alphaparticle Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 Jesus used Genesis to illustrate His teachings. I don't think we can blithely assume He was using it as straightforward history, in the way we do when talking about history in history classes. Jesus didn't use Genesis as an illustration of His teachings. Jesus referred to events in Genesis as literal historical accounts. You are trying to assign your imaginative interpreation of Genesis to Jesus. Yes, He referred to events in the course of His teachings. I could see this going either way. It may be in the end you are correct about this. I'm not 'assigning' anything shiloh, I'm merely reporting what seems to me to be the possible case at this point in time. The integrity of the Bible is unnecessary to being a believer. Wrong. it is essential because if God can't be trusted, we can't be sure if we are saved. I believed that I could find forgiveness in Jesus because of *parts* of the Bible. I didn't have to have confidence in the entire thing. The Death we need saving from is spiritual death, separation from God, and that could happen with or without physical death occurring. The problem is, it didn't happen without physical death and besides, you don't have the theological prowess to tell anyone what is or is not possible, theologically. The fact is that the Bible teaches that physical death is the direct result of Adam's sin and that fact is inescapalble. You can imagine scenarios all day long in which such a thing isn't necessary, but at the end of the day, it happened exactly the way the Bible said. Maybe I don't have the theological prowess shiloh, but if I don't, you haven't demonstrated this view isn't legitimately possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.96 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 27, 2014 You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish. This is an odd statement. I believe Genesis is about Jesus. I do not believe it is about science, nor a scientific account of thing. If anything, I believe trying to integrate science into Genesis 1 takes away from seeing Jesus in it. Which is exactly what OEC does. It attempts to force science as the standard by which the Bible is interpreted and trying to make the Bible agree with Evolution, the Big Bang, and trying to make the days of creation to be on epochs of time to make one's interpretation agree with what scientists claim. I have to disagree there, Shiloh. Genesis 1 was never about science. Unless you have evidence that the ancient people cared beans about the age of the earth? Or classifying living things? Or studying the migration habits of a flock of birds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best. I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this. The Distant Starlight Problem is just a "begging the question" fallacy in it's entirety. You have to reconcile Day 4, "and it was so". Radiometric Dating...."Scientific Evidence"------ Nope, as clearly demonstrated (SEE:Thread) There are other issues that point to a Young Earth. However; for OEC, You MUST have a Local Flood. Please reconcile this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 why I believe in Christ and evolution The title it a bit misleading, based on conversations I have had with you. You don't really believe in Jesus AND evolution. You believe in Evolution and you accept Christ only to the extent that faith in Jesus doesn't get in the way of believing in Evolution. As long as you can separate Jesus from Genesis, then He is okay. As long as Jesus knows His place and you can have Him on your terms, then you are okay with Jesus. You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish. Your theology about Jesus is the product of your imagination, and not the product of a thoughtful and prayerful study of God's Word. This is inaccurate and unfair. It's not about 'evolution'. It's about what seems to be true to me about the world, and that is it. I can't up and choose to believe the world is 10k years old anymore than I can up and choose to believe it was created 2 seconds ago. I don't see my belief in Jesus as Savior as competing with that or intrinsically at odds with that in any way at a fundamental level. You need to come to grips with reality. You can believe what you choose to believe, but the bottom line is that you can't bring yourself to believe the Bible because you think it collides with evolution and as far as you are concerned, scientists have more authority and than the Bible does. If you can' believe God on the most fundamental issue of "where do we come from?" then yes your faith is a odds with evolution at the most fundamental level. No, I can't choose to believe what I want. If you offered me a billion dollars to firmly believe there is currently a flock of penguins on my desk no matter how hard I tried I would not get the billion dollars. I believe what I do because, rightly or wrongly ultimately, it seems to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best. I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this. The Distant Starlight Problem is just a "begging the question" fallacy in it's entirety. You have to reconcile Day 4, "and it was so". Radiometric Dating...."Scientific Evidence"------ Nope, as clearly demonstrated (SEE:Thread) There are other issues that point to a Young Earth. However; for OEC, You MUST have a Local Flood. Please reconcile this? What am I reconciling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 why I believe in Christ and evolution The title it a bit misleading, based on conversations I have had with you. You don't really believe in Jesus AND evolution. You believe in Evolution and you accept Christ only to the extent that faith in Jesus doesn't get in the way of believing in Evolution. As long as you can separate Jesus from Genesis, then He is okay. As long as Jesus knows His place and you can have Him on your terms, then you are okay with Jesus. You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish. Your theology about Jesus is the product of your imagination, and not the product of a thoughtful and prayerful study of God's Word. This is inaccurate and unfair. It's not about 'evolution'. It's about what seems to be true to me about the world, and that is it. I can't up and choose to believe the world is 10k years old anymore than I can up and choose to believe it was created 2 seconds ago. I don't see my belief in Jesus as Savior as competing with that or intrinsically at odds with that in any way at a fundamental level. You need to come to grips with reality. You can believe what you choose to believe, but the bottom line is that you can't bring yourself to believe the Bible because you think it collides with evolution and as far as you are concerned, scientists have more authority and than the Bible does. If you can' believe God on the most fundamental issue of "where do we come from?" then yes your faith is a odds with evolution at the most fundamental level. No, I can't choose to believe what I want. If you offered me a billion dollars to firmly believe there is currently a flock of penguins on my desk no matter how hard I tried I would not get the billion dollars. I believe what I do because, rightly or wrongly ultimately, it seems to be true. I think you know what I mean. No need to dream up ridiculous, nonsensical scenarios that have no basis in reality. I am saying that you can choose to believe the Bible but that would take a level of faith you admittedly