If God needed millions of years to 'create' our first human bodies that have already been through disease and death (to the millions of years) how will he be able to give us new, incorruptible bodies 'in the twinkling of eye whenever Christ returns' ? (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)
He didn't need them. He simply took them, as far as the evidence can show. Why? Well, His ways are above our ways, so we don't know. And He doesn't have to explain if He doesn't wish.
And as to how He can at the end of time? He's God. So He can.
And for your statement, I understand. I know that sometimes it can be hard, since right now I'm the face/screen/voice whatever of 'the other side' so it's very easy instead of saying 'your sides'' it often gets turned into 'yours'. I know... I'm very often guilty of it myself! I hope you can take what I say as coming from the same POV.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. … The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”-Karl Popper 1978
Why they must be literal? If they were not literal, how come in different parts of the Bible it says God created them "Male and Female" in the beginning for the basis of marriage? (Note not plural, Males/Females or Men/Women)
It is worth pointing out the bible does not use the phrase "Males and Females", but uses "Male and Female" for a single pair or collectively for larger groups.
Gen 7:16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in.
Numbers 5:2 "Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. 3 You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell."
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Of course not, and why would they be? Using your logic, we should throw away the entire Bible because the events described in the parable of the Good Samaritan did not actually happen.
Where did you get the notion that "the events described in the parable of the Good Samaritan did not actually happen"? The story of the good Samaritan was not a parable. It was an anecdote. Jesus said this happened. If it did not happen, Jesus was lying. And if Jesus ever lied, He was not sinless and His death availed nothing for us.
This is just another point on which your notion destroys the very foundations of Christianity.
What exactly gives the Genesis creation story the connotations of a factual account? Because it makes reference to real locations? Well, by that logic Spiderman must have been intended as a factual account because it describes how Peter Parker lives in Manhattan, grew up in Forest Hills, and Gwen died due to a fall from the top of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Also, metaphorical genealogies are known to have been utilised in creation stories, such as in Greek mythology.
It is sacrilege to compare the accounts of the Word of God with the myths of the heathen.
The creation account has the connotations of a factual account because, and explicitly because, it says these things happened, and does not contain even a single syllable to suggest that any part of this account is metaphorical.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
He didn't need them. He simply took them, as far as the evidence can show. Why? Well, His ways are above our ways, so we don't know. And He doesn't have to explain if He doesn't wish.
And as to how He can at the end of time? He's God. So He can.
And for your statement, I understand. I know that sometimes it can be hard, since right now I'm the face/screen/voice whatever of 'the other side' so it's very easy instead of saying 'your sides'' it often gets turned into 'yours'. I know... I'm very often guilty of it myself! I hope you can take what I say as coming from the same POV.
Metherion
You said "we don't know," How do you know he took millions of years to create this here earthly body? His ways are above our ways. If he can create our bodies of incorruptible in the twinkling of an eye, what would that say for Genesis saying he created us from dust of the earth? Nothing is to hard for Jesus. How do you know 'evidence' shows us that we are of 'old' and have evolved whenever Jesus says he created us from dirt and nothing is to hard for him? He did say he created all animals to reproduce after their kind. God did not create the "poodle" but he created the original dog, and over time through changes in Genes, they did not evolve but rather has a varied in species because the 'poodle' is still a dog, right? Nothing is to hard for JESUS.
Question (Darkness you will perhaps considered this one, but all can read it independently; You all obviously believe that Stellar Light Travel is millions or billions of years old for the light to travel to earth.)
2. Isaiah 34:4 and Revelation 6:13-14 are passages that describe the time in the future whenever there will be cataclysmic changes in the heavens. Stars falling from the sky and the heavens rolling up do not sound like 'slow processes needing millions of years.' Evolutionists believe it took some billions of years for the light to get here. Obviously it will not take billions of years for the heavens to roll together like a scroll. So, Maybe we do not know the mechanics of starlight travel. (note to darkness, this is not the post I said I would make. I will make the post "about how light can travel by different methods" later.)
I put the question in bold to make it stand out. And as to your statement, I feel the same way. I can see it from your PoV, But I don't at the same time. It is like, I get what your saying from your PoV but I cannot see how it can happen that way when there is too much evidence supporting Creation as being "literal." Most people deny AiG as not knowing 'science' this is not true. They do not deny science at all, as this is a fallacy of False Analogy. Dr. Jason Lisle - AiG Astrophysicist Graduated from a Secular College, University of Colorado (at Boulder) with a Ph.D in his area of study. He has a book that is called, "Ultimate Proof for Creation." I have it, I have been reading it, (I also have about 8-10 other books from there that I am still reading.) And the evidence he shows lines up correctly with the Bible and Creation. It is a really good book to read, if you have the chance, I'd tell you to order it. So, I can see your PoV, but I don't because there is more compelling evidence to me for a "literal" view of Genesis, and I just plainly will not add mankind's fallible methods of evolution to the Bible.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
It is worth pointing out the bible does not use the phrase "Males and Females", but uses "Male and Female" for a single pair or collectively for larger groups.
