It was discovered recently that a publisher (whose name I won’t dignify by citing) is releasing a book critical of Sarah Palin with a cover that is very similar to that of her forth-coming autobiography. Here are the covers of her book and the critical book, side-by-side.

Sarah Palin - book covers

This is some pretty amazing bait-and-switch, and should offend anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their thoughts on Palin or their political affiliation. The cover (of the critical book) says “My message is so lame and weak that it can’t stand on its own.”

OK, good and riled? Or at least annoyed?

Now tell me, how this is any different.

Other than, ya know, the implication that God’s message it too lame and weak to stand on its own.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 10:49 pm and is filed under Commentary, Evangelism, Politics, What Can You Say?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

260 Comments(+Add)

1   Neil    
November 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pm

yeah, but his name will be there on the cover…so it CAN’T be deceptive…

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 12:59 am

McCain will answer for gragging Palin into national politics. I feel very sorry for her.

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 7:38 am

What is the “cause du jour”?

Monday – Abortion
Tuesday – Gay rights
Wednesday – Obama (anything connected to him)
Thursday – Carrie Prejean
Friday – Open Cause Friday!
Saturday – Creationism
Sunday – This is the Lord’s Day where we sit in our own church service and enjoy the blessings of doing it right and standing for truth. Thank you Dear Jesus.

Question: What would you call Carrie Prejean if she was pro-choice, gay, supported Obama, and believed in evolution?

Answer: A blog dream!

4   nathan    
November 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am

this is just another way people try to make political hay out of stupid things.

palin should just go away.

and people should just leave her alone.

5   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am

The US landscape looks dimmer and dimmer everyday.

The two loudest evangelical voices right now are Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin. The dollar is spiraling towards a phenomenal collapse. You’re debating whether or not to spend your way out of an almost $100 trillion dollar deficit (perhaps I’ll try this strategy with my own personal budget). A couple weeks ago I was in Detroit, and it brought to mind memories of of Chechnya. Real unemployment is upwards of 17%. China is about to sell its US dollars and buy the remaining 200 tons of IMF gold – which actually belongs to you.

Great day to be an American. I’m so glad I’m in Canada – the grass truly is greener over here. :)

6   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 10:57 am

Brendt – Why is it that when you use certain illustrations to make a point, most of the people seem to b*tch more about the illustration than the point you were making?

7   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 11:06 am

The US landscape looks dimmer and dimmer everyday.

Hope and Change, baby! All the way…

8   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am

Yes We Can!

9   Eric    
November 18th, 2009 at 11:27 am

Of course, Paul, you can thank the nasty old U.S. for your peace and prosperity. I have alot of family in Ontario and visit there often – things ain’t all peaches and cream there either. Not that it really matters – I’m just sayin’. Also, Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean are not ‘evangelical voices”, they are opportunists, not unlike most every other politician or celebrity.

10   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 18th, 2009 at 11:36 am

Eric – I was being completely sarcastic (note the smiley face). Just needling the Americans.

Though, I guess there is some sad truth in some of the observations. Bottom line is that the US is careening of a cliff at the moment. The lesson and message: we are citizens of heaven before we are citizens of the US. Therefore, seek those things which are above and stop getting upset about the temporal when we should be focusing on the eternal.

11   Chris    
November 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am

Also, Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean are not ‘evangelical voices”, they are opportunists, not unlike most every other politician or celebrity

Kinda like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

12   Neil    
November 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am

OK – getting back to the OP and Brendt’s original point.

I’d say there is a slight difference between the example and what Comfort is doing.

The example looks as if the intent is to trick people into buying a book they do not intend to buy by making the name and the cover so similar.

Comfort is actually offering the original Origin of the Species in it’s entirety – if I understand correctly – and he is writing a rebuttal introduction.

That said, the difference is slight and you gotta massage the issue to find any.

Despite Ray’s comments to the contrary, this is too close to deception for comfort. Sure, he clearly says on the cover that the introduction is by him – but the target audience has no clue who he is, and no expectation that the introduction will depart radically from the norm.

One can expect an Introduction to do just that – introduce… not rebut.

If Comfort wanted to be completely honest the cover should say “Rebuttal by Ray Comfort.”

13   Neil    
November 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am

Speaking in more general terms. I rarely think it a good idea to trick people into hearing your side… particularly tricking them into some Gospel presentation.

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am

Evangelical voices? Where? I realize that it takes a great and powerful prophetic voice to criticize Pajean and continually rummage through the daily news reports for any “updates” on her trainwreck.

It is a well know fact the God loves America and hates Canada. I don’t support that but that’s the way it is. :cool:

15   corey    
November 18th, 2009 at 11:56 am

Neil (#12)
The Amazon page for the Comfort version says that it is abridged (I wonder what they took out??) and very clearly says nothing about the content of the introduction.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0882709194/?tag=fishtheabys-20

16   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 18th, 2009 at 11:59 am

I agree with the premise of the post. Trickery in any form is never a good way to present the truth in Christ.

I have a friend who was eager to begin a men’s group and introduce people to Christ, by basically getting them there by any means necessary and then slowly exposing them to Christ somehow… Slowly they might be absorbed into Christ, maybe through osmosis or something. I told him it was a bad idea. If you want to tell people about the Lord, do so openly, without a bait-and-switch.

Regarding Canada and the US Rick, is that how you interpret, “Israel I have loved, but Esau I have hated”? :)

17   Neil    
November 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Corey,

The fact that it is abridged just adds to the suspicion. I suppose if a neutral party did the abridging, that would be one thing – but the whole thing smacks of tricking people into hearing your side.

18   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

The only thing that will come from Comfort pulling this stunt is that he will open himself up for more ridicule. I know it’s hard to fathom that he could be ridiculed any more than he already is…

19   Eric    
November 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

“Evangelical voices? Where?” If you listen closely and in the right places, there are many of them speaking, however imperfectly it may be.

Paul – I do not disagree, and to be clear, I wasn’t intending to “raise up” the U.S., even though I realize it might have appeared that way.

Chris – I don’t know that I would categorize Ray Comfort as primarily a celebrity, but cannot dispute that he has achieved a celebrity status in certain circles. I would hesitate to say that he is an opportunist out for his own gain.

20   corey    
November 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

In case you didn’t notice on Brendt’s link, there was also a link to a pdf of the whole thing. I’m not at all interested in reading it, but if anyone wants to read the introduction for themselves, here it is.

http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf

21   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

“Evangelical voices? Where?”

I had this conversation a few days ago with someone. Every time the church is mentioned mainstream, you get some playboy (ie: Osteen) speaking on behalf of Christ, or some foolish woman claiming Christ because she stands on a few moral issues. You get the sensationalism of a fall like Haggard, the rot of Hinn and Dollar, and so on.

But, I presume (just like in oppressive countries) the work of Christ, the unglamorous, dirty, anonymous work, is being done by simple foot soldiers who will never headline on CNN.

That is not to take away from the men of integrity who do happen to have a voice… few as they may be.

One soul at a time being witnessed to and discipled rather than ‘1000s swept into the kingdom’ is the more accurate picture.

22   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

To label anyone a “voice” is a form of idolatry. There is only one voice:

The Spirit through the Word.

23   nathan    
November 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

oy…comfort.

maybe people just realize how irrelevant someone like comfort really is in the grand scheme of things.

24   Chris    
November 18th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

I would hesitate to say that he is an opportunist out for his own gain.

I was using “opportunist” in the sense that he is finding a way to get his message into the hands of unsuspecting people.
If Comfort truly wanted to share his thoughts perhaps he could have done something like similar to “The question of God” class, now book, offered at Harvard or written a counter argument like “Darwin on Trial”. Instead he chooses to bait and switch the unsuspecting. That’s opportunistic.

25   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Chris L (#6), I have no idea. Not to in any way put myself on the same plane as Jesus, but it makes me wonder if there were people debating the various uses of fertilizer after the Parable of the Sower.

Kudos to Neil (#12) for dragging it back to my actual point.

26   nathan    
November 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

welcome to the reality of blogging comments…it’s a running response, not just to the OP, but to the comments found here…

sheeesh.

did you seriously expect people NOT to react to such a polarizing figure as Palin?

27   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Nathan,

I disagree. She’s only polarizing to those whose political ideals she does not represent. She is no more polarizing than Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. She should not go away any more than Hilary should.

Back to the original post…

Darwin on Trial has already been written.

I can think of better people to write a rebuttal of Darwinism than Mr Comfort, but at least he has the balls to to believe what he believes and to put his name on it.

At least with him, however silly or outrageous his tactics may seem to us, there is is no ambiguity about what he believes and where he stands.

There’s something in that I admire. Misguided at times? Yes. Fighting the wrong battle at times? Yes. But he believes what he believes…and, to be sure, he gets to hang around The Kirk all the time. That is cool!

jerry

28   nathan    
November 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

but “polarizing” none the less.

just in a different direction.

the fact that you are saying “she’s not” demonstrates how polarizing a figure she is.

and, yes, just like pelosi and clinton.

to the OP:

being “clear about what you believe” is an overrated “positive”.

29   M.G.    
November 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

I think when you are attacked by prominent commentators in your very own party (e.g. George Will), it’s fair to say that you’re polarizing in a way that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are not.

Sarah Palin represents a fork in the road. Are Republicans going to become a 21st century party of country populists? And is Sarah Palin the new William Jennings Bryan?

Or will Republicans pitch a bigger tent?

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Why is it OK to use Darwin’s book to “evangelize” (supporting creationism is not really evangelism) but motorcycles or plays or magic acts are not?

31   Neil    
November 18th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Jerry,

I agree taking a stand is good. tricking people into hearing you pov is not – not when it involves the Gospel.

32   Neil    
November 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

I’d say 1) Palin is no more, or less, polarizing than Clinton or Pelosi, and b) being so is not necessarily a bad thing.

33   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pm

“Polarizing” in the ODM world is a badge of honor.

34   Neil    
November 18th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

If you goal is polarize and/or you use polrizing as badge of honor or measure of success – then it is worthless.

If it is a by-product of having strongly held positions – so be it.

35   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

The polarizing bear is an endangered species. :cool:

36   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

I read Comfort’s introduction and it seemed pretty benign to me. It’s nothing he hasn’t said before. I don’t really think it worse than the fake 20 dollar bills tracks. I would think that most people that are inclined to read the Origins Of The Species, either have it already or, would go to a library to find it. He certainly can’t be making a ton of money on it as it’s readily available for free. I really can’t imagine a rush to the local book store to buy it! As to the bait and switch, it’s Ray Comort wadda ya expect??!!

As to the Palin bait and switch? It’s politics, wadda ya expect??!!

37   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Also, I still chuckle over Comforts banana story. From what I’ve read most primates open the banana from the bottom as do I now. Cause guess what, it’s easier!

38   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

M.G.

I think when you are attacked by prominent commentators in your very own party (e.g. George Will), it’s fair to say that you’re polarizing in a way that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are not.

Only by the party snobs, like George Will….

39   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 18th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Announcement! The United Nations is about to criminalize Christianity! How can anyone with a sixth grade education ever take these people serious?

Don’t worry, though, there are a team of Christian lawyers in New York to face that giant Purple Dragon! You’ve caught me, Mims!

40   M.G.    
November 18th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

Why doesn’t Ingrid mention Hillary Clinton’s stance on the issue… oh yeah, the whole cognitive dissonance thing.

This is from the Christian Chronicle…

“Clinton, in introducing the report, took the opportunity to express her disapproval of the defamation of religions movement. Led by the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the effort promotes the condemnation of messages that defame religions and can lead to violence.

“[S]ome claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree,” Clinton said.

“The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution. But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech,” Clinton told reporters. “The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.”

41   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 12:07 am

OK, so let me get this straight…Sarah Palin is ‘polarizing’ and George Will is a ‘conservative’ voice and not polarizing?

And by the way, I don’t think she is polarizing. She speaks the conservative agenda which is *not* necessarily the Republican agenda–George Will might be in the ‘party’ but that doesn’t mean his is conservative.

And she is nowhere near Pelosi and Clinton in terms of polarization. I don’t agree with or believe a single word that comes out of the mouths of Pelosi and Clinton–that is polarizing.

Back to the OP:

Whatever.

42   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 12:07 am

Now I’m officially done discussing politics on this thread. :-)

43   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 10:03 am

You people have sunk to a low not even the athiests and scientists I have met over the last two days.

