And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?(Gen. 17:15-17)

Abraham laughed at God's promise to produce a son through Sarah. He "said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!" He trusted in what he could see, in what made sense to him. Ismael was Abraham's attempt to help God.

As I watch theistic evolutionists on programs broadcast on Sky Angel channels it almost seems they are laughing at the Genesis creation story and trying to help God with their theories of how God might have created the earth and life on it. But God doesn't need our help. He is able to create in exactly the way He chooses to create.

Yep. Absolutely - God can do literally *anything*. I'm absolutely prepared to accept that he created the world and life miraculously only a few thousand years ago (if still alittle perplexed about his decision to make it look much older). Are *you* prepared to acknowledge that he may have chosen to create it miraculously at a different time or using a different mechanism. Because as far as I can tell there's *no-one* here arguing the atheistic evolutionary position that the universe and life evolved with zero involvement from God. We *all* accept His miraculous and creative power. We read the Bible account differently, that's what it all comes down to. And it's frankly frustrating to keep being categorised as unbelievers and as spurning the Bible and every other negative characterisation that can be imagined. We are sincerely, open-heartedly, open-mindedly seeking to understand God's revelation of himself. End of story.

Problem with your statement is that the Biblical account is clear and explicit. Hermeneutics 101 states as a rule of thumb, to take the Bible as it reads, unless the immediate context clearly indicates otherwise. In the case of the Genesis account, it doesn't. You do indeed protest vehemently as to the purity of your intent and motives. But here is the 'acid test': If you, or any person, is sincerely, open-heartdly, open-mindedly seking to understand God's revelation of Himself IN THE BIBLE, then the question is easily resolved. Accept the Bible as it reads, and "lean not unto thine own understanding."

The real problem I see, is the attempt by some scientists, (who do believe in God, but cannot imagine how things could have happened if the Bible is taken literally,) to quantify God's creative activity within parameters set by themselves, based on their own knowledge. IOW since they cannot comprehend or believe that it could have happened as literally recorded in Genesis, then it MUST NOT have happened that way, so they bend the import of Scripture to fit their ideas. This seems like a modern-day application of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. To Eve, the fruit looked fine, and here was the evidence of the serpent unharmed after eating it, and in fact seeming to acquire special powers from doing so, being able to speak!

Far better for us to humbly admit that our knowledge is incomplete, and accept the authority of God's holy Word as supreme--even if we don't understand how something could have happened. Are *you* willing to do that?

KIM that in the last days, we will not be able to believe the evidence of our eyes and ears. The deception will appear so convincing that millions will say, based on the observed evidence, that what is really the false christ MUST be the real McCoy! It will be to our advantage to get in the habit now, of accepting the Bible exactly as it reads, and submit our understanding to the authority of God's holy Word. Are you willing to do so?

Dave

God reveals Himself through his Creation, through His written Word, through his living Word and through the Holy Spirit. I am seeking to understand the wholeness of His revelation of Himself. And I will not submit to *your* authority in that quest. There is really no basis for a conversation left here, in an environment where my search for truth is labeled as not only incorrect but impious, so I am withdrawing myself from the discussion.

I assume when you talk about choosing to create the world "using a different machanism," you are referring to evolution.

The problem I have with evolution is that it would require us to believe that God brought about human existence through a very violent and painful process that makes it practically impossible to distinguish between good and evil. It would mean that God deliberately used evil to bring about good, i.e., the survival of the fittest, the struggle for survival and power being the mechanism that God chose to be the means of our creation. On this head, there is no Fall but rather a progression always upwards. On this view, why do we need salvation? According to evolution, we are only acting out our animal, our real natures, not anything "fallen."

If God used evolution to cause our creation, in what sense is God a God of mercy and love, since He deliberately chose a means that is based on struggle, suffering, and death? In other words, while in the Genesis narrative there is suffering and death, God did not choose those things but rather they are really the result of man's choices, which God warned our first parents about; whereas, according to theistic evolution, mankind was made to struggle, suffer, and die as a result of God's deliberate choices for us.

