humanoids and evolutionary creation

High profile creationists decry evolutionary creationists/theistic evolution using their powers of exposition, logic and rhetoric.  But the same creationists don’t even understand basic words.  How they remain credible is incredible.


Death in the NT

“We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death”   1 John 3:14

Death does not always equal mortality in the NT.  You cannot substitute death and mortality at will.  That’s one reason why the words are different.  Clearly in this instance death refers to the fate or spiritual condition of the individual rather than their pulse rate or them being mortal.

By One Man – a misleading incomplete picture of Christadelphian positions

In May 2017 bro Colin Byrnes (a rightly well-regarded individual), published a document called “By One Man”.  The document was largely in response to a presentation at the 2016 Australian Conference which demonstrated a wide range of views have been accepted in the community on Genesis 1-3 (note that presentation specifically stayed away from EC as requested by the conference organisers). Continue reading

The Raqia: A Rejoinder to Allfree & Davies

A recent paper by Mark Allfree and Matt Davies (Is the Firmament of Genesis Chapter 1 Solid?, 2015) maintains that the firmament of Genesis 1 is not described as a solid dome but rather as an empty expanse. The authors also reject any suggestion that the creation account of Genesis 1 is written as a theological polemic against pagan creation myths. Their primary concern is the historicity of Genesis 1 and its consistency with a modern worldview. This article contends that Allfree and Davies begin with a false premise and arrive at the wrong conclusion via a series of misguided arguments. Continue reading

Creationist responses to the heart in the bible

Some creationists have gone into print to try and reject Evolutionary Creation.  Their counter argument to the non factual use of the heart is summarised below.  Their essential argument is that because SOME uses of heart are obviously metaphorical therefore ALL uses are.  The evidence of archaeology/history is ignored.  Key components of the argument are shown below: Continue reading

Vegetarianism and Creation

We received the following question from a reader and brother.  Rather than lose the question in a mess of other discussions we thought it worth a special response.  While the question may have been raised before it pretty much escaped our notice.  The question was:

Dear COD

I have tried to show throughout this book that we must let the Bible speak for itself. We must not twist it, to make it mean what we think it ought to have said. We must let it make its own message clear to us.”[1] 

I did ask the question on another post about how an EC would interpret the verses that appear to identify a change in diet, to becoming carnivores, before/after the flood. The language appears quite clear to me. Perhaps this provides an opportunity to answer that question?” Continue reading

Responding to evolution – faith is Christ (not Adam) based

We must not cultivate an Adam based faith. Unfortunately the story of Genesis ch.3 is often taught as the literal foundation of the Gospel, recently as nothing less than “the rationale and basis” for Jesus Christ and his Gospel of salvation,[1] and that the existence or need for Jesus Christ would collapse were Eden’s events found to be metaphorical or non-literal. This remarkable assertion is one of the most common hurdles to overcome for many Christadelphians when confronted by scientific challenges to Genesis, yet it is deeply flawed on several counts. Continue reading