Jump to content


Photo

Romans 5:12 and Doctrinal Implications - NT


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Librarian

Librarian

    Psi

  • Publications
  • 7,347 posts

Posted 18 April 2011 - 04:02 AM

Christadelphians, as believers in the Word of God, the Bible, believe in “the good news of the kingdom of God”.

We believe:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16

We also believe:

“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” Titus 1:2

“That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:” Hebrews 6:18

Theistic Evolutionists believe that science assertions have priority over Bible Statements.

Question

How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile the Bible Statement:

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned Romans 5:12

#2 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Chi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,442 posts

Posted 18 April 2011 - 09:57 PM

Question

How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile the Bible Statement:

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" Romans 5:12


Adam was the first man in human history to become aware what sin is (tree of knowledge of good and evil), as we are told, their is no condemnation without knowing what is right and wrong. Same reason the law brought death. We are talking spiritual death here, not natural.
"and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_symbolic_meaning_of_a_horse#ixzz1K0LLUt00

#3 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Chi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,442 posts

Posted 18 April 2011 - 10:04 PM

“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” Titus 1:2


But Adam did not die "that day". So God had another death in mind...

# "But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found." (Luke 15:32) - (The prodigal son was spiritually dead until he repented)
# And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. (Romans 8:10)
# And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, (Colossians 2:13)"And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)
"and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_symbolic_meaning_of_a_horse#ixzz1K0LLUt00

#4 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 19 April 2011 - 02:37 AM

Question

How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile the Bible Statement:

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" Romans 5:12


Adam was the first man in human history to become aware what sin is (tree of knowledge of good and evil), as we are told, their is no condemnation without knowing what is right and wrong. Same reason the law brought death. We are talking spiritual death here, not natural.


I would think what you have said is the sum of your misunderstanding what the Word of God says:

The Word of God states explicitly that He created Adam out of the dust of the ground.

You appear to take some of the reading from Genesis literally = the tree and also the matter of sin, yet deny God's creation of Adam = the statement made in the Librarian's post:

Theistic Evolutionists believe that science assertions have priority over Bible Statements.


that is where the inconsistency lays and in the end the message of Word of God becomes problematic - it no longer makes a sense if a Theistic Evolutionary viewpoint is taken.

See other posts in regard to Romans.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#5 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 19 April 2011 - 07:27 PM

This discussion starts off on the wrong footing with the rather objectionable statement that "Theistic Evolutionists believe that science assertions have priority over Biblical Statements".

Theistic evolutionists (and I hope the rest of us) note that God's word and God's works are in harmony. Romans 1, Ps 19, the usual texts. So if your interpretation of the Bible conflicts with the evidence of the natural world, your interpretation is wrong and should be revised.

Genesis is about the fact that God created. Not how.

 



#6 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 03:01 AM

This discussion starts off on the wrong footing with the rather objectionable statement that "Theistic Evolutionists believe that science assertions have priority over Bible Statements".

I am not certain, David, and why you would find it objectionable and whether it is objectionable?

In your post the direction is away from what God declared in favour of "world view".

It appears that several brethren seem to be saying that we should give priority to science, how all came into being, "world view".

Does science really have the answer, or is it just based on supposition?

Thank you for the link, to your site.

You seem to have an emphasis, once again on Young Earth Creationists (YEC), most brethren would be in line with what brethren Thomas and Roberts believed - that the earth is old, but the present creation on earth is young.

The link you provided also includes this aspect, your pages (but recent research - the page appears to be dated - if you would like we could go through the detail of the grey areas of your statements).

Theistic evolutionists (and I hope the rest of us) note that God's word and God's works are in harmony. Romans 1, Ps 19, the usual texts. So if your interpretation of the Bible conflicts with the evidence of the natural world, your interpretation is wrong and should be revised.


You haven't addressed Romans 5:12 - which is the heading of this thread.

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” Romans 5:12

It almost seems to have an essence that the "natural world" and the "worldwide" view is similar to that described in Romans 1:25:

"For they had bartered the reality of God for what is unreal, and had offered divine honours and religious service to created things, rather than to the Creator--He who is for ever blessed. Amen."

In such as Darwin Celebrations - the veneration.

That the "natural" is the creator rather than the Creator, God.

The acceptance of the "natural" the praise of Darwin, the claim that although God declared, the Bible is incorrect in many of it's declarations.

Genesis is about the fact that God created. Not how.


In Genesis God declared that He created:

Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Genesis 1:25 "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.""

Jesus also said: "But in the beginning, at the time of creation, it was said, 'God made them male and female'" Mark 10:6

It may not describe the "actual" process used by God - but what it does declare is that God made them male and female, He CREATED the fish of the sea - He CREATED the complexity, the creatures and as the fossil record indicates complex creatures throughout the strata, some creatures extinct, some almost identical to what we see today.

God didn't declare that one "kind" of creature would "morph" into another - He declared the exact opposite.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#7 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 03:14 AM

Romans 5:12 - still needs to be addressed in light of Theistic Evolutionary belief:

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” Romans 5:12
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#8 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:24 PM

Kay, Rom 5:12 is referring to the same figurative story you find in Genesis - whether Adam was a one-off special creation (well, 2 -off with Eve - but forget taking the rib stuff literally) or the first human that had the ability to know God.

Edited by Kay, 09 May 2011 - 03:56 PM.
Post moved from Ex-Christadelphian Forum - False Prophets


#9 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:24 AM

Kay, Rom 5v12 is referring to the same figurative story you find in Genesis - whether Adam was a one-off special creation (well, 2 -off with Eve - but forget taking the rib stuff literally) or the first human that had the ability to know God.


So, throughout the Scriptures, whenever creation is mentioned, also the fact that the Bible is about the first and last Adam with finality of God being be all-in-all ... is all just figurative.

Is Jesus figurative too?

