Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

[Not_By_Chance]

I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...

• If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

• When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?
  
  
• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?
  
  
• In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?
  
  
• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

 

[Papias]

NBC - yep, all fair questions. Here are some answers from me - other Christians may have different ideas.

you wrote:

I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...

Minor quibble - "a straightforward reading of the biblical account....". I'd say "a literalistic reading of a clearly poetic passage....."

Anyway....

• If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I make the same thing you do for all of these - we both see them as commandments to be followed.

Referencing a story doesn't mean that the story was literally true. Jesus referenced the story of the good Samaritan, which is obviously a parable that didn't have to have actually happened. Because everyone knew the 6 day story back then, it made sense to reference it - regardless of whether or not it literally happened. You do this too, in your own life. You might say "don't pull that fire alarm if there isn't a fire - remember the boy who cried wolf?". Or, just recently House speaker Boehner said "this bill can't pass - we can't put humpty dumpty back together again". In those cases, you don't think that the boy who cried wolf story actually happened, just as speaker Boehner wasn't saying that he thought humpty dumpty was real. As humans, we reference stories that make our points - just as Jesus did - and we know that everyone is smart enough not to think that we are claiming those stories to be literally true.

• When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?
  
  

When people rebelled against God. That's what the story of the fall is about. After all, if we make it a story about magical fruit, we suggest that God is weaker than magical fruit, that God would punish someone over the effects of magical fruit, and we basically make Christianity look silly. The sin of rebellion led to suffering that we would not have if we didn't rebel against God.

• 
  
• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?
  
  

The Genesis story itself shows that death came before the fall. God tells Eve (and Adam) that they'll die if they eat the fruit - and they know what he's talking about. If there was no death, how would they have any idea what "death" was? Plus, how could anything work? They couldn't eat - because doing so kills plants (even fruit are made up of living cells) - and nothing could live. Nothing works without death. Genesis never says that there was no death - that whole idea is an unscriptural idea of some human.

Adam - I do see a literal Adam, fully consistent with science, which you can find described in other posts I've made (use the search engine, my name, and "Adam, transitional"). Jesus' death was to atone for the original sin of rebellion against God. - As the scriptures say.

• In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?
  
  

Again we have a passage here that shows that the Genesis account is not to be read literally. Literally, at the beginning of creation, God made light - not male and female, and obviously not humans. Male and female - and humans weren't made at the beginning of creation at all, but at the end (on the 6th day).

So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that Genesis is not be read literally. This is yet another of the many places where creationists ignore or change scripture to fit their man-made doctrine. Jesus is clearly talking about "at the beginning of humanity", and evolutionary science shows us that yes, hominids were male and female at the beginning of humanity, since sex evolved long before humans evolved.

• 
  
• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

The data does show how things are going now, if God doesn't intervene to change things. I don't know if God is planning to do so or not (in other words, how to exactly interpret the book of Revelation). Since we all agree that Revelation is heavily symbolic, I'm guessing that you also don't have an exact, certain interpretation (which would include exactly what/who is the antichrist, when they'll appear, what mark of the beast exactly is, when it will come to pass, etc.). So I have to say that God knows, while I don't.

I hope those helped -

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Shodan]

I had a long response, but I lost it. Fortunately, Papias covered it all quite well.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[Not_By_Chance]

NBC - yep, all fair questions. Here are some answers from me - other Christians may have different ideas.

you wrote:


Minor quibble - "a straightforward reading of the biblical account....". I'd say "a literalistic reading of a clearly poetic passage....."

Anyway....




I make the same thing you do for all of these - we both see them as commandments to be followed.

Referencing a story doesn't mean that the story was literally true. Jesus referenced the story of the good Samaritan, which is obviously a parable that didn't have to have actually happened. Because everyone knew the 6 day story back then, it made sense to reference it - regardless of whether or not it literally happened. You do this too, in your own life. You might say "don't pull that fire alarm if there isn't a fire - remember the boy who cried wolf?". Or, just recently House speaker Boehner said "this bill can't pass - we can't put humpty dumpty back together again". In those cases, you don't think that the boy who cried wolf story actually happened, just as speaker Boehner wasn't saying that he thought humpty dumpty was real. As humans, we reference stories that make our points - just as Jesus did - and we know that everyone is smart enough not to think that we are claiming those stories to be literally true.




When people rebelled against God. That's what the story of the fall is about. After all, if we make it a story about magical fruit, we suggest that God is weaker than magical fruit, that God would punish someone over the effects of magical fruit, and we basically make Christianity look silly. The sin of rebellion led to suffering that we would not have if we didn't rebel against God.




The Genesis story itself shows that death came before the fall. God tells Eve (and Adam) that they'll die if they eat the fruit - and they know what he's talking about. If there was no death, how would they have any idea what "death" was? Plus, how could anything work? They couldn't eat - because doing so kills plants (even fruit are made up of living cells) - and nothing could live. Nothing works without death. Genesis never says that there was no death - that whole idea is an unscriptural idea of some human.

Adam - I do see a literal Adam, fully consistent with science, which you can find described in other posts I've made (use the search engine, my name, and "Adam, transitional"). Jesus' death was to atone for the original sin of rebellion against God. - As the scriptures say.





Again we have a passage here that shows that the Genesis account is not to be read literally. Literally, at the beginning of creation, God made light - not male and female, and obviously not humans. Male and female - and humans weren't made at the beginning of creation at all, but at the end (on the 6th day).

So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that Genesis is not be read literally. This is yet another of the many places where creationists ignore or change scripture to fit their man-made doctrine. Jesus is clearly talking about "at the beginning of humanity", and evolutionary science shows us that yes, hominids were male and female at the beginning of humanity, since sex evolved long before humans evolved.



The data does show how things are going now, if God doesn't intervene to change things. I don't know if God is planning to do so or not (in other words, how to exactly interpret the book of Revelation). Since we all agree that Revelation is heavily symbolic, I'm guessing that you also don't have an exact, certain interpretation (which would include exactly what/who is the antichrist, when they'll appear, what mark of the beast exactly is, when it will come to pass, etc.). So I have to say that God knows, while I don't.

