Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

The Barbarian said:

Or a few common ancestors for different kinds of living things. He didn't know which. It wasn't until we understood genetics and DNA that it became clear that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

This is definitely the prevailing dogma. Scripture contradicts it outright.

The Barbarian said:

That isn't what the Bible presents. It doesn't say one way or the other. The difference is, that the Bible presents one story, and YE creationism presents an imaginative revision of the Bible....

Click to expand...

How so? I ask because even old earth creationists admit that the straightforward young earth interpretation has merit, they just struggle with the scientific aspect and therefore seek to other interpretations. But you claim it's a revision of the clear message which is not 6 day young earth (Ex. 20:11). How do you get there?

DamianWarS said:

Do you recall an event in your family history passed orally and not written that happened 1000 years ago, how about 3500 years ago? The accounts passed on from generation to generation is how the Hebrews kept history.....

Click to expand...

I don't even think people on your side of the debate believe this anymore. Where did you get this idea from? Are you familiar with discoveries of writings at the turn of the 20th century?

DamianWarS said:

the Hebrews were a nomadic oral people.

Click to expand...

Actually, no they weren't. We know now, due to discoveries and internal evidence in the book of Genesis this was a mistake made by intellectuals who did not have access to the discoveries we have now. It was widely believe a hundred years ago writing didn't evolve until hundreds of years after Moses lived. Now we know it was extant prior to Moses and even Abraham.

If you disagree, please present your evidence. I've cited some articles, but I can certainly explain further.

Calminian said:

This in incorrect. The Firmament or Expanse is the thing that is named Heaven.

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.​

That's very straightforward. Heaven is not a dome, it's a spacious realm. We have hundreds of references to it in the OT. The rayqia is one of the few things God named so that we'd never be confused about what it is. It is, indeed, the heavens. This article will be helpful for this topic: Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology?



You've haven't researched this enough. "Plants of the field" is a reference to gardens and crops in the Bible. Plants existed before man (created day 3), but gardens didn't until until day 6 when God made the first garden for man.

This article will clear this up for you quite thoroughly. Plant Creation Contradiction in Genesis? Plants of the field is a term used often throughout the OT. It's a clear reference to cultivated plants which required a man to cultivate them. That's why the Genesis account says,

Gen. 2:5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For .....there was no man to till the ground;​

Wild plants do not require a man to till the ground. Thus this cannot be a reference to plants in general. It's crystal clear if you're willing to look into it. The article above will answer any doubts you might have. Tim Keller peddles this argument, but it's easily dismantled, if you're willing to look at the textual evidence.

Click to expand...

Tosh.

Calminian said:

And this really is the issue, and the crisis the Church faces today. We tell our kids to trust Scripture while simultaneously tacitly admitting to them we really don't believe the beginning of the story and make all kinds of excuses for it. It's no wonder 4 out of 5 are not seeing the point, and leaving the church.

Click to expand...

They are not coming to church because of the lame brained idiots who have turned Genesis into a fairy story and insist it is history. Then do fake intellectual sumersaults to convince everyone that they know what they are talking about. Few people want to be associated with such morons.

Meanwhile the deep insights into human psychology woven into the Genesis narrative by its authors and editors go completely ignored by the retards who take it as literal history in the face of all reason.

ExTiff said:

They are not coming to church because of the lame brained idiots who have turned Genesis into a fairy story and insist it is history. Then do fake intellectual sumersaults to convince everyone that they know what they are talking about. Few people want to be associated with such morons.

Meanwhile the deep insights into human psychology woven into the Genesis narrative by its authors and editors go completely ignored by the retards who take it as literal history in the face of all reason.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm one of the "retards" you disdain, then. I take the Genesis narratives as literal as the Gospel narratives. I've taught it to many kids, ages 12-17. They absolutely eat it up. That's my experience, anyway.

Calminian said:

They weren't, but science really isn't the issue. The issue is history and whether or not Genesis is accurate history and did the writer intend to covey accurate history? Every implication, from the book itself, to the rest of the Old and New Testaments is that it indeed was and the author did.

Click to expand...

If you know about the Mesopotamian literature of that time, you know that technical historical record, biology or chemistry was the last thing that was interesting to those people.

They were interested in mythology, purpose, priesthood, God/gods involvement in everything.