Where does one draw the line as far as the Word goes, again, was Jesus raised from the dead? Was Lazarus raised, or Dorcas etcetera - or these stories also to "impress" readers at a later time?

If Adam and that account is figurative - then why would anyone need Jesus?

It is the same logic.

As well as the very problem if man "evolved" from a lower species, common ancestry, Christ's common ancestral line through the woman, Mary, was an ape-like creature.

The Bible explains when man had the ability to know of the Creator, that is when man was created - or are you also saying that God, as the Creator of man, is just another figurative story?

The Bible never mentions that Adam's family line runs in conjunction with, an evolved race ... who, the evolved race, somehow "evolved" the same brain capacity as say, take for example angels, and came to a knowledge of God through an evolutionary process.

The stories, and reinterpretations being spun by a number of brethren just don't make sense from a Scriptural point of view - it makes the Bible out to be a larger group of "just so" stories.

Again, your response to Romans 5:12 isn't adequate, nor adequate when the rest of the Biblical evidence is taken into account - what it is all about, and God's declaration that he is the Creator.

Edited by Kay, 09 May 2011 - 05:11 AM.
Post moved from Ex-Christadelphian Forum - False Prophets

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#10 Netsach Yisrael

Netsach Yisrael

    Sigma

  • Suspended
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,126 posts

Posted 01 June 2011 - 02:44 PM

Romans 5:12 - still needs to be addressed in light of Theistic Evolutionary belief:

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” Romans 5:12


It needs to be explained in light of Brother Thomas's "old-earth creationism." Brother Thomas believed that fossils come from a time before Adam. Fossils are preserved bones of dead things. Therefore, Brother Thomas believed that things died before Adam was created. Dinosaurs, for instance, died before Eve bit the apple. But if anything died, ever, before Eve bit the apple, in what sense did Adam bring death into the world?
Democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken

#11 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 01 June 2011 - 02:51 PM


Romans 5:12 - still needs to be addressed in light of Theistic Evolutionary belief:

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” Romans 5:12


It needs to be explained in light of Brother Thomas's "old-earth creationism." Brother Thomas believed that fossils come from a time before Adam. Fossils are preserved bones of dead things. Therefore, Brother Thomas believed that things died before Adam was created. Dinosaurs, for instance, died before Eve bit the apple. But if anything died, ever, before Eve bit the apple, in what sense did Adam bring death into the world?


It speaks of - man - created man.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#12 Netsach Yisrael

Netsach Yisrael

    Sigma

  • Suspended
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,126 posts

Posted 01 June 2011 - 08:10 PM



Romans 5:12 - still needs to be addressed in light of Theistic Evolutionary belief:

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” Romans 5:12


It needs to be explained in light of Brother Thomas's "old-earth creationism." Brother Thomas believed that fossils come from a time before Adam. Fossils are preserved bones of dead things. Therefore, Brother Thomas believed that things died before Adam was created. Dinosaurs, for instance, died before Eve bit the apple. But if anything died, ever, before Eve bit the apple, in what sense did Adam bring death into the world?


It speaks of - man - created man.


So death didn't actually come into the world as a result of sin? Dinosaurs, sharks and sea urchins were living and dying for millions of years before Adam came along?

John Thomas believed that hominid fossils were pre-adamic angels, too. So according to his view, they too knew death before Eve bit the apple. Is that OK, or was brother Thomas a heretic?
Democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken

#13 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:23 AM

So death didn't actually come into the world as a result of sin? Dinosaurs, sharks and sea urchins were living and dying for millions of years before Adam came along?

John Thomas believed that hominid fossils were pre-adamic angels, too. So according to his view, they too knew death before Eve bit the apple. Is that OK, or was brother Thomas a heretic?


Sometimes after long absences from the stage it appears reminiscent of several gathering around a water hole discussing and endeavouring to fire what one would deem as "trick" questions to try catch one out in discussions.

Probably not but just the way it appears at times.

Getting back to your statement.

Whether brother John Thomas believed in pre-adamic angels or not really has nothing to do with the discussion. Thoughts perhaps on where did the Angels come from, perhaps in light of NT comment about judging Angels?

We simply don’t know.

The fact that pre-homid fossils tend to be dated within the geological time scale - whether they are as ancient as science declares - who knows?

I seem to recall that not much was made about these early fossils – they were there, but no extrapolation on the scale and manner done in this day and age, also, I think reading about it, and Neanderthal fossils found in the 1800’s that they were regarded at time as simply ancient humans – but would have to check sources of that again, and also the speculation at the time.

Brother Thomas didn't believe that the earth was billions of years old, he thought the earth was old but the age still limited to a reasonable period of time. In or about 1775 it was thought the age of the earth was about 75,000 years old. Of course the time scale has crept steadily to the billions of years of today. The much expanded time scale needed to accommodate the theory of evolution.

Getting back to the fact of brother Thomas and Angels – he believed in a Creation, present of about 6000 years ago – what occurred before that time is in the realms of speculation, and in fact still is.

Why do I say this … another story just in from ScienceAAAS (ScienceNOW Daily Email Alert)

Ancient Female Ancestors Roamed Far and Wide for Mates

by Ann Gibbons on 1 June 2011, 1:01 PM

When it came time for members of the human family to find a mate in South Africa about 2 million years ago, it was the females, not the males, who made the first move. A new study of the teeth of 19 australopithecines from cave sites in South Africa suggests that females moved away from their birthplaces far more often than the larger males, who stayed surprisingly close to home and kin.

ScienceNOW Link

They have made up a whole narrative from the teeth of 19 australopithecines found in a cave – or is it once again simply speculation?

Back to the subject.

Do the beasts of the field, vegetation, fish, or birds sin?

What does the Bible say, and whose sin was deemed punishable by death?

Was it the beasts of the field, vegetation, fish, or birds or was it man, and man, the only one created in the image and likeness of God? Genesis 1:26-27

What were the instructions to Adam by God and the outcome?

