05.27.07
Creation Museum Interview with Ken Ham
“A brand-new museum plans to take old-time religion to new scientific heights. The Creation Museum’s goal is nothing less than proving that everything the Bible says about creation, the flood and the universe is literally true.”
Click here to view interview.
Marlakins
Andrea said,
May 27, 2007 at 11:13 am
Hi Marla, Thanks for posting this. The museum sounds very very cool. I would like to go there sometime.
Just for the record, I want to weigh in with my own views on the matter of Creation to say that it is possible to believe in Jesus Christ, to be a practicing Christian, and to know and love the Bible, and not to be a young Earth Creationist. The Ham interview gives the impression that there are two groups–Christians who are Creationists and atheist/secular humanists. There are lots of believing evolutionists, as well. Me, for example.
I think it’s important to realize that believing in God and believing in a young earth and a 6-literal-day Creation are not the same thing. There is only one God and there was only one Creation and what we in our flawed human-ness believe does not change that. Christ is the same now and forever, and that’s more important than our human arguments about how God worked, and works, His wonders.
My .02, Have a great day, Andrea
Administrator said,
May 27, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Oh, sure, I agree. Anyone can become a Christian and know very little about Genesis. I would even venture to say that a great deal of Christians have never even read the Bible in its entirety, but they’re still Christians. And I do believe Ken Ham realizes this and has even commented to the effect that believing in creation or evolution does not change whether one has eternal life or not (I’ve read this from his blog). But what I “think” he does believe (as well as I), and he even mentioned it the short interview I posted above, is that if you don’t believe in the literal 6 day creation, then the Bible presents with many discrepancies, which would then run through much of the Bible from the old testament and the new testament because the old testament is the foundation to the new testament. If the old testament is false, then the new testament is essentially worthless because the reason Christ even came and died and was resurrected was because of the fall of Adam and Eve. If there was no first sin, then Christ had no purpose to come and redeem us. Much of the Bible is intertwined this way from the accounts of Noah, Jonah, Abraham, etc. And Ken Ham very briefly explained “one” example of how evolution is inconsistent with the Bible in that for evolution to take place, death and disease (malformations or weak species that would die out because of its own frailty) occurred for millions of years in the form of “survivial of the fittest” before man ever came onto the scene. But that is contrary to what Genesis tells us. Genesis tells us that death only entered the world “after” the sin of Adam and Eve. Man was already perfectly formed before death entered as were all the animals. According to evolution, things were never perfect, per say, they just weren’t “complete” and continue to this day to “evolve.” That’s not a biblical concept. And that’s only “one” discrepancy evolution presents with the Bible.
I do want to add, tho, that I think following the teachings of Jesus like loving one another is not the same as “believing” in Him. There are many loving and kind people who do not believe in Jesus.
I think it is important that we try to know God, and not just how “we” want God to be or how “we” think God “should” be. I think the Bible was inspired by God and is His way of tell us about Himself. Is He the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? Is He the God who lead Moses and the Isrealites out of Egypt? Is He the God who had Jonah swallowed by a big fish? Is He the God who protected Noah and his family during the global flood? Is He the God who created Adam and Eve in one day as is written in the Bible? I think those things were written to show us who God is. I think the things that were inspired by God to be written in the Bible was important to Him and He wanted us to know it. So I do think the accounts in Genesis matter a lot. Maybe not in the sense of whether it makes us Christians or not, but because it helps us to understand our history better, how God has interacted with us from the beginning. Who God is. I do believe there are those who “think” they are following God, but who are not as documented in Matthew 7:21-23
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in they name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
This passage is a hard one for me to forget because these people are saying, “Haven’t we done all these things for you, God?” and God tells them, “Get lost, I NEVER knew you.” And apparently, those people never really knew God, either! So I think it is important to strive to know who God is, not just how we want or think He should be.
And there’s me 2 cents.
Marlakins
Bri said,
May 28, 2007 at 2:18 am
Marla,
I appreciate your comments and would like to add some of my ideas about contemporary Christianity and the Genesis account of origins.
Firstly, Jesus Christ who walked and taught on this earth two thousand years ago is the the Man from whom the world derives the term Christianity. Millions of people in this world love to call themselves Christians and want to associate themselves with the contemporary institutions of Christianity. Yet a great number of people named “Christian” have little understanding of the person Jesus Christ, nor do they have much more than a passing understanding of His or His apostle’s teachings as recorded in the Gospels and the New Testament. In essence, a vast number of religious people want some kind of religious, political, or social experience from religion without confronting logical and intellectual implications taught by Jesus and His Apostles.
It is ironic that critics of Christianity rightly point out how “Christians” do not live intellectually consistent with their principles of ethics, but don’t seem to criticize such people as not being authentic. Critics attack the actions or statements of hypocrites of a faith is if hypocrites invalidate those who are intellectually honest and consistent.
Well, there is a chasm out there between people who want religion and it’s perceived social perks, and those who are out to honestly evaluate their faith intellectually. Biblical creationists are working at intellectual honesty. Logically, real Christianity is founded on the works and teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the four Gospels. Jesus taught that the authenticity of His very mission was based on real and historical people such as Adam, Abraham, Noah, Cain and Able, Jonah, David and Solomon. That is, that Jesus’ own authority was based on the authenticity of events as recorded in the Hebrew scriptures. What this means is that, as we delve into the intellectual basis for belief in Jesus Christ, He laid the foundation His authenticity on the historical reality of a plain and simple literal reading of Genesis. A great many of modern and “enlightened” Christians say Genesis don’t really matter.
If there was no Adam who was made from the dust of the earth, into whom God breathed the breath of life in an instant of time as recorded in Genesis, then Jesus Christ died for nothing. If there was sin and death all along during the supposed creation of the world, then God is the author of sin and the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross is a mockery and the basis of authentic biblical Christianity is a fraud.
Now the critics of Christianity would like the nice church-going Christians to keep their religion comfortably within the confines of steepled sanctuaries so that secular humanists and atheists can be at ease that that silly account of Genesis not come up again into the consciousness of the masses. Neither critics nor Christian hypocrites would like their empty philosophies to be challenged. In that case the critics would rather Christianity be filled with intellectual hypocrites who never come to terms with historical implications of their faith. Critics would rather Christians sing their songs and hear their sermons without ever coming to terms that Jesus claimed that a creation as recored in Genesis, as understood in simple language was real.
