PDA

View Full Version : Christians Believing Badly



Pages : [1] 2

whag
01-13-2015, 11:41 PM
Here's a sad video of RC Sproul, Al Mohler, and Ravi Zacharias smugly saying evolution isn't compatible with Christianity. It makes me sad to see this, and I almost cringe for them.

http://youtu.be/yPFi8k5IMK0

Let's not turn this into a debate on evolution. Instead, this is for evolution-accepting Christians and skeptics to talk about their favorite modern Christian thinkers who say interesting things about epistemology and have sophisticated belief systems.

I'll start with Pete Enns. His full acceptance of the facts combined with what seems to be an unconpromised religion makes him very likeable and interesting to listen to.

http://youtu.be/egiFLFOu_4g

I also very much like Frank Schaeffer. I find his older videos about his transition from evangelicalism to an eastern orthodox belief system fascinating.

http://youtu.be/M4YP-4oZ3mI

Evolution is true, so a debate would be boring and filled with PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Please no evolution debate.

Scrawly
01-13-2015, 11:49 PM
Here's a sad video of RC Sproul, Al Mohler, and Ravi Zacharias smugly saying evolution isn't compatible with Christianity. It makes me sad to see this, and I almost cringe for them.

http://youtu.be/yPFi8k5IMK0

Let's not turn this into a debate on evolution. Instead, this is for evolution-accepting Christians and skeptics to talk about their favorite modern Christian thinkers who say interesting things about epistemology and have sophisticated belief systems.

I'll start with Pete Enns. His full acceptance of the facts combined with what seems to be an unconpromised religion makes him very likeable and interesting to listen to.

http://youtu.be/egiFLFOu_4g

I also very much like Frank Schaeffer. I find his older videos about his transition from evangelicalism to an eastern orthodox belief system fascinating.

http://youtu.be/M4YP-4oZ3mI

Evolution is true, so a debate would be boring and filled with PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Please no evolution debate.

So just out of curiosity, what is stopping you from accepting Christianity as Peter Enns sees it?

whag
01-14-2015, 12:26 AM
So just out of curiosity, what is stopping you from accepting Christianity as Peter Enns sees it?

Mainly but not limited to 1. Problem of natural evil 2. Anthropomorphic Satan 3. Sin needing to be actualized to effect an ultimate environment free of it. 4. Compulsory love. Many other variations of those four which cause too much dissonance for a proper maintenance of a specific faith.

Scrawly
01-14-2015, 01:13 AM
Mainly but not limited to 1. Problem of natural evil 2. Anthropomorphic Satan 3. Sin needing to be actualized to effect an ultimate environment free of it. 4. Compulsory love. Many other variations of those four which cause too much dissonance for a proper maintenance of a specific faith.

...go on :lol:

Tassman
01-14-2015, 02:08 AM
...go on :lol:

You ask a serious question of whag and get a thoughtful answer. Whether you agree with it or not, it ill behoves you to respond with laughter.

Scrawly
01-14-2015, 02:21 AM
You ask a serious question of whag and get a thoughtful answer. Whether you agree with it or not, it ill behoves you to respond with laughter.

:lol:

Cow Poke
01-14-2015, 04:23 AM
You ask a serious question of whag and get a thoughtful answer. Whether you agree with it or not, it ill behoves you to respond with laughter.

"ill behoves". How quaint.

Cow Poke
01-14-2015, 04:23 AM
Mainly but not limited to 1. Problem of natural evil 2. Anthropomorphic Satan 3. Sin needing to be actualized to effect an ultimate environment free of it. 4. Compulsory love. Many other variations of those four which cause too much dissonance for a proper maintenance of a specific faith.

Can you elaborate on "Compulsory love"?

Thanks

Enjolras
01-14-2015, 06:51 AM
:lol:

Clever.

whag
01-14-2015, 06:57 AM
Can you elaborate on "Compulsory love"?


Thanks


Athough I have no enemies, I can imagine having them. I assume Jesus' command to express agape toward them would require action on my part, but I wouldn't know how to actualize that.

If I tell you to "go love that person," that diminishes the complexities of it. A bit of chemistry is involved, even if dualism is true and metaphysics plays a part.

I think that's partly why the flock struggles. In many cases, they feel like their cups should be running over with the stuff. I don't think that's realistic.

Do you want me to elaborate on 3, or do you understand it?

Juvenal
01-14-2015, 06:59 AM
I'll start with Pete Enns. His full acceptance of the facts combined with what seems to be an unconpromised religion makes him very likeable and interesting to listen to.

I credit Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation (http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incarnation-Evangelicals-Problem-Testament/dp/0801027306) with changing the way I read the Bible. Relevant to this thread, I became aware of the book due to "Christians Behaving Badly" in the debate that led to his departure from Westminster Theological Seminary. Ironically, considering the timing, his departure placed him on an ever-growing list of conservative Christian scholars "expelled" from their academic posts for attempting to engage with facts deemed controversial within their community.

As ever, Jesse

Adrift
01-14-2015, 07:08 AM
There's a decent recent debate between Peter Enns and David Instone-Brewer on Unbelievable? about defending the scriptures. I fall in line with David Instone-Brewer, but its worth checking out.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Has-defending-scripture-made-us-unable-to-read-it-Peter-Enns-David-Instone-Brewer

Juvenal
01-14-2015, 07:19 AM
There's a decent recent debate between Peter Enns and David Instone-Brewer on Unbelievable? about defending the scriptures. I fall in line with David Instone-Brewer, but its worth checking out.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Has-defending-scripture-made-us-unable-to-read-it-Peter-Enns-David-Instone-Brewer

Thanks, Adrift. It's an hour and a half mp3, so I won't have time to listen before the weekend, but I've downloaded it.

Adrift
01-14-2015, 07:25 AM
Thanks, Adrift. It's an hour and a half mp3, so I won't have time to listen before the weekend, but I've downloaded it.

Oh wow. I didn't realize it was that long. I guess it was such an interesting conversation that I didn't think about how long it was.

mossrose
01-14-2015, 07:59 AM
Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near,
Join me in glad adoration.

Praise to the Lord, Who hath fearfully, wondrously made thee!
Health hath vouchsafed, and when heedlessly failing hath stayed thee.
What need or grief ever hath failed of relief?
Wings of His mercy did shade thee.

Praise to the Lord, Who, when darkness of sin is abounding,
Who, when the godless do triumph, all virtue confounding,
Sheddeth His light, chaseth the horrors of night,
Saints with His mercy surrounding.


Praise to the Lord! O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him!
Let the amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him!
--Joachim Neander

You sure don't need to feel sad for me, whag-y. I don't need any of the phony pity that you send the way of Christians who think that evolution is not only incompatible with Christianity but a lie from the pit of hell.

I feel sad for those who have bought into the lie.

Surely Joachim Neander would be highly grieved that his name will be forever linked to a false belief system, if he weren't busy praising God in His presence.

whag
01-14-2015, 09:02 AM
Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near,
Join me in glad adoration.

Praise to the Lord, Who hath fearfully, wondrously made thee!
Health hath vouchsafed, and when heedlessly failing hath stayed thee.
What need or grief ever hath failed of relief?
Wings of His mercy did shade thee.

Praise to the Lord, Who, when darkness of sin is abounding,
Who, when the godless do triumph, all virtue confounding,
Sheddeth His light, chaseth the horrors of night,
Saints with His mercy surrounding.


Praise to the Lord! O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him!
Let the amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him!
--Joachim Neander

You sure don't need to feel sad for me, whag-y. I don't need any of the phony pity that you send the way of Christians who think that evolution is not only incompatible with Christianity but a lie from the pit of hell.

I feel sad for those who have bought into the lie.

Surely Joachim Neander would be highly grieved that his name will be forever linked to a false belief system, if he weren't busy praising God in His presence.

How do your brethren feel about you being "sad" for them? I wonder if they're equally pitying of you.

mossrose
01-14-2015, 09:23 AM
How do your brethren feel about you being "sad" for them? I wonder if they're equally pitying of you.

Don't much care.

whag
01-14-2015, 09:28 AM
Don't much care.

If their religious expression isn't marred by their acceptance of evolution, you might be wasting precious pity feeling sorry for them.

jordanriver
01-14-2015, 09:48 AM
Do you want me to elaborate on 3, or do you understand it?


3. Sin needing to be actualized to effect an ultimate environment free of it.

if you wanna make a omelet......

or
ever heard of osteoclasis

or

ever heard of "the best of all possible worlds" (Leibniz), ....even his critic Voltaire who hated Leibniz' optimism wouldn't have created his enjoyable 'Candide' if not for it.

Adrift
01-14-2015, 09:50 AM
How do your brethren feel about you being "sad" for them? I wonder if they're equally pitying of you.

I'm not offended by it at all. Quite the opposite, I can totally relate to where she's coming from, and I really admire her stand on her convictions even if we don't see eye to eye on this one aspect of the faith. Even though I think its unfortunate that there's division in the body over this issue, it really touches my heart to know that mossy feels so strongly for those who hold an alternative view.

whag
01-14-2015, 10:19 AM
I'm not offended by it at all. Quite the opposite, I can totally relate to where she's coming from, and I really admire her stand on her convictions even if we don't see eye to eye on this one aspect of the faith. Even though I think its unfortunate that there's division in the body over this issue, it really touches my heart to know that mossy feels so strongly for those who hold an alternative view.

Evolution being true, offense shouldn't be taken. I was more getting at a mutual pitying of each other. She pitying you and you pitying her, both for having succumbed to lies.

I'd like to know how what merits the feeling of pity, if, in fact, she really meant "pity" and wasn't merely expressing a platitude.

mossrose
01-14-2015, 10:21 AM
If their religious expression isn't marred by their acceptance of evolution, you might be wasting precious pity feeling sorry for them.

Then I shall expend all my pity on you for your continued rejection of Christ.

I am done here. Carry on.

mossrose
01-14-2015, 10:27 AM
I'm not offended by it at all. Quite the opposite, I can totally relate to where she's coming from, and I really admire her stand on her convictions even if we don't see eye to eye on this one aspect of the faith. Even though I think its unfortunate that there's division in the body over this issue, it really touches my heart to know that mossy feels so strongly for those who hold an alternative view.

:hug:

Going to post again just to respond to my brother. I do not see different views on creation among believers to be a salvific issue, although I frankly do not understand their thinking. I love each and every one of those fellow believers who think evolution is the way that God created, and think none the less of them for their views. (Although I am fully convinced they are wrong.......:razz:).

My pity is more for those unbelievers who deny a Creator in order to deny their own sinfulness and need for a Redeemer.

NOW I am done here.

whag
01-14-2015, 10:30 AM
Then I shall expend all my pity on you for your continued rejection of Christ.

I am done here. Carry on.

I'm trying to figure out if I really pity you for rejecting reliable knowledge or if it's just a platitude. I'll get back to you via PM.

whag
01-14-2015, 10:31 AM
:hug:

Going to post again just to respond to my brother. I do not see different views on creation among believers to be a salvific issue, although I frankly do not understand their thinking. I love each and every one of those fellow believers who think evolution is the way that God created, and think none the less of them for their views. (Although I am fully convinced they are wrong.......:razz:).

My pity is more for those unbelievers who deny a Creator in order to deny their own sinfulness and need for a Redeemer.

NOW I am done here.

So you don't really "pity" your brethren who've bought the lie. Thanks for clarifying.

Adrift
01-14-2015, 10:34 AM
Evolution being true, offense shouldn't be taken. I was more getting at a mutual pitying of each other. She pitying you and you pitying her, both for having succumbed to lies.

I'd like to know how what merits the feeling of pity, if, in fact, she really meant "pity" and wasn't merely expressing a platitude.

I don't think she's "succumbed to lies", regardless if that's how she feels about me. I think we are both grappling to understand as best we can. So no, I don't feel any pity for her, but I do appreciate her sense of sadness.

Couple things to note here, the word "pity" is what she said you were doing ("phony pity" actually). What she said about other Christians is that she felt sad. Second thing to note. The little manipulation thing you're doing here is obvious. As my sister in Christ, I love mossy, and all of the other YECs on this website. Just like my real sibling sometimes we don't agree, sometimes we even get into it. But at the end of the day, they're family. So, you know, this whole Christian against Christian thing that you're trying to jump on, its pathetic, and you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

whag
01-14-2015, 10:44 AM
I don't think she's "succumbed to lies", regardless if that's how she feels about me. I think we are both grappling to understand as best we can. So no, I don't feel any pity for her, but I do appreciate her sense of sadness.

Couple things to note here, the word "pity" is what she said you were doing ("phony pity" actually). What she said about other Christians is that she felt sad. Second thing to note. The little manipulation thing you're doing here is obvious. As my sister in Christ, I love mossy, and all of the other YECs on this website. Just like my real sibling sometimes we don't agree, sometimes we even get into it. But at the end of the day, they're family. So, you know, this whole Christian against Christian thing that you're trying to jump on, its pathetic, and you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

There isn't a thing I can do to increase tension between your family members. And inasmuch as I can love a stranger, I too love you and mossy. You should be ashamed to think only you can love like that.

Epistemelogical perspectives and how they effect emotions are what interest me. I love my wide assortment of Christian family and seek to de-escalate tensions between them.

firstfloor
01-14-2015, 10:46 AM
I also very much like Frank Schaeffer. I find his older videos about his transition from evangelicalism to an eastern orthodox belief system fascinating.“Carrying on the tradition until Christ comes.” - Frank Shaeffer
There is something both very spiritual and terrifying about this. It makes me think about what clocks do.

Adrift
01-14-2015, 12:06 PM
There isn't a thing I can do to increase tension between your family members. And inasmuch as I can love a stranger, I too love you and mossy. You should be ashamed to think only you can love like that.

The love that I feel for my spiritual family is a Christ thing. There's no way you can know what that's like until you're born again. I hope that day comes.


Epistemelogical perspectives and how they effect emotions are what interest me. I love my wide assortment of Christian family and seek to de-escalate tensions between them.

No, what interests you is causing strife and doubt. I think that's pretty plain.

whag
01-14-2015, 12:21 PM
The love that I feel for my spiritual family is a Christ thing. There's no way you can know what that's like until you're born again. I hope that day comes.



No, what interests you is causing strife and doubt. I think that's pretty plain.

No, what's plain is you're having a whack attack. The church is inoculated to strife through renewal of the mind. It's not as weak or vulnerable as you seem to be proclaiming here.

Doubt being a refiner of faith, I wouldn't freak out about whatever you think I've done to augment it in you.

Adrift
01-14-2015, 01:17 PM
No, what's plain is you're having a whack attack. The church is inoculated to strife through renewal of the mind. It's not as weak or vulnerable as you seem to be proclaiming here.

Doubt being a refiner of faith, I wouldn't freak out about whatever you think I've done to augment it in you.

:lol: This routine that you do, you know, the one where you reinterpret your attackers position and put the ol' whag twist on it, again, NO ONE IS BUYING IT. How many times do I have to tell you this? Mossy didn't say she pitied Christians, I didn't say that she succumbed to lies, and I certainly didn't say, or come close to implying that the church was weak. Is the church inoculated or invulnerable to dishonest types who get a rise out of attempting to cause strife. No. That's not Biblical. The Bible tells to expect folks like you.

Honestly, I don't even know why you're putting on this act right now. You've laid out your motivations against Christianity in the past, so why pretend you're not doing anything here?

whag
01-14-2015, 01:45 PM
I think your making much too much of this.

Mossy said "I feel sad for those who have bought into the lie," which I assumed meant the evolutionary lie.

I asked "How do your brethren feel about you being 'sad' for them?", to which she replied she didn't care. Later in a clearly tongue in cheek response she said she'd only pity non-Christians like me, no brethren.

Either way, you're not letting mossy nor myself play internet footsie, and you should chill. The only strife occurring is in your immediate vicinity, more specifically in your limbic system.

Cow Poke
01-14-2015, 01:47 PM
Either way, you're not letting mossy nor myself play internet footsie

:stunned::shocked::egad:

Mossy is a married woman!

whag
01-14-2015, 01:52 PM
:stunned::shocked::egad:

Mossy is a married woman!

So am I. We can have our spouses monitor our conversation. =)

Married I mean, not a woman.

whag
01-14-2015, 02:03 PM
Mossy, come back please. Your perspective is valuable here without this turning into a boring tit for tat on evolution. If I offended you though misrepresentation, I'm sorry.

I like you and don't even feel sad for you. My emotions are more complicated than that in this particular case.

mossrose
01-14-2015, 02:12 PM
I've been reading.

Don't have much more to say once I've said my piece. I appreciate your intentions in this thread although I was taken aback by your comments in your op that you feel sad for "us".

I reacted to that, and perhaps was not as clear as I should have been.

I do feel sad for those believers who think evolution is true, because, like you with creationists, I believe they are wrong in their thinking. As I said in response to Adrift, this is not a deal-breaker for me regarding salvation.

But I feel deep, grieving sadness for unbelievers. The majority of whom, I believe (although I could be mistaken), think evolution is true and hence God cannot exist. And if we do away with God, we do away with personal accountability and consequences for the choice to not believe in Him.

And I do find it highly ironic that Joachim Neander wrote that amazing hymn to God's creative power and yet his name will be forever remembered for the valley that was named for him and the "find" that came from there.

whag
01-14-2015, 05:46 PM
I've been reading.

Don't have much more to say once I've said my piece. I appreciate your intentions in this thread although I was taken aback by your comments in your op that you feel sad for "us".

I reacted to that, and perhaps was not as clear as I should have been.

I do feel sad for those believers who think evolution is true, because, like you with creationists, I believe they are wrong in their thinking. As I said in response to Adrift, this is not a deal-breaker for me regarding salvation.

But I feel deep, grieving sadness for unbelievers. The majority of whom, I believe (although I could be mistaken), think evolution is true and hence God cannot exist. And if we do away with God, we do away with personal accountability and consequences for the choice to not believe in Him.

And I do find it highly ironic that Joachim Neander wrote that amazing hymn to God's creative power and yet his name will be forever remembered for the valley that was named for him and the "find" that came from there.
I've been reading.

Don't have much more to say once I've said my piece. I appreciate your intentions in this thread although I was taken aback by your comments in your op that you feel sad for "us".

I reacted to that, and perhaps was not as clear as I should have been.

I do feel sad for those believers who think evolution is true, because, like you with creationists, I believe they are wrong in their thinking. As I said in response to Adrift, this is not a deal-breaker for me regarding salvation.

But I feel deep, grieving sadness for unbelievers. The majority of whom, I believe (although I could be mistaken), think evolution is true and hence God cannot exist. And if we do away with God, we do away with personal accountability and consequences for the choice to not believe in Him.

And I do find it highly ironic that Joachim Neander wrote that amazing hymn to God's creative power and yet his name will be forever remembered for the valley that was named for him and the "find" that came from there.

Ah, I see I started this by saying "sad." I didn't mean it in the way you took it. I simply meant "pathetic" as in particularly dated and boring. I don't think I feel sorry for them.

Do you think you can modify your language a bit differently, or is that out of the question? Lie is a harsh word and a very specific thing. I might be tempted to say "theologians and pastors like John MacArthur lie," but they really don't. MacArthur's life's path led him to conclude what he has about geochronology, and he's not willfully telling whoppers. Lying for Jesus is rare, I think.

The same applies to scientists and skeptics, on the whole. They're not willful whopper tellers and willful whopper believers. They really are compelled to accept information as "true" because it makes sense to them. Just as you said, in the same way, theologians like MacArthur are compelled to accept information because it makes sense to them.

It frustrates both of us because these are entrenched conclusions, and nothing either of us can say or do will pull us out of our trenches. That's probably why we piss and moan so much: because we both, you and I, despise that state of affairs. We want the art of persuasion to be easier. =)

mossrose
01-14-2015, 06:28 PM
Ah, I see I started this by saying "sad." I didn't mean it in the way you took it. I simply meant "pathetic" as in particularly dated and boring. I don't think I feel sorry for them.

Not sure that terminology makes it any better. Saying the idea of creation and evolution being incompatible is dated and boring is still not very, shall we say, conducive to constructive discussion.


Do you think you can modify your language a bit differently, or is that out of the question? Lie is a harsh word and a very specific thing. I might be tempted to say "theologians and pastors like John MacArthur lie," but they really don't. MacArthur's life's path led him to conclude what he has about geochronology, and he's not willfully telling whoppers. Lying for Jesus is rare, I think.

The same applies to scientists and skeptics, on the whole. They're not willful whopper tellers and willful whopper believers. They really are compelled to accept information as "true" because it makes sense to them. Just as you said, in the same way, theologians like MacArthur are compelled to accept information because it makes sense to them.

I understand what you are saying here about the word "lie". But as far as I am concerned, there has been much about the ToE that has risen out of made up facts. You can change the words if you wish, but "made up facts" by any other name is still a lie.


