The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Sorry to lose Excelsior. I would have liked an explanation of what Christ and the apostles meant when they referred to the pre-Flood individuals and based their teachings (monogamy; restricted divorce; bar on women leadership in the church, etc.) on what had occurred there. Maybe another theistic evolutionist will step forward?

Brother Excelsior did say that 'The first human beings were the first sinners. After their sin, all of the Cosmos fell.' See, this is where I fail to see how one can reconcile theistic evolution and the Bible - surely evolution must have meant millenia of suffering and death BEFORE the first human beings sinned? How can one say it was only afterwards that all of the Cosmos fell?

hairyheretic

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, and there are swarms of them down the ages. Some seem led by genuine unbelief, from Marcion down to the the liberal critics of today. But some of the more sensational modern stuff seems to me to be written with the chequebook in mind - they know there are plenty of gullible folk out there just looking for something new. I haven't read it either, but I did find the mixed nature of the reviews interesting. Thanks for the heads-up on the book. I will check for a Christian rebuttal and let you know when I find one.

I've not read it either, but it looked unusual enough that I may pick it up at some point.

wolfsbane wrote:

Only if you accept the RC version of history. The Protestant/Jewish one suggests not. There is no question other books existed and some ( the Apocrypha) survive today. Some of the the non-surviving books were reliable enough to be referred to as histories by the Bible itself. The issue is what books were regarded as the inspired word of God, of which Jesus said it 'cannot be broken', John 10:35.

When then would scholars say that the bible was finalised in the version in print today?

How much was left out, and why?

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm not sure you meant this to come out like that - that only Christianity cannot be true.

If I gave that impression, that was not my intent. I certainly didn't mean to imply that christianity was untrue.

wolfsbane wrote:

If you mean that any of these religions could be true, from your point of view, then I agree.

That was more what I was trying to say.

wolfsbane wrote:

I don't buy that post-modern concept (moderator, see how I refrained from calling it something less polite, ). You and I may have differing beliefs about an issue, but we don't have differing 'truths' about it. Black is not white, theism is not atheism, creationism is not evolutionism.

My point was that even if someone believes a thing to be true, it may not be, hence my infering that truth was a personal thing. I should probably have used a different term to make it clearer.

People with different viewpoints on a single subject may both consider their views to be "truth". Can both be truth? Neither? Or does an actual truth lie somewhere between those views? Or somewhere else entirely?

wolfsbane wrote:

They better be real and mine false.

They're real to me. I can't really say anything more than that.

I suppose that coming from a pantheonic prospective, I have less of a problem in accept that there could be other gods out there beyond my own. Christianity, with its montheism, gives much more of a "My god is real, your's isn't" vibe.

wolfsbane wrote:

Because Scripture assures me that all who die without trusting in Christ will be thrown into Gehenna, to be punished eternally.

So from that would you believe that everyone who lived before christianity is being punished, no matter the life they led?

Or if someone lives an exemplary life, doing numerous good deeds, treating all others well, but is never exposed to christianity, then all their good deeds count for nothing, and they'll be punished anyway?

wolfsbane wrote:

You should, and will, if you do not have Christ as your substitute.

I have no problem with taking responsibility for my own deeds.

wolfsbane wrote:

How do you know no one can know? You may not know, but how can you say someone else cannot have found the answers?

A fair point. I suppose I could have prefaced it with "In my oppinion".

wolfsbane wrote:

If faith were only a 'maybe yes/maybe no' thing, then it would be worthless. Biblical faith is quite otherwise: it is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'Hebrews 11:1. It is the certain sure knowledge of the truth implanted in the heart by God.

But doesn't that come back to faith and a belief that what you're told is right?

My thoughts are that if there is some universal truth out there, then it should be visable / provable / whatever without any faith in it being required.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Sapien said:
I have shifted nothing - goal posts or otherwise. My argument was simply phrased, it would seem, a little too subtly for you.

Yea, I must be really dense. I thought you were talking about a book written in the 20th C. and capable of being proved a work of fiction. You wanted that compared to the Bible and that the same credibility would be evidenced. I must leave you to your exalted reason, it is far above me.

The Bible propounds that the Earth is flat:

Er, no, this silly article says it does. One example of the childish argument: Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. So the Hebrews thought of this as something like brass? They hadn't noticed the movement of the sun, moon and stars?

Such pathetic argument is accompanied by a denial of common figurative expressions to these Hebrews: Further, the Bible frequently presents celestial bodies as exotic living beings. For example, “In them [the heavens], a tent is fixed for the sun, who comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race. His rising is at one end of the heavens, his circuit touches their farthest ends; and nothing is hidden from his heat (Psalm 19:4-6).” Doesn't he know about similes (the clue is in the word 'like' in 'like a bridegroom')?

No, all Schadewald is interested in doing is rubbishing the Bible, not in fairly examining it.