The power of authentic Christianity is that there is no dichotomy between history and spirituality. The historical records of Genesis were meant by Jesus and the Apostles to be taken as real events without reading into the account millions of years of time. A simple reading of Genesis means six days, evening and morning, one by one. Logically, if Genesis is a farce then Jesus is a farce and if so, Christianity is best suited for the delusional or for hypocrates.
Biblical creationists are working overtime to give evolutionists and Christian hypocrites a run for their money. They are working to be intellectually honest with their assertions about Jesus Christ and the Bible that Jesus bases His authority on. More power to them.
This is not to say that there are not authentic Christians who also happen to believe in evolution, there are. But they lack intellectual and spiritual maturity, since they will attempt to mentally reconcile Biblical doctrine with false evolutionary dogma emanating from an evil and corrupt world. Consistently believing that Jesus is true, we must realize that the humanistic agendas of this world are against Christ.
Thanks for your posts on this Marla,
Bri
Andrea said,
May 28, 2007 at 10:57 am
Thanks, Bri and Marla, for your posts. It’s quite a topic.
I, too, Marla, tremble at the passage that says “I never knew you.” It reminds me of an old spiritual–”Everybody talkin’ ’bout heaven ain’t goin’ there . . .”
I think it’s interesting, Bri, that you are interested in the intellectual part of Christianity. Many intellectually-oriented people are not interested in religion at all–and many religious people insist on working only from the heart, or the soul, or the inward-dwelling word of God. It is seldom that people try to bring both together.
I disagree with you, though, about what “authentic Christianity” is. I think that none of us should judge another as an “authentic” or “inauthentic” Christian. One’s relationship with Christ is, I think, very deep and personal.
I think our job is to put our own personal spiritual houses in order. For me, that’s plenty of work. I think the only correct question to ask about authenticity is, Am I authentic?
Another .02–that makes .04.
Andrea
Administrator said,
May 28, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Hmm, what do you mean by “judging” as authentic or unauthentic? I don’t really see it as a negative thing, but more as just knowing who’s who. Kinda like who you choose to hang out with, not judging so much to “condemn” anyone(that’s God’s territory), but rather more in the spirit of “birds of a feather flock together” type thing. Even the Bible brings up the concept of us taking care to be equally yoked.
I don’t see why anyone should find it offensive to ask another Christian what their beliefs are regarding their faith. It’s not like we should be ashamed of our beliefs, and asking is not condemning, nor is discussions on different interpretations of scripture, as far as I understand. I thought that is actually one purpose Christians were to meet–to edify one another in our faith. Discussing scripture and its interpretation is one way of edifying because it helps us to have a better understanding of scripture. I do think that the Bible has a specific message to relay, and was not intended that just anyone interprets it their own way. I think others agree with this and that’s why there is so much discussion on it and scholars who try to understand older manuscripts and other languages and history. Discussion helps us attain better understanding. For instance, when I write a letter to someone, I have a “specific” message I am trying to convey. I don’t want people to read my letter and just get “anything” they want out of it. No, because I had a “specific” message I wanted to convey. So if I wrote a letter to a specific person and said, “Let’s go to Hawaii next month.” Then I was intending that the person to whom I wrote would be the one going to Hawaii with me, not anyone who reads my letter. I think the Bible is like this. The things written in the Bible have a “specific” message to convey, and not intended that people just take it to mean whatever they want it to mean (that happens so much with the Bible when passages are taken out of context). I think we need to understand it. For instance, parts of the Bible were directed to certain churches, but not to us. Then when we read that, we need to take that into consideration. This is just a small example of discussing the Bible and what “we believe” regarding scripture (interpreting Genesis and creation is another). I see that as brothers and sisters in Christ, we “should” be discussing these things with each other. I suppose to some degree we all have to “judge” whether we think some interpretation is right or wrong, but in that case it’s not a “bad” thing, but what is responsible as a Christian trying to grow and learn.
Now having said all that, is there such a thing as an “authenic” Christian and an “unauthentic” Christian? I think there is such a thing because the Bible has warned us of “wolves in sheeps clothing.” The description of the Pharasee’s being “white-washed tombs with dead men’s bones” is another example. So we as Christians “should” be aware of that. I don’t judge people to condemn them, as far as I know, but I do have to make some judgment calls as to whether or not I want to associate with them. You know, in the spirit of “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” scenario. So while I do agree with you that our job is to make sure our own personal spiritual houses are in order, I do think it is responsible as Christians to know each other and what our beliefs are regarding scripture. It’s like being married to someone for 40 years and never talking to them. Then one day you wake up and find out that they’ve been a drug addict all those 40 years and you never knew it because you never discussed it. What a rude awakening! Better to have known about it before ever getting married.
I’m sure there are other angles to look at this, but that’s my other 2 cents, totalling 4 cents, heheheh.
Marlakins
Bri said,
May 29, 2007 at 12:57 am
Hey you two,
Getting one’s spiritual house in order, seems like a reasonable task.
Here though, I would consider what Jesus designed His Church to be like and how His Apostles taught what His Church was to be.
The Apostle John was an amazing man whose life was engulfed with the most powerful ministry. John was called out of the blue by Jesus to follow Him. He had been a fisherman, and in the mist of his work was called to follow this Stranger, Jesus. John wrote one of the four gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and in the very beginning of the gospel makes the foundational claim that all things were made through Jesus at the beginning, and that all things were made for Jesus. Not one thing came into being apart from Jesus who John calls the Word of God. This Jesus performed such a great number of miracles, but John carefully details only a few. John became the Disciple whom Jesus loved, so that even at Jesus’ crucifiction He entrusted John to care for Mary, His mother, as John becoming Mary’s own adoptive son. A strong theme in the Gospel of John and in the Revelation, also written by John, is that Jesus Christ is the preeminent source of creation of all things and that the culmination of future events is to bring all things into subjection under the rulership of Jesus Christ as He vanquishes His enemies, who are the rulers of this world system, and installs his faithful servants as rulers of this earth. There is no reincarnation, but rather resurrection from the dead to newness of life for those who belong to Jesus Christ, that is, who have believed that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world.
