Justin Adams Posted August 23, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,605 Content Per Day: 3.97 Reputation: 7,795 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2019 To understand the Tanach, one needs the apostles' writings. To understand the mindset to the original scholars, one must see the contemporary (Summarian etc) writings and recordings of their time frames and before. They were brilliant writers, and at many points poke their contemporaries and rework their ancient belief systems. They were astute and very clever. So much is missed today. Augustine pioneered the later adopted Israeli idea of "the sons of Seth" against the writings about The Watchers (Gen 6). The Psalm 82 and other well documented ideas were trashed by Augustine. I think he was a sick man. The principalities and powers did much to obscure their tracks. So much so that our church today has not got a clue about the heavenly realm and the supernatural dealing of out Lord God. As in heaven, so on earth is a lost concept. So we are led up the garden path, or up the creek without a paddle. We are SO ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2019 15 hours ago, ChessPlayer said: I'm curious what pitfalls you see in evolution. In my experience, a high percentage of people that make claims like this do not have the ability or inclination to actually discuss these pitfalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, maryjayne said: rather a sweeping generalization there. No, it is an accurate assessment based on my experience. I’ve asked others if they would like to discuss such pitfalls, but I haven’t received any follow-up responses. I routinely ask other if they would like to discuss the evidence. This is the question I asked earlier in this thread - “I will be happy to discuss with you why I disagree with this dismissive assessment. Are you willing to have a discussion where both parties attempt to understand the other?” 2 hours ago, maryjayne said: Disagreement does not equal intellectual inability or the lack of capability to see more than one side of a discussion topic. No, but I find that a large portion of people that disagree with the evidence for evolution are unfamiliar with the evidence for evolution. It may be a harsh observation, but it is not unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Mclees Posted August 23, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 158 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 1,915 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 910 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/15/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2019 (edited) What is the difference between mainline and evangelical. Knowing something about church history. I would cut the % pie differently. First the word Christian is a common word for those who believe in Christ but holds little wait. 4o% 0f that believes anyone can be a Christian and add anything belief under the sun to it. If you don't believe that just ask a few. The other 40% are none believers, Scientists atheist, and those who don't believe anything. Now giving 20 %g but its probably less than that are those who truly Love Christ and live like he is on His way. They are the true bride who will love not their life unto the death. Of course I'm not a senses taker. Edited August 23, 2019 by Mike Mclees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 24, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2019 I don’t know what the point is you are wanting to convey. Can you summarize it briefly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Mclees Posted August 24, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 158 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 1,915 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 910 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/15/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2019 What good is knowing these percetages. I was In the kingdom of God their is only one truth one faith one Savior of all. I see no purpose with any of this. Their are only two people on the earth. Those who believe in Christ and those who choose not. I still don't know anything about Mainline Protestants and evangelical Protestants in the day of judgement. There is no Catholic Protestant in God kingdom or any of the other poor souls. Forget my post before. I was just goofing around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhchristian Posted August 24, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 136 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,488 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 1,325 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2019 On 8/22/2019 at 1:09 PM, ChessPlayer said: I'm not that your points really respond to modern views on theistic evolution. Generally theistic evolutionists view Genesis in a less literalistic manner than certain branches of fundamentalist Christianity. Theistic evolutionists argue for an approach similar to certain members of the early Church like Augustine or Origen or even Jewish scholars from the time such as Philo. These thinkers viewed Genesis in a very different manner than the Christian fundamentalist movement which had its origins in the 19th century. I believe in a literalist interpretation of the Word of God, which for me is a Faith thing. I Believe the Word of God is without error, and is divinely inspired. I may not understand it fully, But my interpretation must align with the Word of God. I Also believe that God is revealing the Truth of his Word which is clearly and plainly visible to all. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:19-20) I believe that the very notion of doubting the six day creation as recorded in Genesis is evidence of the Laodicean nature of the Modern church we are living in. Curiously that in that letter found in Revelation, Jesus Names himself as the Truth, (the Amen) and the Creator, and the true witness, Why, because these are his attributes that help us overcome this doubting Laodicean spirit of the age. I Also believe that the earth is coming to the rescue, meaning that the earth is revealing the evidence of the truth of the Word of God, as we speak. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. (Rev 12:15-16) I Believe This passage is speaking of a flood of Words/Attacks against the church, And the truth of the Word of God, and this attack is Thwarted by evidence buried in the earth that is revealing itself now, that the earth is a created body With a short history in time. I will give you one example of this, Read this. http://setterfield.org/Dodwell/Dodwell_Manuscript_1.html What Dodwell did was look at sundials from History to determine how the tilt of the Earth had changed over history. What he found was that there a sudden change in this tilt approx. 2350 BC , which curiously points to the exact time of Noah's Flood. When God Created the earth the sun moon and stars were created to mark seasons, which they still are today, But What Dodwell saw in studying these archeological sites is that the seasons and climate change drastically and quickly, thus explaining rise of megalithic astronomical structures to explain the Workings of the seasons, such as Stonehenge. Other evidence coming to light today of the veracity of the Word of God are thing like Mammoth remains being thawed from the Siberian tundra with undigested tropical fauna in their stomachs... As well as the discoveries of late of Pure sulfer Brimstones being found in the dead sea region scattered around, as if it rained down on the earth, as well as evidence of an extreme heating of structures to which scientists are trying to explain as an air blast of a comet... Well the Word of God point to this event known as the wrath of God on Sodom and Gomorrah. Are these creationist scientists that are discovering these things? No, The creationists are merely saying the Word of God accurately describes these events, and the timing of them. From this sort of evidence we can extend this to the creation account as well, when those same scientist give us their panspermia alternative, once the evidence of creation comes to light. On 8/22/2019 at 1:09 PM, ChessPlayer said: Regarding string theory, it is one model as to how a quantum mechanics and the Standard Model could be unified. CERN is mostly about collecting data on high energy particles. The data is somewhat helpful for explaining how quantum mechanics and the Standard Model can be reconciled but that is not the only purpose. It should be noted that String Theory is not the only option available to physicists and although certain extra dimensions are proposed, I'm not sure exactly why you see this as relevant to evolutionary biology. Could you explain the connection you see here? Panspermia doesn't really conflict with evolution. I'm not sure where you are getting that. It's more dealing with how life appeared on Earth in the first place rather than how it evolved on Earth. This is once again more of an abiogenesis question than an evolutionary biology question. Read above to see what I am getting at. Those in the Know, Know that evolution is a dying theory, and they are looking for another that accounts for a young earth and the ability to deny God. I do not know what they will come up per se, and these ideas are some suggestions. On 8/22/2019 at 1:09 PM, ChessPlayer said: I see what you're getting at but once again I think you are misunderstanding evolution. Definitions of life generally include the definition of being able to reproduce. Evolution really only concerns what happens to life upon generations of mutation and reproduction. How and why reproduction or life itself began is the subject of abiogenesis. Early life and reproduction was likely mitosis driven as it still seen in single celled organisms such as bacteria. This entire idea of a lizard giving birth to a chicken in an egg is a gross mischaracterization of evolutionary biology as well. Speciation does not happen that quickly. Instead it is slight changes over long periods of time that leads to speciation. This means that there is no worry about such massive differences as to produce problems with reproduction. And we know that certain groups separated by little time (on an evolutionary timeline) from a common ancestor can reproduce. Perhaps one of the best known is examples are modern homo sapiens and Neanderthals who coexisted and based on DNA evidence reproduced. Humans still contain Neanderthal DNA in small amounts (generally around 1% according to most studies). And who wrote the understanding that the definition of life is the ability to reproduce? You see, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot accept evolution and the Word of God simultaneously. For one denies the hand of God, the other affirms the Hand of God in creation, whether that be abiogenesis or Evolution of Species. Again, adaptation and micro "evolution" is viable, cross Genus evolution is not viable. As such, Humans early on in creation were a more hardy physically, and endured longer (hence the age of some of these pre-flood peoples reaching close to a millennia) But as time went on the use of the mind became more prevalent and Physical longevity and hardiness less so, as the competition for resources drove the survival of Humanity to the intelligent, as culture went from gathering resources to creating resources to harvest. We see this history at work today as well as the gathering cultures (Native Americans, Inuit, tribal cultures) are dying out being replaced by more intelligent and industrialized cultures. What I see is that earth is coming to the rescue of the Woman (church) by swallowing up the lies proceeding out of the Mouth of the Dragon (Satan) that call into question the validity of the Word of God, and have caused this doubt of the veracity of the Word of God, and the Authority thereof since the time of Graf and Wellhausen, and Charles Darwin, and