Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

If God had intended for the heavens to declare His glory and NOT to deceive us, then He sure went to A LOT of trouble to deceive us.

HOW did God attempt to deceive us? Its your positions refusal to accept the plain language of scripture which causes you to say that God decieved us. If God said he made everything in 6 days, then repeated it several times throughout scripture, why do you feel compelled to accept science's explanations for age fo the earth?

Originally Posted by pelathais

You are "confused" because you are being dishonest. When did I "come down hard" on ANY "portion of Scripture?" I really want to say...

HOW DARE YOU!

You are being dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting everything I have said. The Bible is the Word of God and it is YOU who have dishonored it by demanding that everyone come and kneel before your idols.

I'm being dishonest?

Which of those things did I list that you accept as literal historical accounts?

Here's the list again:
1)the creation account of Genesis 1&2
2)the creation of a literal man, named Adam3)the biblical flood as recorded in Genesis 6
4)the table of nations in Genesis 10
5)the literalness of biblical geneolgies

Pel, which of these 5 do you accept exactly as the Bible literally presents them?

Originally Posted by pelathais

... and you have completely failed to even show us where God or the Bible "named" the man in the garden "Adam." I tried to help you with a little bit of Hebrew and a brief Bible lesson and showed you that the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase "the man" into "Adam" when the text itself never even tells us that this was the man's "name!"

Respond to that conundrum BEFORE you falsely accuse me.

I already answered this:

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Was his name ADAM, I personally believe the answer to be yes. Scripture always refers to him as ADAM. It is not unusual for other writers of scripture to referr to past events and people by name. Nowhere is the first man called any other name than ADAM.

But lets say just for the sake for the sake of argument the first man was simply called "MAN". Either way the first human being was specially created by God (not evolution or evolutionary process) and that man sinned. By ONE MANS SIN death came, so that by ONE MANS SACRIFICE salvation came. You cannot do away with ADAM without doing away with the gospel. Romans 5. Whether his name was ADAM or not is irrelevant, though again, we have no reason to believe he was named anything else.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I also said that China, Japan, Korea, Polynesia and all of the Native American cultures weren't listed in Genesis 10. You have to show us where they were before you say "I came down hard on a portion of Scripture."

To question the accuracy of scripture, (whether Genesis1,6, 10, Matthew 1,etc) is the tactic the seprant used with Eve in Genesis 3. He didn't "come down hard" against the Word of God, just introduced doubt. But you probably wholly reject that as a literal account also.

My point throughout the thread is that a rejection of Genesis 1 is not merely a rejection of a single chapter of the Bible, but is an assualt on scripture itself. And has been shown in this thread, the questioning of scripture only BEGINS with Genesis 1, its far from ending there.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm "coming down hard" on ignorance.

Call it what you want to Pel. I derive my beliefs from scripture, as I've said before if you want me to consider your position, prove it to me from scripture, not "science".

Originally Posted by pelathais

The fact that you've made a mess of your Bible theology doesn't mean that I don't believe The Word of God. It just means that you've made a mess.

You say you believe the Word of God, yet you out and out reject Genesis 1. You reject that the first human being was a male called Adam. You reject that there was a global flood. I listed 29 Old Testament items for you guys to affirm, which neither you nor prax has touched.

Do you believe the Red Sea parted and all of the Israelites crossed on dry land? Do you believe Balaams donkey spoke to him? Do you believe the walls of Jericho fell down flat at a shout? I am under the impression there are several portions of scripture that you don't accept as literal historical and miraculous accounts, and your (and Praxeas') silence on those issues only seems to confirm my assumptions.

Your telling me I've made a mess of my theology, when you don't even accept what the Bible says in selevted portions. Which, to no suprise, you make yourself the authority of which portions of the Bible are true and to be taken as they read, and which ones need a little reinterpretaion. The way you express your views of scripture reminds me of the Jesus Seminar panel, or Thomas Jefferson.

Originally Posted by pelathais

... and despite the hyperbole in our "discussion," I do appreciate your condolences and kind words. I can't describe the sound a young mother makes when her baby stops breathing in her arms, but despite the loss we are anchored to a "lively hope," 1 Peter 1:3.

Pel, I have respect for you. I do believe that your a christian man. I don't wish bad on anyone. I always consider "how would I feel if I were in that position?" And I can't even fathom if one of my children were to pass. I did take time to pray for you and your family yesterday, and I truly prayed in sincerity, not just some token prayer.

I'm not against you, and I don't think your against me. However we have two radically different viewpoints on this topic, which we both feel are critical to Christianity. I feel it is critical, because I see your position as an attack on scripture, even though you yourself may not be hostile t scripture, if someone else comes along and uses your reasoning and applies your logic for Genesis 1 consitently throughout the Bible, there is alot of material that simply won't make the cut. Thus I conclude your decision to accept science as an authority can have no other result than to logically reject the Bible as the divinely inspired and authoratative word of God.

Whereas, you feel like Biblical literalism keeps christianity in the provebial "stone age" and is a stumbling block to people coming to Christ, and destroys the credibility of Christianity.

I understand your viewpoint, I just think it is completely incorrect.