How, Wolfsbane, do you know which parts of the Bible are figurative, and which are meant to be taken literally?

bus77

Well, I have no problem with a literal interpretation of the old testament.

God chose his people and started talking at them, as opposed to with them. This is the key point. It was'nt a shepherd smoking a pipe among his sheep, it was a sergent barking at his troops because they had work to do. Jesus and his lads came later.

In fact, this topic should'nt even be on here. It says Christianity on the front door. Not Godianity.

dalk

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolution is one of the key objections to the gospel I have met as I speak to my heathen friends. Has it not been the cause of many young people abandoning the religion they have grown up with, when they enter university?

So this is the reason why creationists/biblical literalists etc get so hot and bothered about evolution? No ground is given and arguments have the appearance of a fight to the death... Because somehow the existence of God will be disproved?

Personally i agree with Excelsior, and think it is a naive (literal) notion to think that the teaching of evolutionary biology, is to blame for 'young people' losing faith. I suppose the 'young people' are being led astray by scientists?

How patronising...

robindch

On the topic of hieratic texts, has anybody read Joseph Miller's "A Canticle for Liebowitz"...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553379267

...?

wolfsbane

hairyheretic said:
When then would scholars say that the bible was finalised in the version in print today?

Depends which scholars. You have seen that the RC and Jewish/Prod positions differ on what qualifies as the OT. An argument is made that the NT Scriptures did not exist as the NT until hundreds of years after they were written. This puts the authority of a church Council to the fore - they determine what is Scripture. Protestants hold that the letters that make up the NT Scriptures were recognised as Scripture (God-breathed, infallible) from they were first written. The task of the later church was to clearly distinguish these from other letters, often heretical, that some claimed to be scripture also. The Church had been under great pressure from the beginning from modifiers of the gospel - see Galatians 1. The Gnostics were a prime example, but Marcion and others made an impact also.

The Church itself was becoming corrupt in various ways - the rise of a priesthoood, one bishop rule, etc. Not ong after the Canon of Scripture issue was settled, the Church was so subverted and compromised by State-support that it nearly became Arian ( Christ not God).

The Bible in 'the version in print today' also depends on whether one is RC or not. The modern RC Bible contains the Apocrypha; modern Protestant Bibles do not. Protestant Bibles originally did include the Apocrypha as a separate section, with an explanation that it was not divinely inspired but could be read for profit.

People with different viewpoints on a single subject may both consider their views to be "truth". Can both be truth? Neither? Or does an actual truth lie somewhere between those views? Or somewhere else entirely?

Not both, but any of the rest.

So from that would you believe that everyone who lived before christianity is being punished, no matter the life they led?

Christianity does not include only those who believe in God since Christ came, but all who ever did so from Adam forward. For example, Abraham lived some 2000 years before Christ, but is called the father of the faithful. He believed the promises of God, looked for the One to come who would redeem him and the people of Israel and bring salvation to the Gentiles also. Jesus Christ said,
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Or if someone lives an exemplary life, doing numerous good deeds, treating all others well, but is never exposed to christianity, then all their good deeds count for nothing, and they'll be punished anyway?

Essentially, yes. If their good deeds are stripped away, underneath lies a God-hating heart. And their lives would not be an unmixed lot of good deeds - there would be the evil ones also. The evil thoughts and desires - the things they want to do, even if shame or fear restrains them. There are degrees of punishment also - every one will receive according to his works.

BTW, Divine justise is a comfort as well as a threat - the murderers, paedophiles, and all oppressors who get away with it in this life will certainly not in the next.

But doesn't that come back to faith and a belief that what you're told is right?

Yes, except it is not a 'hope so' thing, rather a 'know so' thing. It is the implanted certain-sure knowledge God gives to the one who truly seeks for Him. Faith is the gift of God.

My thoughts are that if there is some universal truth out there, then it should be visable / provable / whatever without any faith in it being required.

Why does God owe us this? He has given us the magnificence of creation around us that shouts to us 'God made me, I did not make myself', yet most believe the latter. Further, conscience within warns of the reality of right and wrong and of a Judge Who will hold us accountable, but we do our best to quiet it. So it is a great mercy that He has sent us His message of salvation, the gospel. It is His final call to lost men. We demand He show us the signs and wonders, and then we will believe. But Scripture says,
Matthew 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. 42 The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.

J C

Quote Excelsior
Creation Scientists fall into that great big trap set for them by creating disunity with other Christians over a secondary doctrine.

Unity in error is false unity indeed.

Your dismissal of the ‘origins debate’ as a secondary issue is an OPINION that I happen to disagree with.
All Church Doctrine is based either directly or indirectly on the first chapters of Genesis.

