Dear Dr. Giberson,
I enjoyed your post at CNN last week about what Jesus would believe about evolution, and I wanted to comment on it.
I'm pleased that you referenced one of the sayings of Jesus straight off in your post, but there's another one I'm thinking of right now. Let me tell you the story. It's the one where Jesus had finished teaching about the Kingdom of God, and he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
But the Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" Jesus answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Now, this is an interesting story for a couple of reasons. The first is one which Dr. John Piper has preached on powerfully (among other men) to point out that this is a great place to show what Jesus says about the nature of the Bible itself. Here Jesus says plainly that "He who created" man and woman also "said" that there is a command for marriage -- even though the bit in Genesis Jesus quotes is not directly attributed to the Creator but is simply the 3rd person omniscient narrator of Genesis. That is: all the words in Genesis 1-3 are God the creator's words.
Just to be fair to you, I think you would say such a thing -- I just don't think you would mean what I mean by saying such a thing. And that brings us to the second reason to consider this story: why Jesus would tell it. You know: why would Jesus go to a place in the Bible where, in your view, the historical and theological issues are very complicated and somewhat ahistorical to tell the Pharisees what they ought to have known (in his view) by simply reading the text?
Here's what I think: Jesus tells this story to straighten out the question of what Marriage is and ought to be because there is something authoritative in the origin of man (male and female) that speaks to who he ought to be. But the reason for that is not an ontological argument. It's not a deduction from fit, form and function to foundational principle. It's not something that science discovers for us. It is certainly not something science discovered for Jesus. Jesus appeals to the declaration of Scripture to define the origin of things -- in this case, Man.You see: In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning, and all things were made by him, and nothing was made without him. And then, the Word became flesh, and lived among us. And while you are right that Jesus said he was "the Truth," he wasn't the victim of truth the way you and I are; he wasn't just wise and educated so that he discovered the truth. His problem in life wasn't trying to make sense of the world because he didn't know anything about it.
Unlike you and me, Jesus knew the world because He is its creator and sustainer. So when he tells the story of Genesis 2, and says that man and woman were actually made for each other with an intention, it's not because he thinks evolution worked out nicely for us: it is because he made things this way, and is informing us of his view of the way in which it was made.
And this, my dear, unfortunately-eager friend and human brother, is where your reasoning goes completely haywire. In your view, Jesus must believe in evolution because you believe in evolution -- you and your whole tribe of rationalist, positivist scientific non-atheists (and also atheists). Because you have seen the shapes in the book of the world and have given us your authoritative reading for them -- that is, you have given us your words for what is there -- you demand that Jesus accept your words for what is there. Somehow your paraphrase for creation is the one which must lead the way.
But Jesus is the one who spoke these things into existence. Your words, compared to His words, are not even hot air. They are, like all human words including my own post here, like the flatulence from the wet tail of a ballon as it discharges and flies away: it may be good for a childish laugh, but it doesn't have eternal significance.On the other hand, Jesus' words not only have eternal significance: they are the words which have established all of eternity. And my advice to you, before you say any more to those who do not believe and are willing to hear anything but Jesus' words on any subject, is to consider your place in the arrangement of things. Putting yourself in the position of speaking for God, the Creator, who knows more about the last 10 seconds than either of us could learn through fervent study for the rest of our lives, is a weightier thing than you have made it. Worse still, your dismissal and denigration of what God has actually said through your work at BioLogos and elsewhere is stunning for a man who says he believes that God is real. Isn't it strange that your explanation with words is somehow more important to you than God's explanation to you with words? Why exactly would that be true, if you were to speculate on it for a moment?
So I leave you with my simple concern that you repent of your blasphemy -- you repent of your idolatry of your own mind, and of human reason, and of the supremacy of created things over their creator when it comes to explaining what they are and why they exist. Repent -- because Christ died for sin, and came at the right time to save sinners like you and like me. There is forgiveness for repentance, and it is not yet too late for you.
May God richly bless you, and open your eyes, and show you his love, and change your mind. What Jesus said ought to mean more to you, and my prayer is that it will do so soon.
57 comments:
"a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor."
Or, you know, a common designer? But that's not "reasonable."
"Not surprisingly, evolution since the time of Darwin has claimed that humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and macaques evolved recently from a common ancestor. The new evidence from genetics corroborates this"
We were either created, or we evolved. You can't have both, and they are mutually exclusive. If we are an accident of random evolutionary innovation, then God had no hand in it. What possible purpose would He have in stringing us out of primates first?