I hope those helped -

In Christ-

Papias

I'm not sure how to separate the various parts of the quotes, so I'll put the quoted parts from your post in inverted commas.

" Referencing a story doesn't mean that the story was literally true. Jesus referenced the story of the good Samaritan, which is obviously a parable that didn't have to have actually happened. Because everyone knew the 6 day story back then, it made sense to reference it - regardless of whether or not it literally happened. "

I think this is muddying the waters somewhat. Jesus made it abundantly clear when he was telling a parable and when he was not. Weren't the 10 commandments supposed to have been written by God himself? Also, adding something in amongst the 10 commandments that was just a piece of fiction would water down the message that God was deadly serious when issuing these commandments and I can't imagine that He would have done such a thing.

"The Genesis story itself shows that death came before the fall. God tells Eve (and Adam) that they'll die if they eat the fruit - and they know what he's talking about. If there was no death, how would they have any idea what "death" was? Plus, how could anything work? They couldn't eat - because doing so kills plants (even fruit are made up of living cells) - and nothing could live. Nothing works without death. "

Again, this is a commonly-quoted but mistaken idea. God made it clear that plant life, while technically alive, was not the same as the other forms of life which had "the breath of life" in it. So plants did not count in this respect but were specifically provided for food for all the other of God's creatures. It can be assumed that Adam was a perfect being before the fall and had an intimate relationship with God, who used to talk to him in the garden. We can assume therefore that it would have been highly likely that Adam would have been able to understand what death would be, even if he hadn't experienced it. The fruit was merely the physical and tangible object that God used to mark the line that Adam must not cross.

"Again we have a passage here that shows that the Genesis account is not to be read literally. Literally, at the beginning of creation, God made light - not male and female, and obviously not humans. Male and female - and humans weren't made at the beginning of creation at all, but at the end (on the 6th day)."

This is also a mistaken idea. Creation was still occurring during creation week, so Jesus (God the creator) was quite right to say that he created man and woman at the beginning. The point is, evolution puts man at the wrong end of the timescale (on a 24 hour clock comparison, a second or so before the following midnight, whereas Jesus is claiming that they appeared a second or so after the previous midnight. Both can't be correct, either evolutionists have it wrong or Jesus does and I know in which of the those two options I wish to place my trust.). Also, if you accept the evolutionary story, when did animal turn into man and where in that process did animals, which function without being accountable to God for all their killings of other creatures, become accountable and therefore begin sinning against their creator? It just doesn't make sense and it also means that God used a very cruel method to bring His creatures to a higher level of being, including making them susceptible to illness and diseases like cancer.

Let me ask you a question - do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe that there is any scientific evidence that this could ever happen? If not, then you have to accept by faith that what Jesus (God) did was a divine suspension of normal physical laws, a miracle if you will. So, if miracles are possible, then wouldn't it make sense to just put your trust in God and stop trying to adopt your faith to try to fit in with man's ideas (which you never will by the way, because there will always be a conflict)? Trying to pick bits out of the Bible that you think are true, while relegating those parts you don't think are true to mere allegory or myth means you will always be looking over your shoulder for the next attack. This is not a battle between science and religion as often touted but there is a spiritual battle being waged by Satan in the background for the hearts and minds of men. It started in the Garden of Eden when he raised doubts in Eve's mind by asking her "Did God really say...?" and he's being doing this ever since. I firmly believe that the story of evolution is one of his falsehoods and he is using it to deceive the masses like never before. I hope you will come to see this and stand firm on God's word accepting that in His book, He said what He meant and meant what He said.

 

[Papias]

I'm not sure how to separate the various parts of the quotes, so I'll put the quoted parts from your post in inverted commas.

I just type out the [ ... quote ....] tags. I don't know if there is a better way with out new "improved" format.

" Referencing a story doesn't mean that the story was literally true. Jesus referenced the story of the good Samaritan, which is obviously a parable that didn't have to have actually happened. Because everyone knew the 6 day story back then, it made sense to reference it - regardless of whether or not it literally happened. "

I think this is muddying the waters somewhat. Jesus made it abundantly clear when he was telling a parable and when he was not.

Simply false. Show me the verse where Jesus says the Good Samaritan is a parable. Otherwise, it sounds like you are adding your own thoughts to the word of God.

Weren't the 10 commandments supposed to have been written by God himself?

sort of. Exodus says that God says he'll write them, but then it says that Moses writes them, not God. Not that it matters.

Also, adding something in amongst the 10 commandments that was just a piece of fiction would water down the message that God was deadly serious when issuing these commandments and I can't imagine that He would have done such a thing.

What? Again you are denigrating scripture by saying that anything not literally true is somehow of lesser value. The non-literal parts are no less glorious than the literal. By repeatedly denigrating the non-literal, you are directly attacking Jesus himself, who used non-literal parables a lot. This brings to mind Mk 3:29. I would not insult Jesus like that myself.

"The Genesis story itself shows that death came before the fall. God tells Eve (and Adam) that they'll die if they eat the fruit - and they know what he's talking about. If there was no death, how would they have any idea what "death" was? Plus, how could anything work? They couldn't eat - because doing so kills plants (even fruit are made up of living cells) - and nothing could live. Nothing works without death. "

Again, this is a commonly-quoted but mistaken idea. God made it clear that plant life, while technically alive, was not the same as the other forms of life which had "the breath of life" in it. So plants did not count in this respect but were specifically provided for food for all the other of God's creatures.

If you are going to promote the human idea that there was no physical death before the fall, then you have to include plants, because they are physically alive. The same would go for the microscopic insects on the plants, which Adam would also have eaten before the fall anyway. It would also go for the millions of Adams own cells that die every hour as a normal function of living. and so on.

