We agree
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
We agree
iouae
Well-known member
Most Protestants are smart enough to know the earth is not 6000 years old.
Protestants may not know where the problem is in their exegesis of the Bible, but they recognise one cannot fit the geologic column in 6000 years.
And they will come to understand that Genesis should be translated as follows..
Gen 1:1
¶
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2
And the earth was [BECAME] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.[DUE TO A MASS EXTINCTION] And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters[AND RE-CREATED THE EARTH'S HOLOCENE BIOME IN 6 DAYS]
6days
New member
It would seem that Christians who do not understand Genesis as literal history do not understand the gospel. Cobra, like many theistic evolutionists can't answer this question. I'm curious how your answer to this lines up with what Paul teaches.Barbarian said:
Why couldn't Jesus just forgive peoples sin without having to physically die?
iouae
Well-known member
Then you are quoting to the wrong person, since I am not an evolutionist but an OEC - the right kind of creationist
I understand your desire to move the discussion away from the fact that there are two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation.
That desire is rooted in the fact that the scriptures do not support your views.
You deny what the scriptures actually say.
By the way, 6 days, Jesus forgave sins before He died. I hope you do not think that was presumptuous and inappropriate of Him to do.
An example:
Mark 2 When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3 Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, "Stand up and take your mat and walk'? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— 11 "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home." 12 And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"
Do you join the scribes in rejecting the right of Jesus to forgive sins?
There are more examples. So Jesus had the power to forgive sins before He died. He was God. Why would you disagree with the scriptures and think you have the right to limit His power?
iouae
Well-known member
Then you are quoting to the wrong person, since I am not an evolutionist but an OEC - the right kind of creationist
One has to deny so much mainstream science to believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
One cannot fit the many different biomes into 6000 years.
One cannot have the giant reptiles of the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous live simultaneously on earth with the giant mammals of the Tertiary and Quaternary.
And then there are those pesky distant galaxies and light from billions of years ago.
Yes, He is better.
And better is what Jesus actually said than what you pretend He said!
On the contrary...
Exodus 20:11:
"For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it." (GNV)
"For in six days God made (the) heaven(s) and (the) earth, the sea, and all things that be in those, and rested in the seventh day (and then he rested on the seventh day); therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (WYC)
"For in sixe dayes the Lord made heauen and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seuenth day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and halowed it." (KJV 1611)
View attachment 26118
(Bishops 1602 photo of Exodus 20:1-13, unable to find full resolution photo)
All of the above verses come from Bibles written/printed before 1700.
I wonder what else is wrong that you say...
Did you not take the word of someone else that told you that Moses and Genesis is not literal?
So you're saying without having a clock, it can't be evening and morning? Evening and morning are two different times of day. Here's how you're wrong:
Imagine you're on a tidally locked planet, dead center on the sunward side. Your watch says it's noon. wait a few hours, and now it says it's 6pm. Has the time of day changed? Yes. Has the sun moved? No. Time is independent of clocks.
No, it doesn't, because there is no indication that Moses was referring to anything other than six 24 hour periods, plus another 24 hour period.
No one here has added to what Moses wrote. The only one altering scripture here is you, by saying that Moses wasn't being literal when he explicitly wrote "in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them."
There was a team of Hebrew scholars who wrote these notes to the NET Bible.
13tn Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).
14tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”
15tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.
There were 5 excellent Hebrew scholars who make it clear that the second creation story says man was formed “back before anything was growing.”
And adds “There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.”
Why do you reject the team of Hebrew scholars’ work and deny the text itself?
6days, you can look up their credentials:
The NET Bible® Team
First Edition Translators, Editors, and Consultants
Old Testament Translators and Editors
Pentateuch:
Richard E. Averbeck, Ph.D.
(Dropsie College)19
Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)
Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.
(Columbia University)
Allen P. Ross, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)
You are rejecting the truth in favor of your tradition, a tradition that requires a denial of the Biblical text.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
Looks like the majority have chosen to evade. Hardly surprising.
I will post the question again for them:
Maybe they are like Baal being confronted by Elijah when this question was first posted, meditating, wondered away, sleeping or on a journey:
1 Kings 18
...he is meditating, or he has wandered away, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."
It is a valid question. Someone should have the courage to answer. Some Christians have, but the “it’s literal or it’s a lie” adherents have been silent.
Breakaway sects of Christianity have always argued that orthodox Christians don't get it. It's kind of a measure of how far they've deviated from Christianity.
You aren't sure of this, because you're so wedded to creationism that you can't easily accept why a Redeemer is necessary.
