A simple question

[gluadys]

I have some questions if you don't mind.

How would science know if the 2% is the survival of a past creation or if God recreated 2% of what used to exist?

Science never assumes miracles. It is a study of natural phenomena and seeks natural explanations. So every scientific conclusion has as an unstated proviso "This is how X happened, provided no miracle occurred."

What if it did but God broke it up when He recreated. Would science know if it was "strewn about"? (a bit here, a bit there so to speak)

Science looks for the regularities of nature. If God is breaking the rules of nature he himself created, science would not be able to find the regularities it needs to understand nature.

The issue here however is not whether God could hide his work from scientific investigation. Of course he could. The issue is whether he would and whether he did.

As I said, God created the regularities of nature. God made (or re-made) an ordered world. An ordered world pleases God because God loves harmony & beauty. (did you know that the meaning of cosmos is "harmony", "beauty"? That is why beautifying make-up is called "cosmetics".) An ordered world also pleases God because of its rationality. The Word of God in John's gospel is called "Logos" the Greek term from which we get "logic" and the "ology" ending on words such as biology, psychology, theology, etc. "Logos" means much more than the spoken word. It also refers to the reasoning behind the spoken word, to the rational intelligence from which the word rises. In effect "Logos" is the mind of God and the expression of God's mind. And that mind is rational, logical.

The Logos of God (Christ) created all things, and created them in accord with the mind of God which loves order, beauty, harmony. The Logos of God created us in the image of God which means we have minds that love order, beauty, harmony. So there is a sympathy between the mind of God, the mind of humans, and the mind of God expressed in the created order. Finally, Genesis tells us that we are to have dominion over the created order on earth. This would be impossible if we could not understand the created order. So we were made in the image of God so that our minds would reflect in some small measure the mind of God. This is necessary for exercising our dominion over the created order as we cannot administer what we do not understand.

There are very few instances in which God cannot achieve his purpose within the created order. And given the delicacy of ecosystems, there is very little motivation for God to upset the workings of nature if his purpose can be accomplished without doing so. It follows from the character of God that most events will have a natural explanation. Substituting miraculous action when a natural explanation is sufficient is a denial of the character of God as revealed in scripture.

 

[gluadys]

Those pasaages do not give you much wriggle room. You must assume that those passages are lies if evolution, as you know it to be, is truth.

No, these passages come from the creation myth in Genesis 2. So they are myth, not lies.

A new species of cow may eventually come from a species of cow that anteceded the new. But, that cow will not become a firefly, nor a bat.

Correct. That would be magic, not evolution. However, the cow has an ancestor from long long ago and that ancestor has other descendants which are not cows. The other descendants from the same ancestor include sheep, goats, deer, elk, moose, antelope, dolphins and whales. That is evolution.

Evolution has to face the reality that all ultra complex creatures that have eyes, livers, hearts, arteries, lungs, bowels, stomachs, bones, etc... all had to start with one common ancestor with all those traits. Then branched out in a million directions,

Correct, except for eyes. Eyes originated independently in several different lineages. All the others are features of vertebrates and did begin in a common ancestor with these traits. To outward appearance that ancestor was a worm. You can find out more about it in the link I put in my last reply to Nephilimiyr. Here is an excerpt:

One specific line of Deuterostomes is evidently very closely-related to another by virtue of two factors, both possess a single central nervous structure and even pharyngeal gill slits. However, one of these is a worm! This worm with a mouth, anus, heart and gills, (which aren't typical of any other worm) also has a sort of spinal chord almost like that of a real (fully-developed) spinal chord. The family name for these worms is Hemichordata, which means "half-chordate". Those looking for transitional species here need look no further.​

But species fail to make such leaps as we see them today. I see that as a glaring inconsistency in the possibility that life began as the result of evolution. What God created can evolve... But, a cow remains a cow.

Species don't make leaps. Leaps are anti-thetical to evolution. The diversity we see today is a result of a divergence of very similar species that occurred long ago. Just as when, high in a mountain, one stream turns west and another close by turns east and they end up in different oceans!

And, I might add. The understanding that the earth is only about 6,000 years old was deducted from what is found in genealogies in the Bible.

Some estimate that this current creation is closer to 10,000 - 30,000 years old.

