Why didn't God create humans instantly?
>>18765329Darwin was an industry plant so whats your point?
why would the creator of the universe perceive time, when it is a property of the world he created it?
>>18765339I mean I think the whole seven days thing was because God didn't want to have to make sure each and every generation of humans faithfully transmitted the complex, epoch-spanning evolutionary processes which arrived at modern humans and eventually Adam and Eve. It's better to leave Genesis as a simple blueprint rather than treating it like a textbook, so that future generations can fill in the story with increasing detail as they are better able to process the information He left behind for them.
>>18765329
>>18765329He created them on day 6
>>18765644So you think that scripture is not only wrong, but God was specifically lying. You believe God is deceptive.
God governs the world organically. It's an organism, and not a machine, so for it to truly live He lets it do its own thing. Macroevolution is false though.
>>18765660When did I even insinuate God was lying?
>>18765662When you explicitly affirmed that God intentionally said what is false.
>>18765663He never said anything false? For all we know the definition of a day at the beginning of time, or for that matter to God, was/is different.
>>18765663Even if you're legalistic about my post this hardly indicates that I claim God said anything false? How exactly would a Bronze age Jew have given a numeral to the few billion years since earth was created? Is that God lying?
>>18765329And why did he snap his fingers and make the stars and planets and all the animals instantly, but had to fuck around sculpting humans out of dust and cannibalized parts? Why by pure coincidence is similar to other ancient creation myths?
>>18765664>He never said anything false?According to you the propositions contained in Genesis 1 are false and God intentionally stated them knowing they were false. This is called a “lie”. Also, what you are doing right now is called sophistry. You are a sophist. “No, I never said that man was a bachelor, I only said he’s not married!”>For all we know the definition of a day at the beginning of time, or for that matter to God, was/is different.1. The sense of words is determined by exegesis of the text, not by appeals to ignorance and the biases of modernists. The interpretation you give was unknown before secularist philosophers developed modern evolutionism, and made it popular. 2. What is relevant is not the definition of a word at the time of the creation of the world, but at the time the text was written, as it would be understood by the author and the audience within the context of the text. If God’s meaning was that the world was not created in 6 days, that could easily have been communicated without saying that it had been created in 6 days.
>>18765669Ok so when God showed Job the totality of creation and didn't describe it in detail, rather using carpentry allegories to explain it, was He lying? Or am I meant to take it that if I dig down deep enough I will find the crossbeam of oak that God used to create the Heavens and the earth?
>>18765668>And why did he snap his fingers and make the stars and planets Funny you say that, we recently were able to literally see new planets being formed in real time by technology, and there is nothing but the laws of physics working there.
>>18765666>Even if you're legalistic about my post this hardly indicates that I claim God said anything false?I would say that it does not indicate this, it explicitly states it. You think what is written in Genesis 1 is wrong and God said it because the poor stupid Israelites just couldn’t understand the truth, so He gave them a lie instead.>How exactly would a Bronze age Jew have given a numeral to the few billion years since earth was created?For starters, they would not have described its entire creation as having occurred in six 24-hour periods containing a morning and evening defined by the beginning and end of daylight.
>>18765671The genre of Genesis 1 is not allegory and the sense is not figurative.
>>18765675At whose discretion? Yours?
>>18765678ESL moment. Let’s go back to what you actually said >>18765644>I mean I think the whole seven days thing was because God didn't want to have to make sure each and every generation of humans faithfully transmitted the complex, epoch-spanning evolutionary processes which arrived at modern humans and eventually Adam and Eve.So, the “whole seven days thing” isn’t true, the truth is that there were actually “complex, epoch-spanning evolutionary processes which arrived at modern humans” (good like finding that in any form in the bible btw) but God didn’t want to have to deal with revealing all that so He lied to them about seven days instead. Could you explain how that is not a correct description of your statement? It’s so transparent that theistic evolutionists do not believe in biblical inerrancy. They just don’t believe it, and what’s really motivating them is the wisdom of the world and a desire to be accepted as “intellectual”, and their torturous interpretations are deliberately designed not to derive the intention of the author but to force the bible to fit the modern secular creation narrative into it.
>>18765680>ESL momentMy bad, didn't use whom, or wait, would that have even be grammatically correct? I figured you would get into literal semantics and also be wrong about your pedantry before trying to actually address the point. If you want the actual official position on the matter, I would direct you to Dei Verbum, among other treatises. I did not make my post with an intention to start an argument, I do not care to debate a YEC cretin on anything actually. I would like to point out to you that most of Genesis is in fact allegory. The Bible has frequent use of allegory. These are not lies, they are meant to illustrate incredibly complex topics to an audience of people working with limited information, especially limited information relative to God. These allegories/metaphors/allusions/etcetera appear in every part of the Bible, in fact they are quite easy to recognize.
