Evolution

[Servant of Jesus]

That statement shows that you are not properly understanding what is written...what is clearly written. Various races didn't come from one man nor did they evolve over time from one man. God CREATED the races and "it was very good."

We've gone over this before many times- this is your own personal interpretation, completely contrary to all other scholarly interpretations of the Bible. Show me even one scholarly reference that states that God, as you have claimed, created mankind BEFORE Adam. You need to read both Genesis 1 and 2 in context. God created JUST Adam, then came Eve, THEN mankind.

And after the flood, He once again started with JUST Noah and his relatives, then mankind EVOLVED once again. That was God's way of creating the different, genetically-distinct races- by evolution from a common ancestor; either Adam first, or later, Noah and his relatives.

At the very least, you should have the courtesy to acknowledge that those who believe this have a perfectly valid point of view, just like those who like using something other than the King James Bible are just as much Christians as everyone else who follows Jesus.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.
​

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[gluadys]

I'm aware of how you interpret the word but...did God interpret it as evolve?

Quite probably as he would not interpret it to disagree with what he created.

If He did then why didn't He suggest it, why didn't He use it or a similar word?

What for? He was inspiring prophets who knew nothing of evolution. Why should he insist on them writing something so that the curiosity of 21st century Christians would be satisfied? After all, he didn't talk about the earth rotating on its axis either. He didn't allude to the trillions of galaxies the prophets couldn't see. He didn't tell people about disease-causing germs.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[gluadys]

If the word evolution agreed with the process then would He not have written it as such? Instead, the word is creation so aren't we correct to agree with Him that it was creation and not evolution?

We are correct to agree with him that it is creation and evolution. Evolution is one way God creates.

Did He use the word "germs?" No, but He spoke of illness and sickness.

That doesn't tell us what causes illness and sickness. Why did he not say "Tiny creatures too small for you to see get into your food and water and make you sick?"

Did He use the word evolution, or any form of that word?

If speaking of illness is equivalent to speaking of germs, then speaking of creation is equivalent to speaking of evolution. I seem to recall that God did speak of creation.

Truly, it would not have been difficult to suggest evolution instead of specifying creation.

It would also not be difficult to tell them about bacteria and viruses.

And God did create and it was more important to establish that than how he created (via evolution). It is not a matter of "instead of".

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Yes, we have gone over this many times. So why do you insist on calling it my personal interpretation. Do you not see what is written? What is written wasn't written by me so "personal interpretation" doesn't apply.

Instead of going to "scholary references," try reading the words He wrote and ask Him for understanding.

The Bible is the Bible; it is unchanging- we can all see what is written. But when you provide a comment on what you understand a Bible passage to mean, that is your personal interpretation. That is fine; you are allowed to voice your own opinion- but when you refuse to even consider the interpretations of others, especially learned scholars and pastors who have a far greater depth of knowledge than you do, then that smacks of arrogance and pride and is therefore disobedient relative to what the Bible teaches.

When the ultimate truth is known, we will all have the same understanding. Until that happens, we need to use our God-given intelligence to help us interpret what a Bible passage is saying- and a critical part of that is listening to what the Holy Spirit and others have to say about a passage.

Proverbs 3:5 tells us to:
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

So if I have to decide if the Gospel according to 1whirlwind is the correct interpretation, or one provided by the Holy Spirit, which is in harmony with what learned Pastors and scholars also believe, as well as what I can observe in the clear process of evolution that creates different breeds of dogs, races of people, etc. then I'll choose the latter; it is far more likely to resonate with the ultimate truth that we will all know when judgment day arrives.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[1whirlwind]

[

.
​

 

[sungaunga]

if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good.

John MacArthur

 

[Mallon]

if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death

Actually, evolution is what keeps life going. If animal populations weren't capable of responding to their changing environments, they would all go extinct. If evolution were not possible, there would be no life on earth today.

 

[sungaunga]

Actually, evolution is what keeps life going. If animal populations weren't capable of responding to their changing environments, they would all go extinct. If evolution were not possible, there would be no life on earth today.

would you say evolution is possible without death?

 

[gluadys]

if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good.

John MacArthur

What Mallon said.

Also, scripture doesn't describe creation as perfect. It tells us God said it was very good.

 

[pgp_protector]

would you say evolution is possible without death?

Yes.

 

[sungaunga]

Yes.

enlighten me

 

[pgp_protector]

enlighten me

Did your parents die when you were born?
Did their parents die when they were born?

Each generation isn't a exact copy of the previous, there are changes in their genetic code every time, after the off spring is born, the preceding generation has no baring on its genetic makeup.

 

[sungaunga]

Did your parents die when you were born?
Did their parents die when they were born?

Each generation isn't a exact copy of the previous, there are changes in their genetic code every time, after the off spring is born, the preceding generation has no baring on its genetic makeup.

mutation and evolution are two completely different things. sure, things mutate.. within their own species.

 

[pgp_protector]

mutation and evolution are two completely different things. sure, things mutate.. within their own species.

not even worth my time if this is the starting point.
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Assyrian]

if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good.

John MacArthur

Was Jesus partaking of evil when he grilled and ate dead fish on the shores of Galilee? A decaying rat may be unhygenic, but it is not evil. In fact to billions of God's little microorganisms it is a place they call home. MacArthur is mistaking metaphors for what they represent. Physical decay and death are used in scripture as pictures for moral corruption and spiritual death, but that doesn't mean physical decay and physical death are in themselves evil. Read Genesis, light and darkness, day and night are part of God's creation too, even though darkness and night are used as pictures of evil throughout the bible. Look at the 'sea monsters' tanniym in Gen 1:21 also translated as dragons and used as a metaphor for the powers of darkness. Don't forget God created snakes too. There is nothing evil about mambas or whales, darkness or night time, physical death or biological decay, and tyhere is nothing evil in God creating what are all simply part of the natural world, all part of God's good creation.

 

[shernren]

If decay and death are the effects of evil, how can it be beneficial for Christians to eat meat? Surely Christians should seek to reverse the effects of the Fall in their lives, as far as is possible, and if animal death is an effect of the Fall, then Christians should be doing their best to reverse the causes of animal death, as indeed they do within organizations like the RSPCA.