1. THE DIVINITY OF GOD is proven by Creation – if the Universe arose spontaneously using some kind of laws that we are not even aware of (as evolutionists would have us believe) – then there is no need to believe in or invoke an all-powerful God.
2. THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF EVERY PERSON TO GOD is based on the fact of Creation – and because God specially created Man directly in His own image and likeness. If we evolved in some semi-natural process that is still ongoing, why would we be accountable for our actions to some impersonal God that obviously couldn’t care less about the actions of ‘random assemblies of atoms’ that happen to call themselves Humans and who live frantic short lives in some obscure corner of the Universe?
3. THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL SIN – is that there was an ORIGINAL First Man and Woman who ORIGINALLY SINNED by believing Satan’s counterfeit word over God’s Word – and because we are ALL physically descended from these two ORIGINAL people we inherit this Original Sin.
4. THE NECESSITY OF JESUS CHRIST’S PERFECT SACRIFICE for the FORGIVENESS of sin assumes the arrival of sin into the world in the first place through ONE MAN, Adam. If Adam didn’t exist and didn’t sin or if we are not ALL descended from him, then Jesus Christ died in vain.
5. THE BASIS FOR ALL OF THE COMMANDMENTS RESIDES IN GENESIS. The only spiritual reason that we have to obey God or consider the rights of our fellow man beyond personal convenience is because God directly created us. If we actually are an accident of nature then we are merely some kind of ‘jumped up stick insect’ who has no reason to believe that we can have any relationship with God.

Quote Excelsior
I had always thought we were saved by Grace, not by Grace and "ultra modern creation science" or whatever it is JC is calling it now.

We are saved through grace and grace ALONE. I have never said otherwise – please do not put (heretical) words in my mouth.

What I have said is that God’s Word is found in the pages of the Bible AND in all of Creation, which was SPOKEN into existence by God. As Christians we are mandated by God to study His Word in the Bible AND in Creation.

As we study the Bible we MAY find ASSISTANCE in the opinions of Bible Scholars, and as we study God’s Creation we MAY find ASSISTANCE in the research work of Creation Scientists.

The Holy Spirit of God indwells all Christians. Therefore, if a Bible Scholar or a Creation Scientist makes a statement that is not in accordance with God’s infallible Word in the Bible it will be quite clear that such an error has been made due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and a plain reading of Scripture – and it should be rejected forthwith.


Quote Excelsior
When seekers or even "atheists" (that rarest of breed) ask me why Genesis 1-3 is not to be taken literally and the Gospel records are I tell them. Genre. One is written as history and lived as history. It is utterly true.
The other is written in sparse structured poetic form and understood figuratively. It is utterly true. Just not literally.

BOTH Genesis and the Gospels records ARE written as HISTORY.

Something like Genesis, which starts with the words “In the beginning God…..” certainly gives the impression that what will follow will be AN ACCURATE LITERAL ACCOUNT of what God actually did.

In any event, could you explain to a Christian “seeker” how YOU as a theistic evolutionist, reconcile the following :-

1. If you believe, as you say, that Genesis is truth – how do you reconcile the fact that the Gen 1 account of creation bears NO resemblance to the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence.

2. What meaning do YOU give to the words ‘evening and morning’, which are used six times (after the description of the events of each DAY) in Gen 1?

3. Outside of Genesis 1 the word ‘Yom’ is used 410 times in the Bible and each time it means an ordinary DAY. Why do you believe that Gen 1 is an exception?

4. Outside of Genesis 1 ‘Yom’ is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear without ‘Yom’ 38 times. In all 61 instances the text refers to an ordinary DAY. Why do you believe that Gen 1 is an exception?

5. In Gen 1:5 ‘Yom’ occurs in context with the word ‘night’. Outside of Genesis 1. ‘night’ is used with ‘Yom’ 53 times – and each time it means an ordinary DAY. Why do you believe that Gen 1 is an exception?

6. The plural of ‘Yom’ which DOES NOT appear in Gen 1 CAN BE used to communicate a longer period of time e.g. “in those days”. There are also words in Biblical Hebrew (such as OLAM or QEDEM) that mean long periods of time – but NONE of these words are used in Gen 1 either.

Prof James Barr (Regis Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University), has said
“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 of Gen 1-11 intended to convey to his 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.
(b) The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story.
(c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”

If you won’t take Professor Barr’s word for it perhaps you can explain what God meant in
Ex 20:11 when He said “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).

And if you don’t believe the Old Testament on the matter then perhaps you can explain what Jesus Christ Himself meant when He said (as He endorsed the LITERAL veracity of Gen 1:1 and 1:27) in Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).


Quote Excelsior
I will start editing any posts that move into "Creation Science" or refutations thereof. It is science after all, it belongs in the Biology thread.

Could I remind you that the topic of this thread is “the Bible, creationism and prophecy”.

As I have previously said true science and true Christianity are mutually synergistic – science explains the Word of God SPOKEN in Creation and Theology explains the Word of God WRITTEN in the Bible.

