Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 3:49 AM
42 online now:
CosmicChimp, Tangle (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Christ making statements about Creation
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2509 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 76 of 83 (523677)
09-11-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by greyseal
09-11-2009 9:04 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Who created the framework?

DARWIN.


Basically yip. So you agree that evolutionists work in a framework.

bible literalists, however, will NEVER step outside their already-held beliefs.

Do you, yet, understand the difference?


So will you ever step outside of your belief that purely naturalistic processes over a vast period of time have resulted in producing complex organisms from "simple" organisms?
Do you see the similarity? "It’s important to note that all reasoning really starts with presuppositions (axioms, i.e. certain things that are taken for granted without being able to prove them). And there’s nothing inappropriately “biased” about that, it’s inevitable, but the question is then whether the presupposition leads to conclusions which support it sufficiently to justify trusting it further, and so on." (http://creation.com/who-is-the-creator)
tiktaalik:
So what have you got. A head and shoulders, a part of the front fins. No tail, no "hind fins". You have fins that are not connected to the main body and may turn out to be something similar to the coelacanth fins that were meant to be the beginnings of legs and were found on live coelacanths to be used for swimming not walking. I think the verdict is still out. There is not enough info to make a tight case for the tiktaalik to be transitional.

Then Dr Alan Feduccia is wrong, expert or not

So you know better than the experts?
Just for fun, lets use the argument you like to use. Are you more highly qualified in this area than Feduccia or the majority of scientists that took part at the International Archaeopteryx Conference?

For both "transitional fossils" we are debating two fossils in isolation from the many and large changes that are needed for evolution from fish to tetrapod or reptile to bird.

as for why horse evolution should look like a bush, think about it for a second - if evolution were obviously continuously guided by the hand of god, there would be no mistakes. What we see, however, are evolutionary dead-ends. The horse species branches out in it's ancestry into different paths, and not all of them were successful.

Again you show ignorance of what creationists believe.

Gish:
Did you read his reply to this charge?

This discussion has really gone off on a pretty big tangent. While I am happy to go on discussing these matters, I think we should take this topic elsewhere if you want to continue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by greyseal, posted 09-11-2009 9:04 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by greyseal, posted 09-12-2009 6:05 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 77 of 83 (523702)
09-12-2009 1:02 AM


Has anyone encountered this topic's theme recently?
My quick review of the most recent messages doesn't find anything close. Please find a suitable topic for these other things, or propose new topic(s).

Now, a replay of this topics message 1:

quote:
In Message 126, Creation Guy wrote:

quote:
Christian - loosely means someone who follows the teachings of Christ. To another degree it would mean one who believes Christ was more than just a man - the Son of God. Now as the Son of God what he says is gospel, at least for we Christians.

That being said.
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct.

As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours.

What I cannot fathom is how you can say you are a Christian, but do not believe the words of Christ. You are trusting the suppositions and a belief they hold over acts they never saw (evolution)- over Christ?

I know of the theistic evolution and the two could not be more at odds. In one time is the miracle worker, in the other God is the miracle worker.

I'll end this post before I wander off too far - but being a Christian and being also a believer in evolutionism is at odds with one another at every level. At worst you are not a Christian (since you do not believe that He is God) see John 8:24), at best you are a confused Christian.

It is rough being a biblical fundamentalist.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

This would lend credence to Genesis as well.


That being said.
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct.

Let's look at it in context:

KJV Bible, Mark 10 writes:

2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The Pharisees at that time thought the Moses wrote Genesis and were familiar with the story, of course. Jesus is simply using something that they are familiar with to answer their question. This does not mean that Jesus must be making statements about his own opinion on the matter.

Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Same thing here, Jesus doesn't have to be saying that the flood actually ocurred in real life if he is just referencing a story, that he knows is fictional, but that the audience was familiar with and probably believed.

For an anology, consider that Jesus is talking with a modern nerd, instead of a Pharisee, and says:

"Just as the United Federation of Planets gave you the Prime Directive, you to shall not blah blah blah."

In the same way, this would not mean that Jesus is saying that the United Federation of Planets actually exists. He is just referring to something familiar.

You get my point?

As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours.

What I'm getting at is that you have a false dichotomy here because Jesus doesn't have to be incorrect if he wasn't endorsing the statement as factual. Or at least, its a way to rationalize the two.

And I'm not trying to convince you that this must be right. I'm trying to explain how one can be a true christian and still accept evolution.


Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by greyseal, posted 09-12-2009 6:15 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 78 of 83 (523707)
09-12-2009 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Arphy
09-11-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
This discussion has really gone off on a pretty big tangent. While I am happy to go on discussing these matters, I think we should take this topic elsewhere if you want to continue.

Yes, I agree. The things you're going over (quote mined arguments from authority, a basic ignorance of what "transitional" means) have probably been gone over before but are interesting nonetheless.

I appologize for apparently hijacking the thread...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 9:03 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 79 of 83 (523709)
09-12-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Has anyone encountered this topic's theme recently?
Let's look at it in context:
KJV Bible, Mark 10 writes:

2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The Pharisees at that time thought the Moses wrote Genesis and were familiar with the story, of course. Jesus is simply using something that they are familiar with to answer their question. This does not mean that Jesus must be making statements about his own opinion on the matter.

I don't see why this (or any other passage in the bible that I know of) has anything at all to do with evolution.

the closest I've heard so far is Genesis itself, and even that doesn't preclude evolution, even when read literally.

If you read it as a parable, it's instructive of the power and glory of a creator as well as just a story.

If you insist on reading it literally you either have to accept that not everything in the world, plant or animal, is described literally therein, OR you have to accept evolution by fiat (because all the animals and plants NOT listed must have evolved from those that were).

Even if you're happy with it being a literal account, where does it say that god made everything unchanging? You can then happily discount all pre-human ancestors as monkeys and apes, all fantastic beasts as dying in the flood, and evolution happens because that's the way god made it, surely?

If you're arguing design, there's nothing in the bible that says god designed things either to change or not to change, so why not accept (as people had happily done even before Darwin) that things changed and evolved, and still do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2009 1:02 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 83 (524542)
09-17-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Arphy
09-06-2009 7:44 AM


It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't.
ok, so why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?

It seems like Jesus was saying that if they couldn't believe Moses, then they wouldn't be able to believe Him.


I don't think you answered my question. why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?

I think I did answer your question. It was important to Jesus that they believed Moses because if they couldn't believe Moses then they couldn't believe Him.

Jesus used "fictional work" a lot, aka parables, so yeah... fictional works are capable of giving us commands that we should believe in.

parables can give illustrate commands that exist anyway but the commands don't originate because of the story. Perhaps "doctrines" would be a better word to substitute in for "commands".

Hrm. So then in Message 33 you're saying:

quote:
ok so if a fictional work gives a command doctrine we should beleve it? We only take commands doctrine from real people not hypothetical people. Just because some fictional work commands ¿indoctrinates? something shouldn't influence my actions.

So what are you saying here? That no doctrine comes from fictional stories or people so that since some doctrine came from the story and/or person then it/they cannot be fictional? Is that your argument?

So that one can be both Christian and evolutionist, or lessly "not-Creationist".

Again, I'm not saying that a person is a christian because they believe in evolution, but i do think it is a dangerous position and is no longer "biblical-woldview"

I can be a "biblical-worldview". But what it can't allow for is a literal and inerrant Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 7:44 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 81 of 83 (524549)
09-17-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by greyseal
09-07-2009 1:51 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
ah, so you weren't there either.
then we'll have to use deductive reasoning - and fashion up a theory that is explained by the facts.

I have no objection to that. I really like science. I also like the word of God (I take the Bible as God's word).

me:
I don't know. I don't claim to know.

Oh now, you DO claim to know based on what you've been taught from the bible, otherwise why are you arguing for the position you are?
If you HAVEN'T looked at the facts and/or are selectively ignoring them, then shame on you.

I don't know the exhaustive details of how life arose upon this earth. I have an understanding that God is ultimately reponsible. And the Bible tells me that it is by faith that I know this.

"By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear" (Hebrews 11:3)

The information provided me that instills faith is economical and apparently limited.

And I think that it is layed out for us in a sequence to mostly emphasize the uniqueness of man in this creation. The animals are traced as to their arrival not in an exhaustive way. But the review seems to me to highlight two matters,IMO, levels of consciousness and the development of the face.

I mean this, the grass has a low level of consciousness as compared to man. The fish are mentioned on the fifth day. These creatures have a higher level of consciousness than the grass. We are ascending up the scale in level of consciousness.

We are told next of the fowl life on the fifth day. I think the point is the point is in consciousness we are ascending higher. The birds being able to transcend the salty water may be a point. They can freely soar above the environment of the salty sea. And their consciousness is higher than both the plant life and the fish life.

Then on the sixth day we are told of the higher lives which not only transcend but can accomplish something on the earth. The lion is used elsewhere in Scripture to represent Judah, a tribe that can accomplish many significant things. First Samuel 6:7,21a tells abnout two kine whch were used to carry the cart with the ark.