Genesis 2:15-17

That if the fruit in the middle of the garden was partaken of – then the eyes of the partaker would be opened that one would know, good and evil. Hence in one bite, they were both alienated from God, spiritually, and hence ultimately to death physically.

Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 speaks of human death.

Does the Bible say that Adam and Eve were ignorant of death?

The words of the serpent – and Eve’s initial fear of the outcome if she partook of the fruit.

Why have any apprehension of what the punishment would be if they weren't aware of the finality, and what was meant?

Genesis 3:1-7

So, brother Thomas, was not outside the sphere of what the Bible states or doesn’t state.

What the Bible doesn’t say and some of the claims now made by several brethren to fit within the “theistic evolution” frame and therefore outside the confines of our faith:

  • The Bible doesn’t say - “man” came into existence through common descent
  • The Bible doesn’t say - Adam and Eve were an "special creation" (created, apparently, with all the flaws of those who evolved) placed in the Garden, but eventually banished from the Garden to live within the region of those of an evolved race, after the fall
  • The Bible doesn’t say - God resolved to take Adam and Eve from a pre-existing evolved race on earth and placed them in the garden of Eden, then God, only to be let down by their disobedience, and therefore placed outside the garden again
  • The Bible doesn’t say - that Adam and Eve are only allegorical - that they are just a representation of mankind
What the Bible says:

"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” 27 God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." Genesis 1:26-27

That is what brother Thomas believed, and the many brethren. Again, that sin and outcome, is in relation to man.

What also comes to mind - Philippians 2:6-9 in comparison with Genesis 3:6-7 one took on the role of the serpent, the other sought to exalt themselves, and the reverse, the humble was exalted, and the exalted humbled, and alienated.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#14 Netsach Yisrael

Netsach Yisrael

    Sigma

  • Suspended
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,126 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 12:56 PM

Sounds like double-talk, Kay. Angels are described as "men" in scripture, but Brother Thomas believed that they lived, some died, and others were made immortal before Adam ate the fruit. He also believed that other fossilized creatures lived and died before Adam ate the fruit. It doesn't matter if it happened one MINUTE before Adam ate the fruit, or one trillion trillion trillion years before: what matters is that it happened [i]before Adam ate the fruit.[i] If angels and other creatures died before Adam ate the fruit, then are they not denying Romans 5:12, exactly as you accuse others of doing?

How about a clear, simple and straight answer Kay?
Democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken

#15 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 01:14 PM

Sounds like double-talk, Kay. Angels are described as "men" in scripture, but Brother Thomas believed that they lived, some died, and others were made immortal before Adam ate the fruit. He also believed that other fossilized creatures lived and died before Adam ate the fruit. It doesn't matter if it happened one MINUTE before Adam ate the fruit, or one trillion trillion trillion years before: what matters is that it happened [i]before Adam ate the fruit.[i] If angels and other creatures died before Adam ate the fruit, then are they not denying Romans 5:12, exactly as you accuse others of doing?

How about a clear, simple and straight answer Kay?


NY - did you draw the short straw?

Apparently what is posted here is being discussed at BEREA, some apparently privately ... and of course others are viewing it, here - the IP addresses of both Queensland and NSW etcetera.

And of course - "evolution is more intelligent" than God apparently - because God, to some, is a "shoddy workman" = intelligence is given to evolution - Romans 1:25.

So, if you think evolution is the solution, then by all means - but please don't be part of silly games and immature behaviour, though I had come to the conclusion that some brethren were stalking, especially to beat the drum, the message of evolution to the brotherhood.

The stalking was why I decided not to post on E-D, though had been a member for over 15 years, more since the beginning - if that was the continued behaviour, then that was indeed what it was to be, and why subject one's self to it (not all brethren behaved in this manner, just several promoting the cause).

Though back to your comment - the discussion really has nothing to do with what brother Thomas thought or about angels.

Again, you missed the point - some who believe in YEC may believe that any form of death entered on to the scene at the fall - the disobedience.

However, logic:

Adam and Eve still ate, and so did the animals, birds and fish, they drank water

- hence there was some form of "death" from the beginning, plant life etcetera.

The main thrust is God CREATED Adam and Eve, placed them in the garden and gave instructions to them not to eat of the tree - they did, hence the Created humans, Adam and Eve (who were also to fill the earth) and their kind were subject to death (of which both you and I and everyone else are subject to - the same outcome).

(The aspect also touted by some, local or global flood, those affected, is if there is no LAW there is no sin - hence - God, being just, why was there death at all if there was no LAW?)

Very simple.

Brother Thomas is a red-herring in this discussion.

As we know, he may have believed in a pre-adamic race, but he also believed that the current creation was about 6000 years old - what happened prior to the present creation is in the realms of speculation - and doesn't affect us or shouldn't affect our faith.

The issue is - you still haven't answered Romans 5:12 (and if you are raising the issue of brother Thomas - then you know full well what he believed, as stated, that what was before was gone. Adam and Eve and life were a new beginning) - the theme runs throughout the Word of God - the same as the fact of Creation, that God is the Creator, HIS INTELLIGENCE, not the "intelligence" of evolution.

So, I still await your response to Romans 5:12 - thanks :)
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#16 Netsach Yisrael

Netsach Yisrael

    Sigma

  • Suspended
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,126 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 06:22 PM

The issue is - you still haven't answered Romans 5:12...


It says that death entered the world by one man. We know Doctor Thomas didn't believe that, and now we know you don't believe it either, since you said, "hence there was some form of "death" from the beginning, plant life etcetera." So how do YOU reconcile Romans 5:12 with the simple fact that you believe there was death before Adam sinned?
Democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken

#17 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 06:30 PM

If we understand Adam as the typical man then there is no problem reconciling Romans 5 with anything.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#18 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 10:16 PM

Thomas was wrong, excusably so given the knowledge of his time. Any interpretation of Romans 5:12 that contradicts the facts is wrong, because God doesn't contradict Himself. The facts point overwhelmingly to common descent, death as old as the first organisms, and evolutionary change. That is what the community has to have the humility to accept, and there isn't any stalking about it - I want to see the C'dns scrap the anti-science attitude that all too often exposes us and our faith to ridicule, and welcome scientific understanding as revealing more about the works of God. Is that plain and open enough?