other theories of scholarship that have drawn into the Question the authenticity of the Word of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChessPlayer Posted August 24, 2019 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 30 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2019 5 hours ago, dhchristian said: I believe that the very notion of doubting the six day creation as recorded in Genesis is evidence of the Laodicean nature of the Modern church we are living in. Curiously that in that letter found in Revelation, Jesus Names himself as the Truth, (the Amen) and the Creator, and the true witness, Why, because these are his attributes that help us overcome this doubting Laodicean spirit of the age. If I may, I would argue that people have not always held to the literalistic viewpoint on Genesis as you do and as such it would be unwise to say that it is "evidence of the Laodicean nature of the modern church" as you put it. As I have mentioned, Augustine, Philo, Origen and many others all wrote about Genesis and interpreted it in a very different manner than a modern Christian fundamentalist. And these were Christian and Jewish scholars separated a few centuries (or decades in the case of Philo) from Christ. I would say that fundamentalism has drastically changed our view of Genesis shifting it more towards a literalistic interpretation. If anything is a modern view, it would be such levels of literalism found in certain branches of Fundamentalist Christianity which came to life during the 19th century. It has substantially changed how Christians view Genesis (especially in the West and in the US in particular). 5 hours ago, dhchristian said: Read above to see what I am getting at. Those in the Know, Know that evolution is a dying theory, and they are looking for another that accounts for a young earth and the ability to deny God. I do not know what they will come up per se, and these ideas are some suggestions. I don't really see how you are getting that evolutionary biology is a dying field. Nor do I see the connection with String Theory (a model connecting quantum mechanics and the Standard Model) and panspermia (a theory of abiogenesis on Earth) have anything to do with evolution. You seem to be conflating these ideas together as a sort of conspiracy designed to push out God. Given the presence of Christian evolutionists, astrobiologists and theoretical physicists I'm unsure how any of these are designed to push out God. 5 hours ago, dhchristian said: You cannot accept evolution and the Word of God simultaneously. For one denies the hand of God, the other affirms the Hand of God in creation, whether that be abiogenesis or Evolution of Species. And here I think we arise at the crux of your argument. And it is an argument that has been made rather extensively by fundamentalists. The argument that evolution and Christian theology are incompatible with each other is, in my view, flawed. No theistic evolutionist doubts the providence and creative work of God. Rather, we celebrate the genius of the Creator who is able to work through the natural world in such a miraculous way. By accepting science we acknowledge that our Creator allows us to learn about him not just through his Word but through his creation as the Psalms say. 5 hours ago, dhchristian said: We see this history at work today as well as the gathering cultures (Native Americans, Inuit, tribal cultures) are dying out being replaced by more intelligent and industrialized cultures. Wow. Just wow. Did you take this line from the 19th century colonialism talking points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhchristian Posted August 25, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 136 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,488 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 1,325 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2019 Just now, ChessPlayer said: I don't really see how you are getting that evolutionary biology is a dying field. Nor do I see the connection with String Theory (a model connecting quantum mechanics and the Standard Model) and panspermia (a theory of abiogenesis on Earth) have anything to do with evolution. You seem to be conflating these ideas together as a sort of conspiracy designed to push out God. Given the presence of Christian evolutionists, astrobiologists and theoretical physicists I'm unsure how any of these are designed to push out God. Read the OP here. Biochemistry has shown irreducible complexity in the construction of cells. This is the Subject of the Post by Michael Behe. Here is a Quote from Him. "As the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met, skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." That is to say that time as science has advanced to understand the complexity of Life, That complexity is pushing the limits of evolution by natural selection over the allotted timespan of natural History. The Old saying was given enough time and chance anything is possible, well time is running out on evolution as a viable theory. So, What is happening is that those in the scientific community that are vying to negate the hand of God in creation, which is a root assumption of science, are trying to develop another framework to fit this formation of life into that is not dependent on time, hence the cross dimensional panspermia types of Notions... Again, I do not know the exact nature, of this, and I do not think the scientists do either. The Study of genetics and DNA has also led to the conclusion that at the root of DNA is information, and information has a source in a designer not in random chance, and happy accidents. Biochemist Dr. Duane Gish, a stalwart in the Creation movement and vice president of the Institute for Creation Research, observes about the human genome: “The genetics are so incredibly complex and can be so marvelously interrelated that it’s absolutely going to demand an intelligent source. The idea that all of this could have come