Also, if mankind is descended from lower forms of life, such as the apes, etc., what human was the first to be the "image of God"? What right does God have to judge us since we are only acting out our real natures that we inherited from our animal ancestors? and so forth and so on....

As a theistic evolutionist, could you please address yourself to those questions and issues?

Re: "Problem with your statement is that the Biblical account is clear and explicit. Hermeneutics 101 states as a rule of thumb, to take the Bible as it reads, unless the immediate context clearly indicates otherwise. In the case of the Genesis account, it doesn't. You do indeed protest vehemently as to the purity of your intent and motives. But here is the 'acid test': If you, or any person, is sincerely, open-heartdly, open-mindedly seking to understand God's revelation of Himself IN THE BIBLE, then the question is easily resolved. Accept the Bible as it reads, and "lean not unto thine own understanding."

Statements such as the above serve to obstruct conversation. There is a fairly clear challenge to sincerity, open-mindness, open heartedness and a desire to understand God's revelation. Such statements are personal attacks, which do not deal with questions about the subject and issues. They do nothing to resolve conflicts. Instead they servce to increase conflicts.

Statements thta indicate that the Bible is clear and explicit also serve to cut off discussion. After all, if the Bible is explicit, there is no need to discuss further. The problem now lies with the person who likely has closed his/her mind to the Biblical teaching. If this is the case, why discuss issues. Go on the attack, and attack the person.

I would hope that people could discuss on a higher level of communication. Unfortunately posts such as the above do not cause me to think that this can be done.

It is very hard to distinquish good and evil - in both models. In Eden, before the Fall, did bacteria die? Was that evil? What about coral polyps? Did ants die? What about bees? At SOME level some reproducing organisms must have either all stopped reproducing or individually died.

But the REAL problem here is you are letting your theology control your science. You are not looking at the world and using what God is showing you to guide your theology.



"For all have sinned" ... "the wages of sin is death" ... true in both models. We don't need salvation - we could just die.



The creation model has all the same issues. Why did God make man knowing man would Fall? The whole "free choice" argument is an amusing attempt to get God off the hook. My personal belief is that (a) God does NOT know the exact details of the future, since knowing and creating are exactly the same thing, as any computer simulation programmer knows, and (b) God was between a rock and a hard place - He could either create, knowing there would be a Fall, or not create. He decided that creating was better than nothing.



Since I don't know what that phrase means, I can't answer.



What right does God have to judge us since we are only acting out our fallen nature that we inherited from Adam?

Your questions are great - but they apply equally well to both models.

/Bevin

I am going to get personal here, in order to clarify my position, but hopefully I won't offend anyone. I just don't want anyone reading between the lines something that isn't there.

To me (this is my opinion) Bevin seems to be more of a theistic evolutionist. I often refer to secular evolutionists to distingish the fact I am not referring to Bevin.

To me (this is my opinion) Bravus tries to play the middle ground and view all theories from both the prespectives of those that advance them and those that criticise them. I think he does a good job. To me, he tends to come off as if he leans towards theistic evolution but even if he does, I believe that such a belief doesn't prevent him or anyone else from having a relationship with Christ.

I believe the Bible is believable beyound a reasonable doubt - not all doubt. I have some doubts but I write them off as being unreasonable and a result of my lack of faith. As we have seen here, the creation story as written in Hebrew is poetic. That does not mean the six days of creation are not literal days but rather the order of creation is not so literal. The idea the stars were created before the earth does not contradict the creation story as written in Hebrew. The idea it took longer than six days does contradict the Hebrew text.

This is what I call "Ishmael Science". However it is not limitted to just scientists and not all scientists are guilty of doing it. In fact, I think it only applies to theistic evolutionists which are really the minority of the minority. That is, within the scientific community, creationists are the minority and theistic evolutionists are the minority within the creationist community. Thus they are the minority of the minority.