The essence of authentic Christianity is that Jesus, His ministry, His atoning death, His triumphant resurrection, and ascension into Heaven were all actual and historical events, attested to by eyewitnesses who wrote down their accounts as historical documents. When one believes these accounts as accurate, a natural intellectual conclusion is that Jesus, through whom all things were created in the beginning, when he attributes His authenticity to the historical Hebrew scriptures, then believing in Jesus naturally should produce confidence that His references to Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, Noah and others infers that they were real people in real history.
The Apostle Peter wrote that all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for instruction. Getting one’s spiritual house in order according to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the Bible would mean that the Bible is authentic history and as a result should have the most profound affect upon our daily lives. Since Adam was real and since through Adam and Eve sin and death first entered the world, sin and death reigns through humanity. Since the Word who was God became flesh and atoned for the sin of all mankind, the current oppressive world system is attested to be temporary. The essence of authentic Christianity is that there is a real hope for the future only in the bodily return of Jesus Christ to this earth so that His truth, and kindness changes everything in this world. Those who believe in Him will be preserved to see it. When we know and believe these things as recorded in the Scriptures for our benefit, then we can live a life now with our spiritual house in order, which means that we will learn to love one another as He loved us, by His ultimate example.
Bri
Administrator said,
May 29, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Wow, Bri. I had to read your latest post over a few times. I have to say that there was nothing you wrote with which I could disagree. Thanks for sharing that. I feel the way you have “connected the dots” has edified me as a fellow Christian. When things like this is revealed to me, I feel warmth and joy and full of hope that Christ is very, very real. Every time I learn of another angle which verifies the cohesiveness of the “whole” Bible, how the Bible is *not* riddled with errors, my faith is strengthen, and my hope and comfort renewed. I am not anxious to follow a “religion” that didn’t make sense to me or is full of contradictions. So for me, this is extremely important. Thank you again, for your time and willingness to share.
Take care,
Marla
Andrea said,
May 29, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Wow, indeed. This is a crazy week for me–recital AND Last Day of Choir are Sunday–so I don’t have the energy to read thoroughly and contribute thoughtfully.
But let me say that anything that increases our faith and our hope and our comfort, and that “Peace that passeth all understanding”, is a good thing. I rely a lot on the verse “By their fruits you shall know them.” (Right after the part about wolves in sheep’s clothing.) Now, for me anyway, this is harder than it sounds. There was someone I really really trusted, and I thought Now she’s got good good fruit–look how clean her house is!!
Turned out, she was a liar and a cheat, for starters. Should have been–look how naive Andrea is! But as I’ve gotten older, I can begin to discern truly “good fruit.” Love, compassion, forgiveness, hospitality.
Must go, thanks so much for this vigorous discussion, sorry I can’t participate more fully,
Andrea
Administrator said,
May 30, 2007 at 9:26 am
Oh my, Andrea! Isn’t it terrible when we meet people like that? I’m guessing as we get older, we all find that we’ve met someone like that. That sounds so much like the “white washed tombs with dead men’s bones” scenario! Nice on the outside and rotten or dead on the inside. Hmmm. I suppose her lying and cheating were her “fruits,” and her other half was the wolf in sheeps clothing, yikes!
Good luck this week, and I hope the recital goes well! I sure wish I could hear some of it, sigh. . .
Marla
Andrea said,
May 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Thanks for the kind words, Marla. I’ve definitely got some wonderful wonderful kids to work with, I feel so grateful.
Yes, it is terrible–but I have come to see that all of Life is just a big learning experience from God. The encounter with this woman was definitely planned in Heaven. It was a very painful lesson, but the things I learned have helped me be a better teacher and a better Christian and a better contributor to my church, and God knew I couldn’t have learned it any other way than the hard way! (My usual method, sigh.)
So, in a weird way, I am grateful to her. She has suffered from her own deceit–isn’t there something about the cup that looks clean on the outside but is filthy inside in the gospels??–so much more than I. She is lonely, isolated, and very very ill, and probably has one hell of a guilty conscience to boot. I am happy, healthy, and at peace with myself.
I try to remember to pray for her. I usually forget.
Anyway, I should be making my recital program!
Andrea
Drew said,
June 13, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Very interesting conversation here! Nice to see.
I do want to shift back into the science versus creationism argument because there is a crucial problem in the application of method here that is rarely discussed and needs to be worked out a bit better in how one thinks through the debate.
The problem is that narrative is being interpreted as scientific evidence even as the Creationist debunks the scientific method when it is directed towards the very objects that gave rise to it! Narrative is not “evidence” nor should we presuppose that there is objective data pointing to the validity of Genesis. This is a matter of faith not science. That the data of faith and the data of science may overlap is true. But the way you understand both data should be clear enough to distinguish between a matter of faith and a matter of scientific discovery about the cosmos. The basic epistemological truth is that the scientists ought not distort theological argument by assimilating it into scientific discourse and the theologian ought not distort scientific method by assimilating it into theology. But this does not mean that both areas of knowledge and understanding of the world in which we live and all of the life therein ought not discuss similarity in the midst of difference in their respective understandings of it. There should rather be more room for both to let the other discipline stand on its own ground and then to engage it on its own terms as an other rather than dissolve its claims into another rational way of thinking.
Much more on http://musings.tatuskofam.com
Bri said,
June 14, 2007 at 10:45 am
Drew,
There is a body of evolutionists who would like creationists to roll over and play dead. “The debate is over. Modern science in the form of evolutionary theory has won. Resistance is futile.” Atheists have banded together and stormed the tower of intellectualism. They have invaded the government funded universities where they pontificate to the rest of humanity what is the nature of knowlege and the nature of science and the nature of religion. The result of their spurious institutional dominance over the rest of humanity raises their pride and feelings of self importance. The increasing results are that if you do not agree with them about the origins of life, then you will not get funding for your school or your enterprise. I envy neither them nor their fleeting prestige. Evolutionists have redefined truth so that only those who think their way about origins can know real truth. They have effectively disproved God as a real being; he is just fantasy since they can’t fit Him into a laboratory. The evolutionist would demand of God, “If you are the Christ, come down from that cross.”