Comforts Introduction and The UN Abridged original Origin of Species (the copy available as Public Domain) was given out yesterday on 100+ Campuses, totally free of charge, with no strings attached. The science students and professors that I gave the book towere very appreciative. I only pray they read the introduction, as I invited them to with an open mind. We didn’t hide in any way what we were doing.
In case you didn’t know, many Athiestic groups were planning book burnings, encouraging students to hold counter protests, and rip out the introduction. There was none of that, except two people ripping out the introduction in front of us. For the most part, they thanked us and went on their way.
The ones who wanted a debate got that later, but it was always followed by a Gospel presentation. Comfort was not hiding anything, except the big release date.
I do not understand why Christians attack one another for their efforts in spreading the Gospel. Our biggest opponents on campus? the squishy christian ministries that believe we are all children of god and that somehow if thy make it liberal enough, everyone can join and enjoy themselves. What does that tell you?
I was proud to lead 19 adults and one cute 3 year old on the campus of the UofM yesterday; we handed out 2000 books in under 2 1/2 hours. It was a great cross section- Lutherans, Baptists, young, old, college age, beyond. It was a wonderful piece of heaven, not all in the same camp theologically, but we all loved Jesus first and people second.

44   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am

so raising questions about someone’s methodology is a “new low”?

seriously?

45   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 10:15 am

@ jerry,

of course you can not believe anything those ladies say…they actually stake out a position on things so you can actually know what to disagree with.

Palin, Bush, etc. are not conservatives…they’re neo-cons and there’s a big difference.

Ask George Will and Pat Buchanan.

;)

now i’m officially done with the politics.

46   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 10:42 am

A new low?

Give me time John and I’ll continue to surprise you.

Maybe you should have handed out Bibles with an introduction by Darwin. That might have made more sense.

But I see where you think the power is.

47   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 10:46 am

I am a believing follower of Jesus.

(Many times more believing than following)

48   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 10:49 am

Comfort was not hiding anything, except the big release date.
I do not understand why Christians attack one another for their efforts in spreading the Gospel.

What does The Origin of Species have to do with the Gospel? Does someone have to disavow a belief in evolution when they decide to follow Christ?

49   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 10:49 am

Actually, Jerry, Richard Dawkins talked about that. But the truth of the Gospel overcomes the lies, therefore, the introduction, which points to the Bible, and ultimately to God is a way that one or two might be reached.

50   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 10:52 am

#48
Nothing, but the Gospel was repeatedly shared in the introduction.

I believe in Micro evolution, not macro. I believe you should take the Historical writing in Genesis 1-2 in the way it was written. In the BEGINNING GOD created.

51   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 10:57 am

re: 50

Yay! nothing like doing violence to the sacred texts in the name of “loving” the very same.

oy.

52   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 10:58 am

I believe in Micro evolution, not macro. I believe you should take the Historical writing in Genesis 1-2 in the way it was written. In the BEGINNING GOD created.

First, of all, there’s nothing saying that God couldn’t have used macro evolution in creating. Secondly, enforcing a certain view of Genesis on someone as a requirement to follow Christ is simply piling extra stuff on top of the Gospel.

Also, I would note that the only people who really try to differentiate between macro and micro when it comes to evolution are Christian critics. All an evolutionary biologist would say is that a macro change is simply a collection of micro changes over a long period of time. And I did skim through Comfort’s intro – he has no clue what he’s talking about most of the time.

53   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am

I do not believ in the “24 hour” creation day.

It must be 24 hours and .95342465753 miniutes. (King James version)

54   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 11:06 am

the real point is that creation vs. evolution is not the concern of the text.

the concern is, among other things, a theological claim about the primacy of Yahweh over all time and all places…

not just a specific place/people.

it’s a pre-scientific document.

the bible is not an encyclopedia.

55   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am

the real point is that creation vs. evolution is not the concern of the text.

the concern is, among other things, a theological claim about the primacy of Yahweh over all time and all places…

Yes, exactly. The point of the Genesis account is the who and why, not the how (at least not in the sense that answers it for us). The point is that Yahweh created order from chaos, and He is the only one powerful enough to do so. It’s also worth noting that the account is unique in that it is the only creation account of the era where the act of creation is purely constructive rather than a destructive and violent act.

56   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 11:14 am

Genesis 1-2

1 In the a beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was b without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, c “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, d “Let there be an expanse [1] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made [2] the expanse and e separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were f above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. [3] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, g “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, [4] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, h “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants [5] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for i signs and for j seasons, [6] and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God k made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to l rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds [7] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So m God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, n “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, o “Let us make man [8] in our image, p after our likeness. And q let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
r male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, s “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. t You shall have them for food. 30 And u to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 v And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and w all the host of them. 2 And x on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

4 y These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 When no z bush of the field [9] was yet in the land [10] and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man a to work the ground, 6 and a mist [11] was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed the man of b dust from the ground and c breathed into his d nostrils the breath of life, and e the man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a f garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. g The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, h and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of i Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is the j Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The Lord God took the man k and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil l you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat [12] of it you m shall surely die.”

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; n I will make him a helper fit for [13] him.” 19 o Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed [14] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and p brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam [15] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a q deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made [16] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

“This at last is r bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was s taken out of Man.” [17]

24 t Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

This is how the earth was created. No transitional forms. Fish, Birds, animals, Man, Woman. All adult and fully functional. The above is not poetry, it is history.

57   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 11:20 am

oh, i get it…you mean “history” like this:

Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night.

Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.

From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord’s command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’

A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.

The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma’s creation.

this yet another fruitless discussion.

creation vs. evolution in the bible
“profanity” vs. the contingency of language
democrat vs. republican
nationalism vs. Kingdom only

did i forget anything…?

58   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 11:26 am

This is how the earth was created. No transitional forms. Fish, Birds, animals, Man, Woman. All adult and fully functional. The above is not poetry, it is history.

Even if you grant that the account is historical in a sense, it doesn’t exclude that evolution may have occurred. We are not told the mechanisms God used when He “formed” and “brought forth” the different creatures.

Using that logic, saying something like “Dweight Eisenhower signed the law creating the interstate highway system” would be the same as saying the highways just were created from nothing. We’re simply not given all the details of the mechanism in Genesis.

59   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 11:42 am

Ooooh, here’s a thought…God created during a leap year…

60   Joe    
November 19th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

The above is not poetry, it is history.

Haha. You show your ignorance. I’m a literal six day-er. I believe that God created everything in six days, but to deny that the form of Gen 1 and 2 is not poetry is just down right silly.
It IS poetry and I believe it is an accurate telling of what actually happened. To deny the poetic form in it is to either be willfully ignorant or not a very good student of the text.

61   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

#57, 58, 59

You guys are worse off than the athiests and agnostics I shared the Gospel with yesterday.

They are lost in their ignorance.

You are lost in your knowledge.

And it makes me very sad. Phil, the mechanism was HE spoke, creation happened.

It is funny Nathan, like the athiests and agnostics, uses a pagan myth to dispel creation by God- actually it is sad

And Jerry mocks, simply mocks.

You could have been among the thousands I spoke with yesterday and among the several who mocked, and I would not have been able to tell the difference. How sad.

I though the goal of emergents was some sort of full humanity.

62   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

60
No, Joe, despite what your pastor says, and his lame interpretation of Hebrew, it is history.

63   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

All this is non-redemptive and diverts attention from the exclusive issue:

“Who do YOU say that I am?”

64   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

John Chisham,
You act like a little child. Scratch that, little children act more mature than you. You can’t read Hebrew can you?

65   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

PB – Can you be saved and not believe a literal interpretation of Genesis?

66   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

PB,
Do you still believe the sun revolves around the earth?

67   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Here’s what is amusing: in the meat of the issue I stated three (3) times that I agree with John Chisham in a literal six day creation. I even went to state that I believe what that means, but I cannot with any intellectual honesty deny the literary form and what does John do? He somehow tries to attack my pastor? Now, my pastor has never denied a literal six day creation, he has publicly affirmed the literary structure of the passage but John Chisham seems unable to understand that one can believe in a literal six day creation and be an honest reader.
#65–absolutely.

68   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 19th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

For John Chisham, this obviously isn’t about creation/theistic evolution. This is about finding a way to attack a pastor.

69   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

To require a literal interpretation of Genesis as a tenant of salvation is adding to the gospel. You must only believe a literal interpretation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

70   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

In the midst of disagreement, let us ackowledge that Comfort et. al. do have a sincere desire to see souls saved. I admire their tenacity, as I do John’s.

71   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

In the midst of disagreement, let us ackowledge that Comfort et. al. do have a sincere desire to see souls saved. I admire their tenacity, as I do John’s.

I don’t.

Seriously, who cares how tenacious someone is if they are wrong? Do you honor Ingrid’s tenacity? She’s just a passionate about what she’s presenting as Comfort or John.

I’ve seen too many people who take Comfort’s methods and turn evangelism into something like a scavenger hunt, where they try to collect as many “souls” as possible. It’s all about intellectually trying to convince someone of something that the Spirit has to convict them of.

I’m sorry but I do not commend wrongheaded methodology.

72   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

“I’m sorry but I do not commend wrongheaded methodology.”

Did I mention methodology? I admire tenancity as it pertains to evangelism. Tenancity, not methodology. John’s tenancity is to save souls, Ingrid’s tenacity is self righteous destruction.

73   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

#69 Yeah, I was saying you don’t need to believe that to be saved.

74   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Did I mention methodology? I admire tenancity as it pertains to evangelism. Tenancity, not methodology. John’s tenancity is to save souls, Ingrid’s tenacity is self righteous destruction.

I can’t honestly say that I admire tenacity, though. I’ve seen plenty of tenacious people who were well intentioned but did more harm than good. How can I say I admire that? We’d be better off if they were a bit more reserved.

What I admire is wisdom and listening to the Spirit when it comes to evangelism.

75   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

#65 When God saves you, He shows Himself to be true. If it were not true, why would it be in the Bible? If you don’t believe the Bible, God’s Words, His truth, then how can you believe God when it comes to salvation?

#66 Phil, the Bible does not teach that.

76   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 19th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

John,
Can you read Hebrew?

77   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

#76 Just as well or better than your pastor.

And I do understand literary structure as well. Genesis is History.

78   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I don’t know what the comprehensive goal of the “emergents” is since we’re not some cabal out to take over the world like, say, Hollywood or the Illuminati…

anyway…

i’m not trying to dispel anything.

i’ve never denied God is the Creator of the world.

nice try though.

you can’t assert something is history by force of will.

talk about elevating your ideology over reality.

The text is theological, not science.

79   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

#75:

sounds so clever, but it’s so tired.

At its base, the text affirms God as the Creator.

Please show me chapter and verse, oh sola scriptura boy, that says an embrace of your interpretation is a sign of genuine Christian identity?

80   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 19th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

John Chisham,
you’re not dealing with my pastor, you’re dealing with me. Are you saying that the text of Gen 1 is not poetic? What form is it then? History isn’t a form btw, so you’ll need to tell me if it’s prose, or poetry etc.

81   M.G.    
November 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

This is from Ben Witherington’s blog:

But the deepest flaw in the whole young earth theory is the assumption that one can read the book of Genesis as if it were a scientific treatise giving us precise information about a whole host of scientific issues. This frankly is false. It addresses theological, historical, and ethical issues– not geological, cosmological or other scientific issues. Indeed, a good deal of what we have in Gen. 1 is pure poetry– not even prose.

There is the further serious problem that the genealogies in Genesis, and elsewhere in the Bible are often very incomplete, and deliberately so. They are segmented genealogies.

In other words– Genesis tells us nothing about either the age of the earth or the length of time humans have been on the earth at all. The Bible has nothing to teach us about these subjects.

So, PB, is Ben unsaved too?

82   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 19th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

It’s not about the issue of Creation for John Chisham, it’s about the issue of attacking Rob Bell. That is why he had to attack me even when I agreed with him.

83   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

And I do understand literary structure as well. Genesis is History.

That’s kind of like saying “I understand painting very well. Red is a type of paintbrush, not a color”

Genesis is compiled of a number of types of literary texts, including poetry and genealogy (which in the Ancient Near East is not considered historical, but commentary – which is why some genealogies leave out certain individuals and others include them).

Genesis 1-3 is comprised of several poems and poetic literature.

