Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not as confident as you are that God permits heresy and has no problem with people teaching false gospel in His name; proclaiming that the world of God is false because the theories of man are more trustworthy.I am confident that God will judge evolutionists and creationists equally as it is the lessons the stories teach, not the details that are important.
Because God's word states that God made made on the sixth day of creation, and that by man's rebellion sin and death came into the world.
Christ didn't believe it that way. He said if you didn't believe Moses you would never believe Him either.
Why is it that all of our enlightened evolution believing brethren are so blinded by the misinterpretations of others that they can't even understand God's word? Genesis 2 has no contradiction with Genesis 1. It's not a story of the creation of all things, but the specific creation of man. Anyone who reads the words can see this. Why are we continually told misrepresentations of two conflicting creation stories where none exist??Strict literalism also requires one to explain the inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Which came first, people or plants?
Why is it that all of our enlightened evolution believing brethren are so blinded by the misinterpretations of others that they can't even understand God's word? Genesis 2 has no contradiction with Genesis 1. It's not a story of the creation of all things, but the specific creation of man. Anyone who reads the words can see this. Why are we continually told misrepresentations of two conflicting creation stories where none exist??
The only way they can get around that is by claiming that "erets" in Genesis 2 refers to the "land" in a localized sense and not the whole planet, which is linguistically feasible. However that opens a whole can of worms for them especially in regards to the flood account.
However, one cannot provide a single passage of Scripture to validate that opinion. The Fourth Commandment makes specific reference to the six day creation. Should there only be nine commandments?One can take scripture in Genesis as allegory and still understand that God created the universe and demands obedience from His people.
Which of us quoted His actual words?I also do not pretend to know what Christ believed beyond what is written in the NT and what the Holy Spirit has shown me through study of that text.
God allowed Satan to fool the whole world.....because we have the ability to perceive truth from falsehood. The whole point of this mystery of life is to experience growth in truth while confronted with the possibility of contrasted error.I'm not as confident as you are that God permits heresy and has no problem with people teaching false gospel in His name; proclaiming that the world of God is false because the theories of man are more trustworthy.
True.
Completely false. Physicists determine the half-life of radioisotopes, not archeologists. They do it by taking samples of the isotope and seeing how fast it decays.
So you are telling me that in less than 100 years that we have been able to measure the radioisotopes in carbon we have absolute evidence of how they act over 50,000 years, or even 5730? I have had the discussion with physicists in far greater detail and with sufficient time and discussion to discuss the issues I raised they wer enot able to prove the hypothesis wrong. It originally came form The Observer newspaper and they did the initial investigation but it is something I have followed when Ive seen information on since. The report they did was originally intended (according to them) to prove that carbon dating was reasonably accurate to disprove creationists but they were so shocked by the results they ran with it as an expose on the "facts" being taught that they so easily disproved.
Radiocarbon dating is only good for dating samples that are less than ~50,000 years old.
As I said it was a while ago. In those days they claimed they could date anything and the change was necessary as they got so many things wrong.
It would be good if you learned at least a little bit about the subject you're lecturing scientists on.
True.
I find this last comment quite rude. It would also be good if you didnt accept what you have been told without question. I have had the discussion with a number of people including physicists which allowed me sufficient time and both sides sufficient ability to question and answer the different aspects in a lot more detail. I have yet to find one who has been able to prove that I am wrong.
This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.
First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.
Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.
Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.
All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.
My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.
Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?
Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.
This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.
This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.
What does Exodus 31:18 say?Does God have fingers?
So you dont take that literally. You would, im guessing, believe like most scholars that the "finger of God" is a figurative anthropomorphism conveying power and personal authority.God's fingers may not be as our fingers
Thats a common viewpoint, but as I explained I am convinced there are compelling and necessary theological reasons for affirming the existence of a literal historical Adam who was the first truly human being. If you don't affirm that then Paul's covenantal reasoning in Romans falls flat.I am not sure he was a specific person
However, one cannot provide a single passage of Scripture to validate that opinion. The Fourth Commandment makes specific reference to the six day creation. Should there only be nine commandments?
Which of us quoted His actual words?
Oh, yes. That was me.
I don't know of a single Biblical authority who contends that Christ did not believe in the Scriptures as written. Can you produce one?
Jesus actually quoted Genesis 2 when describing what God intended for marriage. If Adam and Ever were not the first couple, then why would Jesus say they were? He also said, "From the beginning." If the world were millions of years old, it wouldn't be the beginning, would it?
What you are promoting has no Biblical authority.
I genuinely feel that this whole argument, although interesting, is actually a deception by the devil. My God is an all powerful God. He spoke and the universe came into being. Whether it is in a few days or over billions of years is actually immaterial. What is important is believing by faith that God created the universe.
My personal view however is that God did create the universe in a matter of days as I do not beleive he is a liar. And as an all powerful God he is more than capable of creating the elements in different states (that those who do not want to believe in a literal Genesis creation have told everyone is evidence that the universe in billions of years old which is absolutely proven and beyond doubt).
Human evolution is only a theory and not a fact, and is therefore not held as true, but only as theory.That said, my thread is primarily addressed to those Christians who do accept the scientific record, mainly those who hold to Old Earth Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism
I bet you're a terrible cook.Now apply those same principles to the creation story and you have my position.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?