can believers accept evolution?

[Guest]

Yes they can if they choose to accept it!!!! And worse, if they choose to accept it and they start to turn away from Jesus as their Lord and Savior!!!!

[gray wolf]

 

 

The earth is not a closed system.

 

I can't think of any natural physical system that doesn't interact with other systems.

 

After correcting my misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is what you are appealing to, it only applies to isolated systems. In thermodynamic terms, the Earth is in fact a closed system, but not an isolated system. I venture to guess that in laymen understanding like ours, we utilize the term "closed system" to mean "isolated system," thus making "the earth is not a closed system" a true statement. But this inadvertently ignores the difference between closed and isolated systems and can lead to confusion when we start appealing to technical laws using popular terminology. It can also lead to confusion between people that are each using the terms in two slightly different but important ways.

 

Isolated systems exchange absolutely nothing with their surroundings, while closed systems can exchange heat and work but not matter.with its surroundings. The Earth clearly exchanges energy with the sun, and only rarely has matter enter its system as meteors or whatever. Thus, you are also correct to the best of my knowledge that there is no known natural physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. The only possible exception to that statement is the universe itself, which by its classical definition has no surrounding by which to exchange anything with. Thus isolated systems are essentially just ideals that can serve as good models in the same way classical Newtonian physics utilizes the ideal of a perfect vacuum to allow for approximating.

 

Good narrative!  I stand corrected. . .  i should have used the term isolated system.

[Guest shiloh357]

In other words, you are looking past the "plain reading" on verses that talk about a flat, immobile earth.

 

No, I am still operating from a plain reading of the text.  "Four corners of the earth" is not cosmological phrase.  It is a phrase that commonly means, "the whole earth."  It is similar to a merism that speaks of totality in terms of polarity.  

 

Plain reading of a text takes into account that other cultures have manners of expression somewhat like ours.   So when I see four corners of the earth in any text, I assume that the author is referring to the whole earth.   If I saw the same phrase in other context like "the four corners of America"  I would assume that he is referring to the whole country.  At least that is how I would intuitively read and I think most people would read it that way. 

 

Ancient peoples certainly did know that the earth was round, but these peoples largely came to this conclusion after the Old Testament times. A spherical earth was not philosophized until somewhere around the 6th century BC and not strongly supported by calculations until somewhere around the 3rd century BC, both by the ancient Greeks. Before that, it was an almost if not completely universal belief across cultures that the earth was flat and quite often a disc. Civilizations with much greater technical achievements than the Jews (ie. the Egyptians) still believed in a flat earth. Their astronomy had not developed far enough to determine that the earth was in fact round.

 

But we are dealing with a book that has a supernatural origin.  It is not based on the limited scope of the human authors.  It speaks of the "circle" of the earth, the earth hanging in the heavens but floating on nothing, as it were.   The original Hebrew langauge doesn't have a word for "spherical."   So the Hebrew word for circle has to play double-duty.   The Bible describes the earth in terms that don't carry the scientific precision we are accustomed to so you cannot hold that Bible to that standard.  The Bible is pre-science and thus uses observation language describes things in those terms.  It often has none of our terms like, "molten lava" or "electricty" or whatever.

In addition to all of that, it is important to note that the word from Hebrew that is most often translated "earth" is eretz.  It is a word that only refers to dry land.  Our word "earth" includes the whole biosphere, including the oceans, but eretz doesn't.  Sometimes when it refers to the "earth" it is only referring to dry land.  That is something that gets lost in English.  That is just the nature of translations.

 

At any rate the Bible is not limited to the scope of the primitive cosmology of the human authors because the words they write are God-breathed and don't have the same limitations of knowledge and are certainly not based on human cosmology but on the wisdom of the Creator who made the cosmos.

[gray wolf]

I think we are expecting way too much from the Bible.  It needs to be read for what it is: the revelation of God.  It is not a science or mathematics primer (thinking of pi in I Kings 7:23-26).  What it says (like in the pi example) is truth, but if you overanalyze it, you encounter dissension.

[other one]

you guys sure type a lot to answer a simple question.......   the answer is    NO.   

[OneLight]

I am not one that could stand toe to toe in a debate over science, so I go by faith alone in this matter.  For me, God is far more than we can even imagine, can do far more than we can imagine.  If He wanted us to pursue the thought of evolution to better understand Him, He would of mentioned it in His words to us.  He did not.  He said He created everything in a certain manner. This I believe.