Yet an atheist or evolutionary worldview has “won” not because it is more sensible or logical than a Biblical worldview, in fact it has not even won at all. Professional clergy and professional evolutionists pontificate from their institutional positions, agreeing with one another that they must assert their supremacy over the uninitiate, that is, those who are not educated in their particular “trade schools.”
Yet, increasingly more people who are intelligent are critically examining evolutionary hypothesis and discovering networks of illogical assertions. They are not believing the irrational jargon, nor are they falling for the political agendas. It is demanded of us to accept evolutionary dogma without question. Alternate worldviews are dead. Christ could not have risen from the dead without a white coat donned evolutionist observing the conclusive lab results. Hence, any great works performed by God cannot exist without an evolutionist’s approval. Nor can God exist without approval of a scientific consensus.
The professional evolutionist has redefined reality to fit his preconceived notions based on his definition of science as a “method of knowing.” The scientific method is regarded by the evolutionist as the end all to all knowable knowledge. And his paradigm of the interpretation of the scientific method is all that is true. But it escapes the notice of the evolutionist that the scientific method only is able to discover certain kinds of physical reality. There are places and events where the scientific method cannot be applied, yet the evolutionists will inconsistently make assertions about such things but not allow the non-evolutionist to do so. This should become apparent when one realizes that in a place or time where the scientific method is not known to exist, people still know real and significant truths about the physical cosmos. Yet the evolutionist would still scream, “If you are the Christ, come down from that cross.”
I will not allow the faulty reasoning of a “professional” evolutionist to define any physical reality for me, and I find such attempts by an evolutionist community to be intellectually confining. Just as there are alternatives to the toxic medical paradigm, so there are alternatives to the illogical evolutionary paradigm.
Also, as I have mentioned in a previous post, if Jesus Christ was not killed and raised from the dead physically, then it is a ridiculous discipline. If the creator God who made all things and set in motion all physical phenomena has no power over this physical universe, he is a fake. God made the physical AND spiritual laws of the cosmos. The evolutionist in pride claims that the creative power of God is irrelevant and unnecessary to explain physical reality. This is diametrically opposed to the creator God of the Bible, who brought all things into existence instantaneously by the word of His mouth and who raises the dead to physical reality, including raising Jesus Christ from the dead to a physical reality.
I suggest that Christians become intellectually honest to realize that if the power of God to raise the dead or to create everything is fantasy, they should find another religion. Stop playing the hypocrite.
Sincerely,
Bri
Zephyr Axiom said,
June 14, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“Narrative is not “‘evidence.’”
Hmm…. Interesting. I suppose we should then throw out anything ever written during the Revolutionary War. The Civil War too. After all, they were really just stories written after the event, people trying to give the United States some grand, epic history, putting words in the mouths of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington (who probably didn’t even exist).
We should ignore all of the records of Egypt, all the libraries of China. Had Alexandria escaped the fires, it would be futile to sift through its endless scrolls, since none of it is evidence of anything, just hopeless fantasies.
Something that seems to elude many people in the Evolution/Creation debate is that there are two disciplines of science. One is operational. It is based on what happens now on a daily basis. We can test gravity, because it happens whenever one drops a ball. It happens right before our eyes. Similarly, it can be shown in a laboratory that different species of fruit flies can arise from a parent species. It is directly observable and repeatable. It shows what can be done.
On the other hand, there is historical science. This can also be called origins science. This science is different from operational science in that it cannot be directly observed and is not repeatable. It uses a different kind of evidence. Its chief experts are historians, and historians use, first and foremost, records. Records are near always the most precious that a historian can get a hold of. They are the key to understanding the physical remnants. If with the Civil War we were to ignore all writing, we might easily come to the conclusion that America had been invaded by an outside force, and that the massive graves holding shattered skeletons are a testament to the brave defenders fending off a foreign army. Historical science thrives on the written. It shows how things were when none of us were. The Egyptologist searches the ruins of the desert in hopes of finding mummies, but his real dream is to find them in conjunction with a narrative of that person’s life. Without a narrative, his science can only go so far before pure speculation kicks in. An eyewitness is the best of evidence.
In the case of molecules to man Evolution, a curious thing has been done. It claims to tell us our past history, but it rejects the historical method. It claims that there are no eyewitness accounts. It also claims that change between kinds is so slow that no one can ever observe it. If this is true, then there can be nothing beyond “this is what could have happened.” Evolutionists conduct experiments where flies turn into flies, and then they say this is evidence that fish turn into people. Molecules to man Evolution takes speculation and assumptions as its main support, all the while ignoring the Bible when God says “this is how it did happen.” The Bible tells us that there was a great flood of water that covered the whole earth. This would have been sufficient to lay down nearly all of the sedimentary layers we see today. Evolution tells us that it was laid down by countless catastrophes over the course of billions of years. One of these is based on an eyewitness account. The other is speculation.
ZA
Bri said,
June 15, 2007 at 5:38 am
ZA,
I appreciate the depth of your perception on this issue. Thanks.
Bri
Andrea said,
June 15, 2007 at 10:20 am
Ok, just my 2 cents. I believe in the bodily resurrection, I believe Christ is my Lord and Savior, I love Him and pray every day, I believe God is Lord of the physical AND the spiritual–and I think evolution is probably correct.
And I think Christians should focus on feeding Christ’s lambs and putting their own houses in order, working together, and not worry so much about evolutionists or Creationsts and who is right. I don’t think Jesus cares what we think about evolution, I think he cares that we love one another.
Andrea
Zephyr Axiom said,
June 17, 2007 at 9:31 am
Andrea, you may be correct that our belief in evolution will not dictate whether or not we are given eternal, physical life through Christ’s mercy and forgiveness. In fact, one of the most prominent Young Earth Creationist organizations has officially stated that they believe one can be a Christian (that is, one who believes in the divinity of Jesus and a physical resurrection) and an Evolutionist. One can also be loving and kind without believing in a literal six day creation. In many places in the world even, the Bible is outlawed and Christians can only get a hold of a few pages at most. Many Christians can’t even read.