True Christians move with ease over and back between science and theology – and I would be surprised if a forum trading under the name of Christianity would have any problems with either the scientific or the theological discussion of the ‘origins’ issue.

People who are bored by or otherwise not interested in the debate, are free to migrate to another thread that is to their tastes – but they are surely not entitled to prevent other adults from debating the Biblical account of how the Universe and all life was Created in Six Days by an all-powerful and ever-loving personal God whose ONLY request in return is that we believe on Him and repent of our sins.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:
How, Wolfsbane, do you know which parts of the Bible are figurative, and which are meant to be taken literally?

For a start, the common sense way we address any literature. What does it claim be? A parable? Narrative? That gets us over many hurdles. Then we face use of metaphor in narrative. One of the rules must be respect for the intelligence of the author. One should not expect glaring contradictions in an argument or obvious fatal factual error, without good reason. The argument should be presumed to be consistent with its presuppositions (even if these are wrong). For example, a mountain that would give sight of all the earth: would the author and the people he was addressing not have enough wit to know they would see it if they can be seen from it? So the author is hardly speaking literally.

Next, honesty. Not saying to ourselves, "If I can take this comment and use it in a way not intended by the author, I can discredit him." Can I say Madonna is a hypocrite because she sang 'Like a Virgin', and is patently not one? No, for she meant it only as a song, not a personal statement. Next, even as a statement it was only a simile, 'like' a virgin.

Coming to the Bible, the case for self-sconsistency becomes absolute, as it claims to be the infallible word of God. Even the small inconsistences we may be guilty of in our own writings are not permitted here. So we say Scripture must be compared to Scripture and the resultant interpretation must not contradict any Scripture. There are many parts of Scripture that it is unclear whether they are meant literally or metaphorically. A debate has continued since the early centuries about the Millenium depicted in Revelation 20 - is this a metaphor for the Gospel Age or a literal picture of a 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth? Theological objections and explanations abound. But as it does not effect the foundational doctrines, Christians respect one another even as they disagree.

The case of the Genesis account is more problematic. To argue it is metaphor makes the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles ignorant of this 'truth' and the ethical demands they make on the basis of the literal reality of Adam, Eve, Abel, the Flood and Ark, etc., bogus. Our theistic evolutionist friends want to have the God-made-flesh Jesus and the infallible teaching of the NT, but want Genesis not to be literal. I can't see how they can get this. I have asked for an explanation here several times, but none has been forthcoming.

Sapien

I enjoy watching the different species of Christian battle it out over issues like this. You can all seem like rabid, zealous automatons in a certain context, and then like poised, Socratic thinkers when juxtaposed with another of your brethren. Having said that, I'm pretty sure we've plumbed the depths with JC, and, to a slightly lesser extent, wolfsbane.

But the point remains - the difference is merely one of degrees. Calm, eloquent and serene Excelsior; crazed, ranting, unhinged JC, both, ultimately, impervious to reason.

wolfsbane

Dalk said:
So this is the reason why creationists/biblical literalists etc get so hot and bothered about evolution? No ground is given and arguments have the appearance of a fight to the death... Because somehow the existence of God will be disproved?

Yes, or rather, the existence of God is being said to be disproved.

Personally i agree with Excelsior, and think it is a naive (literal) notion to think that the teaching of evolutionary biology, is to blame for 'young people' losing faith.

The Lord Jesus said,
Matthew 18[/B]:6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

I suppose the 'young people' are being led astray by scientists?
How patronising...

Do you not think propaganda can be effective, especially if backed up by ostracisation and ridicule, or worse? Look at the atheistic regimes of the communist lands. Even our own democracies believe incitement to hatred works, so they legislate against it. No, our minds, especially inexperienced ones, are open to take in the bad as well as the good.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:
But the point remains - the difference is merely one of degrees. Calm, eloquent and serene Excelsior; crazed, ranting, unhinged JC, both, ultimately, impervious to reason.



But JC is in good company:
Acts 26:
24 Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!”
25 But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. 26 For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Coming to the Bible, the case for self-sconsistency becomes absolute, as it claims to be the infallible word of God. Even the small inconsistences we may be guilty of in our own writings are not permitted here. So we say Scripture must be compared to Scripture and the resultant interpretation must not contradict any Scripture. There are many parts of Scripture that it is unclear whether they are meant literally or metaphorically. A debate has continued since the early centuries about the Millenium depicted in Revelation 20 - is this a metaphor for the Gospel Age or a literal picture of a 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth? Theological objections and explanations abound. But as it does not effect the foundational doctrines, Christians respect one another even as they disagree.

The case of the Genesis account is more problematic. To argue it is metaphor makes the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles ignorant of this 'truth' and the ethical demands they make on the basis of the literal reality of Adam, Eve, Abel, the Flood and Ark, etc., bogus. Our theistic evolutionist friends want to have the God-made-flesh Jesus and the infallible teaching of the NT, but want Genesis not to be literal. I can't see how they can get this. I have asked for an explanation here several times, but none has been forthcoming.

