A simple question

[depthdeception]

I am amazed that you would think that if the Bible is silent then it agrees with anyone's assertions.

Apparently, you've missed the entire point of glaudy's post, for what you have just said has nothing to do with her meaning.

 

[GenemZ]

You have an interesting defintion of "clear," considering the passage is far from specific on how Adam was formed. Being "formed" from the dust could mean one of an infinite number of things.

Of course it does. Of course!

Now? Name some!

While you do.... Remember.... even Adam's name sounds like the word used for earth.

Waiting to see how creative you are.


Grace and peace, GeneZ

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&verse=7&version=31&context=verse

 

[gluadys]

I gave an explanation for it. No one is bending your arm to agree with me.

I am not looking for agreement. I am looking for understanding. As far as I can see you just went to a concordance and pulled out any old verse with key words in it, not looking at the context at all. That is no way to use scripture.

So if that is not what you did, you should be able to give a coherent explanation of why this verse is appropriate to this topic of conversation. I haven't seen that explanation yet.

You have stated Genesis is a myth.

And described in significant detail what is meant by that. Now what does it mean to you when someone describes Genesis as a myth?

btw here is a good discussion of the biblical use of the term "myth" as compared to the modern literary use of the word--which is the sense in which I was using it.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T493

You have gone on about geneologies (ancestors of ancestors) that seem to have no end.

I suppose you think Paul was speaking of genealogies in general? In that case you must believe that it is a sin for Christians to discuss their family tree or to do genealogical research.

Seriously, you cannot even see the connection? If not, I am greatly surprised and yet able to see why your beliefs are the way they are.

There is no connection that I can see. Paul is speaking of a specific situation which he refers to both at the begining and the end of his letter to Timothy.


1 Timothy 1:3-5
"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

1 Timothy 6:20-21
"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith."

Since Timothy is to command "certain men" in regard to these false doctrines and what is falsely called knowledge, Paul is clearly speaking of men known to Timothy and the doctrine they were promoting. What doctrine was that?

We know that one of the wide-spread tendencies in early Christianity was a form of belief generally known as Gnosticism (from the Greek "gnosis"= "knowledge") There were pagan, Jewish and Christian forms of Gnosticism. The article in the link suggests the Christian form was a variation of the Jewish form--the latter being a mystic form of Judaism which included a claim to secret knowledge and an emphasis on the genealogies of angels.

It appears that certain men were promoting this belief in Ephesus, and Paul wanted Timothy to be there to defend the gospel.

And you want to draw a connection between this instruction to Timothy to deal with a specific local problem and a conversation about evolution? That is a big, big stretch from Paul's meaning.

 

[GenemZ]

It is actually a legal principle.

The Bible is silent on Jesus faking his death.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

Of course it does. Of course!

Now? Name some!

While you do.... Remember.... even Adam's name sounds like the word used for earth.

Waiting to see how creative you are.


Grace and peace, GeneZ

My point is that I don't think this passage is intended to be an "exact" description of what occurred, or of how life evolved to what we have today, or anything like that. It is a mythological account whose intention is to express the theological idea that God is God and that God is the source of all that there is. This makes a lot of sense when understood in the context in which it was written--the worshipping community of God remembering God's provision for and care over God's people through generations of suffering and oppression.

 

[GenemZ]

And how, exactly, does this correlate to your presence on these boards and your often exclamatory responses to other's posts?

Difference between you and me? You look for weakness to prey on.

When I see weakness, I want to warn. Not prey. Pray.... not prey.

As your public profile declares, you have a vendetta for fundamentalists. But, do you wish to show them what is correct, rather than simply point out what's wrong? Or as you quite often try to confuse the issue by introducing contradictory remarks just to put a match under their seat?

That's all you do. I have yet to see you build anyone up with truth. It appears that you only take pleasure in manipulating those whom you see as being stupid. Of course, I could be wrong. But, that is what I zero'd in on the moment I laid eyes on how you express yourself. And, you have remained consistent the whole time through.

There is nothing wrong with higher criticism. IF! You can show the truth that was missing in place of the error you found. But, just to say that the Word is full of errors? What seminary do you attend?

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

You don't take six day creation, which comes from Biblical teaching, by faith.

Sure I do. I have no problem with the biblical teaching. Just with your version of it.

You take a billion year(s) creation by common descent, which comes from scientists' teaching, by faith.

No I don't. Because it does not come from scientists' teaching. It comes from discovery of scientific evidence that has no other plausible explanation. So this is known by reason, not by faith.

 

[depthdeception]

Difference between you and me? You look for weakness to prey on.

No. I look for misdirected thinking, and attempt to provide a reasonable alternative.

