The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#341

Let’s revisit some questions I proposed earlier:

One need only peruse through the Wiki article Internal consistency of the Bible, for various approaches to this topic. It’s interesting to look at the topic heading modern, where they discuss inerrancy and infallibility:

Question for Jeff and others: If inerrancy is true, then how to you reconcile the book of Genesis, with modern scientific theories of Evolution, Big Bang, Old Earth, etc. :question:

As an aside, I found this discussion interesting on Quora:

How can the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem be explained? Also see Holy Fire

If miracles ceased to exist, then how do you explain away the alleged miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem :question:

#342

There is a lot of more recent Christian research finding fault with evolution and so I am a convinced 7 day creation, young earth advocate.

I never said miracles ceased to exist. I believe God still works miracles today. 1 Corinthians 13 only says that the gift of tongues will cease and the gift of prophecy fade away. Miracles however still happen! :slight_smile:

#343

If I go through the Christian site godandscience.org/ and read through their articles, it appears they don’t give much credence to a “7 day creation, young earth” position. And their articles are well put together - with convincing arguments and evidence. What do you say to them?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgzeCJSEO0QaYR_s22W4_sTqG5ViVTz8nnlAUQJS53fM97bx36

In fact, they have a whole list of rebuttals, at godandscience.org/youngearth/links.html

#344

Sorry no time to discuss the detail on that now… and it might be too for off the trail on the primary ‘statement of faith’ discussion. Do a google search on ‘Creation Science’ and it will lead you to the resources that have persuaded me.

#345

Actually, I have read through the presentations, on both sides of the equation. It seems to me that the majority of scientists - who are also Christian - favor one or more non-Creationist positions. Like Old Earth, Big Bang, Evolution, etc. There’s even deep theological discussions, by both Jewish and Christian theologians - on how we view “days” in Genesis.

For example:

If science leads down a path, like Carbon-14 dating. Do we follow the scientific leads on aging, or try to find fault with the method - like the creationists, are trying hard to do?

It appears to me that scientists find far more “holes” in the creationist position, then the other way around.

The only way I see to save “inerrancy” with Genesis, is to look at vast parts, either allegorically or symbolically. Otherwise, we need to run with infallibility.

#346

Quite clearly this refers to the Hebrew Scriptures…

#347

I think that Genesis, understood as inerrant and interpreted literally, is 100% compatible with an old earth, a local flood, and biological evolution of all species except for mankind.

#348

Can you elaborate a bit and give some simple examples :question: :smiley:

Or point me to some links, that looks at an "inerrant " Genesis, along with an “old earth, a local flood, and biological evolution of all species except for mankind.” I’m always eager to learn. :exclamation: :smiley:

In fact, in an article entitled Do Bible Inerrancy and Millions of Years Go Together?, the author says this:

#349

My proposed statement of faith does not engage in the creation evolution debate because it is intentionally brief. However, I myself hold to a non-evolutionary creationist view. Two quick thoughts…

  1. Here is an interesting interview with Richard Dawkins. For those that truly understand God’s design in the information stored in DNA this interview exposes a fatal flaw in the science of evolution, creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped … uted-again. The interview is hotly debated because Dawkins is knocked off his feet with the simple question.

  2. For myself the deal breaker for evolution is not scientific as much as it is historical / theological. Romans 5:12 makes it plain that sin first entered the world, followed by death. This is a critical observation to conclude that death was not a beginning or end game for our God of life, but a temporal fact in the middle. Universalists ought to especially appreciate this fact. Thus, millions of years of death and evolution leading to the first man is not possible.

#350

It may be true that all 51 instances of G1124 happen to refer to Hebrew writings. But that fact does not imply that that is its only use.

The Online Bible Lexicon, the NAS Lexicon, Strong’s Greek Lexicon, and Abbott-Smith’s Greek Lexicon, all include “a writing” in the definition of "“γραφη”.

What about G1125? “γραφω” (I write) is but the verbal form of the noun “γραφη” (a writing).

You could also argue, I suppose, that G1125 (1125 instances) also refers to a special class of writings called “Scripture” from passages such as this:

Luke 3:4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.

But the fact is, the word is frequently used just as we use it today:

John 19:22 Pilate answered, “What I have written , I have written .”
Luke 16:7 "Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’

In conclusion, I affirm that the verbal form “γραφω” means “I write” or “I am writing” and the nounal form of the same word “γραφη” means “a writing”. Also, the original meaning of “scripture” was also “a writing”. The word comes from the Latin “scriptura” which means “a writing.”

dictionary.com/browse/scripture

By the way, it may surprise you to know that I, also, believe in a 7-day creation, and that the earth is “young”—that is from six to ten thousand years old.

#351

:astonished: :astonished: :astonished: :astonished:

#352

Sure. I’d be glad to. :slight_smile:

  1. Genesis 1 makes it clear that the days are not 24 hours long:
    godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
    godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html
    godandscience.org/youngearth … fense.html
    godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
    Day 6 is especially clear. If Adam did all of that in 24 hours, then we’d have to imagine him moving like someone in a film ran way too fast, and we’d have to imagine his voice sounding like that of a record of Alvin and the Chipmunks played way too fast. It’s grotesque.

