Evangelicals divided over evolution

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 30 May 2005 | Paul Nussbaum

[<1/1,000,000th%]

And I got post 250!!

Hoo hoo hoo!

Are you sure this thread wasn't moved into the religion forum? ;)

[nmh]

There is no "tradition" involved. It was written in Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people.

If you're interested in that, check out the dead sea scrolls. It's interesting.

[nmh]

I was just thinking about Moses ... he was actually the first "adoption" mentioned in the Bible. I believe God looks favorably upon adoption.

[nmh]

"Do you believe in stoning people for an assortment of sins? Take a look at Leviticus."

do you know the difference between a theocracy and a democracy?

Have you ever compared our punishments in the U.S. for 1st, second degree murder etc.. to Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus? ;) Check it out sometime ... ;)

[nmh]

Thank you!

You have far more patience than I.

I appreciate it very much ... I just get weary of ... .

[colorado tanker]

I believe God looks favorably upon adoption.

You will find several references to adoption in the New Testament, which I don't have in front of me. Basically, our relationship with God through Christ is analogized to adoption.

[nmh]

I was referring the Old Testament but if you want to e-mail me privately when you have time, I'd love to see the New Testament adoptions pointed out. It's easy to miss things ... there is so MUCH in "what is written".

Thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate it.

[wyattearp]

If nmh is Jewish, then Leviticus applies. Otherwise, for Gentiles (the rest of the world, including arabs, etc.) the New Testament applies.

I am aware of this. Since nmh was demanding that everybody follow Genesis to the letter (which is Old Testament), I was curious to see if he understood the difference between Old and New Testaments as well. My reasons were that nmh was taking it upon himself to decide who is a "good Christian" and who is not. I found that offensive, at best.

You would know this if you made any attempt at reading even part of Holy Scriptures.

I have read the King James version cover to cover several times, the New American Standard once, and have taken extensive bible study classes in several churches that I used to attend. (Personally, I prefer the King James version, but that may be because that is what I was raised on). I am well aware that the New Testament (God sacrificing his Son) replaces the Old Testament (Abraham sacrificing his son).

If nmh is Jewish, then Leviticus applies. Otherwise, for Gentiles (the rest of the world, including arabs, etc.) the New Testament applies.

I have repeated quoting this statement of yours because there is another aspect of it that I feel needs to be addressed. Actually, the New Testament applies to Jews and Gentiles alike. Most non-Christian Jews do not agree with this, but there it is.

nmh was insisting that "good Christians" follow biblical teachings to the letter, and if they do not then they are not "good Christians". Since I am unaware of any church currently in existence that follows the doctrine of the New Testament to the letter, I was also curious to see how nmh stood on that as well.

And, yes, I was attempting to bait nmh into a discussion where, by the content of his posts (and previous posts in similar threads), he would wind up making some serious errors. ;-)

I understand your confusion in the matter, but this discussion was going on some time ago, and I had assumed that nmh had lost interest.

In the future, it would be wise for you to not assume that one side of a discussion doesn't know what they are talking about, just because the other side abandoned the discussion.

[Lurking Libertarian]

if it weren't for the evolutionary hoax we wouldn't be trying to fit millions of years into the first two chapters anyway

At least 100 years before Darwin ever published the theory of evolution, geologists recognized that the earth had to be millions of years old.

[PatrickHenry]

Are you sure this thread wasn't moved into the religion forum?

It's morphing in that direction. Time for me to abandon thread.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thanks. I followed the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy in Biblical Archaeology Review. Too bad they weren't available sooner.

[malakhi]

I understood your previous question:

you no doubt use hermeneutic principles such as historical usage in your determination?

to be suggesting a reliance upon an historical-critical hermeneutic on my part.

Of course I agree that "historical context is a key for interpretation of any text." If you are going to consider history, you should then consider historical interpretations of the text. And, as I indicated above, there have been sages even in ancient times who interpreted Genesis 1 figuratively. IIRC, there is even a passage in the Zohar where the age of creation is given as around 15 billion years.

There is no reason not to take it literally as it is a historical account

You are assuming that it is an historical account.

[malakhi]

No problem; I'm happy to address your question.

However, if Moses was raised as a prince of Egypt, he wouldn't have learned Hebrew, the slaves' language.

And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go." So the girl went and called the child's mother.
And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child away, and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages." So the woman took the child and nursed him. (Exodus 2:8-9)

According to the Exodus account, Moses was actually cared for in his earliest years by his biological mother. It is reasonable to believe that she would have taught him Hebrew.

[malakhi]

It's morphing in that direction. Time for me to abandon thread.

I apologize if my posts steered it in that direction. nmh made two posts concerning the Hebrew text of Genesis which were factually incorrect, and I didn't want to leave them stand unchallenged.

YEC advocates fail to acknowledge that figurative interpretations of Genesis go back at least two millennia. The notion that Genesis has always been understood literally is simply incorrect. As I noted above, the Zohar reckons the age of the universe at a little over 15 billion years.

One last note. Maimonides denounced mindless literalism, and held that, in the event of a conflict between the findings of natural philosophy and the interpretation of scripture, the failure lies in our understanding of scripture, and we must modify our interpretations of scripture to accord with observable reality.

[Blogger]

In its most natural sense, it is. Only through distortion does it become otherwise. As a Christian, I see Jesus looking at it LITERALLY. As a Jew, you should see the same as it portrays itself as such. Who is God, YHWH or Science?

[DocRock]

"Since I am unaware of any church currently in existence that follows the doctrine of the New Testament to the letter,"[snip]

Independent Fundamental Baptist should follow the doctrine laid out in the new testament.

[malakhi]

In its most natural sense, it is. Only through distortion does it become otherwise.

This is your opinion. Many other people, even in ancient times, understood it differently.

Who is God, YHWH or Science?

Do you envision some sort of conflict between God and science? I don't.

[nightdriver]

"The academy has gathered the signatures of more than 4,000 Christian clergy, including evangelicals, supporting evolution as "a foundational scientific truth."

That's really unfortunate, because it shows that a lot of "Christians" have not read their Bibles very carefully. There is a passage from which it can be inferred that there was at least one creation that included men that existed before Adam. Therefore, it would seem unnecessary to countenance evolution at all to answer the "scientists."

If Christians would just study more and indulge in pointless arguments less, they would be stronger in their faith and better off.

[PatrickHenry]

Maimonides denounced mindless literalism, and held that, in the event of a conflict between the findings of natural philosophy and the interpretation of scripture, the failure lies in our understanding of scripture, and we must modify our interpretations of scripture to accord with observable reality.

I'm not familiar with Maimonides. Sounds like a very sensible fellow. A quick Google indicates that he died more than 4 centuries before Galileo's heresy conviction. That opinion of literalism was also the view of Galileo (for all the good it did him) and it is currently the belief of the Catholic Church -- although it obviously wasn't when the Church persecuted Galileo:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Galileo's opinion about science/scripture conflicts.
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:

For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis], fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

According to the Exodus account, Moses was actually cared for in his earliest years by his biological mother. It is reasonable to believe that she would have taught him Hebrew.

Possibly, but the next verse, 2:10, could mean that he was returned before he learned to read or write if his mom only nursed him.

"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water."

Thanks.