Both the beasts and the cattle of the sixth day can accomplish something on this earth. Their consciousness is higher than the fish, even higher than the bird, and they can do something on this earth.

I am using the Bible to interpret the Bible. I believe that Holy Spirit is laying out the sequence of living creatures to portray the ascendency of consciousness, responsiblity, and expression, We are approaching the highest life, human beings. We are doing so in such a way so that man can look down from the peak of this pennacle and have a certain self consciousness about himself. He is among the other created lives yet he also stands apart from them in a unique way.

Me:
I claim to have a belief. I have a faith that God has revealed something to us about creation.

so, you basically believe what somebody else has told you at face value.

This would be an over simplification. Over a period of time after I had met Jesus Christ, a kind of approvedness and trustworthiness was built up in my mind concerning the integrity of Jesus. It was eventual that I decided that what He took seriously in the rest of the Bible I should likewise take seriously.

Now, I also have respect for other people, including scientists. But the approvedness of Jesus for me is more impressive. I am at the point where I think His integrity is beyond questioning.

This decision came gradually. I did not start reading Genesis when I became a Christian. I started with the Gospels and gradually opened up my mind to the rest of the Bible when I observed Christ's attitude towards the rest of Scripture.

Me:
Granny said he/she had facts that proved what I am told there in Genesis is fantasy. I am not persuaded that Granny can say that with total and complete confidence.

Maybe if you looked at the facts, you'd disagree. I don't know how old you are, I don't know if you're being homeschooled by somebody

I will be 60 years old in another month. I have raised two children who are now in thier lower thirties. Both are college degreed.


who doesn't know the facts or whether you're being sent to a school that is ignoring the facts.

I am not ignoring the facts that present day biological theory is that birds are the descendents of dinosaurs.

As a family we subscribed to Discovery Magazine. And contrary to what you think I am really quite fascinated with scientific advancement, I especially keep reasonably abreast of cosmology from a layman's perspective.

1.) I just don't know if I can say a known fact proves anything in Genesis not true. I ahve to ask myself certain questions about the text. I ask about what it says in the original language. I ask about what it does not say.

I consider the purpose behind what is being conveyed. The immediate issue that Granny raises is that birds were alive only after land walking animals. So because we KNOW this the fifth day review of God creating birds preceeding the land creatures on the sixth day must therefore be an error.

I am not sure that the intent of the writing can be merit that criticism.

2.) I am not sure that the seer or prophet is relating to things to us as he saw them. In which case the visions were economical and many details were not made known to him.

For sequence of visions of the creatures and their days may not have the purpose of revealing their chronological appearance on the earth. Rather the sequence may emphasize their ascending consciousness as they approach the main subject of the creation story, the creation of man in God's image.

At this time I do not have the confidence to insist that birds being reviewed on day five preceeding cattle being reviewed on day sixth represents a scientific error.

I further don't know that we have more than a educated guess that birds could only exist after land dwelling life forms could. I am Okay with acknowledging that the present consenus interpretation of fossils leads to that belief.

I don't know that that fossil record interpretation renders Genesus 1:20-25 wrong.


If you are, I feel sorry for you.
The rest of my paragraph which you so kindly cut tried to give you a viewpoint on why we believe (in the non-theistic use of the word) what we believe - the theory explains all the facts. Please read it if you haven't.

Neither of us may ever know for sure.

Well now you went and pulled out Last Thursday-ism. As I said before, once you pull out that canard, then it's no longer scientific, it's philosophical. This being the "social and religious issues" forum, that's probably fair - but if you want to talk about Granny Magda's facts, it's a different ballgame, surely?

You say I am out of place. But this is the Bible Study forum. So maybe Granny is out of place.

The underlying question here is "What Does the Bible Really Mean?"

I think I am persuing that question. I do not think I have all the answers. But it is a legitimate questions - Does Genesis intend to present a exhaustive scientific discreption of God created everything ?

At present I don't think Genesis is to be taken as an exhaustive scientific discriptyion of how God created everything. The first things seen are in a state of ruin and void, suggesting that something was there in a chaotic state. Either entropy or catastraphy is implied which would also imply the passage of more time prior to the six days of review there with their focus on Man's world.

At least some quarters of science today envision something like killer comets, killer gas, killer asteriods, massive volcanic desterbance wreaking havoc on some previous earth epoch. This really seems skating closer to Genesis 1:1,2 in a number of English translations:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep" (RcV, Gen 1:1,1)

I see conceivable room there for epochs of time preceeding Adam's world.

