Results 481 - 494 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19510 | ||
Thanks for your comments. What you say is of course true. Please see my note "AT THE RISK OF ANNOYING..." for what the Bible means to me today. Peace and grace Steve |
||||||
482 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19509 | ||
Well, yes, I did mean "parable" - defined in my favorite dictionary (Webster's New International, 2 ed. 1944) as "a comparison; similitude; specif. a short, fictitious narrative of a possible event in life or nature, from which a moral or spiritual truth is drawn; as, the parables of Christ". Possible - God might have done it the way Genesis 1 says or he might have done it another way; but he did it. Spriritual truth - God created the heavens and the earth; the specific mechanism is unrelated to the spiritual truth of who came first and who created what. Perhaps it would help if I explained my approach to the Bible. For reasons that are too lengthy to detail here, I accept without reservation that the Bible is the inspired word of God. (I once took a entire 20-minute sermon - as a layman - explaining the reasons for my belief.) When studying the Bible (trying to understand what is history, what is a parable, what is poetic, what is imagery, what is metaphor - it can't all be taken literally) I work backwards from my faith in Jesus. Faith makes no sense if Jesus lied about himself or his ministry, so his words must be true. The NT writers were inspired by God to testify to Jesus and his ministry - the only contemporaneous witness we have - so what they said about him must be true. What he and they said about scripture must be true (including 2 Timothy 3:15-18). Jesus referred to Adam and Eve (and Noah, and Jonah, etc.) so they must have existed in history. So too with David, and Rahab and several prophets and a host of others. His words and the NT writers' words and the OT writers' words would be false if nearly every event from Adam and Eve forward was not historically true. But I don't believe there are any instances where anything in the Bible - any words of Jesus, any matter of faith, any theological principle - depends upon the historical accuracy of Genesis 1. If God were to reveal to us today that Genesis 1 really was a parable, nothing would change. It would still be a fallen world, God's covenants with Abraham and his descendants would still have been made, God's intraction with the Israelites would be the same, the law would still have been given, the messianic prophecies would still stand, Jesus would still fulfill them, and he would still be Savior and Lord of all. Jesus taught in parables; he wasn't a liar and he didn't disobey his father, so we must accept that God sometimes uses fiction to teach spiritual truths (see the dictinary defintion above). If Genesis 1 is a parable, it doesn't negate scripture or make God a liar. And if it isn't, then a very large body of credible scientific evidence is wrong. That's Ok too. My faith is unshaken either way. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
483 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19505 | ||
Thanks for the statistical analysis. My most recent note ("AT THE RISK OF ANNOYING...") contains 5 paragraphs and 4 referneces for a ratio of .8. Much better, eh? ;-) But there really is a reason. I said at the beginning that my position was based on 2 Timothy 3:15-18. The discussion was about Genesis 1. Most of what I've said has to do with my application of the first to the second. Besides, the initial question was about evolution and I don't think there are any scriptural references to that anyway. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
484 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19503 | ||
AT THE RISK OF ANNOYING YOU FINE FOLKS EVEN FURTHER... With all respect, the Bible is not the source of our faith, at least not mine. The Bible informs my faith; it informs the faith of those who influenced me. But the Holy Spirit is the source of my faith; it is a gift of God (Romans 12:3, 2 Peter 1:1). Romans 10:17 isn't a reference to the Bible; it's a reference to the gospel of Christ. I love the Bible and read it regularly (OT and NT). But it didn't save me; Jesus did. You do me a disservice by saying that I "reject" the Genesis account of creation. Genesis 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth; I believe that with all my heart. It says that he created man and woman in his own image; I believe that with all my heart. It goes on to describe Adam and Eve, their innocence and their fellowship with God, the temptation by Satan, the fall, and the consequences. I believe those things with all my heart. Why? Because all of those events have a direct bearing on the person and work of Jesus Christ. But if the physical mechanism of creation is essential to the faith, why didn't Jesus ever talk about it? If I weren't such an agreeable fellow, I'd be offended by your suggetion that I might advocate "tricking" people into becoming Christians. Can you show me where in the Bible we are instructed to demand belief in a literal interpretation of the creation? If I can show someone that they need a savior and Jesus is the one they need, if I can tell that person how Jesus has changed my life, if I can share my confidence in my salvation, is that trickery? More to the point of this discussion, can you show me where in the Bible it says that belief in the Bible is a condition of salvation? Where does it say that entrance to the Kingdom depends on belief in Abraham or Moses or Peter or Paul? Of course, the only requirement is faith in Jesus Christ. If you were to tell me God requires me to beieve a particular reading of Genesis, that would come perilously close to adding to the gospel. Likewise, suggesting that belief in the Bible is a prerequisite for salvation would turn the Bible into an idol. The Bible makes no such claims for itself. And I assume that such is not your intent. I read the Bible because it helps me to better know Jesus and what he expects of me (and how far I fall short). I accept the Bible's own description of itself in 2 Timothy 3:15-18. I will go even further: The Bible is the inspired world of God and that makes it important. But if it didn't bear witness to Jesus, I don't know what practical value it would have. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