Evolution is simply incompatible with the Bible. You have to make a choice, which this author is simply unwilling to do.
(oops, broken html tag)
"a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.?"
Okay, so right up front, he discounts a great deal of the Bible, since many of the stories contained therein were preserved as part of the oral tradition before being written down. And a bunch of wandering Jews equates to a bunch of illiterate nomads who can't really be trusted to know what they're talking about. Nice, that.
"How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor."
Or, you know, a common designer? But that's not "reasonable."
"Not surprisingly, evolution since the time of Darwin has claimed that humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and macaques evolved recently from a common ancestor. The new evidence from genetics corroborates this"
We were either created, or we evolved. You can't have both, and they are mutually exclusive. If we are an accident of random evolutionary innovation, then God had no hand in it. What possible purpose would He have in stringing us out of primates first?
I don't personally support the 6,000 year theory, but there's a great deal science can't yet explain despite the "facts" of evolution.
Evolution is simply incompatible with the Bible. You have to make a choice, which this author is simply unwilling to do.
Cool letter.
One nit to pick:
"His problem in life wasn't trying to make sense of the world because he didn't know anything about it."
"as if" would be clearer / read smoother than "because" in that instance.
Well, let's give him an iota of credit. It's logically possible that God ordained the process to produce what it produced. I mean: we're calvinists of a stripe here and we can't just say that one means God cannot use is evolution.
The problem is that The Bible either is or is not the word of God, and it either does or does not sufficiently tell us what it tells us. And sadly, it does not tell us that God sovereignly used a process: it does tell us he spoke the worlds into existence, and made man into his own image.
It says what it says, and we either believe it or we don't.
That is the core matter.
Thanks, Frank, for taking the comment I made on that CNN blog post where I referenced Matt. 19 and expanding it into an open letter. I feel highly flattered.
Of course, I either got it from you or DJP anyway.
:)
Just for kicks, the Calvinist Gadfly posted this yesterday, and I must say it is a lovely decoration for this post.
Jacob:
"because" indicates causality; "as if" indicates only potentiality. My point is that Jesus was not trying to make sense of the world as he wandered thru it "as if" he was just a man.
My limitations cause me to need something other than my own limits to sort out the universe -- as they do all men. But here's the truth: we cannot escape out limits. If we are fortunate, we can be saved from them, and that's a great hope.
Goodness, Frank: stellar post, once again. Firing on all cylinders. Thanks for these, and for this.
I had 45 minutes ... :-)
You still kill me, after all these years.
Your post reflects some of my morning reading today:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, ” (Colossians 2:8–9, NASB95)
Keep on tearing down those strongholds.
Bill
The real problem with the argument that because Jesus quoted a few verses of Genesis to establish a point all of the first three chapters are literally true. Jesus did not say that. It does not follow as a matter of logic. It is merely your personal opinion, which you read into scripture.
Whether God used evolution or not is completely unrelated to the relationship between the sexes and the nature of marriage. Jesus points us to Genesis for the latter, and is silent on the former. Stop putting words in his mouth.
Whether God used evolution or not is completely unrelated to the relationship between the sexes and the nature of marriage. Jesus points us to Genesis for the latter, and is silent on the former. Stop putting words in his mouth.
Oh really? Jesus is silent? Seeing that He was the actual creator, and the history of how He created is preserved for us, I don't see how that makes Jesus "silent."
I take it that you are of the opinion that God used suffering, carnage, disease, disaster, and death in order to make a "very good" creation?
We should have silly-dodges-of-the-month competitions.
Just think how long the Bible would be if we forced Jesus and the apostles to endorse every syllable of the OT before we'd deign to stir ourselves and give consent to give those syllables our nod.
And how silly!
naturgesetz:
I think that my argument to Dr. Giberson here is in the form of two distinct syllogisms, wrapped up in some literary decoration. I also think you cannot identify my two syllogisms, as witnessed by your response to me.
Here's how we find out: using my actual post, please identify my two syllogisms. If you can do this, and my arguments resembles what you have critiqued, so be it. But if not -- that is, if you can't identify my arguments, or they are not what you have here critiqued, will I get some kind of retraction or redaction from you on your concerns?
I'll give you a hint, btw: I said this --
Because you have seen the shapes in the book of the world and have given us your authoritative reading for them -- that is, you have given us your words for what is there -- you demand that Jesus accept your words for what is there. Somehow your paraphrase for creation is the one which must lead the way.