Typically, Augustine and other Doctors of the Church who followed his thought, such as Thomas Aquinas, saw right through the dilemma. They challenged the notion that, in light of Christ’s Passion, Christians serve a God who must be either a bumbling wimp or a repulsive sadist. No, they insisted: Our God is indeed all-powerful, all-wise, and all-good. But we must examine more closely, ponder more deeply, the true nature of divine power, wisdom, and goodness, as these attributes are revealed in the terrifying Passion of our Lord.
Augustine summed it up this way: "Other possible means were not lacking on God’s part, because all things are equally subject to his power" (On the Trinity 8:10). When examining the question many centuries later, Aquinas quoted Augustine and added scriptural support: "It was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ," he concluded, "because nothing shall be impossible for God (cf. Luke 1:37)."
Aquinas admits that some scriptural texts seem to say God had no choice in the matter (cf. Summa Theologiae 3:46:2). On several occasions in the Gospel accounts, Jesus himself spoke this way. For example, after declaring Peter to be the "rock," our Lord said to the disciples: "The Son of Man must suffer many things . . . and be killed, and on the third day be raised" (Luke 9:22, emphasis added).
Again, as Jesus walked with two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, on the evening of the day he had risen from the dead, he rebuked the men for their lack of faith: "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25–26, emphasis added).
Nevertheless, as Aquinas pointed out, there’s a difference between being absolutely necessary and being necessary given certain conditions. In the case of Jesus’ Passion, by the time Christ had come into the world, certain crucial conditions were already in place: God the Father had already ordained that this was the way our salvation would be accomplished.
How could this be? What was good and fitting about Christ’s Passion? The bishop continued: "For what else could have been so necessary to build up our hope, and to free the minds of mortals despairing because of their mortality, than that God should show us how highly he valued us, and how greatly he loved us? And what could be more clear and evident proof of God’s great love than that the Son of God . . . so undeserving of evil, should bear our evils?" (ibid.).
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-christ-have-to-suffer
The key to understanding is to realize that God never does a miracle because He has to. He does it to teach us something. This is the true purpose of Christ's death and resurrection, to atone for our sins, and to teach us His complete and perfect love for us.
The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm
Lon
Well-known member
Exodus 20:11 is a 'new' addition???
Nope. I ONLY have the bible thus "MY" presuppositions don't come from anywhere else. You? You've got a lot of college classes. I've never assumed my profs, regardless of how smart, were/are infallible. They've gotten a LOT wrong. Brontosaurus? :nono:
Let's "TEST" that theory:
:think: 'allegorical?' Only if you are inept (sorry Catholic Popes who have said otherwise, but it IS what it is).
Let's keep going...
:think: Not ONE metaphor or simile. :nono: Not one!
Surely it'd show up here about now! Surely 'light' is a metaphor that isn't ACTUALLY describing 'light?' :nono: It means LITERALLY 'light.' Barb, you know how the rest of this goes.
ALL actual real things, no? Not looking good folks. The Catholic church is "looking" like it is bowing to the whims of finite fallible men. "BUT I MEASURED IT!!!!" Er, sorry Catholic-science dude, no you did not. You rather 'attempted/tried' and only God, the Maker of all, can tell whether that measurement was accurate. A billion years "between" days???? :think: We ALL should think. Either God HAS last word or He does not. For me? I'll put ALL my eggs in the Lord God's basket. I don't need nor want ANY eggs in science's basket. "But it keeps you alive! Improves your life!" :nono: Colossians 1:17 Sorry, I will benefit but my 'trust' is all-in the only basket where moths nor rust 'can' destroy.
Let's see, "Real firmament?" Is there really no heaven or heavens? :think: Yes? Then just the 'day' is figurative? Where did that come from? Exodus 20:11? :nono: A guy applying carbon dating and his collective 'best' guess? Yup. Who are ya gonna believe? Why? Where is our FIRST priority? :think: Joshua 24:15 Oh, I know, I've seen before 'where TRUTH compels me!" Whose or WHOSE truth?
Within the 'day' the order may or may not be ordered but it 'seems' sequential is the best communication expectation. If not? No problem BUT of course it is all literal. Not one simile or metaphor has been given.
No 'allegory' or anything that would indicate anything but a straight forward teaching.
Why can't you just conclude that until the sun was created, light emanated from somewhere/something/Someone else?
Exactly. Matthew 17:2 KJV perhaps.
Lon
Well-known member
ONLY when you are trying to figure out how long it actually takes. When you travel to those distant stars and can shine a light back to me, let me know. Genesis 1:4 :think: Revelation 21:23 A Christians FIRST priority is Christ AND what He says. All else? Contenders I'm not really concerned about until AFTER I've brought the subject matter to Him and gotten word back. John 15:5 What is my tiny brain compared to that?
