quote:
again, this is an inflammatory and provocative statement. that kind of language is not hermeneutically/exegetically sound and has caused many unnecessary divisions. there isn't one, definitive position on the matter, many great thinkers have landed in different camps and have all coexisted on the subject.

The proof that my statement is true is that no one even considered theistic evolution to be a natural conclusion of the plain reading of scripture until anti-Christian theories of our origins began circulating. You can't reason your way to theistic evolution without first assuming theistic (or any kind of) evolution. Theistic evolution is meant to try to reconcile what the Bible says with what many believe is evidence for our origins, since the plain reading of scripture doesn't comport with that "evidence". You wouldn't have to reconcile anything if evolutionary theory were obvious from the text. You would just say the "evidence" supports what the Bible already teaches to be true.

quote:
not entirely true. evolution is a rock solid fact. universal common descent is not. theistic evolution harmonizes with the former, is not dependent on the latter.

Why do you think I keep using the phrase "evolutionary theory of origins"? We can see mutations happening. We can see changes within species occurring. What we cannot see or test are one kind of animal changing into another kind. We don't see fish changing into frogs. We don't see monkeys changing into humans. We have to interpret evidence to conclude that happens because we cannot observe it ourselves. If we can't observe it or test it or falsify it, it's not really scientific. It's more philosophy than science.

quote:
just so we're clear, what you are saying is patently mistaken.

It's not at all. The evidence, as I keep saying, is that you wouldn't come to that sort of conclusion at all without first assuming evolutionary theory of origins was true in the first place. There wouldn't be anything to reconcile if you didn't already assume Darwin to be right, because again, such a conclusion is not going to come from a plain reading of the scriptures, itself.

quote:
it makes me sad you actually believe this. again, this is provocative language that is not helpful or necessary

Bold language is needed when there's an attack on the perspicuity of scriptures that can lead to a destruction of the Gospel.

quote:
now you're trying to read people's minds

OK, I'll rephrase: so many Christians are willing to abandon the clear teaching of scripture because they don't want to seem unscientific or foolish in the eyes of the world, or they are misled by the philosophies of the world.

quote:
debatable

It's really not. You have to completely mythologize the creation account in order to get theistic evolution out of that without injecting evolutionary theory of origins into the text to begin with. How can Adam be made from the dust of the earth if he was born of another human or human-like creature after millions or billions of years?

quote:
this is an exegetically myopic stance. you are unnecessarily defining ??? (yom) as a 24 hour period. this is not etymologically sound. if you have taken exegesis, then you are familiar with an academic word study of ancient hebrew. checking the usual sources, strong's/bdb/holladay, that word does not always mean a 24 hour period. that is why any oec advocates (day-age, gap, theistic evolution) are on solid hermeneutical ground with their interpretation of the creation narrative

I know the meaning of the word. You can understand what the word means by its usage within its context. Moses is writing about a (24-hour) day of the week that the people are commanded to rest on and it is compared to the creation week and the days of that week. Is Moses (God) mixing up his usage of the word in the span of one sentence? Again, there is no reason to assume this means anything other than a literal 24-hour period of time unless you are coming to the text with other beliefs on the matter.

quote:
theistic evolution does not necessarily make this extrapolation

I was using the word "know" flippantly because we don't know what our origins were from "physical history" as you stated. We can only infer from interpreting the evidence in light of evolutionary theory, in a naturalistic sense.

quote:
we've already covered this ground. many christians do not believe paul was only referring to physical death. we can start to laboriously cover the commentaries if you wish, or you can just believe that i wouldn't assert that if it weren't true.

And again, that has been the orthodox interpretation of the text which you dispute merely because orthodoxy doesn't dictate truth. You would have no other reason to assume any other interpretation unless you were looking to force evolutionary theory of origins into the Bible.

quote:
nope. again, an exegetical word study does not support what you are saying.

Sure it does.

quote:
even this is not entirely true. you could merely make this application for any "humans" that existed before the biblical adam.

Sure it is. The fall of Adam (man) impacted the whole of creation. It's why we're told the animals were vegetarians before Adam sinned and fell, because even animal death didn't exist before sin, and then physical death entered the world.

quote:
again, this is provocative language. plenty of biblical scholars are every bit as aware of ancient hebrew as you are and do not agree with what you are saying. the problem with your characterization is that it implies they are exercising a spiritual defect that might even be eroding/preventing their salvation. as a brother in christ, i am informing you that is not something we should be leveling at each other. this is not a christological controversy.