As your public profile declares, you have a vendetta for fundamentalists. But, do you wish to show them what is correct, rather than simply point out what's wrong? Or as you quite often try to confuse the issue by introducing contradictory remarks just to put a match under their seat?

These boards are open for people to post their opinions. And often, people will ask for others' opinions directly. All I am doing is offering my opinion. I do not do it deliberately to be devisive. Rather, like you, I feel that I have something meaningful to contribute. If you do not care for what I say, that is fine. However, I think it is unjust of you to continue to attack me personally.

That's all you do. I have yet to see you build anyone up with truth.

Interestingly enough, from my perspective, I haven't seen any of the same from you, either...

There is nothing wrong with higher criticism. IF! You can show the truth that was missing in place of the error you found. But, just to say that the Word is full of errors? What seminary do you attend?

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position? I never said the Scriptures are "full of errors." I have simply maintained that it is improper to submit the Scriptures to the category of "inerrancy."

 

[GenemZ]

My point is that I don't think this passage is intended to be an "exact" description of what occurred, or of how life evolved to what we have today, or anything like that.

Who gave you the power to speak ex cathedra?

It is a mythological account whose intention is to express the theological idea that God is God and that God is the source of all that there is. This makes a lot of sense when understood in the context in which it was written--the worshipping community of God remembering God's provision for and care over God's people through generations of suffering and oppression.

That was so informative! What substance! Gee, you should get an honorary degree and be sent out right now! Wonderful insight!

SO? That was your explaination of the many ways it could be taken for what it meant that Adam was formed from the dust of the earth? BRAVO! What a brilliant and insightful answer!


Genesis 2:7
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Father? Why did you lie in that verse?

Because, I want everyone to just lighten up and stop taking the Word so seriously! Just to show those who do, that they are too sensitive about being lied to. I want to toughen you up, to being lied to! After all, Satan will show no mercy when he lies. Just did it to keep you on your TOE's.

Thank you Father! Depthdeception , was telling us true! That was a good reason to lie! It was so Righteous of you! You only lied to protect us from the father of lies! How loving and considerate a God we do have!


GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

So, all things the Bible is silent on, means consent?

It certainly means no opposition. That is why denominations which oppose the use of musical instruments in Christian worship are wrong. Just because the NT doesn't mention musical instruments doesn't mean they were not used or that it is not permissible to use them.

As I said, the phrase "silence means consent" is a legal principle that comes from contractual law. The idea is that when people make contracts, both parties are to read the contract carefully. If one party finds something in the contract they disagree with, they must point it out and have it amended before it is signed. If they do not say anything--if they remain silent--it is assumed in law that they consent to the contract. Hence, silence means consent.

The Bible makes it very plain how Adam was formed. He did not come from another creature that evolved into a homo sapien.

But you were the one that said the bible is silent on the issue of evolution.
And in fact, the bible does not specifiy how humans were formed from the dust of the earth. I would never contend that the bible teaches that humans evolved. It doesn't. But it says nothing against the concept either.

The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground ( adamah it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20).

See my comments in post 298 (page 30)

Ironic, how you sound just like a self righteous religious type who wishes to defend their cherished idols of traditional thought.

Whhheough! I think you just exploded every irony meter within a hundred mile radius. Read what you posted just above this.

But, you asserting your opinion, is. How nice.

No, my assertions don't change the facts either. I have no more magical power over nature than you do.

How could you see what you were not privy to seeing with your eyes. It all comes down to thinking God's Word lies..... or, is truthful.

I believe God's Word is always truthful. Therefore I believe God's Word is not self-contradictory. God does not say one thing in creation and a different thing in scripture. So if I know what creation is saying, I know that any passage of scripture that seems to contradict God's Word in creation is in need of re-interpretation. Because what God's Word says in scripture cannot contradict God's Word in nature or vice versa.

But, you? If you can not see it? It's not so until you do?

If that were true, I would not be a Christian at all. I never saw Jesus heal a blind man or calm a storm. I did not see the resurrection or even the empty tomb. I did not experience the first Pentecost or have a vision of Jesus as Paul did on the road to Damascus.

Yet I believe in Jesus with a passion. I know from experience that he is present today. And I know that by faith, not by sight.

Science has corrected itself more than once. What used to be commonly accepted, was later found not to be true.

And it has corrected itself on the basis of evidence. The evidence for evolution is not going to change. Even if new anomalous evidence does show up, the evidence for evolution still needs to be accounted for in any new theory. Old "theories" of creationism cannot do that.

OK... Then it is a lie to you.

The scripture? No, it is not.

Looks like you have to do your own thinking for once, and not get tossed back and forth everytime you see a disagreement.