>>18765691>If you want the actual official position on the matter, I would direct you to Dei VerbumThe official position on the matter is called Genesis 1. The problem here is that you ensnared by a false religion masquerading as Christianity, and you live outside of the grace of God, so that’s what we would need to be talking about.>I would like to point out to you that most of Genesis is in fact allegory.Precisely none of Genesis is in fact allegory. Genesis is in the genre of history.
>>18765698>The problem here is that you ensnared by a false religion masquerading as ChristianityFairly bold claim to make, not to get Nicene on you or anything, but exactly how many natures does Christ have? Maybe your homebrew theology will have some Monophysitism in it.
>>18765699I don’t understand what relevance you could possibly think it has.
>>18765702I mean I have a very minimal understanding of those theological concepts I just mentioned. I mostly know about them in a historical context. Do you not find it a little bit strange, however, that I'm absolutely certain you still know less than I do.
>>18765703Yes, I would say I find that incredibly strange, because you have no idea who I am or what my particular objections to the Roman church are, yet you assume I know so little of such things for presumably no other reason than the arrogant false assumption that nobody outside of that church would know anything about it, which I can assure you is typically the precise opposite of truth. So I will explain some things. First of all, it was erroneous for you to mention Nicaea, which was not concerned with the hypostatic union at all, the relevant councils actually being Ephesus and Chalcedon. Now, there are several forms of Monophysitism, one of which is called “Apollinarianism”, which holds that Christ had no rational human soul, but that the eternal Logos took the place of the soul in Christ. This was an overreaction to Arianism, and was itself overreacted to by Nestorius, then bishop of Constantinople, who taught that Christ was two different persons, the human Jesus and the divine Son. I have not studied this peculiar history enough to say for sure what the exact impetus of it was or what the exact significance of the term “theotokos” or mother of God (which did not seem to be very commonly used at all before the controversy) was to the beginning of the controversy, but usually it is summarized as Nestorius rejecting this term as inaccurate in favor of “Christotokos” or mother of Christ. This drew the ire of the bishop of Alexandria, a certain Cyril, who took Nestorius for a heretic and began to fiercely oppose him, culminating eventually in the Council of Ephesus at which Nestorius was condemned. Now after this Eutyches overreacred to Nestorius and developed his own kind of Monophysitism which would be condemned at Chalcedon, but at this point let’s set the history aside and discuss the theology.(1/3)
>>18765703>>18765723Central to these controversies is the Greek word “hypostasis”, something you’ve probably encountered if you’ve ever seen any basic introduction to Trinitarian theology. This word was very confusing for the west, because it corresponds exactly to the word “substance” but was not used to mean the same thing (for which the Greeks instead use the word “ousia”, hence the term “homoousian” from the Nicene Creed is typically translated “of the same substance”). But whereas “substance” in western terminology has long referred to the formal definition or essence of a thing, the term hypostasis instead refers to the things in which such essence subsists, for which reason it has come to be translated as subsistence instead. Another way to explain it is that Latin “substantia” refers to universals, while Greek “hypostasis” refers to particulars. This confusion actually got Jerome in trouble when he lived in the east because he refused to say that there were three hypostases in God, instead insisting that there was only one hypostasis. Eventually though an understanding developed and east and west both came to recognize that this was only a superficial difference between them (for a discussion of this see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica part 1 question 29 article 2).(2/3)
>>18765703>>18765723>>18765725Now, it was specifically affirmed by Nestorius that in God the Son (the Greeks do not seem to use any term which corresponds to the term “person”, which in the context of the Trinity was coined by Tertullian around 200 AD) there were two rather than one hypostasis. The orthodox doctrine as it would be formulated at Chalcedon, is that in the person of Christ there is one hypostasis, with one fully human physis (or “nature”) and one fully divine physis. This term “nature” essentially connotes the same thing as essence, and so we could correctly say that the person of Christ is a single instantiation of two different essences. And that is my brief explanation of the hypostatic union.(3/3)
>>18765726I'm happy you took the time to do some research, or maybe you are Eastern Orthodox? If you are the latter, why are you arguing about the literal interpretation of Genesis? Last I checked the eastern church wasn't dogmatic about a young earth. >yet you assume I know so little of such things for presumably no other reason than the arrogant false assumption that nobody outside of that church would know anything about itI would assume you know so little about it not because you are outside the Church, or that I am within it, but that I really truly do not respect you. >This was an overreaction to ArianismOh so you are JWAnon, alright then, I feel silly for even bothering to respond to you. Michael Jackson was guilty btw.
>>18765732>I'm happy you took the time to do some researchSir, I have been a student of theology for ten years.>I really truly do not respect you.I have done nothing to you, and yet you deplore me. Is it perhaps you who is unworthy of respect?>Oh so you are JWAnonWhat an absolutely bizarre, schizophrenic response. You saw the word Arianism and assumed I must be a cultist? >Michael Jackson was guilty btw.Take your medsThis was an incredibly childish post. Act like an adult.
>>18765736>>Oh so you are JWAnon>What an absolutely bizarre, schizophrenic response. You saw the word Arianism and assumed I must be a cultist?>>Michael Jackson was guilty btw.>Take your medslmao