None of Genesis is considered “History” as defined by a modernist perspective. The only “history” books in the OT, from a modernist standpoint, are I & II Kings and I & II Chronicles.

84   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Genesis 1 and 2 interpretation:

God did it somehow.

You would be surprised at how the believers in the Sudan, or Haiti, or even India would be completely ignorant of these deabtes, as well as some of the more “curious” interpretations of the creation story they espouse.

I believe the 24 hour creation day theory is…well…unsubstantiated by both Scripture and the revelation of creation itself.

85   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

#66 Phil, the Bible does not teach that.

If you’re going to insist on a strict literalism with the poetry in Genesis 1-3, you might as well be consistent and enforce it on this as well:

Psalm 93

1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

#65 When God saves you, He shows Himself to be true. If it were not true, why would it be in the Bible? If you don’t believe the Bible, God’s Words, His truth, then how can you believe God when it comes to salvation?

Truth and literalness are two different concepts. Apparently, that idea is not something you can grasp.

86   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Are heaven’s gates made with oyster spit?

87   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

zzzzzzzzz

http://pastorboy.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/origin-of-species-giveaway-an-apologetic/

88   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 19th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Nathan (#26):

did you seriously expect people NOT to react to such a polarizing figure as Palin?

No, but I seriously expected that more than one (two if you count Chris L’s) out of the first 11 comments would actually address what I wrote.

Silly me.

89   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Jerry (#27), I’ve got no beef with Comfort in general and admire a lot of the stuff that you cited. And getting to hang around The Kirk all the time is 10 kinds of awesome. And WotM cuts ties with Friel, which was 100 kinds of awesome.

But this….

90   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 19th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

PB (#43):

I do not understand why Christians attack one another for their efforts in spreading the Gospel.

I’m going to run down the middle of I-75 in a diaper shouting “Jesus Is Lord!” Nobody’d better question me.

PB, any chance you’d lay aside the name-calling and actually, like, address the OP? None of what you’ve said addresses or stands in opposition to my question.

91   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

I told you how it was different Brendt- one is attacking, the other is redemptive. Wake up. We are trying to win the lost, not tear Darwin down. Comfort in his introduction does not tear Darwin down, He lifts Christ up.

92   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 19th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Rick (#69):

To require a literal interpretation of Genesis as a tenant of salvation is adding to the gospel.

AMEN! And what you describe is an actual “false gospel” as opposed to how the ODMs abuse the term to mean “anything we don’t like”.

93   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 19th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

PB (#91), you’re way too granular there. I’m not questioning the intentions of either. I’m questioning the methods and noting the glaring similarity.

As long as everyone seems to be hung up on politics, I’ll say this: To say that all that matters is Comfort’s intention is to say that Obama deserved that Nobel.

94   Neil    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Pastorboy,

I am trying to understand how and why you think a person needs to believe a passage is of a certain genre as evidence of being saved.

Someone acknowledges their belief in a six-day creation, yet because they think Genesis 1-3 is poetic their salvation is in question?

It boggles my mind that someone can write-off whole swaths of people as lost simple because they do not agree on the interpretation of a tangential issue.

Should the dispensationalist say the person who does not believe in a promised third temple also disbelieves God’s word and is therefore unsaved?

Where does the calling someone lost based on your interpretation of a text end?

95   Neil    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Pastorboy,

I commend you for your encounters yesterday, even though you are caught in a modernist approach – it’s better than nothing… (as long as you differentiate yourself from the Million-soul Marathon type folks).

That said, the book, in and of itself, smacks of deception. An introduction and a rebuttal are two different things, and the way the book is presented leads one to believe that Comfort wrote one and not the other.

I think it fine to hand out copies of Darwin’s book with a rebuttal… I just think it should be obvious that that is what it is.

96   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

61

1. I believe Genesis is history.
2. I believe in 6 days of creation.
3. I am not emergent; I’m Anglican.
4. You didn’t answer the question: what if it was a Leap Year? (As if God can’t take a joke. Sheesh.)

5. Wow, hey everyone…John spoke to THOUSANDS OF AGNOSTICS AND ATHEISTS yesterday all by himself!!!!!!!

jerry

97   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pm

I mean no disrespect by #5 above, I just figure John wants us to acknowledge what he did since he keeps pointing it out to us that he did it.

98   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Getting back to book itself, I actually see a great potential for it to backfire on Comfort. Get this book in the hands of some Fundie kids and they actually read Darwin’s book and come away saying, “hey, this Darwin guy doesn’t sound so bad after all…”

99   Neil    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Pastorboy,

On a more personal note:

I had every expectation that you’d come to the defense of Comfort… and that is fine. We are talking about something subjective here.

I am, however, really disappointed and saddened to see you elevate the issue of six-day literalism to the level of a salvific acid-test.

As was pointed out, “literal” and “true” are different.

I thought believes could just agree to disagree, and argue in the meantime, on issues that were disputable… I wonder what other tangential interpretation should be included is a Gospel presentation.

100   M.G.    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

If we want to get technical, introductions are to be written by the authors (or editors) themselves, and they are intended to provide the reader with the full scope of the book.

Forewords are written by someone other than author, and are generally written both to introduce the text and provide some laudatory words for the book.

What Comfort wrote is in no way, shape or form an introduction.

If you did not wish to be charitable, you could accuse him of being dishonest.

101   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

I wonder how he got permission to do so in the first place. Maybe the book is in public domain and didn’t have to?

Eh, either way. Who cares.

*thinking to self*–damn, if only I could hang around the Kirk for a day or two I’d be set for life. Chicks would dig me. Posters would be made of me. I could be in cool movies like “Left Behind, part 53: When Everyone Woke up and Realized Buck was Wrong and What Happened to his Journalism Career Afterwards…”

102   Neil    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

If you did not wish to be charitable, you could accuse him of being dishonest.

I think this a good example of giving the brother in Christ the benefit of the doubt… of charitable interpretation and opinion.

I in no way believe Comfort intended to be dishonest, or gave the technical definition of an “introduction” any thought.

I just think the bait-and-switch tactic unbecoming as an evangelistic method.

103   Neil    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Jerry,

wow.

Neil

104   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

A couple years ago someone gave my wife and I tickets for the local minor league baseball team, and it happened to be “Christian family night” or something like that at the ballpark (lame, I know), and Kirk Cameron was there to speak after the game.

We didn’t stay to listen.

105   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

modernist approach

Neil – just curious. What do you mean by that?

106   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

ugh.

i don’t know what’s worse: extolling Obama for getting an undeserved Nobel OR thinking in any way shape or form Kirk Cameron is so stratospherically cool that he should be referred to as The Kirk.

this is purgatory.

;)

107   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Phil (#104), I don’t know which is more disturbing — your heathen-ness or your lack of the recognition of cool. ;-)

108   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
November 19th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

For Nathan (#106), it’s obviously the latter. ;-)

109   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

LOL!!!! :D

110   Neil    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
modernist approach

Neil – just curious. What do you mean by that?

Modernism reigned within the evangelistic methods of American Christians throughout the 20th Century.

The best example is the Four Spiritual Laws. Such things appeal to the modernist mind.

The 20th Century evangelistic techniques were typified by rational arguments, calls for punctilliar decisions, large and small venue events were an apology for the Gospel was laid out in logical steps.

111   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

@ Paul C…

he’s probably speaking in terms of people who read so closely that they deny the doctrine of the Trinity.

;)

i kid, i kid.

i’ll start growing up now…

:)

112   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Just wondering – does the book come with or without bananas?

113   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

I am not about a modernist approach, simply because I do not look for decisions.

It is okay, I understand. Of course you hate people who love the Lord and share their faith. It is typical, I meet you guys on the college campus all the time.

114   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

wow.

john chisham, you can look into people’s hearts?!?!

who knew!??!

115   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

112:

:D

116   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

#101 the book is public domain.

#94 I never said you had to believe a certain way about Genesis to be saved. I asked a question-If you cannot believe that part of the Bible, If you cannot take Jesus at His Word, how can you believe about salvation?

117   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 6:04 pm

PB,

your question presumes that a failure to agree with your claims about Gen. 1 means someone can’t have confidence in the Bible’s witness about salvation.

118   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 19th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

#94 I never said you had to believe a certain way about Genesis to be saved. I asked a question-If you cannot believe that part of the Bible, If you cannot take Jesus at His Word, how can you believe about salvation?

What does taking Jesus at His word have to do with viewing Genesis as not a literal description of creation?

I believe God created, but I believe the actual biochemical and molecular processes involved are beyond the scope of what the Bible tells us. The Bible doesn’t tell us about the processes involved in digestion, for instance, but that doesn’t mean studying these processes somehow demonstrates a lack of faith. The only reason these processes are here in the first is because God created the universe. The extent to which part of the creation process is ordered and directed verses random processes can be up to some debate, as far as I’m concerned.

Also, to answer your question, I’d say that thinking of Scripture as a standalone external witness is a very modernist way to approach it. Coming with an apologetic that tries to prove the veracity of Scripture as way to prove the veracity of Christ is like pushing a wet noodle. It will just lead to unending frustrations.

I don’t believe Scripture is true simply because the text says I should believe it. I believe Scripture is true because I have had an encounter with the living Christ. And that is the primary thing. A person needs to meet Christ before anything else. These other things are secondary or even tertiary.

119   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

#117
a plain reading….believe me, the Hebrew does not add much, even yom- day- 24 hours, evening and morning….even the english makes it very clear.

You are like the Athiest yesterday who asked me why the Bible did not define a clear word like fornication, why the Bible did not have definitions. How much more clear can ‘evening and morning…first day’ then ‘evening and morning, second day’…and so on.

You believe it or you don’t- But be careful not to call God a liar.

120   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 19th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tonymiano/2009/11/20/ambassadors-alliance-radio-2009-044

Check out this show tonight if you have the time- speaking about this book and the project to get it into schools.

121   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

oh, i get it…

i don’t agree with your interpretation of a poem and now i’m calling God a liar.

awesome.

if you really had an ounce of the basic reading comprehension you claim to possess you’d see that no one who disagrees with you ever denies that God is the Creator.

so what exactly don’t i believe?

simply, your naked assertion that a poem is a “historical account”.

and now i’m like an atheist.

awesome.

you’ll be at the marriage feast of the Lamb with this “atheist” then…and a whole other bunch of people you said would never be there.

enjoy that today while i ask you to pass the heavenly gravy…

122   nathan    
November 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

ya know, PB. if you went to the wall on the “plain reading” from the very mouth of Jesus about non-violence…then i might give some weight to what passes for your “hermeneutic”…

123   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

All the back and forth I’ve read between folks here and Pastorboy not just this OP but, the many others, it’s obvious. Maybe it’s been already said, I don’t recall, but, Pastorboy’s appearances here are nothing more than an extension of his bullhorn street ministry. I don’t know where you all get the energy because I get tired out watchin’ it! You’re all lost and he’s trying to bullhorn you into the kingdom. :)

He’s not hearing you anymore than what he hears when the atheist, the lost and others that confront him on the street, at least it appears a such. I don’t see his batteries running out very soon…….

124   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

The Genesis account may well be literally accurate according to the general narrative. But if we limit it to a story about a man, a woman, and a snake, we miss the journey which continues to dig deeper into the profound mysteries concerning good and evil, sin, and redemption. I believe the truths that lie significantly deeper than that simplistic account are colossally more profound than we could ever imagine, even though it seems to be communicated through a colossally simplistic format. I also believe that the literal truths behind the narrative are profoundly literal.

Does that make me a literalist?

125   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

If the 24 hour creation day is accurate, then God is a deceiver.

126   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 12:10 am

124, and I say just the opposite: if Genesis 1 isn’t history then the rest of the Bible cannot be trusted. Why open a book you intend people to believe by faith, a book that teaches us about Jesus, if you begin it with a lie? If I can’t trust God from the first word, then I don’t suppose I can trust him to have the last word, or any words in the middle either.

Nathan,
How dare you question the The Kirk? I knew there was something wrong with you.

Neil,
what got your ‘wow’ factor going? my litany of new beliefs or my observation and announcement of John’s triumphs?

127   nathan    
November 20th, 2009 at 12:10 am

@scotty,

you’re right.

128   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 12:38 am

Of course you hate people who love the Lord and share their faith.

Knock it off, Pastorboy. This is not true and you know it.

