The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

samwise gamgee

Active Member
Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
127
62
83
Kansas
Visit site
✟55,190.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Evolutionary theory doesn't rule out a literal Adam and Eve, but you might want to consider that the Bible has two contradictory genealogies for Jesus, if you assume that they are meant to be literal.
Everyone has two genealogies because everyone has two parents. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph who was the legal father of Jesus even though he wasn't the biological father. It was through him that Jesus inherited the right to be king of the Jews. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.

The genealogies of Jesus
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Everyone has two genealogies because everyone has two parents. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph who was the legal father of Jesus even though he wasn't the biological father. It was through him that Jesus inherited the right to be king of the Jews. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.

No, that won't work, either. We have two contradictory genealogies through Joseph. Both purport to be genealogies for Joseph; neither is for Mary. And they don't even agree on the father of Joseph. Saying one is a legal fiction won't change the fact that they are mutually contradictory.
 
Upvote 0

samwise gamgee

Active Member
Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
127
62
83
Kansas
Visit site
✟55,190.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
No, that won't work, either. We have two contradictory genealogies through Joseph. Both purport to be genealogies for Joseph; neither is for Mary. And they don't even agree on the father of Joseph. Saying one is a legal fiction won't change the fact that they are mutually contradictory.
Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. Luke tells the story of the birth of Jesus from Mary's point of view, telling how Gabriel told her she would have a child, and omitting any details of how Joseph felt about the situation. It makes sense that he would give us Mary's genealogy rather than Joseph's.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. Luke tells the story of the birth of Jesus from Mary's point of view, telling how Gabriel told her she would have a child, and omitting any details of how Joseph felt about the situation. It makes sense that he would give us Mary's genealogy rather than Joseph's.

Nope. Both purport to be for Jesus through Joseph. Both can't be iiteral genealogies.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, that won't work, either. We have two contradictory genealogies through Joseph. Both purport to be genealogies for Joseph; neither is for Mary. And they don't even agree on the father of Joseph. Saying one is a legal fiction won't change the fact that they are mutually contradictory.

You should learn Jewish ways of doing genealogy and look more closely at the Scriptures!

Lukes gospel shows Mary's lineage. Joseph was the supposed father here.

Matthew lists Josephs lineage actually. A little research bears this out!
 
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I will however say that to reject a literal Adam and Eve is very unbiblical because Gods Word states through genelogys that Jesus is a literal decendent of Adam.

Not unbiblical if Jesus referred to 'Adam' using the meaning of Adam's actual name, which is 'mankind' or even human-kind. The Hebrew name is clearly intended to metaphorically make the character representative of all mankind, (both male and female), since female was created, according to the legend, from 'half of Adam', the same Hebrew word translated 'rib' in Genesis, is translated as 'side' when used to describe the Ark of the Covenant. The ark of the covenant had no ribs, so what were the translators thinking of there then?

Legends still work as examples, even if the characters are legendary. In fact they work even better if they are legendary than if they were merely 'historical'.

Jesus Christ was certainly descended from 'mankind' just as we all surely are. By referring to Adam as a character it is not essential for Christ to have believed Adam to have been an actual person, though he may well have, (most people did in 1st century Palestine). It would have been quite feasible for Jesus to have referred to Romeo and Juliet as an illustrative example of lovers, had Shakespeare written about them 600 years BC. It would not necessarily follow that Jesus believed they actually existed as persons, or that the fact that they were not would preclude the use of them as legendary characters, as an example in his preaching, to make a point. I believe that is what he was doing when he referred to Adam and Eve in connection with marriage in his dispute with the Pharisees. He was almost certainly not trying to establish without doubt the historicity of Adam as an individual human being. He was just refuting the error of the Pharisees concerning the sanctity of marriage in terms they could easily understand.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Every person has 2 parents. They’ve got 4 grandparents and 8 great great grands . Each generation back doubles the ancestors. If you go back 40 generations or have 2^40 ( 2 to the 40th power)ancestors then everyone now alive shares a common ancestry because that’s more humans than have ever lived. If a generation is about 25 years then that’s about a 1000 years ago
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Every person has 2 parents. They’ve got 4 grandparents and 8 great great grands . Each generation back doubles the ancestors. If you go back 40 generations or have 2^40 ( 2 to the 40th power)ancestors then everyone now alive shares a common ancestry because that’s more humans than have ever lived. If a generation is about 25 years then that’s about a 1000 years ago

Almost everyone who lived 10,000 years ago, has no descendants living today. Only a few lucky ones, especially those males who fathered a lot of children by a lot of different women, have their line continue.