6,000 years, 30,000 years. It makes no difference. In light of a human history that goes back 2 million years, an earth history that goes back 4.5 billion years and a cosmic history that goes back 13.7 billion years, any short period of time is equally wrong.

The sole purpose of the flood was to destroy mankind. Not, the entire planet.

6,000 years ago, which I understand to be some 2,000 years before the usual date assigned to the flood, people were already living all over the planet.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10923986#post10923986

 

[gluadys]

I would very much like to thank you for this good hearted discussion. It's been awhile and I have enjoyed it and as always have learned a little on the side.

If you don't mind, I now need to get back to discussing what really matters to me.

Take care!

I have also enjoyed the conversation. Come back anytime the spirit moves you.

 

[GenemZ]

No, these passages come from the creation myth in Genesis 2. So they are myth, not lies.

What you just said is a myth in itself!


Ever study nutrition? Ever look on the side of a good bottle of minerals the body requires to live? They consist of the elements of the earth. A good bottle will contain over 70 elements. God said he formed the body from the elements of the earth.

You deny this because your secular religion says different? I am beginning to see your agrument to have the same element of blindness that certain religious sects have who create their own dogmas that contradict what the Word teaches. Yet, they never blink an eye when shown how what they believe contradicts what they desire to believe.

Also, in Genesis 1:27..... The Hebrew draws a great distinction. Whenever the Hebrew word "bara" (to create) is used in association with God, it always means to create something out from nothing. "Ex nihilio." Not, out from a chimp.

God could have easily bypassed any so called myth you claim it is, and spoke of evolution directly. The minds of men back then would have readily understood with no problem.

Genesis 3:14 niv
"So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

That serpent was taken and placed at the lowest position. It had legs. For, can you think of any other mammal or reptile that crawls on its belly, legless? If evolution were the way God would have told us so. And, without a problem to do so.

So, go find a new way to wriggle.

Correct. That would be magic, not evolution. However, the cow has an ancestor from long long ago and that ancestor has other descendants which are not cows. The other descendants from the same ancestor include sheep, goats, deer, elk, moose, antelope, dolphins and whales. That is evolution.

You just do not get it. But! Its that same religious spirit they will remain faithful to its illogical dogma no matter how contradictory the facts may be. In your case. It has been moved into a secular way of thinking. But, same spirit.

Problem is. The creation is so complex that you are forced to conclude what you did if you are to remain consistent. What you just called for is a miracle. A mouse has the same ancestor as the whale? Then why did evolution turn on itself? The preditor had to come from the same common ancestor as the prey! Herbavores suddenly became carnivores? Turned on their old self? How could it turn on its old self, and the old self survive? And, then the herbivore needed to mutate into means to defend itself from what evolved into a carnivore? It would mean the evolution imploded on itself. That it wishes (figure of speech) to destroy itself if it could. All creatures should have remained herbivores if evolution did not have a death wish.

Correct, except for eyes. Eyes originated independently in several different lineages. All the others are features of vertebrates and did begin in a common ancestor with these traits. To outward appearance that ancestor was a worm. You can find out more about it in the link I put in my last reply to Nephilimiyr. Here is an excerpt:

Why should eyes even develop? Can what is blind be aware of what it is missing?

Tell me this? How long did it take for the first creature to have a bowel movement? To urinate? To develop the filter system of organs needed to keep the blood purified from toxins? And, how long did it wait for blood to be completed before aheart would beat? Or? Did the heart come first? And, then patiently waited a million years for blood to come along? Evolutions motto ought to be. Build it, and they will come.

Hey, Bob! What that thing growing out of your head?

Huh? What are you talking to me now? My tympanic nerve has another thousand years to go!

Species don't make leaps. Leaps are anti-thetical to evolution. The diversity we see today is a result of a divergence of very similar species that occurred long ago. Just as when, high in a mountain, one stream turns west and another close by turns east and they end up in different oceans!

Right.... The mouse and the whale share the same common ancestor. Yet, species do not make leaps.

6,000 years, 30,000 years. It makes no difference. In light of a human history that goes back 2 million years, an earth history that goes back 4.5 billion years and a cosmic history that goes back 13.7 billion years, any short period of time is equally wrong.

