Posted on 01/06/2011 11:33:47 AM PST by wmfights
Will we ever be able to show the followers of Albert Mohler, John MacArthur and others that Christian theology doesn’t stand or fall on how we understand Genesis 1 or the question of whether Adam and Eve were the sole genetic progenitors of the human race? These are extremely critical issues to many and the task of showing in a convincing manner that evangelical theology doesn’t depend on the age of the earth, and it doesn’t depend upon whether Adam was made directly from dust will likely take decades before it will be convincing to all.
So, Dr. Falk sees the task as that of convincing us that evangelical theology “doesn’t depend” upon affirmations about the age of the earth or the historicity of Adam as “made directly from dust” — but Falk envisions this task as lasting decades “before it will be convincing to all.” With all due respect, I think he will need a longer calendar. Most frustratingly, Dr. Falk’s statement does not acknowledge the fact that the arguments published by BioLogos go far beyond even these important concerns. Articles at BioLogos go so far as to suggest that the Apostle Paul was simply wrong to believe that Adam was an historical person. A recent BioLogos essay argues that Adam and Eve were likely “a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Near East” to whom God revealed himself “in a special way.” There is a consistent denial of any possibility that Adam and Eve are the genetic parents of the entire human race. The BioLogos approach also denies the historical nature of the Fall, with all of its cosmic consequences. BioLogos has published explicit calls to deny the inerrancy of the Bible.
(Excerpt) Read more at albertmohler.com ...
There is a prerequisite for studying any kind of theology, and that has nothing to do with religion or theology at all. What that is is the understanding that evolution is a bunch of BS which has been overwhelmingly disproved, and that ANY religion is better (than evolution), even Voodoo or Rastafari.
The more we learn about human genetics, the more we see how closely related all mankind is. It is truly miraculous that a small, marginalized people over 2,000 years ago adopted this story as their creation epic and made it a pillar of their belief in a historical God.
Yeah, this is what conservatives ought to be spending their time fighting about on the second day of the new Congress.
The Bible says that I was created “from dust” and that to dust I will return. However I was also created via a cellular process involving DNA.
Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?
Why is it acceptable for there to be known biological mechanisms that contributed to my creation “from dust”, but not acceptable at all for there to be known biological mechanisms for the creation of Adam “from dust”?
I think it show a lack of faith that everything depends on one particular interpretation of one book of the Bible. My faith is stronger than that.
It is absolutely literally true that we are crated from the dust of extinct stars.
The Creation - Evolution debate stopped being important to most scientists a long time ago.
Well, I came upon a child of God
He was walking along the road
And I asked him, Tell me, where are you going?
This he told me
Said, I'm going down to Yasgur’s Farm,
Gonna join in a rock and roll band.
Got to get back to the land and set my soul free.
We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
Well, then can I roam beside you?
I have come to lose the smog,
And I feel myself a cog in somethin’ turning.
And maybe it's the time of year,
Yes and maybe it's the time of man.
And I don't know who I am,
But life is for learning.
We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
By the time we got to Woodstock,
We were half a million strong
And everywhere was a song and a celebration.
And I dreamed I saw the bomber death planes
Riding shotgun in the sky,
Turning into butterflies
Above our nation.
We are stardust, we are golden,
We are caught in the devils bargain,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
Your ridiculous anti-science claims have been refuted many times, and yet you continue to post them.
What is that, a learning disability?
Genesis 4:17 "Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.
Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."
Cain's wife? Building a city? Hmmmmmmm....
Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Giants? Sons of God? Men of renown? Hmmmmm....
Mohler: "The BioLogos approach also denies the historical nature of the Fall, with all of its cosmic consequences.
BioLogos has published explicit calls to deny the inerrancy of the Bible."
I know nothing about BioLogos, and so can't defend them. I'll even stipulate here that Mohler has characterized them correctly.
The Fall is, by definition, "historical" -- meaning it is a written story about the past. Whether it in fact happened precisely as described in Genesis is no more provable -- or disprovable -- than any other ancient historical document.
But here's what's certain:
But we today cannot doubt that what Genesis says was seen or known by those people, at that time.
Of course, we can chose to believe it, or not, however we want.
But they believed it.
So the real quesiton is, do we trust them to tell the Truth, as they knew it?
Ah, but it’s VERY important to exclude God from the equation, for some people.
If the God of the Bible exists, HE has the right to set the rules and judge us by them.
This is something a lot of folks don’t like. I know I rebelled against this truth for longer than I’d like to admit.
Seems to me this whole problem disappears as soon as we realize that what science is all about is learning the rules that God has set for the physical Universe.
So the "laws of science" are simply God's rules for governing what is physical or "natural".
His basic rules for governing the, let's call it, "spiritual or moral Universe" cannot be reached by science.
Those are still only found in the Bible.
The left/atheists have endeavored to set up a false dichotomy and a false conflict between science and God.
Reading further in your post, I was reminded of a vehement outburst I got from a liberal one time.
I stated that the moral laws given us by God were as immutable and the consequences as inescapable as the physical laws that He set forth.
The response was a mix of a harpy screech and a cry of rage.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.