The question of dating is not resolved by debate. If there was a borrowing by one author from another, the author who borrowed the phrase was the later writer. We just don't have sufficient evidence to identify which author that was.

They have a job to do. To keep those who want to reject truth feeling justified for doing so. So, they write lies to show that those who wish to reject truth are free to do so. Its quite simple to see what's going on. That is, if you really knew what was going on.

Simple, I suppose, if one has adapted to paranoia.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

That, that passage must be a lie, as well?

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I highly recommend the masterful study by Walter Wink on the powers. I definitely think Paul is right on the mark here. A lot of my work involves dealing with the powers.

It says that all life was destroyed! That life was on this planet. No more birds! No more people! The mountains were shaking! Tohu wa bohu, means wreak and havoc, and having an eerie sense of emptiness about it.

Have you never studied literature either? Never hear of hyperbole? Common in poetry. Jesus often used hyperbole too, as a teaching device to make his words memorable.

btw you haven't answered my question about the orbit of the earth and sunrise yet. What is their relationship to each other?

 

[gluadys]

Sorry I missed this earlier. Just caught it while reviewing the thread.

Then you finish with this:

No, I didn't. I finished with this:

However, the purpose of a hypothesis is to generate predictions of observations which must exist if the hypothesis is true. This whole train of thought gives us many predictions of things that must be fact if the hypothesis is true.

And research has shown that many of these predictions are fact. e.g. the close genetic resemblance of humans to other apes, especially the chimpanzees; the possibility that some dinosaurs had feathers; the successful prediction that we would eventually see the fossil record extended into the Pre-Cambrian (in fact we now have fossils 7 times older than the earliest Cambrian fossils) and the successful predictions of fossils that bridged the higher taxa such as fish/amphibian and reptile/mammal. IOW what we expect to see in nature if all life has a common ancestor is what we actually DO SEE in nature. This is even more true of the more recently discovered genetic evidence. From the study of DNA sequences in a variety of species, it is more certain than ever that all life shares commonalities that transcend species. Furthermore, the pattern in which these commonalities are shared are not the same as the patterns found in manufactured objects, but patterns which are found in genealogies. IOW it appears that the mechanism of sharing common DNA is reproduction, not design.

So at this point, common ancestry is no longer just a logical inference. It is a concept well-supported by the evidence of nature. In fact some of the evidence in nature (e.g ERVs) simply has no other possible reason for existing than common ancestry.

The fact of evolution makes common ancestry logical. The accumulated evidence which supports common ancestry or which can be explained only by common ancestry means this is not just logical. It is the testimony of created nature. And created nature is given to us by God.

Given that you were so thorough in gathering the other quotes, I wonder how you managed to miss these paragraphs. I don't know how you came to assume that I finished before writing them.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think it would be safe to say that the quotes above are, in your opinion, “truth.” If so, I think it could also be safe to say that all truth is on the same level, i.e. truth doesn't come in different degrees. Truth is truth, there isn't something that is 95% truth. So, by stating that evolution is truth you have, by inference, put it on the same level as the truths found in the bible. Quite interesting!

Right. Are you prepared to say that any truth is not God's truth? Or that any truth can contradict God's truth?

Also, can you explain how in the last quote of yours the words assume and infer are used quite liberally, you even go so far to say “hypothetical, not fact”? If evolution is truth how is it that it requires so many assumptions?

Read the real conclusion to my post, as noted above.

 

[GenemZ]

That is correct.

I bet that answer surprises you.

Virtually all of your problems with evolution lie in the fact that when it comes to evolution you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

Take a quick peek!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

It does. And, it does not. I believe you're just playing coy with me.

For some time now I have had the impression that if someone does not think along the lines you do, you simply dismiss them with a very general answer... No answer, in other words. "That is not so." " You do not understand." "You really never studied this issue." etc...

But, other than that? You fail to educate. You simply seem not wanting to be bothered. That's how I perceive you.

Because of that, I had no idea what you are really thinking. It seems you just like to watch and figure out where the other stands, as you refuse to a allow them to know where you really stand. You very often throw out things that would make others do all the work, but fail to show what work you have done.

For example. What I just told you, I held that to be true before ever seeing your posts. It was not as if I just thought of it.

But, there is a flaw in what you just told me. For, if you agree with me? Then why do you insist that the Lord did not form Adam's body from the elements of the earth? If you believe like I do that God created man, and man has slowly changed (evolved) over time. Then why do you find the idea that God created man's body from scratch is something you do not agree with?

That resistance leaves the field wide open to think you believe man evolved from an ape, since you do not accept that God formed Adam's body from the elements of the earth.

