|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christ making statements about Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
More to the point is that just because Jesus believed in the flood (past tense) does not mean it was the same flood that the fundamentalists believe in. Luke 17:26-30 shows that it could have been a local flood that He believed in, not a universal flood. After all, the word "all" as in "destroyed them all" is also used for Sodom and there "all" only applies to the people in a local region.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5267 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
The thought that Jesus was not a literalist, or was a literalist, but it doesn't matter if he was, is too much to contemplate.
If social scientists wish to investigate this remarkable phenomenon, I can give them a few ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Even if Jesus believed in a literal, historic flood, it does not mean that it happened. The attitude of Jesus towards the Old Testament is what convinced me that I should read and believe the Old Testament. I reasoned that if it was OK for Jesus Christ it must be OK. Less attractive to me is the implication that Jesus Christ was deceived, or mistaken about the facts (being Son of God). But this thought came to me by gradual process and I can understand that others may not be at the juncture. But, Jesus seems to anticipate that His usage of references to historical Genesis to warn of the last days, is likely to be dismissed. So to assure that His discussion is to be taken seriously, He adds: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Luke 21:33) In parallel passages to Luke 21 He refered to Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction - (Luke 17:27-30) As to the question of can a person be Christian who is an evolutionist or theistic evolutionist ? Of course they can. The only requirement to receive eternal redemption is to believe into Christ. The classic hymn "Just As I Am" captures this truth well in the line: "Just as I am, though tossed about,With many a conflict, many a doubt, Fightings within and fears without, Oh Lamb of God, I come, I come." (I think I have it right). Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I think though, to make a case that Christ didn't believe in His own Jewish history, is a bit of a stretch, afterall, he uses the scripture to prove His own case, such as quotes from Isaiah and Daniel. It's clear that He believed the veracity of the scriptures, saying that they spoke of Him. Wait a minute: so, a character in a book, uses other parts of the book, to prove he is who he says he is? Or does the book just say that? How do I sign up for this jesus dude? he's the shit!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Here is what CS Lewis, (who had no problem with evolution) writes in the book "Miracles".
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5267 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:There were Pharisees in Jerusalem who tried to persuade Christians that they needed to be circumcised if they were to be justified before God. Paul wrote of 'foolish Galatians' who believed that idea. There are likewise people today who try to persuade Christians that they need to take a particular view of early Genesis. The danger lies not in what one believes about early Genesis, but just in thinking that anything beyond faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross is needed, because it diminishes that work of Christ, and in effect says that he is not divine, that his righteousness is inadequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
There were Pharisees in Jerusalem who tried to persuade Christians that they needed to be circumcised if they were to be justified before God. Paul wrote of 'foolish Galatians' who believed that idea. There are likewise people today who try to persuade Christians that they need to take a particular view of early Genesis. The danger lies not in what one believes about early Genesis, but just in thinking that anything beyond faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross is needed, because it diminishes that work of Christ, and in effect says that he is not divine, that his righteousness is inadequate. Let me comment on this. Personally, I don't recall anyone saying that for salvation's sake one had to have a particular view of Genesis. It may have happened. I have had some debates about Genesis. But I don't think I recall someone saying that one was not saved if one held a certain view of Genesis. Maybe your experience is different. Secondly, we should want to not only be saved, but also come into the full knowledge of the truth. This is according to God's desire. "This is good and acceptable in the sight of our Savior God, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." ( 1 Tim. 2:3,4) I think eventually, after being saved in the sense of eternal redemption and the gift of eternal life, to continue on in God's economy we would want to come into the full knowledge of the truth. To that end I would pray for myself and for others. That would include an adaquate and living understanding of Genesis that constitutes healthy teaching. But I do agree that a view of Genesis should not become a modern "circumcisism" issue in terms of initial salvation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Here is what CS Lewis, (who had no problem with evolution) writes in the book "Miracles". The C.S. Lewis I have read had a wry and cool attitude about some implications of Evolution. I recall him saying that people mostly believe in it because of metaphysical reasons. I recall him saying in essence that it was a philosophy in which "goodness is what comes next." Your quotation is interesting. I would however, like to read it in its full context. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5267 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:It is. quote:And what is healthy? A literal view of early Genesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
If you want to look it up it is part of a footnote that he wrote in Chap. 15 of his book called "Miracles". In my copy it is on the 4th page of the chapter.
Here is a quote from his book "THe Problem of Pain".