It frustrates both of us because these are entrenched conclusions, and nothing either of us can say or do will pull us out of our trenches. That's probably why we piss and moan so much: because we both, you and I, despise that state of affairs. We want the art of persuasion to be easier. =)

Totally with you on that one!

:highfive:

I don't know why some are beating up on MacArthur lately. Maybe I am just sensitive to that because I do listen to him and I believe he is pretty much dividing the Word of God rightly. And pretty sure he isn't telling lies for Jesus. He has come to the conclusions he has through much study.

:smile:

37818
01-14-2015, 07:01 PM
B. B. Warfield the author of the book, "The Inspiriation and Authority of the Bible." Was regarded as theistic evolutionist.

Warfield was active in the great creation-evolution debates spanning the turn of the twentieth century. His position on Darwinism changed over time. While he was open to the possibility of evolution, he also understood that critical theological truths were at stake. Therefore, he prudently reserved judgment pending more evidence. Like his mentor Hodge, he rejected the “gap theory” and the idea that the “days” of creation were literal 24-hour days that climaxed successive ages of development. Apparently, Warfield held Charles Darwin in high esteem as a great man and a gifted scientist, even eulogizing him as “an essentially noble soul.” (http://www.reasons.org/articles/was-b.-b.-warfield-a-theistic-evolutionist-part-2)

37818
01-14-2015, 07:26 PM
. . . I don't know why some are beating up on MacArthur lately. . . . He is being accused of teaching faith plus works in order to really be saved.

mossrose
01-14-2015, 07:28 PM
He is being accused of teaching faith plus works in order to really be saved.

I have listened to him for almost 30 years and have never heard that.

firstfloor
01-15-2015, 12:31 AM
a lie from the pit of hell.I’d like to know what Mossrose thinks is going on in heaven if the science of Biology (evolution being an inseparable part of the whole) is ruled over by Satan. Is all science Satanic? Why would Satan make science so difficult to discover and learn about?

Why would you not think that it was God who delivered you the great scientific minds for your enlightenment; Archimedes, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Alexander Fleming, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Hans Bethe, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur and many others? I don’t understand why a loving and all powerful God would allow us to see these wonders unless He thought it was important.

jordanriver
01-15-2015, 01:32 AM
I’d like to know what Mossrose thinks is going on in heaven if the science of Biology (evolution being an inseparable part of the whole) is ruled over by Satan. Is all science Satanic? Why would Satan make science so difficult to discover and learn about?

Why would you not think that it was God who delivered you the great scientific minds for your enlightenment; Archimedes, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Alexander Fleming, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Hans Bethe, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur and many others? I don’t understand why a loving and all powerful God would allow us to see these wonders unless He thought it was important.

You believe there's a God?

firstfloor
01-15-2015, 02:20 AM
You believe there's a God?The answer would be a diversion. I am interested in what Mossrose thinks. Her understanding does not depend on what I think.

Tassman
01-15-2015, 02:28 AM
Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near,
Join me in glad adoration.

Praise to the Lord, Who hath fearfully, wondrously made thee!
Health hath vouchsafed, and when heedlessly failing hath stayed thee.
What need or grief ever hath failed of relief?
Wings of His mercy did shade thee.

Praise to the Lord, Who, when darkness of sin is abounding,
Who, when the godless do triumph, all virtue confounding,
Sheddeth His light, chaseth the horrors of night,
Saints with His mercy surrounding.


Praise to the Lord! O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him!
Let the amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him!
--Joachim Neander

You sure don't need to feel sad for me, whag-y. I don't need any of the phony pity that you send the way of Christians who think that evolution is not only incompatible with Christianity but a lie from the pit of hell.

I feel sad for those who have bought into the lie.

Surely Joachim Neander would be highly grieved that his name will be forever linked to a false belief system, if he weren't busy praising God in His presence.

Evolution is not “a lie from the pit of hell” (not that there’s good reason to believe in “hell”). Yes ‘evolution’ IS incompatible with a literalist interpretation of Christianity and many Evangelicals are forced to concede this fact and recognize that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.

"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost," Schneider says. "So Christians, I think, have a challenge; a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings."

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

firstfloor
01-15-2015, 03:52 AM
I also very much like Frank Schaeffer. Thanks for the heads up. Have you seen this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBRXbsHs2LI
Atheish – that’s new!
“One reason I like going to (Greek Orthodox) church is that sometimes you fall into these spaces where you see something.”
firstfloor (ver. 15th Jan 2015) disavows all previous versions.

Adrift
01-15-2015, 05:38 AM
Yes ‘evolution’ IS incompatible with a literalist interpretation of Christianity

No. That is not necessarily the case. There are several literalist interpretations that are compatible with evolution. Whether one finds those interpretations feasible or convincing is another matter, but they do exist.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 05:44 AM
Yeah! I don't think anyone thinks God created horses, zebras, and donkeys separately! Or created dogs, wolves, and coyotes separately!

Adrift
01-15-2015, 06:10 AM
Yeah! I don't think anyone thinks God created horses, zebras, and donkeys separately! Or created dogs, wolves, and coyotes separately!

I think you're referring to some sort of "microevolution". There are some old earth creationist interpretations like the ruin-reconstruction theory (aka the gap theory), the day-age view, the analogical days interpretation, historical creationism, the cosmic time view, and others that hold to a literal reading of the Biblical text yet still account for the millions of years that would require "macroevolution" (if you will). People are generally only familiar with the standard YEC take as the only literalist view, but...it isn't. Again, whether these other views and interpretations are tenable is another matter, but they do exist.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 06:12 AM
:shrug: Don't think it's wise to be dogmatic about stuff in prehistory either way. We can ask later. In person?

Adrift
01-15-2015, 06:17 AM
:shrug: Don't think it's wise to be dogmatic about stuff in prehistory either way. We can ask later. In person?

I suppose that depends on how important ones feels the divine scriptures ought to accord with the perceived evidence.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 06:21 AM
I suppose that depends on how important ones feels the divine scriptures ought to accord with the perceived evidence.

Primary vs secondary doctrine. Making YEC a primary seems silly.

Adrift
01-15-2015, 06:21 AM
Primary vs secondary doctrine. Making YEC a primary seems silly.

I agree.

Boxing Pythagoras
01-15-2015, 06:27 AM
Primary vs secondary doctrine. Making YEC a primary seems silly.I realize this is starting to move slightly off-topic, now, but would you consider Biblical Inerrancy a primary or secondary doctrine? Though I know he's not representative of Christians as a whole, Ken Ham believes that Inerrancy is a primary doctrine, and he believes that anyone who isn't YEC does violence to that doctrine.

whag
01-15-2015, 06:33 AM
No. That is not necessarily the case. There are several literalist interpretations that are compatible with evolution. Whether one finds those interpretations feasible or convincing is another matter, but they do exist.

The people who hold those views would be quasi-literalists, then. As soon as you dig into the text, metaphor comes into play.

Boxing Pythagoras
01-15-2015, 06:39 AM
The people who hold those views would be quasi-literalists, then. As soon as you dig into the text, metaphor comes into play.I don't think there are any readers of the Bible who wouldn't qualify as "quasi-literalists," on that definition. For example, even Ken Ham doesn't believe that the sky is a solid dome, as described in Genesis 1:6-7, or that God has a physical head and face, as described in Psalm 34:15-16.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 06:40 AM
I realize this is starting to move slightly off-topic, now, but would you consider Biblical Inerrancy a primary or secondary doctrine? Though I know he's not representative of Christians as a whole, Ken Ham believes that Inerrancy is a primary doctrine, and he believes that anyone who isn't YEC does violence to that doctrine.

Probably different definitions of primary doctrine. I'm using it to refer to things you have to believe to be saved/Christian. Like the Resurrection. Under that definition, Biblical inerrancy isn't a primary. And one has to define inerrancy. Because the translations and copies do have typos so to speak.

Adrift
01-15-2015, 06:42 AM
The people who hold those views would be quasi-literalists, then. As soon as you dig into the text, metaphor comes into play.

I don't know any literalist view of scripture that is so wooden that there isn't some room for metaphor or figure of speech. Even your most staunch hyper-literalist like King James Onlyists don't believe that God is a hen, or a rock, or that the trees of the field literally clap their hands.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 06:42 AM
I don't think there are any readers of the Bible who wouldn't qualify as "quasi-literalists," on that definition. For example, even Ken Ham doesn't believe that the sky is a solid dome, as described in Genesis 1:6-7, or that God has a physical head and face, as described in Psalm 34:15-16.
Psalms are poetry. It would be goofy to interpret them woodenly. Though some do. :doh: Every time some one uses wisdom literature to form doctrine... :argh:.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 06:43 AM
I don't know any literalist view of scripture that is so wooden that there isn't some room for metaphor or figure of speech. Even your most staunch hyper-literalist like King James Onlyists don't believe that God is a hen, or a rock, or that the trees of the field literally clap their hands.
fify
It would be funny if someone really believed that.

Boxing Pythagoras
01-15-2015, 06:44 AM
Psalms are poetry. It would be goofy to interpret them woodenly. Though some do. :doh: Every time some one uses wisdom literature to form doctrine... :argh:.Oh, I completely agree. I was simply commenting on Whag's rather strict criteria for being classified as "literalist."

Adrift
01-15-2015, 06:44 AM
fify
It would be funny if someone really believed that.

Yep, I edited in the nick of time.

whag
01-15-2015, 06:46 AM
I don't know any literalist view of scripture that is so wooden that there isn't some room for metaphor or figure of speech. Even your most staunch hyper-literalist like King James Onlyists don't believe that God is a hen, or a rock, or that the trees of the field literally clap their hands.

In that case, literalism is either a misnomer or we need to use more specific terminology.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 06:52 AM
Yep. Fundy alert! Only fundies think literal means you read it without regard for genre or figures of speech!

Chrawnus
01-15-2015, 06:53 AM
Yep. Fundy alert! Only fundies think literal means you read it without regard for genre or figures of speech!

Figures of speech are those weird bubbles at the top of peoples heads in comics with text in them, right? :noid:

Adrift
01-15-2015, 06:55 AM
In that case, literalism is either a misnomer or we need to use more specific terminology.

There's a label that some of the people around here use called "fundie atheist". I don't particularly like the phrase, but its often used to describe a type of atheist who seems to believe that, if one were to call themselves a literalist, the only real way to read the Bible is through a hyper-literal interpretation that essentially makes the text incomprehensible. Outside of those types of atheists, I can't think of anyone who doesn't know what is meant by the word "literal" when one refers to a "literal interpretation". Those types of atheists being in the extreme minority, I think everyone else is okay with the terminology as its commonly used.

Chrawnus
01-15-2015, 06:56 AM
In that case, literalism is either a misnomer or we need to use more specific terminology.

I think what most people would informed people would claim that they're trying to do is interpreting the text as the original author(s) intended it to be interpreted. If there is a word for that and I've ever known what it is I've forgotten it by now. :shrug:

Boxing Pythagoras
01-15-2015, 07:01 AM
I think what most people would informed people would claim that they're trying to do is interpreting the text as the original author(s) intended it to be interpreted. If there is a word for that and I've ever known what it is I've forgotten it by now. :shrug:That's called hermeneutics, and I'm fairly sure that every reader attempts to claim that, whether they are considered "literalists" or "allegorists" or what-have-you.

Chrawnus
01-15-2015, 07:02 AM
That's called hermeneutics, and I'm fairly sure that every reader attempts to claim that, whether they are considered "literalists" or "allegorists" or what-have-you.

Right, then I'm a hermeneutist. :smug:





































































































:outtie:

Cerebrum123
01-15-2015, 07:03 AM
I think what most people would informed people would claim that they're trying to do is interpreting the text as the original author(s) intended it to be interpreted. If there is a word for that and I've ever known what it is I've forgotten it by now. :shrug:

IIRC "literal" used to mean just that. It's only relatively recently that people started using the word in a different way regarding literature. That change is now used as a weapon on all sides IMO.

whag
01-15-2015, 08:04 AM
I think what most people would informed people would claim that they're trying to do is interpreting the text as the original author(s) intended it to be interpreted. If there is a word for that and I've ever known what it is I've forgotten it by now. :shrug:

The people who orally passed along the story leading to Genesis (the authors) likely intended it to be taken at face value. That's the real sticking point with people like Sproul (who in the last few years went from OEC to YEC).

Boxing Pythagoras
01-15-2015, 08:21 AM
The people who orally passed along the story leading to Genesis (the authors) likely intended it to be taken at face value. That's the real sticking point with people like Sproul (who in the last few years went from OEC to YEC).I would argue that this is an anachronistic way of looking at the manner in which ancient peoples regarded mythology.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 08:24 AM
There's a lot of treating the Bible anachronistically and out of the cultural contest period. That's how you get weird stuff.

mossrose
01-15-2015, 09:01 AM
I’d like to know what Mossrose thinks is going on in heaven if the science of Biology (evolution being an inseparable part of the whole) is ruled over by Satan. Is all science Satanic? Why would Satan make science so difficult to discover and learn about?

Why would you not think that it was God who delivered you the great scientific minds for your enlightenment; Archimedes, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Alexander Fleming, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Hans Bethe, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur and many others? I don’t understand why a loving and all powerful God would allow us to see these wonders unless He thought it was important.

I do think God delivered great scientific minds for our enlightenment. I also think man is a selfish, fallen, sinful creature that wants its own way and doesn't want to think about consequences for sin.

So man turns its brilliance to ideas that do away with a Creator God and subsequent penalty for sin and need for a Redeemer. And ALL worldly ideas that are not derived from Godly wisdom are derived from the god of this age, and that is Satan. Like everything else we have, science can be used for good or for evil.

So, yes. A lie from the very pit of hell that does away with a Creator, Sustainer, Provider, Redeemer God and leaves us to our own wicked devices.

And my username is not capitalized, thanks much.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 09:03 AM
So, we're toddlers? :razz:

mossrose
01-15-2015, 09:08 AM
So, we're toddlers? :razz:

I guess so.

Christianbookworm
01-15-2015, 09:10 AM
I guess so.

I'm being silly! Though, like toddlers, we seem to think we can hide by covering our eyes. If we can't see God, he can't see us! Yeah right.

whag
01-15-2015, 09:19 AM
I would argue that this is an anachronistic way of looking at the manner in which ancient peoples regarded mythology.

Despite impressive erudition, Sproul and Zacharias cannot get their heads around the fact that the pre-Genesis storytellers were perhaps employing metaphor and not imagining the first human being formed from dust. They've instead commited to the literal interpretation rather than seeing a richer gift: a skeleton to flesh out "compatible" protologies and teleologies. Pete Enns appears to comprehend and appreciate that gift, which is why I like him.

I suspect that ancient peoples really thought volcanos were gods and not necessarily cognizant of future interpretations of phenomena, such as the variance of life.

whag
01-15-2015, 09:23 AM
I do think God delivered great scientific minds for our enlightenment. I also think man is a selfish, fallen, sinful creature that wants its own way and doesn't want to think about consequences for sin.

So man turns its brilliance to ideas that do away with a Creator God and subsequent penalty for sin and need for a Redeemer. And ALL worldly ideas that are not derived from Godly wisdom are derived from the god of this age, and that is Satan. Like everything else we have, science can be used for good or for evil.

So, yes. A lie from the very pit of hell that does away with a Creator, Sustainer, Provider, Redeemer God and leaves us to our own wicked devices.

And my username is not capitalized, thanks much.

Come on, mossy. You really believe that? Hell in Christianity is an abode of punishment. It's never been populated by entities who concoct deceptive stories and funnel them down (up?) to the world. That makes no sense.

Are you being a tad metaphorical here?

jordanriver
01-15-2015, 09:38 AM
You believe there's a God?


The answer would be a diversion. I am interested in what Mossrose thinks. Her understanding does not depend on what I think.

so?
what?

...are we playing the "if there was a God ....." dance?

if so, how do you know what any specific god/God would do, what do you base your "HERE IS WHAT GOD WOULD DO" on

firstfloor
01-15-2015, 09:56 AM
I do think God delivered great scientific minds for our enlightenment. I also think man is a selfish, fallen, sinful creature that wants its own way and doesn't want to think about consequences for sin.

So man turns its brilliance to ideas that do away with a Creator God and subsequent penalty for sin and need for a Redeemer. And ALL worldly ideas that are not derived from Godly wisdom are derived from the god of this age, and that is Satan. Like everything else we have, science can be used for good or for evil.

So, yes. A lie from the very pit of hell that does away with a Creator, Sustainer, Provider, Redeemer God and leaves us to our own wicked devices.

And my username is not capitalized, thanks much.Thanks for your reply, mossrose. This seems to rule out the possibility that science reveals Godly wisdom in an error correcting fashion at the cost of abandoning Biblical inerrancy and long established traditions. Perhaps traditional faiths are part of the continuity of discovery and not radically different from modern science. You don’t HAVE to end up in worldly wickedness.

mossrose
01-15-2015, 12:24 PM
Come on, mossy. You really believe that? Hell in Christianity is an abode of punishment. It's never been populated by entities who concoct deceptive stories and funnel them down (up?) to the world. That makes no sense.

Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels. People CHOOSE to go there. Matthew 25:41 --


“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

Satan isn't going to be in charge of that place prepared for him and the other fallen angels. That is a misconception. He will be in torment. But he and his angels are now free to influence mankind. That is what the phrase "the god of this age" is referring to. Do I believe that Satan is directing his minions from the depths of hell? No. The phrase I used, "a lie from the pit of hell" is just referring to the mindset of the godless world that is influenced by Satan.

But, one day, Satan WILL inhabit that place. Revelation 20:1-10


1. Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore.

9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.


Are you being a tad metaphorical here?

Maybe?

:teeth:

whag
01-15-2015, 07:14 PM
Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels. People CHOOSE to go there. Matthew 25:41 --

Satan isn't going to be in charge of that place prepared for him and the other fallen angels. That is a misconception.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I'm the literalist now, eh? =P


He will be in torment. But he and his angels are now free to influence mankind.

How can "bad angels" influence Christians to believe a hellish lie, though? I don't see how that squares with the promise of transformation--unless, of course, "renewing" means something different than I think it means.


That is what the phrase "the god of this age" is referring to. Do I believe that Satan is directing his minions from the depths of hell? No. The phrase I used, "a lie from the pit of hell" is just referring to the mindset of the godless world that is influenced by Satan.

I don't know. I think your theistic evolutionist brethren's love for you suggests otherwise. If they were influenced by godlessness, they wouldn't express a deep affection for you and acceptance of your teleology.

However, if they weren't influenced by godlessness, they'd accept the interpretation God earnestly wants them to see. That seems elegantly straightforward to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

If Christians can be swayed into believing lies of the magnitude you describe, then transformation and renewal--as I understand those processes--are so imperceptible as to be virtually nonexistent. What am I missing here?

To put it another way, if believing the lie isn't really consequential for the Christian, then it couldn't be as ENORMOUS in scope and supernatural malevolence as you've described it to be. It's just a harmless (albeit amazing) fact made visible via the general revelation.

Tassman
01-16-2015, 02:02 AM
Yep. Fundy alert! Only fundies think literal means you read it without regard for genre or figures of speech!

So were Adam and Eve actual historical people who brought sin into the world by disobeying God, or are they metaphorical figures? If the latter, why was an actual historical figure in the person of Jesus (the “last Adam”) required to physically sacrifice himself in order to effect Atonement?

As the story goes, Jesus paid the ransom for the condition of sin and death that Adam sold us into by his rebellion against God. Thus, if Adam’s disobedience is metaphorical, why couldn't Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross be a metaphorical story as well?

Adrift
01-16-2015, 05:11 AM
So were Adam and Eve actual historical people who brought sin into the world by disobeying God, or are they metaphorical figures? If the latter, why was an actual historical figure in the person of Jesus (the “last Adam”) required to physically sacrifice himself in order to effect Atonement?

As the story goes, Jesus paid the ransom for the condition of sin and death that Adam sold us into by his rebellion against God. Thus, if Adam’s disobedience is metaphorical, why couldn't Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross be a metaphorical story as well?

I believe all of the literalist Old Earth Creationist views I listed acccept a historical Adam and Eve.

whag
01-16-2015, 07:21 AM
I believe all of the literalist Old Earth Creationist views I listed acccept a historical Adam and Eve.

An OECs' concern is mainly to solve the "geochronology" controversy, not the anthropological one--hence Old "Earth." A TE accepts the whole general revelation. Hence, you typically won't hear a TE refer to his view as OEC, since geochrolonogy is a given.

Many TEs see a historical Adam as essential, while many, like Pete Enns, have expressed doubt about it.

Here's a Christian addressing Tassman's question:

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/02/07/reasons-to-believe-in-a-historical-adam/

Here's a TE response:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/02/thoughts-on-kevin-deyoungs-restless-comments-on-the-historical-adam/

NormATive
01-16-2015, 10:48 PM
Here's a sad video of RC Sproul, Al Mohler, and Ravi Zacharias smugly saying evolution isn't compatible with Christianity. It makes me sad to see this, and I almost cringe for them...