You also ignored the fact that a system without death cannot work. Insects and other creatures reproduce at rates that would engulf the whole earth if there were no death, etc. http://www.christianforums.com/t7542459/#post56943417

It can be assumed that Adam was a perfect being before the fall and had an intimate relationship with God, who used to talk to him in the garden. We can assume therefore that it would have been highly likely that Adam would have been able to understand what death would be, even if he hadn't experienced it. The fruit was merely the physical and tangible object that God used to mark the line that Adam must not cross.

None of that is scriptural. You are again making up your own human ideas and treating them as scripture, or, more likely, repeating human ideas that you have been taught by other humans to insert into the scripture and pretend they are the word of God.

"Again we have a passage here that shows that the Genesis account is not to be read literally. Literally, at the beginning of creation, God made light - not male and female, and obviously not humans. Male and female - and humans weren't made at the beginning of creation at all, but at the end (on the 6th day)."

This is also a mistaken idea. Creation was still occurring during creation week, so Jesus (God the creator) was quite right to say that he created man and woman at the beginning.

No, Jesus did not simply say "at the beginning". Jesus said "at the beginning of creation" The beginning of creation week is certainly not the last day. It sounds like you are working awfully hard to insert the human ideas you have been taught into God's word, even when these human ideas contradict God's word.

(on a 24 hour clock comparison, a second or so before the following midnight, whereas Jesus is claiming that they appeared a second or so after the previous midnight. Both can't be correct, either evolutionists have it wrong or Jesus does and I know in which of the those two options I wish to place my trust.).

What midnight? No, Jesus agrees with evolution. Jesus says "at the beginning of creation He created them (obviously referencing humans) male and female", so Jesus is stating that the first humans were male and female (and hence, after sex evolved), which is backed up by science. It sounds like you are confusing the whole of creation with the creation of humans. Jesus says himself that he's only talking about the creation of humans.

Also, if you accept the evolutionary story, when did animal turn into man and where in that process did animals, which function without being accountable to God for all their killings of other creatures, become accountable and therefore begin sinning against their creator?

At the fall, obviously. The genesis story is a pretty clear allegory for humans gaining awareness of God, rebellion, and sin. But no - you want to make it a story about magical fruit. Is it any surprise that on hearing that some Christians preach that Christianity is actually about magical fruit, that people of all ages, in all areas of the country, are leaving Christianity in droves?

It just doesn't make sense and it also means that God used a very cruel method to bring His creatures to a higher level of being, including making them susceptible to illness and diseases like cancer.

You are going to judge God's methods? Not something I would do. Do you think the flood was kind and gentle? Do you think Jesus' sacrifice was kind and gentle? Do you think the hundreds of innocent people killed by God was kind and gentle? Was the Exodus kind and gentle? How about the killing of Egypt's firstborn, including infants? Kind and gentle? Hell itself? Kind and Gentle? It sounds like you have a lot of anger toward God.

Let me ask you a question - do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

Sure, go for it. Yes I do. There is no evidence showing that this didn't happen.

Do you believe that there is any scientific evidence that this could ever happen? If not, then you have to accept by faith that what Jesus (God) did was a divine suspension of normal physical laws, a miracle if you will. So, if miracles are possible, ......

Accepting miracles does not require me or anyone else to say that each event is a miracle. There is more evidence than you or I can even list showing that common descent is a fact. Saying that an event is a miracle simply because we agree that miracles can happen sometimes makes no sense, and ignores both scripture and the rest of Gods revelation.

then wouldn't it make sense to just put your trust in God and stop trying to adopt your faith to try to fit in with man's ideas

Is that not exactly what you've been doing this whole thread? Putting man's ideas of death before the fall, creationism, and so on, instead of putting your trust in God?

Trying to pick bits out of the Bible that you think are true, while relegating those parts you don't think are true to mere allegory or myth means you will always be looking over your shoulder for the next attack.

Again you attack non-literal text as somehow lesser or bad. "Mere", "relegating", etc. Oh, you don't like what Jesus says? I guess it's just the "mere" words of Jesus, right?

This is not a battle between science and religion as often touted but there is a spiritual battle being waged by Satan in the background for the hearts and minds of men. It started in the Garden of Eden when he raised doubts in Eve's mind by asking her "Did God really say...?" and he's being doing this ever since. I firmly believe that the story of evolution is one of his falsehoods and he is using it to deceive the masses like never before.

Why do you think that? Simply because that's what some humans told you? It seems much more clear to me that if anything, it is creationism that is the Satanic deception, driving good people out of Christianity faster than any atheist argument could do - as the data have shown.

I hope you will come to see this and stand firm on God's word accepting that in His book, He said what He meant and meant what He said.

I hope that of you too. Especially in the idea that non-literal scripture is just as glorious and wonderful as the literal.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I just type out the [ ... quote ....] tags. I don't know if there is a better way with out new "improved" format.




Simply false. Show me the verse where Jesus says the Good Samaritan is a parable. Otherwise, it sounds like you are adding your own thoughts to the word of God.




sort of. Exodus says that God says he'll write them, but then it says that Moses writes them, not God. Not that it matters.



What? Again you are denigrating scripture by saying that anything not literally true is somehow of lesser value. The non-literal parts are no less glorious than the literal. By repeatedly denigrating the non-literal, you are directly attacking Jesus himself, who used non-literal parables a lot. This brings to mind Mk 3:29. I would not insult Jesus like that myself.



If you are going to promote the human idea that there was no physical death before the fall, then you have to include plants, because they are physically alive. The same would go for the microscopic insects on the plants, which Adam would also have eaten before the fall anyway. It would also go for the millions of Adams own cells that die every hour as a normal function of living. and so on.

You also ignored the fact that a system without death cannot work. Insects and other creatures reproduce at rates that would engulf the whole earth if there were no death, etc. http://www.christianforums.com/t7542459/#post56943417



None of that is scriptural. You are again making up your own human ideas and treating them as scripture, or, more likely, repeating human ideas that you have been taught by other humans to insert into the scripture and pretend they are the word of God.