The Hebrew word to "form" is Yatsar. It means to mold and to form. It does not mean to isolate elements in a test tube and sythesize them into flesh and bones. God's power and mind does not require such primitive (and slow) means. Adam was of the earth. And of the earth he was made. And, man returns (his body) to the earth when he dies.

That's why I do not see you really agreeing with me. If you did? Then you have been simply playing devil's advocate with me, and refusing to say what you really believed? Which is it?

Case in point. If you understood evolution you would understand this question is ridiculous. Nothing has failed to evolve. Different species have evolved in different ways, that's all.

Since you have failed to explain your concept of what you see evolution as being, and having debated evolutionists in the past who do not see it as you do, why are you behaving as you are? For someone who never explains herself, you sure expect others to know where you are coming from.

You never explain. You never impart knowledge. You simply let the other know that he does not know what he is talking about and leave it at that. What good is that? Its always a, "if you only knew the facts" type of response from you. You never supply those very facts. You do not debate to educate. You put off.

I tell you what the scripture plainly says about the formation of Adam's body (and it does)... Your response? ... "Some do not agree with your assessment." "some do not see it that way." OR.... "I do not see it as you do."

Fine. You horde your knowledge. That's why I wonder what your purpose is for being here? To simply gather what other's think? To find out what you perceive as being their misconceptions are? If you truly believed what you have is truth, you should be telling us what it is you exactly believe. Instead, all you do is put off with generalities. "have you ever read a book on evolution?"

I guess your an evolution book salesman? You simply come here to get others to buy more books? You do not want to debate the issues in detail. You only want us to spend our money on more books! That must be it.

I have looked at books on evolution. I get the same feeling reading them as I do reading the Watchtower Society's books. Those I looked at were based upon a premise that no one is supposed to question. That is... that God's Word is not explaining how God created man and animals. Period.

Evolution teaches that our ancestors came out of the various periods to be found fossilized in different layers of strata. God's Word teaches that he destroys creations and replaces them with entirely new ones... even though he may have continued with overlapping similarities in some. Just like the lion in the new earth will eat straw, will most likely appear to be like a lion we now see. Yet, it will be eating grass. It will not be the same.


Why will God create the new lion that way? To reveal something about the power of God to create worlds that fit a specific purpose he intended that age to be for. What a better way to show a freedom from fear than to have a lion eat grass along with the bear? To allow a small child to put her hand in a cobras hole and not have any fear?

I believe God created TRex to show the angels what kind of evil Satan has in his heart towards peace loving angels. For Satan in his evil just loves to bite and devoir souls as to destroy their self esteem and integrity. As you can read and see in Scripture. Animal's natures are used often to describe traits in humans, both good and bad.

1 Peter 5:8 niv
"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."

Past creations were created for various reasons. One reason was to introduce angels to the concept of violence and death. For in their world it was a foreign concept.

Satan desired to murder the Lord and to take his place. But, how was God to show Satan what He knew was in his heart towards God? How could God explain? No death was allowed in Heaven. So, God created animals (in part) to illustrate various points of truth. To teach principles of realities that angels were not allowed to experience in Heaven.

Animal life served several purposes. Prehistoric life introduced the angels to concepts they could never understand without God providing teaching tools. Jealousy? Just have the Alpha male chalenged by a young and maturing male. Watch them fight to the death.. After a while, angels (with God's narration) could learn primitive principles about what they had in their hearts towards God and each other.

When it finally came time to hit Satan and his angels right between their eyes with the truth as to why they are justly condemned by God, God created his "pas de resistance" with the creation of man! Man was created just a little lower than angels.... But, why should you be interested in that? After all? What did angels evolve from?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

Can I ask something that has been pricking me all this while? I honestly don't have an answer for this, and it doesn't make sense even from my TE perspective (unless, of course, I treat this passage as well as being comprehensively mythical). Why is it that in the Isaiah passage on the new heavens and the new earth:

[BIBLE]Isaiah 65:17-20[/BIBLE]

there is a mention of humans dying? I thought the whole idea of the new heavens and the new earth is that death will no longer be there. Even animal death is supposed to be gone, hence predators and prey lying together. Then why is it that there are still humans dying? My impression of the passage is that all humans will live to be old men who have lived out their years. But what does a human do after s/he has lived out all of his/her years? Why - they die, of course. And it seems as if the number "a hundred years" is explicitly given such that the human lifespan is lengthened, but still qualitatively finite. I really don't get it. Unless, of course, this new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65 is not to be identified with the Revelations 21 new heavens and new earth.

