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.
Only if God Himself tells me that evolution is true, will I believe it, but until then, I'm going to continue to believe I am a descendant of Adam and Eve
Neither did Paul buy it --- placing it in the same list as "fables":Ecclesiastes 7:29 said:Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Not to mention calling it a "philosophy":1 Timothy 1:4 said:Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Note the "beware".Colossians 2:8 said:Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
--- good for you!
Solomon, the man who had apes imported, didn't buy it --- even calling it an "invention":
Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Neither did Paul buy it --- placing it in the same list as "fables":
Originally Posted by 1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Not to mention calling it a "philosophy":
Originally Posted by Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Note the "beware".
So what do you think he meant by the "rudiments of the world"?It's not, it's a methodology. And even if it were a philosophy, this verse does not necessarily imply that all philosophies are wrong.
For the Christian evolutionist:
Ok so if we are not to take Adam and Eve literally, then that means we can discredit all their descendants.
Which means Adam/Eve through Noah were all mythical, then Noah to lets say Jesus were all mythical? If this is true, then wouldn't that be like saying the entire Bible is nothing more than a 66 Book fable?
So who exactly would of been the first human (i.e. evolved monkey) to have a conversation with God?
Who said Jesus' parables were not actual incidents He witnessed growing up?And do you take the story of the prodigal son to be a parable? Since it is in the Bible, if you don't believe it to be real, then clearly you cannot believe Jesus to be real. Thus, everything Jesus said was true stories, and not fictional tales to make a point.
So what do you think he meant by the "rudiments of the world"?
Ok I'll change it just for argument sake.
Only if God Himself tells me that evolution is true, will I believe it, but until then, I'm going to continue to believe I am a descendant of Adam and Eve
And do you take the story of the prodigal son to be a parable? Since it is in the Bible, if you don't believe it to be real, then clearly you cannot believe Jesus to be real. Thus, everything Jesus said was true stories, and not fictional tales to make a point.
I see... so, unless god personally tells you something, you won't believe it? Where do you draw the line on that little gem? Does god have to personally tell you the sun will rise tomorrow? How about medicine... does god have to personally tell you about the medication your doctor prescribes? How about gravity... when did you have a conversation with god about that one?
I'm just curious about where you stop believing in common sense and science, and where you start relying on god.
So there was no whiskey before Prohibition?Don't let them fool you into believing that rhetoric, sis.
If you look at the definition of incest, it is the crime of marrying or having a relation with someone who is a near kin of yours.
Thus it came after the Levitical law that prohibits it.
So incest never existed prior to the law prohibiting it.
Remember our Prohibition Law?
Was everyone who drank whiskey in the decades prior to that law guilty of that crime?
Nope ---
So don't fall for that gag.
I am not sure you will actually find that 'pure gene pool' idea in the bible. But given that we share the same broken Vitamin C production gene as the other great apes, mutations in our gene pool predate the human race.Prior to God's prohibition, the gene pool was so pure one could marry a near kinsman.
In the beginning, when plants and animals didn't carry any mutations at all, this was acceptable; but after the Fall, when mutations started getting into God's creation, it evidently took several thousand years to taint the gene pool enough that God had to legislate a prohibition against it.
Cain was about to sin, and yet there was no commandment against murder. So clearly things could be sinful long before they were tabulated in Exodus and Leviticus.And in the case of Cain killing Abel, you may want to re-read that account.
God clearly warned Cain he was about to sin.
And after all that you still expect us to think you know how Genesis should be interpreted?Solomon, the man who had apes imported, didn't buy it --- even calling it an "invention":Neither did Paul buy it --- placing it in the same list as "fables":Ecclesiastes 7:29 said:Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.Not to mention calling it a "philosophy":1 Timothy 1:4 said:Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.Note the "beware".Colossians 2:8 said:Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
That's cute.So there was no whiskey before Prohibition?
That's real cute.I presume then it was alright for Lot's daughters to
a) get their father drunk (before prohibition after all)
and
b) have sex with him and get pregnant?
Do you?Do you think the bible mentions this approvingly to show us how wise and resourceful Lot's daughters were?
Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?I am not sure you will actually find that 'pure gene pool' idea in the bible.
Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.Cain was about to sin, and yet there was no commandment against murder.
Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.So clearly things could be sinful long before they were tabulated in Exodus and Leviticus.
I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.And after all that you still expect us to think you know how Genesis should be interpreted?
No problem with God parting the Red Sea, he is God. My only problem is with interpretations of scripture that claim things that clearly didn't happen. But I don't think the disciples would have had that sort of faith either. If Peter and John had run and found the tomb wasn't empty, they would not have believed the resurrection, why do you think they ran there in the first place? If the man born blind was still walking into walls, nothing would have convinced those hard nosed fishermen that he had been miraculously healed. The disciple expected God to work miracles, but they expected the miracles to be real.Out of curosity, do you find the parting of the Red Sea unlikely?
Given that the genealogy is a list describing biological descent, I don't think you can say Luke was being really literally here, not unless he is saying Adam was God's biological son.Luke 3:38 recognized Adam as the son of God
If you look at the genealogy you will find here is only one main verb in the whole list, 'being' and the supposed is attached to that verb. If being refers to the whole genealogy, so does supposed. The genealogy is much tighter than our English translations as the italics suggest: being as was supposed the son of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Janna... There is no break between the supposed paternity of Joseph and genuine and reliable genealogy, no indication that we go from supposed genealogy to real "being as was supposed the son of Joseph, who actually was the son of Heli of Matthat..." Other manuscripts have the supposed after son, but the result is the same, because there is only one word 'son' in the whole list too: being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Jannai...Sorry, forgot the word "supposed" only applied to Joseph.Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna...
Good timing.Actually it sounds to me like those desert nomads were describing a tsunami.
When science contradicts the Bible I will take Gods word of mans word. We aren't talking about the sun rising, doctors and medicine, etc. We are talking about where human life began, which is with Adam and Eve.
You know I would truly like to say that when I get to Heaven it will be the first question I ask God, but in all honestly I believe I will be in such awe with being in the Lords presence, that I will care less about the evolution crap scientist have come up with.
Can we take a quick step aside? I just have a question that I would love to ask.
When did you decide to interpret the bible literally? Don't take that the wrong way, you're certainly not the only person to do it and I'm not trying to single you out. However, this type of faith is actually relatively-new, and primarly found in the USA... and it just occured to me that I've never had the chance to ask this type of believer about where that decision came from.
Were you just raised that way? Did you change churches or belief systems and found that a literal translation was more appealing?
I'm just trying to understand how you came to this conclusion.
That's cute.That's real cute.
Father and daughter? I don't think so. The father is already married (i.e. "one" with his spouse).Do you?
Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?
All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.
If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?
Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.
Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.
I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.
Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?
All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.
If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?
if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.
Contrary to popular belief, I was not raised in a Christian setting. Christianity wasn't shoved down my throat. My mom used Sunday School and Church activities as a "babysitter". To be perfectly honest, I don't recall (as a child) being taught about God (which I'm sure I was, I just don't remember). But for reasons I will not discuss on the forum, as a young child I put a lot of faith in God.
My first Bible was a children version of the Bible. Even when reading that book I believed all the stories that were in the book.
I really didn't start reading the (KJV) Bible until maybe 10 yrs ago (give or take a yr). When I first started reading the Bible I took on faith that what I was reading was to be taken literally.
So to answer your question, I suppose it was just me who made the decision to take the Bible literally.
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?