That's not really what I asked. You are saying, are you not, that if Genesis is questioned then, essentially, so is the omniscience of Christ? You believe that he was God, and so if he accredited the stories of the Bible, they must be true. Quite aside from the fact that this is a simplistic, unimaginative and unnecessarily limiting approach - it is not really relevant to my question.

You understand that your God has, so far, declined to inspire me with certainty in the truth of Scriptures, and so I am not held to believe that Christ was anything more than a vaguely novel preacher. I am, therefore, forced to assess these texts objectively. To do so, I must understand which parts are intended to be taken as fables, and which as historical. I have reason to believe that elements - corroborated by contemporary texts - are historical, while others, which purport to describe events which predate civilisation and written records, are myth. You claim that many of these myths must be taken as fact, though, at the same time, you are willing to designate other parts as allegory. You justify this to yourself using theology and internal consistency. Are you capable of demonstrating these distinctions from the texts alone, or can it only be proved upon the axiom that Christ is God. Can one only be convinced of the truthfulness of the account of Eden if one is inspired to have faith by God? Can debate and reason have any impact? Do you have any argument that has common ground with non-Christians? Is there any reason for you to conduct conversations like this? Should you not simply wait until such time as your God decides to convince us, and trust that, until such time, he does not need or want us to be convinced?

Why does God choose not to make me believe? Am I doing his will by not believing? Clearly I am, I have no choice - so surely I cannot be punished...

hairyheretic

wolfsbane wrote:

Essentially, yes. If their good deeds are stripped away, underneath lies a God-hating heart.

How can you hate something you don't know exists?

This is one of the things I find particularly annoying about a segment of christianity. The idea that even if someone lives a good life, if they're not christian it counts for nothing. Sorry, but I just don't buy that.

wolfsbane wrote:

And their lives would not be an unmixed lot of good deeds - there would be the evil ones also. The evil thoughts and desires - the things they want to do, even if shame or fear restrains them.

So you consider thoughts as well as actions to be punishable? If thats the case I'm surprised that anyone makes it to heaven

wolfsbane wrote:

There are degrees of punishment also - every one will receive according to his works.

BTW, Divine justise is a comfort as well as a threat - the murderers, paedophiles, and all oppressors who get away with it in this life will certainly not in the next.

A fairly common belief amongst various religions.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, except it is not a 'hope so' thing, rather a 'know so' thing. It is the implanted certain-sure knowledge God gives to the one who truly seeks for Him. Faith is the gift of God.

I believe that most people who followed a particular religion would say that this applied to them, regardless of the religion they follow.

wolfsbane wrote:

Why does God owe us this? He has given us the magnificence of creation around us that shouts to us 'God made me, I did not make myself', yet most believe the latter.

And if you believe that your god is omnipotent wouldn't all that be according to his plan?

wolfsbane wrote:

Further, conscience within warns of the reality of right and wrong and of a Judge Who will hold us accountable, but we do our best to quiet it.

I think I'd have to disagree with that. Everyone has some set of values, regardless of any religious belief. Only you can choose whether or not to break your own values, for whatever reason.

Flipping your argue around for a moment, look at those who do evil in the name of religion. Do you think your god, or indeed any god, wants people lying, hating, and murdering his name?

wolfsbane

Sapien said:
You are saying, are you not, that if Genesis is questioned then, essentially, so is the omniscience of Christ? You believe that he was God, and so if he accredited the stories of the Bible, they must be true. Quite aside from the fact that this is a simplistic, unimaginative and unnecessarily limiting approach - it is not really relevant to my question.

That is what I am saying. If this is a 'simplistic, unimaginative and unnecessarily limiting approach', please enlighten me to an alternative. I've asked this of the theistic evolutionists here, but to no avail.

I have reason to believe that elements - corroborated by contemporary texts - are historical, while others, which purport to describe events which predate civilisation and written records, are myth. You claim that many of these myths must be taken as fact, though, at the same time, you are willing to designate other parts as allegory. You justify this to yourself using theology and internal consistency.

Your error here is the presupposition that any account of 'prehistory' must be myth rather than factual. Is the account itself not a history? It may be false history, as in myths and legends, or it may be real history. The fact that it may not have any other collaborating accounts does not prove it false.

Are you capable of demonstrating these distinctions from the texts alone, or can it only be proved upon the axiom that Christ is God.

Yes. A normal reading of the Genesis account strongly suggests it is meant to be read literally. A suggestion that it is really meant metaphorically would need to be proved. See the scholarly comment on this by Prof James Barr (Regis Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University), posted by JC:
“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 of Gen 1-11 intended to convey to his 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.
(b) The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story.
(c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”

Can one only be convinced of the truthfulness of the account of Eden if one is inspired to have faith by God? Can debate and reason have any impact?