 

[GenemZ]

Can I ask something that has been pricking me all this while? I honestly don't have an answer for this, and it doesn't make sense even from my TE perspective (unless, of course, I treat this passage as well as being comprehensively mythical). Why is it that in the Isaiah passage on the new heavens and the new earth:

Isaiah 65:17-2017 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

there is a mention of humans dying? I thought the whole idea of the new heavens and the new earth is that death will no longer be there. Even animal death is supposed to be gone, hence predators and prey lying together. Then why is it that there are still humans dying? My impression of the passage is that all humans will live to be old men who have lived out their years. But what does a human do after s/he has lived out all of his/her years? Why - they die, of course. And it seems as if the number "a hundred years" is explicitly given such that the human lifespan is lengthened, but still qualitatively finite. I really don't get it. Unless, of course, this new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65 is not to be identified with the Revelations 21 new heavens and new earth.

Only certain humans will be dying.... Crimminals. Evil men. Jesus will have smashed all evil out during that time. 1000 years.

Revelation 2:26-27 niv
"To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—
'He will rule them with an iron scepter;
he will dash them to pieces like pottery'— just as I have received authority from my Father."

After a while, evil men will learn to suppress their true desires. That is why Satan is released at the very end of the thousand years, so these remaining evil ones can be weeded out and destroyed once and for all. Satan will give them hope to overcome the Lord whom they hate. Hate without excuse. For they will have a perfect environment. Perfect health. Perfect teaching. No excuses. Yet, some will still hate the Lord, all without the help of Satan! For Satan will be locked up!

After the last evil soul is destroyed at the end of the thousand years, then there will be no more death. That will be the time of a the new heavens and earth which will not be a make over of this one with a new creation on its surface. But, a brand New Earth. "The Home of Righteousness."


2 Peter 3:10-13 niv
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.


That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness."

It took me a while to discover that there will be two new earths. The first, will be the Millennium Reign of Christ. Then God will wrap it up. He will end all mortal living for man, and everyone who believes will be made Eternal in body.

Its after 4AM where I am. I need to cut this short for now. Ask any questions and I will try to provide more details if requested later on.

GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

I believe God created TRex to show the angels what kind of evil Satan has in his heart towards peace loving angels. For Satan in his evil just loves to bite and devoir souls as to destroy their self esteem and integrity. As you can read and see in Scripture. Animal's natures are used often to describe traits in humans, both good and bad.

For all your criticisms of a "mythological" reading of Genesis, you certainly have some mythological ideas. Furthermore, for all your criticism of "silence is consent," you certainly build a huge amount of your cosmos on the very thing!

 

[depthdeception]

there is a mention of humans dying? I thought the whole idea of the new heavens and the new earth is that death will no longer be there. Even animal death is supposed to be gone, hence predators and prey lying together. Then why is it that there are still humans dying? My impression of the passage is that all humans will live to be old men who have lived out their years. But what does a human do after s/he has lived out all of his/her years? Why - they die, of course. And it seems as if the number "a hundred years" is explicitly given such that the human lifespan is lengthened, but still qualitatively finite. I really don't get it. Unless, of course, this new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65 is not to be identified with the Revelations 21 new heavens and new earth.

Most likely, the author isn't attempting to convey exact information about what everlasting life will look like (probably wouldn't fit in with his worldview). Rather, the author is describing a state of being that is the "ideal" of the world in which the author lives--the language about infants and old men is simply metaphorical to describe the blessedness of the righteous.

 

[gluadys]

Take a quick peek!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

I've seen it before. I don't know why you refer me to it. Do you know the wording of what they were signing?

It does. And, it does not. I believe you're just playing coy with me.

For some time now I have had the impression that if someone does not think along the lines you do, you simply dismiss them with a very general answer... No answer, in other words. "That is not so." " You do not understand." "You really never studied this issue." etc...

But, other than that? You fail to educate. You simply seem not wanting to be bothered. That's how I perceive you.

I look for some indication that a person is curious and willing to learn. If someone tells me that I am mistaken about something, it piques my curiosity. I want to know what I have wrong, and what the correct information is

Most creationists, even when told many times that they do not understand evolution, do not show any curiosity. They are not interested in learning about evolution. They want to cling to their strawman version. Why should I waste time trying to educate people who have no interest in accurate information?

Until now, you have followed this pattern of behaviour. But since you now speak of education, I'll go a little further with you.

Evolution is a process God provided for survival. It was not one for bringing creation into being.