No, Jesus did not simply say "at the beginning". Jesus said "at the beginning of creation" The beginning of creation week is certainly not the last day. It sounds like you are working awfully hard to insert the human ideas you have been taught into God's word, even when these human ideas contradict God's word.



What midnight? No, Jesus agrees with evolution. Jesus says "at the beginning of creation He created them (obviously referencing humans) male and female", so Jesus is stating that the first humans were male and female (and hence, after sex evolved), which is backed up by science. It sounds like you are confusing the whole of creation with the creation of humans. Jesus says himself that he's only talking about the creation of humans.



At the fall, obviously. The genesis story is a pretty clear allegory for humans gaining awareness of God, rebellion, and sin. But no - you want to make it a story about magical fruit. Is it any surprise that on hearing that some Christians preach that Christianity is actually about magical fruit, that people of all ages, in all areas of the country, are leaving Christianity in droves?




You are going to judge God's methods? Not something I would do. Do you think the flood was kind and gentle? Do you think Jesus' sacrifice was kind and gentle? Do you think the hundreds of innocent people killed by God was kind and gentle? Was the Exodus kind and gentle? How about the killing of Egypt's firstborn, including infants? Kind and gentle? Hell itself? Kind and Gentle? It sounds like you have a lot of anger toward God.




Sure, go for it. Yes I do. There is no evidence showing that this didn't happen.



Accepting miracles does not require me or anyone else to say that each event is a miracle. There is more evidence than you or I can even list showing that common descent is a fact. Saying that an event is a miracle simply because we agree that miracles can happen sometimes makes no sense, and ignores both scripture and the rest of Gods revelation.





Is that not exactly what you've been doing this whole thread? Putting man's ideas of death before the fall, creationism, and so on, instead of putting your trust in God?



Again you attack non-literal text as somehow lesser or bad. "Mere", "relegating", etc. Oh, you don't like what Jesus says? I guess it's just the "mere" words of Jesus, right?



Why do you think that? Simply because that's what some humans told you? It seems much more clear to me that if anything, it is creationism that is the Satanic deception, driving good people out of Christianity faster than any atheist argument could do - as the data have shown.



I hope that of you too. Especially in the idea that non-literal scripture is just as glorious and wonderful as the literal.

In Christ-

Papias

Sorry Papias but I simply cannot accept what you say. I am not trying to add anything to what the Bible clearly teaches, i.e., that the world was made in 6 literal days and that death came by Adam and Eve's rebellion in the garden of Eden. I firmly believe that Jesus clearly taught that as well and I don't accept your interpretation of His words. I think anyone who tries to teach that the Bible even hints at evolution being true is not being faithful to the original texts and it is this that is doing a great deal of harm to our religion and not creation, which clearly is in complete agreement with the Biblical texts. Most non-Christians recognise that the Bible and evolution are mutually-exclusive world views about how things came to be, but it seems that some Christians are confused about this. I've never come across a single non-Christian who has told me that creation science is a stumbling block to their believing but I have come across many who don't believe the Bible because they recognise the conflict with the evolutionary account with which they have been indoctrinated. In fact, when I have shown creation science DVDs to Christians, they have been so glad to have discovered that their faith can be supported by scientific observations and is not a blind faith after all. This in fact happened to me as well, so I have personal experience of this. I know in my heart that God did it exactly as revealed to us in the Bible and I know that He is coming soon to bring about a restored creation and no, the universe will not end in a virtual heat death or whatever the scientists like to call it in billions of years time when it runs out of energy. I believe in the inerrancy of the whole Bible, not just the parts that man thinks are true.

 

[Colter]

I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...

• If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

• When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?
  
  
• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?
  
  
• In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?
  
  
• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

I'm an evolutionist, I believe the basic implantation of primitive life took place when the earth reached a state when it could sustain life and after the terminal breakup of Pangaea had begun.

Genesis as well as the NT were written by men long after the events depicted within the narrative. When stories are retold man tends get the facts a little wrong.



My answers reflect my theology as influenced by the Urantia revelation of 1955:

* All of Gods children of a lessor nature could potentially sin. To sin is to know Gods will yet choose to do otherwise.

* The world had fallen long before Adam and Eve arrived from their home world among the Fathers "many mansions." They were to be the visible spiritual rulers of the earth. Note that the "crafty beast" was already evil, he knew Gods will for the pair and was working against it.

* In short order the beast managed to out flank Adam and Eve and convince Eve to insert her own will into Gods plan for the fallen earth. Unable to conceive of being apart from Eve, Adam followed suit deliberately. Even though they repented and were forgiven, the sin of their decision brought mortal death specifically to A & E as they could no longer "eat of the tree of life" and live on continuously.

* Jesus didn't teach that he was a sacrifice for sin, that's Pagan theory that asserted itself into the religion about Jesus. In the original gospel to the Jews Jesus taught that salvation was by faith not sacrifices.

* Jesus will return but for a visit, the kingdom is spiritual, Jesus' rightful place is on high.

 

[pshun2404]

I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...

• If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

• When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?
  
  
• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?
  
  
• In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?
  
  
• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

What makes you think these things must be answered if someone believes that at some point and in some way God uses changes over time in His plan? I am not a theistic evolutionist and combat the Darwinian model aggressively but I was once a zygote which became an Embryo that became a fetus that was born as a babe that grew to old age....change over time....from a select (God ordained) original few pairs of dogs we now have a vast variety (change over time), from two original humans all the varieties of human now exist....

And then after the fall who can say the extent of effect that has had on these changing scenarios...

The only dichotomy I see, is over whether one takes Genesis 1-2:4 literally or as a number of general statements...even some of the early Rabbis and church fathers saw a day (unto the Lord) as like unto 1,000 years and 1,000 in the Bible is often used to symbolized and uncountable number...the phrase "day one" (not "the first day" in the Hebrew) is obscure not specific....no one can say day one (when there was only the Lord creating) is literal (they can say it, but it isn't)...