about by random accidents, genetic errors, and so forth is just simply beyond comprehension.”6 He explains, for instance, that cells must have an incredibly sophisticated editing process to ensure that each gene is reproduced error-free. “If life did not have that editing process right at the very start, then it would just mutate right out of existence,” he explains. “All those errors would slip through—they’d make nonsense, and that would be the end of it. The fact that we have to have that editing process from the very beginning means it had to be created to be there to be effective and to do that work—or life could not exist.” Yes, Duane Gish is a creationist, and this excerpt is from a creationist site... https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-structure/dna-what-does-it-prove/ But what it shows is a Theory reaching its limits of comprehension and viability. There just is not enough time allowed by all the other sciences to allow for this complexity to evolve. 28 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said: And here I think we arise at the crux of your argument. And it is an argument that has been made rather extensively by fundamentalists. The argument that evolution and Christian theology are incompatible with each other is, in my view, flawed. No theistic evolutionist doubts the providence and creative work of God. Rather, we celebrate the genius of the Creator who is able to work through the natural world in such a miraculous way. By accepting science we acknowledge that our Creator allows us to learn about him not just through his Word but through his creation as the Psalms say. You wanted to have a discussion of the viability of theistic evolution, and you say this is the crux of my argument, which it is not. You ignore the crux of my argument in this comment. It is not that evolution and theism can live in harmony, but that God is revealing the Truth of His creation using science to do so, and soon the ones promoting the religion of Evolution will not be able to nullify the Empirical science that is questioning its viability. I Mentioned to you the several examples of how the God is using evidence from the earth to coming out to prove the truthfulness of His Word. That the Word of God is an inspired Book, and inerrant. Yes, this is a fundamentalist doctrine, and the one that the church needs to learn from instead of seeking compromise, and then be caught in a compromising position. 49 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said: 6 hours ago, dhchristian said: We see this history at work today as well as the gathering cultures (Native Americans, Inuit, tribal cultures) are dying out being replaced by more intelligent and industrialized cultures. Wow. Just wow. Did you take this line from the 19th century colonialism talking points? Almost sounds like the original Title of Darwin's Book, doesn't it..."The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.". This is a statement of fact, not colonialism. I am not justifying the elimination of native cultures by it, merely stating a fact that they are on the verge of extinction because they have not adapted. Some have adapted and are surviving while maintaining their way of life, but that is the exception. Tribes such as those in the Amazon, have for the most part assimilated into the cultures of the countries they live in, the ones that have not have a low life expectancy and their numbers are dwindling. Do I like it? No, But it is a fact. This fact shows the sinfulness of man, and the fact that creation itself is groaning due to this sinfulness, exactly as the Word of God predicts. The Wicked prosper, while the meek are killed off. My Point is simple in all of this, No need to analyze it like a chess player. I do not agree with theistic evolution because it Robs God of his Glory, And elevates science as an equal authority with scripture. In So doing, The Word of God is approached with a disrespectful attitude without the awe and fear of the LORD, as its inerrancy is questioned. This is indicative of the Laodicean church age we are living in, and those partaking in this sort of work are engaging in undermining the credibility of the Word of God. The Fruit of this are showing in the Post modern church which is anything but the salt of the earth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 25, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2019 9 hours ago, dhchristian said: And who wrote the understanding that the definition of life is the ability to reproduce? You see, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot accept evolution and the Word of God simultaneously. You can certainly believe in a 6000 year old earth and a 144 hour creation period, however it is absolutely false to claim that one cannot accept both God’s Word and evolution. You can disagree with me, but you cannot tell me what I accept. 2 hours ago, dhchristian said: I do not agree with theistic evolution because it Robs God of his Glory This is your opinion, but as someone that could be classified as a theistic evolutionist, my opinion differs completely. In the words of 19th century theologian, Charles Kingsley, “Shall we quarrel with Science if she should show how those words (Darwin’s) are true? What, in one word, should we have to say but this?–We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than even that, that He can make all things make themselves.” My awe of the Lord’s beauty, power, and creativity is only enhanced by the complexity of the evolutionary process. 2 hours ago, dhchristian said: In So doing, The Word of God is approached with a disrespectful attitude without the awe and fear of the LORD, as its inerrancy is questioned. This is also largely untrue. I, and many of my colleagues, accept the theory of evolution AND the inerrancy of God’s Word. Again, you may certainly disagree, but I suggest taking care with assertions that can easily be proven false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts