Does Aging Prove Genesis Is True?

[Colter]

Have you never read Isaiah 53? Some call it the fifth Gospel....and was written a long time before Paul walked this earth.

Yes, Judaism and Christianity see Isaiah 53 differently. I can vaguely see both points of view but with confliction. Judaism not only had no concept whatsoever of God having a divine Son at his side in heaven but certainly not a Messiah who would become a sacrifice and at their own hands! Christians, or more so Jews who converted to disciples of Jesus forced Jesus into many of the OT prophecies for justification of their new faith.

 

[Colter]

I find it rather ironic how you claim Paul changed the Gospel.....yet at the same time you change the Gospel as you twist it to conform to the lies of evolutionism.

I never said Paul changed the gospel, he taught the gospel as he understood it. Peter frankly stated it off on the day of Penticost when he began to proclaim the resurrection in his public teaching.

God created life as we know it via evolution over a long period of time. Evolution is an established fact.

 

[-57]

I never said Paul changed the gospel, he taught the gospel as he understood it. Peter frankly stated it off on the day of Penticost when he began to proclaim the resurrection in his public teaching.

God created life as we know it via evolution over a long period of time. Evolution is an established fact.

Then it sounds like Paul understood it correctly.
NEXT

 

[Colter]

Then it sounds like Paul understood it correctly.
NEXT

But Paul never knew Jesus in the flesh so he didn't have the benefit if being taught the original gospel. His gospel was after the cross, Jesys good news was before the cross.

 

[-57]

But Paul never knew Jesus in the flesh so he didn't have the benefit if being taught the original gospel. His gospel was after the cross, Jesys good news was before the cross.

If you say so. I don't believe your opinion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course, but this all assumes that Genesis is true. How does someone explain aging and death without Genesis? Why do our bodies stop working? Why do we all age at the same rate and die around 100-120 years?

Our aging is controlled somewhat by the telomeres in our body cells. These are strands of non-coding DNA at the ends of the chromosomes, and every time a cell divides, a few are lost. When they are all gone, the chopping process begins to cut off the vital parts of the chromosomes, and this prevents indefinate cell division in the body. It is a timing divice that causes us to have a limited life. A given cell can divide about 50 times before running into this problem. Of course, there are special enzymes that allow division without reducing the telemere ends, and the germ cells - sperm and egg - are created using the special enzymes.

The body has the tools to bypass the telomere problem. There is a reason for them. They are carefully put into place.

The reason appears to be to limit tumors. if a cell burst free of its normal controls on properly dividing only when needed to rebuild an organ somewhere, and just keeps dividing, it will soon reach the limit imposed by telomeres and quit dividing uncontrollably.

Cancer occurs when the telomere problem is taken care of by the uncontrolled cell. The uncontrolled cell can therefore multiply indefinitely, or until the uncontrolled proliferation of cells kills the organism.

 

[Radrook]

Here's one example among millions credited to evolution = a giraffe has about 7 check valves in his neck to reduce deadly blood pressure to his head when he drinks water .. We also have self healing and immune systems created by God but the evolutionists always BELLY UP TO THE TROUGH to claim credit away from God .. So my question of why can't evolution solve the much simpler telomere problem would be valid to consider .. God tells us the reason for death , evolution doesn't .. I guess some folks can't see my point .. Darwin sucker punched God's people but we've gotten back up and have evolution on the run as it's theories are being shot down daily .. People on this site are still clinging to out dated theories proven wrong or highly improbable , "ever learning but never coming to the Truth"

I'll just stick with Genesis 2:17 for the time being , I have no problem with opinions as long as they're not to far off base or directly dispute the Word of God .. Adam died to God when he ate the forbidden fruit .. Genesis 3:22 seems to shed light on the subject but now it is moot and it is what it is ..

God designing a moron and then punishing the moron for getting smart isn't what the Bible teaches.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The question you must answer first is 'To whom does aging prove the truth of Genesis?" A Secondary question you should answer is 'What part of Genesis is under discussion?"

Allow me to explain my question... Biologically speaking, there is no real reason for us to age and die the way that we do.

That's odd. All the doctors and medical science types seem to think cellular and DNA decay is normal and that's why we die.

Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years?

Don't you mean, "Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years at the current time?

In history, human life spans have been anywhere from twenty-five to thirty years, to well into the multi-hundreds, to 120 or so to less than 60 and now around 100. Humans have not aged and died at about the same rate all throughout history.

If one accepts the idea that physical death began as a result of that unfortunate incident with Eve, the apple and that nasty snake, then aging and dying most likely is seen as the logical result. However, that chain of reasoning only appeals to those who believed the Genesis account in the first place.

Those who don't believe much anything at all in Genesis are not persuaded by 'natural' death, in my experience.
So I don't think death convinces anyone at all.

For the record, I do believe in the "Fall". I have no doubt mankind decided to strike out on their own and figuratively - if not literally - ditch God. But I don't see anyone who doesn't believe it already changing their minds when the story is recounted.

Jesus directed His followers to tell everyone the 'gospel' - the good news in order to bring mankind to repentance and belief in Him. That doesn't always work, I've noticed. He didn't mention the creation story or the fall of man story to bring about repentance and reliance on Jesus Christ.

 

[Radrook]

The question you must answer first is 'To whom does aging prove the truth of Genesis?" A Secondary question you should answer is 'What part of Genesis is under discussion?"

That's odd. All the doctors and medical science types seem to think cellular and DNA decay is normal and that's why we die.

Don't you mean, "Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years at the current time?

In history, human life spans have been anywhere from twenty-five to thirty years, to well into the multi-hundreds, to 120 or so to less than 60 and now around 100. Humans have not aged and died at about the same rate all throughout history.

If one accepts the idea that physical death began as a result of that unfortunate incident with Eve, the apple and that nasty snake, then aging and dying most likely is seen as the logical result. However, that chain of reasoning only appeals to those who believed the Genesis account in the first place.

Those who don't believe much anything at all in Genesis are not persuaded by 'natural' death, in my experience.
So I don't think death convinces anyone at all.

For the record, I do believe in the "Fall". I have no doubt mankind decided to strike out on their own and figuratively - if not literally - ditch God. But I don't see anyone who doesn't believe it already changing their minds when the story is recounted.

Jesus directed His followers to tell everyone the 'gospel' - the good news in order to bring mankind to repentance and belief in Him. That doesn't always work, I've noticed. He didn't mention the creation story or the fall of man story to bring about repentance and reliance on Jesus Christ.

Yes Jesus does mention the fall of mankind via calling
the Devil a liar and a murderer for being instrumental in the death of Adam And Eve and all subsequent deaths due to his scheming deceit.
Jesus also mentions that God created them male and female and quotes the verse which states that they would become one flesh via marriage. Jesus' genealogy is traced all the way back to Adam in certain Gospels..

The snake you mention is identified as Satan in the book of Revelation.
The bible never mentions an apple.
Neither does it say that the original sin was sexual desire as some folks tend to think. Obviously when he told them to procreate and fill the earth they knew what he meant since they had observed the animals so saw nothing wrong in the act itself.

 

[4x4toy]

Oh my goodness! Are we going to see all the mangy old apologetic dogs and ponies? We've already had the "Jesus is not a liar" argument. Now we have the "genealogy" argument. I can't credit that you find them convincing yourselves, why should we?
How many genealogies like that do you suppose were floating around back then? It was, after all, an age of tremendous messianic expectation. We don't know which one of them Jesus saw, much less what He believed. Luke doesn't really vouch for his and Matthew fiddled with the one he used for numerological reasons.

During the 19th century it was fashionable to construct genealogies showing Queen Victoria's descent from King Arthur. Which one do you suppose she believed in?

You're the condescending one calling Jesus a liar pal . Jesus knew exactly who he was and exactly where he come from .. And Moses and Elijah knew Jesus as his kingdom come at the transfiguration ..

 

[4x4toy]

We have souls from the moment of conception.

Still waiting for when evolution worked that in ?

 

[Radrook]

Aging is one of the consequences of sin since it gradually leads to death.
Does it support Genesis account? Well, it is in full harmony with it. As for proving it, that depends on the one evaluating the information. From an atheist viewpoint you would need far more than just a harmony between a biblical description and reality to prove it. From the viewpoint of a Christian theist, it does prove that sin did bring death and aging is a process leading up to it.

 

[4x4toy]

God designing a moron and then punishing the moron for getting smart isn't what the Bible teaches.

I agree .. Evolution denies a designer/creator

 

[Radrook]

The question you must answer first is 'To whom does aging prove the truth of Genesis?" A Secondary question you should answer is 'What part of Genesis is under discussion?"

That's odd. All the doctors and medical science types seem to think cellular and DNA decay is normal and that's why we die.

Don't you mean, "Why is it that every human being is aging at about the same rate, and dying naturally in the ballpark of 100-120 years at the current time?

In history, human life spans have been anywhere from twenty-five to thirty years, to well into the multi-hundreds, to 120 or so to less than 60 and now around 100. Humans have not aged and died at about the same rate all throughout history.

If one accepts the idea that physical death began as a result of that unfortunate incident with Eve, the apple and that nasty snake, then aging and dying most likely is seen as the logical result. However, that chain of reasoning only appeals to those who believed the Genesis account in the first place.

Those who don't believe much anything at all in Genesis are not persuaded by 'natural' death, in my experience.
So I don't think death convinces anyone at all.

For the record, I do believe in the "Fall". I have no doubt mankind decided to strike out on their own and figuratively - if not literally - ditch God. But I don't see anyone who doesn't believe it already changing their minds when the story is recounted.

Jesus directed His followers to tell everyone the 'gospel' - the good news in order to bring mankind to repentance and belief in Him. That doesn't always work, I've noticed. He didn't mention the creation story or the fall of man story to bring about repentance and reliance on Jesus Christ.

Persons who trivialize the Genesis account are mostly those who have a very simplistic view and are totally ignorant of the issues that arose at Eden. There were ISSUES that arose at Eden-you know? Other persons know exactly how it goes but choose to trivialize the Genesis account because they hate religion. You never know which is which. I became aware of it only after six full months at which time the atheists informed me that they had understood perfectly all along but had made as if they didn't because they hated religion. Not saying that this is the case here. Just saying that it does happen.

 

[Radrook]

I agree .. Evolution denies a designer/creator

Which goes to show that you are completely ignorant at the most basic level of what really happened and what was involved.

 

[Radrook]

Still waiting for when evolution worked that in ?

Your fantasy of evolution worked nothing in. Adaptation and change happens within species. But the drastic leaps you imagine are pure fantasy based on wishful thinking.

 

[Radrook]

Yes Jesus does mention the fall of mankind via calling
the Devil a liar and a murderer for being instrumental in the death of Adam And Eve and all subsequent deaths due to his scheming deceit.
Jesus also mentions that God created them male and female and quotes the verse which states that they would become one flesh via marriage. Jesus' genealogy is traced all the way back to Adam in certain Gospels..

The snake you mention is identified as Satan in the book of Revelation.
The bible never mentions an apple.
Neither does it say that the original sin was sexual desire as some folks tend to think. Obviously when he told them to procreate and fill the earth they knew what he meant since they had observed the animals so saw nothing wrong in the act itself.

I sometimes get the strong impression that they know that already.

 

[4x4toy]

Aging is one of the consequences of sin since it gradually leads to death.
Does it support Genesis account? Well, it is in full harmony with it. As for proving it, that depends on the one evaluating the information. From an atheist viewpoint you would need far more than just a harmony between a biblical description and reality to prove it. From the viewpoint of a Christian theist, it does prove that sin did bring death and aging is a process leading up to it.

Again , All life dies .. Just about all life can heal itself but can't beat that death thingy .. But Jesus resurrected from death and beats death for us ...

 

[Colter]

God created life that evolved into man. Mortal death is normal for man. The theory that Eve's sin brought death into the world is a myth. Besides, Adam and Eve arrived on a world that had already fallen, the beast was already fallen.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Yes Jesus does mention the fall of mankind via calling
the Devil a liar and a murderer for being instrumental in the death of Adam And Eve and all subsequent deaths due to his scheming deceit.
Jesus also mentions that God created them male and female and quotes the verse which states that they would become one flesh via marriage. Jesus' genealogy is traced all the way back to Adam in certain Gospels..

The snake you mention is identified as Satan in the book of Revelation.
The bible never mentions an apple.
Neither does it say that the original sin was sexual desire as some folks tend to think. Obviously when he told them to procreate and fill the earth they knew what he meant since they had observed the animals so saw nothing wrong in the act itself.

True, the "ancient serpent" is mentioned as the devil and Satan in Revelation, but ONLY in Revelation, which was written quite a while after the rest of the Bible and not at all close to when the view of Satan was different in Job. In the OT, God was shown to be responsible for everything. It was only in the NT that it began to be seen as the devil sending lying spirits and the like.

And if you notice the names of specific churches in Revelation, the "number of the best" being the number of a man, and the symbolism, it's clear that it was a symbolic message to the Christians in the churches of the time saying "Yeah Nero's persecuting us and he sucks, but he'all get justice upon him one day", because if it was said explicitly and not symbolically John would have been killed.