You might not see the christological controversy but it is there all the same. The reason why I said "clearly" is because of the context. You have to ignore it completely in order to push that square peg into the round hole.

quote:
his statement on the matter is pretty clear

Show me his statement.

quote:
i have tried to correct this but you remain recalcitrant. i referred you to the billy graham quote on the matter. theistic evolutionists do not assume adam is metaphorical. there can be a literal adam amongst the development of hominids. to say that can't be is to limit what God can do with creation

Yes, I'm aware that the theory holds that eventually a "man" was born and God put a spirit in him. That is not the Adam of the scriptures that God created from the earth and breathed life into. The Adam of Genesis is mythologized in theistic evolution and another Adam takes his place, one that was born of an earthly mother and father and not one created by God as God's special creation, made uniquely in His image.

quote:
this is only true if you mischaracterize theistic evolution

Again, the Adam of theistic evolution is not the Adam of the Bible and therefore can't be a representative for all mankind when there isn't even the first man of his kind to be a representative of. Even the name "Adam" is a wordplay on the word "earth", what he was formed from, yet that doesn't make a lot of sense if he was born of a human father and mother as is required by (theistic) evolutionary theory.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41689 posts

Posted on 7/12/19 at 7:16 pm to bfniii

Concluded:

quote:
this is not a scholarly refutation. i have explained specifically how their position is consistent with scripture. i have rebutted your assertions which require mischaracterizing the position you are opposing. they have not at any point diminished God's authority or Jesus' christology.

It was as scholarly as your response was on that point. I have shown the inconsistencies of theistic evolution with the Bible and provided a scriptural and logical rebuttal to the twisting of scripture necessary to shoehorn in that theory into the plain meaning of the text.

quote:
it most certainly is. you said it's either God's word or human experience. you did not include the option that they are harmonizing both, which is hermeneutically sound. you left out an option which explains why it's a false dilemma

I've already explained how it's isn't because the "harmonizing" cannot occur unless you first take evolutionary theory and try to force it into the text. As I have said multiple times now, there is no way to get theistic evolution naturally from the scriptures.

quote:
why would you say this? it harmonizes scripture with what we know from physical history

Because we don't "know" evolutionary theory of origins is true from physical history. This proves my point yet again. Because you believe evolutionary theory of origins is true at least in some respect, you have to try to make the Bible fit that theory in some way, which is where theistic evolution comes in. You are starting with what you believe to be true about evolutionary theory and then forcing it into the Bible.

quote:
i have addressed this and i cited graham in response to your assertion that adam has to be metaphorical. that is not true.

What did Graham have to say? All I can find is that quote that everyone has used on the internet:

"I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

Are you talking about this one? Because if so, that's not the Adam of the Bible, meaning the Adam of the Bible was metaphorical at least in some sense.

quote:
it is not helpful for you to read minds

Show me his theology then.

quote:
his statement on the matter is pretty clear

She me his statement, then.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by bfniii

Member since Nov 2005

17840 posts

Posted on 7/13/19 at 2:31 am to FooManChoo

quote:
It has to be a conclusion arrived at by interpreting the Bible in light of something else, like naturalistic views of origins.

you're again arguing against harmonizing. why? show me the exegetical/hermeneutical textbook that says it's unbiblical

quote:
It's an attempt to make the Bible fit evolutionary theory

nope. it's harmonizing, which is not unacceptable.

quote:
which is why no one in church history would have suggested such a thing prior to Darwin

again, not relevant. i'm not sure why you keep repeating this. the ugaritic discoveries sharpened our knowledge of ancient languages and showed some flaws in the textus receptus. but no previous interpreter would have suggested such a thing prior to them. why don't you have a problem with that?

quote:
because it isn't a natural conclusion from the text.

again, this is not a fair statement. once we have knowledge of darwinism, it most certainly can be a natural conclusion

quote:
It doesn't matter what the specifics were

it makes all the difference in the world. the atomists had nothing empirical whatsoever to base their theories on, no matter how intuitive they were. the same goes for the speculations about human origins that you are referring to. there was no reason for any biblical interpreter to take them seriously until there was empirical confirmation.

quote:
It doesn't when you read the Bible as a whole, which is what I've been trying to point out to you.

you're acting like theistic evolutionists aren't doing this

quote:
There are several contradictions and I've noted several already.

list them

quote:
You have to come to completely different interpretative conclusions about the Bible than has occurred for 2,000 years (and longer) solely because of external, naturalistic influences.

as i said, there's nothing biblically wrong with this. the creation narrative does not lock a reader into one position. you're just stating that it does which is not any sort of exegetical proof. again, there are plenty of highly trained scholars who disagree with your position that the narrative is inflexible

quote:
It's essentially saying no one really understood the Bible at all because they didn't know about evolution.

