Is there a denomination that accepts theistic evolution/old earth?

[Neogaia777]

let's look for the text that says Cain took a wife from a far off country.

Gen 4: 16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. "

The text does not say "knew his wife that he found in a far off country" in fact nothing in the text says that Cain was not already married at the time he killed Able.

why insert those fancies into the text and leave it as an exercise for the reader to undo your own "insert"? How is that reasoning logical?

Cain was more than likely banished to the "land of fugitiveness" by himself, if God would have sent him away with anyone, I think it would mention that, don't you...? It does not say "Cain and his wife (or his "theoretical" sister)", or "Cain and his family", just Cain... and that He "knew his wife" is just an OT way of saying he had sex with his wife and had a son...

More than likely he took his wife from that land that none of the "theoretical, supposed other", or "theoretical other supposed brothers and sisters", that the Bible makes absolutely no mention of, etc, except Seth and his (their) children long after that, or after Seth, and definitely after Cain and Able, and Able was banished, etc... Anyway, none of them, even if Cain had had them (brothers and sisters) even before he was banished, would have even been in or gone to that land (yet) with Him, or would have been in that land at that time (yet) with him (Cain), etc...

So, He (Cain) was more than likely banished alone, and before he had any other brothers or sisters, let alone that went with him, etc, meaning he more then likely took or got his wife from "where now again"...? Or from who's "stock" or who's children again...? If it was not one of his siblings that was banished with him again...? Again, etc...?

We don't know for sure, but it does allow for the possibility of another race possibly...?

And that's all I'm saying...

The Bible does not mention that he had any other brothers or sisters before he was banished, let alone that went with him, etc... It only does mention Adam and Eve having other children after Seth, but that was before Cain and Able and before Cain was banished or sent away, etc... But makes no mention of any "before that", so...?

It's just a "possibility" is all I'm saying...

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Cain was more than likely banished to the "land of fugitiveness" by himself, if God would have sent him away with anyone, I think it would mention that, don't you...?

1. I think it did when it mentions his wife having a child by him after he left.
2. The text says nothing at all about the "land of forgetfulness".
3. The Bible says that Adam had other children but does not give the order in which they were born other than the fact that Cain, Able were first and after the death of Able Seth was the first son.

 

[Neogaia777]

1. I think it did when it mentions his wife having a child by him after he left.
2. The text says nothing at all about the "land of forgetfulness".
3. The Bible says that Adam had other children but does not give the order in which they were born other than the fact that Cain, Able were first and after the death of Able Seth was the first son.

1. The Bible makes no mention of Adam and Eve having any other children during the time of Cain and Abel, it only does after that, and after Seth, and after Cain was already banished or gone...

2. The land of Nod, is the land of the fugitives, or fugitiveness...

3. Correct, "after" the death of Abel, and "after" Cain was already sent away, and only "after that" did Adam and Eve have "other children", not before (more than likely) (or at least the Bible does not say or does not mention if they did, or that they did "before that" anyway) (and I think it would as it does mention it "afterwards", etc)...

Anyway, just something to consider, OK...?

God Bless!

 

[JohnAshton]

By contrast the rest of us believe in the literal virgin birth, the literal resurrection of Christ, the literal ascension of Christ into heaven, a literal second coming of Christ and the literal creation as God states it in Genesis. (Without also having to drag in the book of Mormon)

To each his own.

Au contraire, you speak for yourself only, Bob, not "the rest of us." The Bible and BoM are the words of God until they are not.

 

[Albion]

Au contraire, you speak for yourself only, Bob, not "the rest of us." The Bible and BoM are the words of God until they are not.

I'd be interested to know how many of "the rest of us" believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, as you suggested.

 

[JohnAshton]

The discussion is about theistic evolution, the which some have xfrd into a discussion of scriptural literalism.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But we have eyewitnesses of what is left from that process, right?