I don't see these types of apologists as "sad" or even smug. I think they are being true to their worldview. I think they represent probably the majority view of most evangelical Christians. They believe that the Bible is God's Word (capital "W"). As such, I think that it is incompatible with evolution - macro or micro. These Christians view much of the Tanakh accounts as historical truth (Adam and Eve, Enoch, Moses and his miracles, the Tower of Babel, Sampson and Delilah, Daniel in the Lion's Den, Noah's Ark and etc...) rather than symbolic stories such as those found in the Talmud, for instance (which bear a stark similarity to some of Jesus' parables). They believe in the literal creation of each animal of its kind right there in the Garden of Eden with Adam - formed from the dust of the earth - as godly inspired Foreman and Name Giver. Each species of parrot was created right there in the Garden, not evolved over millennia into their present forms.

I think that within this paradigm there are varying degrees of what is literal and what is allegorical. For example, when I queried our Baptist Pastor on why creatures such as the Dinosaurs - particularly T-Rex! - were not even mentioned anywhere in the Bible. I asked this question after returning from a trip to Dinosaur National Park in Wyoming where we physically witnessed the extraction of dinosaur bones on a trip to Dig for a Day. At one of the sites, you could see a large dinosaur leg bone still embedded in the side of a hill! I thought that it was odd that dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible, since, on the YEC timeline, they would have had to coexist with humans. Besides, Adam and Eve named all the animals - presumably including the dinosaurs. This also brought to my mind questions concerning how these creatures would have fit aboard the Ark. One of these dinosaurs at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center stretched the entire length of the building! I knew how big the Ark was from Sunday School class - and this creature could NOT have fit on board with all the other hundreds of giant dinosaurs. So, I asked him why the Ark wasn't big enough to accommodate them all. The Pastor told me that Satan buried these bones in the desert in order to throw us off the track. Really.

But, I consider that an extreme literal view of the Bible. I think most people understand the story of Noah as somewhat allegorical, and not necessarily an historic event. Or, at least a more "local" event that to the writers would indeed consume their "known" world. They would also acknowledge some of the errors of understanding of the world around them due to their limitations. I think they would say that God inspired them within the context of their "known" world.


Let's not turn this into a debate on evolution. Instead, this is for evolution-accepting Christians and skeptics to talk about their favorite modern Christian thinkers who say interesting things about epistemology and have sophisticated belief systems....I'll start with Pete Enns. His full acceptance of the facts combined with what seems to be an unconpromised religion makes him very likeable and interesting to listen to....I also very much like Frank Schaeffer. I find his older videos about his transition from evangelicalism to an eastern orthodox belief system fascinating...Evolution is true, so a debate would be boring and filled with PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Please no evolution debate.

My daughter is an evolutionary biologist, so I have no problem accepting evolution as established fact. I've seen enough in the laboratory and in the field as well as my daughter's work in genetics to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think, however, it is the Achilles Heel of traditional, creedal Christianity. If evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is just that. A story. But, if Jesus is the Second Adam, then the First Adam needs to be true. Also, modern Christianity is dependent on Original Sin as a foundational principle. It posits that mankind is inherently evil (through the actions of a fictional being) and despotic to the core. So much so, that there is no hope for the future. No hope for self redemption. This has not been my experience. I would say that quite the opposite is true. I think that mankind is fundamentally pure in spirit, and will ultimately do what is right for civilized society. I think the majority of human beings on this planet are fundamentally good. I don't know of many purely evil people. I know plenty of people who make mistakes, including myself. But, fundamentally, we will do the right thing. We are fundamentally kindhearted, loving and forgiving. This contradicts what modern Christianity teaches about human nature. It NEEDS mankind to be fundamentally evil.

Anyway, I don't think that most Christians analyze it at this far of a level. I think that they are inspired by the hopeful message of a successful humanity living in harmony forever. The only difference is that they believe it is only possible in the afterlife, and we think that it is possible in this life.

NORM

Adrift
01-16-2015, 11:02 PM
I don't see these types of apologists as "sad" or even smug. I think they are being true to their worldview. I think they represent probably the majority view of most evangelical Christians. They believe that the Bible is God's Word (capital "W"). As such, I think that it is incompatible with evolution - macro or micro. These Christians view much of the Tanakh accounts as historical truth (Adam and Eve, Enoch, Moses and his miracles, the Tower of Babel, Sampson and Delilah, Daniel in the Lion's Den, Noah's Ark and etc...) rather than symbolic stories such as those found in the Talmud, for instance (which bear a stark similarity to some of Jesus' parables). They believe in the literal creation of each animal of its kind right there in the Garden of Eden with Adam - formed from the dust of the earth - as godly inspired Foreman and Name Giver. Each species of parrot was created right there in the Garden, not evolved over millennia into their present forms.

I think that within this paradigm there are varying degrees of what is literal and what is allegorical. For example, when I queried our Baptist Pastor on why creatures such as the Dinosaurs - particularly T-Rex! - were not even mentioned anywhere in the Bible. I asked this question after returning from a trip to Dinosaur National Park in Wyoming where we physically witnessed the extraction of dinosaur bones on a trip to Dig for a Day. At one of the sites, you could see a large dinosaur leg bone still embedded in the side of a hill! I thought that it was odd that dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible, since, on the YEC timeline, they would have had to coexist with humans. Besides, Adam and Eve named all the animals - presumably including the dinosaurs. This also brought to my mind questions concerning how these creatures would have fit aboard the Ark. One of these dinosaurs at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center stretched the entire length of the building! I knew how big the Ark was from Sunday School class - and this creature could NOT have fit on board with all the other hundreds of giant dinosaurs. So, I asked him why the Ark wasn't big enough to accommodate them all. The Pastor told me that Satan buried these bones in the desert in order to throw us off the track. Really.

But, I consider that an extreme literal view of the Bible. I think most people understand the story of Noah as somewhat allegorical, and not necessarily an historic event. Or, at least a more "local" event that to the writers would indeed consume their "known" world. They would also acknowledge some of the errors of understanding of the world around them due to their limitations. I think they would say that God inspired them within the context of their "known" world.



My daughter is an evolutionary biologist, so I have no problem accepting evolution as established fact. I've seen enough in the laboratory and in the field as well as my daughter's work in genetics to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think, however, it is the Achilles Heel of traditional, creedal Christianity. If evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is just that. A story. But, if Jesus is the Second Adam, then the First Adam needs to be true. Also, modern Christianity is dependent on Original Sin as a foundational principle. It posits that mankind is inherently evil (through the actions of a fictional being) and despotic to the core. So much so, that there is no hope for the future. No hope for self redemption. This has not been my experience. I would say that quite the opposite is true. I think that mankind is fundamentally pure in spirit, and will ultimately do what is right for civilized society. I think the majority of human beings on this planet are fundamentally good. I don't know of many purely evil people. I know plenty of people who make mistakes, including myself. But, fundamentally, we will do the right thing. We are fundamentally kindhearted, loving and forgiving. This contradicts what modern Christianity teaches about human nature. It NEEDS mankind to be fundamentally evil.

Anyway, I don't think that most Christians analyze it at this far of a level. I think that they are inspired by the hopeful message of a successful humanity living in harmony forever. The only difference is that they believe it is only possible in the afterlife, and we think that it is possible in this life.

NORM

You talk a lot about the Christian view, but as a pseudo-practicing Reform-ish Jewish non-theist you rarely talk about the Orthodox Jewish perspective on these things. Why is that? Is it because you're embarrassed about the more traditional Jewish view on these subjects, or is it based on a complete lack of understanding on the Orthodox Jewish perspective?

Tassman
01-17-2015, 02:26 AM
My daughter is an evolutionary biologist, so I have no problem accepting evolution as established fact. I've seen enough in the laboratory and in the field as well as my daughter's work in genetics to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think, however, it is the Achilles Heel of traditional, creedal Christianity. If evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is just that. A story. But, if Jesus is the Second Adam, then the First Adam needs to be true. Also, modern Christianity is dependent on Original Sin as a foundational principle. It posits that mankind is inherently evil (through the actions of a fictional being) and despotic to the core. So much so, that there is no hope for the future. No hope for self redemption. This has not been my experience. I would say that quite the opposite is true. I think that mankind is fundamentally pure in spirit, and will ultimately do what is right for civilized society. I think the majority of human beings on this planet are fundamentally good. I don't know of many purely evil people. I know plenty of people who make mistakes, including myself. But, fundamentally, we will do the right thing. We are fundamentally kindhearted, loving and forgiving. This contradicts what modern Christianity teaches about human nature. It NEEDS mankind to be fundamentally evil.

Anyway, I don't think that most Christians analyze it at this far of a level. I think that they are inspired by the hopeful message of a successful humanity living in harmony forever. The only difference is that they believe it is only possible in the afterlife, and we think that it is possible in this life.

NORM

Yes, the bolded part is what I was referring to in querying the mythological "first Adam" vis-à-vis the historical figure of the “last Adam”. Adam’s rebellious choice infected all of humankind according to the story. So when Adam sinned he sinned for all of us, and it's that very sinfulness that supposedly set up the need for a saviour. Hence, the Adam and Eve story goes to the heart of Christianity, i.e. the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

Thus it makes no sense to have an historical figure, i.e. Jesus, offering himself as a sacrifice to atone for the primal sin of a mythological entity - unless one is going to argue for the whole of humankind being innately sinful. But then the question arises of when, during the evolution and migration of Homo sapiens as a separate species of hominid c.200,000 years ago, did this fall from grace occur?

firstfloor
01-17-2015, 02:32 AM
.... our own wicked devices.“The most despicable thing about Christianity is that it creates a world of despair.” – Jersey Flight

Adrift
01-17-2015, 03:10 AM
Yes, the bolded part is what I was referring to in querying the mythological "first Adam" vis-à-vis the historical figure of the “last Adam”. Adam’s rebellious choice infected all of humankind according to the story. So when Adam sinned he sinned for all of us, and it's that very sinfulness that supposedly set up the need for a saviour. Hence, the Adam and Eve story goes to the heart of Christianity, i.e. the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

Thus it makes no sense to have an historical figure, i.e. Jesus, offering himself as a sacrifice to atone for the primal sin of a mythological entity - unless one is going to argue for the whole of humankind being innately sinful. But then the question arises of when, during the evolution and migration of Homo sapiens as a separate species of hominid c.200,000 years ago, did this fall from grace occur?

I think, based on something like the historical creationist view, one need not assume that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids ever, but simply the first humans imbued with God's spirit. Seems to sidestep a lot of the issues you seem to have with 200,000 year old species.

JimL
01-17-2015, 05:46 AM
I think, based on something like the historical creationist view, one need not assume that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids ever, but simply the first humans imbued with God's spirit. Seems to sidestep a lot of the issues you seem to have with 200,000 year old species.
It would seem to sidestep the historical biblical view, the word of God, as well. How would you define the pre-biblical humans? Lifeless mudballs?

37818
01-17-2015, 06:26 AM
It would seem to sidestep the historical biblical view, the word of God, as well. How would you define the pre-biblical humans? Lifeless mudballs?

How do you define "per-biblical humans?"

whag
01-17-2015, 08:56 AM
I think, based on something like the historical creationist view, one need not assume that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids ever, but simply the first humans imbued with God's spirit. Seems to sidestep a lot of the issues you seem to have with 200,000 year old species.
I think, based on something like the historical creationist view, one need not assume that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids ever, but simply the first humans imbued with God's spirit. Seems to sidestep a lot of the issues you seem to have with 200,000 year old species.


It's too crude a sidestep, though. Lucy the hominid had plenty of spirit. She was significant. The Taung child's hominid parents likely grieved at the death of their hominid kid. We even see that dogs and chimps grieve today, so there must have been a precursor to grief.

Also...animism. That complicates issues more than it sidesteps them, particularly in the realm of PoE. It's way too simple to say two hominids were plucked from the savannah and ensouled.

jordanriver
01-17-2015, 12:07 PM
either/or, bifurcation fallacy.

It does not have to be either evolution, or creation of Adam from the dust of the ground (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A7&version=KJV)

Evolution can be occurring in the natural world, while in a separate area, The Creator (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A3&version=KJV)certainly is allowed a special creation. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A14%2C+Jeremiah+32%3A27%2C+Luk e+18%3A27%2C+Matthew+19%3A26&version=KJV)

besides, isn't Bible-God known for bringing the dead back to life (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11%3A43-44&version=KJV).


why would a Christian doubt that the Creator who created billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of solar systems be afraid that the Creator would not have the ability to bring dead DNA in the ground back to life.

whag
01-17-2015, 12:12 PM
either/or, bifurcation fallacy.

It does not have to be either evolution, or creation of Adam from the dust of the ground (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A7&version=KJV)

Evolution can be occurring in the natural world, while in a separate area, The Creator (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A3&version=KJV)certainly is allowed a special creation. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A14%2C+Jeremiah+32%3A27%2C+Luk e+18%3A27%2C+Matthew+19%3A26&version=KJV)

besides, isn't Bible-God known for bringing the dead back to life (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11%3A43-44&version=KJV).


why would a Christian doubt that the Creator who created billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of solar systems be afraid that the Creator would not have the ability to bring dead DNA in the ground back to life.

I don't understand.

Carrikature
01-17-2015, 12:14 PM
why would a Christian doubt that the Creator who created billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of solar systems be afraid that the Creator would not have the ability to bring dead DNA in the ground back to life.

I truly do not understand why you continually portray things as Christians being afraid or convinced that God is unable to do a certain thing. I've never seen a Christian make such a claim. I'm not trying to pick on you, but I've seen you make similar claims in a few different threads now but it never seems to be based on anything that's been said within the thread. Where is this coming from?

jordanriver
01-17-2015, 12:32 PM
I truly do not understand why you continually portray things as Christians being afraid or convinced that God is unable to do a certain thing. I've never seen a Christian make such a claim. I'm not trying to pick on you, but I've seen you make similar claims in a few different threads now but it never seems to be based on anything that's been said within the thread. Where is this coming from?
???????


where did i say Christians make a claim like that.

The question is why are the non-Christians bringing up their 'reasons' that the things we Christians believe are impossible

jordanriver
01-17-2015, 12:36 PM
I don't understand.

do you claim that its impossible for Bible-God the Creator to exist

whag
01-17-2015, 12:46 PM
do you claim that its impossible for Bible-God the Creator to exist

Nossir.

jordanriver
01-17-2015, 01:02 PM
do you claim that its impossible for Bible-God the Creator to exist


Nossir.


then why all the fuss about the details

Carrikature
01-17-2015, 02:08 PM
???????


where did i say Christians make a claim like that.

I quoted you asking why Christians would doubt or be afraid.



The question is why are the non-Christians bringing up their 'reasons' that the things we Christians believe are impossible

This is the Apologetics forum, an area specifically dedicated to debate between theists and non-theists. Debate over such reasons are part of what this forum is intended to cover.

JimL
01-17-2015, 02:31 PM
How do you define "per-biblical humans?"
The same way that I define post biblical humans. Adrift is attempting to define pre and post biblical humans as qualitatively different in order to rationalize the biblical creation story.

whag
01-17-2015, 03:14 PM
then why all the fuss about the details

1) I wouldn't call it a fuss but a clarification. Over my my dead body will I ever see my nephew forced into the position of defending Samson as literal history. 2) "Possible" doesn't mean "likely." I don't think it's likely Muhammed had a special relationship with the Architect of the Universe, but it is possible. In a similar way, I don't think it's likely Samson's grumbling compelled the AOTU to open a spring for the doltish governor or enact his stupid revenge fantasy.

jordanriver
01-17-2015, 03:50 PM
I quoted you asking why Christians would doubt or be afraid.
.


AS IN addressing you the non-Christians,

NOT AS IN addressing the Christians, ....why would i be debating Christians in apologetics , sheesh


This is the Apologetics forum, an area specifically dedicated to debate between theists and non-theists. Debate over such reasons are part of what this forum is intended to cover

yeah but debating such TRIFLING MINUTIAE??

Do Atheists think that if they cite the theory of evolution, that Christians , who believe their God rose from the dead, and before that brought back others from the dead to life, who has control of life AND DEATH (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+1%3A18&version=KJV)
....our God who created THE UNIVERSE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A3&version=KJV)...

....that we're going to think that just because there is evolution, and many different species share a common ancestor,
.........that therefore it wouid be impossible for Bible-God to take soil and whatever dead life is in that soil, to create a Human Being???

our God who says "Is Any thing too hard for The Lord?" (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A14%2C+Jeremiah+32%3A27%2C+Luk e+18%3A27%2C+Matthew+19%3A26&version=KJV)

whag
01-17-2015, 04:03 PM
The same way that I define post biblical humans. Adrift is attempting to define pre and post biblical humans as qualitatively different in order to rationalize the biblical creation story.

A million years ago, homo erectus was making hand axes. Theistic evolutionists who believe that the real story started 200,000 years ago might want to go back a bit further.

Adrift
01-17-2015, 04:21 PM
It's too crude a sidestep, though. Lucy the hominid had plenty of spirit. She was significant. The Taung child's hominid parents likely grieved at the death of their hominid kid. We even see that dogs and chimps grieve today, so there must have been a precursor to grief.

Also...animism. That complicates issues more than it sidesteps them, particularly in the realm of PoE. It's way too simple to say two hominids were plucked from the savannah and ensouled.

Animism has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

whag
01-17-2015, 05:55 PM
Animism has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

Yes it does. You talk about hominids plucked from the Savannah, you talk about animism. Can't get around it.

Adrift
01-17-2015, 06:05 PM
Yes it does. You talk about hominids plucked from the Savannah, you talk about animism. Can't get around it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

KingsGambit
01-17-2015, 06:12 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think the point is that anybody living at that time would have been an animist. This doesn't exclude God intervening with specific people, though if one is trying to push the GoE back that far I think it's likely to be missing the point.

Adrift
01-17-2015, 06:18 PM
I think the point is that anybody living at that time would have been an animist. This doesn't exclude God intervening with specific people, though if one is trying to push the GoE back that far I think it's likely to be missing the point.

Oh. Ok. whag likes to create his own narrative based on another person's post and then attribute those ideas back to that person. Its a terribly dishonest habit that I wish he'd stop. But, yeah. You're right. Its definitely a case of missing the point.

whag
01-17-2015, 06:26 PM
I think the point is that anybody living at that time would have been an animist. This doesn't exclude God intervening with specific people, though if one is trying to push the GoE back that far I think it's likely to be missing the point.

The point was crude. I contributed some fine grain for discussion.

Carrikature
01-17-2015, 07:14 PM
AS IN addressing you the non-Christians,

NOT AS IN addressing the Christians, ....why would i be debating Christians in apologetics , sheesh

It happens. :shrug:



yeah but debating such TRIFLING MINUTIAE??

One man's trifling minutiae is another man's major roadblock.



Do Atheists think that if they cite the theory of evolution, that Christians , who believe their God rose from the dead, and before that brought back others from the dead to life, who has control of life AND DEATH (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+1%3A18&version=KJV)
....our God who created THE UNIVERSE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A3&version=KJV)...

....that we're going to think that just because there is evolution, and many different species share a common ancestor,
.........that therefore it wouid be impossible for Bible-God to take soil and whatever dead life is in that soil, to create a Human Being???

our God who says "Is Any thing too hard for The Lord?" (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A14%2C+Jeremiah+32%3A27%2C+Luk e+18%3A27%2C+Matthew+19%3A26&version=KJV)

I've never seen an atheist suggest any such thing, which is part of why I said what I did. It's not that an atheist would think a Christian could be convinced that it's impossible for God. Rather, it's that the acceptance of certain concepts (such as evolution) often proves incompatible with other beliefs. The origins of humanity, and life on this planet, may not break someone's faith, but it's often one of the first strings that get unraveled.

whag
01-17-2015, 07:30 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about.

I meant that homo erectus and other hominids more that 200,000 years ago had a history of surviving on the savannah. They weren't insignificant things but had a rich history of thinking, extrapolating, correlating, and making sophisticated tools. The idea you brought up ignores that. While it may be a sidestepping of issues it brings up so many more, I think.

Adrift
01-17-2015, 07:37 PM
I meant that homo erectus and other hominids more that 200,000 years ago had a history of surviving on the savannah. They weren't insignificant things but had a rich history of thinking, extrapolating, correlating, and making sophisticated tools.

The view I mentioned would have no problem with any of this. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, or why you think its relevant.


The idea you brought up ignores that. While it may be a sidestepping of issues it brings up so many more, I think.

As KingsGambit said, you've missed the point.

whag
01-17-2015, 08:02 PM
The view I mentioned would have no problem with any of this. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, or why you think its relevant.

Obviously the view holders don't have a problem with any of that. That's why they hold that view. And yes you know why I brought it up and why it's relevant.