#19 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 03 June 2011 - 02:14 AM


The issue is - you still haven't answered Romans 5:12...


It says that death entered the world by one man. We know Doctor Thomas didn't believe that, and now we know you don't believe it either, since you said, "hence there was some form of "death" from the beginning, plant life etcetera." So how do YOU reconcile Romans 5:12 with the simple fact that you believe there was death before Adam sinned?


NY - Romans 5:12 - which you seem to convolute the meaning = that it encompasses ALL creation, the sentence.

The passage doesn't say that at all. The verse deals with MAN, just as Genesis did, just as every other Bible passage in regard to the fall, it deals with MAN.

So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned


Death fell upon ALL MEN, it had nothing to do with the beasts of the field or vegetation etcetera - check the references.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#20 The

The

    Beta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 03 June 2011 - 07:28 PM

Thomas was wrong, excusably so given the knowledge of his time.


Since when did we need to understand worldly knowledge to understand doctrine? The bible explains itself...

The facts point overwhelmingly to common descent, death as old as the first organisms, and evolutionary change.


The bible and evolution are incompatable. The bible teaches in enough references that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve was literal. I'd like to see one verse where the bible teaches that it isn't?

So if the views of science are incompatable with the bible, so who do you trust? Men who don't have faith and don't understand their bibles?

That is what the community has to have the humility to accept, and there isn't any stalking about it - I want to see the C'dns scrap the anti-science attitude that all too often exposes us and our faith to ridicule, and welcome scientific understanding as revealing more about the works of God. Is that plain and open enough?


We do not interpret the bible through the views of blind men and women. We compare scripture with scripture to understand it's meaning. We cannot understand the teaching of scripture by looking at what science says and then using that to interpret scripture. This is contrary to what Paul tells us to do:

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Therefore, if we are understanding the bible by using science to interpret it, we are mistreating the bible. We don't need to understand science to understand the bible, that's why God can call men and women that are not wise in this worlds wisdom:

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

You are interpreting the bible by using science, but the bible is God's word that tells us how to view all other things around us, including science. There is nowhere in the bible that talks about evolution, it teaches us that God created one man and one woman on the 6th day of creation.

#21 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 03 June 2011 - 08:59 PM


Thomas was wrong, excusably so given the knowledge of his time.


Since when did we need to understand worldly knowledge to understand doctrine? The bible explains itself...

The facts point overwhelmingly to common descent, death as old as the first organisms, and evolutionary change.


The bible and evolution are incompatable. The bible teaches in enough references that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve was literal. I'd like to see one verse where the bible teaches that it isn't?

So if the views of science are incompatable with the bible, so who do you trust? Men who don't have faith and don't understand their bibles?

That is what the community has to have the humility to accept, and there isn't any stalking about it - I want to see the C'dns scrap the anti-science attitude that all too often exposes us and our faith to ridicule, and welcome scientific understanding as revealing more about the works of God. Is that plain and open enough?


We do not interpret the bible through the views of blind men and women. We compare scripture with scripture to understand it's meaning. We cannot understand the teaching of scripture by looking at what science says and then using that to interpret scripture. This is contrary to what Paul tells us to do:

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Therefore, if we are understanding the bible by using science to interpret it, we are mistreating the bible. We don't need to understand science to understand the bible, that's why God can call men and women that are not wise in this worlds wisdom:

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

You are interpreting the bible by using science, but the bible is God's word that tells us how to view all other things around us, including science. There is nowhere in the bible that talks about evolution, it teaches us that God created one man and one woman on the 6th day of creation.


Your argument would be clearer without the absurd habit of using outdated 16th century language, but that aside, we'll have to disagree. I don't believe in a God who provides misleading evidence in His natural world. That world is full of evidence of evolution, and I'll just have to interpret the Bible in line with the facts not in contradiction to them. Of course it doesn't talk about evolution per se, any more than about quantum mechanics, retroviruses, financial derivatives or football. What it does talk about is sometimes literal/historical, and sometimes figurative and poetic - and all the more wonderful for that. Genesis 1-2 isn't science, or history, or a literal account of events. Pretending, against all the evidence, that it's a literal record is undermining faith, Scripture and the common sense that God gave us.

#22 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 04 June 2011 - 07:04 AM

Your argument would be clearer without the absurd habit of using outdated 16th century language, but that aside, we'll have to disagree.

David, comment on Christadelphians facebook in regard to your comments about the KJV (apparently now crossed over to this discussion forum) and how certain brethren behaved on a Forum regarding the KJV – it related to this Forum.

The behaviour by several brethren, here, who also don't post here any more thankfully - but the same attitude, whether right or wrong, in regard to Bible Versions - drives people away from discussions - the manner in which it is done, and done continually.

Fact:

Men and women still come to a knowledge of the gospel, are baptised and grow in truth using the KJV as well as other versions.

So who are you or for that matter me or any of us able to criticise any version of the Bible which still draws people to God?

Problems:

It seems to be that any who want to "liberate" Christadelphia for the "shackles" of "conservatism" are often far more insistent wanting to "indoctrinate" in other ways or their ways, but are highly critical of others, if they wish to do the same.

If you use another version, whatever version, it is our own choice to do.

Are men and women beating down the doors to listen to you, or at preaching efforts, or is it somewhat similar to what has always been?

That said, at preaching efforts, then perhaps to use a more modern version, but again, it is still choice.

The opinion of the "liberal minded" also appears to be the only one that counts and the continued criticism of everything and anything, even 30, 40, 50 years ago.