For those of us that have Sky Angel programming, if one looks throught the guide they can catch programs put together by theistic evolutionists and some of them are quite convincing. Yet I cannot see how someone can embrace it and still hold that the Bible is completely divinely inspired.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. God does indeed reveal Himself through various media. But then again, satan also manifests himself through various media. One person may claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. How does one know if it is the Holy Spirit? What is the test? Another person claims to find evidence which bears on spiritual issues, in nature. Yet, nature has been marred by sin. The ultimate test of these other two great areas of life and interaction, MUST be the written Word. That is a clear and unequivocal Scriptural principle.

Aye, there's the rub! Is a person willing to submit his or her ideas, his 'impressions,' even the evidence of his eyes and ears, to the supremacy of the written Word? Al those other things are NOT--repeat NOT on the same level of reliability of inspiration. And THAT is the issue which I addressed earlier on this thread. It is a make-or-break, literally life-or-death issue.

There, also, lies the potential for a deception every bit as deadly as John Harvey Kellogg's "Living Temple." If a person is unwilling to accept the supremacy of the written Word over these other media, but places nature and impressions on the same level of Scripture, or even tries to interpret Scripture by his or her impressions or observations, then that is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Dave

That is an inaccurate statement. What I wrote, was a statement of principle. The principle is that of the supremacy of the written Word over observations and impressions. It was not a personal attack as written, nor in principle. It most assuredly deals directly with 'questions about the subject and issues.' The crucial issue is recognition of the supremacy of God's written Word over other media. And that is an EXTREMELY important issue in these last days. By no stretch of the imagination could it be construed as a personal attack. It is fair ground for discussion.



Ahh, so you don't think someone should say that the Bible's teaching or statements are clear and explicit? But that is a fair statement for a person to make. In fact, one cause of the Sadducees discomfort with Jesus was that He "taught with authority." The bottom line of what you are saying seems to be that a person should not say that the Bible is clear and explicit! I absolutely disagree with that. One important purpose of a discussion such as these, is to find out what the Bible in fact does say, and to recognize the supremacy of the written Word.



That is not what I personally do, nor have I done that on this thread. A statement of principle is not a personal attack, nor is an appeal to a person to accept and follow that principle.

But if you are speaking of personal attacks, looking at Bravus' reponsee to Shane's first post, THAT was a personal attack against Shane, and certainly tried to put Shane personally on the spot. Yet, you said nothing about that!



The post you are referring to addressed vital principles of Biblical understanding, and a potentially dangerous error. You apparently have a different opinion. That is fine. Forums are about the interchange of ideas, and expressing opinions many times, as well as sorting out opinion from fact. And the test of that, once again, ultimately is the written Word.

Dave

Poetic? Well, different schools of thought on the significance of that. The liberal evangelical school of thought, which freely engages in higher criticism, may take that as a justification for not accepting the account literally. However, whether or not it is intended as poetic, does not necessarily detract from its factual accuracy.

As for the stars being created before the earth, that is indicated in the verse, as they are mentioned separately from the sun and moon. The order of creation as stated is absolutely literal, and there is no 'wiggle room' except in the ideas of the liberal evangelicals, who consider much of the OT to be fables anyway. And, of course, theistic evolutionists who attempt to fit God's creative power into their ideas.

Dave

Impious? No one has used the word 'impious.' Is it possible for a person's search for truth to be 'impious'? Yes. Two examples: first, someone who exalts his or her ideas or impressions above the written Word. That would be incorect and could be characterized as 'impious.' Second, Paul the apostle warns in Rom. 1 against those who exalt nature above the Creator. The search for truth about God *MUST* start and ultimately end with the written Word, the Bible. That is the supreme test of all ideas, observations and beliefs. Do you agree with that, or not?

