Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[AandW_Rootbeer]

The biggest problem is that people forget that the Word of God is sacrosanct.   And then they start adding into areas they believe can be viewed and interpreted as less important and valuable.

[dad2]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry if you thought you got to insert that it happened in any particular time frame. 

That's how the text tells you that it's not a literal account.  Logically impossible to have mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.  

No, you're wrong.   That's it by definition.  If you have to change the meaning of words to support your new doctrines, that should be a pretty good clue for you.

By many millions of years.   Would you like to learn how we know? Actually, evolutionary theory isn't what tells us this.  Geology and a paleontology show that to be the case.

I see your denial, but the evidence from physics, geology, and paleontology are more convincing.   Since the Bible offers no support for your new revision, you have nothing but "I just want it to be like that."

  You've pretty much tossed everything you don't like about reality into a box you've labeled "evolution."

Yep.  No point in you denying it.  You've confused evolutionary theory with the Big Bang, nuclear physics, geology, and a host of other things.  

 

 

 

No I am not confusing theories, you just do not recognize the same spirit behind the different theories. By their fruit will we know them. The origin stories from so called science share a direct opposition to the word of God. The same spirit that deceived Eve into doubting God is at work in the modern theories. There is no evidence from any branch of science that is against Scripture, there is only beliefs foisted onto evidences that result in a skewed and anti creation picture.  We cannot look at what constitutes a morning and evening today and try to transpose that and project it to the first days of creation. With no sun, one could not possibly try to define mornings or evenings by what the sun does. That should be obvious. Not sure where the problem is, perhaps some people have trouble realizing God can light the whole universe if He wishes! I see no problem with Him lighting earth while it was under construction! As you know, we are told point blank that in the future God lights New Jerusalem, and there is not even any need for the sun. 

[The Barbarian]

  You've pretty much tossed everything you don't like about reality into a box you've labeled "evolution."

Yep.  No point in you denying it.  You've confused evolutionary theory with the Big Bang, nuclear physics, geology, and a host of other things.  

On 7/9/2021 at 1:15 PM, dad2 said:

No I am not confusing theories

No point in denial.   Whatever scares you, you've interpreted as "evolution."

On 7/9/2021 at 1:15 PM, dad2 said:

The origin stories from so called science share a direct opposition to the word of God.

No, they are in opposition to your word.   God's word is not like that.

On 7/9/2021 at 1:15 PM, dad2 said:

That should be obvious. Not sure where the problem is, perhaps some people have trouble realizing God can light the whole universe if He wishes!

But of course, that's not what "morning" or "evening" mean.    You're still having to deal with the fact that Genesis itself refutes your new interpretation.

 

[dad2]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

But of course, that's not what "morning" or "evening" mean.    You're still having to deal with the fact that Genesis itself refutes your new interpretation.

 

False. A morning does not require the sun before the sun exists and neither would it be defined in the way you seek to define it. Nor does the sun determine what a day or evening is in the future according to the bible it won't really even be needed. Trying to force your preferred definition of what a morning is onto the bible is just an exercise in believing man over God and trying to butcher His word to get it to fit.

[The Barbarian]

But of course, that's not what "morning" or "evening" mean.    You're still having to deal with the fact that Genesis itself refutes your new interpretation.

23 hours ago, dad2 said:

False. A morning does not require the sun before the sun exists and neither would it be defined in the way you seek to define it.

Sorry, that's what morning means.   When the sun appears.   If you have to redefine terms to make your new theology work, that's a pretty good clue that the original version is better.

 

[dad2]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But of course, that's not what "morning" or "evening" mean.    You're still having to deal with the fact that Genesis itself refutes your new interpretation.

Sorry, that's what morning means.   When the sun appears.   If you have to redefine terms to make your new theology work, that's a pretty good clue that the original version is better.

 

The bible does not say that. It says there were mornings before the sun was made. As mentioned in the future a day is not determined by the sun either. You are creating your own definition for a morning and evening. Do not falsely accuse me of redefining what the bible says about things when you are doing exactly that. Show us any verse that says a morning is something that must be defined by movement of the sun?

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, dad2 said:

The bible does not say that.

That's what the word means.    In English, and in Hebrew.   It doesn't define "table" or "nose" or any other common words, either.   If you have to redefine words to make your new interpretation work, that's a good sign that your interpretation is wrong.

9 hours ago, dad2 said:

It says there were mornings before the sun was made.

Which is how the Bible shows you that it's not a literal account.

9 hours ago, dad2 said:

Do not falsely accuse me of redefining what the bible says about things

You're redefining a word to make it mean something else, in order to make scripture fit your preferences.

 

[dad2]

48 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That's what the word means.    In English, and in Hebrew.   It doesn't define "table" or "nose" or any other common words, either.   If you have to redefine words to make your new interpretation work, that's a good sign that your interpretation is wrong.

Which is how the Bible shows you that it's not a literal account.

You're redefining a word to make it mean something else, in order to make scripture fit your preferences.

 

There was no sun when the first mornings and evening happened. There is no way to claim that the bible defines morning as something exclusively depending on the sun. Not in the future and not in the past. An attempt to try to limit what a morning was by what temporary relationship mornings  and the sun have today is denying Scripture.

[dad2]

On 7/14/2021 at 4:37 PM, The Barbarian said:

  You've pretty much tossed everything you don't like about reality into a box you've labeled "evolution."

Yep.  No point in you denying it.  You've confused evolutionary theory with the Big Bang, nuclear physics, geology, and a host of other things.  

No point in denial.   Whatever scares you, you've interpreted as "evolution."

No, they are in opposition to your word.   God's word is not like that.

But of course, that's not what "morning" or "evening" mean.    You're still having to deal with the fact that Genesis itself refutes your new interpretation.

 

I found this in an encyclopedia

 

"

mor´ning : There are several Hebrew and Greek words which are rendered "morning," the most common in Hebrew being בּקר , bōḳer , which occurs 180 times. It properly means "the breaking forth of the light," "the dawn," as in Genesis 19:27; Judges 19:8 , Judges 19:25 , Judges 19:27 . Another word with the same meaning is שׁחר , shaḥar (Genesis 19:15; Nehemiah 4:21; Isaiah 58:8 ). משחר , mishḥar ("womb of the morning," Psalm 110:3 ) is a poetical term derived from. the same root. See HIND OF THE MORNING . נגהּ , nōghah , נגהא , naghhā' (Daniel 6:19 (Hebrew 20)), mean "brightness." השכּם , hashkēm , comes from השׁכּים , hishkı̄m , "to load an animal" (for a journey), and as the nomads are accustomed to do this early in the morning it came to mean early morning (1 Samuel 17:16 ). See BETIMES .

 

In the New Testament ὄρθρος , órthros , is properly "dawn," and is used for early morning ( John 8:2; Acts 5:21 ), and πρωΐ́α , prōı́a signifies the same Matthew 27:1 . πρωΐ́ , prōí , "early," is an adverb and means early in the morning Mark 1:35 . Morning as an adjective is ὀρθρινός , orthrinós Revelation 22:16 , or πρωΐνός , prōinós (1 Esd 1:11; 5:50; Revelation 2:28; Revelation 22:16 )."

https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/isb/m/morning.html

 The light that broke forth in day one of creation, or day two had zero to do with the sun.

 

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, dad2 said:

The light that broke forth in day one of creation, or day two had zero to do with the sun.

So the “light” had zero to do with the sun. Why is the period of “evening and morning” require 24 hours? There is nothing textual to insist that.