485 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19468 | ||
Uh, can I just say that an infinite God worked out the details in a way my finite mind can't grasp? ;-) I'll admit that if I wanted to persuade others, I'd have to give your question a lot more thought. The fact is, I bet we'll all be surprised when we get to Heaven and see how completely we've misunderstood many things that seem crystal clear to us now. My impression is that not many Christians lose their faith by succumbing to the kind of progressive doubt/rejection you described. But I know a lot of people for whom a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 is a barrier to faith. When presented with a creation story whose mechanics seem patently false to them, they reject the fact of creation and the rest of the Bible as myth. Jesus never called us to be witnesses to creation, only to him. How tragic if we drive away even one non-believer by focusing on such non-essentials. Let's at least keep in the family. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
486 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19463 | ||
Good points. I would just repeat something I said earlier - if everyone believed that the Bible was the last word on leprosy, we'd still have leper colonies. Science found a different explanation and a cure. Nonetheless, all true paths lead to God where all truth originates. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
487 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19462 | ||
Thanks for your comments. I'm with you, I don't want to get into a debate either. I answered a question and don't mind explaining myself further. I'll risk offending you (I hope I don't) and say that salvation does not depend on belief in the Bible. I ignored the Bible until after I became a Christian. C. S. Lewis and the odd sermon now and then informed me about Jesus. (I attended church monthly because my wife belonged and my daughter sang in the children's choir.) Neither Lewis nor my pastor told me that I had to believe in 7 24-hour days. It was strictly the Holy Spirit working in my life that led me to faith in Christ. It was only afterwards that I began to read the Bible to find out what the heck had happened to me! So the issues you raise have never troubled me; I have never read the Bible except through eyes of faith. My understanding of Genesis 1-2 allows me to see God's hand in the world that I find before me. At the same time, the Bible informs my understanding of that world by revealing transcendent spiritual truths. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
488 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19456 | ||
Hello again; Somewhere in this thread I said that it seems to me there must have been a moment when the first organisms carrying the complete human genome - Adam and Eve - were born and imbued with God's spirit. I agree that regardless of what specific mechanism God used to create them, they must have existed. I certainly do not think that God kept his hands off during the process. As to your second point (the danger of denying the historicity of later events in Genesis), I don't see that as a problem with theistic evolution as I understand it; it's problem with unbelief. For example, Abraham must have existed if for no other reason (and there are plenty of others) than that Jesus drew specific theological lessons from his father's covenant with him. The same is true of Adam and Eve. But if Jesus ever talked about the process of creating of the universe or the time it took to do it, none of the gospel writers recorded it. If it was unimportant to Jesus, then I'm not going to get too worked up over it myself. I hope the reader will keep in mind that I'm not attacking a literal interpretation or promoting theistic evolution. I just responded to the question of whether or not one can be a Christian and believe in (some form of) evolution. I still contend that agreement on whether Genesis 1-2 is history or parable is not an essential element of the Christian faith. Agreeing that God is the Creator certainly is essential. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
489 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19447 | ||
Scripture is reliable; it testifies to its own usefulness in pointing to Christ and training in righteousness. It never claims to be a source of scientific information. My view of theistic evolution is a supernatural explanation; it gives God all the credit. European churches are empty because theologians "de-mythologized" the Bible and denied all supernatual content. I hope you don't think I've done that by questioning only the historicity (not the spiritual significance) of events that took place before human history. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
490 | 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 |
||||||
491 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19443 | ||
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope I made it clear that I do indeed believe that God created the heavens and the earth and that Genesis 1-2 tells me that. But no one's salvation depends on whether or not they believe there is valid scientific information in Genesis 1-2. Please believe that I respect your position, one that is shared by many brothers and sisters in Christ but by no means all. Peace and Grace, Steve |
||||||
492 | 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 |
||||||
493 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19419 | ||
Thanks for your comments. I agree entirely with your understanding of what a parable is and is not. I respectfully disagree that Genesis tells us how God formed human beings. For example, Genesis 2:7 doesn't mention water, just dust. Yet our bodies are more than half water, so I assume he must have added some. As I said, I wouldn't dream of trying to convert you to my view. I hope you will agree with me that there is room for differences of opinion such as this. Insistence on one view or the other creates an artificial division in the body of Christ that must delight the Enemy. All Christians share a common belief in God the Creator of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord. We can reasonably and lovingly disagree on how God did the creating. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
494 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] |