So having said all that, the whole abiogenesis thing (science fiction) or one creature becoming another one or Darwins concept of Natural Selection...simply not true...

Finally, Genesis 2:1-4 is not about man....it does not even contain the word Sabbath...it says God (who never sleeps or slumbers) ceased or desisted from His work of creating...man's week (and the counting of days) is a microcosm of the heavenly macrocosm....just as we (made in His image) are not God but like Him and just as the Tabernacle on earth in made after the pattern of the heavenly tabernacle....and so on....answers to your other questions (totally IMHO) will follow

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

• When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?

Sin came into creation the moment Satan rebelled (acting as his own lord) and decided what was good or evil for himself (or as the Bible so often puts it….did that which was right in his own eyes), Man having been given dominion (like an under shepherd) aver all things ON the earth gave that dominion (which was his right to give) to Satan who is now the lord of this world (this is why he could offer the Christ the kingdoms of the world…which Christ refused)

• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?

That some living things should not last or be eternal was always the plan. God says to Adam dress the garden and keep it. Do you not think pruning the trees was part of that plan? The garden was eastward in Eden….Eden was much much larger (from the Tigris Euphrates encompassing all the land of Ethiopia the land which Moses people understood as Cush) most of the creatures in Genesis 1 all lived OUTSIDE of the garden…some may have been there although the Bible only mentions those created after Adam as being IN the garden. And who can say that animals outside of the garden (remember none of them would be partakers of the Tree of Life) did not have a God established food chain (an absurd assumption not based on scripture)…

AND NO…the death God warns Adam and Eve about (from partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil by which one becomes lord – Genesis 3:5) is not physical death (for they continue to live hundreds of years)…AND DEATH WAS NOT A PENALTY….God was warning them IN LOVE about the CONSEQUENCE….it is like when a parent says to their child “Thou shalt not run out into the busy traffic, for in the day you do you will get smashed by a car”….is the parent saying if you do this I (the parent) will smash you with a car? No, no, no! God loves us….He was warning them…OUR sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2)…we do it….we make the important warned against death a reality (separation from God) by acting as our own lord deciding good and evil for ourself…

The physical death???? That is part of His plan for the biological forms…we (being made in His image) can be transformed and glorified (Christ in you the hope of glory) and be made to be like His beloved Son. The purpose of the Son on the cross was to heal and deal with what the Lord declared (Isaiah 53) and to set us free from the power of death which Satan brought (Hebrews 2:14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver ( to snatch away, rescue, save) them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.)



In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?

I agree, Adam and Eve (known by other names in other cultures but I believe we have the truth here in the Hebrew) were the first two humans from whom all others have come forth, that does not speak to chronos time…God knew the Hebrew people had no frame of reference for millions or billions, they could not even conceive of such vastness or numbering into do many…if He gave them the word in such language then THEY would have surely thought it to be make believe….God always has and thank God always will communicate to whom He wills in a way they will comprehend.

• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

For me, the second coming of Messiah Jesus IS the culmination of this age (we being in the great Apostasy, according to the Bible, only need to look for the revealing of that man of sin, then we will know it is only a matter of years)…IMO there will be new or renewed (whichever is meant by the words these ancients would understand) heavens and earth….

So again I am not an “evolutionist”, I am a creationist who sees the role this process plays in His plan…could God create a world with an ancient buried past already in place? Yes of course….He is God! Could He have done all this and all this past have happened in 6 thousand years? Yes of course…He is God! But would He bother to? IS that what He did? Well that is a matter of faith between each person and God…if one believes one way and another differently about such things does it matter? Well it does to those who take it as literally true and not as general statements about the stages and the process…

What is Yom here? The debate has raged for centuries but it has no effect on our salvation or lack of it…the discussion is a good thing, a healthy thing but be not quick to judge…some say potayto and some say potahtoe but it is good food…enjoy your mea I certainly have enjoyed mine these past decades with the Lord.

 

[metronome]

It's interesting to read all the responses here. It certainly fits in with I have experienced thus far. I have heard christians who believe in creation and others that don't. Then others that seem to fit in a sliding scale between the two. I have a friend who is an anglican minister here in Australia who tells me that he believes that men wrote the violence into the bible and God is and was never violent and that we should have others interpret the bible for us as we are unable interpret it correctly.
I know that a Pope or two ago was said to accept evolution. I have on record the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney say that Adam & Eve was mythology and that we did evolve from something less than human.
And I know that, even though the bible is very clear about this, christians certainly do judge other christians based on what they believe or don't believe and will doubt that others, who say they are christians are actually true christians.
So who is a true christian, who judges others. Who would say the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are not true christians, and yet they read and accept the bible as the literal word of God.
How is it that the supposedly greatest message for mankind could be so lost in translation and in languages that don't exist anymore, that the actual authors of the gospels are not even known. That writings like the Apocalypse of Peter did not make into the bible. Yes, I would ponder if you could believe in Genesis but I think that there is a lot more that could be pondered as well.

Life's great.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

It's interesting to read all the responses here. It certainly fits in with I have experienced thus far. I have heard christians who believe in creation and others that don't. Then others that seem to fit in a sliding scale between the two. I have a friend who is an anglican minister here in Australia who tells me that he believes that men wrote the violence into the bible and God is and was never violent and that we should have others interpret the bible for us as we are unable interpret it correctly.
I know that a Pope or two ago was said to accept evolution. I have on record the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney say that Adam & Eve was mythology and that we did evolve from something less than human.
And I know that, even though the bible is very clear about this, christians certainly do judge other christians based on what they believe or don't believe and will doubt that others, who say they are christians are actually true christians.
So who is a true christian, who judges others. Who would say the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are not true christians, and yet they read and accept the bible as the literal word of God.
How is it that the supposedly greatest message for mankind could be so lost in translation and in languages that don't exist anymore, that the actual authors of the gospels are not even known. That writings like the Apocalypse of Peter did not make into the bible. Yes, I would ponder if you could believe in Genesis but I think that there is a lot more that could be pondered as well.

Life's great.

Dealing with beliefs of any kind is difficult at the best of times and many people unfortunately either get upset if their own beliefs are challenged (no matter how gently) or worse still, try to impose their beliefs on others. Just look at what is happening in the Middle East for current examples of this at its most extreme. Like I said to a Jehovah's Witness recently (a very nice Spanish lady who lives locally), "I can disagree with your version of the Bible and your core beliefs, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to kill you or disrespect you." The interesting thing is, the truth is out there somewhere and there can only be one version of the truth behind everything to do with this universe, but nobody knows for sure how much of the truth they really have. If God does exist, as Christians believe, then only He knows everything. No wonder Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?"
John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
John 18:37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
John 18:38 "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him."

 

[Papias]

I am not trying to add anything to what the Bible clearly teaches, i.e., that the world was made in 6 literal days and that death came by Adam and Eve's rebellion in the garden of Eden.

We saw in the earlier posts that you are indeed trying to add a lot of stuff to your Bible. You stated specifically that the fall was due to eating fruit - I'm the one who said it was rebellion. Here is a list of some of the things that aren't in there, that you are adding:

1. The claim that Jesus says that the Good Samaritan is a parable. Verse?
2. The idea that there was no physical death before the fall. Verse?
3. The idea that Adam was "perfect" before the fall. Verse?
4. The idea that the fruit was only a physical and tangible object. (then how did it magically open their eyes, if read literally?)
5. The idea that Adam psychically knew about death before the fall. Verse?
6. The idea that there was no physical disease before the fall. Verse?
7. You also take away from scripture -such as when you deleted the "of creation" from Jesus own words.

These are some examples of you changing scripture to fit your own human ideas.

I firmly believe that Jesus clearly taught that as well and I don't accept your interpretation of His words.

Oh, that must be why I'm going by what he said, and you are cutting out the parts of his words that you don't like? Ask youself - why would you do that if you go by what Jesus said?

Most non-Christians recognise that the Bible and evolution are mutually-exclusive world views about how things came to be, but it seems that some Christians are confused about this.

Yeah, like the Pope? Like Billy Graham? C. S. Lewis? All those support evolution. Like the leaders of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopals, Catholics, and on and on? Look, there are few and fewer churches that don't allow evolution every year. You could go join the Jehovah's Witnesses - they have always been solid in their rejection of evolution.

... when I have shown creation science DVDs to Christians,

Have you seen all the different ways creationist sources lie to you? You've already seen that they've convinced you to add and subtract things from scripture to get you to believe man's ideas, and they make oodles of money doing so, too. It's sad to hear that you help them fleece other Christians, too.

I believe in the inerrancy of the whole Bible, not just the parts that man thinks are true.

..... But it looks like you have changed it to fit the human creationist ideas you've been taught, as shown above? Even worse, your constant suggestion that symbolic or non-literal scripture is somehow of lesser value - when our Lord and Savior Jesus taught mainly by using symbolic parables.


In Christ-

Papias

 

[Not_By_Chance]

We saw in the earlier posts that you are indeed trying to add a lot of stuff to your Bible. You stated specifically that the fall was due to eating fruit - I'm the one who said it was rebellion. Here is a list of some of the things that aren't in there, that you are adding:

1. The claim that Jesus says that the Good Samaritan is a parable. Verse?
2. The idea that there was no physical death before the fall. Verse?
3. The idea that Adam was "perfect" before the fall. Verse?
4. The idea that the fruit was only a physical and tangible object. (then how did it magically open their eyes, if read literally?)
5. The idea that Adam psychically knew about death before the fall. Verse?
6. The idea that there was no physical disease before the fall. Verse?
7. You also take away from scripture -such as when you deleted the "of creation" from Jesus own words.

These are some examples of you changing scripture to fit your own human ideas.



Oh, that must be why I'm going by what he said, and you are cutting out the parts of his words that you don't like? Ask youself - why would you do that if you go by what Jesus said?




Yeah, like the Pope? Like Billy Graham? C. S. Lewis? All those support evolution. Like the leaders of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopals, Catholics, and on and on? Look, there are few and fewer churches that don't allow evolution every year. You could go join the Jehovah's Witnesses - they have always been solid in their rejection of evolution.



Have you seen all the different ways creationist sources lie to you? You've already seen that they've convinced you to add and subtract things from scripture to get you to believe man's ideas, and they make oodles of money doing so, too. It's sad to hear that you help them fleece other Christians, too.




..... Which is why you change it to fit the human creationist ideas you've been taught, as shown above? Even worse, your constant suggestion that symbolic or non-literal scripture is somehow of lesser value - when our Lord and Savior Jesus taught mainly by using symbolic parables. Jesus, please forgive him - he knows not what he does.


In Christ-

Papias

1. My Bible notes about the good Samaritan verse start, "The famous parable of the good Samaritan..." so it is a obviously a well-established opinion amongst scholars and you stated that you accept this view as well. I saw the film "Jesus of Nazareth" starring Robert Powell and whenever "Jesus" spoke it this way, it seemed pretty obvious that He was telling his audience a story, just to illustrate and bring to life a point He was trying to make.
2. "Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." It seems patently clear to me that there was no death (of creatures with "the breath of life") until after Adam and Eve sinned. Also, God described His original creation as "very good." Do you consider a world full of death and disease to be very good? One of the commentaries on my electronic Bible adds this, "he eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death"

3. Adam obviously would have been a perfect human being. God had just created him. Why would he make him anything else but perfect. Sometimes it's not necessary to state the obvious.

4. It wasn't the fruit that opened their eyes but God saw it as rebellion against His wishes, simply because they were doing the one thing that He had told them they could do.