As KingsGambit said, you've missed the point.

I got your point and raised it.

Adrift
01-17-2015, 08:06 PM
Obviously the view holders don't have a problem with any of that. That's why they hold that view. And yes you know why I brought it up and why it's relevant.

Um. Nope. I don't. :shrug:


I got your point and raised it.

Sure you did.

whag
01-17-2015, 09:55 PM
The same way that I define post biblical humans. Adrift is attempting to define pre and post biblical humans as qualitatively different in order to rationalize the biblical creation story.


To be fair, Tassman drew the distinction first and I think Adrift used that as an opportunity to say biblical views exist that sidestep the issues he brought up. The distinction between Ergaster (2my) hominids and Cromags (200ky) homonids is becoming more blurred as we discover just how much "spirit," for lack of a better word, earlier hominids had. They weren't insignificant slimeballs. The view that they were essentially spiritless monkeys shows ignorance of them. There's something crude in the suggestion they were merely machines that needed to be infused with ghosts. No parents. No childhood. None of the experiences that equip human beings to relate to people and community and make decisions.

Adrift
01-17-2015, 10:34 PM
To be fair, Tassman drew the distinction first and I think Adrift used that as an opportunity to say biblical views exist that sidestep the issues he brought up. The distinction between Ergaster (2my) hominids and Cromags (200ky) homonids is becoming more blurred as we discover just how much "spirit," for lack of a better word, earlier hominids had. They weren't insignificant slimeballs. The view that they were essentially spiritless monkeys shows ignorance of them. There's something crude in the suggestion they were merely machines that needed to be infused with ghosts. No parents. No childhood. None of the experiences that equip human beings to relate to people and community and make decisions.

Whatever your concept of spirit is, its not one I share.

whag
01-17-2015, 10:52 PM
Whatever your concept of spirit is, its not one I share.

If religions have taught us anything, it's that spirit is an ambiguous concept.

Tassman
01-18-2015, 03:01 AM
I think, based on something like the historical creationist view, one need not assume that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids ever, but simply the first humans imbued with God's spirit. Seems to sidestep a lot of the issues you seem to have with 200,000 year old species.

So, in your view, the Adam and Eve story is referencing an unknown point in time during the c. 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans, when God imbued the human branch of the family tree with his Divine Spirit (or was it just two Homo sapiens initially), thus rendering them different in kind from their simian cousins who weren't bestowed with such a Spirit. Incidentally, as an aside, the dry African savannah where this would have taken place is a far cry from the lushness of the Garden of Eden as depicted in Genesis.

But why would you think any of this? There’s no evidence that humans are different in kind from the other primates except for their higher intelligence. But even the other primates are capable of very high levels of cognition compared to other animals. So your speculation seems more like a rationalization of the Adam and Eve creation narratives vis-à-vis evolution, whereby the former is incompatible with the considerable evidence supporting the latter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

37818
01-18-2015, 08:43 AM
. . . There’s no evidence that humans are different in kind from the other primates except for their higher intelligence. . . .

Have you seen the Nova episode, What Darwin never knew? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

Adrift
01-18-2015, 08:56 AM
So, in your view, the Adam and Eve story is referencing an unknown point in time during the c. 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans, when God imbued the human branch of the family tree with his Divine Spirit (or was it just two Homo sapiens initially), thus rendering them different in kind from their simian cousins who weren't bestowed with such a Spirit. Incidentally, as an aside, the dry African savannah where this would have taken place is a far cry from the lushness of the Garden of Eden as depicted in Genesis.

No. Historical Creationism is the view put forward by the Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer. It suggests a reading of the Hebrew text that proposes that the creation of the world and everything in it was recorded in Genesis 1:1 at an indeterminate date. The rest of the narrative does not concern itself with the creation of all of the world, or all of the world's plants, animals, what have you, but of the preparation of the Promised Land which then becomes the focus of the rest of the Pentateuch. Sailhamer doesn't find room for evolution in this view, but gives no good reason to reject it either. I'm not positing that Adam and Eve are the first humans ever, or that they existed 200,000 years ago, or that they were created in the African Savannah, rather they were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God, created sometime in the distant past, within the promised land, and that their descendants intermingled with other not-so-uniquely created humans. In this reading the "image of God" refers to something spiritual. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington describes Paul's use of the this type of "spirit" in his letters this way, "Thus spirit seems to refer to a part of one's being that involves the suprarational or noncognitive aspects of human experience--broadly speaking, that which goes beyond the material and empirical. Paul, however, does not seem to see the human 'spirit' as a material part of a person. We can only conjecture that he associates it perhaps with something like the image of God in humanity, that which makes possible relationships and communion with God, who is Spirit."

This view of Adam and Eve, and the rest of humanity is not something I invented. I don't know offhand any popular theologians who hold to the specific view I laid out, but I've read similar approaches to the material from others (you can see examples here (http://www.douglasjacoby.com/q-a-1127-eden-as-the-promised-land-long-ages-because-of-special-creation/) and here (http://headlyvonnoggin.hubpages.com/hub/What-Do-Those-First-Few-Chapters-of-Genesis-Really-Say)). Like I said before, its just a theory, and I don't know if its accurate. I'm sure if its nitpicked enough you'll find issues with it, but the issues I can imagine are not terminal. I think its a nice marriage of TE and a literal take on the narrative, and the only reason I brought it up at all was because I believe it puts to rest some of the issues you brought up earlier.


But why would you think any of this? There’s no evidence that humans are different in kind from the other primates except for their higher intelligence. But even the other primates are capable of very high levels of cognition compared to other animals. So your speculation seems more like a rationalization of the Adam and Eve creation narratives vis-à-vis evolution, whereby the former is incompatible with the considerable evidence supporting the latter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I have no doubt that other primates are capable of very high levels of cognition. The view I'm suggesting has no issues with that. Why would I think that the Genesis narrative might be true? That would get into why I think Christianity is true, which is another topic of discussion altogether. I have absolutely no intention of convincing you that my beliefs in Christianity are true. I've realize that's an absolutely fruitless task. Is this speculation a rationalization of the Adam and Eve narrative? Perhaps, but after reading Sailhamer's Genesis Unbound, what I found so convincing was that his view seems to accord to our current understanding of what the original author intended his original audience to understand. Sailhamer writes in one of the opening chapters,

The overriding purpose of most recent interpretations of Genesis 1 has been to reconcile these ancient texts with the discoveries of modern science. In many ways, such a concern has always been an important part of biblical apologetics. Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science.

whag
01-18-2015, 08:59 AM
Have you seen the Nova episode, What Darwin never knew? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

There's a transcript in that link. Could you quote the part you think is relevant?

whag
01-18-2015, 10:03 AM
Thanks, Adrift. I really like the 2nd link you provided by Jeremy Christian. Here's his conclusion so people can decide if they want to read the whole thing.


In this modern age many will surely find this a bit much to swallow. But in the context of the evolution of life as we understand it, the appearance of a new species of humans with free will and extended lifespans would be no more of a leap than the change from single-celled to multi-celled organisms or the adaptations that made crawling up onto land from the sea possible. Even in the progression of the Homo genus there were large leaps forward from one species to the next. However, if an even more advanced species did actually appear just a few thousand years ago, they're certainly not here anymore. Of course, according to the story, they were all washed away by a large flood. Mass extinctions play a crucial role throughout the evolutionary history of life. In that context, the flood was merely the last of many 'edits' that shaped life as we know it today.

Is this possible? Even if any physical remains that could potentially confirm this theory had been washed out to sea by a large flood, certainly the existence of beings like this would have left some sort of lasting impression. Especially if they existed for over sixteen hundred years in a region populated by humans. You might expect to see rapid advancements in intellectual and technological capabilities, like what appears to have happened with the Sumerians and the Egyptians. Or you might expect to see their influence reflected in the mythology written by these ancient civilizations, like what can be seen in the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian, Greek, and Roman stories. Immortal beings who lived the equivalent of ten mortal lifespans, who were exceptionally wise and knowledgeable in agricultural practices, who were prone to human emotion, who bred with mortal humans and created beings of both bloodlines, then disappeared.

You acknowledged at the outset that flaws can be found in these views, so if I may: God as "editor" seems to be one of the biggest flaws in the piece as it relates to PoE. It's an interesting noun to explain extinctions, I'll grant him that, but reflects an anthropomorphic planning filled with millions of "erasures" to get it right. I can't think of extinctions as conscious edits for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here. Many of them are obvious, relating to the flaws in the apologetic of God as a paper-crumpling screenwriter, often advanced by WLC but other apologists, too:


But why should we think of God on the analogy of an engineer? Suppose God is more like the cosmic artist who wants to splash his canvas with extravagance of design, who enjoys creating this fabulous cosmos, designed in fantastic detail for observers.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/sean-carroll-on-science-and-god#ixzz3PCHCRrxF

The 1st link you provided is a layperson's question to Jacoby. It suggests interfamily marriage (incest) was the original plan, so I'd avoid that one.

37818
01-18-2015, 10:11 AM
There's a transcript in that link. Could you quote the part you think is relevant?The context from which it says, ". . . The gene in humans was radically different from that found in chimps. There had been a large series of mutations. . .that D.N.A. in chimps and compared it to the same D.N.A. in a chicken, it was different in just two letters. But in humans it was different by 18 letters. A massive mutation. . . . of evidence suggesting how D.N.A. can shape our distinctive human qualities. . . ." Explains the to date what we understand is different at a D.N.A. level.

Adrift
01-18-2015, 10:26 AM
Thanks, Adrift. I really like the 2nd link you provided by Jeremy Christian. Here's his conclusion so people can decide if they want to read the whole thing.



You acknowledged at the outset that flaws can be found in these views, so if I may: God as "editor" seems to be one of the biggest flaws in the piece as it relates to PoE. It's an interesting noun to explain extinctions, I'll grant him that, but reflects an anthropomorphic planning filled with millions of "erasures" to get it right. I can't think of extinctions as conscious edits for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here. Many of them are obvious, relating to the flaws in the apologetic of God as a paper-crumpling screenwriter, often advanced by WLC but other apologists, too:



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/sean-carroll-on-science-and-god#ixzz3PCHCRrxF

The 1st link you provided is a layperson's question to Jacoby. It suggests interfamily marriage (incest) was the original plan, so I'd avoid that one.

I added the links to demonstrate that I did not invent the view that Adam and Eve are not necessarily the first humans, but instead are the first humans created in God's image. Whatever else the links assert have nothing to do with the point I was making. You can avoid whatever you like. As I said before, I put little stock in your opinion about...well, anything, but definitely anything concerning theology.

whag
01-18-2015, 11:20 AM
I added the links to demonstrate that I did not invent the view that Adam and Eve are not necessarily the first humans, but instead are the first humans created in God's image.

No one thought you invented that view. Tassman likely knew of those view but was merely addressing the ignorant views of the men in the OP.




Whatever else the links assert have nothing to do with the point I was making. You can avoid whatever you like. As I said before, I put little stock in your opinion about...well, anything, but definitely anything concerning theology.

I'm shocked by that.

NormATive
01-18-2015, 05:45 PM
You talk a lot about the Christian view, but as a pseudo-practicing Reform-ish Jewish non-theist you rarely talk about the Orthodox Jewish perspective on these things. Why is that? Is it because you're embarrassed about the more traditional Jewish view on these subjects, or is it based on a complete lack of understanding on the Orthodox Jewish perspective?

What does that have to do with the question at hand?

NORM

Adrift
01-18-2015, 05:51 PM
What does that have to do with the question at hand?

NORM

Nothing, just an observation and curiosity.

NormATive
01-18-2015, 07:33 PM
Nothing, just an observation and curiosity.

My experience in Judaism is among Reformed Jews, not Orthodox. I've been to an Orthodox Shul on a few occasions, and found them similar in many ways with fundamentalists in the Christian faith. They view the Tanakh quite literally. Indeed, there are some who believe that only those who can read the scriptures in the original Hebrew can fully understand the faith. They would certainly tell you that Adam and Eve were real people, and, BTW, it is the year 5775. So, evolution is not compatible with Orthodox Judaism, but not in the same way that it is incompatible with modern Christianity. There is no such thing as "Original Sin" in the Jewish faith that required a change in the method of G-d's salvation. Hence, the role of Adam is not crucial to the fundamentals of the religion.

NORM

Adrift
01-18-2015, 07:41 PM
My experience in Judaism is among Reformed Jews, not Orthodox. I've been to an Orthodox Shul on a few occasions, and found them similar in many ways with fundamentalists in the Christian faith. They view the Tanakh quite literally. Indeed, there are some who believe that only those who can read the scriptures in the original Hebrew can fully understand the faith. They would certainly tell you that Adam and Eve were real people, and, BTW, it is the year 5775. So, evolution is not compatible with Orthodox Judaism, but not in the same way that it is incompatible with modern Christianity. There is no such thing as "Original Sin" in the Jewish faith that required a change in the method of G-d's salvation. Hence, the role of Adam is not crucial to the fundamentals of the religion.

NORM

Thank you. Do you ever visit practicing Jewish boards and kinda, you know, needle at their beliefs like you do the Christians here? Here's a forum where you could do that for example http://www.city-data.com/forum/judaism/

NormATive
01-18-2015, 07:47 PM
Thank you. Do you ever visit Orthodox Jewish boards and kinda, you know, kind of try to give it to them like you do here? Here's a forum where you could do that for example http://www.city-data.com/forum/judaism/

No, I don't know as much about Judaism as I do about Christianity (the faith I was raised in and spent nearly 20 years in a leadership position), and my Hebrew is very spotty. All I do here is express what I think to be true. I'm not trying to "needle."

NORM

Adrift
01-18-2015, 08:18 PM
No, I don't know as much about Judaism as I do about Christianity (the faith I was raised in and spent nearly 20 years in a leadership position), and my Hebrew is very spotty.

That's surprising. You seem to never give up a chance to tell everyone how Jewish you are, and tend to act like you know a whole lot about the subject. You'd think that you'd jump at the chance to talk down practicing Jews.


All I do here is express what I think to be true. I'm not trying to "needle."

Well come on now. You know that's not true.

NormATive
01-18-2015, 09:06 PM
That's surprising. You seem to never give up a chance to tell everyone how Jewish you are, and tend to act like you know a whole lot about the subject. You'd think that you'd jump at the chance to talk down practicing Jews.

I'm not sure why you are being so - well, I'm not allowed to use the word I want to.

I converted to Judaism, so I know much more than most Christians do about Judaism. When I was a Christian, I only knew what my church taught about Jews, and it was completely wrong. You continue that trend on T-Web, so I feel sort of obligated to correct these misunderstandings.

Why would I want to "talk down practicing Jews?"


Well come on now. You know that's not true.

I have questions. Sometimes, I have opinions. There's no ulterior motive here. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. What about you?

NORM

Adrift
01-18-2015, 09:10 PM
I'm not sure why you are being so - well, I'm not allowed to use the word I want to.

I converted to Judaism, so I know much more than most Christians do about Judaism. When I was a Christian, I only knew what my church taught about Jews, and it was completely wrong. You continue that trend on T-Web, so I feel sort of obligated to correct these misunderstandings.

Why would I want to "talk down practicing Jews?"



I have questions. Sometimes, I have opinions. There's no ulterior motive here. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. What about you?

NORM

You're constantly undermining, bad talking, and picking on Christianity here. I mean, you do it all of the time. Why are you suddenly surprised when someone puts the spotlight on that?

NormATive
01-18-2015, 09:28 PM
You're constantly undermining, bad talking, and picking on Christianity here. I mean, you do it all of the time. Why are you suddenly surprised when someone puts the spotlight on that?

Please show me where I am "undermining, bad talking, or picking on Christianity." I ask valid questions and make observations. If I am undermining your faith, that's on you, not me.

NORM

whag
01-18-2015, 09:37 PM
You're constantly undermining, bad talking, and picking on Christianity here. I mean, you do it all of the time. Why are you suddenly surprised when someone puts the spotlight on that?

Undermining, bad talking, and picking on are all essentially synonyms. Maybe you're having a bit of a whack attack and should concentrate on your own flaws.

NormATive
01-18-2015, 09:48 PM
Seriously, Adrift. Please quote an example of me "bad mouthing" Christianity.

NORM

Adrift
01-18-2015, 09:55 PM
Please show me where I am "undermining, bad talking, or picking on Christianity." I ask valid questions and make observations.

You have got to be kidding. Looking at random posts of yours since the forum's relaunch, just about every single one of your posts on this forum has the tone that Christianity is wrong, outdated, that it leads to doing evil, committing abuse, and instilling fear and guilt. You believe the NT is anti-Semitic, that a literal view of the Bible would lead to jihadism and that Christians are deluded. In the meantime, you guard your own views from critique by sometimes identifying with Judaism, and other times non-theism. You very occasionally have a bad thing or two to say about fundamentalist Judaism, but its hardly the focus of your discussion on these forums. Granted this is a Christian forum which is why I recommended a Jewish one for you. You have some deep seeded hostility in you about the faith that you rejected, and I find it your resentment against Christianity a bit of hypocrisy in that you don't tend to critique the faith you've embraced in the same way, even when its guilty of many of the charges you lay at Christian's feet.


If I am undermining your faith, that's on you, not me.

I never said that your undermining was effective, but you do attempt it.

Adrift
01-18-2015, 09:56 PM
Undermining, bad talking, and picking on are all essentially synonyms. Maybe you're having a bit of a whack attack and should concentrate on your own flaws.

You jealous?

whag
01-18-2015, 09:58 PM
You jealous?

Totally. =)

Tassman
01-19-2015, 02:01 AM
No. Historical Creationism is the view put forward by the Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer. It suggests a reading of the Hebrew text that proposes that the creation of the world and everything in it was recorded in Genesis 1:1 at an indeterminate date. The rest of the narrative does not concern itself with the creation of all of the world, or all of the world's plants, animals, what have you, but of the preparation of the Promised Land which then becomes the focus of the rest of the Pentateuch. Sailhamer doesn't find room for evolution in this view, but gives no good reason to reject it either. I'm not positing that Adam and Eve are the first humans ever, or that they existed 200,000 years ago, or that they were created in the African Savannah, rather they were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God, created sometime in the distant past, within the promised land, and that their descendants intermingled with other not-so-uniquely created humans. In this reading the "image of God" refers to something spiritual. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington describes Paul's use of the this type of "spirit" in his letters this way, "Thus spirit seems to refer to a part of one's being that involves the suprarational or noncognitive aspects of human experience--broadly speaking, that which goes beyond the material and empirical. Paul, however, does not seem to see the human 'spirit' as a material part of a person. We can only conjecture that he associates it perhaps with something like the image of God in humanity, that which makes possible relationships and communion with God, who is Spirit."

This view of Adam and Eve, and the rest of humanity is not something I invented. I don't know offhand any popular theologians who hold to the specific view I laid out, but I've read similar approaches to the material from others (you can see examples here (http://www.douglasjacoby.com/q-a-1127-eden-as-the-promised-land-long-ages-because-of-special-creation/) and here (http://headlyvonnoggin.hubpages.com/hub/What-Do-Those-First-Few-Chapters-of-Genesis-Really-Say)). Like I said before, its just a theory, and I don't know if its accurate. I'm sure if its nitpicked enough you'll find issues with it, but the issues I can imagine are not terminal. I think its a nice marriage of TE and a literal take on the narrative, and the only reason I brought it up at all was because I believe it puts to rest some of the issues you brought up earlier.

The bolded is an interesting conjecture and I’ve heard it before but it’s purely speculative and utterly at variance with the way the Adam and Eve story has been understood for most of Judeo/Christian history. And, I suggest, at variance with what the authors had in mind.


I have no doubt that other primates are capable of very high levels of cognition. The view I'm suggesting has no issues with that. Why would I think that the Genesis narrative might be true? That would get into why I think Christianity is true, which is another topic of discussion altogether. I have absolutely no intention of convincing you that my beliefs in Christianity are true. I've realize that's an absolutely fruitless task.

Without substantiated evidence it is indeed a “fruitless task”. I’m not prone to making leaps of faith.


Is this speculation a rationalization of the Adam and Eve narrative? Perhaps, but after reading Sailhamer's Genesis Unbound, what I found so convincing was that his view seems to accord to our current understanding of what the original author intended his original audience to understand. Sailhamer writes in one of the opening chapters,

The overriding purpose of most recent interpretations of Genesis 1 has been to reconcile these ancient texts with the discoveries of modern science. In many ways, such a concern has always been an important part of biblical apologetics. Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science.

I agree with this but this leaves us in the position (which I think is the only possible explanation) that the Adam and Eve story is an allegory intended to convey the “full, rich, theological message”, and not to be taken as an actual historical occurrence of any kind. Which leaves unanswered the question of why a mythological story containing a "theological truth” about the fall of Man required an actual physical sacrifice by Jesus to effect Atonement?

