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