What does it mean that Giberson has written a "paraphrase" of the "book of nature"?
..."God, the Creator, who knows more about the last 10 seconds than either of us could learn through fervent study for the rest of our lives..."
Frank, you may work in renewable resources (whatever that is), but THAT was just beautiful. Thanks for writing it.
Great work, Frank. Thanks for calling out Giberson for what he is doing here. It would do him well to read through Job...especially the parts where God speaks to Job. Of course Giberson probably thinks that Job is just a tale spun by the tribes of Israel as they wandered through the desert. I wonder how he explains the resurrection of Jesus (if he even believes that is real).
Frank, thanks for the hint. Unfortunately I had begun composing this comment before you posted it. I think what I say below still fits.
Well, it isn't easy to discover your syllogisms, since you don't lay them out in the traditional format of
All A are B
But x is A
Therefore x is B
or
If A then B
But A
Therefore B.
I find one place where you state a conclusion beginning with the word "So." "So when he tells the story of Genesis 2, and says that man and woman were actually made for each other with an intention, it's not because he thinks evolution worked out nicely for us: it is because he made things this way, and is informing us of his view of the way in which it was made." What are the premises? One who knows the truth can declare it. Jesus knows the truth about the world. This relies on a prior syllogism. The creator knows the truth about the creation of the world; Jesus is the creator; therefore Jesus knows the truth about the creation of the world.
That's two syllogisms, but they don't get us to evolution.
Let's look at another conclusion, on which begins with "that is." "That is: all the words in Genesis 1-3 are God the creator's words." Premises? Genesis 2:24 is not written as a quote of the words of God. But Jesus says that God said what is contained in Genesis 2:24. The problem is that those premises do not entail the conclusion that "all the words in Genesis 1-3 are God the creator's words." I thought that was a syllogism you were trying to make. But you tell me I didn't understand your argument, so I'll grant that you did not attempt this false syllogism. (And I'll ask how you establish your assertion about all the words in Genesis 1-3.) (Of course, I know that those chapters, like the rest of sacred scripture, are the word of God in human language, presenting without error those truths which God wished to reveal for the sake of our salvation. I don't think the question of evolution is important for our salvation, and I don't think God was revealing anything about it.)
So is there a syllogism which tells us that the theory of evolution is false? Perhaps "; Genesis 1-3 denies evolution; therefore God denies evolution." I think this is one of your syllogisms. If the premises were true the conclusion would follow. I agree with the major (Genesis 1-3 is the word of God). But, as I indicated in my parenthesis above, I think the minor (Genesis 1-3 denies evolution) is false. And so the conclusion is not established.
If I haven't found your syllogisms, please let me know what they are.
OOPS!
Cutting and pasting, I garbled my next to last paragraph. (I cut where I wanted to copy.) The second sentence should read:
Perhaps "Genesis 1-3 is the word of God; Genesis 1-3 denies evolution; therefore God denies evolution."
In its entirety, then, the paragraph should read
So is there a syllogism which tells us that the theory of evolution is false? Perhaps "Genesis 1-3 is the word of God; Genesis 1-3 denies evolution; therefore God denies evolution." I think this is one of your syllogisms. If the premises were true the conclusion would follow. I agree with the major (Genesis 1-3 is the word of God). But, as I indicated in my parenthesis above, I think the minor (Genesis 1-3 denies evolution) is false. And so the conclusion is not established.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
How old is the universe?
How old did we think it was 20 years ago? 40 years ago? 80 years ago?
Is it reasonable to consider that in 20 (40, 80) years, the answer will be different than it is today?
It becomes clear that regarding origins (eschatology as well, but that's another day), science can claim to be authoritative (a god). But it is indeed anything but authoritative.
Every religion makes prescriptions based on its story of origins. If you can keep the story changing to suit the "latest information," you are then free to keep changing your prescriptions based on your preferences and/or power structures.
Co-mingling this with Christianity has been tried in other centuries in different ways, and it is always found wanting.
naturgezets:
You said --
That's two syllogisms, but they don't get us to evolution.
That's exactly right. And they do not falsify evolution: they falsify the assertion "Jesus believes in evolution".
That's what's at stake. Thanks for your help.
Robert --
Giberson claims to believe in that miracle.
So far.
Giberson also says that the problem with the church is that common folk read the Bible, and believe it...