This creature we call homo sapien has only been around in God's image for a limited time. Other creatures with similar skeletal structure preceded this one. But those where not having a soul created in God's image. If they were, Jesus would have been said to have died for the sins of other worlds,as well as ours.

6,000 years ago, which I understand to be some 2,000 years before the usual date assigned to the flood, people were already living all over the planet.

When the flood took place. The current creation of man (who is in God's image) was only in its infancy. Men would live to be 70-80 years old before having their first child! There was no population explosion going on. Just read Genesis 5. Man was small in population. He did not cover the entire earth at the time of the flood. And, man did not eat meat at that time. That only came after the flood.

Genesis 9:3 niv
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

That is when the appendix in the human body began to atrophy. I believe the appendix used to be used to turn complex carbohydrates into complete protein for building body tissue. See! Men can evolve!


But, enough of this myth of the Bible. Right? After all, God is only a myth we accept until science discovers the real reason for our existence.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Ever study nutrition? Ever look on the side of a good bottle of minerals the body requires to live? They consist of the elements of the earth. A good bottle will contain over 70 elements. God said he formed the body from the elements of the earth.

God has not told us anything of how the body was created. The writer of Gen.2:7 said God made animals (including humans) from the dust of the earth. I have no problem with that.

You deny this because your secular religion says different?

I don't have a secular religion. I'm a born-again, bible-believing, baptized in water and the Spirit Christian.

God could have easily bypassed any so called myth you claim it is, and spoke of evolution directly. The minds of men back then would have readily understood with no problem.

Yes, God could have; they could have. But neither did.

For, can you think of any other mammal or reptile that crawls on its belly, legless?

Some lizards do.

If evolution were the way God would have told us so.

Now you are making assumptions again about what God would do. What you mean is God would have told us in the bible. Did it ever occur to you that God would consider that unnecessary since He had already told us about evolution in His created nature?

You just do not get it.

Get what? You can't be speaking of evolution because it is you who does not get evolution.

Problem is. The creation is so complex that you are forced to conclude what you did if you are to remain consistent.

If you mean the evidence in creation can only be explained by one current theory, you are right. It points consistently to evolution and no other explanation.

What you just called for is a miracle.

No, no miracle required. Just mutations, changing environmental conditions and natural selection.

A mouse has the same ancestor as the whale?

Yes. Not the same ancestor as the whale and the cow, but one more remote shared by all three groups. The whale and the cow are more closely related to each other than either is to a mouse. It's analogous to you being more closely related to your sibling than either of you is to your cousin. You and your sibling have a common ancestor in your parent. The two of you and your cousin have a more remote common ancestor in your grandparent.

Then why did evolution turn on itself?

Can you explain this question? It doesn't make any sense relative to evolution. Evolution doesn't "turn on itself" whatever that means.

The preditor had to come from the same common ancestor as the prey!

Yes. Your point.....?

Herbavores suddenly became carnivores?

Not suddenly. It would be a very gradual transformation over millions of generations.

Turned on their old self? How could it turn on its old self, and the old self survive?

Again, this doesn't make sense. You will have to describe in more detail the scenario you are imagining.

All creatures should have remained herbivores if evolution did not have a death wish.

First there are plenty of creatures that are neither herbivores nor carnivores. What does a rose eat? Or a yeast?

Second, if you are speaking only of animals, all the first animals were carnivores. They lived in the ocean before herbs or other vegetation grew on land. So all herbivores are descendants of carnivores.

Why should eyes even develop? Can what is blind be aware of what it is missing?

Evolution is an automatic process that does not require awareness or will on the part of the evolving species. Sensitivity to sunlight is found in some chemicals, some of which are also found in living things. Even some unicellular protists have light-sensitive cells.

Some complex creatures are photosenstive throughout their whole skin. All that is required for an eye to begin to form is that some cells specialize in photosensitivity. Once that happens, some sort of eye will develop no matter whether a species thinks it needs one or not.

Tell me this? How long did it take for the first creature to have a bowel movement? To urinate? To develop the filter system of organs needed to keep the blood purified from toxins?

No time at all. Unicellular bacteria do all these things without special organs, and they do not need to purify blood because they don't have any.