The continued complaints (which never seem to cease) rather than the positives.

It drives people or brethren and sisters, young people and even children away from the body, just as any extreme, either side can, or even sometimes mid-road (less likely), but depending on the circumstance of life and where one wants to travel.

One brother commented (who is reasonably liberal himself), the extreme liberal always leaves a more bitter taste in the mouth rather than the more conservatives - perhaps something to think about?

I don't believe in a God who provides misleading evidence in His natural world.

God doesn't.

That world is full of evidence of evolution,

Limited evolution, within a kind, yes - the diversity we see around us.

and I'll just have to interpret the Bible in line with the facts not in contradiction to them.

The statement you made, and above - you want the WHOLE brotherhood to accept your opinion as several others also do it seems.

Yet, even Atheists are now questioning Darwin, the theory of evolution. The theory simply doesn't stack up against the evidence.

To name a few:

Flew, and not as some claim that in changing his mind late in life he must have been experiencing problems with intellectual competence due to his age.

That said, it is interesting how, when a person veers from the main-stream “scientific thought”, “evolution”, then those who regard themselves as "intelligent" then stoop to the “name-calling” or "labelling" or to paint a person in the light of being a fool, or “mentally challenged”, or “anti-scientific” or many other ways to demonise a person, so their intellectual, and even standing in science is discredited.

Stove, another Atheist, Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini, Berlinski, Tallis just to name a few more who question the current theories.

Can Darwinism, or an evolutionist and through common descent explain incredible workings, the function of the mind of man?

How did this come into being through common descent?

Of course it doesn't talk about evolution per se, any more than about quantum mechanics, retroviruses, financial derivatives or football. What it does talk about is sometimes literal/historical, and sometimes figurative and poetic - and all the more wonderful for that. Genesis 1-2 isn't science, or history, or a literal account of events. Pretending, against all the evidence, that it's a literal record is undermining faith, Scripture and the common sense that God gave us.

Science is still in the infancy of knowing about the workings of life on earth (I understand that you are well versed in science arena, in your area of expertise, but equally, other brethren in science arena have other opinions including YEC, though the majority OEC).

The Bible has never been a science text-book, I don't know of anyone who has every claimed it to be such – but it gives us the reasons of why we are here, how we were created, and what God has done throughout the ages, and why we were created.

Nor can one, anything that doesn't suit the story then be relegated to "figurative and or poetic".

You see, this is one of the differences – science wants to be the god of all – telling us how it all came into being (without God) – so it is at odds with the Bible.

Again, what is the real evidence? Well, the evidence will change, the opinions will change, but no matter what is seen or changes – that their god, science, will still be that of nature, and not the God of the Bible, where our allegiance is.

What is FAITH?

My FAITH is in the God of Israel, and what is declared in the Word of God (also, today's readings of Hebrews 11, appropriate in this discussion).
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#23 The

The

    Beta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 04 June 2011 - 09:51 AM

Your argument would be clearer without the absurd habit of using outdated 16th century language, but that aside, we'll have to disagree. I don't believe in a God who provides misleading evidence in His natural world. That world is full of evidence of evolution, and I'll just have to interpret the Bible in line with the facts not in contradiction to them. Of course it doesn't talk about evolution per se, any more than about quantum mechanics, retroviruses, financial derivatives or football. What it does talk about is sometimes literal/historical, and sometimes figurative and poetic - and all the more wonderful for that. Genesis 1-2 isn't science, or history, or a literal account of events. Pretending, against all the evidence, that it's a literal record is undermining faith, Scripture and the common sense that God gave us.


There are reasons why God doesn't talk about financial derivatives and football, he they are not important for what God wants us to know. But God does talk in scripture about how we came into existance, and his explanation of it is not evolution.

The teaching of scripture:
Exo20v11 - For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

There was no death before Adam sinned. This means the process of animals dying and evolving over time could not have happened:
Rom5v12 - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

And Rom5 is talking about real death; the context is all about how by being a son of Adam we all die, and by Christ we can receive eternal life:
Rom5v21 - So that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

To suggest evolution has a number of problems:
(1) Scripture talks about how God created the heavens and the earth and all the animals, and it doesn't say he evolved them.
(2) It places more faith in science than the bible.
(3) It forces you to change the meaning of many biblical verses, when an honest look at those passages will say otherwise.
(4) It interprets the bible with mans views of science; whereas Paul says, no, actually we have to interpret the bible with itself, 1Cor2v13. Understand what God says, then see what implications that has on science, not the other way round.
(5) The conclusion is that we need modern science to understand many passages in the bible.

(By the way, the quotes above are from the NIV)

#24 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 04 June 2011 - 10:12 AM

Thomas was wrong, excusably so given the knowledge of his time.


Brother Thomas wasn't incorrect, David.

Fact:

The Theory of Evolution, (Darwin and friends), was buoyant when brother Thomas was alive.

Brother Thomas would have been well aware of the contradictions and the aspect of how one plays off the other with truth, that the Biblical account and evolution are at odds with each other.

The Christadelphian Magazine at the time speaks of one brother who had succumbed to the theory but later changed his opinion, to that if the Bible’s account.

Nothing has really changed as the "theory" is still based on "appearances", "similarities" when all is said and done.

Any interpretation of Romans 5:12 that contradicts the facts is wrong, because God doesn't contradict Himself.


You speak of contradiction, and God doesn't contradict himself.

Hence, and one of the issues at hand which was to be discussed here some 18 months ago and before that time, unfortunately,the section saw a barrage of posts really unrelated to the aspects of the Bible, the account of God and doctrinal implications were simply ignored or “hand-waved” away.

The argument for evolution much of the "proof" posted was from sources where God is made light of, mocked and denied.

Discussion was also to be on the pros and shortcomings of the theory - another fact - there are shortcomings, but this simply ignored, or if issue raised, then once again, the attack mode was seen.