129   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 12:42 am

From a purely theological point of view and totally disregarding the science, I’m interested in how some of you respond to the following:

Let’s assume the evolutionary process as widely understood is correct, and that God used this process to create life.

Let’s assume sin and death entered the world through the pride of man, as described in Genesis.

Why did God use a process involving trillions of deaths over millions of years to produce man, clearly before man had sinned and fallen?

This is the biggest stumbling block to me for incorporating evolution into Christianity. I just don’t see how evolution could work in a pre-fallen world and I don’t see how the fall could work pre-evolution.

130   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 12:43 am

You believe it or you don’t- But be careful not to call God a liar.

I have yet to see anyone say they do not believe it.

131   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 1:07 am

Scotty,

Unfortunately, I think you may be more right than I previously was willing to admit. I’m not sure which is the greater emotion, my disappointment in failing to reason with him or my embarrassment at being fooled by him.

132   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 1:14 am

Re 129

Matt,

I have wondered that as well. Even wondering about the existence of death in the literal account. If Adam and Eve ate anything, would that have not caused its death, even if it were only vegetation?

133   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 1:35 am

Not necessarily Neil, you can eat an apple without killing or hurting the apple tree just as you can milk a cow without hurting it.

Personally I wouldn’t equate the “death” of a plant as a theological problem in a pre-fall era in the same way as the death of an animal would be, as it doesn’t involve suffering or pain.

134   chris    
November 20th, 2009 at 1:40 am

I just don’t see how evolution could work in a pre-fallen world and I don’t see how the fall could work pre-evolution.

I don’t find this conflicting. If you hold to a supralapsarian view this is not a problem. Other views potentially but…I won’t really know until I get there so I don’t worry/trouble myself with debating it.

135   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 1:57 am

Well frankly I’d have no idea if I hold to a Supralapsarian view or not…

*Quick wiki search*

Oh, no I don’t hold a supralapsarian view. It seems that view has the exact same problem in and of itself anyway.

Otherwise I agree with you though, I don’t really worry/trouble myself with debating it.

136   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 7:44 am

I do not believe in Darwinian evolution. However I just cannot believe the universe is only 6000 years old. Hubble consistently sees exposions and other phenomenon that are much further than 6000 light years away.

So that means that God purposely embedded a light even that never actually took place. Why? Was it to make us think the universe is older than 6000 years and thereby having us be heretics in some people’s eyes?

I believe in the Biblical account of mankind, but I reject the young earth theory. Think about it – if man is millions of years old wouldn’t the earth be completely covered with humans by now?

Frueh Doctrine

Old earth – young man.

(None of these issues are redemptively required)

137   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 8:20 am

#136
We assume that light travels a certain speed, based on the assumption that the universe is always growing and our limited observations of light.

Ultimately, modern science, especially evolution is non-science, because of the presuppositions, indeed, the bias that enters in. I wonder how much more we could discover if we would just use the scientific method and observe the world without our pre-conceived notions.

*Rob Bell was not mentioned in this post.

138   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am

These guys are Christians, and they’ve got a number of answers to questions about non-literalist, Christian views of Creation.

I’d also point to this article we published last year.

You believe it or you don’t- But be careful not to call God a liar.

I’ve not heard any Christian view of creation that calls God a liar – even if it does not support a literal, 6 24-hour day account.

[It goes without saying that there is no timetable or “day” given to Gen 1:1-2 (which could have been billions of years, even in a literalist view), and that the day/night cycle was not established until day 4. This was Spurgeon’s view, BtW… It was not until the huge public conflict around the Scopes Trial that the literal 6 24-hour day view became a “hill to die on”…

I say just the opposite: if Genesis 1 isn’t history then the rest of the Bible cannot be trusted. Why open a book you intend people to believe by faith, a book that teaches us about Jesus, if you begin it with a lie? If I can’t trust God from the first word, then I don’t suppose I can trust him to have the last word, or any words in the middle either.

Jerry – no other Christian view suggests that Gen 1 is a lie if it is not literal history. Literalism was not a literary form – even for the Egyptians – until after the Greek Empire.

My personal belief on the Creation happens to be one of modal theistic agnosticism – I believe God created it all, but I don’t know (and don’t really care about) the exact mode He used. Each human view has its problems – especially when treated dogmatically.

God did not create a world whose evidence contradicts the laws He created to govern it (see Rom 1). And the evidence of Creation suggests that the world is much older than 6000 years.

The ancient cosmology of the world assumed that we were living on a disk made of land surrounded by water above and water below it, and that the stars were affixed to a sphere beyond the waters. The Genesis account supports this view – even though we know it is not literally true.

Why did God use a process involving trillions of deaths over millions of years to produce man, clearly before man had sinned and fallen?

I would note that in the Genesis account of the creation of man, the key is God breathing into him – that is, giving to him ruach (spirit) – and that this was connected to man being made in God’s image. Thus, it is not the death of other creatures – or pre-human, spiritless “man” (if he existed) counted as a death. Death only becomes important when it is associated with one given God’s image.

In the ancient Near East, the importance of the story of Creation each culture told was what it taught about the God (or gods) your culture believed in. Many of the creation accounts from the same time-frame as the writing of the Genesis account are similar to Genesis except in two key aspects: 1) God created from nothing via a spoken word – not through violence or struggle with evil; and 2) God rested when it was done, calling it “good”.

The purpose of a story of Creation was not to give a literal account, but to give an account of where God came from and what He is like. In Genesis, God already is at the beginning of the story (another difference from other cultures), and – according to Genesis Rabba (the ancient Jewish commentary on Genesis) – Jews were forbidden to ask “what happened before the beginning”, because it questioned whether God always existed (to which the answer was an emphatic yes!).

I would say that it is very uncharitable to say that 1) Literal, Young Earth Creationists deny science; or that 2) Old Earth, Christian views of Creation teach that Genesis 1 is a lie.

We can believe Genesis 1 without believing that it is a literal, historical account. We can also believe Genesis 1 is a literal, historical account without denigrating Christians who hold opposing views, or insinuating that they believe God to be a liar.

139   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 9:32 am

Why did God use a process involving trillions of deaths over millions of years to produce man, clearly before man had sinned and fallen?

This is the biggest stumbling block to me for incorporating evolution into Christianity. I just don’t see how evolution could work in a pre-fallen world and I don’t see how the fall could work pre-evolution.

There are a couple of things I would say in response to this.

First, remember that evil, in an ontological sense, existed prior to Adam and Eve’s sin. Satan’s rebellion took place sometime prior to the account in Genesis. So the fact that he would be working to counter God’s creative efforts prior to humanity’s fall should not be surprising.

Second, and this is related to the first point, even though Scripture is clear that God did create the universe ex nihilo, there is nothing that says we have to assume the Genesis account is describing the creation of the entire universe. In fact, the description we’re given in the second verse of chapter 1 indicates that the earth was already there:

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This description could be read as the desolation after a protracted battle, and what we are seeing is the wasteland. So God is restoring, or bringing forth order from this battlefield.

In other words, I think that there is evidence that God and Satan were involved in an ongoing war prior to the arrival of human beings on the scene. This may help explain some of elements in nature that seem to exist for no other reason but for the predator to inflict pain and suffering on its prey, or why there is such a thing as “natural evil”. God was creating while Satan was doing His best to counteract Him.

Of course this only makes sense if you are willing to concede that God creates beings (including some who are purely spiritual) who have true free will, and, personally, I don’t have a problem with that. Trying to incorporate this scheme into a deterministic or even compatibilistic view is more problematic.

140   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 9:32 am

I wonder how much more we could discover if we would just use the scientific method and observe the world without our pre-conceived notions.

Like the pre-conceived notions that the world is 6000 years old?

The scientific method is simply that a) you can hypothesize something; b) you then make multiple observations or experiments to test the hypothesis; and c) you accept/reject/adjust the hypothesis based upon (b).

It is not rocket science (well, OK, it technically is, but it’s not difficult or based upon faulty ground). Paul even lends support to the method in Romans 1.

141   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 9:34 am

“We assume that light travels a certain speed, based on the assumption that the universe is always growing and our limited observations of light.”

FYI – It travels 186,000 a second. In 2004 the Cassini probe reached orbit around Saturn after travelling between the planet and its rings. The ability and science necessary to have a small probe travel over one billion kilometers, through solar wind, magnetic fields, approximately 200 moons of Saturn, and with that kind of pecision is basd upon the “assumption” that what we call physics is correct.

Light travels at 186,000 miles a second – bank on that! Why do we assume that science is not compatible with Biblical truths? There are approximately 200 billion galaxies in the universe with several million being named.

Of course Hubble was the first to observe the continuing expansion of the universe. The universe is a magnificent reflection of our Great God and I am not afraid of any process that He might have employed in creation.

I do not fear the process because whatever it was it was at His “hand”. Die on that 6000 year hill if you want, but my spiritual world is much bigger than that!!

ALERT – I apologize for the many pre-conceived notions I employ.

142   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 9:35 am

We could also talk about the Nephilim, but that would just open more of a can of worms…

143   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 9:40 am

I believe the Nephilim were known for their love of bananas…

144   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 9:42 am

I must admit, though, that there seems to be modern descendents of Mr. Cro Magnum. :cool:

145   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 9:49 am

How exactly is something like the speed of light, which has been repeatedly observed through experimental data and through calculation a preconceived notion? If anything, the discoveries in quantum physics over the past 75 years or so have turned many of our preconceived notion on their heads.

It’s alright, PB, go ahead and get rid of any of that annoying credibility that you may still have…

146   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 9:54 am

We need another Scopes trial where southern bigots and racists demand evolution be eradicated from secular schools.

I am not afraid of the monkeys, the primates or the singing group.

147   M.G.    
November 20th, 2009 at 10:07 am

Re:137

I don’t understand this comment. I always thought that the first calculations for the speed of light came about during the Enlightenment, based on observations of one of Jupiter’s moons.

Wouldn’t this be several hundred years prior to either Darwin, or actual theoretical models of the universe?

148   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 10:11 am

The Monkees lip synced. That was not fully evolved until Milli Vanilli.

Phil, Rick, et. al. How do you know? Really, have you ever personally measured light and its speed? Or are you trusting men, scientists, that it travels that speed?

All I am proposing is that God would not have written Genesis in the way that He did if it were not important and factual. If it is a fairy tale (like evolution) then sin, and eventual salvation from sin, is just a poetic fallacy also.

149   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 10:16 am

You are correct, MG. His name was Olaf Roemer and he based his finings on Jupiter and one of its moons as they were observed when the earth drew closer. His findings were surprisingly accurate given the 17th century’s instruments.

We now have laser instruments that can measure the speed of light down to a mili-second.

150   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 10:18 am

PB – How do you know your speedometer is accurate? Can Genesis help us with that?

To say we do not know the speed of light is goofy.

151   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 10:20 am

Chris,

I think there is a difference between understanding something literal and the presentation of it being literal.

The Hebrew life was built upon the premise that God created, used six days, and rested on the seventh. I suppose if that were not literally true, then even our week would be only four days long.

I don’t judge people based on their opinion about Genesis 1, but I do think that, from a literary and historical point of view, there has to be some sort of history embedded in Genesis or else the rest of Scripture–including notions about re-creations (Such as new heavens and new earth)–to be true.

If God didn’t create this pile of garbage we live on, or me, then what confidence can I have in Scripture that claims he will do it all over again?

Or shall I bank on billions of years of evolution before it all gets ‘put to rights’?

I think these are serious questions, and I am seriously asking them. IMO, Genesis 3-Revelation 22 depend greatly upon how I interpret and understand Genesis 1:1ff.

jerry

152   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 10:22 am

Phil, Rick, et. al. How do you know? Really, have you ever personally measured light and its speed? Or are you trusting men, scientists, that it travels that speed?

Boy, this sounds a lot saying that we could never really scientifically prove something like the Virgin Birth…

Actually, I believe that sometime in one of my physics classes, I did probably do some sort of experiment where I had to derive the speed of light.

153   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 10:28 am

If God didn’t create this pile of garbage we live on, or me, then what confidence can I have in Scripture that claims he will do it all over again?

Or shall I bank on billions of years of evolution before it all gets ‘put to rights’?

I think these are serious questions, and I am seriously asking them. IMO, Genesis 3-Revelation 22 depend greatly upon how I interpret and understand Genesis 1:1ff.