Debate and reason can help us see the logical possibilities, but not produce any certainties. For the latter we need to be taught of God.

Do you have any argument that has common ground with non-Christians?

I would have thought even non-Christians would see the necessity of self-consistency if the Bible is to be held up as the word of God. My contention with the theistic evolutionists is that they have surrendered that principle yet expect non-Christians to take seriously the claims of Jesus to be God.

Is there any reason for you to conduct conversations like this? Should you not simply wait until such time as your God decides to convince us, and trust that, until such time, he does not need or want us to be convinced?

A good question. It seems at first sight if God's action on the human heart is the essential thing to belief, why bother with debates/preaching? The answer is that God not only has determined the ends (the conversion of His elect), but also the means to that end (the proclaimation of His word).

Why does God choose not to make me believe?

I pray He may have so chosen - and for all on this list. If not, see next answer...

Am I doing his will by not believing? Clearly I am, I have no choice - so surely I cannot be punished...

I can do no better than give you the Biblical answer:
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

wolfsbane

hairyheretic said:
How can you hate something you don't know exists?

I suggest that we all do - it's just that we naturally suppress that knowledge:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

So you consider thoughts as well as actions to be punishable? If thats the case I'm surprised that anyone makes it to heaven

That's the point pressed by the Christian gospel - no one is saved by their good works, only by faith in the One who lived a perfect life and was punished by God as their substitute. As for thoughts, Jesus said:
Matthew 5:
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

And if you believe that your god is omnipotent wouldn't all that be according to his plan?

Yes, in the sense He permits evil to exist for a time. But, No, in the sense of something He actively desires.

Flipping your argue around for a moment, look at those who do evil in the name of religion. Do you think your god, or indeed any god, wants people lying, hating, and murdering his name?

God hates all of this and will punish those who do so. It is a direct violation of His word, made worse by claiming it is in His Name. Some misguided Christians have sincerely waged war against oppressors of their faith. But even that is forbidden by the Lord. Most of the stuff you may be referring to was carried out by apostate Christianity, and often by men not even sincerely believing in it. Power and greed figure before even perverted idealogy for most, in my opinion.

Sapien

First - the glaring contradiction:

wolfsbane wrote:

Debate and reason can help us see the logical possibilities, but not produce any certainties. For the latter we need to be taught of God.
...

The answer is that God not only has determined the ends (the conversion of His elect), but also the means to that end (the proclaimation of His word).

We have established that there are no means to this end other than direct intervention by God.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is what I am saying. If this is a 'simplistic, unimaginative and unnecessarily limiting approach', please enlighten me to an alternative.

There is no reason why you could not believe that Christ was fully divine, only son of the one living God, etcetera, without believing he was omniscient. You could believe that he had access to the mind of God, the highest attainable mystical insight, complete understanding of the human soul, perfect morality etcetera - and at the same time no more advanced knowledge of biology, geology, astronomy or physics than the goat seller in the market. Your beliefs, however cuddlily phrased, are spiteful and belligerent - designed specifically to be as incompatible with as many other belief systems as possible.

wolfsbane wrote:

The fact that it may not have any other collaborating accounts does not prove it false.

It is confusing to me that you have spent so much time debating issues such as this without picking up even the most basic terminology of epistemology or theory of science. Genesis, you contend, constitutes a positive claim - therefore the burden of evidence is upon those who wish to substantiate it. We do not need to falsify it - there is precisely nothing to recommend it in the first place. There is a reason why creationists only ever react, never initiate. It is because there exists no evidence that points to creationism in particular - only evidence that supports other theories, and which can be painstakingly hole-picked through misdirection and willful misunderstanding, and that can, through inventiveness and wild flights of conjecture, reconciled with Scripture just enough so that a desperate mind can manage to believe.

wolfsbane wrote:

A normal reading of the Genesis account strongly suggests it is meant to be read literally. A suggestion that it is really meant metaphorically would need to be proved.

I shan't ask what a "normal reading" is. I shall ask, however, whether a normal reading of the Bhagavad Gita, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or, hey, the Silmarillion (to one who had never heard of the Prophet (PBUHN (get with the program))) would suggest that it was meant to be read literally. Never mind - it's not important. You frustrate my burgeoning mind with your childish logic. I cannot but respect that.

Creation myths exist in every culture - recited around camp fires since prehistory. They include descriptions of the Earth being formed from carcasses of dead monsters, the bodily fluids of deities, breath, giant foliage and pure thought and a thousand other things. They are invariably bizarre, sometimes ridiculous, even whimsical. They are stories, colourful and entertaining. Eden is one of the prettier, if pedestrien versions. Do you really believe that these stories were all meant to be taken seriously? Do you really believe that the prehistoric mind drew the same distinction between fact and fiction - understood the importance of evidence and rigorous logic, was hesitant to jump to conclusions or make things up, or merely choose to believe something because it seemed obvious, in an imaginatively intuitive kind of way? Do you think the composers of the Genesis stories would defend them against scientific investigation and demand that they be taken as historical records? Were they composed at one instance or did they evolve? (Careful...)

wolfsbane wrote:

I would have thought even non-Christians would see the necessity of self-consistency if the Bible is to be held up as the word of God.

