Science Disproves Evolution

[one.opinion]

36 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpents meat.  They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. (Isa. 65:25).

Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

I believe these passages are using figurative language to paint a picture of a beautiful peace of the millennial kingdom. The language regarding the serpent is interesting, but I believe it is representative of Satan during that period.

I just don’t see evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that animals would have the capacity to do what a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 would have a serpent doing.

[HAZARD]

54 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I believe these passages are using figurative language to paint a picture of a beautiful peace of the millennial kingdom. The language regarding the serpent is interesting, but I believe it is representative of Satan during that period.

I just don’t see evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that animals would have the capacity to do what a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 would have a serpent doing.

Thanks for your reply.  Personally I believe this passage is literal; because The Lord God said unto the serpent. In Gen. 3:1 it reads;

 1, Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he (the serpent) said unto the woman,  Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Then in Gen 3:14, And the Lord God said unto THE SERPENT, (not Satan), because thou hast done this, thou art cursed ABOVE ALL CATTLE, and above every beast of the field; and upon they belly shalt thou go, And the LORD God said unto the serpent, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:  The serpent was a beast of the field, Satan was a fallen arc-angel.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I think it is quite evident that a literalistic interpretation is not required to believe as I do.

It is required to have a consistent and coherent theological approach to the Bible.  It is irrational to treat the Bible literally when it suits you.  What if we treat your posts with the same subjectivity that you apply to the Bible?  What if we took the liberty to decide what you mean and ignored what you actually mean?

Quote

So figurative elements are ok, just as long as they match your a priori assumptions?

 

Figurative elements are used and are part of a literal interpretation of Scripture.  Figurative devices are tools that aid in a literal interpretation of Scripture.  But like many, you confuse "literal" with "face value."  

Quote

You clearly can’t dictate what I believe. You telling me that I don’t believe the Bible is no more accurate than me claiming that you believe in Santa Claus.

But you don't believe the Bible.   You believe in a caricature of the Bible.  You have to ignore and reject the Bible as written and drum up silly "allegorical" arguments to circumvent the actual text, because you  cannot accept the actual text  and theology of Scripture because what the Bible really says will not allow for Evolution.  If the Bible were not in diametric opposition to evolution, there would be no reason to have to make the text into something that its not.

Quote

I publicly defy you to prove that you can have a conversation on this topic without resorting to inaccurate assertions, hyperbole, high drama, and ad hominem attacks.

Which is just a pathetic deflection away from the fact that you cannot come up with any textual evidence of poetry and/or allegory, making your claim about poetic allegory a non-starter.

[JTC]

He guys please don't derail this thread with this debate. This tread is meant to fight the teaching of evolution as a fact. And I mean evolution of man coming from apes and ultimately single celled life forms. Evidence for this was never found so it is a theory not a fact. I was lucky, when I went to school we were still taught the truth of this. But at some point it changed and that's the problem.

[HAZARD]

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 1:20 AM, JTC said:

He guys please don't derail this thread with this debate. This tread is meant to fight the teaching of evolution as a fact. And I mean evolution of man coming from apes and ultimately single celled life forms. Evidence for this was never found so it is a theory not a fact. I was lucky, when I went to school we were still taught the truth of this. But at some point it changed and that's the problem.

Don't be discouraged poor little fly, you'll be a chipmunk by and by,
Ages later we can see, you'll be a full grown chimpanzee,
Next we see with a prophets ken, you'll take your place in the ranks of men.
And then in the great sweet by and by, we'll all be angels you and I.
Why should I swat you, dear little fly? Prospective chum of my home on high,
This is what Darwin says, not I.

Author unknown.

[one.opinion]

On 3/18/2018 at 9:20 AM, JTC said:

Evidence for this was never found so it is a theory not a fact.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports evolution. In science, the word "theory" is much more potent than it is in the vernacular. A theory is a comprehensive set of conclusions based on experimental evidence. The facts around the "cell theory" have been established for over 150 years, but it is still called the "cell theory".

Granted, the "theory of evolution" is quite a bit different because many of the hypotheses and conclusions cannot be directly observed. But professional scientists accept the theory of evolution by an overwhelming majority. I do realize that appeal to consensus is technically a logical fallacy, but where else would you go for a more informed opinion on biology than a bunch of professional biologists? If I want to know something about nuclear physics, I would tend to find a group of nuclear physicists and check with them, rather than poll random people at a crowded subway station. Basically the idea that evolution cannot be true because it is "only a theory" gets the whole idea wrong about what a theory really is.

On 3/18/2018 at 2:14 AM, shiloh357 said:

But you don't believe the Bible.   You believe in a caricature of the Bible.

Actually, I do believe the Bible. Repeating your mantra of "you don't believe the Bible" doesn't make it so. Included in my belief in the Bible is what it says about salvation. It seems that you are the one that has trouble accepting what the Bible says in that regard.

[Guest shiloh357]

21 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Actually, I do believe the Bible. Repeating your mantra of "you don't believe the Bible" doesn't make it so. Included in my belief in the Bible is what it says about salvation. It seems that you are the one that has trouble accepting what the Bible says in that regard.

Believing the Bible means believing what it says, not believing in the made up stuff you assign to it, like making historical accounts into allegories when the historical account doesn't fit your preferred narrative.

You believe the Bible when it suits, you but you reject what is says when it doesn't.   The problem is that people like you think that salvation is disconnected from Genesis, and it isn't.   The doctrines we hold in Scripture have their origins either directly or indirectly in Genesis 1-3.

If we reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, then we have to scrap the origin of the doctrine of marriage since it would not be a historical fact that God instituted in Genesis and thus we have no basis asserting that the commands against homosexuality are rooted in the biblical institution of marriage established in Genesis.  

