Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

Ya --- make your jokes and accusations.

They you'll wonder why you don't understand anything.

These smileys were tailor-made for you guys:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Problem.
Your "houses" (representing DNA) are just Atoms, chemical, are you saying Sin hides in the chemical arrangement, but it's not the chemical arrangement isself ?

As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.

As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.

Ok, lets look at this a minute. As an exposition of the proof texts it's nicely done. The writer simply says that it's reasonable to consider the body of Jesus to be a special creation and as the second Adam Jesus would have had a flawless DNA code. It's a nice exposition.

...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Only Adam is properly spoken of as the, 'son of God', in that he had no human parents.

Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figureof him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam figuratively. They simply have no answer for this

just as they have no answer for the book of Genesis being an historical narrative representing the genealogical pedigree of mankind in general (the generations of Adam) and the Hebrews (the generations of Abraham) respectively.

I wonder if MK would claim "evil atheist conspiracy" if he ever has a discussion with Kenneth Miller or any other Christian evolution-accepter. I also wonder if he realizes that some of the "scientists that haunt this board" actually have degrees in genetics.

GuidanceNeeded gave this link to me, which contains this passage:

Thus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).

SOURCE

In addition, Homo sapiens have a [Homo] predecessor --- mankind doesn't --- (except for God, that is).

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
The lions and tigers and bears God formed had no lion or tiger or bear parents either. Does that make them sons of God too?

Calling Adam the 'son of God' is hardly speaking literally, especially in a genealogy which is talking about a long line of biological parenthood. As far as I know only Mormons take this literally and think God really was Adam's biological father.

Wow!

If you assume Genesis is a historical narrative. But isn't that begging the question?

Interestingly Luke describes the genealogy in his gospel as what people 'supposed' Jesus' genealogy was. Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli... Suppositions about genealogies don't make a good basis for doctrine.

There is a bigger problem here than trying to link sin and DNA. This theology seems to deny the incarnation, that Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully God.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Yet according to this, Jesus was not really born of a human mother, she was just surrogate, and if Jesus was completely unrelated to the human race, why would he even be under the law?

[color=Navy]Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things...he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, [color=Red]he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted (Heb 2:14)

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

The bible says Jesus shared our flesh and blood, that he was made like us in every respect, that he knows what it is like to be tempted because he was tempted too. If Jesus was a separate creation, born without a 'sin nature' how would he know what we go through? How was he made like us in every respect, tempted like us in every respect, if human nature is supposed to have been changed and corrupted utterly at the fall and Jesus was made like Adam was before the fall?

Their lineage has nothing to do with redemptive history, Adam does. I like the satire but I stammer and stutter at calling it Christian. Believers affirm the gospel they don't cast aspiration and resort to this kind of whimsical mockery.

1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:1-2

There are a number of Christians that are taken in by this modern mythology but not all of those who profess faith share it.

What I find strange is I have less of a problem with the cults and Catholic legalism then I do with TE as it is propagated on here. I don't really care if you take Genesis literally or not, I don't really care what you think about evangelical or fundamentalist theology. How you treat doctrine is another matter and to make a mockery of so much Christian scholarship is yet another proof positive for me that TE is nothing but a secular philosophy in sheep's clothing.

Mark: Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam figuratively. They simply have no answer for this

Assyrian: Wow!

Mark: It isn't that difficult to comprehend, the text is explicit.

No, you either believe it or not.

If you want to cater to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians then be my guest but be advised, theistic evolution is next.

Why don't you just admit it, you don't believe the historicity of the Bible. You might think you are making a point here but all I see is the desperate attempt of someone compromising Christian conviction in favor of party spirit. Luke traces the lineage of man back to Adam, the first man. That makes him a creationist in every way that has meaning.

Paul speaks of Adam as a man, the first man, in no uncertain terms but there was no need for him to dwell on it since there was no question in the mind of Jews at that time.

I take a lot of things in the Bible literally that others don't, it creates no inward struggle to do that. I was out looking for a Bible study and an interesting discussion of Christian Apologetics. Instead what I found was a host of professing Christians who busy themselves mocking at Biblical exposition.

Have a nice day
Mark