Dave

In Eden, according to the Bible, these issues of good and evil are never related to bacteria or ants or bees or coral polyps. They have to do with humans. If evolution accurately describes how humans came into being, it's obvious that the process by which God intended the animal ancestors of people to evolve necessitated many things that God's moral law condemns. In other words, things that we know to be wrong now were built into the system and all of our ancestors participated in them because they had no moral knowledge at those early stages. My question is, when did the first "human" become aware of morality and had a consciousness of sin and the need of being forgiven? Why did he need forgiveness? In what way had our early ancestors fallen?



I am considering those issues, of course, as we need to. If an interpretation of the evidence is entirely at odds with what the Bible teaches on several different levels, including a theological one, we should be aware of it.

I certainly do believe that we should allow the Bible to guide us in our views of the world, and not our experiences to inform us on how to interpret the Bible.

I think you are forgetting that what we call evolutionary theory is a theory of how to explain the evidence. In my view organic evolution is not a fact. I am still studying these issues but so far I don't see evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of life or for human development from non-human ancestors. However, I do accept evolution if by that we mean change within species. God programmed the animals and even people so that our bodies can adapt to changes in the environment. (Too bad Darwin didn't know that when he began his voyage aboard the Beagle.)





But if evolution is true, why would we need salvation? Where do you get the notion of "sin" in the evolutionary model? When and how did it arise? And how in the world does one get "the wages of sin is death" in the evolutionary model? According to it, all life always died, and not as a result of sin, either. Death was built into the whole system from the very first second, if evolution is true.





In the creation model, God makes man perfect and gives him an opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty. God tells Adam the consequences of disobedience. He is told that he can live forever with God if he proves to be loyal. Adam chooses to disobey. The wages of sin, just as God said, is death.

In the theistic evolutionary model, God arranges things from the beginning so that all life-forms will have a relatively brief life and then die. There is no choice involved. Death is not the wages of sin but a natural result of the planning of God.





OK, that is your personal belief. I understand that and have heard that idea expressed before. It's a well known concept in what is called Process Theology where God grows and changes (evolves) along with His creation. Alfred North Whitehead influenced that belief, and in the 1970s I took part in a seminar where it was discussed over a period of days with the German theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Pannenberg&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

One of my professors at Loma Linda, Richard Rice, wrote a book about it, entitled, "The Openness of God," in which he argues that God may not know the future but that He may experience the future in a way somewhat similar to humans, as totally new.

I don't agree with Dr. Rice. The reason is simple: his ideas and your idea that God does not know the future in detail cannot be made to harmonize with the Bible. For instance, the book of Isaiah actually names Cyrus long before he was born and describes his work. The Bible predicted not only when Jesus would be born but where and how long he would live and how he would die. It also predicts the rise and fall of specific nations, including many details, as in Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11 and parts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel 26, which discusses centuries in advance what would befall the city of Tyre. Also, what do you do with Isaiah 40-45, particularly with Isaiah 42:9, with all of its speech about God's knowing the end from the beginning?

Is God just a really wise guesser? Or kind of like a great pilot that has a pretty good hunch of where the plane (or, in this case, the planet) is going? The Bible certainly does not show Him to be any of these, but rather to be the Almighty who knows the end from the beginning and offers proof that He does.

One must also consider the fact that since God is all powerful, he is able to direct events in history so that His objectives are reached and His plan ultimately fulfilled.

Finally, I don't think we have any reason to believe it's legitimate to consider that the knowing and creating of God is similar to what a computer does. IMHO it would be foolish to allow our experience with a computer to determine our view of what God does or how He does them. We might compare certain aspects but we shouldn't think it gives us a very clear or certain idea about God's activity. Special revelation is the only way to know those things.




Yes, He knew ahead of time that Adam would fall, and He went ahead and created Adam anyway. Knowing what Adam would do did not in any way determine that Adam would fall, any more than your seeing a film of an accident causes the accident to happen. The important point is that God gave freedom of choice to both Lucifer and his followers and to Adam. God does not create only those whom He knows will obey Him. That would be to deny true freedom of choice.