Hey, Jerry did you see my comment in #139? I kind of take a stab at that… I guess my view is that the original creation of earth could be seen in and of itself as the beginning of the divine rescue mission for the cosmos. Satan rebelled prior to the earth’s creation, and the creation of the earth and its inhabitants were to play a role in the ultimate defeat of Satan and the restoration of the cosmos.

Anyway, a lot that was ripped from Greg Boyd’s book, Satan and the Problem of Evil, if you’re interested in reading on your own. i appreciate Boyd because he’s one of few theologians I know of who actually can talk intelligently in regards to science, i.e., at the level that he wouldn’t automatically be brushed away by actual scientists.

154   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 10:28 am

If you insist on literacy of Genesis 1 and 2, then please do not say “24 hour” creation day.

It’s 24 hour and 9 second creation day.

155   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 10:30 am

All I am proposing is that God would not have written Genesis in the way that He did if it were not important and factual. If it is a fairy tale (like evolution) then sin, and eventual salvation from sin, is just a poetic fallacy also. – Pastorboy

**approach wall**
**bang head against*
(repeat)

No one is saying that the accounts in Genesis are not factual. The question is whether or not the genre is literal.

156   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 10:32 am

It’s all so goofy to me. The New Testament clearly outlines the battle issues, and they all center around Christ and His redemption. People get the impression that Christians have no brain and that everything -

Halloween
Music
24 hour creation day
inerrancy
gay marriage
capitalism
etc.

are intertwined as must believe in order to really be a Christian.

157   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 10:34 am

All I am proposing is that God would not have written Genesis… -Pastorboy

You also proposed that we “hate people who love the Lord and share their faith.”

158   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 10:49 am

Phil,

I’ll have to do some work on that. I’m not sure how I feel about the whole ‘God and satan were in a war’ kind of thing.

Only because I haven’t heard of it nor have any of the theologians I spend time with have mentioned it either. Give me some time on that one.

159   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am

Jerry,

I have heard it described thus:

Genesis 2 assumes the earth has already been created, there was even water already.

It is described as “formless and void” or “waste and emptiness” and darkness was over the surface of the deep. These terms are associated with judgment, therefore the thought is that the fall and banishment of Satan and his demons took place between Genesis 1 and 2.

160   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 10:58 am

I’ll have to do some work on that. I’m not sure how I feel about the whole ‘God and satan were in a war’ kind of thing.

Only because I haven’t heard of it nor have any of the theologians I spend time with have mentioned it either. Give me some time on that one.

I hear ya…

I think Boyd has the potential to freak people out because he’s the kind of guy who automatically go for the jugular in any type of debate, so he can put people off. But if you put aside some of his rhetorical style, I think he has a lot of good stuff to say.

N.T. Wright kind of tangentially gets into the whole warfare motif, but it’s a lot less explicit. For instance, I have not really seen him speculate about the actual origins of evil, other than the fact that from the very beginning there was something wrong with the world. He does not spend much time talking about the nature of Satan.

C.S. Lewis actually takes on the problem of evil as well, and Boyd actually quotes him quite a bit.

161   chris    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:08 am

Really, have you ever personally measured light and its speed? Or are you trusting men, scientists, that it travels that speed?

Bwaahahahahahah….I’m not much of scientist but I just had this conversation at our small group with a guy who is a PhD physicist. He was trying to get me to understand that the “speed of light” is the only true measurement of time that we have and everything else is adjusted to it. I don’t know; confusing to me but I trust him. He directed me to this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ6N85lNgHY

BTW he’s a died in wool literal creationist.

162   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:11 am

Re: 138. I can see what your point about breathing in life in the “God image” sense, but it still leaves you with a God who (in my opinion) is more of a jerk to kittens for no real reason for thousands of years than I’d really like to concede.

Seems odd that this one section of scripture is the one we feel we need to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

If I’m a christian I’m all ready swallowing at least a virgin birth, a resurrection or two and some other miscellaneous miracles.

Depending on your view of the old testament you are also having to deal with one dude having magic hair and killing thousands with an ass jawbone and a talking mule.

Modal theistic agnosticism would probably sum up my attitude towards genesis too, though (if that’s what we are calling the “too hard” basket these days :P ).

163   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:17 am

Re: 156, I hear you Rick, I don’t think it’s a salvation issue at all.

It’s definitely an intellectual stumbling block for New Christians or people investigating Christianity though.

164   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:19 am

Matt,

You have a problem with diferentiating death between animals and humans – theologically speaking.

I sahre the same problem when you differentiate between the death of a plant and an animal.

Death is death. And if it was the result of the fall in the absolute sense, I don;t see what difference it makes whose or what’s death we are talking about,

165   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:27 am

Fair enough Neil.

I do see the two deaths as different though, in the same way I’d feel differently if my puppy died or if my hibiscus died.

I can imagine God having the growth and re-growth of plants as part of his pre-fall perfect design but I can’t imagine him having puppy death as part of it is all I’m really saying.

166   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 11:27 am

Death is death. And if it was the result of the fall in the absolute sense, I don;t see what difference it makes whose or what’s death we are talking about,

Yes, does Scripure ever explicitly say that Adam’s sin brought death to the entire ecosystem and not just to humanity? The passage that I’ve heard most people reference when dealing with this is Romans 5:12-14.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

It seems to that thought it says, “sin entered the world”, that through the context of the passage, Paul is actually only thinking about the human race. And I believe that the “world” there would not mean in the global or spatial sense, but in the sense of the human cultural system. So sin and death entered the human race, but is there somewhere we are told that Adam’s sin affected all of nature?

I wouldn’t deny that sin and evil does affect nature, but I would go back to my earlier comments. It seems that Satan and the power opposing God were at work prior to Adam and Eve appearing on the scene.

167   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:33 am

Be a bit odd if pre-fall everything else was decaying and dying but man was wandering around not, in my view.

Also you’d feel super gyped if you were the last hominid on the evolutionary line in the sand between apes and humans, and your son was born with eternal life and you weren’t :P

168   Matt    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:35 am

The passage that springs to mind is the lion lying down with the lamb. I know it’s allegorical, but to me it suggests that something has gone wrong with the natural world that wasn’t there before and will be put right in the future.

169   corey    
November 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am

PB,
Have you ever built a car from scratch or are you trusting the men and women that designed and built it that it won’t burst into flames as you drive it? Have you ever made electricity or do you trust those that send it through wires to your house that when you plug your laptop in, your computer will consistently turn on? Do you have original manuscripts of the Bible or do you trust that the people who copied and translated and passed it on through the generations generally did a pretty good job? When the doctor tells you that you need to do something, do you go and dissect cadavers and attempt to cure the same disease yourself before you take their advice?

Everything that we do is based on some degree of trust in people who know more than we do about a certain subject. To say that we should all go and measure the speed of light for ourselves because it’s just some atheistic conspiracy to bring down Christianity is so completely ludicrous that I have a hard time believing that you’re even serious. Please tell me that you’re joking about this one!

170   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am

Be a bit odd if pre-fall everything else was decaying and dying but man was wandering around not, in my view.

Also you’d feel super gyped if you were the last hominid on the evolutionary line in the sand between apes and humans, and your son was born with eternal life and you weren’t :P

LOL, I don’t know about that…

I guess I would say that the fact that God breathed life into man is the thing that sets him apart from other animals, more than any of the physical differences. So I don’t think that other primates have the mental and emotional capabilities to experience things such as regret and longing like you’re describing.

The passage that springs to mind is the lion lying down with the lamb. I know it’s allegorical, but to me it suggests that something has gone wrong with the natural world that wasn’t there before and will be put right in the future.

Yes, something definitely has gone wrong in nature. It is under attack from the Enemy as well, and it is part of the restoration that was initiated and won at Christ’s death and resurrection. That was a cosmic event with implications for the entire universe.

I guess the way I see it, Satan’s rebellion and fall predates humanity’s rebellion and fall, and it was the former that was more of a cosmic thing. Humanity’s fall, while a devastating and far-reaching event, was part of the bigger fall and rebellion which was ongoing from a time before the creation of the earth.

171   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 11:46 am

Yes, does Scripure ever explicitly say that Adam’s sin brought death to the entire ecosystem and not just to humanity?

I think so. When you read the following:

Gen 3:17: Cursed is the ground because of you

Paul also speaks of the state of creation in Romans 8:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

This seems to correspond with Gen 3.

Finally, in Rev 22, we see the curse (Gen 3, and referred to in Rom 8) is lifted:

No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.

The passage that springs to mind is the lion lying down with the lamb.

There’s no scripture that actually says this BUT I agree with your premise. At the return of Jesus, all will be set right – the very nature of nature and mankind will be changed because the “knowledge of God will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.”

172   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Yes, does Scripure ever explicitly say that Adam’s sin brought death to the entire ecosystem and not just to humanity?

I think so. When you read the following:

Gen 3:17: Cursed is the ground because of you

This curse is referring to the fact that Adam and Eve will have to toil with frustration to get the ground produce food for them. I don’t see that it necessarily needs to be read in a way that it means the entirety of nature is cursed through their sin.

Paul also speaks of the state of creation in Romans 8:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

This actually supports what I’ve laid out. The being who subjected creation to decay was Satan.

One theory is that Satan was a high ranking viceroy in the hierarchy of heaven, and that he was given the responsibility to oversee various aspect of the cosmos prior to his fall. So if he rebelled while he still had authority over the earth (something which Jesus actually attributes to Satan), the earth suffered because of his rebellion. It’s just as like what happens to a country with corrupt leadership – it suffers because of the leader’s bad choices, and it’s because of no fault of its own.

173   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Corey, just repeating questions athiests have asked me about scripture into science like light speed, so, yep. ;)

174   corey    
November 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Got it…So that was parody of responses like “How do you know that the Bible is inspired?” and stuff like that…

175   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

M.G.: I don’t understand this comment. I always thought that the first calculations for the speed of light came about during the Enlightenment, based on observations of one of Jupiter’s moons.

M.G. – Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) has postulated that the Speed of Light is actually decreasing at an exponentially logarithmic scale (i.e. incredibly faster at the time of creation with a sharp deceleration, followed by a leveling out), such that it could describe how we could see the light of stars more than 6000 light years away (i.e. All of the stars that exist) without negating Paul’s observations about the evidence of creation.

PB: All I am proposing is that God would not have written Genesis in the way that He did if it were not important and factual.

It is important and factual. The problem is that questions it was written to answer are indeed important (where did God come from, where did we come from, what is God’s nature), and the people to whom it was written considered “factual” to mean something other than “literal-scientific”, since the Enlightenment (where the “literal-scientific” frame of reference was born) was more than 2000+ years in the future.

In their cosmology, the earth was fixed in place, the sun & planets rotated around it, there were waters suspended above the land, which floated on another layer of water, and the stars were beyond the planets, fixed to the inside surface of a hollow sphere, outside of which God lived.

The entire OT – if viewed as a scientific text – supports this view of cosmology (and Galileo was nearly executed for proving it wrong).

THAT is the problem with treating the Bible as if it is a modern and modernistic literal text, rather than a combination of writings of multiple literary types, whose purpose is to describe God in numerous ways – from poetic to literal to philosophical. Part of discernment comes in determining which descriptions are which. Your problem is that you haven’t got a whiff of discernment in these areas.

If it is a fairy tale (like evolution) then sin, and eventual salvation from sin, is just a poetic fallacy also.

If black is not a color, then I had pizza for breakfast.

The problem with evolution is not that it is “a fairy tale” – the problem with evolution comes only when one assumes it is/was all a product of chance, and/or that it (and chance) is the only rational explanation for the origin of mankind.

PB: Really, have you ever personally measured light and its speed? Or are you trusting men, scientists, that it travels that speed?

In Freshman Physics (which I took en route to my engineering degree), we measured the speed of light. So yes, I have measured it.

The Hebrew life was built upon the premise that God created, used six days, and rested on the seventh. I suppose if that were not literally true, then even our week would be only four days long.

But even the Jews were not insistent that the days (particularly 1-3) were 24 hours long. If you read their commentaries, the importance of each “day” was the “it was evening and it was morning” – i.e. that God moved from chaos to order. This is why the Jewish day begins at sundown. The seventh day of rest – taking time to enjoy what God has created – was the primary cultural distinctive of the Jewish people (which led many of their neighbors – up through the Roman Empire, to assume they were lazy for not working every day).

Prior to the enlightenment, you wouldn’t have found any Rabbinim willing to go to the mat for a literal 7-day, 24-hour Creation (noting that all of them place the war in heaven prior to Genesis 1:2).

Jerry: there has to be some sort of history embedded in Genesis or else the rest of Scripture–including notions about re-creations (Such as new heavens and new earth)–to be true.

But what if what you consider “history” (i.e. a literal, chronological, scientific explanation) is something completely unimportant to the people to whom God answered the question “where did You come from, how did we get here, and what are you like? What is it about You that we can express to our neighboring cultures to show how you put their “gods” to shame?”

Those are the questions answered by Creation epics in the ancient Near East. Why should we have the hubris to demand that God write something 3,000 years ago that conforms to our definitions of “truth”, which are a mere 500 years old?

If God didn’t create this pile of garbage we live on, or me, then what confidence can I have in Scripture that claims he will do it all over again?

Who is arguing that God didn’t create our world or us? Which Christian view of creation says that God didn’t create the world? Which Christian view says that we are just an accident? None.

IMO, Genesis 3-Revelation 22 depend greatly upon how I interpret and understand Genesis 1:1ff.

I didn’t think you were tied to a systematic theology, Jerry?

Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

I find none of the Christian views of Genesis which deny this.

Matt: I can see what your point about breathing in life in the “God image” sense, but it still leaves you with a God who (in my opinion) is more of a jerk to kittens for no real reason for thousands of years than I’d really like to concede.

Then you’d also have to assume, then, that God is still more of a jerk to kittens, since the general theological consensus is that kittens (as cute as they are) have no souls, nor were they made in the image of God.

The importance of Adam’s mortality is that, for the first time, something made in the image of God died. This is completely opposed to God’s nature, and is thus highly important and surprising. Plants (or kittens) dying are not a product of the fall, man’s death and mortality is a product of the fall.

Seems odd that this one section of scripture is the one we feel we need to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Because its one that secular opponents have tried to hold to modernistic scrutiny. And, in trying to play their game by their rules (i.e. “literalism for all”), we end up looking rather foolish. It’s like Sally Quinn the other night on O’Reilly trying to understand how Sarah Palin could believe in God’s will, but still believe in free will. We don’t expect unbelievers to be theologians, but when they act like literalists, we shouldn’t immediately accept the grounds for their disbelief.

If I’m a christian I’m all ready swallowing at least a virgin birth, a resurrection or two and some other miscellaneous miracles.

All of which have specific purposes and were used specifically as miracles (for demonstration and theological purpose). Where miracles occur, we have given reasons for their occurrence.

Creation itself, though, Paul uses as evidence enough to convict sinners (see Rom 1) because of its demonstration of its Creator. The Answers in Genesis folks (who are the biggest supporters of the Literal 6 24-hour day view) even recognize this, which is why they keep looking for ways to reinterpret science to fit within their pre-determined view.

Paul says that the evidence of Creation proved God. Thus, evidence that would seem to contradict him (if Genesis 1 were a literally, modernistically “truth”) like the fossil record and starlight can only be mistakenly interpreted, otherwise Creation would prove that God contradicts himself, is just playing games with us, or does not exist.

Depending on your view of the old testament you are also having to deal with one dude having magic hair and killing thousands with an ass jawbone and a talking mule.

I would say that 1) Sampson’s hair was not magic, but that God only honored him with the given strength so long as he kept the Nazarite vows intact (which the hair was the key symbol); 2) He likely did kill a number of people [noting that the Hebrew word for 'thousand' - as used in Numbers - can also mean 'military companies', which would put this number much smaller.]; 3) I believe Balaam’s ass did talk.

Again, though, each of these is an identified miraculous event tagged for a specific purpose. Believing that God created the world over a period of time longer than 6 days does not take away from its miraculous nature. Believing that God created it in a way that also made complete sense within its own physical laws may actually take more faith…

176   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Phil – I just looked at a few different translations and the one who is referred to in Romans 8 is God, not Satan.

For the creation (nature) was subjected to [i]frailty (to futility, condemned to frustration), not because of some intentional fault on its part, but by the will of Him Who so subjected it–[yet] with the hope

So something definitely happened at the fall of Adam that basically allowed the curse to come upon all creation. That is why the “manifestation of the sons of God” at the return of Christ, lifts the curse.

So if he rebelled while he still had authority over the earth (something which Jesus actually attributes to Satan), the earth suffered because of his rebellion.

I believe that God created man to have “dominion” over the earth. It is possible that it was the Devil’s domain, hence he was in the garden. When man fell for Satan’s temptation, the earth became Satan’s domain (as Christ acknowledges). AND YET, God had a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world to redeem man from the grasp of Satan and all he offers – death, sin and separation from God.

177   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

yeppers….It was like the kid that said ‘how do we know what fornication is- does the Bible define that word?’

178   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

yeppers….It was like the kid that said ‘how do we know what fornication is- does the Bible define that word?’

Are you saying someone should not ask such questions?

Why do you mock honest discussions on the Word of God?

Why must you assume YOU have all the correct interpretations and no conflicting thoughts are valid – only questioning what God has clearly said?

Who are you to look into the hearts of men and judge their motives?

179   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

So something definitely happened at the fall of Adam that basically allowed the curse to come upon all creation. That is why the “manifestation of the sons of God” at the return of Christ, lifts the curse.

Actually, Paul, you are correct in that it was God who subjected creation to the curse because of Adam and Eve’s sin there, and I don’t deny that creation was affected in some way because of the that. I was trying to respond too quickly there. But I don’t think that the curse are the only effects of Satan’s rebellion that are seen on the earth.

In other words, Adam and Eve’s sin subjected creation to further suffering that it was already ongoing.

Also, have you ever wondered why God put Adam and Even in the garden in the first place? If the earth was completely sinless and safe, why would He have limited their freedom to the confines of the Garden? It seems to me that God created a place of safety within the war zone that was the planet earth at that time with the intentions of incubating the human race with the ultimate aim of the birth of Christ.

I guess what I’m getting at is that ultimately, it is the Enemy who is the ontological source of evil. Humans have the ability to choose evil, so when we do so, we rebel against God and believe the lies of the Enemy. The Enemy was working prior his appearance in the Garden.

180   corey    
November 20th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

I actually think the ‘fornication’ question is a pretty good one. How you define things in the bible like ’sexual immorality’ is really kind of tricky. Do we use our cultural views of sexual immorality, the culture in which the books were written, etc.? For instance, try to find a specific place in the bible where it says that sex between unmarried people prior to marriage is sinful. We assume that’s what ’sexual immorality’ means, but it sure doesn’t spell it out…

181   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Adam and Eve’s sin subjected creation to further suffering that it was already ongoing.

God’s (re)creation was not subject to decay until the fall of man.

Gen 1:31:
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

There was no decay or death at all. Everything God (re)made was good. It was sin that brought about death, decay and separation from God.

That’s why, when the Kingdom of God is established, the curse is lifted. Death dies and the veil between us and God is no more.

Also, have you ever wondered why God put Adam and Even in the garden in the first place? If the earth was completely sinless and safe, why would He have limited their freedom to the confines of the Garden?

Good question – not sure I have the answer. But Rev 13 speaks of a “Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.” God knew exactly what would happen in the garden and in His mind had already provided a way of redemption. Awesome to think about.

182   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

#175 – That is just nonsense. So light adjusts it speed so that the 6000 years range is a constant.

Just face it – the universe is way older than 6000 years. I don’t like it any more than you do. :cool:

183   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

There was no decay or death at all. Everything God (re)made was good. It was sin that brought about death, decay and separation from God.

And I don’t deny that everything God made was good. All I’m saying that the Enemy was at work opposing God prior to the creation of the earth. God’s bringing order out of the chaotic landscape of the earth was an act of pure goodness.

You haven’t attempted to explain where death and decay come from. All you’ve done is pushed back the question to another point.

In other words, humanity chose something that was against God’s will, but where did that something come from? Did God create it?

I know these questions seem tedious to some extent, but I think there things we should have some answer for.

To get back more to point, no one here has presented anything to disprove my assertion that an evolutionary process of some sort is out of the realm of possibilities as it relates to the Biblical narrative. I believe the Genesis account is true, but I do not believe it is literal. I believe it’s describing God’s intentions and His nature as the loving creator, but I do not think it’s an all-encompassing description of how the universe came to be.

184   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

That is just nonsense. So light adjusts it speed so that the 6000 years range is a constant.

Here’s some of the gymnastics they go through to explain starlight, Rick.

185   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 1:06 pm

You haven’t attempted to explain where death and decay come from.

In a word: sin.

In other words, humanity chose something that was against God’s will, but where did that something come from? Did God create it?

As Paul says, “Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning…” God created free will as opposed to robots. Eve was presented with an option by Satan that was clothed with “Did God say…? What he really means is…” She was deceived.

James puts it this way:

Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Going back to your original point, I don’t believe evolution is true. Neither do I believe in a 6-day, 24 hr creation. I believe the earth was around before Genesis 2 – it was re-created if you will.

Man did not evolve from amoebas.

One thing we need to understand is that many proponents of Evolution come at it with the expressed intent to disprove God. Evolution is not pure theory (just read about Darwin’s early life and that becomes apparent).

186   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

As Paul says, “Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning…” God created free will as opposed to robots. Eve was presented with an option by Satan that was clothed with “Did God say…? What he really means is…” She was deceived.

Yes, but where did Satan come from? He was a created Being, right? So even if you accept that premise, you are admitting that God was in the creation business prior to the activity described in Genesis. That is why I cannot say that Genesis is an all encompassing creation account. There are obvious things that had to have happened that we are not told about.

One thing we need to understand is that many proponents of Evolution come at it with the expressed intent to disprove God.

I don’t deny that there are hardcore atheists who use evolutionary theory as a weapon in their arsenal against Christians. But in my opinion, that just shows how much Christians need to really understand what is being talked about and really understand the real science behind it. Countering an argument like the ones Richard Dawkins puts forth with “but the Bible says” isn’t going to help a young Christian who’s sorting through things. What will help them is knowing that there are Christians who have looked at the issue and come up with ways which don’t present false dichotomies.

Evolution is not pure theory (just read about Darwin’s early life and that becomes apparent).

I don’t even understand what you mean by this, really. Most people who talk about evolution today do not base their arguments solely on Darwin’s original ideas. They would actually say that recent discoveries in molecular biology, microbiology, and biochemistry have strengthened support for evolution.

187   M.G.    
November 20th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Evolution is like the problem of evil itself. It’s there, it’s undeniable, and it’s used by agnostics as an argument against the existence of a loving Creator.

Just because people believe that some fact or concept goes against the existence of God does not mean that the fact or concept is therefore suspect.

188   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Yes, but where did Satan come from? He was a created Being, right? So even if you accept that premise, you are admitting that God was in the creation business prior to the activity described in Genesis.

Of course, yes. Sorry, I didn’t know that this part was up for debate. Yes, Satan was created. Is anyone actually debating this issue?

Countering an argument like the ones Richard Dawkins puts forth with “but the Bible says” isn’t going to help a young Christian who’s sorting through things.

Phil, have you seen previews for the documentary Collision? I watched some previous debates and the Christian guy makes some good points, very cerebral and logical. But, then it struck me. These guys are really debating philosophy. So, they’ll go back and forth forever with no conclusion. But God is God – that will not change.

He who believes God must believe – by faith. It has always been and will always be faith. It is the gift of God.

I don’t even understand what you mean by this, really. Most people who talk about evolution today do not base their arguments solely on Darwin’s original ideas.

I honestly think that the root of evolution is an attempt to disprove God. Not so much an attempt to “arrive at the truth.” There is a subtlety there that many people fall for.

On a lighter note, do you remember the interview of Dawkins on Expelled? Absolutely classic. He has an ulterior motive: much more willing to accept the idea of aliens seeding life on earth than the possibility of a God. Do you see that? Classic.

(Yes, I know there were attempts to debunk the validity of the interview and all that, but he says it in other interviews/talks as well).

189   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

Evolution is like the problem of evil itself. It’s there, it’s undeniable, and it’s used by agnostics as an argument against the existence of a loving Creator.

Then why is it a theory? We have the law of thermodynamics or the law of gravity, but we have the theory of evolution.

