If Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that Stipe assumed that his new interpretation is truth, and uses it for evidence:

Stupid, stupid Blablarian.

Assuming the truth of your idea and using it as evidence is called begging the question. A logical fallacy.

Yep. That's what you did. You assumed that your modern revision of Genesis was correct and then showed that later Bible verses support Genesis. As you say, that's begging the question.

(Stipe demonstrates his modern revision for us)

Genesis is historical narrative.

You need good reason to convince us that "six days" does not mean what it plainly says.

As early Christians noted, the talk of mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, plainly says that the "days" (actually "yom", which can mean all sorts of things, including "always", "forever", "in my time", etc.) were not literal days.

Your new doctrine is at odds with Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Another comment from an atheist on the same site..."BioLogos has no actual principle to stand on when they oppose a literal reading of Genesis but support a literal reading of a story of a virgin birth"

Apparently, the atheist made the same error as YE creationists: "There can be no figurative language in the Bible, so it's all either literal history, or it's all figurative." Of course, the Bible itself denies the YE/atheist position, noting some things are history, and others are not.

If first Adam is only allegorical then the Last Dams physical death was unnecessary.

Of course, evolutionary theory does not deny the fact of an historical Adam and Eve. The founder of Biologos, Francis Collins, has pointed this out.

Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If scripture says there were mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, then you have to either conclude it's figurative, or scripture is wrong.

Why can't you just conclude that until the sun was created, light emanated from somewhere/something/Someone else?

Because "morning" and "evening" have specific meanings and require a Sun to have them. "Morning" is not "big light in the sky"; it's when the Sun appears in the east.

And, of course, there's no scriptural support for it.

If you can change meanings of words to make a new doctrine fit,and add to scripture as you like, then any new doctrine is equally reasonable.

 

[6days]

Of course, evolutionary theory does not deny the fact of an historical Adam and Eve. The founder of Biologos, Francis Collins, has pointed this out.

Evolutionism is the advocacy of a belief system that rejects Adam and Eve as the first humans. Evolutionism is a rejection of God creating a perfect creation.

 

[2003cobra]

As I suggested before, theistic evolutionists don't really seem to understand the Gospel. If you believe Jesus blood (death) was not necessary for forgiveness of your sin... and everyone else's sin (past and present); then you seem to think the cross was meaningless.


So, the question remains, Why did Jesus need to physically die? Even atheists understand and mock Biologos, and other theistic evolutionists for their inconsistent beliefs. Those inconsistent beliefs result from a rejection of the foundation of the Gospel found in the first books of the Bible.

As I wrote:
1) this is off topic
2) Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, and He did forgive sins, before His blood was shed.

As for some atheists mocking Biologos, strange that this is all you have with which to reject the work and actually seem to think that it is something.


So here is a simple yes or no question:
Did Jesus forgive sins before His blood was shed?


And 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 answer that question on the thread you open to discuss this off-topic question.

 

[6days]

As early Christians noted, the talk of mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, plainly says that the "days" (actually "yom", which can mean all sorts of things, including "always", "forever", "in my time", etc.) were not literal days.

Your new doctrine is at odds with Genesis.

Professor Dr Benno Zuiddam (2 PhD's) “God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."

 

[6days]

So here is a simple yes or no question:
Did Jesus forgive sins before His blood was shed?

You still can't... and won't answer the question because your beliefs render the cross meaningless. Yes... Jesus forgave sins because He shed His blood on the cross. People in the past... and future rely on the shed blood of Jesus.
So the question remains for theistic evolutionists... Why did Jesus need to physically die?

 

[6days]

[FONT="]Epoch of time.[/FONT][/B][FONT="]

God said:

[/FONT][FONT="]Genesis 2:17[/FONT][/B][/URL][FONT="]
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[/FONT][URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Gen%203.5"][FONT="]Genesis 3:5[/FONT][/B][/URL][FONT="]
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

After Adam ate the fruit, he continued to live for nearly a thousand years, until he finally died. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+90:4&version=NIV"][FONT="]Psalm 90:4[/FONT][/B][/URL][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT="]
[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="]For a thousand years in your sight are like a day[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT="] that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="][URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+6:2&version=NIV"][FONT="]Hosea 6:2[/FONT][/B][/URL][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT="]
[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="]After two days he will revive us[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT="]; upon the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="][URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:8&version=NIV"][FONT="]2 Peter 3:8[/FONT][/B][/URL][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT="]
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="]With the Lord a day is like a thousand years,[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT="] and a thousand years are like a day. [/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="][URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Ps%2090.4"][FONT="]Psalm 90:4[/FONT][/B][/URL][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT="]
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="][URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2%20Pet%203.8"][FONT="]2 Peter 3:8[/FONT][/B][/URL][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT="]
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="][URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Hos%206.2"][FONT="]Hosea 6:2[/FONT][/B][/URL][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT="]
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="]The resurrection of the elect is after two thousand years, and the third day is the end of the thousand years, and it is the resurrection of the sheep and goats.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT="] [/FONT]