Now concerning the Evolution matter. Let me say one thing before I close.

The word had no problem in telling us that Eve was taken out of Adam as a rib and built into a female human being. If Adam had come out of a primate, for example, an ape of some kind ( the artist usually draw something that at least looks to me like an ape ), I don't see why the revelator would not have written that God took a man out of a ape and called his name Adam.

As it stands Adam the first man came out of the dust. So I have a question mark on this matter of an ape one day or gradually over many millions of days producing a human being.

It very well could have said "And God took the creature out of the ape and formed him into a man". It didn't. So I remain suspicious about the ape ancestor theory.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by greyseal, posted 09-07-2009 1:51 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 7:42 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 82 of 83 (524557)
09-17-2009 1:15 PM


I wrote above:

And I think that it is layed out for us in a sequence to mostly emphasize the uniqueness of man in this creation. The animals are traced as to their arrival not in an exhaustive way. But the review seems to me to highlight two matters,IMO, levels of consciousness and the development of the face.

I mean in addition to levels of consciousness being traversed in this journey up from grass to man, we also see a development of the neck and face.

The grass, the lowest life mentioned, has no face. The fish of the sea have their neck and face practically the same. But at least they have something like a face which is higher than the plant life in expression. Then we come to the birds who have something of a neck. We are ascending up in levels of facial appearance coming to the man the climax.

The cattle and land beasts mentioned after plants, fish, and birds have the head and face more developed. The head appears distinct from the neck now.

Last of all we come to human beings who have a fully developed and expressive face which comumicates thousands of minute indicatiosn of changes in mood and in thought - intention. I think this, moreso than the cow or lion.

Man made in the image of God is the maturity of created life in Genesis. The ascending record of life's creation reflects this. All the other creatures are created after thier kind. Then at the climax we see man created in the image of God. Man is created to express God and represent God.

I think the what should be paid attention to is this matter. This is more important to me then whether birds lived before or after water oxen and lions. If these visions were revealed to the seer or prophet in seven sequences as days, I think the intend is to impress upon the seer the ascendency of consciousness of life and sophistication of expression as seen in the development of the neck, head, and face of the creatures.

We have to admit that man looks down now from the top of this pyramid of lives and realizes about himself that there is NOTHING else on the earth living quite like himself.

I presently think that the Darwinists look at this ladder of ascendency and see TIME must have worked. I see rather the divine Mind at work to give man a self consciousness about himself. He is of the other creatures yet he is totally unique. He can neither be TOO proud nor take himself too much for granted.

He is one of the creatures yet he stands out as closest to God the Creator and Himself the uncreated eternal life.

This is forum about what the Bible really means.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 83 of 83 (524705)
09-18-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
09-17-2009 12:40 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Hi Jaywill,

I don't know the exhaustive details of how life arose upon this earth. I have an understanding that God is ultimately reponsible. And the Bible tells me that it is by faith that I know this.

"By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear" (Hebrews 11:3)

The information provided me that instills faith is economical and apparently limited.

I actually like your attitude to the bible, it is actually open-minded. My objections aren't to people who are open minded, merely those who are close-minded about the bible being literally, completely, exactly, unalterably, unarguably true in and of itself.

Your following evaluation shows you don't necessarily think that.

Others do, and that's where it gets teeth-grating because they insist that everything else match up to such a narrow view.

I will be 60 years old in another month. I have raised two children who are now in thier lower thirties.

Well done and happy birthday in advance!

You sit somewhere between biblical literalist and naturalist, by the sound of it - I would suggest this as an answer you may agree with, or at least not vociferously disagree with:

there's no reason that god can't be guiding evolution, or have just plain used evolution (presumably knowing where it would lead - not a scientific viewpoint, but it doesn't have to be).

then his creation of everything would lead to man, who would concoct (in some form of concert with god) a story to explain the origins.

This is, essentially, what most theists believe (I'm assuming of course that most theists aren't dyed-in-the-wool bible thumpers).

If Genesis and many of the other parts aren't literal, and/or if Jesus was essentially god in human form, there's nothing particularly anti-evolution in the bible (when taken like that).

I don't think Jesus said anything specifically anti-evolution - even saying "and god made man" doesn't say evolution can't happen, as it could be more metaphorical than literal.

If you're a biblical literalist YEC (which, from your own words, you are not) you would heartily disagree.

You're right this isn't the science forum, so I need to rephrase my answers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 09-17-2009 12:40 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019