Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19409 | ||
Thanks; I am indeed new here. 1) The Darwinian agent (mutation plus natural selection) can't account for, among other things, non-evolution of species like the sturgeon or the irreducible complexity of mechanisms that would have negative consequences until fully developed. The physical evidence points to macro-evolution but there is NO evidence for the agent Darwin proposed; that is pure speculation. Besides, proponents of Darwinian evolution have stated that they will accept no evidence of supernatural causes (see the Amicus Curiae brief to "Edwards v. Aguillard"), so any claims to objectivity are null. In this instance, science has inexplicably abandoned its traditional inductive approach and adopted deductive reasoning with atheism (or at best deism) as its fundamental principal. So there is no need to believe everything that evolutionists claim. As I said, theistic evolution fits the evidence better that the Darwinian variety. Modern science willfully blinds itself to this fact. 2) There had to be a point in time when the first organism containing the complete human genome appeared; God saw to it that there two - a male named Adam and a femaie named Eve. Remember that if God were directing the show, he could choose when the human genome would appear and imbue the new species with his spirit. This would, of course, attract Satan's attention and we know the rest of that story. BTW, I have no interest in "converting" creationists. I think this is an interesting discussion and one that many people have devoted a lot of thought to. I have creationist friends who think that Jesus turned the water in Cana into grape juice rather than wine - not a very literal interpretation. We all have to reconcile the testimony of the Bible with the testimony of the Creation. But it is not the testimony itself that matters, it what they testify to - a sovereign God and his son through whom he reconciles the world to himself. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
2 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19417 | ||
Steve: Welcome aboard. 1. While theistic evolution is a MORE accurate way of looking at the origin of biological life in comparison to purely naturalistic evolution, that is not to say that theistic evolution is the correct view. I do agree with Behe's "irreducible complexity" scholarship, but that fits both theistic evolution and special creation of species. 2. Again, this is not how the Bible tells it. Why would God inspire Moses to write a make-believe story? We get into dangerous waters when we start talking about reconciling the Bible with the natural order. Perhaps our interpretation of Scripture is incorrect on this point or that one (such as the idea of a geocentric universe, which is never directly stated in Scripture), but to take a whole, detailed account and say, "This isn't the way it REALLY happened" is to deny the authenticity of Scripture, not its interpretation. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19422 | ||
Thanks for the welcome. As I said before, my view is that the Genesis accounts of creation constitute a parable that informs us of God's transendence, power, and sovereignty. It also tells us that humans are unique in all creation, having been imbued with God's own spirit. Finally, it explains Satan and the existence of evil in God's perfect creation and confirms our depraved state in need of a savior. So I don't think it's a "make-believe story" at all. Jesus taught in parables; I think he got it from his father.... And I think is is worthwhile to reconcile the Bible with the natural world. First, the Bible tells us that the Creation testifies to the Creator (Psalms 8 and 19, for example, and Romans 1:20). Second, all truth is from God, including scientific truth. The traditional goal of science is to "think God's thoughts after him" (although many modern scientists reject the notion). Darwinian evolution fails becuase it contradicts the spiritual truths that God has revealed. Theistic evolution as I understand it only contracts the "science" of the Bible. Please keep in mind that if we accepted the Bible's teaching on leprosy as the final scientific word, the leper colony in Hawaii would still be in business. Again, this is an interesting topic but a non-essential one. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
4 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19436 | ||
Parables are never presented in the Bible as historical accounts. Genesis 2 is not a parable. It is presented as a historical account. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19444 | ||
It's true that they are not presented as historical accounts in the NT. All of the NT writings took place in known historical contexts. I'm less certain about the OT; the events we are discussing are in some sense completely prehistoric. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
6 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19494 | ||
SO what you are saying is that you are UNCERTAIN about the OT. What does this mean? That you think it is unreliable as a historical document? What about the Flood? Babel? Abraham? All of those events happened a long time ago as well. --Joe! |
||||||
7 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19512 | ||
Ooops, sorry, no. I am not uncertain at all about the OT. I was just saying that I hadn't given a lot of thought to the general idea of parables in the OT. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||