no that is not at all what is being said. again, you are merely mischaracterizing what you don't like.

quote:
if it nullifies key truths about God and man that water down the need for the Gospel.

well, rest easy because this is not happening as i have explained in detail

quote:
it assumes that no one in the history of the Church understood the Bible until Darwin

and this is patently wrong. it works from the assumption that the narrative can only have one interpretation. you have yet to prove that this is the case.

quote:
Christians felt the need to start re-interpreting the Bible in light of that

like happened with the ugaritic discoveries? but you don't seem to have a problem with that, which is inconsistent at the least. prior to galileo's observations, people thought that the heliocentric theory would negate the biblical doctrine that man was God's crowing masterpiece. why are you ok with this reinterpretation?

quote:
This hermeneutic affects a lot more than the first few chapters of Genesis.

no it doesn't. not at all.

quote:
Can you show me where "theistic evolution" was suggested as a plausible interpretation of the scriptures prior to Darwin?

this question does not negate the point that theistic evolution is not "anti-God." your response is not relevant to the point

quote:
the felt need to reconcile an anti-God perspective of origins with the Bible?

why do you insist on demonizing your opposition? reconciliation has happened before as i have enumerated. did you not know that? theistic evolution is NOT "anti-God." that is ridiculous and absurd.

quote:
that can lead to the questioning of the scriptures as a whole

demonization. the only reason anyone would suffer from this symptom is weakness which is not caused by theistic evolution itself. that is a self inflicted wound. no one's faith should be shaken by a biblical idea that accords with nature merely because it is novel. that is plain silly and dogmatically harmful

quote:
and can even destroy the basis for the Gospel.

how?

quote:
So you admit that this is an interpretation of the Bible that relies entirely on external (extra-biblical) evidences

nope. that is not how to characterize harmonization of the text with what is observed in nature.

quote:
That no one from Moses through almost the entire Church age knew the truth

unnecessarily binary. you are again basing your entire position on the premise that the narrative can only have one possible interpretation which you can't prove. you can only assert it simplicatur. then, you are demonizing your opposition by falsely claiming that theistic evolution BEGINS with empirical observations, which is not the case. the same claim is made of flood geologists, that they are starting from a biblical presumption in order to substantiate their methodological naturalism aims (prove the worldwide flood) which is not in accordance with methodological naturalism in the first place so their entire position is deemed pseudoscience. and the criticism is valid from a logical/methodological standpoint. but i bet as a yec advocate, you support their effort to start from the bible and find empirical evidence that backs it up. so this is yet another inconsistency in your position/approach

quote:
That's a pretty lofty claim

this is a rhetorical fallacy called complex question. since it's not the claim, it doesn't even have to be refuted

quote:
eisegesis

you're inserting this term incorrectly. not one aspect of biblical truth has been changed because of theistic evolution. not one. the only difference is that there may have been human like creatures before adam. this diminishes God's authority and christological soteriology none. so no eisegesis is occurring

quote:
How else would you assume theistic evolution is true unless you already believed evolutionary theory was true and then tried to square that with the Bible?

because the narrative itself is empirically flexible enough to allow for it.

quote:
that no one considered it until the "evidence" came along

no, i haven't said that. what i said is that there was no reason to seriously rethink yec until there was empirical evidence that forced such a thing.

quote:
unless you already believed the "evidence" for evolutionary theory you wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion of theistic evolution.

which is not at all a hermeneutical problem. i've invited you to prove your point on this matter.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by bfniii

Member since Nov 2005

17840 posts

Posted on 7/13/19 at 2:42 am to FooManChoo

quote:
It's just not there in the text to make that conclusion by itself.

this is not a exegetical requisite and i invite you to prove otherwise. the hebrews believed the earth was flat. why have you allowed for the bible to be reinterpreted merely because we discovered the earth is round? "when all the facts are rightly understood, there will be 'no final conflict' between scripture and natural science." -grudem, 274. "there is a possibility of some knowledge of divine truth outside the special revelation. we may understand more about the specially revealed truth by examining the general revelation. this should be considered a supplement to...special revelation." erickson, 198. "there is justification for scientifically investigating the creation." erickson, 411.

are you familiar with the hermeneutical spiral? critical realism? you might find them informative

quote:
Not in the way that He's said He's accomplished it, no.

this ought to cause you to reconsider your position. no christian should make this statement. it absolutely is possible, even if you don't like it.

quote:
there's no way to get theistic evolution as the means for how He did what He did from the text

and yet people have been able to do it so your statement is demonstrably wrong

quote:
A necessary conclusion.