You are showing the typical short-sightedness of creationist in that for all practical purposes you never include unicellular organisms as part of the web of life, and seldom consider fungi, plants, or basal animals such as worms or even most invertebrates. Your questions are really about only a small fraction of living things and you assume they have no predecessors in which the complexities first developed bit by bit. When you take off your mammal-focused blinkers and start looking farther afield, it is almost always possible to find an illustration of how creatures lived and continue to live without "fully-formed" organs and organ systems. For instance...

And, how long did it wait for blood to be completed before aheart would beat?

Blood developed first and it developed differently in different animals. (Some animals have green blood.) Before there was blood animals already had fluid-filled bodies which enabled them to exchange gases with the environment (respiration), aborb nutrients through their skin and expel wastes the same way. Blood was somewhat of an improvement on this system.

The heart developed slowly as a swelling in the primitive circulatory system, starting as a single valve pump and showing gradations to a two-chamber and three-chamber organ before appearing as a four-chamber organ in mammals, birds and (possibly) some dinosaurs.

Hey, Bob! What that thing growing out of your head?

Huh? What are you talking to me now? My tympanic nerve has another thousand years to go!

See, you have it backwards about. Tympanic nerves can exist and function without external ears. Many animals have perfectly good hearing without ears. They "hear" through their jawbones. Or even their skin. And there is a wonderfully complete series of transitional fossils showing how reptilian jawbones were slowly transformed into mammalian inner ear bones.

Right.... The mouse and the whale share the same common ancestor. Yet, species do not make leaps.

Right, evolution does not require leaps. In fact it forbids leaps.

This creature we call homo sapien has only been around in God's image for a limited time. Other creatures with similar skeletal structure preceded this one.

6,000 years ago, all creatures with "similar skeletal structure" had become extinct except other homo sapiens. And at that time homo sapiens had already been around for at least 150,000 years. During that 150,000 years, homo sapiens had already spread all around the globe including into Australia and the Americas.

As far as I know "God's image" is a spiritual awareness that has no effect on skeletal structure or any other physical characteristic. So if you are saying that 6,000 years ago, God chose a group of homo sapiens and endowed them and only them with his image, you could be right. Science would have no way of discerning from bodily remains which homo sapiens have God's image and which don't.

The problem with this scenario is more theological than scientific. Could we be certain, even after 6,000 years that all homo sapiens are made in God's image? Why could there not still be living descendants of those homo sapiens tribes who were not given that privilege?

And what is the effect on the offspring if a homo sapiens with the image of God has children by one without the image of God?

When the flood took place. The current creation of man (who is in God's image) was only in its infancy. Men would live to be 70-80 years old before having their first child! There was no population explosion going on. Just read Genesis 5. Man was small in population. He did not cover the entire earth at the time of the flood. And, man did not eat meat at that time. That only came after the flood.

Perhaps the small fraction of homo sapiens with souls existed in only a small area. My point is that there were homo sapiens living all around the globe at this time. Perhaps they did not have souls, but they still existed. So, if the flood was local and did not kill the homo sapiens in the Americas or in China or in southern Africa or northern Europe, but only those in (for the sake of argument) in Mesopotamia, that leaves a lot of homo sapiens without souls alive and reproducing. And they would certainly be the largest group of homo sapiens, far outnumbering the small group of homo sapiens with souls that exited the ark. The only logical conclusion I can draw from this is that the majority of humans today do not have souls since they are descendants of those homo sapiens groups not affected by the flood.

After all, God is only a myth we accept until science discovers the real reason for our existence.

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all. God's existence does not depend on scientific knowledge. And science only looks for the natural causes of our existence. If by "reason" for our existence you are referring to the purpose of our being, science is silent about that. One must look elsewhere for meaning and purpose.

 

[vossler]

Gluadys, You never cease to amaze, all I can say to that post is Wow! Your worldly knowledge, beliefs and convictions have develop into a quite effective means of communication. Unfortunately, many carnal people will read this rather eloquent and well-thought out post and fall into the lure of its trap. Such is how it is today.