The odds of having fertile descendants that manage to reproduce over every single generation are pretty small, unless you leave a lot of descendants, or your family is extraordinarily wealthy and/or powerful.
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
YEC and fundamentalist. Furthermore, I think evolution is the work of Satan and the Antibible because everything of evolution contradicts what God described in the Bible. Everything is contradictory. Some of this are:

GOD >>>>> SATAN
Said it first in the Bible over 1500 years (can not change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years (hypothesis and theories can change)
Universe >>>>> Multiverse
Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temperature and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
Created birds 4th day; dinosaurs 5th day >>>>> birds evolved from dinosaurs
Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Things happen through dark energy, dark matter
Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)

Even the end of the world
Jesus' wrath >>>>> Large asteroid or AGW

I think it shows the rebellious nature of Satan.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Every person has 2 parents. They’ve got 4 grandparents and 8 great great grands . Each generation back doubles the ancestors. If you go back 40 generations or have 2^40 ( 2 to the 40th power)ancestors then everyone now alive shares a common ancestry because that’s more humans than have ever lived. If a generation is about 25 years then that’s about a 1000 years ago

Ok so that's 1 trillion 99 billion and some change in 40 gen.
10K / 25 years per gen is 400 generations to get to 10,000 years.

What if each generation is 40 years? so that's 250 generations.
What if each generation before the flood is about 400 years as the ages for having children. And then tapers down to 40 years over the next 400 years?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Almost everyone who lived 10,000 years ago, has no descendants living today. Only a few lucky ones, especially those males who fathered a lot of children by a lot of different women, have their line continue.

The "one lucky line" for mitochondrial "Eve"
and the "one lucky line" for y-Chromosome Adam

Is the story one needs to "believe" to believe in Evolutionism.

or else - the Bible is true. and all came from the line of Noah where Noah came from the Line of Adam
 
Upvote 0

Livingstones2020

Biblical Creationist
Dec 25, 2019
55
73
37
Lancaster, PA
Visit site
✟19,581.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
I am #3. I am a Biblical Young Earth Creationist that believes that Genesis 1 - 11 are literal. I believe that the Earth and universe was here for only around 6,000 years ago and that there was a Global flood and a literal tower of Babel.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The "one lucky line" for mitochondrial "Eve"
and the "one lucky line" for y-Chromosome Adam

You still don't get it. In the long run, very few humans leave descendants.
All Europeans are related if you go back just 1,000 years, scientists say

Is the story one needs to "believe" to believe in Evolutionism.

Hard to say. "Evolutionism" is your invention. But one only needs to look at gene pools changing today, to observe evolution.

If the Bible is true, then humans have been around for a very, very long time.
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is all I want to TE's to admit. I do not think that a TE who shares the above veiw is lacking in faith. They have enough faith to beleive that God could do it the YEC way but for certain reasons think the TE way is more likely. It is when TE's totally rule out YEC when I get a little annoyed with them.

I will say admit that. God would have to hide that he did it that way, but if one is ok with that God can do anything he wants.

Now, I wonder if you will admit that if God wants to control evolution he can in a way I outlline here.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The important thing to remember is that this issue has nothing to do with one's salvation. God does not care how you think living things came to be.

And far as I know, no major denomination has ruled out special creation as a doctrinal matter.

And any Christian who suggests that creationists are somehow not fully Christian, is making the same mistake we sometimes attribute to creationists.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
YEC and fundamentalist. Furthermore, I think evolution is the work of Satan and the Antibible because everything of evolution contradicts what God described in the Bible. Everything is contradictory.

As Barbarian says, the only requirement for salvation is belief in Jesus who paid the penalty for our sin and who died and rose again. The above seems to get close to saying that those of us who believe in evolution are followers of Satan. I hope that is not what you are suggesting. I think God made the plan of salvation simple because He knew we didn't have much of an attention span!. lol
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Now, I wonder if you will admit that if God wants to control evolution he can in a way I outlline here.