As I have explained - no. Even the bleakest atheist can respect a Christian who sees the Bible as a big interesting book filled with cultural curiosities and a collection of the aphoristic wisdoms of a holy, even divine, man. Many Christians are happy to admit that the Bible is a hodge-podge of wonderful legends, like a book of short stories misinterpreted as a novel - to find deep spiritual nourishment in the Gospels, while satisfying themselves that most of the OT is crazy nonsense.

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Charming. What a lovely chap your God is.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

God hates all of this and will punish those who do so. It is a direct violation of His word, made worse by claiming it is in His Name. Some misguided Christians have sincerely waged war against oppressors of their faith. But even that is forbidden by the Lord. Most of the stuff you may be referring to was carried out by apostate Christianity, and often by men not even sincerely believing in it. Power and greed figure before even perverted idealogy for most, in my opinion.

I know long posts are a pain - but as a devout Christian, wolfsbane, I'm sure you relish the opportunity to become better acquainted with passages with which you're not as familiar as you should be:

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

'Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."' (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

"So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

"The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God." (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

"And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?" (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)

A really good one:

"Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Do you know - you're right! Sometimes it is obvious when it's meant literally.

J C

Quote Excelsior
I work with university students and I can state with full certainty that one doesn't lose their faith because of the theory of evolution. Evolution might be the excuse they use, but it is not the cause for them giving up their "personal relationship with Jesus Christ".

Could I suggest that what is actually going on with the young people that you meet is that they have NEVER been Christians.
They may have grown up in nominally Christian homes and attended nominally Christian schools, etc – but they have obviously NEVER made a personal faith commitment to Jesus Christ.

The ‘loss of faith’ that you describe amongst these young people is merely a loss of faith in Religious Institutions, for all kinds of reasons, with evolution being very far down the list (and obviously not on the list at all, where the young people originally belonged to religions that support Theistic Evolution).

Now that they have lost their faith in their various RELIGIONS, they are in some ways more lost than somebody from a completely non-Christian background. To become a Christian now and place their faith in Jesus Christ, will require them to overcome two major obstacles :

1. They will have to overcome whatever reason(s) they lost their faith in their ‘birth religion’ in the first place, because they (erroneously) associate being a Christian primarily with membership of whatever religion they have abandoned. Most of these young people are completely unaware that being a Christian, ISN’T a religion per se – but a personal FAITH in Jesus Christ and in Him alone.

2. Evolution NOW also enters the equation as a further BARRIER to a faith commitment to Jesus Christ – as these young people rationalise (correctly) that IF evolution IS true then the Bible can’t be relied upon and if the Word of God cannot be relied upon, then why should they believe in God Himself either.

Our ‘lost’ young people are shrewd enough to ‘see through’ Theistic Evolutionary explanations as ‘lame duck’ excuses for glaring anomalies in the Bible, IF evolution is true. They also know about the historical support of practically all Christian chuches for Creation - and this sits uneasily in their minds with the new found enthusiasm of some of these churches for evolution.

In this regard, Theistic Evolution is the ‘new kid on the block’. The historical debate in mainstream Christianity in Europe was the argument between the Roman Catholic Church's position that God’s act of Creation was INSTANTANEOUS and the Reformed Churches view that He actually took SIX DAYS.

Neither mainstream churches entertained the 'PAGAN Greek' notion of gradual evolution – until right into the mid to late 20th Century. For this reason, the roof of the Sistine Chapel depicts the Direct Creation of Adam - and NOT his Indirect Evolution. The current complex crisis in Roman Catholicism has largely coincided with it’s tentative adoption of Theist Evolution which also coincided with the large-scale acceptance of ‘Modernism’ within the RCC from the 1950’s onwards.

Of course, mainstream Christianity in America still largely holds to Special Divine Creation and a substantial number of Roman Catholics in America continue with the historical RCC belief in instantaneous Creation.

Quote Excelsior
As I understand it, the much mocked (by Creation Scientists) Lucy is our 1st human.

Actually, EVOLUTIONISTS continue to classify Lucy as an Australopithecus. The fact that ‘Australopithecus’ literally means ‘Southern Ape’ indicates that Evolutionists continue to accept the obvious – that the Australopithecines were APES.

If you believe that one of your intermediate ancestors was a grunting hairy Ape, then you are quite entitled to your belief.
However, as a Christian I believe BOTH Jesus Christ and Genesis when they say that both you and I are ultimately descended from one man and one woman who were specially (and perfectly) created by God in His own image and likeness. All of science, theology and logic supports me in this belief.