Daniel 12:4 states: But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

Well knowledge has certainly increased beyond anything we could have imagined. If it were just you and I Gluadys discussing such matters could actually be fun, but so many whose eternity isn't secure are here seeking answers and I'm afraid of this:

1 Corinthians 8:11. And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Thankfully I'm not called to argue with you because:

2 Corinthians 10: 4-5 states: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

So to those out there who are confused and not sure of what to believe I say this:

1 Timothy 6:20 Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

And this:

Psalm 31:6 I have hated those who regard vain idols; But I trust in the Lord.

While always remembering:

2 Timothy 3:6-7 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Gluadys, You never cease to amaze, all I can say to that post is Wow! Your worldly knowledge, beliefs and convictions have develop into a quite effective means of communication. Unfortunately, many carnal people will read this rather eloquent and well-thought out post and fall into the lure of its trap. Such is how it is today.

I don't think Gladys was trying to "trap" anybody. And not just "carnal people" (whoever they are) can benefit from them.

Daniel 12:4 states: But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

Well knowledge has certainly increased beyond anything we could have imagined. If it were just you and I Gluadys discussing such matters could actually be fun, but so many whose eternity isn't secure are here seeking answers

Nobody's eternity is "secure." We take our future on faith. Let's not arrogantly wave our salvation around like a banner, shall we?

and I'm afraid of this:

1 Corinthians 8:11. And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

How has knowledge that Gladys shown caused anyone to perish?

Thankfully I'm not called to argue with you because:

2 Corinthians 10: 4-5 states: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

And when the knowledge of this world complements the knowledge of God, there is no need for "warfare" of any kind.

So to those out there who are confused and not sure of what to believe I say this:

1 Timothy 6:20 Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

And this:

Psalm 31:6 I have hated those who regard vain idols; But I trust in the Lord.

While always remembering:

2 Timothy 3:6-7 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Such is all well and good, assuming that the knowledge you're defending is in any way threatened by what Gladys has said... which isn't so.
Don't create a battle where none exists.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, You never cease to amaze, all I can say to that post is Wow! Your worldly knowledge, beliefs and convictions have develop into a quite effective means of communication. Unfortunately, many carnal people will read this rather eloquent and well-thought out post and fall into the lure of its trap.

Trap?

I really do not have much "wordly" knowledge. I have a lot of academic information, but its pretty useless as worldly knowledge. Heck, I can't do trivia games with any success because I don't watch TV and a lot of the questions are based on popular worldly culture.

And my beliefs and convictions are Christian, not worldly. Very far from wordly. I have no interest in the things the world considers important. Every now and again someone wants to do a survey to figure out what magazines I would be interested in and they have a list of things most people are interested in : Arts & Entertainment, Fashion, Sports, News & Politics, etc. They never have anything that I am interested in on their lists. I just don't fit into standard worldly categories. And that is fine by me.

Such is how it is today.

Daniel 12:4 states: But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

Are you so sure this is the time of the end? Hey, I know its always possible, but having grown up with JW relatives I get a little tired of always delayed anticipation. As long as I'm prepared I am not going to sweat when the end is. I like the advice I once read:

Live for today as if it will be your last, and for tomorrow as if you were going to live another thousand years.

I like the aboriginal value as well, of living simply enough today that there will be plenty for seven generations to come. We should do that even if we have certain knowledge that Christ will return within 24 hours.

but so many whose eternity isn't secure are here seeking answers and I'm afraid of this:

1 Corinthians 8:11. And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Misapplication of scripture. Remember the one Paul is speaking of who has knowledge is also identified as a strong Christian. So this is not worldly knowledge he is speaking of, but heavenly knowledge, the knowledge of Christ, the sort of knowledge that makes it possible to walk in the world while remaining unspotted by the world. New, weak Christians cannot always do that; they still have unbroken ties to the world that tempt them back into the ways of the world.

So this is totally irrelevant to this thread.

Thankfully I'm not called to argue with you because:

2 Corinthians 10: 4-5 states: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

Again, irrelevant. I have presented nothing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. All I have presented is the knowledge of God left for us to see in the world he has made. (And the world God made is not "worldly")

So to those out there who are confused and not sure of what to believe I say this:

1 Timothy 6:20 Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

Again irrelevant. This is Paul's diatribe against current philosophies, especially Gnosticism. Gnosticism (from "gnosis"=knowledge) is the "knowledge" Paul is referring to---not knowledge in general. Paul is saying that Gnosticism is misnamed because it is not really knowledge at all.

And this:

Psalm 31:6 I have hated those who regard vain idols; But I trust in the Lord.

You are getting farther and farther away from relevancy here, Vossler. Where in this conversation has anyone advocated idols?

While always remembering:

2 Timothy 3:6-7 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The preceding verses tell us who "those" are. They are those who are: lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of God, holding to an outward form of godliness but denying its power---and as we see in this verse, also beguilers of silly women.

What relevance does this have to any poster here? or to any topic under discussion?

You must have a strange mind.

 

[Critias]

Misapplication of scripture. Remember the one Paul is speaking of who has knowledge is also identified as a strong Christian. So this is not worldly knowledge he is speaking of, but heavenly knowledge, the knowledge of Christ, the sort of knowledge that makes it possible to walk in the world while remaining unspotted by the world. New, weak Christians cannot always do that; they still have unbroken ties to the world that tempt them back into the ways of the world.

Misapplication on his part or misunderstanding on your part? I would say the latter. Why? Because that verse could have implications to others besides who Paul was speaking of and it would not have to be a 'strong Christian.'

How can I justify this? Well Jesus quoted Isaiah to speak about the Pharisees, but I bet Isaiah, when he said what he did, wasn't thinking of the Pharisees. Was Jesus guilty of misapplication or did He know (because He inspired what Isaiah said) the implications of what Isaiah said that can be applied to others - others who are not whom Isaiah spoke about?

 

[Critias]

You must have a strange mind.

Yes, what a strange guy to post Scripture in a Christian forum.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Gluadys, You never cease to amaze, all I can say to that post is Wow! Your worldly knowledge, beliefs and convictions have develop into a quite effective means of communication. Unfortunately, many carnal people will read this rather eloquent and well-thought out post and fall into the lure of its trap. Such is how it is today.

snip snip to address one issue

So to those out there who are confused and not sure of what to believe I say this:

1 Timothy 6:20 Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

And this:

Psalm 31:6 I have hated those who regard vain idols; But I trust in the Lord.
[/font]
While always remembering:

2 Timothy 3:6-7 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Glaudys didn't take it offensively, but i think it is directed at her as one of the few ladies that posts here regularly. it is not applicable to the topic and is a cheap shot.
it is to her credit not to have reported it.
it doesnt add to the discussion in any way, and is unChrist like behavior (imho)


...

 

[GenemZ]

God has not told us anything of how the body was created. The writer of Gen.2:7 said God made animals (including humans) from the dust of the earth. I have no problem with that.

How do you know this with such certainty?

It just so happens that the Hebrew word "yatsar" means specifically to mold and form a substance into something. That is what the Lord did with the elements of the earth in order to create the human body for Adam. You will find that every part of the human body contains elements to be found in the earth. Calcium and magnesium and phosphorous may be more concentrated in the bones than the rest of the body, but all the parts of the body contain elements to be found in the earth.

And, the woman's body? It was not quite the same. The Lord removed a part of the body of Adam, and he "banah" built that up from what he had removed, into her body. Just as the Lord took a few loaves and produced many, He took a little from Adam's side and built it up. Other than that? Why should God tell you anything? You can not even understand that much. Your god took a chimp and transformed him into a man. Even though the Lord says he made the man's body from scratch.

I don't have a secular religion. I'm a born-again, bible-believing, baptized in water and the Spirit Christian.

My Bibles are not like yours, then.

Yes, God could have; they could have. But neither did.

My God does not mislead and lie when the truth could be said. Your's does.

John 14:2 niv
"In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you."

God's Word could have easily conveyed the concept of evolution from a chimp into man. But it is not so. Or, he would have told us.

Titus 1:2 kjv
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."

I have said enuf. You will only wriggle more the more I write. Your god lies and misleads. Mine, will not. That much we have established.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Glaudys didn't take it offensively, but i think it is directed at her as one of the few ladies that posts here regularly. it is not applicable to the topic and is a cheap shot.
it is to her credit not to have reported it.
it doesnt add to the discussion in any way, and is unChrist like behavior (imho)
...