That does not mean that we should believe in molecules to man Evolution.
Molecules to man Evolution has no textual support from the Bible. Not only that, but this concept of Evolution was created specifically to explain how the universe could arise without the hand of God. It is inherently anti-God. It is supposed to explain a world in which God has no power to directly influence the material. This is completely inconsistent with the Word of God.
Belief in an allegorical nature of Genesis makes it inconsistent to believe in a literal nature of the resurrection. Belief in an allegorical nature of Adam is inconsistent with a belief in the literal nature of Christ. “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being’ ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45). The entrance of sin into the world through Adam is the very reason why Christ came to save humanity. Without Adam, there is no reason for Christ’s sacrifice, and a mockery is made of Jesus’ needless death. To believe in millions and billions of years in the form of molecules to man Evolution is to make God out to be a liar, for all those millions of years of Evolution would have brought about unimaginable suffering and death. This is contrary to what was said, that death entered through Adam. It also makes God out to be a sadistic being who maims and kills for no reason, and then calls this “very good.”
The idea of molecules to man Evolution is based on the statement that there are no miracles that brought humanity into being. Why then should we accept this and then also accept that a dead man rose back to life after three days? Why should we believe that Jesus performed true miracles? If we do not believe that God was speaking literally when He said the earth and all that it contained was created in six days, why should we believe that He was speaking literally when He said that we would live forever? Did Christ not say, “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)
You may not see the inconsistency of holding these two belief systems, but others do. There are scores of people who have realized that it is worthless believing in a god who lied about our past. An example is the prominent anti-theist Eugenie Scott, who was raised in a Christian home, but rejected the Bible because it quite clearly contradicts what is taught as fact in this country. Many see that a book such as the Bible has absolutely no power of explanation if it is able to cover every possible scenario of origins. If its followers can fit an obviously straightforward narrative to something so contradictory as Evolution, then why on earth should anything else in that book have any meaning?
The people who “showed” us that molecules to man Evolution is responsible for our existence are the very same people who use the very same type of “evidence” and the very same type of reasoning to tell us that Jesus was only a man, and that He had nothing heavenly about Him. Why should we believe them? Molecules to man Evolution can and has been shown through objective application of the scientific method to be outright inadequate for the origin of life. It is a lie. Christians are not the children of Satan, the father of lies, but rather of God, whose every word is truth. As a Christian, I am not going to say, “Okay, molecules to man Evolution is true.” Neither am I going to let lies be spread around without presenting the truth. A Christian who does not challenge a lie is a Christian who has not stood up for God. This will make me look like a fool to the world, but that does not upset me. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’” (1 Corinthians 3:19). The dogma of molecules to man Evolution is one that takes away the beginning of the history. Without the beginning, it is much harder to understand the consummation, and thus this is a root to how many people have found their seed sown along the road.
For an athiest’s view on the usefulness of Darwinian Evolution in undermining the New Testament, see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/child.asp
Sincerely in Christ,
ZA
Andrea said,
June 17, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Hi ZA–Thank you for taking the time for such a thorough and thoughtful reply. It is only fitting that I do the same. So, here goes.
First, here are some things I disagree with, and why–
-the idea of evolution is “inherently anti-God.” I believe the idea of evolution is like gasoline. It is very strong, very powerful in influencing belief. Like gasoline, it can be used by the irresponsible to “explode” the wonderful gem of belief. But it can also be used to explain, to enlighten, to deepen worship of our awesome Creator by deepening understanding. This is the most noble mission of responsible science.
-”an allegorical Adam is inconsistent with a literal Christ and a literal resurrection.” I disagree with this as well. Nowhere in the Bible does God claim that the Bible is consistently one or the other. Jesus constantly used parables to make his points.
-”If the story of Genesis is not literally true, why on earth should anything else in the Bible have any meaning?” I am a practical person. The Bible works. I don’t understand how it works, I can hardly comprehend why it works, but I know it works in my own life and in the lives of others, to nudge and bludgeon and move us into being kinder, more loving, happier, less fearful people. It works if Genesis feels allegorical, and it works if Genesis is taken literally. That’s why.
– “Without Adam there is no reason for Christ’s sacrifice.” I see plenty of reason, right in my own flawed soul, in my own past sins, in my knowledge of my future ones, alas.
****************
Now, the things I agree with. “A Christian who does not challenge a lie is a Christian who has not stood up for God.” Amen, amen, amen. We may disagree about truth, but we must speak up.
“Without the beginning, it is much harder to understand the consummation, and thus this is a root to how many people have found their seed sown along the road.”
I think you are saying that belief in evolution has undermined belief in God. I think that that is, indeed, sadly, true. In fact, “science” has become a kind of religion, the rock that many people cling to as a substitute for the Rock.
And yes, atheists who are intent on evangelizing non-belief (seems like an oxymoron, doesn’t it, but if you read atheistic stuff, it’s extremely evangelical in tone) find ample fodder in the evolutionary theory. No question about it. I have personally seen this, many times, and I imagine you have too.
But my choice is to communicate my understanding that there is no inconsistency. That faith and evolutionary thought can walk hand in hand, and enrich each other.
Like the experience of Jesus, this has to be experienced to be explained. But I am here to say that I know many Christians who have done it. I do know that for many this seems very inconsistent, and I do respect their beliefs as well.
I do hate to see Christians rancorously split over this issue. I think God calls us to discuss it compassionately and respectfully (as is happening right now), and then move on to feeding the lambs.