The claim now surfacing in the brotherhood, by proponents of evolution is that Bible in many areas must be invalid or our interpretation there-of must be invalidated in light of the religion of science?

The Bible speaks plainly and clearly, that God created man-kind in His image.

The Bible speaks plainly of God as the Creator of life, and all to re-produce after its own kind.

This is not just in Genesis - but through the entire scripture.

The facts point overwhelmingly to common descent, death as old as the first organisms, and evolutionary change.


They do and they don’t.

The facts also point overwhelmingly to common design, but again, it depends on who is more esteemed, whose intelligence is more esteemed it would seem.

Aren’t the majority of evolutionary Biologists atheists? I saw a figure of about 80% recently.

Where do we place our faith – in the religion of man, or the statements of the God of the Bible, the latter is what faith is all about?

The majority of those researching “life” don’t believe in God and as such do you think there may be bias in their interpretation, the outcome? (however, in the previous post, even a number of prominent atheists are well aware of the massive problems in regard to evolution, the complexity, against natural selection, all just happening, and the "intelligence of evolution".

That is what the community has to have the humility to accept,

Sounds like a statement from Ecclesia-Discuss, made by Jonathan Pogson who has been pushing the subject for years - for the brotherhood to accept evolution - hence against what God has attested, what HE created.

David, the community, Christadelphians have stood the test of time - about 160 years – the brotherhood throughout that time has believed in exactly what the Bible has taught in regard to mankind and creation, the first and the last Adam.

The same as the 1st Century believers, the Old Testament believers and the many throughout the ages, those who believe in God’s Word.

Hence, the evidence has been that God’s Word is the way of our belief – not @ 5 minutes to midnight we toss to the wind what we believe.

Then, the appeal, making the claim of humility - to "grasp" evolution? It is not unlike those of other religions who wish to "evolutionise" their churches.

Who is humble?

Who displays the arrogance?

Perhaps too fine-a-line?

I want to see the C'dns scrap the anti-science attitude that all too often exposes us and our faith to ridicule, and welcome scientific understanding as revealing more about the works of God. Is that plain and open enough?

The "stalking":

When discussions originally commenced about Creation and Evolution in the brotherhood several years ago by a group of brethren (those more vocal on emails groups and forums) it was a simple endeavour to curb misinformation from the platforms, ie., if science had moved on, and what was once thought, some opinion previously held were no longer valid, to be a bit more circumspect (I could well understand this would be a concern).

Science changes, hourly, opinions and outcomes.

Notwithstanding the position has changed, and your comment (Jonathan Pogson’s comment as well as others in the “group”) are that we must accept the world view. The original intention is no longer so and has taken on a whole new life - some almost it seems, to hound brethren endeavouring, just like the world, to stop any dialogue in regard to God as the creator in the Biblical sense.

Past and present experience shows when a group gathers (even few in number) with agreed opinions and also using the excuse to “save” those who may leave – yet, they are too overconfident in their own self-estimation to see the destruction they will also cause along the way, who is saved and who is lost?

A number also left this forum, others wouldn’t read the Science and Bible sections because of that kind of behaviour, arrogance of several on many levels - the “crisis” of faith that such can generate. Not that they then believed in evolution, but rather the destruction that would and can be caused by the “march” of some and that no-one was allowed to have opinion other than theirs, those promoting evolution to the brotherhood.

Hence, to indoctrinate the brotherhood - the "stalking" above - also included bullying (by a number) - to get a group of brethren together to continually "name call", call the cavalry in, mock – any scientist who had a different opinion was called “anti-science” – hence sites were then referenced to unbelievers to “debunk” any who held a different view, even if the scientist was speaking in a professional capacity - their field of study.

Not to forget, the “flat-earthers” – “who do you think you are” – etcetera.

If this is type of behaviour, those setting themselves up to be “leaders among” men or the brotherhood – then one wonders how much longer that the Christadelphian brotherhood has – perhaps by name, but little by little, our belief structure is being chipped away by the world opinion – rather reminiscent of Revelation, the warnings given, yet unheeded.

Once, again, let's repeat one of the continued on-going issues: -

Christadelphians AREN'T "anti-science" - however, the religion of science, evolution, in the sense of common ancestry conflicts with the Bible, and conflicts with what God has attested.

You can't get around THAT problem other than having to devise things which are simply not in the Bible – and quite opposed to, the devising of that which IS recorded.

That we must, in the 21st Century change:

  • our belief
  • our interpretation
of many passages to fit into the structure of the religion of science, unless of course we are to be ridiculed, apparently - you are more concerned it seems based on "appearances".

The very fact is that we still have those who take on the saving name of our Lord, and in full knowledge that generally speaking Christadelphians believe in Creation (YEC or more-so, OEC) and not that of world view which is “all came into being through evolution.”

SO, the main areas of concern – if brother Thomas and the tens upon tens of thousands have had it incorrect for millennia – and if you want to adopt evolution, common descent as fact, this is what it means, the logical conclusions:

  • God isn’t the creator as described in His Word
  • God allowed nature to create
  • God surrendered, dominion and control to nature alone
  • God is not directly involved with man’s creation, nature is, through common descent
  • Man, therefore, was not made in the image of God, though thus described
  • Death was already in the world, hence no need for Christ to redeem mankind, because man has never fallen, as there is no such place as the Garden of Eden - no evidence has ever been found
  • Jesus was not raised from the dead – the evidence of science (which you want everyone in the brotherhood to accept), once a body is dead and decay starts it cannot be reanimated.
This is the problem – you can’t mix and match – if you wish brethren and sisters to accept scientific opinion because "science" is “always right” then you can’t accept anything that is against scientific opinion, hence, there is utter destruction of what we believe and our faith in God.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#25 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 04 June 2011 - 03:12 PM

So much falsehood in these posts, it's hard to know where to start. The suggestion that the community has been of one mind for 160 years is wrong. To suggest that those who accept the evidence for evolution are a miniscule minority is, I suspect, wrong too - though some keep rather too quiet for the sake of a quiet life: understandably, given the character assassination and betrayal of trust that some of us have experienced in our own congregations, mine included, on this issue. To suggest no death before Adam is ridiculous and makes God out to be a deceiver - planting misleading evidence (unless like some other fundamentalists you think the devil did it, of course!). To suggest the Bible demands literal interpretation in the relevant passages is wrong, and an abuse of Scripture.