In the same way that the eye witness saw the dead body of a murdered man, but because they didn't witness the actual murder, they have no idea of how or why it happened.

 

[solid_core]

In the same way that the eye witness saw the dead body of a murdered man, but because they didn't witness the actual murder, they have no idea of how or why it happened.

And thats not true. There is a whole science called criminology that can very precisely recognize how, when and why some man died.

You do not have to be an eye witness to some event to be sure about it or to have a good probability. Thats, practically, also the basic teaching of Christianity.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And thats not true. There is a whole science called criminology that can very precisely recognize how, when and why some man died.

You do not have to be an eye witness to some event to be sure about it or to have a good probability. Thats, practically, also the basic teaching of Christianity.

One day we will know the truth about creation. We will be witnesses to the great White Throne Judgment when the unconverted will stand before Christ and be judged. We won't be defendants in that judgment because we will already have been judged and rewarded by Christ for what we have done in our lives for him. We will see the heavens (the whole universe) and the earth (this world) disappear in a moment of time as God uncreates it. Then we will realise exactly how immensely omnipotent God really is. And along with the total disapperance of the world, all man's scientific theories will disappear into nothingness with it, because in the light of eternity, man's science is inconsequential.

 

[Neogaia777]

If He created it all in a literal six days or in a moment of time, or even 6 days or 6,000 years or whatever, then why did He do so with the appearance of it all being around a lot, lot longer than that, and appearing to be much, much older than that...?

This is what the young people have a very hard time reconciling and why they do not believe in the Bible anymore, if any of you really care about that at all that is, etc...?

And they get "no help" at all from any of you on it, etc, so they abandon it, etc, and "whose fault is that", etc...?

God Bless!

 

[His student]

The discussion is about theistic evolution, the which some have xfrd into a discussion of scriptural literalism.

I agree.

I would go even further and say that the discussion of theistic evolution is only of importance to us as it relates to human kind.

I doubt that anyone would dispute micro evolution within the animal or plant world or even that God orchestrated macro evolution of same there.

I for one could care less if people believe for instance that God personally orchestrated development of the different species of elephants or even if He brought elephants into being with some kind of God ordained macro change after His original creation of tapirs or elephant seals or some such.

Man is the only "animal" that can reason through these things or even has a reason to do so. Man is the only animal for whom sin and salvation have any importance so far as we know.

When it comes to mankind, God is very specific as to how we came about and what happened afterward concerning or fall into sin.

God even doubles down as it were in the New Testament on His statements about early man by referring us to the concept of a "first Adam" who fell and a second or last Adam who redeemed mankind from the effects of that fall.

Actually I couldn't care much less if the universe is billions of years old or if the earth is millions or billions of years old - except perhaps as it allows men to consider a change in some way of God's statements about mankind.

If I thought for a minute that people were only talking about things other than man when they refer to "theistic evolution" it likely wouldn't bring about any comments from me at all.

But, as we see here, people are not just talking about the origins of what we see in the universe, or changes in the animal kingdom. They are indeed meddling with the entire structure of truth about sin and salvation.

That's when it becomes "liberalism" in the worst sense of the word as opposed to conservatism as it means actually believing what God wrote about the fall of man and his rescue from sin.

 

[His student]

He was banished to a "far-off country", then took a wife from there,

It neither says that He was banished to a "far off country" or that he took a wife from there.

It simply says to a country that was east of Eden and that could have been just a hundred miles or less away for all we know.

It says nothing of him taking a wife "from there".

We don't know the age of the "boys" when Cain killed his brother. But assuming they were at least young men - it is quite possible that Adam and Eve had 20 or more children by then. One of the young women could well have been only a couple of years younger than Cain and could have become his wife even many years before the incident of the murder of his brother.

Of course we don't know how many years Cain might have remained single after his banishment if indeed he was single. Considering that men lived over 900 years old or so - Cain could have gone several decades before coming into contact with his family again. In that case the wife he took would be more along the lines of a distant cousin than a sister.

I'd just like you guys to consider the possibility of possibly "two races", from which eventually became interbred and intermixed possibly, and could account for the slow deterioration in the lifespans of man, etc... Just as a possibility of course... God Bless!

Not a very good possibility in light of the fall of man through the sin of Adam and the salvation of man through a last Adam.

I would point out though, for what it's worth, that the New Earth will have many nations on it (likely including ethnic differences) who bring their offerings to God in the New Jerusalem.

The glorified people from this age will apparently not be procreating on the new earth. That leaves open the likelihood that God will start over in His program of populating the earth with a new race of people coming from a new Adam and Eve as it were.

Of course they will live in a sinless state on the new earth and have access to the tree of life and live forever.

Perhaps it will be the job of us who were redeemed from this old earth to teach them about good and evil, since it isn't likely that there will be a second tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The days (and nights) in the creation account represent long, long periods of time, just accept it...

We have no good reason to "just accept it" unless we are simply trying to accommodate the idea of an old earth. There is no solid scientific reason to believe that the earth must be very very old.

 

[Neogaia777]

I neither says that He was banished to a "far off country" or that he took a wife from there.

I simply says to a country that was east of Eden and that could have been just a hundred miles or less away for all we know.

It says nothing of him taking a wife "from there".

We don't know the age of the "boys" when Cain killed his brother. But assuming they were at least young men - it is quite possible that Adam and Ever had 20 or more children by then. One of the young women could well have been only a couple of years younger than Cain and could have become his wife even before the incident of the murder of his brother.

Of course we don't know how many years Cain might have remained single after his banishment. Considering that men lived over 900 years old or so - Cain could have gone several decades before coming again into contact with his family. In that case the wife would be more along the lines of a distant cousin than a sister.

Not a very good possibility in light of the fall of man through the sin of Adam and the salvation of man through a last Adam.

I would point out thought, for what it's worth, that the new earth will have many nations (likely including ethnic differences) who bring their offerings to God in the New Jerusalem.

The glorified people from this age will apparently not be procreating on the new earth. That leaves open the likelihood that God will start over in His program of populating the earth with a new race of people coming from a new Adam and Eve as it were.

Of course they will live in a sinless state on the new earth having access to the tree of life and live forever. Perhaps it will be the job of us who were redeemed from this old earth to teach them about good and evil, since it isn't likely that there will be a second tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We have no good reason to "just accept it" unless we are simply trying to accommodate the idea of an old earth. There is no solid scientific reason to believe that the earth must be very very old.

You didn't read my following posts after that did you...? (About Cain and his wife, etc)...?

It's very clear you did not, otherwise my position would be clear...?

Anyway, this is waste of time, there is plenty of evidence that the earth is much, much older and been around a lot longer than 6,000 years...

But have your beliefs, we will just see how long they last...

Christianity will either have to change or evolve and/or grow/adapt, etc, or die, I really don't care anymore...

An since it's clear that you guys don't care either, I guess we have nothing more to say to one another, right...?

God Bless!

 

[His student]

You didn't read my following posts after that did you...? (About Cain and his wife, etc)...? It's very clear you did not, otherwise my position would be clear...?

I read every one of them before I posted. None of what you said to others changes what I said to you.

Christianity will either have to change or evolve and/or grow/adapt, etc, or die, I really don't care anymore...

Christianity will likely change, evolve, grow, and adapt etc.

In fact the scriptures tell us that that is exactly what will happen.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 2 Timothy 4:3

You can be among those like me who attempt to hold the line against that coming apostasy or you can be part of the problem as many others here seem to be.

I'm sure that what the Lord says will occur will indeed occur even with the protests of many conservative believers. But you need to know that when you post your ideas here on the internet you are teaching, as it were, and often to new believers. That is a solemn responsibility.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." James 3:1

 

[Neogaia777]

You didn't read them so, I'll just post them here I guess then.