5. God told him so, "
Gen 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die." It's not feasible that God would not have made sure that Adam knew exactly what He meant by that is it? If I had been Adam and God had said that to me and if I didn't already know what was meant by death, I would have said, "Lord, what do you mean, I will surely die? I don't understand." Adam knew God was giving him an important instruction and he would have made sure he knew what God was talking about.

6. How could there have been physical disease? Would you call a world in where such suffering was taking place, "Very good" as God did? I certainly wouldn't. As my local pastor said a couple of years ago, "This world is a dramatically-damaged place and it's fair to say that everyone in this room either has suffered, is suffering or will suffer - the only requirement is to live long enough" If there had been death before the fall, it would have been just as bad as now and also, if that were the case, what exactly was the effect of sin?

7. I'm not aware that I have deleted any of Jesus's words, at least not wilfully. Why would I do that, I believe everything He said? You are the one who is trying to distort the meaning of His words: for instance, when He clearly told us that he made man from the beginning of His creation, "
Mar 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Jesus could not have made it any clearer that man was right there at the beginning, not appearing some billions of years later. You are the one who is trying to change the meaning of Jesus's and hence God's words to mean something that He clearly didn't mean to say. Also, you want to relegate man to mere evolved monkeys by accepting the evolution myth, rather than accepting that we were made "in God's image" right from the start. We never have been related to monkeys in any way, shape or form. Yes, we share some common design, but that's because there is a common designer, so some similarities in God's creation are to be expected.

I have not deliberately changed any of scripture to fit man's own ideas, as a straightforward reading of the text would reveal. I'm convinced that if you were to hand a copy of Genesis for instance to someone who had never read anything of the Bible and then subsequently asked them to summarise the first two chapters, there would be absolutely no mention of millions or billions of years (man's ideas). So ask yourself, who is the one adding ideas here that are not contained in the original texts?

I would not join the Jehovah's Witnesses, because like yourself, they have changed the meaning of the original texts as well, so in their eyes, Jesus is not God the Creator and equal to God The Father and God The Holy Spirit, but just "a god."

I haven't seen any evidence that creationists are serial liars. They seem to be very sincere and knowledgeable people to me. There have been some big lies told in evolutionary circles as well, probably more so. Some evolutionists have been so desperate to convince the public of their false ideas that they have deliberately faked the evidence.

"your constant suggestion that symbolic or non-literal scripture is somehow of lesser value" you see, your doing it with me now - I never said or hinted anything of the kind. Quite the reverse is true in fact; you have decided that certain parts of the Bible are merely symbolic or myth, just so that they can fit in with your evolutionary beliefs. It's sad to see Christians being so insecure in their beliefs that they are prepared to compromise the word of God, just to fit in with man's ideas. I pray that you will "come to a knowledge of the truth" and put your full trust in the scriptures. I would recommend "The New Defender's Study Bible" with commentary by the late great Henry Morris.

 

[HitchSlap]

1. My Bible notes about the good Samaritan verse start, "The famous parable of the good Samaritan..." so it is a obviously a well-established opinion amongst scholars and you stated that you accept this view as well. I saw the film "Jesus of Nazareth" starring Robert Powell and whenever "Jesus" spoke it this way, it seemed pretty obvious that He was telling his audience a story, just to illustrate and bring to life a point He was trying to make.
2. "Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." It seems patently clear to me that there was no death (of creatures with "the breath of life") until after Adam and Eve sinned. Also, God described His original creation as "very good." Do you consider a world full of death and disease to be very good? One of the commentaries on my electronic Bible adds this, "he eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death"

3. Adam obviously would have been a perfect human being. God had just created him. Why would he make him anything else but perfect. Sometimes it's not necessary to state the obvious.

4. It wasn't the fruit that opened their eyes but God saw it as rebellion against His wishes, simply because they were doing the one thing that He had told them they could do.

5. God told him so, "
Gen 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die." It's not feasible that God would not have made sure that Adam knew exactly what He meant by that is it? If I had been Adam and God had said that to me and if I didn't already know what was meant by death, I would have said, "Lord, what do you mean, I will surely die? I don't understand." Adam knew God was giving him an important instruction and he would have made sure he knew what God was talking about.

6. How could there have been physical disease? Would you call a world in where such suffering was taking place, "Very good" as God did? I certainly wouldn't. As my local pastor said a couple of years ago, "This world is a dramatically-damaged place and it's fair to say that everyone in this room either has suffered, is suffering or will suffer - the only requirement is to live long enough" If there had been death before the fall, it would have been just as bad as now and also, if that were the case, what exactly was the effect of sin?

7. I'm not aware that I have deleted any of Jesus's words, at least not wilfully. Why would I do that, I believe everything He said? You are the one who is trying to distort the meaning of His words: for instance, when He clearly told us that he made man from the beginning of His creation, "
Mar 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Jesus could not have made it any clearer that man was right there at the beginning, not appearing some billions of years later. You are the one who is trying to change the meaning of Jesus's and hence God's words to mean something that He clearly didn't mean to say. Also, you want to relegate man to mere evolved monkeys by accepting the evolution myth, rather than accepting that we were made "in God's image" right from the start. We never have been related to monkeys in any way, shape or form. Yes, we share some common design, but that's because there is a common designer, so some similarities in God's creation are to be expected.

I have not deliberately changed any of scripture to fit man's own ideas, as a straightforward reading of the text would reveal. I'm convinced that if you were to hand a copy of Genesis for instance to someone who had never read anything of the Bible and then subsequently asked them to summarise the first two chapters, there would be absolutely no mention of millions or billions of years (man's ideas). So ask yourself, who is the one adding ideas here that are not contained in the original texts?

I would not join the Jehovah's Witnesses, because like yourself, they have changed the meaning of the original texts as well, so in their eyes, Jesus is not God the Creator and equal to God The Father and God The Holy Spirit, but just "a god."

I haven't seen any evidence that creationists are serial liars. They seem to be very sincere and knowledgeable people to me. There have been some big lies told in evolutionary circles as well, probably more so. Some evolutionists have been so desperate to convince the public of their false ideas that they have deliberately faked the evidence.