Your verses help show the creation days are literal days. The verses you quote are easy to understand because of CONTEXT. The Hebrew word 'YOM' is similar to the English word 'DAY'. The meaning is determined by context and always easy to understand. Example: 'In my fathers day, it took 3 days to get to the mountain, if only travelling during the day'. See? 3 different meanings of the word 'day' in one sentence, but easy to understand.

A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

 

[2003cobra]

You still can't... and won't answer the question because your beliefs render the cross meaningless. Yes... Jesus forgave sins because He shed His blood on the cross. People in the past... and future rely on the shed blood of Jesus.
So the question remains for theistic evolutionists... Why did Jesus need to physically die?

I will comment on the thread that you open to discuss this.

We still have no common basis for discussing Genesis, as you simply deny what the text says.

Perhaps you feel you must deny what the text actually says to support your view of Soteriology.

 

[2003cobra]

Your verses help show the creation days are literal days. The verses you quote are easy to understand because of CONTEXT. The Hebrew word 'YOM' is similar to the English word 'DAY'. The meaning is determined by context and always easy to understand. Example: 'In my fathers day, it took 3 days to get to the mountain, if only travelling during the day'. See? 3 different meanings of the word 'day' in one sentence, but easy to understand.

A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

A little more insight on Barr:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2016/02/professor-james-barr-on-genesis.html

Note that Barr is simply saying that the writer of Genesis 1 meant "days" as human experience them in the region of the Middle East. He is not insisting that the days of creation were six 24-hour days.

 

[Stripe]

Epoch of time.
God said:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
After Adam ate the fruit, he continued to live for nearly a thousand years, until he finally died.

So you're set on the idea that day can only mean an epoch of time?

You do realize that day can mean "day," right?

Have you got compelling reason to show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day

The Psalms version goes:

For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.​

While the passage in 2 Peter also turns it around to say that a day is like 1,000 years.

Neither of these give compelling reason to believe that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says. In fact, from the context and explicit supporting text, we can see exactly what the phrases mean.

And it's always a chuckle when Darwinists quote II Peter:

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
II Peter 3:1-‬9 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/2pe.3.1-9.NKJV​

Upon the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

The resurrection of the elect is after two thousand years, and the third day is the end of the thousand years, and it is the resurrection of the sheep and goats.

How does this show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

I can give you good reason for the use of "the third day" here.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian notes that Stipe assumed that his new interpretation is truth, and uses it for evidence:Yep. That's what you did. You assumed that your modern revision of Genesis was correct and then showed that later Bible verses support Genesis. As you say, that's begging the question. (Stipe demonstrates his modern revision for us)As early Christians noted, the talk of mornings and evenings with no sun to have them, plainly says that the "days" (actually "yom", which can mean all sorts of things, including "always", "forever", "in my time", etc.) were not literal days.Your new doctrine is at odds with Genesis.

Nope.

You're still irreparably stupid.

The Bible says "six days." This is not an assumption. It says "six days."

You assert that it means "billions of years."

But it says "six days." No assumption — or as you like to say, "interpretation" — necessary.

"Six days."

If you have good reason that shows "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says, now would be a good time to lay it out.

 

[The Barbarian]

You're still irreparably stupid.

You're butt-hurt and incapable of thinking of an effective name to call me. :chuckle:

The Bible says "six days." This is not an assumption. It says "six days."

As you know, the fact that the two different creation stories in Genesis don't agree, and the fact that mornings and evenings without a sun cannot be literal, make it clear that Genesis was never intended to be a literal history.

Stipe makes up a story:

You assert that it means "billions of years."

If you're willing to misrepresent what God says, I guess it's no big thing for you to do it to me. I never told you that; why pretend otherwise?

Classic Stipe.

 

[Stripe]

"morning" and "evening" have specific meanings and require a Sun to have them..

Unfortunately for your irrational demands, reality trumps them.

The Bible takes what you insist cannot be days and calls them, wait for it, "days."

