Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[Sparks]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Claiming it is so, does not necessarily make it so. There are many theologians that disagree.

These theologians are sadly mistaken. 

On one of the pages you posted, they wrote:

"The Genesis author was simply writing in the ‘politically-correct’ cosmogenic and prose-narrative style of that day.  Thus, the Genesis 1 text was not meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit with modern science.  It was simply the literary way that writers of that day wrote down their narrative thoughts.  In other words, God gave the revelation to the people mentioned in Genesis, but then the biblical authors wrote this revelation down in their own literary style."

That's some serious false doctrine.  The author of that page didn't realize Genesis had 10 authors, and the first was God Himself. 

You would think a renowned scholar(s) would have known that little detail like there being authors of Genesis, and that God was one. 

God was being politically correct?  Really?

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That's some serious false doctrine.  The author of that page didn't realize Genesis had 10 authors, and the first was God Himself. 

God was definitely the first author. We can agree on that much. It is a matter of some debate about who actually recorded the text, but we can also agree that it was at least one human and not God.

Why is it false doctrine to suggest that a human author would be influenced by their environment? Do you believe God dictated His words, rather than inspired? What evidence would you use from the Bible to support that idea?

[one.opinion]

Hey guys, it would be really cool if someone actually addressed the OP. So @Sparks, @David1701, @AandW_Rootbeer, @Alive could I talk any of you to looking at the theological points from the OP and commenting on those? It would be awesome if conversation were actually related to those.

[Sparks]

Just now, one.opinion said:

God was definitely the first author. We can agree on that much. It is a matter of some debate about who actually recorded the text, but we can also agree that it was at least one human and not God.

God wrote the Ten Commands with His own finger in stone.   God could have written anything He wanted to write, but know that He was the only one around who saw all of creation, as He is the creator.   So dictation, or his own hand or more likely, just a sentence of His spoken into the air, He is the author.

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Why is it false doctrine to suggest that a human author would be influenced by their environment?

Anything taught that disagrees with what the Bible says is a false doctrine.  It's that simple.  

The Bible is being literal about Genesis.   These alleged scholars should not change the Bible's meaning just because it does not agree with their personal belief about evolution theory.

[Sparks]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Hey guys, it would be really cool if someone actually addressed the OP. So @Sparks, @David1701, @AandW_Rootbeer, @Alive could I talk any of you to looking at the theological points from the OP and commenting on those? It would be awesome if conversation were actually related to those.

I have addressed it.  You are trying to make evolution theory agree with the Bible, but it does not.  You admit evolution is a theology (religion), but its not what happened according to the Bible and observation, so it is it's own religion.   Evolution theory is also not science, because it remains unobserved. 

Evolution theory is a massive waste of time, even if it were true, but it's not true.

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I have addressed it.

You have addressed precisely zero of the theological points that I made in the OP.

I'll re-post them here, if that will help:

Quote

 

So, without further ado, these are the major theological points that I gather from Genesis 1-3.

1. God is creator of ALL things. I believe that the original audience for these chapters was a group of people that had just escaped 400 years immersed in a culture teeming with false gods. This was an important reminder for them.

2. God made humans special - in His likeness. We possess something that is unique among living creatures. This is quite likely something more than just bigger brains and the ability to talk. I believe our Imago Dei is spiritual, not physical.

3. Humans tragically chose their own way, rather than following God's specific instructions. This not only affected Adam and Eve (which I believe to be real people, and not just literary archetypes), but the rest of humanity. We are doomed to sin and its consequences.

4. God promised a way of deliverance. This was not spelled out in detail in Genesis 3, but it foretold of the coming Messiah.

 

Look at these points. Do you agree? Do you disagree? What would you add from Genesis 1-3 that you think is important? Those types of comments would be appreciated.

[Sparks]

23 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Look at these points. Do you agree? Do you disagree? What would you add from Genesis 1-3 that you think is important? Those types of comments would be appreciated.

Your topic is about the Theological problems of God-guided evolution which has set the tone.  The idea of God-guided evolution has many problems of which you don't want to hear, and which people have been trying to answer.

If I answer your questions above, outside of the context of your topic, wouldn't it just circle back around to evolution?

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The idea of God-guided evolution has many problems of which you don't want to hear, and which people have been trying to answer.

I’ve been attempting for a few pages to get people to address the OP, while still discussing the specific issues they wanted.

Trying to get people to address the OP has been frustrating. I don’t understand the hesitancy. It has been a deliberate effort to avoid addressing the OP of a thread.

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

If I answer your questions above, outside of the context of your topic, wouldn't it just circle back around to evolution?

Not on my part - my intent for the entire thread has been a theological discussion. What do you think is right? What do you think is wrong? What would you change or add?

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Trying to get people to address the OP has been frustrating. I don’t understand the hesitancy.

The fact that the premise is bogus seems to be the problem.   Maybe if you just asked about Genesis without the evolution component, people would answer about Genesis?

Genesis 1:16 (KJV)  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So, notice what God said?  He said "Let us make man in our image."  Do you want to hear things like Jesus is God, and that we look just like Jesus, so it's not just our spiritual component of being in His image? 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

So, notice what God said?  He said "Let us make man in our image."  Do you want to hear things like Jesus is God, and that we look just like Jesus, so it's not just the spiritual component of being in His image? 

That was a specific incarnation of God. Jesus Himself teaches that God is Spirit in John 4. Additionally, where would this put groups like Neanderthals that looked quite a bit like us. Were they also made in God's image because they look similar to Homo sapiens?