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 don't care who believes what. Either you can produce Scriptural references to evolution and Biblical reasons to reject the story of creation or you can't. If you can, let's see it.I guess it depends on who you consider a biblical authority.
After 7 pages?I also feel the need to make clear that my purpose with this thread is not to debate theistic evolution and young-earth creationism.
It's impossible to discuss the biblical Adam and Eve within the framework of the Theory of Evolution. Impossible.The point is to discuss the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve within the framework of the modern scientific consensus of the Theory of Evolution.
Actually no, funny enough I'm a professional chef. But that's neither here nor there.I bet you're a terrible cook.
Genesis 1 doesn't exactly qualify. Can you not see the vast stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and, say, Genesis 12?Things which are written in a simple narrative fashion should be taken that way.
Who says God even intended to teach science or give a literal chronological account of creation? And who exactly are you to pronounce what is or isnt heresy? Do we protestants all of a sudden have a pope im not aware of?The heart of this heresy is the notion that God could not have described an evolution as easily as he could a six day creation. That's lunacy.
I don't care who believes what. Either you can produce Scriptural references to evolution and Biblical reasons to reject the story of creation or you can't. If you can, let's see it.
The literal Adam and Eve doesn't fit into any machination of the ToE because the ToE demands that both had parents and that fall of man never happened. If you take what is KNOWN about evolution it fits neatly in the diversity of life after the creation and again after the flood. The notion of a single original progenitor doesn't with with science or Scripture. It's a corruption of science into a new religion which disallows the authority of God and subjugates any "creator" withing the laws of physics. You can't blend two mutually exclusive doctrines into anything that makes sense. When you compromise truth with a lie, you get a lie.The point is to discuss the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve within the framework of the modern scientific consensus of the Theory of Evolution.
Did you even bother to read my original post? I put forth a model that embraces the theory of evolution AND postulates a literal, historical first man and woman.It's impossible to discuss the biblical Adam and Eve within the framework of the Theory of Evolution. Impossible.
I absolutely believe the fall was a literal historical event. That doesnt mean a talking snake seduced Eve into eating a magical fruit from a magical tree. The fall was a real historical event described in a non-literal way.ToE demands that both had parents and that fall of man never happened
I don't understand why creationists insist that a belief in evolution is contradictory to a belief in God's Word.
Really?I also feel the need to make clear that my purpose with this thread is not to debate theistic evolution and young-earth creationism. The point is to discuss the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve within the framework of the modern scientific consensus of the Theory of Evolution.
If we could stay on topic I believe this discussion could be much more fuitful. There are plenty of other threads where young earth believers and evolutionary creationists can debate the veracity of their positions.
Well, for starters, there was no death until the fall...... so....... how did all this evolving take place without any death???
Secondly....Creation took one week. This is what we base our seven day week on. Evolution directly contradicts this and denies God’s creative power. Just as Christ performed miracles instantaneously while He was here on earth, so also He did His work of creation instantaneously during Creation week. The Bible says, “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. . . . For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:6, 9, NKJV). God says, “I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded” (Isaiah 45:12, NKJV). One cannot believe these verses and also believe in evolution.
Third......If life developed gradually over millions of years, there would be no explanation for the weekly cycle.
Fourth...The theory of evolution raises questions concerning the purpose for Jesus’ death on the cross. The Bible says that death is the penalty of sin (see Genesis 3:3, 4, 19; Romans 6:23). Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for sin that we should have paid. If the Creation narrative, including the origin of sin, is only myth or allegory, what is sin? And was Jesus’ death necessary? Scripture calls death an “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26, NKJV), and the whole plan of salvation was designed to eliminate death and bring humans back to God’s original plan of eternal life.
Fifth....If the theory of progressive evolution from lower life forms to humans is true, there could be a biological basis for considering some human races inferior and others superior, because some races would have advanced further up the evolutionary scale than others.
Sixth...If the Creation narrative is only an allegory, what about other parts of the Bible such as the translation of Elijah to heaven, Jonah and the big fish, and the miracles and resurrection of Jesus? If we dismiss the accuracy of the biblical Creation account, we are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or is not true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say.