 

Why is it that man has to create another means as to how things came to be, I will not understand.   God gave us a mind to grow in understanding of Him.  If how we progress in our understanding becomes anything different than what He has told us, it is not of Him, but of man.

 

I am a simple person, humbled before my Creator.  I will not argue with His word.

[alphaparticle]

you guys sure type a lot to answer a simple question.......   the answer is    NO.   

 

So if someone accepts evolution they *can't* be a believer? Or are they believers who are wrong in that matter? I don't think it's as simple as that.

[HumbleThinker]

No, I am still operating from a plain reading of the text.  "Four corners of the earth" is not cosmological phrase.  It is a phrase that commonly means, "the whole earth."  It is similar to a merism that speaks of totality in terms of polarity.

What is a "cosmological phrase," and how do you determine whether a phrase is or isn't? Making such determinations sounds like you are avoiding the plain reading of the text to me. Also, by what measure are you determining that "four corners of the Earth" is "a phrase that commonly means, "the whole earth?" Are you using present knowledge for that? To the best of my admittedly limited research, the English translation of the Bible is the origin of that phrase

 

Plain reading of a text takes into account that other cultures have manners of expression somewhat like ours.   So when I see four corners of the earth in any text, I assume that the author is referring to the whole earth.

So you're assuming based on extra-biblical knowledge? Why is that appropriate here and not elsewhere?

 

The original Hebrew langauge doesn't have a word for "spherical."

Yes they do: duwr. In Isaiah 22:18 it is translated as ball, which is of course always spherical. If they knew the Earth was shaped like a ball, they had the language to do so.

 

So the Hebrew word for circle has to play double-duty.   The Bible describes the earth in terms that don't carry the scientific precision we are accustomed to so you cannot hold that Bible to that standard.

I also cannot assume that it is speaking about things there is no evidence that its authors knew about just because I want them to know that the Earth is round centuries before the ancient Greeks.

 

The Bible is pre-science and thus uses observation language describes things in those terms.  It often has none of our terms like, "molten lava" or "electricty" or whatever.

And barring any other evidence, we would rightly conclude that they likely knew nothing about those things. Given that electricity is a modern discovery, though postulated in a crude form at least in the time of the Ancient Greeks, they certainly did not know about electricity. Or was this just a haphazard choice of words on your part?

 

At any rate the Bible is not limited to the scope of the primitive cosmology of the human authors because the words they write are God-breathed and don't have the same limitations of knowledge and are certainly not based on human cosmology but on the wisdom of the Creator who made the cosmos.

On what basis do you make this statement? What plain reading of the Bible led you to this conclusion?

There's the Augustinian view that Scripture will always not be contradicted or thrown into doubt by any factual information, but then there's going a step further and saying it is actually making those factual statements. From my perception, you are on the wrong side of the latter.

Edited December 8, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[other one]

 

you guys sure type a lot to answer a simple question.......   the answer is    NO.   

 

So if someone accepts evolution they *can't* be a believer? Or are they believers who are wrong in that matter? I don't think it's as simple as that.

 

 

 

you guys sure type a lot to answer a simple question.......   the answer is    NO.   

 

So if someone accepts evolution they *can't* be a believer? Or are they believers who are wrong in that matter? I don't think it's as simple as that.

 

 

 

Well, you either believe the Bible or you don't....   Even with the Gap theory which I do happen to accept as very possible, there isn't room for Darwin's evolution of natural selection.

 

We see life and different genetic make up's for all the different things and it would seem prudent to accept that God made it all rather quickly after the earth was restored...    but Gap theory or not there just isn't time for evolution to happen as science declares.   So one has to believe God, or Steven Hawkins.

 

And it is that simple.

[gray wolf]

I am not one that could stand toe to toe in a debate over science, so I go by faith alone in this matter. For me, God is far more than we can even imagine, can do far more than we can imagine. If He wanted us to pursue the thought of evolution to better understand Him, He would of mentioned it in His words to us. He did not. He said He created everything in a certain manner. This I believe.

Why is it that man has to create another means as to how things came to be, I will not understand. God gave us a mind to grow in understanding of Him. If how we progress in our understanding becomes anything different than what He has told us, it is not of Him, but of man.

I am a simple person, humbled before my Creator. I will not argue with His word.

Your fidelity to God and His word is evident. I do wish to point something out. Just because something isn't mentioned in the Bible is no reason to think it doesn't exist. The Bible does not describe gravitation and magnetic force. I do not expect it to; it is not relevant to the Redemption story. Edited December 9, 2013 by gray wolf