The point here is that in the creation model, God gave Adam a real choice, and death is the wages of sin; whereas in the evolutionary model, there was no choice, and death is not the wages of sin.






You believe, I assume, that humans are today "in the image of God" in a way that a bear or monkey, say, is not, isn't that fair to say? For instance, humans are in God's image like a son is in his father's image. Not necessarily, or at least primarily, in a physical sense. The Bible uses it in two different ways: humans can communicate with God as animals can't and people also were created to be like God in relationship to this earth and to the animals.

You believe that humans evolved from lower forms of life over a period of millions of years. I am simply asking at what point in the process of our evolution do you believe humans began to be considered in "the image of God", if we are indeed in the image of God now, in your opinion? For instance, do you believe our ancestors were Zinjanthropus, Peking Man, Australopithecus, and Neanderthal Man? If so, were any or all of them in God's image, and if not, when would you say humans evolved into the image of God?

Please let me know if my question is still either unclear or nonsensical.






The essential difference is that in the evolutionary model, God created us fallen. In fact, in that model, there was no Fall. He intended it to be that way. We ascended from the mud. In the creation model, God made us perfect but man fell by his own choice. There was a Fall. We descended. God made us upright but we made the choice to disobey. I see a big difference there.

Therefore it is not true to say we are simply acting out our fallen nature that we inherited from Adam. We have a choice to make. Once we accept Christ by faith and He comes into our lives, we are no longer obligated, or under compulsion, to sin. Roman 6:7 says plainly that we who die with Christ are freed from sin. The Bible makes it very clear that God does not condemn us for being born with a fallen nature. He makes us a new creation. That is what the death of Jesus was all about. Read Romans 1 to 8, paying particular attention to Romans 3, 6 and 8 and Galatians 5: 13-25.



Thanks for a very good discussion, Bevin. I hope you have a really great Sabbath.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in this thread, so I will try again. My original (and continuing) objection was to the notion that any attempt to understand origins issues that does not accept a literal six-day creation a few thousand years ago is evidence of not accepting God's word. In a Christian environment, that statement, even as a statement of opinion, makes assumptions about someone's spiritual condition. The Terms and Conditions of the Origins forum very explicitly require 'playing the ball, not the man'. That is, statements should apply to the argument, not the person making the argument.

I'm in an awkward position as moderator, since applying this particular rule in this instance would be seen as having benefit to me, and as defending myself. I'm very aware of the perception of bias, and of acting as even-handedly as possible... in fact of even banding over backward to avoid that perception. At the same time, the discussion does need to be moderated if it is to continue at all... and there is no obvious alternative moderator available to take over. (It's a pity that NormF's personal circumstances changed so that he can't be here much any more, because as a co-moderator with a more fixed creationist perspective he added balance to the team.)

So the conclusion of the matter, for the moment, is simply a plea: say "I firmly believe that an honest and correct reading of the Scriptures leaves no other alternative but literal recent creationism", by all means, but don't go beyond that to characterise the motives or spirituality of those who disagree. Equally, say "I believe the account in Genesis is intended to describe purposes, not mechanisms", but do not impugn the spirituality or honesty of those who believe differently.

The paragraph in bold type above is written with my 'moderator' hat on, not my 'conversant' hat... which means it's not open for discussion. And if the plea is not heeded, I will have to take more concrete action to enforce the rules of the forum.

And, John317, I am *not* a theistic evolutionist, so I'll leave your questions for someone who is.

When does any specific human become aware of morality and have a consciousness of sin and the need of being forgiven? One week after conception? 9 months are conception? 1 year after birth? What if they were born serverely brain damaged?

These questions I leave firmly in the Hands of the only One fit to answer them.



What is a species?



It does, when You are the person that wrote the script.



I don't know how to measure people's ability to communicate with God, and I don't know how to measure the like-God relationship to the earth, so I haven't got a clue whether even today we have achieved this state.