Science Disproves Evolution

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I agree with this sentiment completely. Our beliefs about the duration of creation does not impact our sinfulness and Jesus Christ’s perfect sacrifice on our behalf.

It has a huge impact on how unbelievers relate to the claims of Scripture and the claims of Jesus.   People with your views are a stumbling block for skeptics finding Christ.  It would be nice if people with your views would just stop trying to poison the well.

Quote

I know Him, too. And I believe that is infinitely more important than small issues we would potentially disagree upon. Thank you for the encouragement!

These are not small issues.  They are issues that affect the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.  The authority of Scripture over science is what is at stake.

[Guest shiloh357]

18 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

When someone says “this is what I believe”, then it is literally what they believe. Do you agree or disagree with what I literally believe?

The problem is that your "belief" doesn't really matter if it doesn't actually find any backing from Scripture.  It seems that you simply believe something because that is what you want to be true, not because it is in fact, true or supported by the Word of God.   

I can believe that my plate of broccoli is a hot fudge sundae.  So what?  If it doesn't actually comport with reality, it is a pointless belief.  You are stating beliefs about the Scriptures that don't actually comport with what the Bible says, so what's the point in believing something about the biblical text that it doesn't actually say?

[Heleadethme]

15 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Your original point was that Adam was an "allegory" and that was based on a basic ignorance of what allegory is.   You clearly lack discernment.   I don't need to pray about that.   Your original point was wrong and is still wrong.

Shiloh, I assume you didn't see frienduff's reminder about the scriptural allegory mentioned using that very word in the book of Galations.  Have a look.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, Heleadethme said:

Shiloh, I assume you didn't see frienduff's reminder about the scriptural allegory mentioned using that very word in the book of Galations.  Have a look.

 

That is actually allegory because the Bible says it is.   Genesis is not allegory and there is nothing in the Bible that says anything in Genesis is allegory.   Big difference. 

 

[frienduff thaylorde]

50 minutes ago, Heleadethme said:

Shiloh, I assume you didn't see frienduff's reminder about the scriptural allegory mentioned using that very word in the book of Galations.  Have a look.

 

One thing we all need to deeply remember .    Let us focus on the scrips .   let us forget science.    its a dead end trap.

Science is just mans best guess at trying to make life make sense , how this or that .

I left science long ago .    it don't matter if they do have some truths ,  heck the false religions have some truths but they false .

Science , physcology , wisdom of this world , all a dead end.   I aint here condemning anyone .  I am just saying lets forsake all this

and focus on just the Word and words in the bible .   Please .  evolution came from mans mind .   I leave that stuff far behind.

IF GOD wants to reveal something to me about creation I let him do that through the SPIRIT and the reading of the word .    

If we just reason out scripture its far easier to get in one accord.  

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

It has a huge impact on how unbelievers relate to the claims of Scripture and the claims of Jesus.   People with your views are a stumbling block for skeptics finding Christ.  It would be nice if people with your views would just stop trying to poison the well.

Let's look at our two differing views.

I believe it when the Bible says "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."

You give lip-service to the same, but believe that one should also adhere to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. Otherwise, one is disingenuous in their faith and likely not truly saved in the first place.

Which one do you think really makes a stumbling block?

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Let's look at our two differing views.

I believe it when the Bible says "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."

You give lip-service to the same, but believe that one should also adhere to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. Otherwise, one is disingenuous in their faith and likely not truly saved in the first place.

Which one do you think really makes a stumbling block?

Here is what you don't seem to understand...   The doctrines of the Bible are interlocking.  Every doctrine in the Bible is interlocked and interdependent with every other doctrine in Scripture.   You cannot divorce any teaching from the rest of the Bible without doing damage to the whole of Scripture.   The Gospel of Jesus Christ is heavily connected to Genesis.   Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology of the other 65 books of the Bible.    

You are taking the posture that as long as you believe the right things about Jesus, that it doesn't matter what a person believes about what is presented in Genesis.   That is simply not the case, and not how Scripture works.   You feel you can arbitrarily decide which parts of Genesis are historical and which parts are not because you have false sense of security about Genesis being disconnected from the New Testament, theologically.   It permits you to feel comfortable in a sanctified doubt when it comes to the Bible's historical inerrancy.