Grace and peace, Andrea
Zephyr Axiom said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:42 am
Andrea,
Thank you for your reply. I am glad you agree on the importance of challenging a lie. I am rather puzzled, however. The modern concept of molecules to man Evolution was devised by a man who rejected the book of Genesis. The intent of this Evolution idea is to “show” how God did not do things the way it is described in Genesis. It is the humanist religion. Its very premise is that life was not created. Furthermore, it proposes that life came about through the process of death. Molecules to man Evolution requires that countless creatures died in the billions of years prior to mankind’s arrival. And yet before God’s finishing of His creative “act,” God said on several occasions that this was all good. Now, the God of the Bible is the God of life. He is the God of love. Why would He kill all those creatures? According to Evolutionists, it was because these creatures were not “good enough” to survive in a world where those that kill are those that live. The strong survive, the weak die. Theistic Evolution requires that God made something that was less than good. The Bible also teaches that death comes from sin. If there was death before Adam, then that means that there was sin before Adam. Where would that sin have come from? God?
The Bible teaches that it was through one man that sin and death entered into the world. God created a world without sin and death, and it was only through the actions of Adam that death and suffering entered the world. According to Evolution, man has only been on the scene for the most recent portion of history. Before man, there was unimaginable death and suffering. I fail to see how these two perspectives could possibly be compatible. Genesis says six days, with the qualifying “and it was morning, and it was evening.” Evolution says it was billions and billions of years. How are these two consistent with each other?
Evolution has this order (cut and pasted from an Evolutionist website): “(1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures, and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects), and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about), and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man, and more of the various animals and plants.”
Genesis has this order: 1) light; 2) the sky; 3) land and plants; 4) sun, moon, and stars; 5) marine animals and birds; and 6) land animals and man.
How are the above two sequences harmonious?
Evolution has woman before man. Genesis has man before woman. Are these equal to each other? God certainly could have created the world through Evolution, but it does not seem to me that such a god would be the God of the Bible.
The central thing that Darwinian Evolutionists tout as “evidence” of their religion of death is the “fossil record.” The vast, vast majority of fossils consists of sea creatures. Fossil creatures are found having died suddenly in some sort of cataclysm. The dinosaurs have confounded Evolutionists with how they are positioned as if they died from asphyxiation. Even my secular anthropology professor mentioned how the famous “Lucy” ape was killed in a watery catastrophe. Experiments have shown that water will lay down sediment in the same manner as we find sedimentary rock sitting right now.
Despite there not being a drop of liquid water on Mars, NASA is continually saying that Mars had once experienced a global flood. This is in contrast to the humanist rejection of a global flood on Earth, even though there is enough water on Earth to submerge all the dry land were the continents to be flattened with the sea bed.
“First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed” (2 Peter 3:3-6).
Being one who has not forgotten creation, nor the Flood, I am perplexed as to why a fellow believer in Christ would so ignore a literal interpretation in favor of the humanist’s explanation of origins. I’m particularly interested to know what you think Genesis says, as well as where specifically you think Jesus’ genealogy in Luke chap 3 transitions from real to figurative, and why God wouldn’t have told us of our having come from apes.
Respectfully,
ZA
Andrea said,
June 18, 2007 at 7:06 pm
OK, let me try. I’m not sure we can understand each other, but I still think the process is worthwhile.
” . . . why a fellow believer in Christ would so ignore a literal interpretation in favor of the humanist’s explanation of origins.”
I do not believe that the entire Bible was intended by God to be taken literally. I think we have to consult the “still, small voice” to determine what is literal and what is not. Jesus, for example, exhorts us to pluck out our eye if it offends us. I don’t think he meant that literally. In Deutoronomy we are told to kill our children if they disobey us. Etc. etc.
I think Adam is an allegorical Everyman, and Eve Everywoman, and it is a story about how by disobeying God, by thinking we know more than God after we eat the allegorical fruit of knowledge, we turn away from Him and are cast out of what could be, were it not for this primary sin, a blissful existence in his presence. I do believe in a literal Flood.
I don’t know what I think about the geneaology. I am more interested in how to live as a faithful Christian. But I do know Jesus speaks figuratively a lot–not just in the plucking-eye passage, but throughout the gospels.
Why God wouldn’t have told us of our having come from apes? Well, He didn’t mention DNA, either, or aerodynamics, or how to make a good chocolate cake–yet all these things are good, true things.
You do raise one sticky point though. I noticed it your last post but decided to avoid it. And that is, why death? Why would a good God create death and suffering, a system where the fittest survive? Isn’t that cruel?
I dont’ know the answer to that. I don’t understand it. Somewhere in Proverbs it says, don’t try to understand things you aren’t created to understand. (I’m paraphrasing very freely.) That is one of those things.
I certainly understand your distress at the use of evolution to discount the existence of God. It gets really ugly. I don’t want to convince you Evolution is correct, but I do want to be sure to let you know that there are many, many faithful believers who do not reject evolution.
There’s a book called “God’s Universe”, which I haven’t read, written by a evolutionist who is also a believer, that explores this in depth and is said to be very good. Like I said, I haven’t read it. But I hope to someday.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Andrea
patti said,
June 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Andrea,
I’m going to stay mostly out of this conversation because quite frankly, I don’t have the time to go into all the scriptures. However, the bible very clearly is not allegorical nor is it “partly true.” I do not believe God gave us a “grey” book for us to figure out which part is grey and which isn’t. If that were the case, heaven and hell would be a mute point because folks would be picking and choosing which they want to believe.
When you are taking verses from the bible like “plucking out thine own eye” you MUST be careful that you are rightly dividing the word. Timothy says we are to “rightly divide the word.” He also says that “all scripture is given for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. The bible is divided into seven basic time periods. Be very careful taking your doctrine out of the book of Matthew. Matthew is in large part a book of tribulation scriptures (meaning, what’s to come after the rapture). Same thing with the book of Acts. It’s a very transitional book going from giving the gospel strictly to the Jews to going to the gentiles. It’s not that some of it doesn’t apply, but if you rightly divide the word by dispensations as Paul said to then you will discover why some passages are “for” the church age christian and some are for the OT Jew, etc. etc. The plucking out thine eye if it offend thee is a tribulation passage. It doesn’t even apply to you as a christian. SO, in reading your bible, make sure you are properly rightly dividing it and then determining by it’s context if that scripure is for doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction in righteousness.
As an example I’m going to give you something that God has convicted us in our home about. Please note, it is our conviction – not a requirement for others unless God convicts them.