"your constant suggestion that symbolic or non-literal scripture is somehow of lesser value" you see, your doing it with me now - I never said or hinted anything of the kind. Quite the reverse is true in fact; you have decided that certain parts of the Bible are merely symbolic or myth, just so that they can fit in with your evolutionary beliefs. It's sad to see Christians being so insecure in their beliefs that they are prepared to compromise the word of God, just to fit in with man's ideas. I pray that you will "come to a knowledge of the truth" and put your full trust in the scriptures. I would recommend "The New Defender's Study Bible" with commentary by the late great Henry Morris.

I think you're missing the point. While something may seem obvious, if you don't have actual evidence, and start your premise with an assumption, then your conclusion can only be assumption, no matter how reasoned it may be.

 

[eclipsenow]

Many of these questions about reconciling evolutionary science and Genesis are addressed here. Death before the fall? Theology of creation? Stuff like that. It's all here.

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/day-music-died.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-i.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-ii-on_21.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iii-tale.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv-when.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god_30.html

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I think you're missing the point. While something may seem obvious, if you don't have actual evidence, and start your premise with an assumption, then your conclusion can only be assumption, no matter how reasoned it may be.

That's exactly my point with evolution. It's only an assumption and since the premises are just an assumption, any conclusions must also be assumptions. The difference is, you rule out any possibility of God, whereas I rule out any possibility of chance random processes forming the universe in which we live from nothing. So it's no wonder that we come to different conclusions.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Many of these questions about reconciling evolutionary science and Genesis are addressed here. Death before the fall? Theology of creation? Stuff like that. It's all here.

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/day-music-died.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-i.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-ii-on_21.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iii-tale.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv-when.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god.html
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god_30.html

God's ways are higher than our ways, so we will never have anything like the knowledge that He does. The point is, if you accept evolution as the explanation for how things came to be, you elevate man's ideas over the clear teaching of God as given to use in the Bible and Jesus's suffering and death on the cross becomes meaningless. Even evolutionists can see this, which is probably why the first book of the Bible is coming under such attack. Destroy the foundations (Genesis) and you destroy the whole idea of the gospel is undoubtedly their tactic and it is clearly having a lot of success. We need to defend our faith in God's word vigorously, but it doesn't need to be a blind faith because fortunately, there are plenty of scientific arguments to discredit evolution and support the Bible if one cares to seek them out (have a look at the new DVD "Evolution's Achilles Heels" as a good place to start). Don't just accept the propaganda of the evolution agenda - it's not necessarily what it seems.

 

[eclipsenow]

"over the clear teaching of God as given to use in the Bible and Jesus's suffering and death on the cross becomes meaningless."
Rubbish. Don't insinuate I'm not a Christian because I'm a Theistic Evolutionist. Most of my Christian friends and most of the professional ministers and, even better, most of the professional full time theologians (bible college lecturers) I know are Theistic Evolutionists. Why? Because Genesis simply doesn't tell us how the world was made, and we are free to listen to science on that one. It's a poem that tells us why! If you're going to insist it is literal, you're going to have to prove it because I'm 100% convinced it is literary, not literal. I'm also 100% convinced it is God's word and TRUE, but just in a different genre to the more historical narrative we have by the end of the book of Genesis.
Do we worship Jesus the God man? Or do we worship Jesus the 7 horned 7 eyed space-lamb? That's how Revelation portrays him! So how do you know what genre of writing we are reading? How would you recognise a creative narrative like a poem or parable or metaphor? What signals are you looking out for?

 

[Neogaia777]

I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...

• If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I never said the Genesis account still couldn't be literally true, I posted this in another forum:


It is possible that God created an Adam and Eve separate/separated from the humanoid-like lifeforms that had evolved and were evolving here, and God set up his created beings to make the evolved humanoid-like lifeforms extinct and replace them... (flood)

It is possible that God was trying to convey "truths" other than that that were strictly "literal"...

It is possible that God was using the term "a thousand years" to convey a much larger period of time to a primitive people...

It is possible that God used the term "a thousand years" to convey an "age" or era... (one of God's days is as a thousand years, then becomes, one of God's days is an era or an age (millions of years)...


The reason we make keeping the Sabbath Day part of the Ten Commandments is because it is the fourth commandment of the ten...

God may have been trying to communicate an elusive "higher" or greater truth, than is other than literal, through the account of Adam and Eve, up to the flood (almost every religion that has ever existed on the planet has a flood account, so... After that, we are all descendants of Noah and his family, who was descended from Adam and Eve.

And this elusive "higher truth", truth about the human condition and human nature, which I don't think comes from literal interpretations, is what so intrigues me about the account of Adam and Eve...

When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?

• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?
  
  
• In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?
  
  
• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

Sin came before death with a transgression of law (a rule God had made) and for Adam and Eve, that was to not eat from the tree which I commanded you...

Where there is no law, neither can there be sin, since sin is a transgression of law...


Beginning of Creation, the start of his creation Adam and Eve in the Garden...


I still believe there will be divine intervention, (the timing of which is determined by events in a society and/or the world), before we get too far, yes, I believe in Jesus returning just like the Bible says...

Jesus said that he (the Son) and all of Creation, did not know the time of the end, but they knew the "events" leading up to it that would happen in the world, and the timing of the events is determined by us...

God Bless!

 

[justlookinla]

I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...

• If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

• When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?

Sin came into God's creation millions and millions of years ago.

• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross accomplished many things, one of the most important is reconciling/redeeming His chosen. Adam didn't bring sin, sin was already present in the persons of the fallen angels, but Adam did introduce sin into God's human creation.

• In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?

There are many beginnings in the bible. Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, for example. That beginning wasn't the beginning of the Adam/Eve/Eden beginning.

• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

Actually, Jesus has already come a second time, but He does have a future return which will usher in a new heaven/earth.