Adrift
01-19-2015, 05:08 AM
The bolded is an interesting conjecture and I’ve heard it before but it’s purely speculative and utterly at variance with the way the Adam and Eve story has been understood for most of Judeo/Christian history. And, I suggest, at variance with what the authors had in mind.

Again, whether or not it is speculation isn't really my point. My point is that Christians can, and sometimes do hold a view that is like this. Concerning Historical Creationism itself, Sailhamer has a few chapters devoted to the story that "has been understood for most of Judeo/Christian history". He argues that the story that you're probably most commonly aware of finds its roots in Hellenism, and he lays out an (in my opinion) convincing argument for how that came about.


Without substantiated evidence it is indeed a “fruitless task”. I’m not prone to making leaps of faith.

Neither am I, and I'd argue neither are a lot of Christians. Again, though, I realize attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless.


I agree with this but this leaves us in the position (which I think is the only possible explanation) that the Adam and Eve story is an allegory intended to convey the “full, rich, theological message”, and not to be taken as an actual historical occurrence of any kind. Which leaves unanswered the question of why a mythological story containing a "theological truth” about the fall of Man required an actual physical sacrifice by Jesus to effect Atonement?

Sailhamer argues that the Genesis narrative was intended by its author to be taken historically. Of course, whether or not we take it historically is another matter, and for many Christians that starts with their acceptance of Christ. As a specialist in the Old Testament, though, Sailhamer doesn't have a lot to say on the effects of the Atonement.

whag
01-19-2015, 02:35 PM
Again, whether or not it is speculation isn't really my point. My point is that Christians can, and sometimes do hold a view that is like this. Concerning Historical Creationism itself, Sailhamer has a few chapters devoted to the story that "has been understood for most of Judeo/Christian history". He argues that the story that you're probably most commonly aware of finds its roots in Hellenism, and he lays out an (in my opinion) convincing argument for how that came about.



Neither am I, and I'd argue neither are a lot of Christians. Again, though, I realize attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless.



Sailhamer argues that the Genesis narrative was intended by its author to be taken historically. Of course, whether or not we take it historically is another matter, and for many Christians that starts with their acceptance of Christ. As a specialist in the Old Testament, though, Sailhamer doesn't have a lot to say on the effects of the Atonement.

I'm going to buy the book. The Amazon reviews and this article intrigued me:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

Adrift
01-19-2015, 02:44 PM
I'm going to buy the book. The Amazon reviews and this article intrigued me:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

Roger that. If you read that link at John Piper's website you pretty much got the gist. If I recall, Sailhamer himself was impressed by it, and said that it more or less accomplished what he was trying to say with fewer words.

NormATive
01-19-2015, 04:53 PM
You have got to be kidding. Looking at random posts of yours since the forum's relaunch, just about every single one of your posts on this forum has the tone that Christianity is wrong, outdated, that it leads to doing evil, committing abuse, and instilling fear and guilt. You believe the NT is anti-Semitic, that a literal view of the Bible would lead to jihadism and that Christians are deluded. In the meantime, you guard your own views from critique by sometimes identifying with Judaism, and other times non-theism. You very occasionally have a bad thing or two to say about fundamentalist Judaism, but its hardly the focus of your discussion on these forums. Granted this is a Christian forum which is why I recommended a Jewish one for you. You have some deep seeded hostility in you about the faith that you rejected, and I find it your resentment against Christianity a bit of hypocrisy in that you don't tend to critique the faith you've embraced in the same way, even when its guilty of many of the charges you lay at Christian's feet.

Please be specific. I want to know what you consider "badmouthing."

As far as I'm concerned, I simply disagree that Christianity is the only true religion, that it has incorrectly redefined Judaism, and that taking any religion too seriously can be dangerous. I also think that by viewing the scriptures (any scriptures) as literal history rather than human, moral writings and parables distorts the nature of the original intent. I try to bring these things up with thoughtful dialogue, but inevitably, you (and those of your ilk) attack me personally rather than address the content of my posts.

And, BTW, I've critiqued Judaism equally to Christianity. I do not "[identify] with Judaism, and other times non-theism," because I am BOTH at the same time.

I am Jewish by birth, so, it's more of a roots thing than a religious choice. I don't accept any supernatural nonsense - Jewish, Islamic, Christian or otherwise.

I think that you just can't deal with the content of my posts, hence, the personal attack. I'm used to it, so it doesn't really bother me.

PS - Looking at random posts of yours since the forum's relaunch, just about every single one of your posts on this forum has the tone that Atheism and Agnosticism is wrong, outdated, that it leads to doing evil, committing abuse, and instilling fear and guilt.

NORM

37818
01-19-2015, 05:15 PM
As far as I'm concerned, I simply disagree that Christianity is the only true religion, that it has incorrectly redefined Judaism, . . .That is fine, it is your view. But please understand, that if Christianity is not true. Then it is just one more false belief system.

It should be noted, I think, that Christianity has more pretenders that any other claimed faith system.

pancreasman
01-19-2015, 05:20 PM
That is fine, it is your view. But please understand, that if Christianity is not true. Then it is just one more false belief system.

It should be noted, I think, that Christianity has more pretenders that any other claimed faith system.

Pretenders? What do you mean by this?

NormATive
01-19-2015, 05:46 PM
That is fine, it is your view. But please understand, that if Christianity is not true. Then it is just one more false belief system.

I don't think it is a matter of whether or not it is "true." What is important is how beneficial it is to all concerned.


It should be noted, I think, that Christianity has more pretenders that any other claimed faith system.

What do you mean?

NORM

Tassman
01-20-2015, 02:39 AM
Again, whether or not it is speculation isn't really my point. My point is that Christians can, and sometimes do hold a view that is like this. Concerning Historical Creationism itself, Sailhamer has a few chapters devoted to the story that "has been understood for most of Judeo/Christian history". He argues that the story that you're probably most commonly aware of finds its roots in Hellenism, and he lays out an (in my opinion) convincing argument for how that came about.

Nevertheless, according to your synopsis of Sailhamer, Adam and Eve were not the first created humans (despite what appears to be the intent of the authors), but merely “the first humans who’d been uniquely created in the image of God”, i.e. his elect, living amongst possibly millions of other Homo sapiens who weren't so favoured. But, presumably, ALL were nevertheless descended from the same common ancestor. I note that neither you nor Sailhamer can say at what point in history this extraordinary event occurred, just that, according to Genesis it did.

And the great flood? Why did God wipe out the majority of humanity who had NOT been uniquely created by Him in his own image? It wasn't their fault that God bypassed them in the "made in God's image" stakes. He saved the innocent animals on the ark but let the rest of humanity drown. Frankly, I don’t think this interpretation holds up very well.


Neither am I, and I'd argue neither are a lot of Christians. Again, though, I realize attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless.

I know of no substantiated evidence that your beliefs in Christianity are true so I guess I’m not among the elect of God. Hence it is indeed "fruitless" to convince me otherwise. :sigh:


Sailhamer argues that the Genesis narrative was intended by its author to be taken historically. Of course, whether or not we take it historically is another matter, and for many Christians that starts with their acceptance of Christ. As a specialist in the Old Testament, though, Sailhamer doesn't have a lot to say on the effects of the Atonement.

Most certainly! Whether or not we take it historically is indeed another matter. But why should the acceptance of Christ make any difference to the factuality or otherwise of an historical event?

Adrift
01-20-2015, 05:30 AM
Nevertheless, according to your synopsis of Sailhamer, Adam and Eve were not the first created humans (despite what appears to be the intent of the authors), but merely “the first humans who’d been uniquely created in the image of God”, i.e. his elect, living amongst possibly millions of other Homo sapiens who weren't so favoured. But, presumably, ALL were nevertheless descended from the same common ancestor.

No, that's not quite accurate. Sailhamer does hold that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but (I believe) this view can be modified slightly and not greatly affect his overall interpretive point that the Genesis narrative (taken literally) does not describe the creation of the entire earth, rather it describes the preparation of the Promised Land.


I note that neither you nor Sailhamer can say at what point in history this extraordinary event occurred, just that, according to Genesis it did.

You note correctly.


And the great flood? Why did God wipe out the majority of humanity who had NOT been uniquely created by Him in his own image? It wasn't their fault that God bypassed them in the "made in God's image" stakes. He saved the innocent animals on the ark but let the rest of humanity drown.

I can't remember if Sailhamer deals with the flood much in Genesis Unbound, but as you know many Christians hold to a local flood event. If I'm remembering correctly, Sailhamer leaves open the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his Genesis commentaries, and of course, it accords with his view of a local creation narrative. I believe John Walton discusses the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his commentaries as well, and Sailhamer seems to have high regard for his work.


Frankly, I don’t think this interpretation holds up very well.

That's fine. I don't imagine any interpretation of the Genesis narrative will impress you much.


I know of no substantiated evidence that your beliefs in Christianity are true so I guess I’m not among the elect of God. Hence it is indeed "fruitless" to convince me otherwise. :sigh:

Yes, I understand quite well that that is the view that you hold.


Most certainly! Whether or not we take it historically is indeed another matter. But why should the acceptance of Christ make any difference to the factuality or otherwise of an historical event?

A lot of Christians hold to a top down or spider-web view concerning their doctrinal beliefs. If one finds it reasonable to believe, based on say, inferential evidence or experience (or both) that a divine being exists, then its plausible that miracles exist. If miracles exist, then one may find the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus acceptable, if one accepts the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then one may accept the Hebrew Bible that predicted his coming, and so on.


Just to reiterate, I am not attempting to convince you that any interpretive view is viable, nor am I interested in going into detail with you about various interpretative models. The only reason I even mentioned alternative views was to suggest that one may hold to a literist interpretation that does not forgo a belief in evolution. A modified version of the Historical Creationist view (essentially theistic evolution with a Historical Creationist backdrop) would fit this interpretive model. It may not be the only one, it may not even be a very good one, but alternative models do exist.

Adrift
01-20-2015, 07:52 AM
Please be specific. I want to know what you consider "badmouthing."

I'm going to go ahead and grant this ridiculous request as though it weren't common knowledge. Note that this a random selection from within just the first 10 pages of your post history.


Christianity is absurd:


The only saving grace for Christianity, I would agree, is indeed Universalism (the preferred theology of realistic religionists everywhere). It rescues the religion from the absurd idea that "only ONE God has the answer, and golly, gee willakers; it just happens to be the one that I believe in!"


Christians are divisive, selfish, greedy and arrogant:


As far as I can tell, the only things most Christians agree on are ones that don't matter to the rest of the world: miracle stories, the trinity, Jesus resurrection and atonement on the cross. What Jesus actually taught, as you suggest in your post, is not really emphasized, or is the subject of such internal argument that these teachings remain impotent. It's all about the afterlife to them. They could give a s**t about us in the here and now - made even more obvious with their embracing of Rush Limbaugh and the political right (at least the majority of T-Webers seem to be so aligned if one peruses the "christian only" threads).

I think this is mostly true of Christians in Western societies. If you go on the Tektroniks website of the T-Web hero and guru, JP Holding, and look through their gloating and boasting of how effectively they've "beaten" Atheists and Agnostics over here on Apologetics, you can get a sense of that. They really could care less about us as people, and that's fine. They think they are just passing through.


Now days, it appears that Christians embrace the Republicans and the worship of gaining and maintaining wealth. They shun the poor (calling them lazy and unproductive), and mock those who feel the Christian mission is to heal the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and come to the aid of the defenseless.


Christians are arbitrarily disobedient and are accused of oversimplification and obsessive behavior:


Christians grossly oversimplify what Jews call "obeying the Law." The deeper meaning is living one's life in obedience to G-d, which includes ALL of the Law. And, of course, the Christian Testament tells Christians that it is OK to break the Law - they were intentionally moving away from the Jewish faith.

It really is that simple. Notice that all the Christian apologists are quoting the Christian Testament when justifying their arbitrary disobedience to G-d's Law. And the references in the Tanakh that they suppose are referring to the so-called New Covenant, are merely referring to a hoped-for unification of a divided kingdom.

I really struggle with this obsession of Christians to prove that they are just as Jewish as anyone in the Kosher community. They have their own religion. Why do they need to take over Judaism as well?


Christianity is unevolved/outdated:


For the majority of Jewish folks, this question has already been exhausted. The minority hold out hope for a fully human Messiah with big ideas, mostly around the notion of setting up some kind of theocracy. The rest have come to realize that G-d is an enabler, allowing us to realize our full potential as secular human beings. We have the power within us to affect change in our world.

I think Christians should evolve to this next level, but I won't hold my breath.


Christians are deceived and blasphemous heretics:


Christians have been deceived into thinking that they worship the G-d of the Tanakh, but that is clearly not the case. They worship Jesus of Galilee. Just peruse any Christian hymnal, and you will see 90 percent of the songs are directed toward Jesus, not G-d. Before nearly every Christian worship service, some sort of creed vowing allegiance to Jesus is recited.

In our services, we sing the Psalms in Hebrew (G-d's language).

I know that they think the manufactured mechanism of the so-called Holy Trinity ameliorates the blasphemy of worshiping a false god, but according to my sources, G-d is not fooled.


Men wrote the Christian Testament. You are merely deceived into believing that they are "inspired," but it doesn't change the fact that mere mortals wrote your scriptures.

On the other hand, G-d wrote the Pentateuch.


The Christian heresy has deceived and shielded your mind from the Truth.


Nevertheless, the Christian understanding is a reinterpretation of Jewish beliefs. The Jewish feasts were given to us by G-d for OUR edification and the pedagogy of our youth, not to foretell future events - particularly blasphemous events.


Christians are wantonly disobedient:


At any rate, most Christians I know wantonly disobey even these moral laws (idolatry, sexual purity and the prohibition of eating non-Kosher prepared meats are the biggest ones).


Christianity does not concern itself with doing what G-d wants.


Christians make Jihad:


If you want to believe that posting nonsense on an Internet forum is preaching the Gospel, then more power to you. I get it. Preaching in the real world is dangerous and hard.

Like I said; it makes me less afraid, because it is one less Christian making jihad.


Christians cherry pick the Bible to suit their lifestyles:


You should understand that the Pentacostal Church (which is the Christian group who discipled me) does not believe in trying to understand the context of the times or any number of the exegetical gymnastics modern Christians use these days to arrange Christianity to suit their liferstyles.


As far as I'm concerned, I simply disagree that Christianity is the only true religion, that it has incorrectly redefined Judaism, and that taking any religion too seriously can be dangerous. I also think that by viewing the scriptures (any scriptures) as literal history rather than human, moral writings and parables distorts the nature of the original intent. I try to bring these things up with thoughtful dialogue, but inevitably, you (and those of your ilk) attack me personally rather than address the content of my posts.

You don't simply disagree with Christianity. As the quotes above indicate, you have a particularly hostile view of Christianity. And its of course untrue that I and those of my ilk (whoever those might be) do nothing but attack you personally rather than address the content of your posts. I don't even care that much that you hold a hostile view of Christianity, its the hypocrisy I can't stand.


And, BTW, I've critiqued Judaism equally to Christianity.

:lol: No you haven't. Occasionally you have something negative to say about more fundamentalist strains of Judaism, but that's relatively rare.


I do not "[identify] with Judaism, and other times non-theism,"

Oh yes you do! The quotes above even demonstrate that. You have a habit of talking about Jewish religious beliefs as though you yourself hold them, but then shed those same beliefs when its convenient, and I'm not the only one who's mentioned this to you.


I am Jewish by birth, so, it's more of a roots thing than a religious choice. I don't accept any supernatural nonsense - Jewish, Islamic, Christian or otherwise.


So what? A lot of people are part Jewish. Heck, I'm part Jewish (a very small part, but a part nonetheless), you don't see me saying things like "we Jews believe this" or "we Jews believe that".


I think that you just can't deal with the content of my posts, hence, the personal attack. I'm used to it, so it doesn't really bother me.

I've dealt with the content of your posts on many occasions.


PS - Looking at random posts of yours since the forum's relaunch, just about every single one of your posts on this forum has the tone that Atheism and Agnosticism is wrong, outdated, that it leads to doing evil, committing abuse, and instilling fear and guilt.

You're like, what, 50? and your best rebuttal is "I know you are but what am I?" I jumped through your hoops, now its your turn to jump through mine. Show me my worse atheist/agnostic badmouthing posts.

NormATive
01-20-2015, 01:47 PM
I'm going to go ahead and grant this ridiculous request as though it weren't common knowledge. Note that this a random selection from within just the first 10 pages of your post history.

Well, I guess I set myself up for that one. Nice try, though.

You've pulled all of these out of the context of the conversation (such as when I am comparing the Jewish view to the Christian view on the Tanakh, for example. I maintain that Christians interpret the Jewish scriptures incorrectly from a Jewish perspective). I've also maintained CONSISTENTLY that Christianity is a complete religion as is Judaism, and that the God of Christianity is different from the G-d of Judaism. No one has successfully refuted that.

Nevertheless, none of what you just posted shows "badmouthing" as you claim. And, if one goes back to those posts you cherry-picked, one can see that the arguments weren't refuted -they were turned into an attack on me personally (like calling me a hypocrite).

I'll admit, I got pretty heated with Seer in the exchange that begins "As far as I can tell, the only things Christians agree on..." But, if you look at the entirety of that thread, you will see that he was dishing it out just as hard. I said some things that I shouldn't have said out of anger. I even apologized toward the end of the thread, I believe. But, you will never, ever, ever see me calling someone a name like stupid, idiot, moron, and etc. that some of the most popular Christians on T-Web use with frequency. BTW, I know that you don't do that, Adrift. At least, I have not seen it.

I find the philosophy of Judaism compelling, and I've spent enough time in Shul and with a one on one relationship with our local Rabbi, that I have a deep respect for those folks. They took me in without condemnation (which I can't say for my Christian experience), and helped me flesh out my spiritual crisis after some personal tragedy in my life. So, yeah. I may have a bit of hostility toward a certain mindset within Christianity, but certainly not all of Christianity. I have many dear, dear friends who are Christians. However, I cannot share my inner thoughts with many of them, for fear of losing them as friends.

I really would like to go through each one of those snippets you pulled out of context, but I just don't have the time right now. I am under pressure to get a manuscript to the publishers.

NORM

Jedidiah
01-20-2015, 05:09 PM
Yeah! I don't think anyone thinks God created horses, zebras, and donkeys separately! Or created dogs, wolves, and coyotes separately!I do. Well not dog and wolves, they are one species (not sure about coyotes, I suspect they are part of the same species). I believe all the millions of species, either in existence or in the fossil record, were fiat creations of God.

rogue06
01-20-2015, 05:23 PM
I do. Well not dog and wolves, they are one species (not sure about coyotes, I suspect they are part of the same species). I believe all the millions of species, either in existence or in the fossil record, were fiat creations of God.
The Gray wolf's binomial name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature) is Canis lupis. The domestic dog is Canis lupus familiaris meaning that they are a sub-species of gray wolves. A different wolf, the Red wolf is Canis rufus, which some hold is a subspecies (Canis lupus rufus) while many others think that they are separate species. A coyote is Canis latrans and a separate species from wolves/dogs.

They are all still closely enough related that they can interbreed. A particularly troublesome crossbreed is the so-called "coywolf." Thanks to hunting and deforestation in the eastern portion of North America the native wolf population was driven to near extinction. This allowed the smaller but more versatile coyotes to start moving into the area.

Since the two canines can breed and the result was that a hybrid starting to appear that was part coyote and part wolf that has wolf's tendency towards pack hunting and predation (although the packs seem to be smaller) and the coyote's lack of fear of human-developed areas. That makes for a dangerous combination.

Genetic tests reveal that the new species known as the coywolf or eastern coyote has a majority of coyote ancestry and is thriving in the Northeast. The rest comes from the gray wolf, though occasionally red wolf, and even a bit of dog genes.

The same thing appears to be starting to happen in northern Mexico (the first coywolf in the northeastern part of North America was identified in 1918) and may even be behind some of the reports of "chupacabras."


http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/nature/files/2014/01/nature.coyowolf.v5.png


Genetic Characterization of Eastern Coyotes in Eastern Massachusetts (http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/downloads/GeneticsOfEasternCoywolfFinalInPrint.pdf) Pdf

lilpixieofterror
01-20-2015, 07:17 PM
I'm going to go ahead and grant this ridiculous request as though it weren't common knowledge. Note that this a random selection from within just the first 10 pages of your post history.

Good job, but you're wasting your breath. Norm doesn't admit to errors, being wrong, or making mistakes. He hates Christians and Christianity and will expose this hate he holds, while claiming he has none. Shoot, he accused RTT and myself of being 'lukewarm Christians' because we make post here on tWeb (he also says stuff about Christians plotting jihad, while saying he's writing a 'book about religious extremism'). Here is a pretty darn funny statement he made to add to your list:


Well, we weren't talking about those situations, but one can make good arguments that the first world war was fought to keep Islamic powers from gaining ground in Europe. And WWII was not without it's Christian Triumphalistic overtones. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler based his Arian superiority claims on certain interpretations of the Bible.

