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 guess the question is ....evolved from what? From dust man was formed in God's image and He breathed His Spirit in Him as a man.Could I not say that God included evolution in His plan but when the first two humans evolved he put a soul in them that was made in the image of God. I am not endorsing this idea but some scholars have proposed it.
But it can mean different things:Christians by definition have to accept the Bible as God's word.
I guess the question is what does the "dust" in Genesis really mean.I guess the question is ....evolved from what? From dust man was formed in God's image and He breathed His Spirit in Him as a man.
Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Another beautiful truth in scripture. It tells us exactly what science has discovered.I guess the question is what does the "dust" in Genesis really mean.
When we read it as the 21st century reader, we think its the chemical compound our bodies are supposed to be made from.
When we read it as the ancient reader, we know it means mortality (because body after death turns to "dust").
The Messianic Jews say that Isaiah 53 isn't read in synogogue because it's so obviously about Jesus.
The only people who don't see it is about the crucifixion are those who don't want it to be.
Just like they assume the life breathed into it was mortal life... but is not. That was the first instance of being born again, that is born of the spirit, not just the flesh like our fellow dust derived creatures.I guess the question is what does the "dust" in Genesis really mean.
Its said that animals have the same breath of life as we do, in other places of the Bible. So I would not read anything too special into it.Just like they assume the life breathed into it was mortal life... but is not. That was the first instance of being born again, that is born of the spirit, not just the flesh like our fellow dust derived creatures.
There are two breaths of life just as there are two types of human... those of the spirit and those bogged down in defending the ways of the flesh. That is to say those of the Kingdom OR those of the world we have made in our own image.Its said that animals have the same breath of life as we do, in other places of the Bible. So I would not read anything too special into it.
I do not see these ideas in the text itself...There are two breaths of life just as there are two types of human... those of the spirit and those bogged down in defending the ways of the flesh. That is to say those of the Kingdom OR those of the world we have made in our own image.
We either read scripture through the eyes of God or more likely the eyes of man.
Nice twist, but not worthy of an answer as it does not refer to what I said. Farewell.
Remove the concept of self from the equation. For instance, Jesus came with the good news, His Gospel of the Kingdom, that God would be returning to take away governance of man from man and restore it to himself. Man turns around and makes it about self and builds a religion about what's in it for us.
This might confuse, since knowledge is not a requirement for Salvation. One doesn't need to have anything from Genesis. Not even very much of what is in the New Testament, not at firstThe literal Fall of the human proto-parents is intrinsic to Salvation.
I know of no evolutionary model that accommodates that.
Let's not beat around the bush here. Is evolution a salvation issue?
Is it possible to accept Genesis as allegorical and still be saved by the Grace of Christ?
Because it seems to me that if the answer is yes, debating it is pointless for creationists, and if the answer is no, debating it is pointless with creationists.
I'm just curious regarding what people really think coming into these discussions...
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?