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.