190   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Phil, have you seen previews for the documentary Collision? I watched some previous debates and the Christian guy makes some good points, very cerebral and logical. But, then it struck me. These guys are really debating philosophy.

I’ve not seen them.

All of these discussions really get down to philosophy in one sense or another. Philosophy at it’s heart is the search for truth or reason, so the question of where did we come from and where are going is pretty basic to the human condition.

I honestly think that the root of evolution is an attempt to disprove God. Not so much an attempt to “arrive at the truth.” There is a subtlety there that many people fall for.

I can’t agree with that. I simply know too many people who accept evolutionary theory on some level or another and who follow Christ. I simply don’t see them as rebelling against God. In fact, for many of them, I see a great sense of awe and wonder of God’s creation.

I will say that the idea of scientists being completely objective is largely a myth, but that is kind of a myth of modernity that affects all fields, not just the sciences.

191   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Then why is it a theory? We have the law of thermodynamics or the law of gravity, but we have the theory of evolution.

When something is a “law” as it pertains to science it isn’t because it’s supposed to be the statement of an absolute fact that can never be overturned. A law is really the practical outworking of a theory. So, with gravity, for instance, there is still such a thing a gravitational theory. The equations and formulas we derive from the theory and through experimental observation then become the law.

As far as evolution goes, it’s not an apples to apples to comparison, but there are certain formulas and equations that have been derived based on observation and experimentation. My wife’s entire PhD thesis was really all about the application of evolutionary principles involved in the genetics of certain bacteria.

192   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Chris – I am unclear as to your position on this. But even when assuming observable time being the Biblical standard, it still does not answer several questions. If God created the universe with light already reaching the earth from stars that are billions of light years away, why then did he create light events embedded within these light rays which did not actually happen?

If the universe is only 6000 years old, then the supernova exposion did not actually happen because it would have happened millions of years ago, even if we assume the observable standard. And God has created thousands of these light events that suggest they happened to a star millions of years ago. But in reality with the observable time standard, it is just a created movie with special effects but not a direct light projection of an actual event since it would have happened millions of years ago.

I find that disturbing, and in fact the only reason believers enter such a debate with such tenacity is because we tend to exhibit the same general feeling of certianty about almost anything. Many equate the process of creation with some kind of apostasy and Scriptural denial, when in fact there is a compatibility between Christ and several creation theories.

And spiritually speaking, what you believe about these issues has no bearing on your profession of faith in Jesus Christ. I reuse to triangulate the gospel by interjecting issues unrelated to simple faith in Jesus Christ.

193   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

I saw this video on CNN’s site today regarding Comfort’s book. The one woman when asked why she was handing the book out says, “it really is about their eternal souls”…

Sigh…

194   Neil    
November 20th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

So off the topic of evolution and our hating evangelists…

The questions remain regarding this as a bait-and-switch tactic, and whether or not that is proper.

195   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Chris – I am unclear as to your position on this.

Rick – I was just presenting one of the opinions opposing your argument.

I thought I already made my position “clear” – modal theistic agnosticism.

I believe that “God created”, but I am agnostic as to the exact mode of His creating it. I believe that there is a huge amount of truth in Genesis 1 – truth about the nature of God and His relationship with man. If someone put a gun to my head, I’d probably choose “historic creationism” as described here.

196   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Paul C
Really, it is the hypothesis of Evolution, since it is not observable nor repeatable

197   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

exactly…

198   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

Oy vey… I give up.

It’s no use arguing with someone who’s bound and determined to refuse to learn.

199   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

Phil, you could have come up with something slightly more pompous like:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”

And when the strongest proponents of evolution stop making claims that life on earth was seeded either by aliens – vastly superior to us of course – or on the “backs of crystals” then perhaps the “over-arching evidence” will be taken more seriously.

200   M.G.    
November 20th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

Paul C and PB,

There are good and bad ways of attacking evolution. One bad way is the tired “it’s just a theory” tactic. The following is taken from an evolution page, and most people would think it’s not terribly controversial…

Calling the theory of evolution “only a theory” is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what “theory” means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one’s conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you’re operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn’t 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has–evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

201   Paul C    http://thepathtolife.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 8:35 pm

On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one’s conclusions is a sign of hubris.

Like saying something such as?

Denying the theory of evolution is as bad a crime a denying the holocaust. (Hitchens)

202   M.G.    
November 20th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

Hey, I’m no fan of Hitchens.

203   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 20th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Look, according to Christian biologists (I served with two this weekend) it is a hypothesis. Creation is a lot more viable.

204   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

I’m not claiming to be anyone’s teacher, but the way I see it, most Christians who are vocal critics of evolutionary theory have completely closed minds when it comes to actually listening to people who disagree with them. I’ve been to several different events where people offered critiques of evolution. The first was where Ken Hamm was speaking, and looking back on that event, it’s clear to me that his view was more show than substance. Actually, at the time, I think I must have liked him, because I actually bought two of his books.

I also heard Michael Behe speak. He is the author of Darwin’s Black Box, and he actually doesn’t take the tact of saying evolution is just a theory or hypothesis. He accepts many of the basic element, but he asserts that there are some biochemical structure which he thinks could not have evolved through random processes. According to Ken Hamm, he is a sellout. Anyway, it’s much easier for me to take someone like Behe seriously than it is to take someone like Hamm.

When I was in college and shortly after I was vehemently anti-evolution. I really don’t know why, except for the fact that I automatically equated evolution with atheism. It wasn’t until I started doing more reading on my own that I saw that it really didn’t have to be that way.

I don’t really care that much if people don’t believe in evolution, but I care very much when people starting doubting the faith of Christians who do. It also saddens me to see students come to college with the idea that they have to choose between serving Christ and being a biologist, doctor, or some other profession in the field of science. Where the church should be encouraging these kids, it kicks them down and chastises them. I’m not surprised at all that most churches don’t see their young people return.

205   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

PB: Really, it is the hypothesis of Evolution, since it is not observable nor repeatable

Phil:It’s no use arguing with someone who’s bound and determined to refuse to learn.

Phil, you could have come up with something slightly more pompous like:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”

I feel your pain, Phil.

The “unteachableness” Phil is referring to is being “unteachable” in the very basics of science (i.e. how the scientific method works). PB’s comment about hypotheses shows utter ignorance of the basics of the scientific method (saying absolutely nothing about evolution/creation – just the basics of the scientific method).

Microevolution has been proven/observed many times over. It is macroevolution which has far less evidence. Most secular scientists don’t separate micro from macro, though.

And when the strongest proponents of evolution stop making claims…

I thought we were discussing Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution…

MG’s got it right in #200.

#201@Paul – I’d say Hitchen’s comment contains as much hubris as Ken Ham’s -

Hugh Ross is known in Christian circles for compromising secular ideas, such as the big bang, billions of years, etc., with the Bible and reinterpreting the clear language of Genesis. He is one of the leading compromisers in the church today—sadly popularizing beliefs that undermine the authority of Scripture.

The only difference is, you shouldn’t be surprised to be stabbed in the back and ridiculed by an atheist in the press. However, having the same thing done by a Christian brother…

Look, according to Christian biologists (I served with two this weekend) it is a hypothesis. Creation is a lot more viable.

Now you’re talking out of your ass, PB.

Creation isn’t even a scientific theory – it is dependent on something that cannot be scientifically proven. Your biologist friends, if you even understood them correctly, are likely speaking specifically about transitional forms (i.e. evidence of macroevolution), and not basic evolution.

I don’t really care that much if people don’t believe in evolution, but I care very much when people starting doubting the faith of Christians who do. It also saddens me to see students come to college with the idea that they have to choose between serving Christ and being a biologist, doctor, or some other profession in the field of science. Where the church should be encouraging these kids, it kicks them down and chastises them. I’m not surprised at all that most churches don’t see their young people return.

Exactly, Phil. That’s my basic motivation for discussing the theological viability of the multiple views…

206   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2009 at 12:28 am

The issue of evolution is such a diversion from the gospel. If someone had engaged me with that debate before I was saved I would have written the entire thing off.

As it turned out Billy Graham preached Jesus, thank God, and I became a believer.

I consider Joe Martino a convincing argument for evolution. :cool:

207   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 21st, 2009 at 7:12 am

#206
The creation story itself is proof for the Gospel, it shows God’s love in creation, His intent for man, man’s fall, creation’s groaning, and God’s promise that He will defeat evil and death restoring mankind and ultimately a new heaven and new earth. Even penal substitutionary atonement is covered in chapter 3 when God makes atonement for the first couple and covers them with the skin of an animal….

That said, Evolution vs. creation is not an evangelism tool unless you use it to open the conscience by introducing the concept of law and morality (the conscience- where did it evolve?) which we did several times in 5 1/2 hours Wednesday. The purpose is never debate, it is to open up conversation that eventually gets to the Gospel.

I can use about any subject to get there, BTW, by the grace of God.

208   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2009 at 8:41 am

“I can use about any subject to get there, BTW, by the grace of God.”

I agree. The Book of Acts seems to use God’s dealing with Israel as a tethered subject, of course they were speaking to Jews. And Paul uses his and Cornelius’s personal testimony. I use my own testimony and the question that made me search:

What’s the point? (of life) With that as the burning question within me I heard my brother speak of Jesus as if He was real and not just within a religious context. That month Billy Graham preached that Christ was coming back.

Just so you understand that the Spirit can draw a sinner to Christ via various and unacceptible means, God also used the Broadway play “Godspell” as well. And I was not convicted of my sins in any way, I just was convinced that Jesus was who He said He was and that He was the Door to eternal life.

And as you can well imagine I have driven everyone crazy ever since March 1975. I went from being Mick Jagger to Billy Sunday. :)

209   Neil    
November 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am

The creation story itself is proof for the Gospel… – PB, 207

Not sure it proves the Gospel, but it certainly sets the table. Yet, that misses the point. No one here denies creation.

Someone could hold to theistic evolution and agree with post #207 – maybe someone who does could chime in at this point and confirm or deny my point.

210   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2009 at 12:02 pm

No one can fully understand the gospel. Who can comprehend God? Who then can comprehend the Creator becoming a man? So to insist that someone believe a certain Genesis construct is so legalsitic and on some level self righteous.

211   chris    
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 am

No one here denies creation.

I don’t deny creation. I do however question the biblical narrative. But I also question the allegorical/poetic nature of the book of Job. I Trust Jesus, believe in God, and strive to follow the best I know how.

Should my salvation be questioned?

212   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 am

“Should my salvation be questioned?”

Not because of you view of Genesis, but there is a litany of other reasons to question your salvation.

But oh yea, I forgot, grace. Sometimes that grace thing gets in the way of a good ole fashioned condemnation.

213   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am

I do however question the biblical narrative

I think that is a problem.

If we cannot take God at His Word in one part, what keeps the other parts from being called into question?

214   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am

The origin of species found in British loo.

Bait and switch??

HERE

215   chris    
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 am

If we cannot take God at His Word in one part

I do take God at his word. But it’s obvious that not everything in his word is verbatim the way it happened. Somethings are allegorical, rhetorical, philosophical, etc… I believe the bible speaks completely to the nature of God yet I’m not certain that human language can encapsulate the full nature of God. It’s the whole “Now I know in part…but then I will know fully”.

So am I without the Grace of God because I question Him?

216   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 am

If we cannot take God at His Word in one part, what keeps the other parts from being called into question?

translation: If you cannot accept my interpretation of Scripture on this one part how will I get you to conform to my interpretation on the rest?

Chris: Any sane person would question your salvation :)

217   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 am

I think that is a problem.

If we cannot take God at His Word in one part, what keeps the other parts from being called into question?

There is such a thing as genre and style when it comes to Scripture. We can’t expect Scripture to answer questions which the authors were not intending to answer, and we can’t enforce our ideas modern notions of accuracy and historicity on these ancient texts.

If a text such as Genesis was simply written to tell us who was responsible for creation and what was the purpose of it, it does not make sense that we should look at it as a description of how it was done. I think the creation narrative gets the point across that Yahweh is Lord over all creation – every part of it, but I do not think it is meant to tell us how every process in creation works. It obviously doesn’t.

It’s not like Scripture is misleading anyone, either. It’s just that I wouldn’t watch an episode of House to learn how to become a doctor.

218   Neil    
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:59 am

Jesus said; “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

So, God says he created and I believe it. We can argue over the “how” – but since he chose to leave some ambiguity there, so should we.