Why does that view present a stumbling block?   Because skeptics, particularly atheistic skeptics feel validated in being able to successfully question the historicity of Genesis 1-3.   Actually, they question the historicity of Genesis 1-11, but focus heavily on 1-3.  And for skeptics I have talked to on college campuses, it's really simple:   If Genesis 1-3 is pretty much non-historical, if you cannot really trust that what you're reading in those opening chapters really happened, then why trust that what the Bible says about Jesus is true?

Their point is that if Genesis 1-3 is not a 100% true, historical account, if the Bible's account of creation is wrong and Evolution is right, then how can anyone claim that it has the authority to tell me that I am a sinner?   Why should I trust it's assessment of my condition, when I can find so many places in the Bible where what is said, isn't really the way it happened?   Why believe the Gospel?

So for the skeptic, they don't have to directly dismantle the teachings of Jesus or the Gospel.  They simply have to raise enough of what they consider to be reasonable doubt about the Bibles' veracity in other areas, in order to justify their rejection of Jesus.  Theistic Evolution allows them to insulate their unbelief in the fact that not even Christians really believe Genesis.   So why believe the rest of it?

And their argument has validity.   If I know a guy who lies 15% of the time, is he worthy of any of my trust?   No.   So, from the perspective of the skeptic, there is good reason to reject the Gospel since they feel there are enough significant problems in the Bible's reliability and integrity in other places. My conversations with skeptics almost always turn to all of the Christians who share their doubts about the historicity of Genesis.

So yes, people with your views are a stumbling block to genuine skeptics who are searching for the truth.   Theistic Evolution is a liability to the Kingdom of God.

Edited March 26, 2018 by shiloh357

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Here is what you don't seem to understand...   The doctrines of the Bible are interlocking.  Every doctrine in the Bible is interlocked and interdependent with every other doctrine in Scripture.   You cannot divorce any teaching from the rest of the Bible without doing damage to the whole of Scripture.   The Gospel of Jesus Christ is heavily connected to Genesis.   Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology of the other 65 books of the Bible.

And this is what you don't seem to understand... The Bible clearly teaches what we must do to be saved and it does not include believing that the universe was created in 6 periods of 24 hours. Putting that requirement in front of unbelievers is contrary to what the Bible teaches and is therefore, a stumbling block.

Requirement for a belief in a 144 hour creation is a liability to the Kingdom of God.

I have put my Genesis-based doctrine out for display and no one can tell me anything wrong with it - only how I derive that doctrine. That should tell you something, if you would look past your prejudice and think.

[Guest shiloh357]

14 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

And this is what you don't seem to understand... The Bible clearly teaches what we must do to be saved and it does not include believing that the universe was created in 6 periods of 24 hours. Putting that requirement in front of unbelievers is contrary to what the Bible teaches and is therefore, a stumbling block. Requirement for a belief in a 144 hour creation is a liability to the Kingdom of God.

You're missing the point. 

I am not putting that requirement on anyone.  I am not saying that you must believe in a 6 day creation to be saved. I have never said that.

What I am saying is that skeptics and unbelievers feel they have no reason to believe or trust what the Bible says about the Gospel, their sin, or need for a Savior, since they feel they are justified in disbelieving the clear and literal teaching of the six day creation. 

From their perspective, if the Bible got it wrong at the beginning and the rest of the Bible is built on what they see as a faulty foundation, then they feel the Bible got it wrong about Jesus and what Jesus said.   Many use this very argument against Genesis to argue that the words attributed to Jesus were not really words He spoke and that the resurrection is just as mythological as Genesis one. 

Quote

I have put my Genesis-based doctrine out for display and no one can tell me anything wrong with it - only how I derive that doctrine. That should tell you something, if you would look past your prejudice and think.

Actually, I did tell you what was wrong with what you said and pointed out that the doctrine you claim to espouse finds its origin ONLY in a literal interpretation of Genesis.   The problem is that you want to make textual claims about Genesis without producing any textual evidence to support those claims. 

What you have is an incoherent theology and that theology is a stumbling block and a liability to skeptics coming to Christ. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by shiloh357

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, I did tell you what was wrong with what you said and pointed out that the doctrine you claim to espouse finds its origin ONLY in a literal interpretation of Genesis.   The problem is that you want to make textual claims about Genesis without producing any textual evidence to support those claims.

But since that is demonstrably false, I ignored it. I don't take a 144-hour creation view, and yet I still hold the doctrinal points that I claim to hold. I'm not lying about my doctrinal beliefs.

You said about a week ago that the serpent in Genesis 3 is figurative for Satan (and I agree with this). Do you have textual evidence to support that claim? You are completely fine with figurative language in parts of the Genesis account.