See this from the Biologos Forum.
"It seems to me that this is a huge problem. We encourage people to read the Bible, take it seriously, and yet there are certain, very automatic misunderstandings that are going to emerge in that. No one is going to pick up the book of Genesis and read that and not think of Adam and Eve as real biological parents of the human race. I reread your Language of God bio about your childhood, for example, and it didn’t occur to me for one second to think that you just made some of that stuff up to give different sorts of insights into your character. I just read it and believed it and that’s the natural way people read the Bible."
(Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 6)
I hate naturalism. It is the ugliest, most barbaric, life-killing theory ever espoused by man.
Miracles will set you free.
“It's logically possible that God ordained the process to produce what it produced.”
Logically for us… but not for God.
If God is perfect, then He can only do what is perfect. Put another way, He can only do what is the best thing to do, the way He did it.
“So, all that is left to the reader is the opportunity to believe...fidelity, faithful trust in the Word of the Creator. That’s all we’ve got. People say, “Well couldn’t God have used evolution? Couldn’t He?” That’s a ridiculous question. Could a frog fly? It’s irrelevant. It’s intrusive. But the answer is no. He couldn’t have used evolution because God doesn’t equivocate with Himself, He determined to create miraculously which is the only way that it could have happened because it’s the way it did happen.” – John MacArthur
From “The Theology of Creation” at:
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-359_The-Theology-of-Creation
"...They are, like all human words including my own post here, like the flatulence from the wet tail of a ballon as it discharges and flies away...."
Everything in this created world is ephemeral, transitory, and ultimately irrelevant...and then we have the unchanging, triune God, who speaks and it comes to pass.
"That's two syllogisms, but they don't get us to evolution.
That's exactly right. And they do not falsify evolution: they falsify the assertion 'Jesus believes in evolution'."
One could assert, " Jesus believes in evolution."
One could assert, "Jesus does not believe in evolution."
As I see it, nobody has verified or falsified either assertion. I don't see your syllogisms as falsifying either syllogism, either, since there is nothing about evolution in the premises.
It seems to me that one can only say, "Jesus did not tell us anything about evolution, one way or the other."
Happy to have helped.
Before reading with the post, I went and read the article by Dr. Giberson. I have to admit that the first thing that came to my mind was the old joke about "what do you call the guy who barely scrapes by and graduates dead last in his class in medical school? Answer: Dr.
It seems pretty egotistical to me that men of this day think that they are smart enough to understand the concept of evolution, whereas those of Moses day hadn't evolved far enough yet to grasp it. I guess that they also believe Jesus realized they were not evolved enough to grasp it either, else he would have corrected the apostles silly superstitions.
But, in the last 2000 years, boy howdy, how man has evolved! Now he is finally smart enough to understand evolution.
Well, except for those of us who are still so stupid that we believe the Bible, that is.
"So I leave you with my simple concern that you repent of your blasphemy -- you repent of your idolatry of your own mind, and of human reason, and of the supremacy of created things over their creator when it comes to explaining what they are and why they exist. Repent -- because Christ died for sin, and came at the right time to save sinners like you and like me. There is forgiveness for repentance, and it is not yet too late for you."
I'm glad that you carried your open letter to its logical conclusion.
Excellent. I had not read the Good Doctor's article on CNN before this, but have now. His article is so easily assailed on so many points that it's hard to know which one to begin with but I would nominate the overarching assumption he makes that if there is "evidence" of evolution such as the so-called "broken" Vitamin C gene, that (a) he without a doubt understands that gene's function, and (b) any similarities in genetic structures between man and other primates could not be explained by their having a common Creator, but MUST be explained by (God-directed?) evolution; nothing else is "reasonable" as he says.
Not only is the Dr.'s article arrogant toward God, it is also not even logically constructed (see above points).
naturgesetz:
What I think you have missed -- and at this point, I think you are missing it on purpose -- is that the truth about the world which Jesus does declare is contrafactual to the truth espoused by Dr. Giberson. That is: he may not deny the contents of the textbooks Dr. Giberson would afform, but what Jesus does affirm denies the facts those textbooks affirm.
You know: that God created them male and female and made specific determination of how they were designed to relate and behave is contrafactual to what Dr. Giberson would say is true.
So is there a syllogism that says that jesus explicitly denies evolution? Eh. Maybe -- but that's not what I said. What I said was that Jesus doesn't believe evolution -- and the evidence is that when he teaches, he teaches something else.