One of the errors many creationists make about evolution is that it is about origins in general. It is not. Evolution has no connection with the creation of heaven and earth. It does not even include the creation of life. Creatures have to be alive already in order to evolve. The theory of evolution deals solely with changes in species from one generation to another. These changes lead to speciation and bio-diversity and they do indeed provide for the survival of those species able to adapt as the earth itself changes. So your statement is true. Evolution is a process God provided for survival. It is not a process for bringing creation into being. It is a process, though, for bringing new and different species into being as the original species changes and adapts to new conditions. While evolution was not the process that brought life from non-life, it is the process to which all species alive today (including humans) owe their existance.

Because of that, I had no idea what you are really thinking. It seems you just like to watch and figure out where the other stands, as you refuse to a allow them to know where you really stand. You very often throw out things that would make others do all the work, but fail to show what work you have done.

Where I stand is that the scientists are right about evolution. It is a fact and the theory which explains how evolution works is valid and well-supported by the evidence. I think I have been more than clear about that.

And yes, I do expect you to work, as I have worked, to discover what the theory of evolution really says -- instead of spouting half-baked nonsense about evolution--and to discover the evidence that supports it. If you are not willing to study the actual science so that you can divest yourself of the strawman caricature of evolution you now hold, there is no point in trying to educate you. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You have to decide if you will make the effort to learn. No one else can do that for you.

If you do decide to really sort out this business of evolution, I and others can point you to a wealth of resources which will give you the real picture of what evolution is and isn't and of the evidence which makes it well nigh certain that evolution is what brought us into existence.

But, there is a flaw in what you just told me. For, if you agree with me? Then why do you insist that the Lord did not form Adam's body from the elements of the earth?

What made you think I disagreed with this? We are earthlings, made of earth, just like all the other species on this planet. We are not made of Mars-stuff or Andromeda-stuff. We are made of earth-stuff. Via evolution.

If you believe like I do that God created man, and man has slowly changed (evolved) over time. Then why do you find the idea that God created man's body from scratch is something you do not agree with?

Because the biblical story does not require that our bodies be made "from scratch". It only requires that they be made from the dust of the earth. And that the formation of the body was a formation, i.e. a process which occurred over time, not an instantaneous transformation of dust to human body. There is no reason why Gen. 2:7 cannot be a mythological summation of our evolutionary history.

That resistance leaves the field wide open to think you believe man evolved from an ape, since you do not accept that God formed Adam's body from the elements of the earth.

You forget that the bodies of apes are also made from the elements of the earth. All bodies on earth are made from the elements of the earth, so any body which was ancestral to ours still connects us to the elements of the earth.

The Hebrew word to "form" is Yatsar. It means to mold and to form.

Right, that is exactly what evolution does.

It does not mean to isolate elements in a test tube and sythesize them into flesh and bones.

I hope you are being facetious. Evolution can only take place in a test -tube if the evolving species are micro-organisms. And even then, it is not a matter of chemical synthesis. It is still a matter of a living population responding to environmental pressures via natural selection.

God's power and mind does not require such primitive (and slow) means.

What is "slow" to God? What is "primitive" to God? What right have we human "pots" to criticize the methods of the divine Potter? Just because you would not have chosen the method of evolution is no evidence that God would not. In fact, all the hard evidence we have found is that God did choose evolution. Why he chose evolution is a question you can ask in the new heaven and earth.

You never explain. You never impart knowledge. You simply let the other know that he does not know what he is talking about and leave it at that.

As I said, the response to this statement tells me whether it is worthwhile to attempt any education. A person who ignores it, as you have done to date, is putting up a wall for me to bang my head against. Not worth it. A person who wants to know what their errors are in order to correct them is opening a door, extending an invitation to which I gladly respond.

So, what do you offer me, genez? Wall or door?

Assuming you are now opening a door, we can begin by identifying the errors in your thinking so that they will not impede your learning. Here are some of the errors in your picture of evolution which have appeared in your posts:

Evolution is a progress from simple to complex, from lower to higher.
Evolution proceeds in a straight-line such that the ancestors of current forms ought to be extinct. Therefore if humans evolved from chimps there should be no chimps alive today.
Humans evolved from chimps.
Evolution occurs when a species wants it to occur.
Evolution occurs at the level of the organism.
Evolution requires jumps from one higher taxon to another e.g.from the cat family to the dog family.
Evolution requires all of an organ system to appear in its modern form all at once.

If I have misrepresented what you think of evolution, feel free to correct me.

My point is that not one of those statements is true. So if they fairly represent your understanding of evolution, you know nothing about evolution.

So, the next question is: are you willing to have these erroneous notions corrected? Are you willing to put in the effort it will take to read genuine scientific information that explains the actual theory of evolution? Are you willing to put in the effort to read about the evidence for evolution? Are you willing to start asking honest questions about evolution? Are you willing to entertain, even if only for the sake of argument, the possibility that evolution is true?

