure.  God being all knowing and all powerful would not have used Evolution because God creates perfectly and completely.  There is no need for a God who creates perfectly to need a process that is predicated on the imperfection of the created order.

 

The Toe is in principle, opposed to God as the source behind it.  That is  not a strawman, that is fact.  I took to the time to discuss the silliness of Theistic Evolution with acutal evolutionists and they explained why it doesn't work.  These are university professors with advanced degrees is biiology, micro and marine biology.  They know what they are talking about and I will take their word over yours.   While I think they are wrong, at least they are internally consistent.

[Guest shiloh357]

Right. God could also make my plant talk, but doesn't. The issue isn't about what God could do-- which I've said, over and over again. You are either not taking the time to read my responses or willfully ignoring them. That's alright Shiloh, I can keep doing this every day. God could have inspired them such that what they wrote included none of their own wording or conceptions *but I have no reason to think that God did this*. The term 'inspiration' in fact doesn't even suggest that's how it went down.

 

Okay so tell me this.  Which partsof the Bible are  from human understanding/conceptions and which parts are actually what God said?   How do you determine the difference?   I mean the only parts you can really trust are the parts that are directly from God, so how do you know if the part of the Bible you are reading is actually the word of God or the product of human concepts/conceptions?  What is your method for knowing the difference?

 

As for the atheistic content of your posts, all I am saying is that I have seen the same line of reasoning from atheists who were former Christians, denying the inerrancy of the Bible and denying Genesis as written, and just over all lack of any belief in the authority of word of God in your posts. 

[Guest shiloh357]

ToE as a scientific theory is science. As a scientific theory ToE assumes completely naturalistic processes, and talk of God guiding it is absurd. The same can be said of any process in science, including gravity and the idea that God holds up the laws of nature (like gravity) so it works. To include God with any scientific idea is 100% absurd and contradictory. However the story doesn't end there. 

 

Not really, as Evolution is the only theory that specifically precludes God on purpose. Evolution is part of a specific atheistic worldview that denies God's participation in the process.  I have had enough conversations with atheists in the scientific world to confirm this.  Other theories like gravity are "agnostic" as they do not speak to the presence of a creator at all. They are neither against the existence of God nor do they deny God's existence.  Evolution on the other hand is part of a worldview in which God, in particular, specifically excluded. The ToE is designed to deny the historicity of the events in Genesis.  

 

One of the basic axioms of science is that it is silent in regards to the metaphysical, which is why talk of God is always absurd in science.

 

Actually the natural world has God's signature on it. So what a lot of scientists do is ignore the Creator as if he doesn't exist and interpret what they find within the framework of an evolutionary worldview.   Science should be a means to understand the scope of God's creation, how it works and to glorify God in creating such a stunning and complext universe.  Instead the nonexistence of God is assumed and God is simply exluded from any consideration.

 

There have been a plethora of hoaxes foisted on society from the evolutionary camp. To assume that there isn't a passionate worldview being promoted by the evolutionary camp would be folly.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Right. God could also make my plant talk, but doesn't. The issue isn't about what God could do-- which I've said, over and over again. You are either not taking the time to read my responses or willfully ignoring them. That's alright Shiloh, I can keep doing this every day. God could have inspired them such that what they wrote included none of their own wording or conceptions *but I have no reason to think that God did this*. The term 'inspiration' in fact doesn't even suggest that's how it went down.

 

Okay so tell me this.  Which partsof the Bible are  from human understanding/conceptions and which parts are actually what God said?   How do you determine the difference?   I mean the only parts you can really trust are the parts that are directly from God, so how do you know if the part of the Bible you are reading is actually the word of God or the product of human concepts/conceptions?  What is your method for knowing the difference?

 

As for the atheistic content of your posts, all I am saying is that I have seen the same line of reasoning from atheists who were former Christians, denying the inerrancy of the Bible and denying Genesis as written, and just over all lack of any belief in the authority of word of God in your posts. 

 

What I want Shiloh is for you to repeat back to me what my actual argument is, so we can see if it is atheistic in content. When you are prepared to back up your claim I will respond to your challenge.

 

I have explained the atheistic content that i have seen in your posts.  I am not giong to comb through all of your previous posts and outline your argument.   Either you can show how you determine which parts of the Bible are from God and which parts are of purely human impulse or can't.   If you cannot show how you know the difference when you are reading a specific passage, then I will assume that you have not really thought it out that far and don't have an answer to that question.

 

The fact is that I have been here for 10 years and while I acknowledge that you are a believer, you have the same theological errors that I have seen posted by other unbelievers.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

This is a philosophical, not scientific, question. God could in fact use evolution to create life on earth. That you don't find that likely isn't particularly interesting to me. The problem is you've given me little by way of content to actually respond to. 

 

My point is that Evolution is not something God would have used.  Evolution doesn't make sense when you take into consideration that it would senseless for an all-knowing, all powerful God to use evolution.   God creates everything perfectly the way it is supposed to be.  Evolution and the attributes of God simply cannot exist together in harmony.

[Guest shiloh357]

Any way that God uses to create stuff might not 'make sense' to our finite human minds. That's a weak consideration.

It's not that it doesn't make sense.  It's that it goes against God's revealed nature.  Creation reveals God's character and glory.  The theory of evolution is the exact opposite.  It denies God's essential attributes.