Therefore, its clear that Genesis is not meant to be read scientifically.

Calminian said:

I guess I'm one of the "retards" you disdain, then. I take the Genesis narratives as literal as the Gospel narratives. I've taught it to many kids, ages 12-17. They absolutely eat it up. That's my experience, anyway.

Click to expand...

James 3:1-2.

When you have taught them, what do they then know?
(1) A short time ago, (6000 years or so, but this is not in the text and is your own idea), God made a man called Adam from mud.
(2) God performed an operation on Adam while he was asleep, in order to make him a wife, Eve.
(3) Eve was conned into eating fruit from a tree her husband was told not to eat of by God.
(4) Eve then gave some of the fruit to Adam who also ate some of it, this resulted in death coming into the world.

All very good, as far as it goes, but how much useful information have they actually obtained from all this which will give them insight into their own psychological/spiritual makeup as human beings and their relationship to their creator and The Christ of God, their savior?

Giving them 'historical facts' which may be neither 'facts', nor 'history', but metaphor and parable describing the undescribable, enlightening through mythic narrative and story, you have rendered the text of little value and of little use to them in how they are to live effectively for God, except to have given them some possibly false historical data of no use to them other than to satify their curiosity as to where they think mankind came from, and what went wrong, (in your estimation), a mere 6000 years or so ago.

What you are doing is equivalent to teaching that Aesops fables or The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are both 'historically accurate and factual' and ignoring the message behind both forms of alegorical narratives. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe was a great story, but Lions, witches and wardrobes were not what it was ABOUT. Aesops fables are not written in order to convince us that animals can talk. They are to give us alegorical insight into human nature.

By rendering Genesis down to merely and only a strictly historical literary category, you have stripped it of most of its real meaning and taught them nothing but how not to read and understand biblical parables and metaphores. Worse still you have taught them that they are forbidden by God to use their own powers of reasoning and must meekly accept whatever they are told by the literal interpreters of a Holy Book. You have made of yourselves a priesthood who decide who and who does not meet your criteria for the salvation God has won for us.
.

Calminian said:

Actually, no they weren't. We know now, due to discoveries and internal evidence in the book of Genesis this was a mistake made by intellectuals who did not have access to the discoveries we have now. It was widely believe a hundred years ago writing didn't evolve until hundreds of years after Moses lived. Now we know it was extant prior to Moses and even Abraham.

If you disagree, please present your evidence. I've cited some articles, but I can certainly explain further.

Click to expand...

You mistake what I am saying. I'm not saying they couldn't read and write or that reading or writing wasn't around, I'm saying they valued passing information through oral accounts not written accounts.

dad said:

If light was on one side of the earth at a time, then one side would be light. Whether God Himself, who is light was that light in the days before the sun was created or not doesn't matter. He provided/created light. That light from God that He created made day and night on earth and morning and evening. Do you get that much?

1Jo 1:5 - This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Click to expand...

It does matter, just based on the type of arguments you have presented.

I don't understand why you are forcing your made answer of God's "hovering" causing light, even going to the point of quoting 1Jo 1:5 which you should have been smart enough to use common sense to know that is a metaphor especially given the context of the chapter and how it's on the topic of spirituality than natural science. Unless you are now going to tell me God is composed of Photons, then quoting that verse for your case is completely laughable.

You clearly don't understand don't understand the point of what I am asking. I'm asking about the "1st day". As Genesis states there was a "First day" after the morning and evening was established, however how can there be an actual "first-day" at the same exact day for the entire world, given it's a sphere and when one side is experiencing morning - the other is experiencing night?

The Barbarian said:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1879

Click to expand...

To bad that Darwin, supposedly a Christian, thought out loud and put it to paper.. Since then it his musings have lead to one of the biggest anti God, anti biblical views and a strong foot hold for atheists to stumble on....

Darwin was one of the biggest "stumbling blocks" in the history of this world, to those unbelievers who are searching for truth.. Of course Satan took the ball and ran with it.

dad said:

He was here and moving/hovering, that we know. Now if you suggest He was incapable of lighting His work area while creating, you are not talking about the God of Scripture! We know He was hovering at the scene. We know He lights New Jerusalem, so could also light the areas of the earth as needed in creation week. You have no verse that says there was no days before the sun existed! On the contrary there absolutely were days and mornings and evening before the sun. You have no case at all.