The doctrines of sin, the nature and existence of God, the promise of the coming virgin-born Messiah, the doctrine of the blood atonement, the fall of man, the existence of Satan, all of those teachings and more find their point of origin in Genesis 1-3 IF you take the historical account literally.  Rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis does a lot of damage to the doctrines of Scripture, including salvation because Rom. 5:12-21, which is the heart of plan of salvation,  is based on a literal, historical interpretation of Jesus.

Literal interpretation is the only intelligent, thoughtful and rational approach to the Bible.  There is no sane reason, not to believe what the Bible says, as written, unless you have rejected it for a different narrative. 

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You believe the Bible when it suits, you but you reject what is says when it doesn't.   The problem is that people like you think that salvation is disconnected from Genesis, and it isn't.   The doctrines we hold in Scripture have their origins either directly or indirectly in Genesis 1-3.

Let's just take a look at what the Bible says:

²⁵ About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, ²⁶ and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were unfastened. ²⁷ When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. ²⁸ But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” ²⁹ And the jailer^[a] called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. ³⁰ Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” ³¹ And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Paul and Silas did NOT say "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and accept a 6 day creation period, and you will be saved".

Why add an additional requirement for acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis, when this requirement is NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE? You accuse me of ignoring what the Bible says while at the same time adding your own requirements to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You ask for evidence for an allegorical and/or poetic interpretation, but have already provided some of it yourself. It is well-established that figurative language is present in several places in the Genesis account and you have even pointed some of it out. Why is it such a stretch to conclude that the figurative language could extend to the time period involved? How does the fact that all have sinned and require a Savior hinge on a 6-day creation? My answer - it doesn't.

Augustine took an allegorical approach to Genesis in his early writings. He wrote that the creation was instantaneous and only described as 6 days to provide numerological significance. There is nothing new or heretical about an allegorical interpretation.

The concept of the Genesis account as poetic is also something of a debate. CE Hummel wrote the following in 1986:

"The prominence of repetition and of its corollary, silence, brings the writing close to poetry; its movement toward, a climax places it in the order of prose. Sometimes called a "hymn," it appears to be a unique blend of prose and poetry.

"

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/...genesis/.../hummel_gen1_jasa.pdf

 

[one.opinion]

48 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

If we reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, then we have to scrap the origin of the doctrine of marriage since it would not be a historical fact that God instituted in Genesis and thus we have no basis asserting that the commands against homosexuality are rooted in the biblical institution of marriage established in Genesis.

Quick comment to add here -- an allegorical approach does not mean that none of the account is historical. I believe in a historical Adam and Eve and their union in marriage before God.

[Guest shiloh357]

55 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Let's just take a look at what the Bible says:

²⁵ About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, ²⁶ and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were unfastened. ²⁷ When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. ²⁸ But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” ²⁹ And the jailer^[a] called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. ³⁰ Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” ³¹ And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Paul and Silas did NOT say "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and accept a 6 day creation period, and you will be saved".

Why add an additional requirement for acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis, when this requirement is NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE? You accuse me of ignoring what the Bible says while at the same time adding your own requirements to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

I am not talking about requirements for salvation.   Evidently, you lack the ability to correctly frame my words just like you can't seem to handle the words of Scripture properly either.  

Quote

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You ask for evidence for an allegorical and/or poetic interpretation, but have already provided some of it yourself. It is well-established that figurative language is present in several places in the Genesis account and you have even pointed some of it out. Why is it such a stretch to conclude that the figurative language could extend to the time period involved? How does the fact that all have sinned and require a Savior hinge on a 6-day creation? My answer - it doesn't.

Augustine took an allegorical approach to Genesis in his early writings. He wrote that the creation was instantaneous and only described as 6 days to provide numerological significance. There is nothing new or heretical about an allegorical interpretation.

The concept of the Genesis account as poetic is also something of a debate. CE Hummel wrote the following in 1986:

"The prominence of repetition and of its corollary, silence, brings the writing close to poetry; its movement toward, a climax places it in the order of prose. Sometimes called a "hymn," it appears to be a unique blend of prose and poetry.

 

"

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/...genesis/.../hummel_gen1_jasa.pdf

 

The problem is that it is only "debate" for those who can't bring themselves to trust the Bible as written.    The poetic structure in the Bible  follows the Hebrew poetic structure and that involves parallel structures that do not appear in Genesis.   Genesis is a historical account.   

And furthermore, figurative devices are not limited to poetry and occur in the teachings of Jesus, the epistles of Paul and in biblical prophecies.   So the notion that figurative devices denote poetry simply is not true and is demonstrably false just through a cursory reading of the Bible. 

51 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Quick comment to add here -- an allegorical approach does not mean that none of the account is historical. I believe in a historical Adam and Eve and their union in marriage before God.

That's not how it works.  You cannot argue that portions of the account are allegory and other parts are not.   Allegory doesn't operate that way.   

Furthermore, and this seems to escape you at every turn, if you are going to claim something is allegory, then you actually need to provide evidence of allegory.   So far, you cannot provide evidence of Hebrew poetic structure, nor can you demonstrate that the Bible indicates allegory is being used.

In addition, allegory is not an interpretative method.  No one interprets anything allegorical; that would be nonsensical.   Allegory is a teaching tool, where the author tells us what each element in the story represents.   You do not find that in Genesis 1-3.   

The reader doesn't get to decide what a story means, nor does the reader get to decide that something is allegorical simply because the literal meaning makes him uncomfortable and doesn't fit his preferred narrative.   The author supplies the meaning and only the author can tell us when something is allegorical.