can believers accept evolution?

[gray wolf]

 

 

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.

 

That puts me in quite a pickle, I'd say.

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

You seem to assume that evolution necessarily entails that God can't be involved, but I don't think that follows. What I mean by evolution is merely something like common descent, and when things are left alone (similarly to how we find theories of gravity) we can talk about what the statistics of genetic information are with different environmental pressures. None of that implies that God couldn't have planned it, can't guide it, and so on.

 

Hawking is a physicist... not a biologist, so I don't get the reference there.

[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.

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.

 

 

Creation IS mentioned in the bible, which one has to overlook and ignore to argue for evolution, as being the means of existence.   Things do evolve to their surroundings, but we are created by God as stated in Genesis 1-2. Creation and redemption are two different subjects and cannot be bond together to argue for something not in scripture.

[gray wolf]

I totally agree that creation is described by the Bible.  I was not attempting to fuse Biblical subjects in pursuit of something else.  I just was saying that there are things not mentioned by the Bible but that doesn't make them untrue. 

[HumbleThinker]

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.

 

Creation IS mentioned in the bible, which one has to overlook and ignore to argue for evolution, as begin the means of existence.   Things do evolve to their surroundings, but we are created by God as stated in Genesis 1-2. Creation and redemption are two different subjects and cannot be bond together to argue for something not in scripture.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. It deals with the origin of the diversity of life, hence the title of Darwin's work being the Origin of Species instead of the Origin of Life. Evolution does not care how life came to be. The Bible does not say how life diversified except that animals produce according to their kind. But this does not contradict evolution. Only certain fallible humans' usage of kinds contradicts evolution and even that is spotty at best because the term is used so fluidly by so many different people. And only your interpretation of Genesis 1-2 contradicts God's Creation which clearly demonstrates evolution. On matters of science, God's Creation is far superior to the Bible, for the Bible reveals spiritual, higher truths while Creation reveals natural, mundane truths. Both coincide just fine when used for their intended purpose.

[Guest shiloh357]

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

 

 

It is no more a cosmological statement to say something like, "I have been to the four corners of the earth looking for that album" than it would be to say, I love get up in the morning and watch the sun as it rises over the mountain."     Honestly, if you can't understand that it is simply an observational statement, then you are either really dense or you are dishonest and should not be trusted in these kinds of discussions. 

 

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

 

 

I am basing it on a far better understanding of hermeneutics than you possess.

 

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.

 

 

Actually word is refers to a heap or a pile.  "Ball" is a translation, not the meaning. It doesn't refer to a spherical object and is never used in such a way.  In that verse, it is the image of taking something wadding it up and throwing it from one's self.  It is not used describe the earth as a sphere as they had no word for that. 

 

In the majority of uses it refers to a circular view of the life cyle. A man is born and he lives and dies.  Life goes full circle.

 

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.

 

 

I can assume that because the Bible is inspired by an all knowing God, who creaeted and obviously inspired them to write about things that they could not have known.

 

That is not uncommon in the Bible since the Bible predicted that Jesus would be crucified over 500 years before crucifixion was invented.   The Bible gives its human authors and characters knowledge that they could not have gotten on their own.

 

 

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?

 

 

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2Ti 3:16

 

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2Pe 1:20-21

 

The Scriptures, all of it came from God and God isn't limited in what He knows and so the human authors He chose to pen the Scriptures were drawing from a source that  transcends what is humanly possible.  They clearly made claims about events and other things that were beyond their ability to know and the only real explanation is that we ar dealing with a book that is supernatural in origin and transcends the limitations of science or scientific knowledge.

[OneLight]

I totally agree that creation is described by the Bible.  I was not attempting to fuse Biblical subjects in pursuit of something else.  I just was saying that there are things not mentioned by the Bible but that doesn't make them untrue. 

 

You are correct.  There could be millions of things that are true that God did not need to inform us about while telling us what we needed to know about Him and us, our relationship.  He told us that He created everything that is created.  Why do some think that that this is not enough and they have to know more in order to have this relationship and understand what He wants us to know?  Do they think God can't figure out what is best for us?  Questions for all, not just you Gray Wolf.

[alphaparticle]

 

I totally agree that creation is described by the Bible.  I was not attempting to fuse Biblical subjects in pursuit of something else.  I just was saying that there are things not mentioned by the Bible but that doesn't make them untrue. 

 

You are correct.  There could be millions of things that are true that God did not need to inform us about while telling us what we needed to know about Him and us, our relationship.  He told us that He created everything that is created.  Why do some think that that this is not enough and they have to know more in order to have this relationship and understand what He wants us to know?  Do they think God can't figure out what is best for us?  Questions for all, not just you Gray Wolf.

 

I believe God created everything. I don't think that is an issue for me actually. I have an interest in how the world operates and I do not see it being wrong to explore that either.

[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.

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.

 

 

Creation IS mentioned in the bible, which one has to overlook and ignore to argue for evolution, as begin the means of existence.   Things do evolve to their surroundings, but we are created by God as stated in Genesis 1-2. Creation and redemption are two different subjects and cannot be bond together to argue for something not in scripture.

 

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. It deals with the origin of the diversity of life, hence the title of Darwin's work being the Origin of Species instead of the Origin of Life. Evolution does not care how life came to be. The Bible does not say how life diversified except that animals produce according to their kind. But this does not contradict evolution. Only certain fallible humans' usage of kinds contradicts evolution and even that is spotty at best because the term is used so fluidly by so many different people. And only your interpretation of Genesis 1-2 contradicts God's Creation which clearly demonstrates evolution. On matters of science, God's Creation is far superior to the Bible, for the Bible reveals spiritual, higher truths while Creation reveals natural, mundane truths. Both coincide just fine when used for their intended purpose.

 

 

Sure it does.  It starts with a one celled organism and evolved through many "revisions" until we come to what we are today.  The bible does say we are created, and never mentions anything about diversity through the evolution process.  Why is it so hard to believe God is God and is who He says He is?  He is the creator.  I have never read in scripture that man began as a one cell organism and evolved from there.  That is mans theory, not scripture.

[OneLight]

 

 

I totally agree that creation is described by the Bible.  I was not attempting to fuse Biblical subjects in pursuit of something else.  I just was saying that there are things not mentioned by the Bible but that doesn't make them untrue. 

 

You are correct.  There could be millions of things that are true that God did not need to inform us about while telling us what we needed to know about Him and us, our relationship.  He told us that He created everything that is created.  Why do some think that that this is not enough and they have to know more in order to have this relationship and understand what He wants us to know?  Do they think God can't figure out what is best for us?  Questions for all, not just you Gray Wolf.

 

I believe God created everything. I don't think that is an issue for me actually. I have an interest in how the world operates and I do not see it being wrong to explore that either.

 

 

I guess I question the "results" people come up with through their exploration processes.  Many use their "research" to disprove scripture, which is what I stand against.  God told us how we arrived to be, and that is enough for me.  If He wanted us to know more, He would of told us.  I think people can too smart for their own good, and that is not a dig.