Cain was more than likely banished to the "land of fugitiveness" by himself, if God would have sent him away with anyone, I think it would mention that, don't you...? It does not say "Cain and his wife (or his "theoretical" sister)", or "Cain and his family", just Cain... and that He "knew his wife" is just an OT way of saying he had sex with his wife and had a son...

More than likely he took his wife from that land that none of the "theoretical, supposed other", or "theoretical other supposed brothers and sisters", that the Bible makes absolutely no mention of, etc, except Seth and his (their) children long after that, or after Seth, and definitely after Cain and Abel, and Able was banished, etc... Anyway, none of them, even if Cain had had them (brothers and sisters) even before he was banished, would have even been in or gone to that land (yet) with Him, or would have been in that land at that time (yet) with him (Cain), etc...

So, He (Cain) was more than likely banished alone, and before he had any other brothers or sisters, let alone that went with him, etc, meaning he more then likely took or got his wife from "where now again"...? Or from who's "stock" or who's children again...? If it was not one of his siblings that was banished with him again...? Again, etc...?

We don't know for sure, but it does allow for the possibility of another race possibly...?

And that's all I'm saying...

The Bible does not mention that he had any other brothers or sisters before he was banished, let alone that went with him, etc... It only does mention Adam and Eve having other children after Seth, but that was before Cain and Abel and before Cain was banished or sent away, etc... But makes no mention of any "before that", so...?

It's just a "possibility" is all I'm saying...

God Bless!


@BobRyan said this to me after that:

1. I think it did when it mentions his wife having a child by him after he left.
2. The text says nothing at all about the "land of forgetfulness".
3. The Bible says that Adam had other children but does not give the order in which they were born other than the fact that Cain, Able were first and after the death of Able Seth was the first son.


Then I said:

1. The Bible makes no mention of Adam and Eve having any other children during the time of Cain and Abel, it only does after that, and after Seth, and after Cain was already banished or gone...

2. The land of Nod, is the land of the fugitives, or fugitiveness...

3. Correct, "after" the death of Abel, and "after" Cain was already sent away, and only "after that" did Adam and Eve have "other children", not before (more than likely) (or at least the Bible does not say or does not mention if they did, or that they did "before that" anyway) (and I think it would as it does mention it "afterwards", etc)...

Anyway, just something to consider, OK...?

God Bless!


But there are so many points to argue with you that I don't even know where to begin so...?

If you knew any kind of truth at all, you'd know that the earth is much older than just 6,000 years old, but "whatever" man...

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt I guess...

I also encouraged some to check out these posts as well, not that you even probably will, etc...

Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

And, your need to be right, when you are clearly wrong, just shows your arrogance (and ignorance as well) also, etc... And is very off-putting to me, etc...

It is people like you that are the problem with Christianity, and is why it will probably die, etc...

Your the one(s) being part of the problem and not part of the solution...

And the fact that your calling it "sound doctrine" is all to laughable to me...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I read every one of them before I posted. None of what you said to others changes what I said to you.

Which was "what" again, cause I just heard "blah, blah, blah, same old story you guys have been spouting and desperately trying to hold onto for a very long time, whose time has just about past and come and gone", etc, etc, etc...

But you just don't see it, etc...? Or just don't seem to care, etc, etc, etc...

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 2 Timothy 4:3

"Sound doctrine", don't make me laugh, it hurts too much OK...

You can be among those like me who attempt to hold the line against that coming apostasy or you can be part of the problem as many others here seem to be.

Cause anyone who does not believe exactly as you believe or doesn't believe in only a strictly 6,000 year old (or younger) earth is "apostate" right...?

I'm sure that what the Lord says will occur will indeed occur even with the protests of many conservative believers. But you need to know that when you post your ideas here on the internet you are teaching, as it were, and often to new believers. That is a solemn responsibility.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." James 3:1

I'm providing as much "food" as I possibly can to a generation that is dying and/or perishing for lack of food and/or nourishment or adequate sustenance, etc... What are you doing about it...?