219   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 11:06 am

How’s that bait and switch workin’ for ya?

I tripped across this tidbit during my morning reading, here

220   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am

Pastorboy,

A question for you. You have made the point that you wonder how someone can have faith in Jesus if they do not hold a six-day literal interpretation of Genesis.

So while you are talking to these atheists about evolution and creation, with the hopes of sharing the Gospel, and one asks “So do I have to believe Genesis is literally one week to be a Christian” – How would you resond?

Would you give the atheist the same answer you give here… the “Well, no, but your faith would be suspect if you don’t.” Or would you say something more along the line of “This is an issue tangential to the Gospel, and true believers differ…”?

221   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 11:34 am

Rarely, if ever, does this scenario come up. But, I believe if God converts you, He converts your mind as well.

I would say the latter, but I believe the former. I still disagree with the fact that God did not reveal how. Genesis 1 and 2 tell us how. He spoke, it came into being, evening, morning, 1st day and so on.

That may not be a satisfying explanation to all the real smart people in the world, but it is how God said it was done.

222   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2009 at 11:45 am

I would say the latter, but I believe the former.

And that is, by definition, hypocritical at best, lying at worst.

If you actually believe that people who don’t believe in a literal six day creation don’t have a strong faith, than own up to it.

223   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 11:50 am

Phil,

I was glad to see he would not say that to unbelievers.

224   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2009 at 11:55 am

Phil,

I was glad to see he would not say that to unbelievers.

Well, in a sense, I see that. But, to me that’s the height of intellectual dishonesty – to believe something, but when asked about deny it because you know it would cause a negative reaction. That either means that you really don’t believe what you claim to, or that you are operating under some sort of fear of the consequences of what will happen if your belief becomes public knowledge.

I for one, don’t think the proper response to a non-Christian person asking an honest question should be a lie.

225   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2009 at 11:58 am

In other words, Neil, PB is operating out of the paradigm that I have seen many self-proclaimed “street evangelists” operate out of – the end always justifies the means. Being dishonest, being a jerk, breaking the law, etc – they’re all justified in the name of “spreading the gospel”.

That’s why I will never, ever commend what PB does. I don’t care how pure he claims his motives are. Ultimately, it’s damaging to the gospel.

226   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

I do not believe in the literal 24 hour creation day.

The Darwinian thing is a distraction. By the way, do you believe that if a person is saved God will change his mind about Calvinism/Arminianism, which seems like a much more important issue?

227   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Scotty – Good link. I went to a debate once between a Christian creationist and a paleantologist. I brought a church youth group to watch the creationist clean house. The opposite happened and I had to speak to the group all the way home on the bus.

Kirk Cameron had no idea what he was talking about, he just repeated the party line.

228   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Phil,

I understand. I was looking at it from the point of not putting any more obstacles between a person and the Gospel.

And in this very specific case, at least, he is not.

229   corey    
November 24th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Why would you not be honest about what you actually believe? Are you afraid that you will drive people further away?

230   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

I believe in the 21 and 3/4 hour creation day.

There are so many hills upon which to die…I only regret that I have only one life to give!

231   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

By the way, I wonder if PB believes that God literally keeps the snow and hail in storehouses or that dew comes from God’s womb (which is in and of itself an interesting feminine metaphor…)

232   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

I will answer all you questions if you define a “spirit” for me.

Why did God breathe the breath of life in Adam’s nostrils? Why not the mouth?

233   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Phil,

OK – now you’re flirting with godess stuff…

234   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

I would say the latter, but I believe the former.

I could think of a few scenarios where I would try and wordsmith my answer as well.

235   Brett S    
November 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Pastorboy,
#221
I’m not saying your wrong, because I wasn’t there.
I don’t believe the earth was created in six 24 hour periods, but I am free to believe either way and remain a member in good standing in my church.

Honest question, I am curious how you interpret 2 Peter 3:8 ???

236   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

#222 When I am talking to those who do not believe, I speak to them about their conscience. I am not there to win a debate, I am there to plant the seed of the good news. That requires breaking up some hard soil, so even in the conversations I had around evolution this past week, I strove to get out of it as quickly as I could to get to the conscience. You do not need to agree to a literal interpretation of Genesis to be saved, but as God converts you, I believe that you will believe Him at His word.

#224 Several times while I was open air preaching this last Wednesday, and at the Debate on Tuesday, I said what I believed- In the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2. But I still went back away from the debate about creation to the conscience, for conversion does not happen because I win a debate, but because the Gospel is spoken.
#229 See above- I am honest about what I believe, but when it comes to the scenario Neil presented in #220 about Athiests, it is more important to get away from the intellect and zero in on the conscience. The Genesis conversation is a red herring for Athiests to get away from the core issue of Conscience. I will debate creation/evolution here till the cows come home. And I will be right,because I stand on God’s Word. :)
#226 I am not a Calvinist, or an Arminian. I believe what the Bible teaches. Most would say that leans towards what Calvin or Luther taught, but I just lean towards a literal, historical interpretation of scripture.
#231 Why don’t you ask me then? Where is the reference ( I believe it is Job) which is in the poetic genre, which gives us a word picture that places it in human or anthropomorphic terms in a picture we can better understand.

So do I have to believe in the 1st and 2nd Chapter of Genesis to be converted? NOPE
Will God teach you to trust His Holy Word once you are saved? YEP

237   M.G.    
November 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

PB,

You are avoiding the point when you talk about believing the first chapters of Genesis.

EVERYONE HERE believes in the first chapters of Genesis. Some people disagree with your INTERPRETATION of Genesis.

You seem to think that gives you a right to question their salvation, which is what people find so foolish.

Does that make sense?

238   Brett S    
November 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Pastorboy,
#236
I can understand if it’s beneath you to answer my question, but standing on God’s word and just leaning toward a literal historical sense of scripture; what about 2 Peter 3:8 ???

239   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

h?mera (Greek) can mean a 24 hour day, or it can mean an age of time. This verse describes God as not being confined to time as we are, God operates outside of time. So, this verse has been smashed into Genesis 1 to say that each day equals 1000 years, so God cannot really speak things into being, he must allow them to evolve, and this takes time. Give me a break. Yom (day, Hebrew) is a 24 hour period, hense the use of evening, and morning, the first day, evening and morning the second day, and so on.

240   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

#237 So where in the first chapters of Genesis is evolution referred to, or even taught, or insinuated? Where does it teach that the earth is billions of years old? How do we get that interpretation???? It says God spoke, it was created, evening, morning one day. That is the plain reading. No need to add anything.

241   M.G.    
November 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

No one is arguing that the proper interpretation of Genesis entails evolution, but rather that a proper interpretation of Genesis entails a belief that the precise mechanism of creation (from a modern perspective) is not spelled out in Genesis.

Why is Genesis given a plain reading and Job is not?

242   Brett S    
November 24th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Thanks Pastorboy!

I didn’t really understand the answer, but probably just because I’m not as versed in Greek and Hebrew.

So if I understand you; when God spoke the sun and moon into being on the 4th day so that we could have a way to measure 24 hour periods, he was just keeping a running clock in his head for the 1st 3 days?
Was that the way is worked?

243   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

You do not need to agree to a literal interpretation of Genesis to be saved, but as God converts you, I believe that you will believe Him at His word.

What a wonderful back-handed way to say, “Unless you believe the first 3 chapters of Genesis the way I believe them, you are not converted.”

244   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

As for taking a “literal” reading of Genesis like PB does, one that assumes this is history or science, how do you explain that in chapter one animals were created BEFORE humans and in chapter two animals were created AFTER humans?

Now, you are welcome to explain this away in any number of ways (and we have heard them all). However, keep in mind that the moment you do this you enter into interpreting the text that goes beyond your simple-minded “plain meaning” of the text.

245   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Sometimes inerrancy arguments become tedious, especially when you cannot be saved unless you inerrantly divide the literal from the metaphor.

246   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

So, this verse has been smashed into Genesis 1 to say that each day equals 1000 years, so God cannot really speak things into being, he must allow them to evolve, and this takes time.

*sigh*

Nobody who is differing with your literalist interpretation of Gen 1 has suggested that God was not the cause of creation. At some point – whether via evolution or instantaneous creation – either a) God created or b) random chance created. That would demonstrate great power AND patience!

Everybody here believes (a), and no version of (a) describes a lack of faith in God. It could just as easily be argued that, while God could instantaneously create everying, including in-transit starlight, He instead chose in advance to provide the evidence of His existence via creation (rather than contradicting the physical laws of His creation to do so), so that no man would be without excuse… (See Rom 1). That would demonstrate great power AND patience!

247   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2009 at 2:33 pm

#237 So where in the first chapters of Genesis is evolution referred to, or even taught, or insinuated? Where does it teach that the earth is billions of years old? How do we get that interpretation???? It says God spoke, it was created, evening, morning one day. That is the plain reading. No need to add anything.

I could say that about virtually any modern scientific discovery. Heck, where is electricity referred to, taught, or insinuated? In fact, you being on the internet is probably a form of apostasy! Back away from the computer or risk eternal damnation! Reject the unbiblical notion of binary code!

248   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

I believe the Genesis account of creation is literally metaphorically. (Anyone who disagree? Welcome to the lake of fire!)

249   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

There are so many other things we could talk about..like life, and love and happiness…and the Holy Ghost.

250   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

You do not need to agree to a literal interpretation of Genesis to be saved, but as God converts you, I believe that you will believe Him at His word.

You are so close to making a humble statement – then you blow it with the last fifteen words.

251   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

So, this verse has been smashed into Genesis 1 to say that each day equals 1000 years, so God cannot really speak things into being, he must allow them to evolve, and this takes time.

Now this is classic strawman.

You take a theistic-evolution scenario, that basically says God used evolution as his method of choice and twist it (create a strawman) into a weak argument that says God cannot… he must…

From God choosing a method to God cannot and must…

Do you see how you have changed the argument so as to more easily dismiss it?

252   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

I believe the Genesis account of creation is literally metaphorically. (Anyone who disagree? Welcome to the lake of fire!)

HERETIC! The very clear and obviously simple reading is metaphorically literal!

253   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Sometimes the way we all collectively argue with PB here reminds of a woman who’s married to an abusive husband. “I know that eventually he’ll change, I just need to try harder…”

Really, after literally years of arguing over the same things, hasn’t it been proven to us that he’s simply not going to ever change his mind? At least not by anything we’re going to say to him. He’ll continue to think we’re apostate, and we’ll try to speak reasonably with him – he won’t listen. Rinse. Repeat.

Honestly, perhaps it is time as commenters and writers we take a step back and think again about how we interact with him. There comes a time and place where you have to quit playing by the rules troublemakers want you to play by.

254   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Phil,

You are correct. Though I do find it interesting when a new subject comes up, like the They Like Jesus but Not the Church” thread.

I never would have expected him to respond as he did in that thread.

255   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

If we don’t talk to PB, who will we talk with around here? The choir?

256   pastorboy    http://www.crninfo.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

#255 you can always talk with Chad.

257   Neil    
November 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

#255/256…

Or we can get past the surface issues we spend so much time on and actually discuss something meaty.

258   nathan    
November 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

@M.G.

genesis vs. job.

well, it’s because, for ideological reasons, PB has made an a priori decision about how he is going to approach the text.

that a priori decision does not rise from the text itself, it rises from the consensus of his particular community on how to view the text/engage the text.

thus proving the post-modern insight about communal interpretive authority.

they wrap it in a thin veneer of claims about faithfulness to the Bible, but in reality they have prior commitments that they cannot afford to acknowledge or admit are there.

in the end they love their ideology more than the Bible.

259   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

In 1976 I enetered Bible College (primarily a CMA) and I had been saved for 1 1/2 years. I was 24 years old. I was sitting in the class called “Genesis” and I was a blank slate. I only knew that I fully believed in Jesus.

The professor says in his intro:

“If you do not believe in the 24 hour creation day, you will have trouble throughout the Bible.”

I was an amateur astronomer and a baby Christian, and he was a Godly man – a retired pastor. When I heard that warning I immediately embraced the 24 hour day because I thought it was tethered to understanding the entire Bible.

Eventually I came to the conclusion it was not a death hill for me. It still may be true, but it is not a gospel tenant.

260   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
November 24th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

257–I believe I have been advocating such a thing for quite some time.