don't have. Your posts demonstrate that your faith is more strongly rooted in your evolutionary beliefs and the Bible simply falling along behind in tow. The Bible is useful to you, but it is not really God's word, based on how you describe it. You accept the Bible conditionally and selectively, but you express a much higher degree of faith in evolution. If you really believed the Bible was God word, you could believe what it says, even in Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted January 27, 2014 All of this is to say, I have not found an intrinsic contradiction between accepting the physical story behind the Big Bang and evolution, and accepting the resurrection of Jesus and the truth of the gospel. It is possible to hold to the former and have faith in the former simultaneously. Being a rational type of person I understand your perspective, all truth is good , even from science. I agree with you that the core gospel message does not contradict evolution. The bible is a symbolic book and so its easy to see symbols where the two contradict, which solves your problem in those few areas where there appears to be a contradiction. I personally find very little support for evolution in the fields of geology, paleontology and genetics. This is why I believe in Intelligent design, it fits the facts better and it also fits the bible better. Win/win. I wish Christian evolutionists were more open to discussions in a polite and rational manner, they may learn something. For example, I found in the radiometric dating thread, not one evolutionist had the manners to admit that decay could increase significantly when the earth is protected from solar/cosmic radiation , even though I pointed out the oscillations have already been detected. I am planning to start a fossil thread soon, let's see how rational and open-minded evolutionists are. And so when science and the bible contradict, I suggest you don't too easily accept the current scientific position, listen maturely to the other point of view and you will find some truth there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best. I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this. The Distant Starlight Problem is just a "begging the question" fallacy in it's entirety. You have to reconcile Day 4, "and it was so". Radiometric Dating...."Scientific Evidence"------ Nope, as clearly demonstrated (SEE:Thread) There are other issues that point to a Young Earth. However; for OEC, You MUST have a Local Flood. Please reconcile this? What am I reconciling? Genesis Day 4 for the Distant StarLight issue. and a Local Flood for OEC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 why I believe in Christ and evolution The title it a bit misleading, based on conversations I have had with you. You don't really believe in Jesus AND evolution. You believe in Evolution and you accept Christ only to the extent that faith in Jesus doesn't get in the way of believing in Evolution. As long as you can separate Jesus from Genesis, then He is okay. As long as Jesus knows His place and you can have Him on your terms, then you are okay with Jesus. You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish. Your theology about Jesus is the product of your imagination, and not the product of a thoughtful and prayerful study of God's Word. This is inaccurate and unfair. It's not about 'evolution'. It's about what seems to be true to me about the world, and that is it. I can't up and choose to believe the world is 10k years old anymore than I can up and choose to believe it was created 2 seconds ago. I don't see my belief in Jesus as Savior as competing with that or intrinsically at odds with that in any way at a fundamental level. You need to come to grips with reality. You can believe what you choose to believe, but the bottom line is that you can't bring yourself to believe the Bible because you think it collides with evolution and as far as you are concerned, scientists have more authority and than the Bible does. If you can' believe God on the most fundamental issue of "where do we come from?" then yes your faith is a odds with evolution at the most fundamental level. No, I can't choose to believe what I want. If you offered me a billion dollars to firmly believe there is currently a flock of penguins on my desk no matter how hard I tried I would not get the billion dollars. I believe what I do because, rightly or wrongly ultimately, it seems to be true. I think you know what I mean. No need to dream ridiculous nonsensical scenarios that have no basis in reality. I am saying that you can choose to believe the Bible but that would take a level of faith you admittedly don't have. Your posts demonstrate that your faith is more strongly rooted in your evolutionary beliefs and the Bible simply falling along behind in tow. The Bible is useful to you, but it is not really God's word, based on how you describe it. You accept the Bible conditionally and selectively, but you express a much higher degree of faith in evolution. If you really believed the Bible was God word, you could believe what it says, even in Genesis. I have faith that Jesus is the resurrected Lord of the universe. That doesn't translate into a denial of what appears to me to be outright and nearly obvious facts about the world. That's as much faith as I have been given. What else can I say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 All of this is to say, I have not found an intrinsic contradiction between accepting the physical story behind the Big Bang and evolution, and accepting the resurrection of Jesus and the truth of the gospel. It is possible to hold to the former and have faith in the former simultaneously. Being a rational type of person I understand your perspective, all truth is good , even from science. I agree with you that the core gospel message does not contradict evolution. The bible is a symbolic book and so its easy to see symbols where the two contradict, which solves your problem in those few areas where there appears to be a contradiction. I personally find very little support for evolution in the fields of geology, paleontology and genetics. This is why I believe in Intelligent design, it fits the facts better and it also fits the bible better. Win/win. I wish Christian evolutionists were more open to discussions in a polite and rational manner, they may learn something. For example, I found in the radiometric dating thread, not one evolutionist had the manners to admit that decay could increase significantly when the earth is protected from solar/cosmic radiation , even though I pointed out the oscillations have already been detected. I am planning to start a fossil thread soon, let's see how rational and open-minded evolutionists are. And so when science and the bible contradict, I suggest you don't too easily accept the current scientific position, listen maturely to the other point of view and you will find some truth there as well. Thanks for your feedback Argosy. To a certain extent, I do accept Intelligent Design, insofar as I don't promote a naturalist viewpoint at all. I do believe God is behind all of this, either way. If you read my comments in the radiometric dating thread, I think you will see that I attempted to take on that issue. Specifically, if you are interested, look at the thought experiment I laid out, which I think best explains the principles behind why I find radiometric dating so compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts