• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Could the bible Adam have evolved over great time?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by dad, Mar 18, 2013.

  1. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    According to the bible she was. Woman was created as man was.
     
  2. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Woman was not created yet, who are you suggesting Adam reproduced with, a monkey?
     
  3. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    He came to fulfil scripture and validated Noah and Daniel, and the prophets, etc. To cast them off is to cast Him off.


    Remember that it is people that claim to believe in the bible that are saying what they say about Adam and creation.

    I, like God, prefer hot belief, or good honest atheism, cold as cold can be.
     
  4. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +27,361
    Agnostic
    Single
    That was incidental, and certainly not part of His main mission.

    No -- they are not His equal any more than you are.
     
  5. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    That is made up. The evidence says otherwise. So again, why do you insist on an interpretation of the Bible that forces it to be false?

    If you believed in the Bible would you claim that the Prodigal Son was a real person?
     
  6. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    Personally, I don't believe that the story of Adam and Eve was anything other than an allegory. It was an old story adapted by the Hebrews for their own theology, and was intended to teach theological truths, not historical ones.

    While I don't agree with verysincere about GEN refering to abiogenesis, his intent was to show that not that the bible teaches evolution and/or abiogenesis, but that it is not incompatible with them. Personally, I wouldn't say that evolution is "biblical," since the bible has nothing to do with understanding where species like our own come from. However, it is not anti-biblical either.

    Those like yourself who insist on using scripture to explain natural and physical phenomena will continue to draw the wrong conclusions and make Christianity look like it is incompatible with reality.
     
  7. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    It is also a fantasy with no scientific or biblical support.
     
  8. Joshua0

    Joshua0 Guest

    +0
    Evolution as you define it, not evolution as Darwin defined it. You say evolution is defined by the evidence. So with any new evidence you have to come up with a whole new theory.
     
  9. FrenchyBearpaw

    FrenchyBearpaw Take time for granite.

    +64
    Atheist
    Married
    Not exactly. Think of ToE as a 10,000 piece puzzle, and when Darwin/Wallace first had the idea of evolution by natural selection, there were only a few pieces of the puzzle. At this point in time, the puzzle is nearly complete, so new pieces of the puzzle fit quite nicely, and wouldn't fit other theories, or puzzles.

    Now a bunny in the Precambrian... :p
     
  10. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    "By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."--Ernst Mayr, "80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery"
    80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery

    And Ernst Mayr should know. He wrote that on his 100th birthday in 2004 after 80 years of working in the field of evolution.
     
  11. ThouShaltNotPoe

    ThouShaltNotPoe Learn whatever I can.

    291
    +2
    Christian
    Private
    {I was interrupted by a phone-call before completing this posting so if you read it in an early draft form ---such as before the Hall of Fame list was added --- you may want to review it again. A lot of word gaps were present before the final proofreading. My apologies.}


    Again and again, Split Rock and other non-Christians on these threads understand my writings and the Biblical text far better than do AV1611VET, KWCrazy, Dad, and the various other evolution-denying creationists. (For that matter, I've come to the conclusion that poor reading comprehension skills may not be REQUIRED to become an evolution-denier, it certainly helps!)

    And Split Rock et al understand that my main point is that Genesis tells about the BEGINNINGS of the Children of Israel and God's relationship with them. So the first book of the Torah traces them back to the image-of-God-bearer, Adam, with no reason to provide a scientific treatise or to answer our 21st century questions about chronologies, biochemistry, DNA development, and taxonomies.

    Of course, my mention of abiogenesis in association with Genesis 2:7 was NOT to say that that was the PURPOSE of the passage. Instead, for a creationist who is insistent upon finding modern scientific concepts HARMONIZED by the scriptures, GEN 2:7 is entirely COMPATIBLE with the life-from-non-life summary definition of abiogenesis. While some ancient cultures taught that humans were composed of "magical stuff" provided by their gods, the Hebrews emphasized that humans and other human things came from dirt and "to the dirt you shall return." And although creationists usually reject the idea, DEATH (and weeds and thorns) was part of the biochemical cycles of creation from the beginning---and that was why a special garden reserve was necessary, so that the first Imago Dei humans could be segregated from death and many other stark realities of nature which were the norm outside of the garden. In that garden Adam could commune with God and eat the death-antidote, the fruit from the Tree of Life. The Bible does NOT say that Planet Earth was suddenly "re-created" when Adam sinned---such that God made weeds and thorns for the first time or that animals suddenly became capable of dying. [The Bible only speaks of HUMAN DEATH beginning with the fall---and that was because Adam was barred access to returning to the garden and the antidote fruit of the Tree of Life.] And the laughable fantasy that God suddenly gave lions nasty teeth and claws so they could change from vegetarian diets to the bloody kind ignores the simple fact that it was Adam's RESIDENCE and daily environment that changed, not the entire biosphere and ecology of the planet! The Genesis narratives tell everything from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth where the main characters lived.

    Yes. Context. Context. Context! If I want answers to my questions about what the ancient Hebrews thought about their history as a people and of the relationship between God and his people, I look to that Book of Scriptures. But if I want answers to my questions about the earth's history and the adaptations and diversification of life, I look to the evidence within the universe itself. And in THAT "book", the answers are unambiguous and overwhelmingly abundant! So many of my Christian brethren will admit that the Bible is not a science book---but then they proceed to interpret it as if it were!

    Of course, AV16 is atypical of even the most blinded creationist traditionalist in that he rejects EVIDENCE of EVERY KIND. He says not only that "Science can take a hike!" but that "The Hebrew Masoretic Text can take a hike!" So BOTH the Book of Creation and the Book of Scriptures are rejected by him as he focuses on his own personal traditions and far-fetched fantasies. It's no wonder that those imaginations lead him to "I believe Noah lived in New Jersey" and "The waters of Noah's Flood ended up on Neptune in order to warn potentially rebellious angels." And yet at the same time he demands strictly "literal interpretations" of the Bible and demands scriptural support when anyone says that the Bible is not hostile to the theory of evolution.

    Welcome to the twilight zone.


    And that is just one of the many kinds of damage that:

    Ray "Banana Man" Comfort,
    Chuck "Peanut-Butter Jar" Missler,
    Ken "Were you there?" Ham,
    Mr. & Mrs. Kent "60+ Criminal Felony Counts" Hovind,
    Eric "2012 Golden Crocoduck Award Winner" Hovind
    Ian "He's gotta gun!!!!" Juby
    Buddy "Creation Adventure Team" Davis
    Walter "Hydro-Plate Theory Launches Flood Waters into Space" Brown
    Carl "Petrified Miner's Boots" Wieland
    Steve "I don't care about the evidence" Austin

    Pathological Quote-Miner's Hall of Fame:
    Jonathan Sarfati
    ...and virtually every "creation science" industry entrepreneur

    ** Emeritus Division **
    Duane Gish of The Gish Gallop fame
    Henry "Seashells on Mountains Prove Noah's Flood" Morris
    [Morris also established the first "creation science" dynasty through his son & grandson]

    .....do to the reputation of Christians and the Gospel itself---and the Bible in general. The local peanut gallery simply adds to the list and exasperates the groan-and-grit-your-teeth factor. I implore my Bible-affirming, Christ-following brethren, doesn't this veritable rogue's gallery of......well......how can I say it without violating CF forum rules? Let's just call them "unhelpful" to the reputation of those who wish to fulfill the Great Commission and honorably represent the Lord Jesus Christ. Does pseudo-science and dishonest quote-mining have any place in the Kingdom? The Apostle Paul said that we are to be "fools for Christ" because of the CROSS, not because of being known for saying foolish things which ignore what God has revealed in his CREATION and in his SCRIPTURES. Ignorance and folly should not be our legacy.

