noguru
Well-known member
Why don't you just post it again right here?
Lots of things are funny to people who don't understand the reasoning behind those things.
toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Why don't you just post it again right here?
Lots of things are funny to people who don't understand the reasoning behind those things.
Stipe explains YE geology:
Perfect. Stipe believes a great flood created the Grand Canyon out of soft sediments, but can't explain kilometer-high walls of soft sediment. Nor can he explain how a single flood can produce entrenched meanders in that sediment.
Perfect. Stipe believes a great flood created the Grand Canyon out of soft sediments, but can't explain kilometer-high walls of soft sediment. Nor can he explain how a single flood can produce entrenched meanders in that sediment.
Sure.
The best arguments against theistic evolution are from the bible. For numerous reasons, the bible explicitly denies the possibility of evolution. From six days of creation to the flood and the dependence of Jesus' gospel and Paul's gospel upon Genesis as historical narrative.
The bible explicitly and regularly denies evolution as a possibility.
some other dude
New member
That would presume that the writers of Genesis and their intended audience had no way of understanding "a really long time, many many lifetimes or many many days" and that the best they could relate to was "days".
ideogenous_mover
New member
It should be pointed out at this point of the conversation, that as far as the sun and moon go clearly they are not literally lights or lamps, but the Hebrew word given them in Genesis does seem pretty abstract:
H3974
מארה מאורה מאר מאור
מָאוֹר מָאוֹר מְאוֹרָה מְאוֹרָה mâ‘ôr mâ‘ôr me‘ôrâh me‘ôrâh
(1,2) maw-ore‘, (3,4) meh-o-raw‘
From 215 properly a luminous body or luminary, that is, (abstractly) light (as an element); figuratively brightness, that is, cheerfulness; specifically a chandelier: - bright, light.
noguru
Well-known member
Sure.
The best arguments against theistic evolution are from the bible. For numerous reasons, the bible explicitly denies the possibility of evolution. From six days of creation to the flood and the dependence of Jesus' gospel and Paul's gospel upon Genesis as historical narrative.
The bible explicitly and regularly denies evolution as a possibility.
Right, but only if one is stringently attached to a literal 6 day creation. So do you have anything, because that is exactly what we are debating?
But you couldn't find a verse that says so? Not surprising.
If you reject the believes held by Christians for thousands of years. Why are you more qualified than the people who founded our faith?
Argument by assertion probably won't help you. In fact, as you learned, the "life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis. The Earth brought forth life.
Barbarian observes:
Precisely. That is what St. Augustine wrote. The "days" were used as a metaphor for the categories of creation. It made God's creation understandable thereby.
I think Augustine has a better handle on it than you do, Sod. Sorry about that.
Precisely. That is what St. Augustine wrote. The "days" were used as a metaphor for the categories of creation. It made God's creation understandable thereby.
I think Augustine has a better handle on it than you do, Sod. Sorry about that.
some other dude
New member
noguru
Well-known member
Genesis is written very clearly. Until morons like Stripe get hold of it and try to twist it to fit their own perversions.
Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is an allegory for those who try to possess the word of God, and twist it to support their own desire to be like God.
some other dude
New member
jeffblue101
New member
:sigh: Barbarian never learns. How about this Barbarian, provide the justification on why Augustine believed that days to be non-literal. In other words, where did he get the idea that days in Genesis must be non-literal?
Also, do you accept poor exegesis as a valid justification. If you don't, then it would not be a good idea to use Augustine's view.
noguru
Well-known member
"We're just two lost souls
swimming in a fish bowl,
year after year
running over the same old ground,
and what have we found
the same old fears
Wish you were here."
noguru
Well-known member
Can you please clearly demonstrate the difference between good and bad exegesis?
some other dude
New member
frittering and wasting the hours in an offhand way :thumb:
jeffblue101
New member
well, God understands the days to be literal.
Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
some other dude
New member
If all them other "days" are allegorical and mean "a long period of time", shouldn't the "day" of rest also be allegorical?
That's it! :idea:
I'm sleeping in from now on!
noguru
Well-known member
So now you are telling us what God thinks? I guess we don't need God or evidence anymore, because we have Jeffblue101 to tell us all about it. :kookoo:
noguru
Well-known member
Two different songs, but there is definitely a connection, I guess.
And on that note, I am off to fritter and waste some more time.
Peace.