No wonder we're going downhill fast.

#26 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 04 June 2011 - 04:08 PM

So much falsehood in these posts, it's hard to know where to start. The suggestion that the community has been of one mind for 160 years is wrong. To suggest that those who accept the evidence for evolution are a miniscule minority is, I suspect, wrong too - though some keep rather too quiet for the sake of a quiet life: understandably, given the character assassination and betrayal of trust that some of us have experienced in our own congregations, mine included, on this issue. To suggest no death before Adam is ridiculous and makes God out to be a deceiver - planting misleading evidence (unless like some other fundamentalists you think the devil did it, of course!). To suggest the Bible demands literal interpretation in the relevant passages is wrong, and an abuse of Scripture.

No wonder we're going downhill fast.


David, there is no falsehood in the posts, some may have been an extreme scenario of what it means accepting science's opinion how everything came into being, plants, animals, man - but you would only be too aware that science can be wrong in the extreme and especially being in a science field.

Generally, Christadelphians have accepted the account of Creation, more I would think the Gap Theory - you would be well aware of this.

The problem of evolution really is only recent years gaining any momentum, though still limited, in the brotherhood.

I think the main testing case from years ago was that of brother Ralph Lovelock, and from reading the account of that, he was only withdrawn from in the end for his insistence in preaching evolution to all and sundry, though he held fast to his convictions, hence, he was withdrawn from, and never reconciled.

His version (and we are getting off-topic in a sense) - is similar to what some are professing now - a race of pre-adamic people in conjunction with the Created Adam and Eve - the Bible doesn't even hint of this.

You are also using the usual arguments - that God buried the fossil record (if this is what you mean about "planting misleading evidence" or perhaps the genome - it looks similar, then it must be the same, or common ancestry).

The fossil record, Old Earth - Gap, there was a previous existence - Young earth, fossils were a remnant of the flood - and in case scenarios, we know that the geological record isn't in neat bands that the textbooks so precisely describe to students.

Adam and Eve are the commencement of the process of what the Bible is about, and the need for Christ to redeem.

From an evolutionary perspective - the picture and need is lost. There seems to be no need for Christ especially if claim is made that Adam and Eve are allegorical.

The character assassination - don't know the circumstances - but as with Ralph Lovelock, is there a real need to shout it from the roof-tops, when you would be well aware what the outcome of doing such would and will be?

I wouldn't think that there would be a problem if brethren believed what they wanted to in this regard without the claim that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and not openly preached it.

Another problem, which relates, is that several are now trying to indoctrinate - you also said it here in your posts - to accept science's version, and if we don't - we are, apparently, "anti-science".

As said many times, that belief in such, and Jesus, if it is common descent, then through Mary's lineage, she had common ancestry with an ape-like creature - it just doesn't make logical sense, when Jesus is the SON of God - the Creator.

It also doesn't make sense, how the mind of man "evolved" ... there is absolutely no evidence in regard to this from science, other than speculation, which almost seems to change daily, and I must admit, some of the stories they come up with, it is almost like "comedy hour" when one reads what they say, and especially when one believes that God is the Creator and He has instructed us about the why and how, and why we are who we are.

The Bible has the simple answer to it all ... but then, we often don't prefer the simple, because we pride ourselves in who we are, what we are, and our intellectual ability.

Literal - if the Bible is consistent in what it says, I defer to the Bible - but it appears that some are now interpreting the Bible through Science - and mistakenly do so.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#27 The

The

    Beta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 05 June 2011 - 09:04 AM

So much falsehood in these posts, it's hard to know where to start. The suggestion that the community has been of one mind for 160 years is wrong. To suggest that those who accept the evidence for evolution are a miniscule minority is, I suspect, wrong too - though some keep rather too quiet for the sake of a quiet life: understandably, given the character assassination and betrayal of trust that some of us have experienced in our own congregations, mine included, on this issue. To suggest no death before Adam is ridiculous and makes God out to be a deceiver - planting misleading evidence (unless like some other fundamentalists you think the devil did it, of course!). To suggest the Bible demands literal interpretation in the relevant passages is wrong, and an abuse of Scripture.

No wonder we're going downhill fast.


Here are some more reasons you should consider:


Firstly, Luke3v37-38:

Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Why does it say Adam was the son of God? If evolution were true it would say, which was the son of a monkey, which was the son of a jellyfish, which was the son of a bacteria.....


Secondly, Rom5v12:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Why does it say that death entered by Adam? This means you cannot have the process of weaker animals dying before Adam.


Thirdly, have you asked the question what is the point? Why would God evolve all the animals? Please explain to me the purpose of evolving the animals over millions of years, and why God would do that? It doesn't make sense.


Fourthly, Exo20v12:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Why does it say that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in 6 days if he actually took millions of years to do it?


Fifthly, 1Cor2v11:

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Why aren't you arguing your view on what scripture teaches by using scripture itself? Why are you using man's wisdom as the basis of your argument?


Sixthly, you say that God doesn't mislead people. Then why does scripture read as if evolution is not true? God said he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, he said that there was no death before Adam, he gives a whole chapter where he describes how the heavens and the earth were created by him in Gen1. So if you believe in evolution, you either have to accept that God is misleading you through the bible, or that he is misleading you through creation.