Thanks again.
Frank —
I assure you that I am not missing anything on purpose. I am trying to engage what you are saying and to express where I disagree with what I understand you to be saying, to point out where I think your conclusions are not established by your reasons.
Clearly, Jesus affirms that God created humans male and female and ordained marriage as a permanent union. Jesus does not affirm how God created them.
He is silent on the question of whether God used mechanisms of evolution as part of the work of creation. And since it ultimately doesn't matter, because it's a matter of physical science, not salvation, he doesn't need to. He doesn't teach about evolution, because it is irrelevant to what he teaches. But the creation he teaches doesn't necessarily have to exclude evolution.
Best regards.
naturgesetz --
Awesome. I'm glad you're not wrong -- we'll all sleep better now.
Frank-
I was wondering if you could expound a little more on the intersection of these two statements:
"Well, let's give him an iota of credit. It's logically possible that God ordained the process to produce what it produced. I mean: we're calvinists of a stripe here and we can't just say that one means God cannot use is evolution."
with
"So when he tells the story of Genesis 2, and says that man and woman were actually made for each other with an intention, it's not because he thinks evolution worked out nicely for us: it is because he made things this way, and is informing us of his view of the way in which it was made."
For the record, I agree with the first statement, as a Calvinist. God is the cause of the grass growing (Psalm 104:14) as much as he is the virgin birth, though we know he uses secondary causes for the former. Also for the record, I am not an evolutionist, and have argued at length against it.
But here's the question: if "made" can incorporate secondary causes and processes, does this not undercut your exegetical point and concede exactly what the theistic evolutionist argues? In other words, could Jesus argue from intent in creation if that intent was brought about by God sovereignly working through secondary means, or not? I have never had anyone who has any real grounding in a Reformed understanding of God's sovereignty and providence ever raise this as an issue when I argue against NDE, but it has prickled my own mind and I wonder what you think.
This sort of leaves aside the issue of our interpretation of Genesis, and focuses (as your letter did) on Jesus' words. I understand that you sort of answered this in the same comment I pulled the first quote from, but just to clarify: are you saying that Jesus could not have appealed to God's intent in creating humanity male and female to answer the Pharisees' misunderstanding if he "believed in evolution?"
"He is silent on the question of whether God used mechanisms of evolution as part of the work of creation. And since it ultimately doesn't matter, because it's a matter of physical science, not salvation, he doesn't need to. He doesn't teach about evolution, because it is irrelevant to what he teaches. But the creation he teaches doesn't necessarily have to exclude evolution"
The word of God is NOT silent or irrelevant in regards to evolution. If evolution were true the Genisis account is then false! The bible says after Adam/Eve sinned the creation was cursed and death entered the world! If evolution were true then millions of animals died before sin entered the world! This is all the battle for the begining! If you can't read the Genesis account and take it as fact where do you pick up on the story? Do you say well this isn't true but the whole part about the cross is? Evolution is a LIE! The word of God is the Truth! "They will turn their ears away from truth and turn aside to myths, but you keep your head in all situations, endure hardship do the work of an evangelist, discharge the full duties of your ministry. 2 Timothy 4:4-5
CT
Steve Berven "I don't personally support the 6,000 year theory, but there's a great deal science can't yet explain despite the "facts" of evolution."
Steve may I ask what about 6-10k years you don't agree with?
St. Lee, I like your style.
I always read these articles (like the one referenced in your open letter) and wonder how people can be so convinced that evolution is a fact. The so called evidence isn't even close. The vitamin C example is a joke. It's like saying that because two people have red hair that they must have come from the same family. It's utterly ridiculous.
Man truly is wicked from birth and deceives himself.
Frank:
Off-topic, but I love the subway graphic.
The Bizarro cartoon is also cute.
I fully understand that you went and quoted Jesus, showing that He does not speak of evolution and thus showing that Giberson is wrong in saying Jesus believed in evolution.
My problem is the notion that the Old Testament must be confirmed by the New Testament. Are we then saying the OT was less inspired?
Are we not making ourselves guilty of “red-lettering” saying if Jesus said it, it is of more value and more true.
Dan.
God knew we would find a silly person that’s why Jesus affirmed the whole Bible. Matthew 5:18
. “Not a jota will pass away.” (Sorry I can quote it in Afrikaans exactly but in English well you get the idée)
Now see above, it is easy to fall in the same trap of “red-lettering” because it is natural to quote our saviour. It is natural to stack up our arguments and build up our apologetics, strengthening our faith and the faith of others but, our faith must lie first and foremost in God.