    Fortunately, the non-Christians on these threads do not blame all Christ-followers for the nonsense, pseudo-science, and Golden Crocoduck Awards of a few. And we Christ-followers who value Science and truth in general (as well as what the Bible ACTUALLY states and doesn't state).... we thank you for that!

    Amen! [That Hebrew words has multiple meanings but in this context I use the common denotation "truly" or "I reaffirm what I just said." It does not have to be read as an expression of worship or anything related to a prayer. So non-Christians shouldn't feel that it is in-your-face "God talk." But in the context it holds playfully-appropriate connotations.]
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2013
  12. ThouShaltNotPoe

    ThouShaltNotPoe Learn whatever I can.

    291
    +2
    Christian
    Private
    {I have deadlines today & don't have time to proofread this. I type fast but that usually leaves some missing word gaps. Perhaps I will be able to review it later today. But if anyone has questions about confusing parts of it, please ask---even if by private message. I will post my answers on the thread or on a new one perhaps.}


    Wow. Dad is even less informed than I thought:

    1) Adam, the first divine-image-bearing creature, came on the scene FIRST----before Eve, the first divine-image-bearing female.

    2) The Genesis text uses a Hebrew word that the KJV and other early English Bible translators rendered as "rib". But "inard" or even a more modern term like "tissue sample" or even "biopsy" would be more appropriate.

    3) While I would never say that this interpretation I'm about to describe is DEMANDED by the Hebrew text, I will say that it is entirely COMPATIBLE with it: The text describes a scenario which sounds like Adam being put under anesthesia ("deep sleep") so that God removes a biopsy from Adam. Or perhaps it was even a male gamete, a spermatozoon. Or perhaps it was a somatic cell from which a nucleus was extracted. I don't claim to know. I'm just suggesting that it MIGHT refer to Adam's DNA.

    And suppose God took Adam's DNA and used it to produce a "female clone" of Adam, whereby the XY chromosome had its Y component removed and the X component doubled. The resulting genetic code would be a female version of the human one. [HADAM was not necessarily a first name as we think of it. HADAM is Hebrew for "the human one", or "the red-soiled person". In Genesis 2:7 it says that God formed HADAM from the dust of the HADAMAH." So "Adam" (HADAM stripped of the definite article "the") was a play on words so that he could have said truthfully "My name is dirt around here!" LOL. Adam was described by the very dirt he came from. The Bible says ALL of life comes from the soil. We are all made from non-living ingredients, the basic chemical elements of the earth's crust.]

    Now if Eve was a female clone of Adam, it would have made sense that he would have looked at her as "Flesh of my flesh and bones of my bones!" He must have been startled that she looked so much like him! She could have had his facial shape and eyes, the same color of hair, and many other similarities----except she grew up and matured as a female with all of the hormone changes in body shape, jawline, vocal cords, and all. Yes, there is NOTHING in the Hebrew text to preclude the events described taking place over many years. (Indeed, this also solves the classic question of how Adam could have named all of the animals in a single YOM/day.) And of course, if Genesis 1 is the 3+3+1=7 poetic story structure which many scholars have pointed out, there's all the more reason to allow for the well known fact that YOM in Hebrew has many definitions besides "24 hour day."

    So I don't how dad runs off the rails and thinks Adam reproduced with a monkey. The Bible clearly states that he KNEW Eve and just three of their many children are named in the Genesis text.

    But remember: There is nothing in the Bible which states that there were no other hominids on the planet. But because Adam was somehow endowed by God with the IMAGO DEI, he knew that he could not find a suitable mate among the various NEPHESH animals in the garden God had planted as a special reserve for him in the region called Eden. And the Genesis text doesn't say how many and what kinds of species of animals from the "outside world" were allowed to come into the garden preserve. If other hominids of the time were larger and very dangerous (as paleontological evidence suggests), it would make sense for the garden reserve area of land to have an even more restricted selection of animals for Adam to observe. Whatever the case, Adam knew that nobody else was like him----EVEN IF others of his Homo sapien species were known to him. [And who knows, perhaps Adam was of the new Homo sapien sapien version of hominid.] Adam would naturally have wanted companionship with someone who possessed the IMAGO DEI and could related emotionally, spiritually, and in conversation with him on a sophisticated level---and join him in his communion with God his creator.