As far as I understand it, evolution has never been proved, but it is the accepted scientific theory as to how we are here. It was devised by people wishing to remove God from being the creator. God had the power to do what he said in his word, and if he says he created the heavens and earth and all the animals there in 6 days, he did, and whatever the wise men of this world say, they are wrong.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Edited by The, 05 June 2011 - 01:03 PM.


#28 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 05 June 2011 - 09:35 PM

"Adam and Eve are the commencement of the process of what the Bible is about, and the need for Christ to redeem."

Kay that is exactly the point, well said. Genesis isn't bothered about the MECHANISM of creation - we turn to science for that and find it's evolution. It is very much about the need for Christ. And that doesn't involve believing the untenable, like fossils being 6000 years old or artefacts of the Flood.

Neither is it concerned with detailed chronology, so just as 'day ' means many different things in scripture, we don't have to believe the world was made in a week, especially as that's plainly revealed by the natural world - Gods natural world, and a witness to Him according to Paul - to be wrong.

#29 The

The

    Beta

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:04 PM

"Adam and Eve are the commencement of the process of what the Bible is about, and the need for Christ to redeem."

Kay that is exactly the point, well said. Genesis isn't bothered about the MECHANISM of creation - we turn to science for that and find it's evolution. It is very much about the need for Christ. And that doesn't involve believing the untenable, like fossils being 6000 years old or artefacts of the Flood.

Neither is it concerned with detailed chronology, so just as 'day ' means many different things in scripture, we don't have to believe the world was made in a week, especially as that's plainly revealed by the natural world - Gods natural world, and a witness to Him according to Paul - to be wrong.


It would be nice if you could answer some of the questions in the previous post.

#30 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,348 posts

Posted 07 June 2011 - 12:06 PM

"Adam and Eve are the commencement of the process of what the Bible is about, and the need for Christ to redeem."

Kay that is exactly the point, well said.

At least we agree on some things :)

Genesis isn't bothered about the MECHANISM of creation - we turn to science for that and find it's evolution.

There are issues with your statement.

Genesis describes that God:

  • created
  • made
  • formed
The Bible makes no mention that all came into being through “random errors filtered by natural selection.”

The Bible says the exact opposite.

We don't need to turn to science to confirm our existence, or the existence of what we see around us.

That said, the discoveries of science have shown us nothing but highly complex information processing systems which comprise life - thus confirming Genesis - that God created, made, formed, that there was an intelligence behind what we see before us today.

What science doesn’t show is any evidence of life coming about by “random errors filtered by natural selection” other than assumption in an effort to exclude a Creator.

It is very much about the need for Christ. And that doesn't involve believing the untenable, like fossils being 6000 years old or artefacts of the Flood.

David, if man and woman came into being through common descent then there is no need for Christ.

You make claim that there was life and death before the fall hence, is there any real need for Christ, especially in regard to Adam and Eve being “non-existent” in the light of science – thus “no fall”, because they didn’t exist.

The whole concept, Bible teaching, is mankind being reconciled to God through Christ Jesus our Lord.

And that doesn't involve believing the untenable, like fossils being 6000 years old or artefacts of the Flood.

The emphasis by Christadelphian Theistic Evolutionists always appears to target Young Earth Creationism, who, as stated in a previous post, believe that the fossil record was laid down with the flood. I would have no doubt, that with the flood, there would be fossils formed from the flood – science has however placed an age limit on fossils – 10000 years.

Though the benchmark of Christadelphian understanding since the time of brother Thomas is the gap theory.

Hence, there was life, animal life on earth, prior to the current creation, as described in Genesis 1, the "gap" in Genesis 1 – therefore, no difficulty with the fossil record having occurred at some prior time in the earth’s entire history.

Science, and the theory of evolution also has "gaps" in the theory.

Neither is it concerned with detailed chronology, so just as 'day ' means many different things in scripture, we don't have to believe the world was made in a week, especially as that's plainly revealed by the natural world - Gods natural world, and a witness to Him according to Paul - to be wrong.

Hebraists state that in Genesis 1 that a "day" means a "day" as we understand it, a literal 24 hour period – hence, the usual argument is to defer to the scholars or science etcetera, so if scholars of the Hebrew language make such a statement – should one not accept it?

You know my reasoning in that statement – apparently, you are not allowed to have opinion, yet others are when it suits certain theories.

The Chronology in the Bible, the Word of God which is the hope of mankind, not science, gives details that a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, came into existence about 6000 years ago.

Do you think that the present creation was impossible for God to create?

Create in the manner He attested, whether in the blink of an eye, or a week, was impossible for God to bring into motion?

One of the main problems, as far as TE is concerned, that some or many of the scientists we are expected to defer to, simply don’t believe in God – hence, we can’t pick and choose in the sense, all or nothing.

Interesting, Sunday afternoon I was reading Jerry Coyne’s comments on “whyevolutionistrue” in regard to the article in Christianity Today, “The search for the historical Adam” in another thread here.

What was said on Coyne’s blog (along with other comments) was this:

We can all argue about whether Jesus was a parthenogenetic being produced without physical insemination, and whether he became reanimated a few days after death, but getting direct evidence for those “miracles” is well-nigh impossible, and so we argue against them on the grounds of improbability. But there’s one bedrock of Abrahamic faith that is eminently testable by science: the claim that all humans descend from a single created pair—Adam and Eve—and that these individuals were not australopithecines or apelike ancestors, but humans in the modern sense. Absent their existence, the whole story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces.

Thought he must have been reading my posts :)

However, once you step into the realms of Adam and Eve not existing or allegorical, and common descent, or choosing Adam and Eve from an existing race, or Adam and Eve were a special creation, placed in Eden and an existing race of people already existed – there is simply no need for Christ.

Again, Romans 5:12 and the many other verses, they are consistent with each other.

You can’t “cherry-pick” – God has given us one explanation, science gives another – it is one or the other.

The challenge (for another thread?):

How did an evolved race come to the stage of the intelligence we have ... was it through “random errors filtered by natural selection”?
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users