  2. Genesis 6-9 makes it clear that the Flood must have been local:
    godandscience.org/apologetic … flood.html
    godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html

  3. The scriptures nowhere exclude biological evolution. Glenn Morton has a couple of books that demonstrate this at length. In short, read Genesis 1. Nowhere in there does it describe how God created living things. Nothing in there gives us a hint as to what it would have looked like if we were eyewitnesses to the creation of (for example) Tyrannosaurus rex. Perhaps a Tyrannosaurus popped into existence out of thin air. Perhaps a stone transformed into a Tyrannosaurus. Perhaps an Allosaurus laid an egg and a Tyrannosaurus hatched. Etc. Jesus said that God sends His rain on the just and on the unjust. I’ve never seen anyone use that passage to try to disprove the evaporation-condensation cycle. That cycle simply gives a physical explanation of how God sends His rain. Similarly, theories of biological evolution simply give physical explanations of how God created living things.

  4. The scriptures in Genesis 2:7, 21-22 do tell us how God created mankind: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being…And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Understood literally, those three verses exclude the possibility of mankind evolving from another living thing. (Of course, these verses can be understood in a figurative sense if one must accommodate human evolution.)

I believe that Adam and Eve were just as historical as the Apostle Paul, and that they were the first two human beings to exist. I believe that the Flood destroyed all of humanity except for the eight people on board the ark:

  1. Noah
  2. Mrs. Noah
  3. Primus McNoah
  4. Secundus McNoah
  5. Tertius McNoah
  6. Mrs. Primus McNoah
  7. Mrs. Secundus McNoah
  8. Mrs. Tertius McNoah

I believe that the universe and the earth and life and death are billions of years old. Adam did not introduce sin into God’s creation. The Devil did. I suspect that the Devil’s first sin coincided with the Big Bang. Instead of the universe being perfect, the Devil blew it up! Therefore the creation is only “good” instead of “perfect”.

None of my interpretations are modern. The liturgy of the Orthodox Church never describes how God created non-life or non-human life, nor does it say how old creation is, nor does it say that the Flood inundated the entire planet, nor does it say that Adam was the first sinner. (Keep in mind that the liturgical texts were completed in all of their glory before Martin Luther was born.)

The liturgy does teach us that the Devil was the first sinner, and that Adam and Eve were individuals directly created by God, and that the Flood destroyed all of humanity except for the eight aboard the ark.

My interpretations, far from being infected with modernism, are older than Protestantism. :slight_smile:

#353

http://kensingtonchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/lemon-dealbreaker.gif

Here are some rebuttals to point 2:

How do you reconcile death before sin (theistic evolution) with Romans 5:12?
Does Romans 5:12 contradict the “old earth” theory?
How do I respond to the claim that evolution is disproved because Romans 5 and 8 prove that there was no death of animals before the sin of Adam and Eve?

I like the last answer the best. But more then one used the term “spiritual death”, rather than “physical death” - in their rebuttal answers. :exclamation: :smiley: NOT a deal breaker, Jeff :exclamation: :laughing:

#354

Hmmmm… Not too clear, in my opinion. I’ve never heard of the word “day” used in a figurative sense in which it had an evening and a morning.

For example, we might speak of the “day” in which Shakespeare lived. But have you ever heard of the evening in which Shakespeare lived? Or the morning?

#355

Have you considered the biblical expression “the DAY of the Lord” where this speaks to a period of divine judgment… this would constitute a “figurative sense” or usage of that word, and thus fully inclusive of numerous days containing “evening and a morning”.

#356

Davo is right on this one. The Protestant site Got Questions, is in agreement at:

What is the day of the Lord?

With the possible exception, of the “eternal damnation” part :exclamation: :smiley:

Notice that the “scholars” have different opinions. Which - more often than not - is the usual case. :exclamation: :laughing:

#357

Yes. I’ve heard of people being in the sunset of their lives. I’ve also heard of laws being “sunsetted”. I’ve heard of the 11th and 12th centuries referred to as the morning of the Middle Ages. Etc. “Morning” and “sunrise” are utterly appropriate for beginnings, and “evening” and “sunset” are equally appropriate for endings. Genesis is simply saying, “This period had a beginning, and it had an end.”

Besides, Adam had too much to do on the 6th day. It does violence to the text to picture him as a cross between Speedy Gonzales and Alvin the Chipmunk, speeding through the 24 hours like a hyper-frenetic robot while animal species go whizzing past him faster than speeding cars so he can get all the naming done on time.

#358

Yes, I have.

Yes, it is the figurative sense and would include numerous days with an evening and the morning, but is an evening and a morning of the Day of the Lord itself ever mentioned in the Bible? On the other hand, concerning the 6 days of creation, an evening and and a morning of every one of them is mentioned.

#359

If that were the case, wouldn’t you expect the author of Genesis to have said, “And the morning and the evening were the first day”, and so on. But instead, he wrote, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” This is the way the Hebrews described a literal day. The “day” (or should I say “the night”) began at sunset, and lasted until sunrise. (there were 12 hours in the day, and 12 in the night—See John 11:9).

#360

Paidion, no I would not expect that. While I would expect most languages (including English and Hebrew) to have similar usages of “morning” and “evening”, I would be surprised if they were identical.

While I stepped away, I thought of a usage of a non-24-hour “day” that not only includes morning and evening, but also noon and even clock times. In a number of books of natural history as well as in a number of natural history museum displays, I have seen the 4.5 billion years of Earth’s existence described as a day. Single-celled life appears at such-and-so time of the day, plant life appears at a later time, dinosaurs appear still later, and lastly man appears with just a few minutes to spare till midnight. Words such as “dawn”, “noon”, and “evening” are not uncommonly used in these examples.

Nor would I blink if I read something like, “Horses were ubiquitous in George Washington’s day. From the morning of his life to its evening, he was surrounded by these noble beasts.”