If the answer to any of the above is no, there is no point presenting any educational material on evolution to you.

I guess your an evolution book salesman? You simply come here to get others to buy more books? You do not want to debate the issues in detail. You only want us to spend our money on more books! That must be it.

LOL. That might be the case if I received anything from the sales. I don't. I get not one penny from book sales. So it is fine by me if you get them from the library rather than the book store.

I have looked at books on evolution. I get the same feeling reading them as I do reading the Watchtower Society's books. Those I looked at were based upon a premise that no one is supposed to question. That is... that God's Word is not explaining how God created man and animals. Period.

That's a lie. Christian paleontologist, Rev.Bob Bakker would not agree. He would say that his studies of dinosaurs are based on the premise that God's Word in creation does explain how they were created, and how birds were created from them.

What you are trying to do is cut God's Word in half and say one half disagrees with the other and we have to choose which part of God's Word is true.

God's Word teaches that he destroys creations and replaces them with entirely new ones...

If God's Word really taught that, it would be part of the Nicene Creed, just like all the other doctrines which are common to all Christians. But there is no Christian consensus that this is what God's Word teaches. And it is not just because of evolution or because of YECism. You forget that old-earth creationists who espouse day-age theology disagree with gap theology too.

I believe God created TRex to show the angels what kind of evil Satan has in his heart towards peace loving angels.

And this is where you are starting to develop fantasies that don't even have the slightest biblical foundation. I am not interested in any theology that brings ideas out of the wild blue yonder rather than out of scripture.

 

[GenemZ]

For all your criticisms of a "mythological" reading of Genesis, you certainly have some mythological ideas. Furthermore, for all your criticism of "silence is consent," you certainly build a huge amount of your cosmos on the very thing!

OK ... You explain it. Like I said. You never build up with an answer. You only attack like you just did. Now, you tell us a solid answer to what his question was about? Can you even begin? Come on! You say you contribute answers of substance... I say, you only attack. Now, let's see you do what you countered me with. Answer his question that bullds us up in truth and love.

I'll be wait'in.....

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[vossler]

I apologize for high-jacking your response to genez, but the dialog intrigued me and since you didn’t respond to my last post I thought I might try again.

I look for some indication that a person is curious and willing to learn. If someone tells me that I am mistaken about something, it piques my curiosity. I want to know what I have wrong, and what the correct information is

That’s encouraging to know and always a good place to start.

Most creationists, even when told many times that they do not understand evolution, do not show any curiosity. They are not interested in learning about evolution. They want to cling to their strawman version. Why should I waste time trying to educate people who have no interest in accurate information?

I suppose that’s why you didn’t respond to my last post. I’m one of those creationists you describe. That’s fine, I don’t have a problem with that, you and I are on completely different planes and the two shall probably never meet, that is unless divine intervention changes that.

Accurate information isn’t even the issue, for me, before I even entertain accuracy, information must be plausible. You see the whole idea of someone telling me that man and all the animals on earth “evolved” out of some sort of primordial soup is just not plausible. There just isn’t anything other than theories and wild speculation that comes close to backing that up. So yes, I won’t devote the time required to fully understand something that isn’t either scriptural or plausible.


This “truth” or “knowledge” of which you speak that is called evolution is so anti-biblical to me that I can’t give it serious thought. Why should I, or for that matter any other Christian, spend large amounts of time learning a process that clearly goes against the Word of God and beyond that makes absolutely no sense. The thought of devoting the enormous amount of time required to fully understand all that there is to understand is IMO not time well spent.


So if you or any other evolutionist out there wants to show me how it is plausible for evolution to occur all you have to do is give an explanation that can in a logical and plausible way demonstrate how an animal can gain information within it’s genetic makeup to change itself into something it wasn’t before. Example: Go from a fish to reptile or fish into a mammal etc. If you can do this the plausibility of evolution has merit. Until someone can do that I will continue to dismiss it as foolishness.

Evolution is a process God provided for survival. It is not a process for bringing creation into being. It is a process, though, for bringing new and different species into being as the original species changes and adapts to new conditions. While evolution was not the process that brought life from non-life, it is the process to which all species alive today (including humans) owe their existance.

It’s interesting that you state we owe our existence to a process. Could you please show me, biblically, how and where that can be reconciled?

Because the biblical story does not require that our bodies be made "from scratch". It only requires that they be made from the dust of the earth. And that the formation of the body was a formation, i.e. a process which occurred over time, not an instantaneous transformation of dust to human body. There is no reason why Gen. 2:7 cannot be a mythological summation of our evolutionary history.

Please show me biblically how you support our bodies being formed via a process over time.

You forget that the bodies of apes are also made from the elements of the earth. All bodies on earth are made from the elements of the earth, so any body which was ancestral to ours still connects us to the elements of the earth.

Just for my own clarification if nothing else, you claim that apes are our ancestors?

Here are some of the errors in your picture of evolution which have appeared in your posts:


Evolution is a progress from simple to complex, from lower to higher.
Evolution proceeds in a straight-line such that the ancestors of current forms ought to be extinct. Therefore if humans evolved from chimps there should be no chimps alive today.
Humans evolved from chimps. Edit: or Apes
Evolution occurs when a species wants it to occur.
Evolution occurs at the level of the organism.
Evolution requires jumps from one higher taxon to another e.g.from the cat family to the dog family.
Evolution requires all of an organ system to appear in its modern form all at once.

My point is that not one of those statements is true.

My understanding of evolution is just the bolded ones.

I’d especially like you to help me understand how we humans evolved into what we are today without going from a simpler form to the complex form we presently are today.

Thank you very much!

 

[GenemZ]

Most likely, the author isn't attempting to convey exact information about what everlasting life will look like (probably wouldn't fit in with his worldview). Rather, the author is describing a state of being that is the "ideal" of the world in which the author lives--the language about infants and old men is simply metaphorical to describe the blessedness of the righteous.

Well, that was a resolved answer if I ever saw one. In other words, you have no idea what it is about. "most likely." "probably"

In case you're wondering. The poster asked why people die in that world.

You will leave believers shaking their heads, thinking that there is no answer.

For, what you attacked me for saying, was a brief, but accurate description of what he was asking about. You really have no idea. Jesus is going to rule with an iron scepter. Evil will not be tolerated. That means false teachers for that matter. Like I said. It will be perfect environment for all but those who desire evil. Only perfect teaching!

Isaiah 11:9 niv
" They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea."


And, certain men will die!

Isaiah 65:20 niv
"Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed. "

Adam lived to be over 800. And, he was under a curse. All who live according to the rule of Christ will live out the Millenium in full!

There will still be those who would think like crimminals who will be born during that time. The Iron Scepter of Christ is called that because of its ability to smash and crush! Those of evil intent will die if their inner desire becomes overt to hurt others, either mentally, or physically.

Psalm 2:8-10 niv
Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.


You will rule them with an iron scepter ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

And....

Psalm 45:4-6 ni
" In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness;
let your right hand display awesome deeds.


Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king's enemies; let the nations fall beneath your feet. Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom."


In other words? Those who desire to live in truth and righteousness will be thoroughly protected by the Lord's rulership, and those who envy them, and desires to destroy their peace? These will be miserable and unable to do anything about it. If they tried, they'd be executed. But, since God reads minds, only the guilty will be put to death when they try. No one who is innocent will be accidently wrongly executed. There will be no fear of false accusation in the Lord's Kingdom.

Over time... the evil will learn that they have to restrain themselves out of fear of death. A sure death. No "life sentences" will be offered. Crime and spreading of evil lies will have come to an end. Yet, the nature of evil men will still exist in some who love evil. These learn to hide behind a facade of hypocrisy.

In the mean time, The Lord reveals to all the bleeding heart liberals that perfect environment is not the answer to man's unhappiness, and that human suffering because of bad environment is not the reason men reject the Lord, or do wrong things. Nor, that those who reject the Lord have Satan to blame. For, Satan will be locked up for almost the entire 1000 year reign of Christ while they do this!

Satan now thinks he is able to rob God of souls because men prefer him over the Lord. Truth is, men reject the Lord on their own, and Satan only provides the power enabling them to be bold about it. For when Satan is released he will simply be gathering together men who were already rejecting the Lord on their own, and were doing so without his lies and false teachings to do so! For, the world then will only have perfect teaching of the Lord in it. There will be no more unresolved thinking liberal seminaries. And, more more close minded stupid, so called far right wing seminaries, as well. Yes... There will be no more KJV Only bumper stickers around.

Satan will have no work to do to convince men to reject the Lord. He will simply harvest the masses of those who hate the Lord , who decided to hate the Lord within perfect environment! Because of this, no excuses can be offered by those heading to the Lake of Fire! The perfect environment of the Millenium will destroy all excuses for rejecting Christ! That is why (in part) the Millennium will exist. It will be an enironment arranged to end all lies and excuses as to why men reject the Lord.

Revelation 20:7-10 niv
"When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

The only deception that Satan can offer men at that time will be, that together they can destroy the Lord. The safety in numbers myth will also be shot to pieces.

Now, mind telling us why men will die during the Millennium?

In Christ, GeneZ