In Norm land, everything can be blamed on Christianity and religion, no matter what! Don't worry though, he'll deny it all and make up something to cover up his bozo errors.

Tassman
01-21-2015, 02:58 AM
No, that's not quite accurate. Sailhamer does hold that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but (I believe) this view can be modified slightly and not greatly affect his overall interpretive point that the Genesis narrative (taken literally) does not describe the creation of the entire earth, rather it describes the preparation of the Promised Land.

In you post #123 you argue: “I'm not positing that Adam and Eve are the first humans ever, or that they existed 200,000 years ago, or that they were created in the African Savannah, rather they were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God, created sometime in the distant past, within the promised land, and that their descendants intermingled with other not-so-uniquely created humans.”

So what are you (and Sailhamer) seem to be saying is that Adam and Eve were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God – as opposed the (possibly millions) of Homo sapiens already in existence that were bypassed. Is that it? And I’m guessing that the soul was inserted at this point as a part of the being "made in the image of God" bit. Frankly, I think this is rather tortuous conjecture based upon no evidence whatsoever and seems little more than an attempt by inerrancists to rationalize the Genesis narratives in the light of the undoubted facts of evolution.


You note correctly.

OK, but the fact that you say these events could have occurred at any point prior to OT times, during the preceding 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans, renders it a faith-based argument only. Outside of Genesis there's no other evidence to support this view.


I can't remember if Sailhamer deals with the flood much in Genesis Unbound, but as you know many Christians hold to a local flood event. If I'm remembering correctly, Sailhamer leaves open the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his Genesis commentaries, and of course, it accords with his view of a local creation narrative. I believe John Walton discusses the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his commentaries as well, and Sailhamer seems to have high regard for his work.

Certainly the local flood event theory is the only one that holds up. I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable that the ancient Sumerian myths, which form the basis of the Genesis accounts, simply extrapolated from a devastating local flood and in their mind believed that it encompassed the whole world.

Nevertheless, Genesis claims that its divine purpose was to wipe out ungodly humanity (apart from Noah et al) and many of these people presumably consisted of the Homo sapiens NOT made in God’s image and who did not possess a soul. One wonders why they were not saved on the ark along with the other innocent animals.


That's fine. I don't imagine any interpretation of the Genesis narrative will impress you much.

Not so. I’ve already said that an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story is just fine. Like all good poetry it contains some valuable truths about the human condition.


Yes, I understand quite well that that is the view that you hold.

If I’m not among ‘God’s elect’ it is, as you say, quite fruitless to try and convince me otherwise. I'm doomed, thanks be to God. <sarcasm>


A lot of Christians hold to a top down or spider-web view concerning their doctrinal beliefs. If one finds it reasonable to believe, based on say, inferential evidence or experience (or both) that a divine being exists, then its plausible that miracles exist. If miracles exist, then one may find the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus acceptable, if one accepts the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then one may accept the Hebrew Bible that predicted his coming, and so on.

I understand this, but my point is that one is required to accept the unevidenced premise of God’s existence before the rest slots into place.


Just to reiterate, I am not attempting to convince you that any interpretive view is viable, nor am I interested in going into detail with you about various interpretative models. The only reason I even mentioned alternative views was to suggest that one may hold to a literist interpretation that does not forgo a belief in evolution. A modified version of the Historical Creationist view (essentially theistic evolution with a Historical Creationist backdrop) would fit this interpretive model. It may not be the only one, it may not even be a very good one, but alternative models do exist.

Fair enough. Although you will not be astonished that I do not find these alternative models convincing. But at least they take evolution into account which is a good start.

seer
01-21-2015, 06:04 AM
Genetic tests reveal that the new species known as the coywolf or eastern coyote has a majority of coyote ancestry and is thriving in the Northeast. The rest comes from the gray wolf, though occasionally red wolf, and even a bit of dog genes.

I came face to face with two of these bad boys in the woods a couple of years back. Nice looking animal.

Adrift
01-21-2015, 06:27 AM
In you post #123 you argue: “I'm not positing that Adam and Eve are the first humans ever, or that they existed 200,000 years ago, or that they were created in the African Savannah, rather they were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God, created sometime in the distant past, within the promised land, and that their descendants intermingled with other not-so-uniquely created humans.”

So what are you (and Sailhamer) seem to be saying is that Adam and Eve were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God – as opposed the (possibly millions) of Homo sapiens already in existence that were bypassed. Is that it?

Well, Sailhamer doesn't say that, but I believe something like that is feasible from the Christian perspective, and can be worked into Sailhamer's model. Instead of asking me over and over again what Historical Creationism posits, here is the link (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land) that Whag posted earlier that pretty much goes into it in full. Once you've read that link, you can read this brief article (http://biologos.org/blog/creation-evolution-and-christian-laypeople-part-6) by Tim Keller at the Biologos website discussing a model proposed by Derek Kidner. Though Sailhamer believes that Adam and Eve are the first humans, it seems to me (and others apparently agree) that one could harmonize something like Derek Kidner's model with Sailhamer's model without doing much harm.


And I’m guessing that the soul was inserted at this point as a part of the being "made in the image of God" bit.

Eh, sort of. For a discussion about the possible distinctions between body, soul, and spirit you may want to read this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4947-What-constitutes-a-person&highlight=body+soul+spirit


Frankly, I think this is rather tortuous conjecture based upon no evidence whatsoever and seems little more than an attempt by inerrancists to rationalize the Genesis narratives in the light of the undoubted facts of evolution.

Yes, I realized that this was likely your opinion from the start. Thankfully no one is asking you to accept it, so there really isn't any need to continue repeating yourself.


OK, but the fact that you say these events could have occurred at any point prior to OT times, during the preceding 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans, renders it a faith-based argument only. Outside of Genesis there's no other evidence to support this view.

Right. As Kidner puts it, his model is an “exploratory suggestion…only tentative, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis.”. Though, separate from Kidner's view, I do believe that Sailhamer's interpretation of Genesis is an accurate account of what the author intended his audience to understand (based on Sailhamer's expertise of the Hebrew language and culture). Of course, there are other opinions on that matter. And also, it goes without saying that just because Genesis' author intended the narrative to be understood a certain way it does not follow that one will agree with his narrative. I wouldn't expect an unbeliever to accept the Genesis narrative no matter the interpretation.



Nevertheless, Genesis claims that its divine purpose was to wipe out ungodly humanity (apart from Noah et al) and many of these people presumably consisted of the Homo sapiens NOT made in God’s image and who did not possess a soul. One wonders why they were not saved on the ark along with the other innocent animals.


One may wonder that regardless of the interpretation laid out before you. That's a discussion for another thread and another poster though.



Not so. I’ve already said that an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story is just fine. Like all good poetry it contains some valuable truths about the human condition.


Oh, well I stand corrected then.



If I’m not among ‘God’s elect’ it is, as you say, quite fruitless to try and convince me otherwise. I'm doomed, thanks be to God. <sarcasm>


The great thing about Christianity is that its not a closed club. All are invited to make Jesus Lord. Romans 10:9-10 lays out the basics. That doesn't really have anything to do with what we've been discussing here though.



I understand this, but my point is that one is required to accept the unevidenced premise of God’s existence before the rest slots into place.


I guess that depends on what you consider evidence. As you know, there have been many books written on the evidence for God's existence (Scaling the Secular City, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Analytic Theist, The Existence of God, etc.). Whether or not you consider the available evidence convincing is another matter entirely.


Fair enough. Although you will not be astonished that I do not find these alternative models convincing. But at least they take evolution into account which is a good start.

Right. I think we've firmly established your view of these alternative models.

whag
01-21-2015, 04:57 PM
Yes, I realized that this was likely your opinion from the start. Thankfully no one is asking you to accept it, so there really isn't any need to continue repeating yourself.

I like this because it encapsulates a primary annoyance of talking about one's teleology. Belief always being subject to ridicule and mockery, particularly of the Christian kind which advocates a forward evangelistic posture, the believer must endure the constantly defensive posture of the skeptical "protagonist" saying he can't connect with that particular interpretation. If I were a believer, I would hate if people assumed I'm selling the belief to them by simply linking to it.

Adrift
01-21-2015, 05:33 PM
I like this because it encapsulates a primary annoyance of talking about one's teleology. Belief always being subject to ridicule and mockery, particularly of the Christian kind which advocates a forward evangelistic posture, the believer must endure the constantly defensive posture of the skeptical "protagonist" saying he can't connect with that particular interpretation. If I were a believer, I would hate if people assumed I'm selling the belief to them by simply linking to it.

I don't know about all that, but your post reminds me of this scene, cept ironically the Drill Instructor is the skeptic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk

Tassman
01-22-2015, 02:27 AM
Well, Sailhamer doesn't say that, but I believe something like that is feasible from the Christian perspective, and can be worked into Sailhamer's model. Instead of asking me over and over again what Historical Creationism posits, here is the link (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land) that Whag posted earlier that pretty much goes into it in full. Once you've read that link, you can read this brief article (http://biologos.org/blog/creation-evolution-and-christian-laypeople-part-6) by Tim Keller at the Biologos website discussing a model proposed by Derek Kidner. Though Sailhamer believes that Adam and Eve are the first humans, it seems to me (and others apparently agree) that one could harmonize something like Derek Kidner's model with Sailhamer's model without doing much harm.

Nevertheless Tim Keller’s case is based upon special pleading – as when he argues:

“Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less….The intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…

Pure conjecture, all of it!


Eh, sort of. For a discussion about the possible distinctions between body, soul, and spirit you may want to read this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4947-What-constitutes-a-person&highlight=body+soul+spirit

I know of no reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. Or indeed what could form the nexus between the material and non-material components of a human being if they were so divided.


Yes, I realized that this was likely your opinion from the start. Thankfully no one is asking you to accept it, so there really isn't any need to continue repeating yourself.

Well you’re the one presenting the evidence, as you see it, so presumably you are trying to make a convincing case regardless of whether or not I will ‘buy’ it.


Right. As Kidner puts it, his model is an “exploratory suggestion…only tentative, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis.”. Though, separate from Kidner's view, I do believe that Sailhamer's interpretation of Genesis is an accurate account of what the author intended his audience to understand (based on Sailhamer's expertise of the Hebrew language and culture). Of course, there are other opinions on that matter. And also, it goes without saying that just because Genesis' author intended the narrative to be understood a certain way it does not follow that one will agree with his narrative. I wouldn't expect an unbeliever to accept the Genesis narrative no matter the interpretation.

So, again, one must be a believer before one can make sense of any form of literal interpretation of Genesis. But then, once one is a believer, anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith. A somewhat circular argument don’t you think?


One may wonder that regardless of the interpretation laid out before you. That's a discussion for another thread and another poster though.

Not really. If you are going to argue that among the millions of Homo sapiens existing over c.200,000 years, the only true humans are the relative few whom God breathed life into (thus transforming them into God’s image), the question left dangling is what about the rest of humanity in the general scheme of things?


Oh, well I stand corrected then.

OK! In fact I think allegory works very well for the whole of the Jesus story - so long as one is not expected to actually believe it.


The great thing about Christianity is that its not a closed club. All are invited to make Jesus Lord. Romans 10:9-10 lays out the basics. That doesn't really have anything to do with what we've been discussing here though.

…other than your repeated refrain: “attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless". Because, as a Protestant (I’m assuming you are) you believe that grace is given by God based on the faith of the believer. But the faith of the believer can only be granted by God’s grace. So, we’re back to the circular arguments.


I guess that depends on what you consider evidence. As you know, there have been many books written on the evidence for God's existence (Scaling the Secular City, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Analytic Theist, The Existence of God, etc.). Whether or not you consider the available evidence convincing is another matter entirely.

Despite the welter of written material in favour of the philosophical model that God exists the fact is that (divine inspiration aside) the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today, so using the Bible - and biblical hermeneutics – as evidence for the existence of God is simply at bottom, restating the assertion that God exists. In short, no good evidence at all merely a faith-based belief.


Right. I think we've firmly established your view of these alternative models.

Good! They’re tortuous and unconvincing.

seer
01-22-2015, 05:09 AM
I don't know about all that, but your post reminds me of this scene, cept ironically the Drill Instructor is the skeptic.

Hehe, love that movie. The most realistic view of boot camp I have seen, with some great pointers on evangelizing! :teeth:

Adrift
01-22-2015, 05:52 AM
Nevertheless Tim Keller’s case is based upon special pleading – as when he argues:

“Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less….The intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…

Pure conjecture, all of it!

1st of all, that's not Tim Keller's case, that's Derek Kidner's case. 2nd of all, Kidner is making this remark from a scriptural point of view, this is how it is (or how it seems to him) "in Scripture". 3rd of all, for the thousandth time, I KNOW YOU THINK IT'S ALL CONJECTURE. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU TO ACCEPT IT. I'm sharing this with you purely to make the case that such views do exist. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you keep constantly telling me that you think its all made up when I know that's what you think? I knew you were going to think that before I even shared it with you. You're not telling me anything new.


I know of no reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. Or indeed what could form the nexus between the material and non-material components of a human being if they were so divided.

Tassman. Hey buddy. Read the words I'm typing. THAT'S OK. No one is asking you if you have a reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. If your motivation for continuing to post is to find some way to get me to argue with you, its not going to happen. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, what to believe, or even that the views I'm sharing with you are right. All I'm doing is relaying an alternative point of view that you may not be familiar with. I'm in no way whatsoever trying to win you over. At all. Period.


Well you’re the one presenting the evidence, as you see it, so presumably you are trying to make a convincing case regardless of whether or not I will ‘buy’ it.

No. I'm not. This is neither "evidence" nor "as I see it". This is just an alternative view that I know of. I think a lot of it makes good "food for thought" for the believer, but I'm not 100% sold on it. So, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've never suffered from any delusions that I could convince you of anything.


So, again, one must be a believer before one can make sense of any form of literal interpretation of Genesis. But then, once one is a believer, anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith. A somewhat circular argument don’t you think?

Well, no. I don't think its true that once you're a believer anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith.


Not really. If you are going to argue that among the millions of Homo sapiens existing over c.200,000 years, the only true humans are the relative few whom God breathed life into (thus transforming them into God’s image), the question left dangling is what about the rest of humanity in the general scheme of things?

Well, first of all, no one is arguing anything here; simply positing a view. Second of all, if you read the Keller/Kidner article, one view is that after the creation of Eve, God's image is conferred on Adam's collaterals. Third, if one were to hold to a local flood I imagine that wouldn't affect the rest of humanity. Fourth, I still don't see the difference between holding this view or a more well known view when it comes to the destruction of humanity. Regardless of what view the theists holds on this matter, it seems to me that in your view it'd still be an issue.


OK! In fact I think allegory works very well for the whole of the Jesus story - so long as one is not expected to actually believe it.

Ok. Well, whatever you want to believe. That's great.


…other than your repeated refrain: “attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless". Because, as a Protestant (I’m assuming you are) you believe that grace is given by God based on the faith of the believer. But the faith of the believer can only be granted by God’s grace. So, we’re back to the circular arguments.

That's not my view, but, sure, whatever you want to think.


Despite the welter of written material in favour of the philosophical model that God exists the fact is that (divine inspiration aside) the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today,

If you say so.


so using the Bible - and biblical hermeneutics – as evidence for the existence of God is simply at bottom, restating the assertion that God exists.

Agreed. That would be terribly circular. That's why so many apologetic works employ natural theology.


In short, no good evidence at all merely a faith-based belief.

I recognize that that's the view that you hold.


Good! They’re tortuous and unconvincing.

Message received, loud and clear.

Adrift
01-22-2015, 05:55 AM
Hehe, love that movie. The most realistic view of boot camp I have seen, with some great pointers on evangelizing! :teeth:

They weren't quite that insane when I was in boot camp, but then again I was in the Airforce in the late 90s, so we had it easy in comparison.

seer
01-22-2015, 06:36 AM
They weren't quite that insane when I was in boot camp, but then again I was in the Airforce in the late 90s, so we had it easy in comparison.

No, that was USMC boot camp in the late sixties and early seventies. I was beaten with one of the M14 rifles you see in the video, I was knocked unconscious with kidney punches, and generally beaten a number of other times, including being chocked like in the movie. And I was not the exception. Never mind the "code reds" or "blanket parties" again like in the movie. After some investigation I believe our boot camp experience in those years was an aberration. The Vietnam combat vets that were our DIs were a bit on the sadistic side. In my series (four platoons) 5 recruits died. One from my state.

Adrift
01-22-2015, 07:05 AM
No, that was USMC boot camp in the late sixties and early seventies. I was beaten with one of the M14 rifles you see in the video, I was knocked unconscious with kidney punches, and generally beaten a number of other times, including being chocked like in the movie. And I was not the exception. Never mind the "code reds" or "blanket parties" again like in the movie. After some investigation I believe our boot camp experience in those years was an aberration. The Vietnam combat vets that were our DIs were a bit on the sadistic side. In my series (four platoons) 5 recruits died. One from my state.

That's terrible.

seer
01-22-2015, 07:40 AM
That's terrible.

Well, the death of the recruits was horrible, as far as the rest of it, I wouldn't have changed a thing. It most definitely made me stronger.

whag
01-22-2015, 08:04 AM
Nevertheless Tim Keller’s case is based upon special pleading – as when he argues:

“Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less….The intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…

Pure conjecture, all of it!



I know of no reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. Or indeed what could form the nexus between the material and non-material components of a human being if they were so divided.



Well you’re the one presenting the evidence, as you see it, so presumably you are trying to make a convincing case regardless of whether or not I will ‘buy’ it.



So, again, one must be a believer before one can make sense of any form of literal interpretation of Genesis. But then, once one is a believer, anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith. A somewhat circular argument don’t you think?



Not really. If you are going to argue that among the millions of Homo sapiens existing over c.200,000 years, the only true humans are the relative few whom God breathed life into (thus transforming them into God’s image), the question left dangling is what about the rest of humanity in the general scheme of things?



OK! In fact I think allegory works very well for the whole of the Jesus story - so long as one is not expected to actually believe it.



…other than your repeated refrain: “attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless". Because, as a Protestant (I’m assuming you are) you believe that grace is given by God based on the faith of the believer. But the faith of the believer can only be granted by God’s grace. So, we’re back to the circular arguments.



Despite the welter of written material in favour of the philosophical model that God exists the fact is that (divine inspiration aside) the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today, so using the Bible - and biblical hermeneutics – as evidence for the existence of God is simply at bottom, restating the assertion that God exists. In short, no good evidence at all merely a faith-based belief.



Good! They’re tortuous and unconvincing.

Tass, I don't get the impression he's trying to sell it to you. The view we linked to is about the preparation of the promised land. That's not something a skeptic would normally relate to or find convincing, anyhow.

whag
01-22-2015, 08:12 AM
Nevertheless Tim Keller’s case is based upon special pleading – as when he argues:

“Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less….The intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…

Pure conjecture, all of it!



I know of no reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. Or indeed what could form the nexus between the material and non-material components of a human being if they were so divided.



Well you’re the one presenting the evidence, as you see it, so presumably you are trying to make a convincing case regardless of whether or not I will ‘buy’ it.



So, again, one must be a believer before one can make sense of any form of literal interpretation of Genesis. But then, once one is a believer, anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith. A somewhat circular argument don’t you think?



Not really. If you are going to argue that among the millions of Homo sapiens existing over c.200,000 years, the only true humans are the relative few whom God breathed life into (thus transforming them into God’s image), the question left dangling is what about the rest of humanity in the general scheme of things?



OK! In fact I think allegory works very well for the whole of the Jesus story - so long as one is not expected to actually believe it.



…other than your repeated refrain: “attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless". Because, as a Protestant (I’m assuming you are) you believe that grace is given by God based on the faith of the believer. But the faith of the believer can only be granted by God’s grace. So, we’re back to the circular arguments.



Despite the welter of written material in favour of the philosophical model that God exists the fact is that (divine inspiration aside) the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today, so using the Bible - and biblical hermeneutics – as evidence for the existence of God is simply at bottom, restating the assertion that God exists. In short, no good evidence at all merely a faith-based belief.



Good! They’re tortuous and unconvincing.

Tass, I don't get the impression he's trying to sell it to you. The view we linked to is about the preparation of the promised land. That's not something a skeptic would normally relate to or find convincing, anyhow.

37818
01-22-2015, 08:19 PM
Pretenders? What do you mean by this?There are more fake Christians than not. Not that those people are not sincere. Just deceived.



In the words of Jesus, ". . . Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: . . . " -- Matthew 7:21-23.

The Apostle Paul writes, ". . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." -- 2 Corinthians 3:3, 4.
". . . But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]. . . . For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. -- [I]2 Corinthians 11:3, 4, . . . 13-15.

