Guest shiloh357 Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I believe the Creator has clearly revealed that the earth and universe that He made are far greater than 6,000 years old. Nothing in the Bible reveals an earth that is millions or billions of years old. The Bible is completely contradictory to that, and everyone else in the scientific and atheistic community is honest about that. The only people trying to make up a narrative where God uses evolution are theistic evolutionists and their narrative is not honest about the theory of Evolution, nor the claims of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 24, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 24, 2018 13 minutes ago, Yowm said: The genealogies in Mt 1 The Matthew geanology goes back to Abraham, so your pretzel there is a stick instead of a knot. Luke 3 does go back to Adam, but I don’t deny the ancestry. I just believe Adam and Eve were the first pair selected for entering a spiritual relationship with their Creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: The only people trying to make up a narrative where God uses evolution are theistic evolutionists and their narrative is not honest about the theory of Evolution, nor the claims of the Bible. Do I look at evolution differently from an atheist? Yep, guilty as charged. I believe God used a beautiful, elegant process to bring life to a point that He could eventually create individuals capable of a relationship with Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Do I look at evolution differently from an atheist? Yep, guilty as charged. I believe God used a beautiful, elegant process to bring life to a point that He could eventually create individuals capable of a relationship with Him. That is simply not tenable without modifying the theory and re-interpreting and modifying Scripture to make your ideas work. To be truthful, you don't have the right to do modify either theory or the Bible. You don't get to have either one on your terms. Evolution isn't elegant or beautiful. If it were used on humans, it would be the cruelest thing imaginable. The Bible doesn't teach that God created a creature that evolved into a human. You cannot get that from the Bible. The Bible says that God made man from dirt and made Him in his image with the immediate ability to relate to him in a personal relationship. God made man as a special creation wholly separate from the non-human animal kingdom. So it can't be both, the Bible simply will not allow for it. The absurd theological gymnastics you are trying to employ isn't going to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, one.opinion said: The Matthew geanology goes back to Abraham, so your pretzel there is a stick instead of a knot. Luke 3 does go back to Adam, but I don’t deny the ancestry. I just believe Adam and Eve were the first pair selected for entering a spiritual relationship with their Creator. That's not what the Bible says, but you don't actually believe what the Bible says. You believe in caricature of the Bible that you have running in your imagination. The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people, period. Not simply first among many that were chosen to be in a relationship with God. The more you post, the more you reveal that you don't believe what the Bible says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: The more you post, the more you reveal that you don't believe what the Bible says. This may be a disappointment, but continuing to claim the same erroneous things about what I believe will not make them become more true. I believe the much in the first few chapters of Genesis is figurative, not incorrect. God created the universe and everything in it. Mankind was given a relationship with the Creator. Mankind chose its own way and not God’s. Sin entered the world due to those choices and mankind then had need of a Savior that God said would eventually come in human form. Feel free to mention anything in this paragraph you believe to be in error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, one.opinion said: This may be a disappointment, but continuing to claim the same erroneous things about what I believe will not make them become more true. I believe the much in the first few chapters of Genesis is figurative, not incorrect. What I said, I repeat, not to make it true, but because it is true. You can't provide any evidence, textually for that. You make a textual argument but when challenged, have been, without exception, unable to provide a shred of textual evidence for that claim. And if you believe the account was correct, there would be no reason to make up a claim that it is "figurative." The text bears no marks of being figurative and you have no right to assign that value to the text. "Figurative" refers to literary devices like similes, metaphors, hyperbole, etc. Figurative is not an "interpretation." There is no such thing as a text being "figurative." Texts are always "literal" because authors don't write to be understood figuratively. No one writes poetry without a literal meaning. No one writes a newspaper article or a mystery novel "figuratively." There is always something the author is trying to say, a purpose in what they are writing and it is the job of reader to discover that literal meaning. Figurative devices are tools to that end. Quote God created the universe and everything in it. Mankind was given a relationship with the Creator. Mankind chose its own way and not God’s. Sin entered the world due to those choices and mankind then had need of a Savior that God said would eventually come in human form. Feel free to mention anything in this paragraph you believe to be in error. There is nothing wrong in that. But that is only part of the story. Everything you said is predicated on a literal interpretation of Genesis, because the doctrines you espouse find their origin in a literal interpretation of Genesis and ONLY a literal interpretation of Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Everything you said is predicated on a literal interpretation of Genesis, because the doctrines you espouse find their origin in a literal interpretation of Genesis and ONLY a literal interpretation of Genesis. So you are telling me I hold a literal interpretation of Genesis that just differs from your literal interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 25, 2018 18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: "Figurative" refers to literary devices like similes, metaphors, hyperbole, etc. Figurative is not an "interpretation." There is no such thing as a text being "figurative." Texts are always "literal" because authors don't write to be understood figuratively. No one writes poetry without a literal meaning. No one writes a newspaper article or a mystery novel "figuratively." There is always something the author is trying to say, a purpose in what they are writing and it is the job of reader to discover that literal meaning. Figurative devices are tools to that end. I see what you are saying here. I believe the intent of those first three chapters is to establish the doctrines of creation, sin, and need of salvation. I think it is the details, that don’t directly impact the intent, that we disagree upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 6 hours ago, one.opinion said: I see what you are saying here. I believe the intent of those first three chapters is to establish the doctrines of creation, sin, and need of salvation. I think it is the details, that don’t directly impact the intent, that we disagree upon. Genesis 1 is an explanation of where we come from and it establishes God as our Sovereign Creator. We disagree on far more than just those "details." You are claiming the story is allegorical, and you clearly don't understand how allegory works. Lot's theistic evolutionists utilize the "allegory" argument, but it is just a talking point that never gets challenged enough. The allegory claim is not about details. It is an arbitrary value assigned to the text and I guess TE's bank on others not knowing enough about literary analysis to challenge that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts