-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Dating the creation of Adam
- Thread starter Research1
- Start date
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hmmm, will be interesting to see how that turns out (considering I still have mark on ignore)
Upvote
0
If any theistic evolutionist wants to answer my question on the other page, please feel free to. My question was along the lines of this -
Why do theistic evolutionists reject the idea of a literal adam and only believe he was a metaphor etc on the grounds creationism is mythical and not scientific when at the same time have no proven with accepting the virgin birth theory i.e that a 'spirit' pregnated Mary. So a spirit creating a virgin birth is science and not mythical, while creationism or a literal Adam is?
I don't get the theistic evolutionists logic or reasoning. If they reject creationism or a literal adam, surely then they should reject all the so called supernatural/miracle elements in the New testament as well?
Why do theistic evolutionists reject the idea of a literal adam and only believe he was a metaphor etc on the grounds creationism is mythical and not scientific when at the same time have no proven with accepting the virgin birth theory i.e that a 'spirit' pregnated Mary. So a spirit creating a virgin birth is science and not mythical, while creationism or a literal Adam is?
I don't get the theistic evolutionists logic or reasoning. If they reject creationism or a literal adam, surely then they should reject all the so called supernatural/miracle elements in the New testament as well?
Upvote
0
Okay.
1) Not all TEs reject a literal Adam.
2) The creation of the world only 6-10 thousand years ago would leave certain signs all over the world that we could observe now. A few jars of water turning into wine, or one herd of pigs being drowned, or 42 children mauled by a bear, etc, would not leave impacts and fingerprints all over creation for all time. The cosmos only being 6000 years old would.
Number 2 is the huge difference. Not all miracles have the same impacts or ramifications. Spiritual impacts and ramifications cannot be scientifically tested (redemption by Jesus' death on the cross) while physical ones (age of the universe) can be.
That is the difference, and generally the reason.
Metherion
1) Not all TEs reject a literal Adam.
2) The creation of the world only 6-10 thousand years ago would leave certain signs all over the world that we could observe now. A few jars of water turning into wine, or one herd of pigs being drowned, or 42 children mauled by a bear, etc, would not leave impacts and fingerprints all over creation for all time. The cosmos only being 6000 years old would.
Number 2 is the huge difference. Not all miracles have the same impacts or ramifications. Spiritual impacts and ramifications cannot be scientifically tested (redemption by Jesus' death on the cross) while physical ones (age of the universe) can be.
That is the difference, and generally the reason.
Metherion
Upvote
0
Research2 wrote:
As metherion pointed out, many theistic evolution supporters don't reject the idea of a literal Adam.
One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.
Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – including a line of “God divinely creating a soul” in one. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well.
Again as Metherion pointed out (his good description in #2), it's not just a vague "not scientific" reason, but rather is due to the evidence. The evidence shows that the best interpretation is symbolic in the case of Genesis, but not in the case of Luke.
I'll give you a clear example. Exodus states that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on eagles wings (like Bilbo Baggins). That's what the literal text says. It seems clear in looking at all the information we can get, that this is a metaphor, and not literally true. Do you agree with that assessment, or in the case of Exodus, do you claim that the Jews were flown out on eagle's wings? Looking at that may help in seeing how TE's see parts of Genesis.
Have a nice day-
Papias
As metherion pointed out, many theistic evolution supporters don't reject the idea of a literal Adam.
One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.
Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – including a line of “God divinely creating a soul” in one. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well.
Again as Metherion pointed out (his good description in #2), it's not just a vague "not scientific" reason, but rather is due to the evidence. The evidence shows that the best interpretation is symbolic in the case of Genesis, but not in the case of Luke.
I'll give you a clear example. Exodus states that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on eagles wings (like Bilbo Baggins). That's what the literal text says. It seems clear in looking at all the information we can get, that this is a metaphor, and not literally true. Do you agree with that assessment, or in the case of Exodus, do you claim that the Jews were flown out on eagle's wings? Looking at that may help in seeing how TE's see parts of Genesis.
Have a nice day-
Papias
Upvote
0
J
Jazer
Guest
Science tells us that we all have a common ancestor. The Hebrews are no exception. The Bible shows all the geneology from Adam to Abraham and they are both common ancestors for the Hebrew and the Arab people. The only difference was the Hebrews have Sarah for a mother and the Arabs have the Egyptian Hagar for the female most recent common ancestor. Science is not real clear on what the contribution was of the Hebrews to farming and food production. Although the transition of man from food gatherer to food producer is a subject of scientific study. Farming seems to have begun in the Middle East and spread to Europe from there. At least that is what most of the evidence points to.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
J
Jazer
Guest
The world we live in is only 10,000 years old. Most likely due to climate change. "The Pleistocene to Holocene extinction between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago has been recognized by scientists as "the sixth great extinction." Mammals, which had been blossoming for 60 million years, retreated for the first time because of this catastrophic extinction." World means age, there is a beginning and a end, when one age ends, another one begins. The world or age we live in began 13,000 years ago, just as the Bible says. "All human written history and urban living has occurred within the Holocene. The word anthropocene is also used for the time period from when humans have had a significant impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems to the present."
Upvote
0
I can no longer post in this section, so i'll just post this to say that this thread should be locked or that you can continue the discussion but i can no longer reply here. I have been confined to the unorthodox theology section by a mod.
Upvote
0
philadiddle
Drumming circles around you
So does this mean we can expect to see Research3 come around here soon?
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Quite right too, white supremacy theology has no place in Christianity.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