Yet the truth is simple, God sent His Son to take our guilt upon Himself. And the evidence being the claim He was risen from the dead. Showing that He was both the Son of God [Lord GOD] and the Christ. And all one needs to do is find out that this is really true. And God promises, ". . . for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." -- Jeremiah 31:[31-] 34.

The pretenders are there to prevent the finding out that it is really true.

whag
01-22-2015, 08:32 PM
The pretenders are there to prevent the finding out that it is really true.

Pretenders have that motive?

Tassman
01-23-2015, 01:53 AM
1st of all, that's not Tim Keller's case, that's Derek Kidner's case. 2nd of all, Kidner is making this remark from a scriptural point of view, this is how it is (or how it seems to him) "in Scripture". 3rd of all, for the thousandth time, I KNOW YOU THINK IT'S ALL CONJECTURE. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU TO ACCEPT IT. I'm sharing this with you purely to make the case that such views do exist. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you keep constantly telling me that you think its all made up when I know that's what you think? I knew you were going to think that before I even shared it with you. You're not telling me anything new.

The point is that such views need to exist because the original creation narratives simply do not hold up in the face of the consensus view of scientists in relevant fields that the Age of the Earth and the solar system is roughly 4.54 billion years and the age of anatomically modern humans is c.200,000 years. Furthermore, you yourself acknowledge further on that you’re not 100% sold on the alternative scenario either.


Tassman. Hey buddy. Read the words I'm typing. THAT'S OK. No one is asking you if you have a reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. If your motivation for continuing to post is to find some way to get me to argue with you, its not going to happen. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, what to believe, or even that the views I'm sharing with you are right. All I'm doing is relaying an alternative point of view that you may not be familiar with. I'm in no way whatsoever trying to win you over. At all. Period.

My response was based upon your statement re the “possible distinctions between body, soul, and spirit”. If you do not believe in such a distinction then why mention it? If you do then I’m entitled to comment upon it. There is no good reason to posit a notion of the material body having a non-material component commonly referred to as the soul. There’s no good evidence for the existence of a “soul’, nor is there a possible nexus, i.e. point of contact, between the material body and non-material soul.


No. I'm not. This is neither "evidence" nor "as I see it". This is just an alternative view that I know of. I think a lot of it makes good "food for thought" for the believer, but I'm not 100% sold on it. So, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've never suffered from any delusions that I could convince you of anything.

Well it’s an "alternative view” that raises more questions than it answers.


Well, no. I don't think its true that once you're a believer anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith.

It does with reference to making sense of any form of literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives, which was my point.


Well, first of all, no one is arguing anything here; simply positing a view.

What’s being argued is presented as a viable alternative to the clearly unsatisfactory scenario of planet Earth, Adam and Eve and all the animals etc being created c. 6,000 years ago.


Second of all, if you read the Keller/Kidner article, one view is that after the creation of Eve, God's image is conferred on Adam's collaterals.

This conjecture does not provide a satisfactory explanation of the fate of the great majority of people who do NOT have ‘Image of God’ status. Or don’t they matter.


Third, if one were to hold to a local flood I imagine that wouldn't affect the rest of humanity. Fourth, I still don't see the difference between holding this view or a more well known view when it comes to the destruction of humanity. Regardless of what view the theists holds on this matter, it seems to me that in your view it'd still be an issue.

The issue is one of consistency. Either God saw that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and that he “will destroy them all with the earth” or he didn’t. There is no qualification in the Genesis story - mankind turned against God and he punished all them with the exception of Russell Crowe et al in the ark. :wink:


If you say so.

Do you disagree that the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today, why?


Agreed. That would be terribly circular. That's why so many apologetic works employ natural theology.

Natural Theology is basically the argument that the appearance of design indicates the existence of a designer. However this view doesn't take into account evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Nor does it take into account vestigiality, which involves organs that have lost their original function through evolution - unless you’re arguing that the Intelligent Designer created life on a trial-and-error basis. I suppose that would account for 99% of all life now being extinct over the course of five mass extinctions on Earth.


Tass, I don't get the impression he's trying to sell it to you. The view we linked to is about the preparation of the promised land. That's not something a skeptic would normally relate to or find convincing, anyhow.

Maybe so! But if the issue is being raised by Adrift then it's reasonable that he expect a response - otherwise why raise it at all?

Adrift
01-23-2015, 05:47 AM
The point is that such views need to exist because the original creation narratives simply do not hold up in the face of the consensus view of scientists in relevant fields that the Age of the Earth and the solar system is roughly 4.54 billion years and the age of anatomically modern humans is c.200,000 years. Furthermore, you yourself acknowledge further on that you’re not 100% sold on the alternative scenario either.



My response was based upon your statement re the “possible distinctions between body, soul, and spirit”. If you do not believe in such a distinction then why mention it? If you do then I’m entitled to comment upon it. There is no good reason to posit a notion of the material body having a non-material component commonly referred to as the soul. There’s no good evidence for the existence of a “soul’, nor is there a possible nexus, i.e. point of contact, between the material body and non-material soul.



Well it’s an "alternative view” that raises more questions than it answers.



It does with reference to making sense of any form of literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives, which was my point.



What’s being argued is presented as a viable alternative to the clearly unsatisfactory scenario of planet Earth, Adam and Eve and all the animals etc being created c. 6,000 years ago.



This conjecture does not provide a satisfactory explanation of the fate of the great majority of people who do NOT have ‘Image of God’ status. Or don’t they matter.



The issue is one of consistency. Either God saw that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and that he “will destroy them all with the earth” or he didn’t. There is no qualification in the Genesis story - mankind turned against God and he punished all them with the exception of Russell Crowe et al in the ark. :wink:



Do you disagree that the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today, why?



Natural Theology is basically the argument that the appearance of design indicates the existence of a designer. However this view doesn't take into account evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Nor does it take into account vestigiality, which involves organs that have lost their original function through evolution - unless you’re arguing that the Intelligent Designer created life on a trial-and-error basis. I suppose that would account for 99% of all life now being extinct over the course of five mass extinctions on Earth.



Maybe so! But if the issue is being raised by Adrift then it's reasonable that he expect a response - otherwise why raise it at all?

Ok, well since you can't seem to get yourself out of battle mode, I think I'm done with this conversation. Its amazing to me that you can't conceive of someone simply presenting a view that they're not arguing for, or attempting to convince others of. Also, I still don't know what you're getting at with the Ark thing. Any view that the literalist holds on that issue is going to be problematic for you. And I think you need to take a closer look into what Natural Theology is, you don't have that quite right.

37818
01-23-2015, 07:58 AM
Pretenders have that motive?
The same type of motives anyone has. The key difference regarding Christian pretenders, for the vast majority of them, they are not knowingly pretending, being actually deceived in their belief.

whag
01-23-2015, 09:25 AM
The same type of motives anyone has. The key difference regarding Christian pretenders, for the vast majority of them, they are not knowingly pretending, being actually deceived in their belief.

Inadvertant pretense (false belief) is indistinguishable from sincere belief. Sister Webb and Sister Porter who work the ward where I live aren't pretending.

37818
01-23-2015, 09:49 AM
Inadvertant pretense (false belief) is indistinguishable from sincere belief. Sister Webb and Sister Porter who work the ward where I live aren't pretending.

That clarification is a better way to state it.

Tassman
01-24-2015, 01:58 AM
Ok, well since you can't seem to get yourself out of battle mode, I think I'm done with this conversation. Its amazing to me that you can't conceive of someone simply presenting a view that they're not arguing for, or attempting to convince others of. Also, I still don't know what you're getting at with the Ark thing. Any view that the literalist holds on that issue is going to be problematic for you. And I think you need to take a closer look into what Natural Theology is, you don't have that quite right.

Apparently you claim the right to present a view but not to defend or discuss it – a rather pointless exercise for a discussion board I would have thought.

By contrast, the view I'm presenting, which you refuse to discuss, is that the Genesis creation narratives do not hold up in the face of the consensus scientific view that the age of the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years and the age of anatomically modern humans is c.200,000 years.

It seems to me that believers are in the position of having to choose between believing the Genesis narratives at face value and accepting the 6,000 year divine fiat scenario, regardless of the wealth of scientific evidence contradicting it.

OR, coming up with tortuous rationalizations, such as your Keller/Kidner approach, in an attempt to harmonize the Genesis story with established scientific knowledge.

OR, accept the incontrovertible scientific evidence which underlies the formation of Earth and the evolution of life and view the Genesis legend as allegory. This is the only viable approach in my view.

whag
01-24-2015, 06:25 AM
Ok, well since you can't seem to get yourself out of battle mode, I think I'm done with this conversation. Its amazing to me that you can't conceive of someone simply presenting a view that they're not arguing for, or attempting to convince others of. Also, I still don't know what you're getting at with the Ark thing. Any view that the literalist holds on that issue is going to be problematic for you. And I think you need to take a closer look into what Natural Theology is, you don't have that quite right.

Tass has the teleological part of natural theology right.

Here's the rest:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

whag
01-24-2015, 06:34 AM
That clarification is a better way to state it.

Isn't it, though? ;)

Sisters Webb and Porter have their stuff together. They're gentle, patient, and persistent.The LDS is making decent progress in this ward, particularly at my apartment complex.

Adrift
01-24-2015, 12:28 PM
Tass has the teleological part of natural theology right.

Here's the rest:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

Tassman said, "Natural Theology is basically the argument that the appearance of design indicates the existence of a designer." That's not quite right. The teleological argument is just one of many in Natural Theology, and teleological arguments are not limited to only those that deal with biological evolution directly (for instance, the fine-tuning of the universe argument).

Other arguments in Natural Theology include various cosmological arguments, the argument from consciousness, the argument from reason, the argument from evil, moral arguments, argument from experience, ontological arguments, and so on and so on.

Adrift
01-24-2015, 12:44 PM
Apparently you claim the right to present a view but not to defend or discuss it – a rather pointless exercise for a discussion board I would have thought.

Of course I claim that right. I imagine that if you believe that anytime someone brings up something you may be unfamiliar with, that that's an opportunity to get into an argument with them, then you probably don't have many friends.


By contrast, the view I'm presenting, which you refuse to discuss, is that the Genesis creation narratives do not hold up in the face of the consensus scientific view that the age of the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years and the age of anatomically modern humans is c.200,000 years.

I already know that that's your view. You're allowed to have that view if you'd like. I'm not standing in your way.


It seems to me that believers are in the position of having to choose between believing the Genesis narratives at face value and accepting the 6,000 year divine fiat scenario, regardless of the wealth of scientific evidence contradicting it.

OR, coming up with tortuous rationalizations, such as your Keller/Kidner approach, in an attempt to harmonize the Genesis story with established scientific knowledge.

OR, accept the incontrovertible scientific evidence which underlies the formation of Earth and the evolution of life and view the Genesis legend as allegory. This is the only viable approach in my view.

Alright, well you're more than welcome to it.

jordanriver
01-24-2015, 02:23 PM
By contrast, the view I'm presenting, which you refuse to discuss, is that the Genesis creation narratives do not hold up in the face of the consensus scientific view that the age of the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years and the age of anatomically modern humans is c.200,000 years.
.

ok, I googled, and in my books found nariokatome boy over a million years, closest to modern humans that is not us,
H heidelbergensis over half a million year, Neanderthals 200,000 but extinct now.......


but

where did you get that exact 200,000 year number

whag
01-24-2015, 03:07 PM
ok, I googled, and in my books found nariokatome boy over a million years, closest to modern humans that is not us,
H heidelbergensis over half a million year, Neanderthals 200,000 but extinct now.......


but

where did you get that exact 200,000 year number

That's why I said the distinction between modern human beings and earlier species is becoming blurred. That makes teleologies that talk about subhuman species being mere material for Adam's spirit to inhabit more than a little absurd.

I always questioned the part about Adam having no childhood and no parents.


A million years ago, our brains were exploding with fear and knowledge. We bested wildebeast--requiring amazing intelligence--yet we worshipped them as well. That's ironic but makes sense, given animism.

Adrift
01-24-2015, 03:41 PM
That makes teleologies that talk about subhuman species being mere material for Adam's spirit to inhabit more than a little absurd.

I'm not aware of this view. Do you have a source?

jordanriver
01-24-2015, 03:46 PM
I always questioned the part about Adam having no childhood and no parents.

.

I bet you question the part about Jesus' resurrection

whag
01-24-2015, 03:58 PM
I'm not aware of this view. Do you have a source?

That'd be the view that the first couple came from hominids. They became the first human couple having been enspirited. Plantinga is a popularizer of this teleology:


"Finally, it certainly seems that there is no conflict between current science and a literal Adam and Eve who fell into sin. Some scientists speak of a bottleneck (perhaps 160,000 to 200,000 years ago) in the line leading to current humans, when the relevant population dwindled to 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. Here’s a possible scenario. At that time God selected a pair of these individuals, bestowing on them a property in virtue of which they are rightly said to be made in the image of God. This pair was wholly innocent, with properly directed affections. Nevertheless, they fell into sin, which in some way altered their natures (original sin). Furthermore, both the image of God and original sin were heritable, and also dominant in the sense that if either parent has either of these properties, their offspring will also have those properties. In this way both properties spread through the whole population, so that at present all human beings are descendants of this original pair, and all human being possess both the image of God and original sin."

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.com/historical-adam-one-possible-scenario/

whag
01-24-2015, 04:00 PM
I bet you question the part about Jesus' resurrection

So did Thomas. One thing at a time.

Adrift
01-24-2015, 04:04 PM
That'd be the view that the first couple came from hominids. They became the first human couple having been enspirited. Plantinga is a popularizer of this teleology:


"Finally, it certainly seems that there is no conflict between current science and a literal Adam and Eve who fell into sin. Some scientists speak of a bottleneck (perhaps 160,000 to 200,000 years ago) in the line leading to current humans, when the relevant population dwindled to 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. Here’s a possible scenario. At that time God selected a pair of these individuals, bestowing on them a property in virtue of which they are rightly said to be made in the image of God. This pair was wholly innocent, with properly directed affections. Nevertheless, they fell into sin, which in some way altered their natures (original sin). Furthermore, both the image of God and original sin were heritable, and also dominant in the sense that if either parent has either of these properties, their offspring will also have those properties. In this way both properties spread through the whole population, so that at present all human beings are descendants of this original pair, and all human being possess both the image of God and original sin."

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.com/historical-adam-one-possible-scenario/

Hmm. Can you highlight in that paragraph where you believe he's saying that Adam and Eve were some sort of subhuman species and the thing about Adam's spirit being put into them?

jordanriver
01-24-2015, 04:05 PM
So did Thomas. One thing at a time.
God let Thomas know.

....but I bet you question the part about Jesus being God




. oh, before I forget the specifics
....... (not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, i'm not a oneness Pentecostal)

whag
01-24-2015, 04:49 PM
Hmm. Can you highlight in that paragraph where you believe he's saying that Adam and Eve were some sort of subhuman species and the thing about Adam's spirit being put into them?

Image of God implies those pre-Adam human beings didn't have God's image. That phrase means more than surface appearance but actual cognition, behaviors, and relational capabilities (that we clearly had way before 200,000). Can we have the image of God without spirit?

Also, I think our million year-old ancestors had many positive virtues that got them "to Eden," as it were, meaning they didn't need to be imprinted.

Properly directed affections is interesting language. Who's doing the directing here?

whag
01-24-2015, 04:53 PM
God let Thomas know.
oneness Pentecostal)

That's absolutely correct. According to the bible, God let Thomas know.


....but I bet you question the part about Jesus being God






I question a lot. So did the disciples.

Adrift
01-24-2015, 05:15 PM
Image of God implies those pre-Adam human beings didn't have God's image. That phrase means more than surface appearance but actual cognition, behaviors, and relational capabilities (that we clearly had way before 200,000). Can we have the image of God without spirit?

Also, I think our million year-old ancestors had many positive virtues that got them "to Eden," as it were, meaning they didn't need to be imprinted.

Properly directed affections is interesting language. Who's doing the directing here?

So this view about "subhuman species" and "Adam's spirit" is not anything that you can actually show in the paragraph, its just sort of your own conjecture based on what you assume Plantinga might think about the "Image of God" or something.

whag
01-24-2015, 05:33 PM
So this view about "subhuman species" and "Adam's spirit" is not anything that you can actually show in the paragraph, its just sort of your own conjecture based on what you assume Plantinga might think about the "Image of God" or something.

Not at all. You know what he means, so clarify it for him.

jordanriver
01-24-2015, 05:47 PM
That's absolutely correct. According to the bible, God let Thomas know.



I question a lot. So did the disciples.

AND God let them know, flesh and blood didn't reveal it (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A15-17&version=KJV)

whag
01-24-2015, 06:00 PM
AND God let them know, flesh and blood didn't reveal it (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A15-17&version=KJV)

Exactly.

Adrift
01-24-2015, 06:52 PM
Not at all. You know what he means, so clarify it for him.

:lol: What? I've never seen this paragraph in my life before you posted it here. How should I know what he means?

whag
01-24-2015, 06:56 PM
:lol: What? I've never seen this paragraph in my life before you posted it here. How should I know what he means?

Because you can read and you think I'm way off.

Adrift
01-24-2015, 07:04 PM
Because you can read and you think I'm way off.

I didn't say you're way off, I said that it appears that you're conjecturing because you can't seem to show where Plantinga refers to "subhuman species" and "Adam's spirit".

whag
01-24-2015, 07:53 PM
I didn't say you're way off, I said that it appears that you're conjecturing because you can't seem to show where Plantinga refers to "subhuman species" and "Adam's spirit".

I'd call it inference, not conjecture. With the image imprint came the spirit, I inferred. The enspirited ape becomes higher than the spiritless hominid having the image of God. This is all reasonable inference not baseless conjecture.

Tassman
01-25-2015, 02:10 AM
ok, I googled, and in my books found nariokatome boy over a million years, closest to modern humans that is not us,
H heidelbergensis over half a million year, Neanderthals 200,000 but extinct now.......


but

where did you get that exact 200,000 year number

I carefully said each time: c.200,000 years, NOT exactly 200,000 years. The c. stands for circa meaning “about” and is common practice to indicate this as “c.” Apparently you weren't aware of this.

Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago.[3] The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens,[4] i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens that includes all modern humans. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains, which date to 195,000 (±5,000) years ago and include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

&

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens

&

http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/ant570/topics/Homo.pdf


So where and when during this anthropological process, which is virtually undoubted by science, did God breathe his spirit into "Adam" and transform him from advanced Ape into Man made in His image?

Tassman
01-25-2015, 02:46 AM
Image of God implies those pre-Adam human beings didn't have God's image. That phrase means more than surface appearance but actual cognition, behaviors, and relational capabilities (that we clearly had way before 200,000). Can we have the image of God without spirit?

Also, I think our million year-old ancestors had many positive virtues that got them "to Eden," as it were, meaning they didn't need to be imprinted.

Properly directed affections is interesting language. Who's doing the directing here?

I'm sorry whag, this comes across as conjecture seemingly based upon little more than the urge to rationalize the Adam & Eve story in order to harmonize it with contradictory scientific knowledge.

jordanriver
01-25-2015, 03:00 AM
I carefully said each time: c.200,000 years, NOT exactly 200,000 years. The c. stands for circa meaning “about” and is common practice to indicate this as “c.” Apparently you weren't aware of this.

Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago.[3] The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens,[4] i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens that includes all modern humans. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains, which date to 195,000 (±5,000) years ago and include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

&

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens

&

http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/ant570/topics/Homo.pdf


So where and when during this anthropological process, which is virtually undoubted by science, did God breathe his spirit into "Adam" and transform him from advanced Ape into Man made in His image?

well, I just reached behind me, a book I cited back in October (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3845-For-Jorge-how-“just-so-stories”-become-testable-scientific-theories&p=107951&viewfull=1#post107951)
PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN EVOLUTION 2003 Roger Lewin, Robert A. Foley ISBN 0632047046
and on page 375 there seems to be a problem with the Omo finds, a little dispute about "provenance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance#Paleontology)

I don't feel like typing this , this late, so I just whip out the ole smart phone and pic it
3669

whag
01-25-2015, 09:00 AM
I'm sorry whag, this comes across as conjecture seemingly based upon little more than the urge to rationalize the Adam & Eve story in order to harmonize it with contradictory scientific knowledge.

Assuming God chose two hominids among thousands to infuse with spirit is presumptive to the extreme. I'd call that conjecture, not inference.

Assuming that Plantinga thought the hominid stock from which the first couple was pulled was "less than human" (because they lacked the image of God) isn't presumptive to the extreme. That's just inferring that the non-divinely imprinted hominids were lower than the divine image bearers.

37818
01-25-2015, 09:25 AM
As a Christian, I for one, believe both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit. The chief difference being humans are made in God's image. [Having the given ability to design and understand design.]

whag
01-25-2015, 09:40 AM
Hominids who lived 1,000,000 years ago made hand axes. They understood design.

jordanriver
01-25-2015, 10:49 AM
birds and beavers make tools

whag
01-25-2015, 12:46 PM
birds and beavers make tools

Touche.