The bible talks about women not looking like men, women being modest, not be a stumbling block for others, etc. etc. I have a list of scriptures but fishing it out right now would take more time then I have). We require our girls (as do I) to wear dresses or skirts. They never wear pants. For anything. The first passage most people go to is deut. and say “yeah but, God also told the jews not to mix certain materials.” That’s NOT where we got our conviction. Our conviction came as instruction in righteousness from the NT books that talk about women being modest, not looking like a man, etc. The next answer is “yeah, but men wore dresses or gowns in the OT times.” Yes, and I’m pretty sure there were ways that men knew a women was next to him. Maybe it was a headcovering, maybe it was colors, etc. But SOMETHING was likely a separation that indicated if someone was a man or a women.
So, you see. The scriptures don’t come out and say we should do “X” regarding our dressing. But there is some clear “instruction in righteousness” for our family. Sometimes God will use OT passages that applied to the Jews to correct us in our attitudes, or to again, to instruct us in righteousness. As one reads the Word and God quickens it to your heart he can use any scripture to convict one of needed correction, instruction in righteousness, doctrine or reproof. It’s not just NT scriptures he uses.
If you are unclear about dispensations I would recommend Clarence Larkins book called the Dispensations of the Times (uh, I think that’s what it’s called. Mine is packed away right now).
I do not think it is compatible to be a christian and not believe in God creating everything in six days. To believe otherwise is to put every other aspect of the bible as suspect. In Psalms God says over and over again that his word is preserved, protected, will stand forever, etc. etc. Not parts of it, not pieces of it. This is one case where I believe it’s all or nothing.
Example: The bible says that baptism is by immersion only following salvation. But there are many churches practicing sprinkling. I was sprinkled as a baby. There is nothing biblical to that and it is contrary to the scriptures. Does that mean that those churches are still right with God? No. They are doing something in total contradiction of the bible. Not to mention damning many of their folks to hell who will trust in that sprinkling to get them to heaven. If one believes the bible is only partly true, is the part about immersion true? The bible is very clear on what baptism is. If one chooses which parts they want to believe then sprinkling would be acceptable – even though is totally anti-bibilical.
It can’t be both ways. Either God is all truth (including his Word) or he’s a liar. He is perfect, so he can’t be grey.
Peace,
patti
Bri said,
June 19, 2007 at 2:19 am
Andrea,
You raise some interesting points which I have already come across in discussions with other people.
What first comes to my mind at this moment is that we are neglecting to address an underlying principle of our world regarding evil, deception, and the devil.
Jesus is the Christians final authority in regards to interpretation of reality, attitudes to live by, and what our behaviors and beliefs should be. Over and again we are told in Scripture that Jesus was the perfect man, without sin, without deception, without malice. He was the perfect spotless lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus routinely spoke of historical persons as real people without qualification. The New Testament writers also reference events and persons in the Hebrew scriptures regarding the literal fulfillment of Jesus as the Messiah. This shows that not only did Jesus want us to believe in Adam and other ancient persons as real non-allegorical persons, but so did the Apostles and other writers of the New Testament.
There is actually no reason for us to take the parables of Jesus as allegories. Also for Him to be required to make up stories for parables would be unnecessary given His great wisdom and resources. Jesus was taught by angels, and even the educated Jews were astonished at His wisdom. Even the Apostles exclaimed, “Thou knowest all things.” He also knew the heart of all men. None of Jesus’ parables about regular earthly events would have to be construed as implausible. Hearers of his stories would have undoubtedly assumed that the stories were accurate accounts of previous events, which would have lent the maximum affect upon those assembled to hear him. There is at least one parable that explains events beyond earthly experience, but in that case real names are given, those of Lazarus and Abraham. Many of the people believed that Jesus was a prophet, speaking words from God.
As far as the passage concerning plucking out one’s eye, that passage as well as others is problematic because it is not actually taken literal enough. It reminds me of a biology professor who was ridiculing the Genesis account of the flood as being obviously inconsistent. He said that in one place we are told that Noah was told to take animals by sevens and in another place by twos. A better reading of Genesis 6 will reveal how inaccurate his assertion was. Jesus said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you.” Of course, this would have gotten His audience sitting up and asking one another, “What did he just say?” Notice though that taken literally He is not saying that a person’s eye causes him to sin. He is saying “IF it causes you to sin,” not “your eye causes you to sin.” Those acquainted intimately with Jesus’ teachings should know that it is the heart that causes sin, not the eye nor the hand. This is consistent with what Jesus said elsewhere, “Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” Therefore, the plucking out of the eye is not an allegory but is part of a logical exercise of literal proportions. Those having problems with this passage are ignoring the meaning of “if” in a logical if/then expression.
This happens often with people reading or quoting scripture, which probably simply reflects in their day to day reasoning skills. I have heard people quote a passage saying, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” By omitting the initial condition of the passage, they are implying such, “If you know the truth, then the truth will set you free,” but that is not what the passage is saying at all. Rather the conditional statement is, “IF you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” In this case the condition was not met by those Jesus was speaking to, therefore the rest of the fulfillment would neither apply to them. Some of those hearing Him were not about to abide in His word, so that even IF they knew the truth, there is no promise that the truth would set them free without abiding in His word.
Now back the the nature of evil, deception, and the devil. We should start with Genesis:
“Then the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’. ”
Jesus said of the devil, “When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” Where in the Hebrew scriptures would the listeners have been familiar with the devil as the father of lies? That would be the above passage from Genesis. How ironic would it be for Jesus to be referring to the devil as the father of lies from Genesis, if the above passage from Genesis were a lie. That would make Jesus the harbinger of falsehood and would give credence to the devil.
Paul warned the Thessalonians about the devil and lies, “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
This is a very telling passage. The devil, whom Jesus believed as a real being, is working to deceive the world, and God allows the world to believe the lie. Whatever this lie is, it seems to become very pervasive in the world. Now Jesus said that the way to destruction is wide and many are those who take it. There is a strong delusion overtaking the world and the scripture calls it “the lie.” Now consider that the full doctrine of evolution is not found in the Bible from reading it plainly, yet evolutionists tell us that evolution is the underlying principle of biology and of the universe. Evolution is also THE primary rationale given to disprove the relevancy of God and the authenticity of the Bible and Jesus as Saviour of anything.