Seventh...Carried to its logical conclusion, evolution—the undirected, random evolving of living things—eliminates the power of the human will. Darwin, himself, came to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. If evolution is true, then it means that all our choices are merely actions or behaviors determined by our genes or our surrounding environment and are conditioned by past choices—either successful or otherwise. Such a view eliminates the power of choice. But God gave humans free will with the power to choose. Adam and Eve could choose to obey God or not to o
Context is very important. The obvious context in Romans is human death and spiritual death. The thrust of the book opens with, "For the wrath of God has been revealed...". Animals are not even a subject of the discussion.Well, for starters, there was no death until the fall
Yes you can. Countless scholars have demonstrated that there is no discontinuity between God's creation ex nihilo and the scientific record.One cannot believe these verses and also believe in evolution.
There is an obvious explanation. God ordained the weekly cycle. As Jesus says, the sabbath was made for man.If life developed gradually over millions of years, there would be no explanation for the weekly cycle.
Hardly. Read Romans. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the unglodliness of men, all men sin, all are under sin, all are under wrath. God put forth Christ publically as a propitiation in his blood to be received by faith. By faith we are reconciled with God. Nothing in the theory of evolution has anything whatsoever to do with the substitutionary atonement of Christ.The theory of evolution raises questions concerning the purpose for Jesus’ death on the cross.
Not true at all. The nonsensical racial ideas that were popular for a time have been soundly refuted by modern science. In fact, much of the data seems to suggest that "race" doesn't even objectively exist. There is one race, the human race...If the theory of progressive evolution from lower life forms to humans is true, there could be a biological basis for considering some human races inferior and others superior
Reading the biblical text within the framework of its literary genre and comparing general and special revelation to each other in accordance with the axiomatic philosophical principle of non-contradiction are sound hermeneutical principles.If we dismiss the accuracy of the biblical Creation account, we are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or is not true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say.
Hardly. I am a compatibilist myself, but even libertarian free will can theoretically coexist with biological descent with modification. If the soul posseses a free-willing agency, and this soul is supernaturally created and infused at so e point in time, then the subject in whom it was infused would be metaphysically free no less than if soul and body were miraculously created..Carried to its logical conclusion, evolution—the undirected, random evolving of living things—eliminates the power of the human will
No need for evolution to explain the soul. The soul is of God.
No. As I stated in my original post, I believe the soul was miraculously created by God and infused into the two elect hom sapiens, making them human, and hence legitimately the first two humans, also making them spiritual beings and fitting subjects for God's covenant.
I also believe that a real eternal soul is created and infused into each and every human born since Adam and Eve at the moment of conception.
Im not sure if you believe in evolution theory or God as I know we cant believe both at the same time
Of course we can. What about evolution precludes God?
I believe God created through evolution. I believe that God has imbued us with souls.
I see no contradiction.
As for your other post, the big bang and evolution are two different theories. The big bang attempts to explain the formation of the universe. What was present before the big bang? What triggered it? I say God. I'm not sure what an atheist would say.
Evolution describes how life forms change over time and how diversity developed on this planet. What was the first life form and how did it come about? Scientists do not know. I see God here. Again, I do not know what an atheist would say.
Even with evolution, the chance of developing humans with our intelligence and free will is small. I see God's hand in this.
I am comfortable with my faith. I see no conflict between a belief in the big bang / evolution and a belief in God and His Son Jesus Christ.
Others believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and still others believe something in between.
I think we are all fine in the eyes of our Lord as long as we all accept that God is ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe and everything in it.
Completely agree, but my question.. Why was it not written in Bible.. Why was it mentioned God created man first and Adam named other animals.. Why god didn't mention about other animals which were created before Adam.. If god is ruling this whole universe, why he wanted to create such confusion..why he could not make it clear.. What is the reason to hide
I don't believe He was hiding anything. Genesis was written for a primitive people without scientific understanding. In my opinion, it was written to teach a lesson (God created the universe, departure from God's laws is sin with consequences) and accomplishes just that.
Then there is no need to specifically say God created creation 7 days.. No need of 1st chapter.. It can be stated with this "God created whole creature including adam and eve in the beginning" The end
Completely agree, but my question.. Why was it not written in Bible.. Why was it mentioned God created man first and Adam named other animals.. Why god didn't mention about other animals which were created before Adam.. If god is ruling this whole universe, why he wanted to create such confusion..why he could not make it clear.. What is the reason to hide
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?