37818
01-25-2015, 05:24 PM
birds and beavers make toolsAnd they design them first.

NormATive
01-25-2015, 07:44 PM
That'd be the view that the first couple came from hominids. They became the first human couple having been enspirited. Plantinga is a popularizer of this teleology:


"Finally, it certainly seems that there is no conflict between current science and a literal Adam and Eve who fell into sin. Some scientists speak of a bottleneck (perhaps 160,000 to 200,000 years ago) in the line leading to current humans, when the relevant population dwindled to 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. Here’s a possible scenario. At that time God selected a pair of these individuals, bestowing on them a property in virtue of which they are rightly said to be made in the image of God. This pair was wholly innocent, with properly directed affections. Nevertheless, they fell into sin, which in some way altered their natures (original sin). Furthermore, both the image of God and original sin were heritable, and also dominant in the sense that if either parent has either of these properties, their offspring will also have those properties. In this way both properties spread through the whole population, so that at present all human beings are descendants of this original pair, and all human being possess both the image of God and original sin."

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.com/historical-adam-one-possible-scenario/

Sounds a bit like L. Ron Hubbard's story of Xenu and the Thetans who possessed humanoids on planet Teegeeack (Earth) 75 million years ago. No?

NORM

Tassman
01-26-2015, 01:46 AM
well, I just reached behind me, a book I cited back in October (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3845-For-Jorge-how-“just-so-stories”-become-testable-scientific-theories&p=107951&viewfull=1#post107951)
PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN EVOLUTION 2003 Roger Lewin, Robert A. Foley ISBN 0632047046
and on page 375 there seems to be a problem with the Omo finds, a little dispute about "provenance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance#Paleontology)

I don't feel like typing this , this late, so I just whip out the ole smart phone and pic it
3669

What's the point you are attempting to make here?

Tassman
01-26-2015, 01:51 AM
Assuming God chose two hominids among thousands to infuse with spirit is presumptive to the extreme. I'd call that conjecture, not inference.

Assuming that Plantinga thought the hominid stock from which the first couple was pulled was "less than human" (because they lacked the image of God) isn't presumptive to the extreme. That's just inferring that the non-divinely imprinted hominids were lower than the divine image bearers.

But why you would assume that there was a “first couple” at all? Or that any hominid was ever divinely imprinted with the image of God? Why would you think this? There is no scientific evidence that supports such a scenario nor is there any reason, outside of the Adam and Eve myth, to even think it might be the case. In fact there is a great deal of evidence militating against it.

“…some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve


As a Christian, I for one, believe both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit. The chief difference being humans are made in God's image. [Having the given ability to design and understand design.]

Why would you believe that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit"? Based upon what evidence? And where is your evidence that "humans are made in God's image"?

Tassman
01-26-2015, 02:02 AM
Sounds a bit like L. Ron Hubbard's story of Xenu and the Thetans who possessed humanoids on planet Teegeeack (Earth) 75 million years ago. No?

NORM

Doesn't it though! And yet, even though Scientology arose relatively recently, many thousands believe it all despite there being no scientific evidence supporting it whatsoever - as per the Genesis mythology.

Adrift
01-26-2015, 05:10 AM
But why you would assume that there was a “first couple” at all? Or that any hominid was ever divinely imprinted with the image of God? Why would you think this? There is no scientific evidence that supports such a scenario nor is there any reason, outside of the Adam and Eve myth, to even think it might be the case. In fact there is a great deal of evidence militating against it.

“…some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

37818
01-26-2015, 06:38 AM
Why would you believe that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit"? Based upon what evidence? And where is your evidence that "humans are made in God's image"?Based on the writing known as Genesis. As a Christian, with the understanding of it to be God's word.

whag
01-26-2015, 04:01 PM
Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

Conjecture is baseless. Infering there was an enspiriting of a hominid species into Adam isn't conjecture. Adam being tasked to establish dominion over animals would thus be higher than any spiritless species.

I think I met your reference challenge, but maybe I failed. Do you take issue with the hominid hierarchy and enspiriting?

Here's Plantinga's epistemological view from 1991. It's changed somewhat, but I'm pretty sure he still has a historical Adam view, seeing continuity between evolution and the first couple but also seeing A&E as distinct from, and more significant than, their animal ancestors.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html

Adrift
01-26-2015, 04:27 PM
Conjecture is baseless. Infering there was an enspiriting of a hominid species into Adam isn't conjecture. Adam being tasked to establish dominion over animals would thus be higher than any spiritless species.

I think I met your reference challenge, but maybe I failed. Do you take issue with the hominid hierarchy and enspiriting?

Here's Plantinga's epistemological view from 1991. It's changed somewhat, but I'm pretty sure he still has a historical Adam view, seeing continuity between evolution and the first couple but also seeing A&E as distinct from, and more significant than, their animal ancestors.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html

:huh: I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

Juvenal
01-26-2015, 05:07 PM
:huh: I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

I can't be positive, but I'm pretty sure you were supposed to post this response to Whag while quoting Tassman.

And don't forget to cross-post your response to your response in Mickiel's thread of threads.

Adrift
01-26-2015, 05:15 PM
I can't be positive, but I'm pretty sure you were supposed to post this response to Whag while quoting Tassman.

Are you messing with me? You're messing with me, aren't chu.


And don't forget to cross-post your response to your response in Mickiel's thread of threads.

I can only handle so much crazy in one day, and Mickiel threads are over my quota.

whag
01-26-2015, 06:26 PM
:huh: I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

You needn't clarify. I think he knew I wasn't a theist being my friend. Tass just has a unique way of expressing himself sometimes (I think he's questioning Plantinga's A&E postulation through me), but I'm pretty sure he knows I'm a skeptic.

Stop fomenting discord between us. Now I wanna bop his nose and call his mother rude names.

Tassman
01-27-2015, 11:13 PM
Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

Yes, I understand that my friend whag is a skeptic. I was responding to Plantinga's hypothesis which whag was presenting, not to him personally. Sorry whag if it came across as personal. :flowers:

Tassman
01-27-2015, 11:19 PM
Based on the writing known as Genesis. As a Christian, with the understanding of it to be God's word.

So your belief that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit" is a faith belief, unsupported by substantive evidence. OK. But I see no reason to believe it; quite the reverse.

whag
01-28-2015, 05:54 PM
Yes, I understand that my friend whag is a skeptic. I was responding to Plantinga's hypothesis which whag was presenting, not to him personally. Sorry whag if it came across as personal. :flowers:

I knew what you meant. He's just trying to create discordant feelings between us. *smooch*

And, yes, Plantinga's teleology is full of holes. I think the best approach in terms of level of persuasiveness isn't the one where a first couple is imagined.

Adrift
01-28-2015, 07:07 PM
I knew what you meant. He's just trying to create discordant feelings between us. *smooch*

Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

pancreasman
01-28-2015, 08:13 PM
Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

tsk, tsk.

Chrawnus
01-28-2015, 08:47 PM
Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

Considering his history here on TWeb I'm not surprised. :shrug:

Adrift
01-28-2015, 09:04 PM
Considering his history here on TWeb I'm not surprised. :shrug:

Considering his history in this very thread I don't think its surprising.

Tassman
01-29-2015, 02:05 AM
Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

I suppose it helps your Paleoanthropologically unsustainable belief that a Divine enspiriting of a specific couple occurred at some unspecified stage since the evolution of anatomically modern humans c. 200,000 years ago, to write off any objections to it as “silly” - given that you don't have any substantive evidence to support this viewpoint. Or, if it comes to that, ANY scenario which involves God transforming Homo sapiens into spirit-filled creatures.

jordanriver
01-29-2015, 03:05 AM
I suppose it helps your Paleoanthropologically unsustainable belief that a Divine enspiriting of a specific couple occurred at some unspecified stage since the evolution of anatomically modern humans c. 200,000 years ago, to write off any objections to it as “silly” - given that you don't have any substantive evidence to support this viewpoint. Or, if it comes to that, ANY scenario which involves God transforming Homo sapiens into spirit-filled creatures.
You didn't understand word "provenance" from picture of page I posted.
Sometimes fossils move to wrong deposit where they did not belong. The Richard Lewin / Robert Foley book I cited noted that Omo fossils age disputed because of uncertainty over provenance.
The layers are called "tuffs" which is volcanic ash compressed to like cement. But new tuffs are formed, very often thick, spilling over and 'churning' through older deposits, so sometimes contaminating layer with "basement" rock

whag
01-29-2015, 05:55 AM
Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

You honestly hoped.

Adrift
01-29-2015, 06:24 AM
You honestly hoped.

I don't know what that means. I honestly hoped that Tassman was being silly?

shunyadragon
01-29-2015, 09:14 AM
You didn't understand word "provenance" from picture of page I posted.
Sometimes fossils move to wrong deposit where they did not belong. The Richard Lewin / Robert Foley book I cited noted that Omo fossils age disputed because of uncertainty over provenance.
The layers are called "tuffs" which is volcanic ash compressed to like cement. But new tuffs are formed, very often thick, spilling over and 'churning' through older deposits, so sometimes contaminating layer with "basement" rock

You have described a hypothetical situation that is unlikely unless there was evidence that this actually occured.

whag
01-29-2015, 12:44 PM
I don't know what that means. I honestly hoped that Tassman was being silly

Yes, instead of using thought to figure out he wasn't labeling me a Plantinga creationist, you wanted to think he's dizzy.

Adrift
01-29-2015, 01:02 PM
Yes, instead of using thought to figure out he wasn't labeling me a Plantinga creationist, you wanted to think he's dizzy.

Pretty much affirming what I said in post #111 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5171-Christians-Believing-Badly&p=145720&viewfull=1#post145720). I guess you would call these little fantasies "inference" though.

jordanriver
01-29-2015, 01:09 PM
You have described a hypothetical situation that is unlikely unless there was evidence that this actually occured.it is not hypothetical.
For example it has already occurred, when Richard Leakey and Kay Behrensmeyer collected 2 samples of volcanic tuff from the Koobi Fora area to confirm 2.4 mya dates , to geochronologist Jack Miller and Frank Fitch, and instead got 221 mya dates. It was from "basement" rock
source Bones of Contention (http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Roger-Lewin/dp/0671668374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422564566&sr=8-1&keywords=0671668374), (pages 191-192), Roger Lewin (the paleoanthropologist who wrote 3 books with Richard Leakey, not Max Lubenow's book)

and the source for noting the provenance dispute with the omo fossils is from page 375 of Principles of Human Evolution by Roger Lewin with Richard A. Foley source (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Human-Evolution-Robert-Andrew/dp/0632047046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422564750&sr=8-1&keywords=0632047046)

provenance: (paleontology) "In paleontology it is recognised that fossils can also move from their primary context and are sometimes found, apparently in-situ, in deposits to which they do not belong, moved by, for example, the erosion of nearby but different outcrops. Most museums make strenuous efforts to record how the works in their collections were acquired and these records are often of use in helping to establish provenance."
wiki source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance#Paleontology)

whag
01-29-2015, 01:21 PM
Pretty much affirming what I said in post #111 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5171-Christians-Believing-Badly&p=145720&viewfull=1#post145720). I guess you would call these little fantasies "inference" though.

Seeing that one moment's thought would've shown you Tass wasn't confused about me being a Plantinga creationist, no.

Tassman
01-30-2015, 01:47 AM
You didn't understand word "provenance" from picture of page I posted.
Sometimes fossils move to wrong deposit where they did not belong. The Richard Lewin / Robert Foley book I cited noted that Omo fossils age disputed because of uncertainty over provenance.
The layers are called "tuffs" which is volcanic ash compressed to like cement. But new tuffs are formed, very often thick, spilling over and 'churning' through older deposits, so sometimes contaminating layer with "basement" rock

Yes I understood the word "provenance" but there is considerably more than just the Omo fossils supporting the ancient lineage of anatomically modern man. Cherry-picking one or two items that superficially seem to discredit 'evolution' is the disreputable technique employed by the frauds at Discovery Institute or AiG.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

“From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils”.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Fossils and DNA confirm humans are one of more than 200 species belonging to the order of Primates. Within that larger group, humans are nested within the great ape family. Although we did not evolve from any of the apes living today, we share characteristics with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans (the great apes), as well as other apes. We most likely evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, the common ancestor we share with Neanderthals, who are our closest extinct relatives.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens

Tassman
01-30-2015, 02:39 AM
Seeing that one moment's thought would've shown you Tass wasn't confused about me being a Plantinga creationist, no.

Of course it would. I think Adrift’s devoting of two whole pages to this misunderstanding plus his attempts to set you and me against each other is a diversion from the embarrassing facts regarding Adam and Eve which were previously under discussion.

He acknowledges that the 6,000 year ago scenario in the Garden of Eden is utterly unsustainable according Paleoanthropologists. The evidence is overwhelming.

But he’s then faced with the theological issue, which is crucial to the whole Christian message. Namely, that when Adam sinned he sinned for all humanity. And it was this act of disobedience which set up the need for a saviour in the form of the “last Adam”, i.e. Jesus. Hence, the Adam and Eve story and the Fall goes to the heart of Christianity.

Certain theologians (some presented by Adrift), attempt to harmonise the Genesis narrative with modern science and argue that one needn't assume Adam and Eve to be the first humanoids ever, but simply the first humans imbued with God's spirit. However, the question remains when during the c. 200,000 year history of Homo sapiens did this occur. There’s no evidence that it ever did. And, more to the point, when did the catastrophic act of disobedience occur? OR does one assume that the whole of humankind has always been innately sinful from the very first moment Homo sapiens descended from the common ancestor? But, if this is the case, when did the Divine enspiriting occur?

jordanriver
01-30-2015, 05:05 AM
Yes I understood the word "provenance" but there is considerably more than just the Omo fossils supporting the ancient lineage of anatomically modern man. Cherry-picking one or two items that superficially seem to discredit 'evolution' is the disreputable technique employed by the frauds at Discovery Institute or AiG.


cherry-picking??

Tassman, YOU are the one who cited the omo fossils in POST 202 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5171-Christians-Believing-Badly&p=148974&viewfull=1#post148974)

so I addressed that

jordanriver
01-30-2015, 05:14 AM
Tassman, I was only addressing your 200K (or 195K) number. That seems to come from the disputed geochronology of the Omo remains.

was there DNA evidence to back up that number(s)

Tassman
01-31-2015, 02:14 AM
cherry-picking??

Tassman, YOU are the one who cited the omo fossils in POST 202 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5171-Christians-Believing-Badly&p=148974&viewfull=1#post148974)

so I addressed that

Yes, you're right. Apologies. :blush:

Nevertheless the Omo fossils are merely one component of a huge collection of evidence as my links in #238 indicate.

jordanriver
01-31-2015, 03:19 PM
Yes, you're right. Apologies. :blush:

Nevertheless the Omo fossils are merely one component of a huge collection of evidence as my links in #238 indicate.

ok, one at a time. Lets go to the next Smithsonian link:





“From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils”.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils



ok, I clicked the "here" (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species) to see the "humans" Smithsonian is referring to
I notice it includes Australopithecus branch members, and Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus kadabba and Ardipithecus ramidus from the Ardipithecus branch, and the three members of the Paranthropus branch.

so I clicked their "open the family tree (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree)"

Notice, that the branches of Australopithecus and Ardipithecus and Paranthropus are all 'side branches'
they don't have descendants, IOW, we aren't their descendants, IOW, they aren't our ancestors.

That's three of the branches. There's only 4 branches represented there and 3 of them , as far as I am concerned, do not involve us modern humans.

The whole point was supposed to be .... that we are descended from some other species.

So whats the point of including that big "6,000 individuals" number if it includes 3 out of the 4 branches that didn't even lead to us?

Tassman
01-31-2015, 08:53 PM
ok, one at a time. Lets go to the next Smithsonian link:




ok, I clicked the "here" (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species) to see the "humans" Smithsonian is referring to
I notice it includes Australopithecus branch members, and Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus kadabba and Ardipithecus ramidus from the Ardipithecus branch, and the three members of the Paranthropus branch.

so I clicked their "open the family tree (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree)"

Notice, that the branches of Australopithecus and Ardipithecus and Paranthropus are all 'side branches'
they don't have descendants, IOW, we aren't their descendants, IOW, they aren't our ancestors.

That's three of the branches. There's only 4 branches represented there and 3 of them , as far as I am concerned, do not involve us modern humans.

The whole point was supposed to be .... that we are descended from some other species.

So whats the point of including that big "6,000 individuals" number if it includes 3 out of the 4 branches that didn't even lead to us?

ALL the branches are interconnected to a greater or lesser degree. This is what’s meant by a Family Tree, namely a genealogical chart showing the ancestry, descent, and relationship of all members of a family or other genealogical group.

“Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.”

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

And:

“…all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them”.

http://phys.org/news97857326.html#jCp

jordanriver
02-02-2015, 12:56 PM
ALL the branches are interconnected to a greater or lesser degree. This is what’s meant by a Family Tree, namely a genealogical chart showing the ancestry, descent, and relationship of all members of a family or other genealogical group.

“Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.”

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence


ok, I don't count the side branches that are not our ancestors, and you do.
nothing I can do about that.


And:

“…all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them”.

http://phys.org/news97857326.html#jCp

you can have the y chromosome claim, which does not take into account stress induced mutation rates but assumes an unrealistic 'uniformitarian' rate of mutations for tens of thousands of years

but you cannot have their mtDNA claims.


there is recombination in the mtDNA after all.

if you want to take the time, starting HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3845-For-Jorge-how-“just-so-stories”-become-testable-scientific-theories&p=107860&viewfull=1#post107860) for about 3 pages of debate and citation about the so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis

Tassman
02-03-2015, 02:05 AM
ok, I don't count the side branches that are not our ancestors, and you do.
nothing I can do about that.

Well you need to. The study of human genetics shows how closely related we are to ALL the other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms. There is no pure ancestral line dating back to where – Adam & Eve? Is that what this is all about? Trying to massage scientific knowledge to fit the Genesis myth?


you can have the y chromosome claim, which does not take into account stress induced mutation rates but assumes an unrealistic 'uniformitarian' rate of mutations for tens of thousands of years

but you cannot have their mtDNA claims.


there is recombination in the mtDNA after all.

if you want to take the time, starting HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3845-For-Jorge-how-“just-so-stories”-become-testable-scientific-theories&p=107860&viewfull=1#post107860) for about 3 pages of debate and citation about the so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis

The “so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis” has been discredited by virtually all professionals in the field including many of the most conservative Evangelical scholars such as biologist at Trinity Western University, & senior fellow at BioLogos Christian Foundation, Denis Venema. He says:

“...that there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population… And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history”.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

jordanriver
02-03-2015, 07:13 PM
Actually, the 'Mitochondrial Eve' theory/hypothesis had nothing to do with Bible-Eve.

Tassman
02-05-2015, 01:25 AM
Actually, the 'Mitochondrial Eve' theory/hypothesis had nothing to do with Bible-Eve.

No it didn't but this didn't stop some Creationists trying to link the two together:

“Creationists have enthusiastically welcomed the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ hypothesis (i.e. that all modern humans can be traced back to one woman) because it clearly supports biblical history and contradicts evolutionary scenarios”.

http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

In any event the “so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis” has been superseded; it's is no longer an issue.

jordanriver
02-05-2015, 03:04 AM
No it didn't but this didn't stop some Creationists trying to link the two together:

“Creationists have enthusiastically welcomed the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ hypothesis (i.e. that all modern humans can be traced back to one woman) because it clearly supports biblical history and contradicts evolutionary scenarios”.

http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

In any event the “so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis” has been superseded; it's is no longer an issue.

and your phys org link from POST 244 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5171-Christians-Believing-Badly&p=152367&viewfull=1#post152367) bases its "DNA" evidence from they hypothesis, even though it doesn't name it by that name, it simply cited mitochondrial DNA ,

I believe that's where the whole "200,000" year deal originated to begin with, Rebecca Cann and Mark Stoneking's research
(albeit good scientific work, I do have to concede that much, they just didn't know mtDNA was not as purely female as was generally assumed at the time)

...that's why I kept egging you on about where you got the 200,000 (thereabouts) figure.

Tassman
02-07-2015, 01:33 AM
and your phys org link from POST 244 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5171-Christians-Believing-Badly&p=152367&viewfull=1#post152367) bases its "DNA" evidence from they hypothesis, even though it doesn't name it by that name, it simply cited mitochondrial DNA ,

I believe that's where the whole "200,000" year deal originated to begin with, Rebecca Cann and Mark Stoneking's research
(albeit good scientific work, I do have to concede that much, they just didn't know mtDNA was not as purely female as was generally assumed at the time)

...that's why I kept egging you on about where you got the 200,000 (thereabouts) figure.

I don't understand the point you're making. The “so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis” is no longer relevant, it has been superseded