Is it not un-Christ-like to indicate that God lies? To say that he makes up myths that he would have to know misleads, when the truth would have been very easy to show, if that were the case?

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Nobody's eternity is "secure." We take our future on faith. Let's not arrogantly wave our salvation around like a banner, shall we?

Speak for yourself. Your sense of eternity is not secure. Not mine.

1 Peter 1:23 niv
"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Misapplication on his part or misunderstanding on your part? I would say the latter. Why? Because that verse could have implications to others besides who Paul was speaking of and it would not have to be a 'strong Christian.'

How can I justify this? Well Jesus quoted Isaiah to speak about the Pharisees, but I bet Isaiah, when he said what he did, wasn't thinking of the Pharisees. Was Jesus guilty of misapplication or did He know (because He inspired what Isaiah said) the implications of what Isaiah said that can be applied to others - others who are not whom Isaiah spoke about?

Vossler set up a bunch of verses that supposedly condemned worldly knowledge and included this reference among them. That is certainly a misapplication when Paul was speaking of Christian knowledge in this text.

No, Jesus was not misapplying Isaiah. The Pharisees were like the people Isaiah was describing, so Isaiah's words fit them as well as the people Isaiah was speaking of.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, what a strange guy to post Scripture in a Christian forum.

Posting scripture is not strange, but the psychology of connecting these scripture references to the thread is. The illogic is impenetrable.

 

[gluadys]

My Bibles are not like yours, then.

Our bibles are the same. But our thinking about the bible is not. We read the same words, but come to different conclusions about what they mean.

My God does not mislead and lie when the truth could be said. Your's does.

It is true that based on your premises, my conclusions may look that way to you. But my conclusions are consistent with my premises and are based on the fact that God does not lie in either scripture or nature.

Your premises lead to what you consider a consistent reading of scripture, but they do require that God be a deceptive creator.

God's Word could have easily conveyed the concept of evolution from a chimp into man. But it is not so. Or, he would have told us.

As I pointed out earlier, God did tell us. He just didn't tell us in the bible.

PS chimps have never evolved into humans.

 

[gluadys]

Is it not un-Christ-like to indicate that God lies? To say that he makes up myths that he would have to know misleads, when the truth would have been very easy to show, if that were the case?

In Christ, GeneZ

You should at least study the TE position so that you know what you are talking about. I do not indicate that God lies. I have never said that God makes up myths----creating myths is a human activity. And the truth is easy to know once you remove the blinkers and are prepared to follow the lead of the evidence. So God has shown us how he created and your assertion that God has not is groundless.

 

[Critias]

Vossler set up a bunch of verses that supposedly condemned worldly knowledge and included this reference among them. That is certainly a misapplication when Paul was speaking of Christian knowledge in this text.

Actually, it was you who told Vossler what he was doing. He was be rather obscure in his post, or so it seems. He allowed God's Word to speak for him about what he feels. That is my deduction of what he posted.

You have stated your belief in evolution is Christian knowledge, so it can be applied to you.

No, Jesus was not misapplying Isaiah. The Pharisees were like the people Isaiah was describing, so Isaiah's words fit them as well as the people Isaiah was speaking of.

The implications of 1 Corinthians 8:11, which seems to be the only verse you are taking offense to (odd really), can have implications for non-believers as well. Even if the author's intended meaning was directed at Christians.


Anyways, I have already stepped my bounds speaking for Vossler - my apologies.

 

[vossler]

Critias, no apology is necessary, you’re observations are quite accurate.



In response to some criticism:



Granted, in 1 Corinthians 8:11 Paul is speaking about spiritual or biblical knowledge and he is talking to believers, yet this verse (and the preceding ones) deal directly with how one applies the knowledge. IMO, Gluadys you mix your biblical and worldly knowledge together into an intoxicating mixture that can, as Paul said, destroy the weak person.



The idol reference in the Psalm 31:6 scripture is to the idol of worldly knowledge.



As for the 2 Timothy 3:6 reference; it was by no means intended to offend. It was presented as something we all need to keep in mind. If one looks at the text you will see Paul is speaking of the last days and how we’re always learning but never coming to the full knowledge of the truth. It goes on to say in verses 8 & 9



“…so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all…”



This is where I see much of the discussion concerning evolution.