God Bless!

 

[Jamdoc]

Because the Bible says that is not how He did it - and the Bible is the Word of God

Did the bible say how He did it? Because I'm seeing no detail into creation here.
Genesis 1:20-21
Let's break this down.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

and I'm going to place emphasis here, this is the next clause, separate action. He spoke his intent, to create life in the seas and birds in the sky. But the act of speaking is SEPARATE from this.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

DIFFERENT ACTION. It says He created, but not how. You make the ASSUMPTION that it was just through speaking with His voice. But that's not what scripture says. Scripture separates the act of speaking from the act of creating.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes - He did "make it look like it took a long time". The universe was created fully functioning and mature.

Exactly as was Adam created fully functioning and mature. I can pretty much be sure that Adam was not created as a baby without pubic hair and fully functioning organs - which is what God "must have done" according to those who think God would be "trying to fool us" if He created thing fully mature.

However - having said that - God apparently has no aversion to "fooling" those who are wise in their own eyes and choose to twist scripture to compromise with the teaching of the world rather than conforming their thinking to what God says in His Word.

"No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." 1 Corinthians 11:19

This is a test of sorts and it appears that some here are failing that test.

Of course it doesn't.

But the Bible clearly says that the first man and woman were created in a different manner - a manner that leaves no room for evolution in that creation.

God wrote Genesis in such a way that there can be no room for believing in evolution when it comes to mankind.

Frankly - if someone wants to argue about the creation of the galaxies or about the evolution of dinosaurs or kangaroos - I could care less.

But when it pertains to mankind - that's where the rubber meets the road on this subject.

You are really REALLY bent up on the word evolution because you have a prejudice against the word itself. You immediately jump to a darwinist view of things happening on their own.
Would you prefer it if I said genetic engineering? That God created things using Genetic engineering, genetically modifying organisms from one species to another? Because that's what I believe rather than magic, and rather than descent with modification happening completely on its own. I believe God used scientific principles in creation, considering He made all the natural laws the universe operates on that have no need of existing in a world created purely by supernatural means. The NEW Heaven and NEW Earth, those sound supernatural, they will no longer need natural laws. Man didn't create science, God did, and we just discover it.

 

[Jamdoc]

let's look for the text that says Cain took a wife from a far off country.

Gen 4: 16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. "

The text does not say "knew his wife that he found in a far off country" in fact nothing in the text says that Cain was not already married at the time he killed Able.

why insert those fancies into the text and leave it as an exercise for the reader to undo your own "insert"? How is that reasoning logical?

It is, like a lot of Genesis, an omission, meaning we have to fill in the blanks ourselves.
That's why I say Young Earth is an INTERPRETATION not just literal word
That's why old earth is also an INTERPRETATION
That's why even theistic evolution is an INTERPRETATION
because there are omissions where we have to fill in the blanks, and I'd rather use what we can discover and find evidence for, than just a bold assumption.

 

[Jamdoc]

The discussion is about theistic evolution, the which some have xfrd into a discussion of scriptural literalism.

really it was about denominations with doctrines that allow for anything other than Young Earth Creationism, since that's mostly what I've had to put up with from pastors (and posters here)
Old Earth, progressive creationism, and theistic evolution are all just viewpoints and interpretations that differ from young earth and are often times demonized by young earthers. Note how they react in this thread. None of the old earthers, progressive creationists, or theistic evolutionists try to condemn other posters to hell, young earthers condemn anyone that doesn't believe the same as they do.
The question has been answered which is the fact that most denominations don't have a set doctrine that enforces young earth creationism, even the baptists, it can just vary by congregation and I'd need to find a pastor who individually is accepting.
But yes, most of the discussion has been on interpretation of scripture.