Click to expand...

But there is still nothing in that verse that states that he was omitting light. So your guessed out answer and scriptural inventing is invalid (not to mention completely irrelevant to my point).

Also, i do have a verse in where there was no "days before the sun existed". Gen 1:5 states it. "Morning and Night" and the "1st day" was established after the light and darkness was separated.

How will there be morning in New Jerusalem?

Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. For all we know, this "New Jerusalem" could be a new Earth with a New Sun and this is a ridiculous answer for you to use.

Except there were mornings and evenings before the sun was created. Try to focus.

Click to expand...

Where does it say this?

Not sure Genesis is supposed to be about shapes of planets?? But hey, for the confused, simply look out in space to see the general shape of the sun and planets and moon! You thought it was some mystery to the smarter than you ancients?? Really?

Click to expand...

Looks like you are slowly admitting that the Bible isn't meant to be a science book and should not be used as a source for scientific facts.

I doubt the moving of God is what caused the light. God Himself was likely the light, and since He was moving, we had the light moving too.

Click to expand...

I don't care about your assumptions. Unless you can show me in Geneis 1:1-2 that he is causing light, then you are simply just making this up.

The first day was the first day, regardless of whether the sun existed or moon or what side of the earth God hovered..etc! The day is an amount of time by the way. In that time there are the morning and the evening. The day is not what the sun does. After the sun was created, and it fit into what days were all about, and marked the time for us, then it had a part to play in a day! Take away the sun...there is still a day!

Click to expand...

*Face palm.. some people here honestly make me feel embarrassed to be associated with Christianity. You seriously take in no importance to facts, reason, or being intelligent. I will surely use your posts as an example in the other boards in where other faiths can talk, just so others can see how many christians here are anti-intellectuals.

myst33 said:

And Genesis cannot substitute science, because authors of Genesis were not scientific.

Click to expand...

God is the author of Genesis. In fact He is the author of the entire canon.... Do you think that He, that created this universe and all the laws that govern it...was not a scientist? Or, infinitely more intelligent than any man?

The Barbarian said:

Or a few common ancestors for different kinds of living things. He didn't know which. It wasn't until we understood genetics and DNA that it became clear that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

Which is an erroneous conclusion. We do not have a common ancestor... we have a common designer.

DamianWarS said:

Do you recall an event in your family history passed orally and not written that happened 1000 years ago, how about 3500 years ago?

Click to expand...

As I explained... Adam knew Methuselah....who knew Shem.. who knew Abraham. That's three conversations away from the event. Not to mention it is written in the Word of God...

In my circle of friends, that would be 100 years. Do you think that things of this level of importance would be skewed so much? Especially considering that it is God's Word?

DamianWarS said:

The accounts passed on from generation to generation is how the Hebrews kept history, this is true, which is why their story starting from Abraham (300+ yrs) is going to have high accuracy and this is also why when Abraham comes into the picture there is an explosion of detail, there would also be no competing accounts to these events in surrounding cultures, because no one cared about them. However the accounts before Abraham just get older and older with many competing accounts from surrounding cultures and I would suspect their version of them post-exodus high paganized.

Click to expand...

There is your error.. It was not passed from generation to generation... like the broken telephone.... It was a couple of conversations, due to the longevity of the people.. This is a common tactic used to diminish the accuracy of the biblical account... But, it is false. The history was fresh due to the participants living so long. Not only that, but as has been indicated here already, they had books before the flood.

Sorry, this excuse is void.

Calminian said:

They weren't, but science really isn't the issue. The issue is history and whether or not Genesis is accurate history and did the writer intend to covey accurate history? Every implication, from the book itself, to the rest of the Old and New Testaments is that it indeed was and the author did.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but much of the bible was written by God's own finger, in stone. Not just the 10 commandments:
Deuteronomy 9:9-11 King James Version (KJV)

9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:


10 And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

11 And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.

JacksBratt said:

Which is an erroneous conclusion. We do not have a common ancestor... we have a common designer.

Click to expand...

It comes down to evidence. You lose. The "space alien designer" is just another golden calf, erected by those for whom an omnipotent Creator is too big and capable for them to accept Him.