Quote Excelsior
Genesis says that there was a time when there were no humans.

Genesis does confirm that Humans were not created until the SIXTH DAY – but I suspect that as a Theistic Evolutionist, this wasn’t the timeframe that you are referring to above – but billions of years.

Jesus Christ Himself confirmed that Humans were created AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CREATED WORLD in Mk 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).


Quote Excelsior
Lucy or the developments we will see around her in the coming decades reflects that first force of humanity. The first human beings were the first sinners. After their sin, all of the Cosmos fell.

Lucy was an extinct Ape full stop, end of story. As she WASN’T Human she didn’t have an immortal soul and she didn’t inherit Original Sin and she also wasn’t granted the privilege of free-will by God. Therefore Lucy the Ape DIDN’T sin and because Jesus Christ WAS FULLY HUMAN (i.e true God and true Man), He DIDN’T die on a cross to remit the sins of any Apes.

robindch

> [JC] what is actually going on with the young people that
> you meet is that they have NEVER been Christians.

There's a scene in Adam Curtis' outstanding The Power of Nightmares in which he documents the moment when one ragtag bunch of Islamic fundamentalists twigged that none of their country's population had ever been proper Muslims, and that the lot should therefore be blown to smithereens, as they subsequently were in great numbers. It is as unedifying, as it is unsurprising, to see the same preposterous, groaning, and infantile, logic operating in other semitic religions.

Sapien - this is like watching a slow-motion car-crash. Give up while you still have some self-respect.

JustHalf

J C wrote:

Could I suggest that what is actually going on with the young people that you meet is that they have NEVER been Christians.
They may have grown up in nominally Christian homes and attended nominally Christian schools, etc – but they have obviously NEVER made a personal faith commitment to Jesus Christ.

Excelsior is specifically talking about the Christian students he works with.

Asiaprod

J C wrote:

Neither mainstream churches entertained the 'PAGAN Greek' notion of gradual evolution – until right into the mid to late 20th Century. For this reason, the roof of the Sistine Chapel depicts the Direct Creation of Adam - and NOT his Indirect Evolution. ..

Come on JC, that really is clutching at straws. Art should be treated as nothing more than art.
You cannot use the Sistine Chapel to validate your argument

Excelsior

Sapien, there can be a thin line between criticising someone's argument and criticising the person. You crossed it at the top of the page. Please don't get so needlessly aggressive again.

Wibbs

Funny thing about Sapiens post with the biblical quotes. None of them are the words of Jesus himself. I always found it strange that Christianity, put so much store in sources such as Paul that never even met the man they followed. Sorry for the off topic there, but as I've noted Excelsior is the forgiving sort(wrath of mod to follow..).:D

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

Sapien, there can be a thin line between criticising someone's argument and criticising the person. You crossed it at the top of the page. Please don't get so needlessly aggressive again.

As an intellectual, Excelsior, I believe that there is a thin line between a person and his arguments.

Sapien

Furthermore - it was not idle aggression. I make a serious point. All of us - agnostics, atheists, moderate Christians and the more exotic - can be united in dismay at the ideas of some of your fundamentalist brethren. It would be remiss and dishonest of me to forget that the same religious mentality lies at the heart of fundamentalist and moderate thinking alike, and that I am dismayed at all religiosity - no matter how serene the believer.

Though it was undeniably off-topic, so I consider my wrist solidly slapped.

Asiaprod

Sapien wrote:

Though it was undeniably off-topic, so I consider my wrist solidly slapped.

I do not know how much it may mean to you, but that comment has most definitely earned my respect.

Now I have to go and contemplate this Lucy mess:rolleyes: .

Sapien

**The Scientist**

Step 1: Evidence...



Step 2: Theory...



Step 3: Conclusion...









**The Creationist**

Step 1: Conclusion...







Step 2: Evidence...



Step 3: Theory...






... well, it fits!

Dades

Interesting!

(Though I really hope you didn't spend the time to do all those yourself...)

robindch

> [Wibbs, not Asiaprod (apologies!)] ...the biblical quotes. None of
> them are the words of Jesus himself. I always found it strange
> that Christianity, put so much store in sources such as Paul
> that never even met the man they followed.

The bible is a large, rambling book with plenty to appeal to anybody who reads only small bits of it, or believes in the literal truth of small bits of it. People will tend to home in on whatever supports their own pre-conceptions of the world, and cheerfully ignore the rest, either by saying that it's not important, or meant to be read as allegory, or some other hand-wave.

To re-inforce this, lets take a look at some of the less-often reported bits of what Jesus says:

Jesus says that abandoning your wife + kids is ok -- And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. [Matthew 19:29]

Jesus says that hating your family is good - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. [Luke 14:26]

Jesus comes to sow hatred - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her smother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [Matthew 10:34]

If one's only requirement for truth is the appearance of a supporting phrase from the bible, then you can prove just about whatever you want to.