Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[TLK Valentine]

Why? Humans sinning had nothing to do with human origin, technically speaking.

Indeed. Theologically speaking, "sin" is nothing more than disobedience to God. The fact that we have free will means that we, at any time, have the capacity to disobey God's wishes, and thus, sin.

If Adam and Eve is true, then all it accounts for is the first instance of someone using free will for that purpose. If not, than so long as we sin and disobey God, does it really matter who did it first?

 

[-57]

The Bible is the Word of God? Think carefully before you answer...

I have. The bible is the Word of God. Got a problem with that?

 

[-57]

Why? Humans sinning had nothing to do with human origin, technically speaking.

Sure it does. Were you created (evolved) to sin like the Theo-Evo group suggest....or were Adam and Eve created with the ability to not sin.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure it does. Were you created (evolved) to sin like the Theo-Evo group suggest....or were Adam and Eve created with the ability to not sin.

The concept of sin is not an evolutionary issue. Behavior has a high environmental component, which is to say, it is learned, not inherent. Most of human behavior only has a slight genetic influence. And that goes for "good" and "bad" behaviors.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have. The bible is the Word of God. Got a problem with that?

Well, it makes John 1:1 more or less nonsensical... for people who are concerned about such things:

"In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God."

 

[Neogaia777]

The concept of sin is not an evolutionary issue. Behavior has a high environmental component, which is to say, it is learned, not inherent. Most of human behavior only has a slight genetic influence. And that goes for "good" and "bad" behaviors.

Then that would mean some child raised in a good, normal, loving, caring environment wouldn't be sociopaths and mass murderers, I find that the people who had it worse turn out better in the end than someone who didn't

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, it makes John 1:1 more or less nonsensical... for people who are concerned about such things:

"In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God."

Except that the word "word" is being used in different senses. John is borrowing an idea from Greek philosophy, to try and make the idea of Jesus's cosmic significance comprehensible to his gentile readers.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except that the word "word" is being used in different senses. John is borrowing an idea from Greek philosophy, to try and make the idea of Jesus's cosmic significance comprehensible to his gentile readers.

Which is why John's Gospel says "Word" instead of "word."

Meaning we should be calling the Bible the "word" of God, instead of the "Word" of God...

 

[lesliedellow]

Which is why John's Gospel says "Word" instead of "word."

Meaning we should be calling the Bible the "word" of God, instead of the "Word" of God...

Not if you want to stick with English grammar. As a synonym for the Bible, "Word of God" is a proper noun.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not if you want to stick with English grammar. As a synonym for the Bible, "Word of God" is a proper noun.

Fair enough.

 

[-57]

Well, it makes John 1:1 more or less nonsensical... for people who are concerned about such things:

"In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God."

When one reads John 1:1 that way and does what you have done it shows they don't understand the meanings of the word of God and the Word of God.

 

[Loudmouth]

No the ape IS the "kind" classification. Chimpanzee is a species.

So let's test your kind definition. If chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are in a separate ape kind that is separate from humans then an ape species should not share more DNA with humans than they do with other ape species.

When we compare the human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan genomes, this is the phylogeny we get:

As it turns out, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with either gorillas or orangutans. Therefore, humans are in the ape kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Understanding evolutionism...a faith in itself...

We have evidence. No need for faith.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

undermines the reason why Jesus came as a Savior.
You say, no Adam. No Eve. No garden. No deception. No fall.

You say sin and death was not caused by one man.

You say man was not formed from the dust (1st Cor 15:47)....why do you filter your bible through science?
Don't you know science says when you are dead...you stay dead on day 3.

This is what undermines Christianity.

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

As you have clearly indicated above, there is no need to compromise one's trust in God's word in order to try to make it compatible with the evolution myth and its associated cruelties (survival of the fittest being just one).

There is no need to one's trust by making the Bible compatible with a round Earth or Heliocentrism, either.

Articles such as this provide excellent information to show why one does not have to pick and choose which sections of the Holy Bible to believe and which to discard.

What you are discarding is the entire Creation itself.

 

[-57]

We have evidence. No need for faith.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/



This is what undermines Christianity.

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

With all due respect ...what I present pre-dates the religions of evolutionism by millenia.

 

[-57]

So let's test your kind definition. If chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are in a separate ape kind that is separate from humans then an ape species should not share more DNA with humans than they do with other ape species.

When we compare the human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan genomes, this is the phylogeny we get:

As it turns out, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with either gorillas or orangutans. Therefore, humans are in the ape kind.

Why do you still fail to realize DNA is shared because of a COMMON DESIGNER.

 

[lasthero]

Why do you still fail to realize DNA is shared because of a COMMON DESIGNER.

Why does a common designer require DNA to be shared?

 

[lesliedellow]

Adam and Eve had literal children

Who, in the case of Cain, managed to find a wife who magically appeared out of nowhere (Gen 4.17). After all, there were supposedly only three people alive on Earth at the time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

When one reads John 1:1 that way and does what you have done it shows they don't understand the meanings of the word of God and the Word of God.

My point exactly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why do you still fail to realize DNA is shared because of a COMMON DESIGNER.

Does that DESIGNER make mistakes?