Six of 'em.

So I guess it's a little bit encouraging that you've kind of implied a reason that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says, but there are two major problems:

1. It's not very convincing. You demanding that what God called days cannot reasonably be called days because their mornings and evenings were not a result of the Earth's position relative to the sun is highly suspect.

Of course it is reasonable to call them days.

2. It doesn't follow from your assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

So, nice try, I guess. But Darwinists are doomed when they try to squeeze their religion into the Bible.

 

[6days]

Note that Barr is simply saying that the writer of Genesis 1 meant "days" as human experience them in the region of the Middle East. He is not insisting that the days of creation were six 24-hour days.

Haha... I see a trend.

*You need to reinterpret Scripture to fit your beliefs.

*You need to denigrate and re-interpret what others say to fit your beliefs.

*You refuse to discuss Scripture that provides context to the discussion.

*You rely on a liberal translators notes in the NET rather than on actual scripture. (And unwilling to consider the Hebrew since it destroys your argument)

*You quote evolutionist bloggers

*You support heretical Biologist

*And, you keep saying there is no basis for discussion, yet you keep repeating your 'arguments.


Here is what Hebrew scholar Barr said (minus your bloggers re-inventing what he said) "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience"

 

[Stripe]

You're ... incapable of thinking of an effective name to call me.

It was descriptive, not nomenclature. :chuckle:

And accurate. :up: You're stupid.

The two different creation stories in Genesis don't agree, and the fact that mornings and evenings without a sun cannot be literal, make it clear that Genesis was never intended to be a literal history.

Nope. This does nothing to suggest we are forced to believe that "six days" doesn't mean what it plainly says.

Your descriptions — if we were to swallow them — would logically lead to a rejection of Genesis as accurate. Not some uncertain declaration that they are "figurative."

You've made up a story and gotten caught. And the funny thing is, you don't even offer a story. Genesis has numerous intricate details, but you just ignore them with your "allegory."

What is the deep if it is not the oceans?
What is the firmament if it is just a "figure of speech"?
Why were the sun and moon made on day 4?

You wave your hands and yell "allegory," but offer nothing that might make Genesis of value.

Meanwhile, the substantial weight that the creation account lends to the rest of scripture gets ignored.

If you're willing to misrepresent what God says, I guess it's no big thing for you to do it to everyone.

 

[Lon]

I am aware of those organizations and their denials of both the text of the scriptures and the evidence that God has given us in creation.

Good, so they, with PhD's and bible college against you with your 'nothin' to start with. No question I'll go with the pro over the amateur.

That's where laymen can all beat you. After that? I haven't really seen anything from your supposed prowess of 'education' or other credentials. Your much repeated pure and only assertions are telltale signs of the lack. The ball is in your court to "PROVE" something and substantiate it, rather than undemonstrated learning asserted in fake I.D. delivering hot air. See my links? You: Nadda lain:

 

[Lon]

Of course, evolutionary theory does not deny the fact of an historical Adam and Eve. The founder of Biologos, Francis Collins, has pointed this out.

Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

Well, there you go. One either believes and lives by Matthew 4:4 or is (admittedly no less ) in bed with two masters Matthew 6:19-21,24
I REALLY wish some of you could quote scripture or at least have it clearly enough in mind to be able to find the reference and be of service and help for wholly "Christian" thinking. Is Jesus compartmentalized or tacked on to our lives, or are we GENUINELY transformed? Romans 12:2 Where is YOUR (inclusive) pattern? It MUST be asserted and often, that one's goal in life is the glory and declaration of our Lord Jesus Christ else it is a matter of losing one's first-Love. Revelation 2:4 Colossians 1:17, for me, is the start of ALL knowledge. John 15:5 is literal.

 

[Stripe]

Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

In my previous BioLogos post (on humanity as imago Dei), I addressed the initial problem that many Christians perceive between human evolution and the idea of a historical Fall, namely, the contradiction between two individuals (Adam and Eve) and the larger population group postulated by the modern scientific picture. After all, if there wasn’t an original couple, how could we attribute the origin of sin to them? Here I’m going to assume what I previously argued, namely that Genesis isn’t incontrovertibly committed to the idea of two original humans, but allows us to think either of a larger population group (in Genesis 1) or of ha’adam / "the human" (in Genesis 2) as archetypal of all people everywhere.​

— source​

There you go: A BioLogos author saying Adam was not a person, but a group or archetype.

Cue dissembling and obfuscation. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Silent Munter