Gen 7:16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in.
Numbers 5:2 "Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. 3 You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell."
Matthew 19:4
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginningmade them male and female,
Mark 10:6
6But fromthe beginning of the creationGod made them male and female.
As you can see Assryian, He is not talking to a "group" of people in "Genesis" because he says at the beginning, from the beginning - he created them (Adam & Eve as Male and Female). Where else in the Bible will you find the "beginning" at ? No where. Beginning as in the Origin of Mankind.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
... So, I can see your PoV, but I don't because there is more compelling evidence to me for a "literal" view of Genesis, and I just plainly will not add mankind's fallible methods of evolution to the Bible.
Just FYI, I think every TE here will agree with me when I say that my acceptance of evolution is evidence-based. That is, if it were falsified tomorrow, I would reject it.
And my interpretation of Genesis would not change.
There is no adding of "mankind's fallible methods of evolution to the Bible." I haven't added evolution to the Bible anymore than I have added gravity to it. My interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with evolution.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
Just FYI, I think every TE here will agree with me when I say that my acceptance of evolution is evidence-based. That is, if it were falsified tomorrow, I would reject it.
And my interpretation of Genesis would not change.
There is no adding of "mankind's fallible methods of evolution to the Bible." I haven't added evolution to the Bible anymore than I have added gravity to it. My interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with evolution.
If you didn't why do you believe Genesis is not literal? Because if it were literal evolution couldn't be true.
Evidence based huh? How reliable is this "evidence" ? Why do you believe that this "evidence" is so compelling that evolution must be true ? Because creationists have the same evidence they have just different presuppositions. You are 'assuming' that evolution is already correct about its claims without knowing if it is actually true. Theistic evolution is basically, "atheistic evolution" but with "God." How do scientists explain the past and what happened in the past whenever they were not there ? I am talking not one soul there ?
(Also, What does FYI mean again? I forgot, lol.)
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginningmade them male and female,
Mark 10:6
6But fromthe beginning of the creationGod made them male and female.
As you can see Assryian, He is not talking to a "group" of people in "Genesis" because he says at the beginning, from the beginning - he created them (Adam & Eve as Male and Female). Where else in the Bible will you find the "beginning" at ? No where. Beginning as in the Origin of Mankind.
WingsOfEagles07, Jesus is using a spiritual interpretation, there. Even if you are right and the passage is literal, that citation won't help you make your case. If Jesus were interested in the literal meaning in that passage it wouldn't have helped him answer the question of divorce. On the contrary, Moses intends that we _should_ apply this passage to ourselves and understand the relationships between ourselves and our spouses in this light.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
WingsOfEagles07, Jesus is using a spiritual interpretation, there. Even if you are right and the passage is literal, that citation won't help you make your case. If Jesus were interested in the literal meaning in that passage it wouldn't have helped him answer the question of divorce. On the contrary, Moses intends that we _should_ apply this passage to ourselves and understand the relationships between ourselves and our spouses in this light.
This is not "spiritual" this is "physical" JESUS was relating to the Creation MALE and FEMALE, He did not create the Adam and Bruce. Or Eve and Morgan. He Created them Adam and Eve, Male and Female. Literally, if this was not literal where could the justification be for marriage? He created them metaphorically therefore to marry someone physically here on earth? There is no justification for marriage if it were not literal. I was just pointing out by the passage that it was not reffering to a "GROUP" of people like he was trying to imply.
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
If you didn't why do you believe Genesis is not literal? Because if it were literal evolution couldn't be true.
Most traditional literal interpretations have prohibited common ancestry of species, it's true. A few have not.
But that isn't the point. The point is proper interpretation of Genesis. I don't think the proper interpretation of Genesis is a literal one -- and that wouldn't change even if there were no theory of evolution. In fact, my interpretation of Genesis is gleaned in part from people who lived before evolution had been discovered, anyway.
Originally Posted by WingsOfEagles07
Evidence based huh? How reliable is this "evidence" ? Why do you believe that this "evidence" is so compelling that evolution must be true ? Because creationists have the same evidence they have just different presuppositions. You are 'assuming' that evolution is already correct about its claims without knowing if it is actually true. Theistic evolution is basically, "atheistic evolution" but with "God." How do scientists explain the past and what happened in the past whenever they were not there ? I am talking not one soul there ?
We all have the same evidence, yes. But only evolutionary scientists try to take it all into account. It isn't worth arguing this last point because the creationist organizations admit that they won't take anything into account that is contrary to their interpretation of Scripture.
This is beside the point that I was trying to make, though. My point was more what you asked above: why does my interpretation of Genesis have nothing to do with evolution?
Originally Posted by WingsOfEagles07
(Also, What does FYI mean again? I forgot, lol.)
Haha! No worries: FYI = For your information. It's meant as an aside from a main point -- a tangent.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
Linear Mode