That God inspired the writers of the Bible.
That God through providence protected it through the ages.
So basically what I am saying is, believe that what is written in the Bible, not because Jesus quotes it but because God said it.
After reading my comment I notice some holes in my argument but, I know you have a pen to connect the dots.
Aaron -
I think that Jesus' point, underscored by the phrase 'from the beginning', excludes the explanation the God used a process to create man.
Jacob:
"because" indicates causality; "as if" indicates only potentiality. My point is that Jesus was not trying to make sense of the world as he wandered thru it "as if" he was just a man.
Frank - That use of "as if" demonstrates my point precisely. It clarifies and removes the ambiguity. When actually reading the sentence in question, your use of "because" creates a moment of confusion, because it can be read two different ways, where as using "as if" removes that ambiguity and allows for smoother reading.
God bless.
Thomas,
I don't think that argument is that we believe the OT because Jesus did (you're right, that would be red-lettering the text), but that we understand the OT in this way because this is the way Jesus understood it.
Same way that we see fulfilled prophecy in the OT that the Jews don't.
We both believe it to be the inerrant word of God, but we believe it in a particular way because the NT writers understood it in that way.
Thomas:
You're simply going too far. I'm not trying to do anything but critique the idea that Jesus would believe evolution.
Peace.
"But Jesus is the one who spoke these things into existence. Your words, compared to His words, are not even hot air. They are, like all human words including my own post here, like the flatulence from the wet tail of a ballon as it discharges and flies away: it may be good for a childish laugh, but it doesn't have eternal significance."
MONEY QUOTE!!! Man, Oh, man! I wish I could think up images like you've expressed in this truth nugget.
Whoa. I definitely read that as "baboon" instead of "balloon." I remember thinking that it was quite a strange bit of imagery, and was wondering when someone would take exception to it.
Reading comprehension fail.
Frank: Thanks!
Matt: Niiiiiice. :)
Daryl: Careful though, Covenantalists use the same argument to claim that Israel = the Church today and thus avoid a consistent, logical interpretation of the OT text in favor of reading that back into the OT promises God make specifically to Abram and his physical descendants regarding the land that would be theirs forever.
Frank,
This is convicting for me. I am still tempted to make areas of God's Word say what I want rather than what God really said. Thanks for this reminder.
This is nothing more than a grown man unwilling to let go his evolutionary presuppositions that had long ago wedged themselves into the creases of his highly indoctrinated grey matter....
Evolutionary science must be right..no, scientists must be right, they are, for cryin out loud, scientists.
Yes science has given us wonderful cures and magnificent technology that allows us to (by Gods grace) live a life our ancestors could not have believed.
Evolution is nothing more than the enemy's attempt to squeeze God out of the picture via compromise...if we are to believe what the theistic evolutionists (oxymoron) teach than God truly does not mean what he says in anything.
The 10 commandments are nothing more than an outline of lifestyle suggestions, Jesus was just another "good man" and eventually
"Love Wins"
It seems simple enough to just ask, "In which chapter and verse do we start understanding Genesis as factual, actual, chronological history? And why?"
I say 1:1 because of all those, what do you call them? Words... That have, what is that pesky thing again? Meanings...
I've really tried to read the beginning of Genesis some other way (and I've probably read chapters 1-10 like a million times in all of my aborted "Read through the Bible" attempts), but man, you just gotta believe some revelation higher than Genesis to read it as squishy fuzzy pseudo history.
Jacob,
True enough. But at least they're sticking with an inerrant, non-red-letter bible to do it.
I have far far less problem with someone interpreting Scripture differently than I do, than I do with people who try to give parts of Scripture a higher kind of authority than others.
The whole book is red letters.
I really suspect the doctor is trying to buy some goodwill from his scientist colleagues who have looked at Christians as morons, and the doctor is trying to redeem them by somehow incorporating the scientists deeply- held beliefs into the Bible. He may hope that they will accept Jesus if he shows them that Christians can be "rational" in the eyes of scientists. Maybe his heart is in the right place but his tactics are wrong. I can understand how tough it must be for someone who is a Christian (assuming he is) to be immersed every day with people who reflexively accept evolutionary dogma. But i hope he does what he needs to do to see the Bible for what it actually says rather than what he wished it says.
Post a Comment