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4461 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
About C.S. Lewis:
Although he wrote some good stuff he also lived at a time when there was no "creation science" and the only "science" avaliable was "evolutionary science". I find this very common with elderly christians as this was the only scientific explanation when they were young. The quotes in message 20 and 25 are pure speculation by lewis and do not have any scriptural support. About Jesus believeing Genesis: "46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47 Yip, exactly. Yes I believe you can be a christian while believeing in evolution, However I believe it is dangerous. Firstly, because you undermine the bible once and your likely to do it again. People lose their faith because of being taught evolution. You are also promoting an anti-biblical philosophy. You are saying that you believe man's word above God's (which is reminiscent of the Fall). And that God is a liar.Even promoting these things, while it may not stop your faith, may very much weaken and stop the faith of a fellow christian. Anyway it is not just Christ who takes Genesis literally, the other New and Old testament writers do so as well. I'll finish this post with one of the ten commandments (these were inscribed by God himself!!) 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 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. Exodus 20:8-11
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Arphy,
quote: People also lose their faith after being told the Bible is inerrant and then subsequently getting a wake-up call that shows them it is not. People also lose their faith after being fed falsehoods by "creation science" and subsequently realising that they were being duped. Perhaps if you are concerned about loss of faith, people should not base their faith upon such shaky foundations.
quote: Of course, this is not what evolutionist-Christians believe. The problem only exists at all if you insist upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. Millions of Christians, from St. Augustine onwards, have rejected the idea that Genesis was intended to taken literally. They view it as poetic and symbolic. That is not the same as saying that "God is a liar". The quotation from John you cite makes no statement on literal interpretation. It simply suggests that Jesus (or whoever wrote his lines) believed in the Old Testament. He may have believed in it, but that does not mean that he believed it in a literal sense. He may have been referring to a belief in its overall message. Only your interpretation makes this a comment on literalism or inerrantism. You are creating a false dichotomy, man's word versus God's. In truth, there is no such conflict; the Bible may or may not be inspired by your god, but indisputably, it was written by men. The natural world on the other hand, was not and it continues to display the process of biological evolution. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4461 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
More to the point is that just because Jesus believed in the flood (past tense) does not mean it was the same flood that the fundamentalists believe in.
The verse you quote says that it was the flood of Noah's day!
Luke 17:26-30 shows that it could have been a local flood that He believed in, not a universal flood.
No it doesn't. how so?
After all, the word "all" as in "destroyed them all" is also used for Sodom and there "all" only applies to the people in a local region.
Yes, all of Sodom was destroyed. How does this support that when the bible says all the earth it actually means only a local area. The logic doesn't work. Otherwise you could just as well say that because noah's flood covered the whole earth therefore the destruction of sodom actually meant that the whole earth was judged with fire and brimstone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4461 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
People also lose their faith after being told the Bible is inerrant and then subsequently getting a wake-up call that shows them it is not.
ok, maybe they might lose their faith, but again that is because 1.they believe that the bible is in error which is a lie. People also lose their faith after being fed falsehoods by "creation science" and subsequently realising that they were being duped. Perhaps if you are concerned about loss of faith, people should not base their faith upon such shaky foundations.2.They are "duped" by "evolutionary science". As long as they act like the Beareans "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so." Acts 17:11 these situations above wouldn't happen. The problem only exists at all if you insist upon a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Do you believe that God gave Moses the ten commandments? Is this symbolic as well? What isn't symbolic then? What about the red sea? Jericho? Did any of this happen?
In truth, there is no such conflict; the Bible may or may not be inspired by your god, but indisputably, it was written by men.
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing; 20First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 peter 1:20-21 Edited by Arphy, : see message 32
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Okay Arphy, here is your problem as I see it;
1.they believe that the bible is inerrrant which is a lie. So you believe that the Bible does contain errors? Interesting.
As long as they act like the Beareans... You believe that Christians should test the Bible to see if it is true? Even more interesting. With these two ideas under your philosophical belt, I can see absolutely no reason to believe Genesis to be literal. You agree that it could be errant. You also agree that it should be put to the test. Well I've got news for you bud; it has been tested and it flunked big time. Back in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, the primary explanation for the Earth and for life (amongst Western scholars at least) was Biblical. Theirs was the dominant idea. You know what? It fell apart under the sheer weight of contradictory evidence. There was no ideological war against religion. In fact almost all of the first real geologists and biologists were Christian. Genesis has been tested and failed. What use is it if you claim to be willing to put scripture to the test if you ignore the results when they don't suit you?
2.They are "duped" by "evolutionary science". If you are able to cite an example of the supposed errors in modern evolutionary science (that have eluded the world's most expert biologists), feel free to start a thread or take it to a thread where it is relevant. This might be a good bet; Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . If you have any evidence of evolutionists "duping" people, I suggest you take it there (it's mostly creationist hoaxes so far...).
Do you believe that God gave Moses the ten commandments? Is this symbolic as well? What isn't symbolic then? What about the red sea? Jericho? Did any of this happen? You are asking the wrong person. I am not and have never been a Christian.
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God... blah, blah, blah... a) Please don't just quote the Bible at me. It is no substitute for having a conversation.b) You yourself just said that you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant. Then you quote Timothy and Peter apparently claiming the opposite. How are these statements anything other than incompatible? Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Added link. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024