your response skipped right over the analogy. i'm not sure why you're not interacting with the responses. you are merely repeating already rebutted statements. it grinds the discussion to a halt

quote:
their "faith relationship" was based on God's promises, including and especially His promises of a messiah

can you post the verse that explains abraham's faith relationship with God was based on God's promise of a messiah. or moses. or joseph. or jacob. or noah.

quote:
The proof that my statement is true is that no one even considered theistic evolution to be a natural conclusion of the plain reading of scripture until anti-Christian theories of our origins began circulating

that's not a proof. that's a rhetorical fallacy called red herring. it's not even relevant. i have explained why in multiple ways.

quote:
You wouldn't have to reconcile anything if evolutionary theory were obvious from the text

the ugaritic discoveries shed light on 1 kings 18:16-45. prior to that, there was nothing to "reconcile."

quote:
We don't see fish changing into frogs

probably because no one has lived long enough to observe it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, right? and even if it did happen, God's authority and christological soteriology would be diminished none.

quote:
We have to interpret evidence to conclude that happens because we cannot observe it ourselves

while i wholeheartedly agree with you, that doesn't mean it's automatically false or that it's unreasonable.

quote:
It's more philosophy than science

which does not pose a problem for biblical interpretation

quote:
It's not at all

ok, prove it. show me a quote from a theistic evolutionist that they start interpreting the bible from extra biblical philosophy.

quote:
a destruction of the Gospel.

demonization

quote:
so many Christians are willing to abandon the clear teaching of scripture because they don't want to seem unscientific or foolish in the eyes of the world, or they are misled by the philosophies of the world.

ok, prove it. show me a quote from someone saying this

quote:
You have to completely mythologize the creation account

i've told you this is demonstrably false. as graham said, God could have breathed life into a human that was in a line of developing hominids. that is not metaphorical. it is literal

quote:
How can Adam be made from the dust of the earth if he was born of another human or human-like creature after millions or billions of years?

because he would ultimately have come from the dust of the earth. the text does not say "immediately" and you are reading into the text by assuming that is the only interpretation. that is eisegesis. it is a fact that the word immediately does not occur in the text nor does it even imply that.

quote:
Moses is writing about a (24-hour) day of the week

prove it without blithely asserting it. you are ignoring the semantic range of the word by trying to read moses' mind.

quote:
the people are commanded to rest on and it is compared to the creation week and the days of that week

prove that the observation is not merely symbolic. that the creation was a literal week merely because moses said to observe the sabbath. that is a rhetorical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

quote:
Is Moses (God) mixing up his usage of the word in the span of one sentence?

this is a strawman. it is possible he was instituting a symbolic observation of the creation period. just like people made sacrifices that were symbolic of their repentance. Jesus said to observe the lord's supper. was he advocating cannibalism? no. it's symbolic.

quote:
there is no reason to assume this means anything other than a literal 24-hour period of time unless you are coming to the text with other beliefs on the matter

or if you understand the semantic range of the term

quote:
And again, that has been the orthodox interpretation of the text which you dispute merely because orthodoxy doesn't dictate truth

which is correct

quote:
Sure it does.

it is a fact that the semantic range of the word is not limited to a 24 hour period. you are wrong. moses' comment about the sabbath has already been addressed.

quote:
we're told the animals were vegetarians before Adam sinned and fell, because even animal death didn't exist before sin

verse?

quote:
You might not see the christological controversy but it is there all the same

no it is not. not at all. christ is not diminished one bit by any of this. i'm sorry you don't understand that.

quote:
That is not the Adam of the scriptures that God created from the earth and breathed life into

according to you

quote:
yet that doesn't make a lot of sense if he was born of a human father and mother

no one before him had a name. he would be the first to be called adam.

quote:
It was as scholarly as your response was on that point

we'll have to agree to disagree. your only criticisms of theistic evolution are to misattribute beliefs to it which is frankly insulting. you've been saying "here is what you believe" and then knocking down a strawman. you have made several incorrect statements about the nature of biblical interpretation. you have failed to prove some of your points. when challenged to do so. you have tried to read people's minds. none of this is not scholarly behavior. otoh, i have explained the interpretation principles that the position is based on. i have corrected your misattributions of the position and i have made factually true statements about biblical interpretation including quotes from experts.

quote:
and provided a scriptural and logical rebuttal

by fiat that biblical scholars disagree with

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by bfniii

Member since Nov 2005

17840 posts

Posted on 7/13/19 at 2:44 am to FooManChoo

quote:
Because we don't "know" evolutionary theory of origins is true from physical history.

we don't have to know it for a fact for it to be reasonable or even true. therefore, it is not biblically sound to reject it out of hand merely because it didn't really fancy prior readers.