From your blog:
I think the reader gets the idea of how I believe God controlled evolution, indeed, made it totally deterministic via random mutations, otherwise known as a random walk. This view makes God a real player in evolution and not a useless mantra we give lip service to every four pages in our book.

In the above way, God can control what happens in random evolution and ensure that eventually we would evolve. It is design, but not of the kind the ID movement prefers. .

I see your reasoning, and it makes sense. This is why, I think, that we see the same functional "kinds" throughout Earth's history, although they may be of very different descent. Predators, grazers, fliers, and so on are always there, even though they can be reptilian, mammalian, or avian. Living things are constrained by the available ways of making a living. And history constrains new evolution; it would be great to have an extra pair of arms and hands. There's no reason that we couldn't evolve them, except that there are no transitional stages that would not be harmful to us. This is an example of the limited freedom illustrated by your cave. The point is demonstrably right.


But I believe it's deeper than that. St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

"The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency." - Summa Theologiae

If God is omnipotent, then He is not limited by random events.
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree Barbarian. God can do whatever he wants, which is why I agreed with JamesBond that if God wanted to do it that way, he could. I can think of several ways it could happen But in my time as a YEC, and my dealings with YECS, I think have taught me, giving them a means by which God actually sets the outcome is important. Here is what they think about randomness--and I think it makes their God impotent, but it is what they think:

"Sproul also warns that 'if chance exists in any size, shape or form, God cannot exist. The two are mutually exclusive. If chance existed, it would destroy God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God, he simply is not. If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance is not.' Hank Hanegraaff, The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, (Nashville: Word Publishing co., 1998), p. 61

"If chance exists in its frailest possible form, God is finished. Nay, he could not be finished because that would assume he once was. To finish something implies that it at best was once active or existing. If chance exists in any size, shape or form, God cannot exist. The two re mutually exclusive."
"If chance existed, it would destroy God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God, he simply is not.
" R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 3

I look at that 'cave' system and think that if human mathematicians can figure a way to control chance, and turn it into determinism, Are YECs saying that humans are better and more powerful than God? I would think that is a logical conclusion of their position.

YECs have rarely heard of Sierpinski's gasket, which combines random choices with a deterministic output. Here are the rules of this object

Sierpinski rules.png

Here is a bit more explanation, or an alternative explanation:


Sierpinski explanation.png





Again, no matter what the path the moving dot takes, no matter how it changes its starting point, this object will always, deterministically arise from the randomness governed by the rules in the first picture. Randomness and determinism together in one object. Statement's like Sproul bother me, as they do you Barbarian, They make God subservient to nature.

sier.gif
 

Attachments

  • Sierpinski explanation.png
    Sierpinski explanation.png
    59.3 KB · Views: 4
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Gbob, are you familiar with Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" idea? It allows one to use science by viewing ancient phenomena as a "virtual history"; a sort of narrative that is underlaid by a real history of a 6,000 year old Earth.

Your example of Serpienski's Gasket reminds me of Feigenbaum's Constants, in which he demonstrated that chaotic systems actually have order.
Feigenbaum constants - Wikipedia

It's clear that "random" and "contingent" are slippery ideas, of which no one has complete undestanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Gbob, are you familiar with Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" idea? It allows one to use science by viewing ancient phenomena as a "virtual history"; a sort of narrative that is underlaid by a real history of a 6,000 year old Earth.

Your example of Serpienski's Gasket reminds me of Feigenbaum's Constants, in which he demonstrated that chaotic systems actually have order.
Feigenbaum constants - Wikipedia

It's clear that "random" and "contingent" are slippery ideas, of which no one has complete undestanding.

I got out of this area back around 2010, and I had been losing interest for a while. I must have missed the virtual history, idea. Wow, I just looked it up. It looks like he has placed all of science in the role the Silmarillion plays in the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings story. It is untrue background. It is the ultimate creation with the appearance of age. One can ignore any data whatsoever with such a view.

I wonder if Feigenbaum/Sierpinski and other random/deterministic chaotic mathematical objects are virtual mathematics.

Agreed. We can't understand these mathematical objects, all we can do is get a glimpse of some philosophical truth My son programs AI stuff and he noted what others do, once we get the neural net fixed up and trained, we really don't understand its decisions. We know each step, but we can't grasp the whole, especially when it spits out a surprising answer. This is a problem in all random/deterministic situations as well.
 
Upvote 0