In the spirit of truth, there is no reason why an all-knowing and all-powerful God as described in the Bible would allow the authentication by Jesus and His Apostles of blatant lies about how we came to be in Genesis. If evolution as described by university textbooks is the gospel truth, so to speak, then God is the lier for not telling us about our true origins before the modern “scientists” could get to it.
On the other hand, as a believer in Jesus and the Bible, I know that a strong delusion must overtake the world in defiance against God and His Christ. The Bible even tells me that people will sneak amongst Christians to teach lies in hypocrisies.
Paul the Apostle wrote to Timothy, “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”
What possibly could those fables be that cause people to turn from the truth? Are they the fables of Genesis or the fables of evolution? All this is said without even examining evidence from science which seriously casts doubts on evolution as an explanation for origins. We should remember that the scriptures warn us of a strong delusion coming upon the world, this would even require scientists to make up complex stories to prove these delusions. Scientists are sinners too, and fallible, and prone to deceptions of proportions as described. Jesus said that in the latter times the world will be like the times of Noah, when only a family of eight survived. How can a whole world of experts be wrong about the origins of life? The world was wrong in the time of Noah and will be wrong in the latter times, so the scriptures say.
Bri
Andrea said,
June 19, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Bri and Patti–Thank you both for your participation. I’m going to have to back out of this discussion for awhile, because I’m going off to be a camp counselor for a week and have a lot of preparation to do, but I do appreciate everyone’s participation and thoughts, and I have learned a lot.
I do not think Genesis is a lie. I think some spiritual truths are too profound to be understood with literal language, and so God uses allegory to tell the truth, the real deep truth. Music and art, too, can convery truths too deep for words. These are God’s truths, deeper truths that go beyond our merely human ability to understand.
And I agree, Patti, that we must read scripture and let God “quicken it to our hearts” to instruct us in everything–including how we should dress. I think that the spirit of the instruction will be evident to us as we pray on scripture, and that we can be instructed differently, according to God’s will for us.
My understanding of scripture, the quickening of my heart, is different from yours in this matter of evolution vs 6-day creation, and also in the matter of who is going to heaven and who is not.
But Christ is bigger than all of us and all our ideas and opinions, is more powerful and good beyond what we can ever imagine. That’s my ultimate faith.
TTFN, enjoy your summers, Andrea
Administrator said,
June 25, 2007 at 11:00 am
The continuation of this thread has been pretty interesting and insightful. I like the different angles that were discussed. Thanks!
Drew:
I just read your post on your blog, God Doesn’t Deceive: Another Side to the Book of Nature http://www.tatuskofam.com/musings_of_drew/wordpress/?p=14 One thing that just sticks out to me is that you are coming from the premise that the information evolutionists gather from science is accurate, when in fact if one closely examines their claims one will see evolutionists’ conclusions are fraught with circular reasoning resulting in questionable conclusions.
Some of the circular reasonings evolutionists commonly use are that of the fossil record and the earth’s strata to date the earth. We commonly hear that certain fossils are found in certain layers which are such and such years old. Then they turn around and tell you that they know that that strata is that old because those certain fossils were found in them. Logically one should date the strata or fossil itself to determine its age rather than dating it by the “assumed” age of its surroundings. So some say, yes, we have other dating methods such as radiometric dating or carbon dating. That method has shown to also be unreliable for various reasons. Some modern rocks have been dated in the millions-of-year-old range, then we are told that those dating methods are not intended to date “new” rocks accurately. If all the rocks are relatively new, then how can they compare old and new rocks with that method? One very significant aspect that evolutionists assume is that the earth’s conditions are the same now as they were in their supposed 4 billion years age. But the Bible gives us the possibility that the earth’s conditions were not as they are today. I have read the argument that Genesis describes waters above the expanse and below the expanse, or a water canopy above the earth and water underground. In the account of Noah’s flood, it is written that all the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven were opened. If it is true there was a water canopy above the earth, then it could have very likely shielded the earth and its inhabitants of cosmic bombardment. In other words, the bones later found by our modern day archeologists would not start out with the same amount of carbon that a modern day human would exhibit since we are no longer protected by a water canopy above the atmosphere, and thus trying to determine the rate of decay is irrelevant if you don’t know how much carbon was there to start with. If you read the work of Robert Gentry on radio halos, he explains a similar concept of evolutionists assuming conditions were the same now as they were in the past, which skews the result of their dating methods. Gentry contends that from his examination of rocks, the decay rate does not appear to have been constant. In the area of mutations, again, evolutionists draw their conclusions upon assumptions and not concrete evidence. For instance they claim there are beneficial mutations and detrimental mutations. But labelling one mutation “beneficial” and another mutation “detrimental” assumes that there is an original model by which to compare to see if there was in fact a mutation. That is, how do you know something has mutated if you don’t have an original model to compare and see where the deviation occurred? There are many more aspects of the evolution model which raises disputes in relation to accuracy, therefore to “rely” soley on the evolutionists to solve the mysteries of our beingings is irresponsible. Their methods and ability to make accurate conclusions appear weak and a shame that they fight so vehemently against others who share or expose their weaknesses. I feel it becomes an issue of pride more than a search for truth.
Andrea:
I’m glad that Bri addressed the passage of “plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin.” I had meant to address that a long time ago, but never got around to it. I agree with Bri that it is a matter of “if/then,” and that the eye and hands do not cause sin, therefore we aren’t required to pluck them out. A passage that appears to back that up in the Bible is 1 John 1:10:
“He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.”
That seems to be saying that “when we love our brother (I’m thinking this means fellow man), then we don’t sin. I think “love” is an attribute which keeps us on the straight and narrow. When we practice “lack of love,” then we sin. Lack of love seems to be linked to what causes us to sin, not our eyes or hands or any other parts of our bodies. Remember, love is gentle, patient, long-suffering, humble, hopeful, etc. So that passage regarding plucking one’s eye out if it causes you to sin IS a LITERAL passage.
Okay, toodles for now, and thanks for all the good thoughts and civil exchanges!
Marla