    I could develop this interpretation/speculation far more fully and use it to make sense of the preface to the Noah account in Genesis 6, where it appears that "Noah was pure in all his generations". That is, perhaps Noah was the only descendent of the Adamic Imago-Dei-lineage at that time which had not mixed with other hominids so as to carry non-image-of-God "blood" in him. Perhaps the mixed hybrid Adamic+non-Adamic population was all the more violent and ruthless because of the great size and stature as well as rapacious tendencies of the non-Adamic hominids. (And the "giants in the land" and the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" produced "men of renown" because the hybrids had the high brain power of the Adamic line merged with the superior braun of the non-Adamic DNA!)
    If this was the case, how would the writer of Genesis explain of this MIND-BLOWING information to the ancient Hebrews of Moses' day? Was it NECESSARY for God to explain all of the scientific/genetic details of the origins of Adam and Eve. Or would it make more sense to just cut-to-the-chase and say that HADAM was made from the non-living ingredients in the dust of the ground (soil.) And nobody had any reason for needing to know about the other hominids and how Adam differed from them. In fact, even today there are THREE principal interpretations of what being made in the image of God means! But Christians DO agree that Adam and Eve were UNIQUE among all creatures and the Image of God was the term the Bible uses.

    No. The Genesis text does not DEMAND this interpretation. But this interpretation is COMPATIBLE with it. And everything the Bible DOES carefully state about original sin, death coming to Adam's line, the end of the special, CLOSE relationship with God in that garden reserve----all of that could be understood by Bible readers down through the centuries without ANY knowledge of DNA, evolution, hominid species, and the many processes and billions of years between the first SOIL and the eventual evolution of HADAM. Obviously, the Genesis does demand that some sort of divine intervention (a miracle if you will) was involved if EVE was a gender-manipulated clone of HADAM. But the job of the Bible exegete/linguist ---- I got virtually all of this "theory" form the writings of VerySincere/Professor Tertius ---- is to determine what the Biblical text actually states and doesn't state. And also his job as commentator is to integrate what we know from BOTH of God's books of revelation: God's Book of Scripture and God's Book of Creation. And so the Bible exegete in the year 2013 has many advantages in the form of paleontological, genomic, and evolutionary biology information that theologians of the past did NOT have.

    It has been a while since I read the original article of VerySincere, when I was a subscriber to his old Bible.and.Science.Forum email newsletter. The professor's exposition of Genesis 2:7, Genesis 7:20, and everything he wrote about Genesis 1 & 2 revitalized my Bible study and my relationship with God because I realized that I didn't have to look at the Bible as conflicting with the reality of the world around me. And I especially appreciated what he said was his change in his Bible study goals over the course of his life and scholarship. To paraphrase what he said (as best as I can):
    As a traditional young earth creationist, my motivation was to always determine the EXACT, SINGULAR MEANING of each Bible passage, but always while adhering to the TRADITIONS of Bible translation and commentary in which I had worshiped and fellowshiped at my church for many years. But as Hebrew and Greek exegesis opened up my eyes to OTHER equally valid and equally LITERAL interpretations of those tradition-bound passages, I started to see that I should push the traditions aside long enough to allow the Biblical text to speak for itself. And sometimes it told a very different story! I realized that I should not just focus on CONFIRMING what I already thought I knew about the text; I wanted to open up the possibilities to other, equally valid and potentially the BEST interpretation of the passage. So now I ask, "What are the possibilities of what this text is saying?" To put it another way, where does the BIBLICAL EVIDENCE LEAD? And then when I retired from a lifetime of seminary/university teaching, publishing, and Bible translation, I had the time to dig deeper into the SCIENCES I wanted to understand, including evolutionary biology and geology. Sure enough, my study of the Bible had already blown apart my former faith in the incongruities of young earth creationism and a GLOBAL flood. But now I could see that a careful study of the evidence in God's creation CONFIRMED those very things that the Biblical evidence had convinced me! It was as if shackles fell off my feet. I realized that the Creator told the same story in his CREATION that he told me in his BIBLE. And instead of being my alleged enemies, the world's scientists became my tutors in helping me to understand the world that God had created. I no longer would tolerate the FALSE TEACHING of a false dichotomy taught by so many young earth creationist ministry entrepreneurs: "You can't believe both the Bible and the theory of evolution." They were wrong---and I would NOT let fear tactics pollute the church and push young people away from God and the Bible. No, I didn't have to leave my brain in the parking lot when I went to church. Isaac Newton and scores of other Christians who pioneered so many fields of modern science understood that the methodological naturalism of the scientific method was NOT the same thing as the philosophical naturalism of atheism. And not until the "creation science" movement infected the American Evangelical world in 1962 with the release of Morris & Whitcomb's THE GENESIS FLOOD did such a rabid, evolution-denying, 6,000 year old earth-demanding, and aberrational-interpretations taught-as-if-the-norms mindset enter the Church and deceive myself and so many other science-illiterate Christians. [At the time I would have said that I was extremely knowledgeable of science. After all, I was still a science professor at the time---but not in a field relevant to the billions-of-years and evolution debates!] No, every cult insists that it alone represents THE TRUTH OF THE EARLY CHURCH. But that doesn't make it true.

    I've got to wrap this up and work on other things but I get excited about these topics and want other Christ-followers to experience what I did in having my eyes upon by the Bible. And I adopted one of the Professor's quotable-quotes for my CF signature (see below) and I encourage others to incorporate it into their study if not also into their CF testimony.

    I used to be a "half-informed" Christian because I focused on God's Scripture (as his people should) but I was denigrating God's Book of Creation. By ignoring what scientific investigation can tell us about God's creation, we miss SO MANY OF GOD'S ANSWERS to our questions! Now I praise God for the wondrous evolutionary processes which adapt and diversify life on earth AND I can truly understand the vast scope of the billions of years of history of the universe and of the earth itself. God would have us remove our Pharisee blinders of tradition and appreciate his answers which are all around us. The Biblical evidence and the evidence from the world around us speak volumes. Literally!
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2013
  13. Joshua0

    Joshua0 Guest

    +0
    Eve lived 6,000 years ago. She had MtDNA that goes back a lot further then 6,000 years according to Science.

    Inside the "garden preserve" we have domesticated plants and animals. Outside the "garden preserve" you have wild plants and animals. There are experts today at various universities that can tell you all about the ancient plants and animals that can be found in the Middle East that pertain to the Bible. This is clearly a bio-diverse ecology that we find in the Tigris Euphrates River Valley. At the time known as Mesopotamia. Some of these wild grains can be found in grain bins of encampments going back 20,000 years.

    I do not see YEC Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. anywhere on your list.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2013
  14. AgnosticShtick

    AgnosticShtick Guest

    +0
    How do you know? Does the Bible say that?


    If you are saying that the whimsical "Eve" who scientists related to MtDNA, there is no reason to associate her with Biblical Eve.

    For that matter, don't scientists consider genetic Eve an ancestor of genetic Adam? (And Adam is also unrelated to Biblical Adam.)
     
  15. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Nevertheless, He did.
     
  16. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    False, it says rapid evolution.


    Honesty is the best policy, and it is true, except in the book of the deceived.

    Who cares? I am easy. I think he was though.
     
  17. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Jesus and I beg to differ.

    He was wrong.
    It says mankind was created and formed Personally by God.
    Your so called reality is false,. Get over it.
     
  18. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Science can't say one way or the other.
     
  19. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Evolusional.
     
  20. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,221
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Senility. The geneticists look at present state genes.
     
Loading...